In his Thisbi, under the word “פרס” [PRS = parsa], Elias Levita says [that] that land was long four hundred “parsoth” — or, as the Rabbis (on the same testimony) prefer to speak, “parsaoth” — and just as broad. And he cites a Hebrew Poet who, at the end of that “parashah” which is called “Shekalim,” teaches [that] to one day’s journey correspond ten “parsaoth”; and to one “parsa,” four thousand [paces], or [four] miles. The same [thing] David de Pomis repeats in his Tsemach [Tsemach David], and others — concerning whom [see] on ch. 1 of the Acts of the Apostles (question 2, on the return of the Apostles from the place of the Lord’s Ascension). But first, it is to be understood [that] they speak of Italian miles, four of which make one “parsa” — so that a “parsa” is altogether one common and middling German mile; [and] if [it be] a little longer, it consists of five Italian [miles]. And therefore Elias’s German Interpreter added: “But in those lands a ‘parsah’ consists of five miles.” One day’s journey, therefore, is 40 Italian miles, 10 middling German, 8 longer [German]; and the whole length of the land of Israel [is] of 40 days — of Italian miles, 600; of middling German, 400; of longer, 320; and just as much [is] the breadth. Like [things] concerning the length and breadth of this land [does] R. Bachya hand down (on Deuteronomy, Parashath Re’eh, fol. 205 b). Secondly: that counting is fictitious. For, in the common manner of speaking, the breadth of this land — from the Mediterranean sea — is as far as the Jordan. But where this [breadth] is widest, [it is] nowhere [of] 100 German miles, much less 200, 300, or 400 — as all who say they have traversed it confess: of the ancients indeed St. Jerome (in the epistle to Dardanus); of the more recent, Brocardus. And by geographical phrase and reckoning, the space from the sea to the same river is the “length”; and, on the authority of Ptolemy (bk. 5 of the Geography), [it is] nowhere of two degrees, nowhere of 30 German miles. For, by way of example: toward the North, the length seems greatest from Sidon to Ina — and yet the longitude of that [place] is 63°33′, of this 68°6′; but toward the South, from Anthedon as far as the Dead Sea — the longitude of that [is] 64°50′, of this 66°50′, or, as [it is] in the Greek, 66°6′. The same reasoning [holds] also in the other dimension, which the Geographers commonly call the “length of the region,” [and] the “latitude.” For they deny — both those who surveyed that region with their own eyes and feet, and those who explain it geographically — [that] the Rabbis’ [reckoning of] that magnitude [is true]. For [the place] which [is] nearest to Antilibanus and toward the North, the highest, is Sidon, of latitude 33°6′; but [the place] which toward the South [is] remotest, is Gaza, [of] 31°46′ — Anthedon, 31°40′ — so that, even if, with Mercator (who corrects the fourth table of Asia), we increase the latitude of Sidon, or of any other city, the whole interval between the two most disjoined [points] would never be [of] 3 degrees, scarcely 2⅛; never of 45 German miles, scarcely 30. There is added [the fact] that the very starting-point, whence the Rabbis draw their opinion, is most inept. “The spies,” they say, “sent by Moses into the land of Canaan returned after 40 days (Num. 13); therefore the magnitude of that land, as to length and breadth, is 400 parsaoth.” O Rabbinic acumen! — as though, forsooth, these [spies] on each single day accomplished ten “parsaoth” by walking, when again and again they had to halt, to turn aside from the way, to climb the mountains, [and] to look out from them. But suppose, moreover, [that] on single days they walked ten “parsaoth” — are all of those [to be] counted in the land of Canaan? [Were there] not some before their entry into it, on the very journey by which they went from the camp toward it? But suppose again [that] all are counted in the land of Canaan — are they not to be counted twice? For in that whole forty-day march they both went thither and returned. For if, say, thou shouldst go from here to Mainz [Moguntia] to Worms [Wormatia] in one day — that is, 7 or 8 of our miles — and return on another, would those cities be distant more than one day’s journey, or 7 or 8 miles? But that the Rabbis’ fabulous [reckoning of] this magnitude of the Israelite land be not utterly exploded, Genebrardus strove to devise a certain measure (bk. 1, Chronology): “The holy land,” he says, “contains four hundred ‘parsaoth,’ that is, Parasangs or Persian Leagues (Elias, from the Talmudists, in the Thisbi). Which I so interpret, that — because it is nearly square, the Transjordanian region being adjoined — each side comprehends about a hundred Persian Leagues. For otherwise it is three times broader than where it is longest. For from Joppa as far as the mountains of Trachonitis, only 60 miles of paces are reckoned — that is, three [days’] journeys, which space is enclosed by the Jordan. But from Lebanon to the river of Egypt, [called] Rhinocorura — or from Dan to Bersabee — 160 [miles]; which distance of lands is accomplished in scarcely 9 [days], nine days.” Yet that explanation cannot sufficiently defend the Rabbinic hyperbole. For first, he reckons in the Transjordanian region, of which [there] is now no question, since the spies did not then explore it either. Next, in the measuring of any region, [it] is quite unusual so to count its four sides,
