First indeed, surveyors [were] sent by Joshua, who should measure out and describe the land, as I already said above. But in the manner in which these performed their office, two [things are] to be noted. One is, [that] they employed cords [funiculi] for the measure; for hence the part and partition of almost any solid thing is wont, in the Scriptures, to be called “funiculus [cord]” (below ch. 17, vv. 5 & 14; ch. 19, vv. 4 & 29; 2 Sam. 8, vv. 2, 4; 2 Kings 21, v. 13; 1 Chron. 16, v. 17; Amos 7, v. 17). Whence [in] Ps. 77, v. 55, [there is] that most clear word of David concerning this very division of the land: “He cast out (the Lord) from before their face the nations, and by lot divided to them the land in the cord of distribution.” For this manner of measuring out fields and lands was then usual in Egypt and the Orient, as Zacharias plainly shows (ch. 2, v. 1): “Behold a man, and in his hand a cord of measurers. And I said: Whither goest thou? And he said to me: To measure Jerusalem, and to see how great is its breadth, and how great its length.” [In] Ezek. 40, v. 3, the Angel, about to measure Jerusalem [that is] to be built, bears in his hand a “funiculum [little cord],” or “linen thread,” which by the 70 is rendered “σπαρτίον οἰκοδόμων [spartion oikodomōn],” that is, “cord of builders [architects],” or, as in St. Jerome there [it is], “of masons.” But who [could furnish] cords so long, and so extended, as would suffice for such spaces of land, so many mountains and valleys, so many cities and villages, so many bendings, obliquities, and windings of places? I think indeed [that] cords of this kind [were] neither made [to go] “through none [of the places],” as it seems to Genebrardus (Chron., p. 36), nor drawn “through all places,” but through certain smaller [ones] — from which, by the discipline of Geometry and Optics, a reckoning of all the rest might be made; which reckoning is a certain, as it were, Geometric cord of the mind. And indeed by “one instrument of measuring” [these things] are signified. Synecdochically [there are] also other [instruments], of which kind are the Geometric squares, the metric staves, and any similar [things]. The other [thing to note] is, in what manner — through the region of the Canaanites, the war [being] already declared, begun, waged, and not yet finished or composed — the Jewish surveyors could pass, and search out all things so accurately, and measure [them] with their several cords. The explorers sent by Moses (Num. 14) could dissemble what they were doing, put on another person [disguise], [and] lurk in the mountains and caves. But the work of these [surveyors] could scarcely be done except by daylight, openly, with all beholding. How, then, [were they] not a thousand times slain, [not] taken, [not] at least hindered? It seems to be believed [that] they indeed, attempting [it] as secretly as possible — from the higher places, when [it was] permitted, by scouting; performing other [parts] on foot and counting the paces; and then adjoining all the Geometric subtlety — did execute [that] which had been commanded by Joshua; yet [that] especially a certain latent divine force concurred, by which the minds of the Canaanites, already much broken by [their] slaughters and defeats, were utterly stupefied; and [that] they neither attempted anything about killing, or taking, or hindering these [surveyors]; but on the contrary [that] both the minds of the sending and of the sent Israelites should be confident; [that these surveyors] should dare to bring themselves into the innermost [places] of the Canaanites; [that they] should not fear — even if perchance they were observed, marked, and caught in their measuring work — and [should] hope for and work at the happy execution, at last, of the whole imposed office. Nor was the hope and effort vain. They accomplished the matter; and to their own [people] returned safe and unharmed.
Secondly: after the return of the surveyors, the lots being cast, the partition was made (ch. 14, v. 2; ch. 15, v. 1; ch. 16, v. 1; ch. 17, v. 1; & elsewhere). For thus the Lord had commanded (Num. 34, v. 13); and therefore he himself too, as I said above from Ps. 77, is said to have divided the land to the children of Israel by lot. Of the use, and the goodness or malice, of lots [it was] said largely above (ch. 7, from q. 17 to 22). Now only this is to be said: in what manner that casting-of-lots was made.
