Question X. Who [were] the dividers of the promised land?

The efficient cause of the division was twofold: commanding and executing. The commanding [cause] was partly God, partly Moses. God indeed (Num. 34, vv. 1 & 16; this ch. 13, vv. 1, 2, & 7; ch. 14, v. 2); Moses [indeed] (Num. 32, v. 28; Deut. 31, v. 7). But by executing, God himself too could be constituted [the cause] — so far as [it was] not by a general influx [that] he concurred to this whole action (for so he executes all things in all [things]), but so far as, in a special mode and manner, he directed and accommodately turned the lots, concerning which afterward. But those [causes] which are below him himself, I rather designate by this name [the executing cause]; and these, I say, were twofold. One, and indeed the principal, was Eleazar the Pontiff and Joshua (below ch. 14, v. 1; ch. 21, v. 1; Num. 34, v. 17), where that one [Eleazar], before this one [Joshua], as [it were] the sacred Prince and divider, is perpetually set — though sometimes Joshua also is named alone (as in this ch. 13, vv. 7 & 14; ch. 18, vv. 6, 8, & 10). The other [cause], as [it were] secondary, is twofold — namely, the Phylarchs themselves, or the Princes of the tribes, and their helpers. Concerning whom [see] below (ch. 14, v. 1): “the children of Israel gave the land — Eleazar the Priest, and Joshua son of Nun, and the Princes of the families through the tribes of Israel — dividing all by lot”; and they are called “Princes of the sons through the tribes of Israel,” who in the 70 [are] “ἄρχοντες πατριῶν φυλῶν τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ [archontes patriōn phylōn tōn huiōn Israēl]” [“princes of the fathers’-[houses] of the tribes of the sons of Israel”], in the Hebrew “heads of the fathers of the very tribes of the children of Israel.” Again ch. 21, v. 1, where they are called “ἀρχίφυλοι [archiphyloi]” [“tribe-chiefs”]. But more openly, even by name, they are recounted (Num. 34, v. 17): “These are the names of the men who shall divide the land to you”:

ELEAZAR the Priest, and JOSHUA son of Nun. And the individual princes from the individual tribes, whose names are these:

These are they to whom the Lord had commanded that the children of Israel should divide the land of Canaan. Nor is there anything else to be noted in these words, than [that] the dividers [were] already named from those tribes only to which the land on this side [of] the Jordan [was] to be divided; and [that] in the Hebrew and Greek text, to the tribe of Dan, and to all the others in turn, the title of “Prince” or “Leader” is added — which, because it is easy to understand from v. 18, the Latin [Vulgate] omitted, except in Issachar.

But the helpers of all these were those who — either with them, or without them — were sent to survey and measure out the land. I said “either with them, or without them,” because from Abulensis (below ch. 18, q. 3) it can be doubted whether they themselves, or some of them, were the surveyors. But I think they were not. First: because Scripture, since the matter was of great moment, would not have kept silent about it. Secondly: because Josephus relates (bk. 5, ch. 1) [that] the Israelites were advised by Joshua to choose, from each single tribe, some one man outstanding in virtue, who should be sent to this office. But there would have been no need to choose the Phylarchs, since the Lord had before destined and named them, as [Serarius] was reporting a little before from Num. ch. 34. Thirdly: after that measuring, another is afterward described (below ch. 18); and then from each tribe three surveyors were chosen (v. 4 & following). Sent, therefore — before, first and generally, the province was distributed — for the knowledge and measuring of the whole land, were not the princes and heads of the tribes, but others, whom it seemed [good] to the tribes themselves prudently and opportunely to choose. And although their names are kept silent, yet their virtue is hinted by Josephus, and is truly understood from the thing itself. For since this office required great wisdom, industry, integrity, and holi-

(col. 1115)

[holi-]ness — that so great a matter should be transacted well, accurately, faithfully, without all guile and fraud, and that all should be persuaded [that] it was [so] transacted, and, according to the mind’s judgment, the wished-for effect should have come about — whom else but the wisest, most industrious, most upright, and most holy [men], whose authority among all would be great, should we think were sent?

But of number — how many these [surveyors] were — the opinion is threefold. The first [is that] of Josephus (in the cited place), indicating [that there] were ten. For since, from ten tribes only, Princes had been set over this business beforehand (Num. 34), and [since] Josephus says one surveyor [was] chosen from each single tribe, the number of surveyors turned out [to be] ten. “Men,” he says, “ten were sent.” The second [is that there] were thirty — namely, three from each of those same ten tribes; for it seems likely [that] in the later measuring (which [was] smaller and repeated) there were not more surveyors and land-measurers than in the former; but in the later [measuring] there were three from seven or ten tribes, that is, 21 or 30 in sum, as Masius holds (below ch. 18). The third [is that there] were thirty-six, for altogether the same reason — because no greater number of surveyors should be posited in the later measuring than in the former; but in the later there were 36, as Abulensis says (below, same ch. 18, q. 3). But in the first opinion I more willingly rest. From Josephus, indeed, without cause, I would unwillingly ever depart — [Josephus] whom I know is thus accused by Masius in the place indicated: “Josephus’s ἀκρίβεια [akribeia, ‘accuracy’] is to be admired, in those matters which are most plainly delivered in the sacred letters. For he writes [that] only ten men were sent to describe the land. And yet [it is] clearer than light, [that] which is said in the sacred words, [that] three from each tribe were sent.” But in truth that number of three from each tribe pertains to the later division (below ch. 18). Now Josephus hands down the number of those which pertained to the former. For he confounds and mixes both the measuring and each division. In which — because he plainly contravenes the text — he cannot be excused. Yet meanwhile, from the one [division] he takes this, from the other that; which [things], attributed to one division only, bear a falsehood, but [attributed] to the diverse [ones], the truth — and so [it is] in this number of the sent land-measurers. But these surveyors being sent off, Josephus narrates in the same place [that] certain [men] were joined by Joshua — [men] “τῆς γεωμετρίας ἐπισταμένους … λήσεσθαι διὰ Ἰησοῦ τέχνην [tēs geōmetrias epistamenous … lēsesthai dia Iēsou technēn]” — that is, skilled in geometry, from whom the truth would not escape, by Joshua’s art. Approving which [passage] on Ezekiel ch. 43, St. Jerome says: “It is of no small labor to demonstrate to the hearers [that] which thou hast beheld with the eyes of the flesh or with the mind, so that they too may seem to have seen [it] with thee.” Wherefore Josephus too writes [that] those who were sent by Jesus [Joshua] son of Nave to describe the land were “Γεωμέτρας [Geōmetras, ‘land-surveyors’],” and had the art which now is proper to the Philosophers — [namely] Geometry. And in this same manner, when the Romans [undertook] a description of the whole empire — whithersoever it was extended, toward east and west, south and north — Augustus set to work at it, [and] employed men both the best and most expert in Geometry, as Aethicus and Suidas relate, and from them, in the last [part] of his Apparatus of Annals, the most Reverend Baronius. But [that there] were not a few skilled in that art among the Israelite people [this] can seem to be gathered from the fact that they came from Egypt, where — on account of the annual inundation of the river Nile, and the muddying of the fields — Geometry was born and grew, as is written by Strabo (bk. 17). Of the ultimate cause, which is the [final] end, it should now be said. But it is said in one word: “Concord [Harmony].” If anyone should wish anything further, that [will be treated], after the circumstances, in question 17 — [where] it seems it will be more opportune. To these [circumstances], therefore, I gird myself.