First, his lineage is shown here (v. 6), when he is called “son of Jephone the Cenezite.” But Jephone in the Hebrew is called “Iephunneh”; in the 70, “ἰεφοννῆ [Iephonnē]”; and by the Talmudic Rabbis (in “Themorah,” or the tractate concerning the victims in sacrifice not to be changed) the name is handed down [as] not proper, but “appellative [common]”: so that “son of Jephone” is nothing else than “son,” or “a prudent man,” provident, and circumspect; or “son of turning-aside,” because he turned himself, and the people, aside from the outcries of the wicked explorers, as in Abulensis (1 Chron. ch. 4, q. 10). Other Hebrews will [have it otherwise]: for “Phanah” is “to look, to look about, to look back,” by turning oneself from one [thing] to another. But although Caleb truly was most prudent and most circumspect, and most rightly turned himself, and the people, away from the false complaints of the other explorers — yet that interpretation is absurd; because, since Hebrew proper names nearly [all] signify something of this kind, one might [be able] to deny, as it were, the parents of all, and substitute some quality of theirs, or a eulogy. And in both ways Joshua too would be “son of Jephone,” because he both was strong in signal prudence, and had been a partner to Caleb himself in turning [the people] away from the same murmurings of the other explorers. But some willingly grant [that] “Iephone” is a “proper” name; but, as Chytraeus, they say [that] by it is signified that man who otherwise in Scripture is called “Esron” — because (1 Chron. ch. 2, v. 18) it is written, “Caleb son of Esron took a wife.” So here, and on 1 Chron. 2, Lyranus, and the ordinary Gloss. But others will [have] Jephone [to be] the “nearest father” of Caleb himself, but so that the “remote father” is Esron himself — that is, grandfather, or great-grandfather, or even great-great-grandfather; and so [that] Caleb is “son of Esron,” that is, “grandson,” or “great-grandson,” or even “great-great-grandson”; but the nearest son of Jephunneh himself. And so, in this place, Masius and Abulensis (1 Chron. ch. 2, q. 9; ch. 4, q. 10), from which this genealogy is woven:
Caleb is the son of Jephone himself. But Jephone is the son of Cos himself, concerning whom [in] 1 Chron. ch. 4, v. 8. But Cos [is] the son of Ethnan himself, concerning whom in the same [place], v. 7. But Ethnan, in the same [place] (vv. 5 & 7), is the son of Assur. But Assur [is] the son of Bethleem, according to the same Abulensis, in the same [place], at v. 5. And this [Assur is] the son of Ur; and this [Ur] of Caleb, by [his] wife Ephrata (in the same [place], q. 2, and before, 4). But this [Caleb is son] of Esron (before, q. 8); Esron [son] of Phares himself; Phares [son] of Juda himself (1 Chron. 2, v. 1).
But to me it pleases, first indeed, [that] that Caleb is not the nearest and immediate son of Esron — because [Esron] descended into Egypt with the great-grandfather Jacob (Gen. 46, v. 12), in which [Egypt] the children of Israel remained 210 years, as is shown [in] Exod. 12: and therefore, the reckoning of that time’s human lifespan being had, if Caleb had been born from that [Esron], either by living he would not have reached the exodus from Egypt, or certainly he would have reached [it] laden with very many years — whereas, from this ch. 14 (as will be said afterward), it is clear [that] he was not then [more] than 38 years [old]. It pleases [me] also [that there] are two different Calebs, of whom [there] is mention [in] 1 Chron. chs. 2 & 4; and [that] this [one], of whom [is] here the discourse, [is] the later, the son of Jephone. It pleases [me] also, thirdly, [that] his names [be] explained by a tropological sense. For Caleb, or “Celeb,” is “a dog” — who signally barked at the wicked malice of the other explorers; and for it [there] is also (1 Chron. ch. 2, v. 9) “Calubi,” or, as [it is] in the Hebrew, “Celubai,” that is, “my dogs” — because he, in the stead of many, when he saw those wolves, barked, and roused all to wake up, and to beware for themselves of their most foul jaws. To certain others — as to Rupert (bk. 8, On the divine offices, ch. 7) — [it] is “as [it were] heart,” or “all heart”: [Caleb] who did all things from the heart, [who] followed the Lord with his whole heart, to whom [belonged], as the heart, so also the tongue and the hands. And indeed he was also “son of Jephone” on account of [his] prudence, and [his] circumspect turning-aside from the same explorers. But whether Abulensis’s whole Genealogy is to be received can be doubted, on account of the little knots which entangle it somewhat; but those [belong] to [the commentary on] Paralipomena [Chronicles]: and it is enough [that] not a little of probability is in it.