(col. 1103)
so that from their sum its length and breadth might be known: no one measures out even a house — especially a square one — in that way. Thirdly: “since [it is] wider,” he says, “by triple than where [it is] longest” — [where] it seems one should read “longer by triple than where [it is] widest.” For otherwise the proof which is subjoined — from Joppa and Lebanon — would be discordant; and [Genebrardus] takes this very [Lebanon] for Antilibanus, as appears from the fact that he subjoins [the reckoning] “from Dan.” Fourthly: even if we should call the Transjordanian region too into the reckoning, not even [then] would the quantity given by the Rabbis be approvable — because the “common length,” or “Geographic breadth,” cannot be greater than [what] is signified from Ptolemy, and will be signified hereafter from others. For otherwise it would be necessary to include Damascus and Coele-Syria, and besides other [places] either more northerly or more southerly. In the common breadth likewise, or the Geographic length, one would have to run out still far beyond the Jordan to the East. With Genebrardus [there] nearly agrees, both in opinion and in manner of speaking, Arias Montanus (in his Chaleb, ch. 2): “The region itself,” he says, “is broader by more than triple than where it is longest. For from the sea to the Jordan the utmost [is] a journey of three days; and, in sum, from the port of Joppa to the mountains of Trachonitis [Trojanos montes] sixty miles of paces are counted, and the Jordan flows between about the middle of this space. But from Lebanon to the river of Egypt, [there] is a space scarcely to be crossed in eight journeys put together. And therefore, when the size of the region is treated of entirely, the measure is drawn from the North to the South — that is, from Dan as far as Bersabee, the two places being distant from each other by 160 miles of paces.” Let us then hearken to the opinions of others. Guilielmus Postellus, in his Compendium of Cosmography, says [that] “the region of the Canaanites in no way equals Cisalpine Gaul, even with its mountainous places [reckoned in].” St. Jerome (in the Epistle to Dardanus), on the common length: “From Dan,” he says, “as far as Bersabee, it stretches out in length scarcely a hundred and sixty miles.” But he speaks, in his own and the ancient Latins’ manner, of Italian miles — of which, if we grant four to one German [mile], the common length of this land will be 40 middling German miles; but if we include five of those Italian [miles] to one German, the same length will be 32 major German miles. But to the breadth St. Jerome proceeds: “From Joppa as far as our little village of Bethlehem there are forty-six miles” — that is, 11½ minor German miles, and 9-and-a-fraction major. Abulensis (on Num. 13, question 36): “The length of the aforesaid land is 85 or 90 leagues; but the breadth does not reach to 30, or nearly [so]” — as is plain from the writings of those who most diligently reported these [things]. Therefore the whole length of the land of Canaan is not of ten days’ journeys. But Brocardus says [that] “that same length is 64 or 66 miles, each of which can be traversed in one hour” — just as today miles are reckoned in Campine [Kempen], as, when they say the village Becam is of two miles, that is, whose length demands a walk of two hours; but the breadth, from the sea to the Jordan, [is] in some place of 16 miles, in some of 18. And this sum of Brocardus’s [Christian] Adrichomius praises above all others, and to some extent explains, in the preface to his Theatre of the Holy Land. “Let the diligent Reader attend to this,” he says: “that of all [authors] I have chiefly followed
Brocardus; and therefore [that] judgment is to be rashly passed by no one — since the miles of Jerome and of others differ very much from this reckoning, which [miles], however, can easily be reduced (by anyone a little more accurate) to consonance with this our description. For how little of skill is it, to accommodate the hour’s space to any miles whatever — minimal, middling, [or] maximal?” And a little after: “St. Jerome understands Italian [miles] here, as also in the other places of his Hebraic [writings] — of which about three complete one mile of an hour.” But note that “about”: for if precisely three Italian miles could be done in one hour, and thou shouldst draw three into Brocardus’s 64 or 66 miles of length, there would exist not 160 (as St. Jerome wills) but 192 or 198; but of the breadth, not 46 (as pleased the same St. Jerome) but 48 or 54. Yet the two reckonings, as appears, do not differ by any great labor [i.e. not greatly].