In four modes, therefore, is this mode expounded. First: by the Talmudists (in Baba Bathra, ch. 8) it is said [that there] were two urns, from one of which the single names of the single tribes were drawn, but from the other the little charts [chartulae] of the single portions of the land — so that to each drawn tribe its own drawn territory should at once be attributed; and lest [there] should be anything of suspicion in the drawing, but rather the highest good faith and authority, all [things], they say, were drawn by the hand of Eleazar the Pontiff. Second: by Josephus (bk. 5, ch. 1), only one urn is handed down, from which the names were drawn in order of the tribes, so that to those which came out first, it should be permitted first — at once — to choose which of the described portions of the land they wished. Third: one urn only, likewise, is received; but so that from it are drawn, not [the names] of the tribes, but the inscriptions and signs of the lands to be divided; while the attribution of these drawn-out [charts] to the single tribes is made from divine warning and indication. But [Serarius] thinks this was looked at and known (ch. 15). [Fourth:] Masius [expounds it] by the double prerogative which fell to Jacob’s sons by birth. One is, to be born of a free mother, or of a handmaid — so that [those] who [were born] of a free [mother] should all receive the lot before those who [were born] of the handmaids. The other, to be born earlier from this or that [mother] — so that [he] who was first of the free [mother] should receive the first portion drawn from the urn; [he] who [was] second, the second; and so onward. But after these, [he] who [was born] first of a handmaid should take the first [portion] which, after the portions of the free[-born], should come out of the urn; the second, the second; and so the others in order. Yet the same Masius admonishes [it is] to be observed [that] which had already been said by him (on ch. 14): [that] the firstborn Ruben’s birth, and prerogative of age and legitimacy, was [transferred] partly to Juda as to the principate
(col. 1119)
…and dominion, partly to Joseph as to the doubled portion of the inheritance, [was] transferred. Whether this be true, I do not now inquire (Abulensis certainly casts doubt [on it], following ch. 14, q. 4); but for me [it is] enough to have explained what rite that author [Masius] judged [was] observed in the casting-of-lots. Fourthly, finally, Arias too embraces [the view of] a single Urn, and the drawing-out from it, and a divine judgment for [knowing] the tribe to which each part fell — but he thinks this was done through the Pontiff’s Urim and Thummim (concerning which [in] the prior book, ch. 9, q. 23, and following), [and] many [things].
These [are] the four modes of the casting-of-lots in dividing that land — of which [it] pertains almost to chance which [is] the truest. One difficulty, indeed, seems to reside in all [of them]. For all [of them] explain, indeed, which land falls to which tribe — if the land be regarded as to site, but not as to magnitude. For since it was shown above (q. 4) [that] the parts had to be unequal in amplitude, on account of the inequality of the multitude which was in the tribes — how do these modes ascribe a larger portion to a tribe of larger number? In the first, if thou shouldst say [that] God so tempered the lots of the two Urns that this very thing came about, and to the larger tribe the larger part fell — [then], first, it was in vain commanded by God [that] the dividers should have a reckoning of this inequality, since he willed to do the whole thing himself; and then, the parts would have had to be made unequal beforehand; and so, before the lot, [it would] almost [have been] perceived which part [was] to be given to which [tribe]. But the second mode openly makes [it possible] for the power to be given even to the smallest [tribe] — if indeed it came out first — of choosing the largest part. The third [mode does] nothing more than point out which, as to place, would be each one’s inheritance. The fourth [is] almost likewise. Two [things], therefore, seem [needing] to be added. I. This was permitted by God, and committed to the dividers: [namely] that they should circumscribe each portion with its own bounds, and should enlarge and contract the parts coming out of the Urn according to the multitude or fewness of the tribes. For the cited passage (q. 5) from Num. 35, v. 8, altogether counsels this. II. Now the dividers did this either before the lots [were] cast into the urn and drawn from it, or after. Before, indeed, it could be done in this manner: [that there] should be, placed in the sight of all, ten parts which the surveyors had described; but concerning the single parts [there] should be treatment, and by common consent it should at last be established — if that [part] fell to this or that tribe by lot — that it ought to be so-and-so-great, that is, either as great as the surveyors had defined, or greater or smaller, [namely] according to the number of the tribe to which it fell. If, therefore, some part drawn by lot [were] great, [but] smaller [was that] to which that tribe was entitled, it would already have been established beforehand [that] that [part was] to be pared down, and indeed thus or thus. But if the tribe were larger, it would likewise have been established [that] that lot [was] to be amplified, and indeed by so-and-so-great an accession. But afterward [Post], this equalizing of the proportion could be done in a twofold [way]. First: if the dividers, when they had seen the drawn lot, should look at [it] accurately, and by concordant votes afterward conclude [that] to the tribe whose order in obtaining the inheritance it was, it [the lot] either sufficed, or did not suffice, or overflowed; and should either leave it so, or add to it — [or] take from it — as much as seemed [good].
Secondly: if they should ask this very thing from the oracle of Urim and Thummim — so that, just as by the utterance of this oracle it was known which tribe should obtain which lot, so also it should be known how great [a portion] it ought to obtain. And this mode indeed [is] easiest; but whether [it is] also the most fitting, I have not to affirm, before indeed the Simeonite lot (ch. 19) shall have been reached. “As to the rite and manner of the casting-of-lots,” says Masius, “I know not whether the sacred history has, not without design, concealed [it] from us everywhere, lest we should superstitiously imitate [it] in our own affairs.” Hence, at last, [they] went into possession in that manner, and by those tribes concerning which [more] afterward.