But why is the same Caleb called “Cenezite”? The response of the various [authors] is various. For some say [that] “Cenez” was the “stepfather” of Caleb, and [that] this surname [was] received from him; others, [that he was his] “brother” — and indeed older by birth than Caleb himself, because in the following chapter he is called “Cenez.” But Radak [says he was his] “grandfather,” or great-grandfather; Abulensis, [his] “father,” who by another name was called “Cenez.” And therefore Masius says he is doubtful whether the text ought not to be so rendered: “son of Jephone the Cenezite [filius Iephone Cenezaei].” The Author of the Questions on Paralipomena will [have] “Cenez” [to] be a certain “place,” from which [comes] that nomenclature. I think, first, [it is] to be rendered as it is rendered by our [Vulgate]: “Caleb son of Jephone the Cenezite [Cenezaeus]” — not “of the Cenezite [Cenezaei]” — because so the Septuagint led the way for our Interpreter. Secondly: if, however, the father be “Cene-[zite]”
(col. 1139)
[Cenezite], and Caleb were called “son of the Cenezite,” rightly from him would he be surnamed “Cenezite.” Thirdly: the two last opinions seem more probable. Because, as to the first, why would the surname be drawn from the stepfather rather than from the father? As to the second, because it would require [that] that Cenezite brother of Caleb had committed incest with his own mother. Othoniel is called the brother of Caleb in the following chapter, & [in] Judg. 1, and the same [is] “son of Cenez” (1 Chron. ch. 4). If, therefore, Cenez is properly the brother of Caleb, and also properly the father of the brother of the same-named Caleb, [then] from Caleb’s mother he would have procreated a later brother. Than which what [is] more absurd? But how Othoniel and Caleb are called brothers, I say [in commenting] on Judg. 1.
II. Caleb’s age is noted (v. 10): “Today I am eighty-five years old.” From these let 7 be deducted, which were consumed in the wars up to the division of the land; the rest will be 79. From these again let 38 years be taken, in which — after the first exploration of the region, as was shown above — [the people] stuck on the journey from Egypt; there will remain 41. From these finally let 2 years be removed, which, before the sending-out and return of the explorers, had partly elapsed; there will remain 39 years — so that Caleb was born before the 39th year, or in the 40th year, before the exodus from Egypt: which falls into that year in which Moses killed the Egyptian (Acts ch. 7). And the “Midrash Shemoth” (p. 118) & “Bereshith” (p. 115) agree — although R. Bachya, in order impiously to abrogate faith in St. Stephen, feigns [that] Moses left the court [of Pharaoh] in the 13th year of [his] age; but some other Rabbis [say] in the 20th year. But let us now dismiss those impious and lying [men].
III. Caleb’s bodily health and strength — [he being] born (as I said) 85 years [before] — are indicated (v. 11): “Thus,” he says, “strong, as I was strong at that time when I was sent to explore. The strength of that time perseveres in me until today, as well for fighting as for marching” — that is, for doing anything, for all the duties of life which are wont to be signified in Scripture by “going in” and “going out” (1 Sam. 18, v. 5). But Masius (p. 246): “The Latin did not say fully enough ‘for marching [ad gradiendum].’” Nay, he put the genus “gradus [going],” of which the species are “to go in” and “to go out.” But illustrious, yet rare, [is] this so green and vigorous old age. Of Marcus Cato Porcius, Livy (decade 4, bk. 9): “He was,” he says, “of a mind unconquered by desires, and of rigid innocence: a despiser of favor, of riches. In frugality, in endurance of labor and danger, of a nearly iron body and mind: whom not even old age, which dissolves all things, could break; who, in his 86th year, pleaded a cause, pled for himself and wrote [it], [and] in his 90th year brought Servius Galba to the people’s judgment.” Ausonius’s father, in this same [author] (Idyll 3):
“Ninety years, without a staff, with [my] whole body / I have completed, sound in all [my] duties.”