[There] remains yet the explanation of three little questions. First: if the land of Canaan was so brief, curtailed, and narrow, how does the Lord here (ch. 13, v. 1) name it “very wide [latissimam],” [and] Exod. 3, v. 8 “spacious [spatiosam]”? I answer: it was “spacious” in respect of the straits and workhouses [ergastula] into which the Israelites were packed in Egypt. Second: how could that same land hold so great an abundance of fruits, so great a multitude of men? Arias answers (in the cited place): “All the land, although not so great, yet — because [it is] filled with frequent mountains and valleys, and all these [are] of the highest fertility, yielding to no corner of the [other] lands — is commodious enough for feeding many cities, and towns, and villages almost innumerable; so that, in the manner of speaking of its own Gentile cultivators, it was said ‘to flow with milk and honey.’ Indeed, where the mountains are fruitful, they — for the one flat land which they cover — render much more of space and of surfaces, and by so much the more, the higher they are. For on all the sides and summits of the mountains themselves there stands out manifold [that] which, on one plain only, would have stood forth singly.” Yet in an ingenious disputation, our Villalpandus (bk. 3 of the Apparatus, ch. 6) recalled Arias [from this opinion], as it seems to me. Third: to promise so tiny a little estate with so many and so great promises — is it worthy enough of God? For since its bounds are so narrowly circumscribed, of how little liberality and magnificence [is] so tiny a gift? This matter moved some to think [that] this land was not properly promised to the Israelites, but rather the heavenly land — the land of the living — of which, [being] already in that earthly land, the royal seer said (Ps. 26, v. 13): “I believe to see the good things in the land of the living.” And in proving and explaining this, St. Jerome is wholly [engaged] (in the epistle, now often cited, to Dardanus). “Let them answer me,” he says, “who think that this land (which now for us is made the land of promise by CHRIST’s passion and resurrection) was possessed by the people of the Jews after it returned from Egypt — how much did it possess? At most from Dan as far as Bersabee, which scarcely stretches out 160 miles in length. Nor does Scripture testify [that] David and Solomon, most powerful kings, held more — except those [lands] which they received into friendship after victory. And this I say, to be silent about the five Palestine cities — Gaza, Ascalon, Geth, Accaron, and Azotum (which, forsooth, were not far off from Judaea) — [and] the Idumaeans too, separated from Jerusalem on the southern quarter by scarcely 75 miles (18⅗ small German miles); [and] the Arabs and Agarenes, whom they now call Saracens, in the neighborhood of the city Jerusalem. It shames [me] to tell the breadth of the land of promise, lest I give the Gentiles occasion of blasphe[my]…”
(col. 1105)
…lest we seem to have given [the Gentiles] occasion of blaspheming. From Joppa as far as our little village of Bethlehem there are 46 miles (11¼ small German); to which succeeds a vast solitude, full of fierce barbarians. This is, O Judaea, the length and breadth of thy lands: in these thou gloriest; over these thou vauntest thyself, through diverse provinces, to the ignorant. ‘Show thy trappings to the crowd! I know thee within, and under the skin’ [Persius, Sat. 3].” — because, forsooth, he himself had gone round this whole land (as he explains to Domnio and Rogatianus), and was even then dwelling in it. And afterward: “Read thou the book of Joshua and of Judges, and thou wilt understand by how great straits of possessions thou art hemmed in.” Behold how the holy Father argues against the Jews — as though, among the unskilled, they blazon an amplitude beyond the true [extent] of the land which they received from God; and he fears lest, its straits being known, the Gentiles should laugh, and speak blasphemously of God himself: “What did so great a promiser give, with so great a gaping [expectation]?” But St. Jerome will [have it] that rather the heavenly land (as I said) was promised to the Patriarchs — concerning which [see] Hebrews 11, vv. 10, 13, 14, 15, 16. And indeed this opinion of the holy Father is most true, if it be rightly and soundly taken. For first indeed he always speaks of that land which the Israelites received, and held in very fact, and inhabited, before the times of David and Solomon, who ruled more widely. Secondly: he does not deny, as I said, [that] the earthly land was promised to them; but he denies [that] it was so promised that one should stop in it alone — since from it, as from a figure and image, one had to ascend higher, to the land which was primarily signified: to the land, I say, heavenly, and the land of the living. “I do not say this,” he says, “in disparagement of the land of Judaea (as the heretic Sycophant lies), nor whereby I would take away the truth of the history — which is the foundation of the spiritual understanding — but that I may shake off the haughtiness of the Jews, who prefer the straits of the Synagogue to the breadth of the Church.” Thirdly: this heavenly land is partly the Christian Church itself, partly the heavenly dwelling. Fourthly: the earthly land was indeed promised to the Jews [as something] larger; but on account of the magnitude of their sins they never possessed all of it. Fifthly: that most ample [land] which they possessed in the time of David and Solomon was not so altogether theirs that they held it by inhabiting [it], but was received only into friendship and [made] tributary; nor did they receive it from that divine promise, because that had by their sins already been made void and null. But of these [things] it was disputed before (ch. 1, q. 9). [It is] enough now [that] St. Jerome’s mind be understood, and [understood to be] wholly consonant with the truth as to those first three [points]. And therefore [that there] is no occasion for the Gentiles to think or speak ill of God — [and this] rightly. First: because not per se, nor primarily, was the terrestrial glebe promised, but the spiritual and heavenly; and that [terrestrial one] indeed as [it were] a figure and type of this; this [heavenly one] as [it were] the thing itself and the truth — as will also be noted below from St. Augustine (on Psalm 34). Secondly: because the earthly land too was promised to them [as] larger; but they rendered themselves, by their own fault, unworthy of it. Thirdly: that same narrow [land] which was given to the Israelites was in no way unworthy of the promise of the divine majesty — because it was heaped with so many and so great [praises], as many and as great as we heard before; and it could embrace their whole nation, and abundantly and munificently sustain and protect all — so that this gift too was great-
est, and truly Divine. And these [things concern] the proposed material of the division; [now] follows concerning the form.