Concerning a certain nation of the Ethiopians, Postellus in [his] Cosmography: “Many,” he says, “at 180 years of age, even hire out their labor to the richer [men].” Cicero collects other examples in [his] book On Old Age; and recently Camerarius (Century 2, ch. 68); and several others can be added — as, from our Germany, [the fact] that in these days someone [told] me of his great-grandfather’s old age prolonged to the year 140, [and] of his grandfather’s to 120. But these were [men] of Dillingen. From Poland indeed, [the fact] that D. Stanislaus Krzesanowski of Lwów often commemorated the very long age of his grandfather and father, 155 [years]; and [the fact] that (ch. 91 of the Confession, concerning the ceremonies) the most Reverend and most Illustrious Hosius writes: “In the town of Srensk,” he says, “one may see a tomb constructed with a certain memorable work, which Felix of Srensk — Palatine and Prefect of Płock — set up for his paternal grandfather. He attests, by [words] inscribed on the tomb, [that] this [man] lived 140 years.” But besides those pre-flood macrobii [long-livers], and afterward one “Heber,” and a few others up to the exploration of the land — Moses (Deut., last [ch.], v. 7) “was 120 years old when he died. His eye was not dimmed, nor were his teeth moved.” But that this was given to Moses divinely, by a miracle, can scarcely be doubted; yet in Caleb, was not that lively old age [present] by natural force? For [it] was in many others too (as I said), and even now can be, if to a good constitution of body and good health be added temperance in diet, sobriety, and exercise. “The very failing of strength,” says Tullius [Cicero], “is more often effected by the vices of youth than of old age. A lustful and intemperate youth hands over an exhausted body to old age.” And afterward: “I think thou hearest, Scipio, [that] thy ancestral guest-friend Masinissa, who today is ninety years old: when he has begun a journey on foot, he by no means mounts a horse; by no rain, no cold, is he induced to be bare-headed; [and that there] is in him the highest dryness of body; and so he performs all the offices and duties of a king. Exercise, therefore, and temperance can — even in old age — preserve something of the pristine strength.” [See also] St. Jerome (Epistle to Paul of Concordia), [and] Pliny (bk. 3, Epistle 1, on Spurinna; bk. 7, p. 207, on Quadrantilla). Four or five years ago, when I was crossing the Vosges, which separates Lorraine from Alsace, and was in the monastery of Senones, the Abbot of that place summoned — from I know not what village of that mountain, which was somewhat far off — a countryman great in age, of more than a hundred years. He came on foot, quickly enough; and, admitted to lunch with the other guests, when he sat down and beheld the table built up with many and richer dishes, he began to speak with himself in a rather low voice (yet so that the sound was heard by all) and, as it were, to murmur. Then the Abbot [said] to him: “What, my Father (so, for reverence’s sake, he called the old man), art thou saying? Is anything lacking? Speak more clearly.” “This indeed is,” answered the old man, “what I say: ‘If I had always had so great and such a table, I would not have lived so long.’” But the same [old man], as I was departing — himself about to depart, [and] pointing out [his way], said: “This very day I will go back thither, whence I [came] here this morning.” No plague [is] more deadly to the strength of men, no axe more hostile to a longer life, than intemperance — [those] who pursue which become weak, nerveless, pale, trembling, [and] corpse-like before [they are] old. See [my commentary] on Ruth ch. 4, q. 19.
IV. His virtue of mind — what, and how great, it was — these [things] are the proof. First: “I reported to him (Moses) what seemed true to me.” [He was,] namely, a lover of truth, sincere, and faithful. A liar, a dissembler, and unfaithful to him from whom he received something to be managed, is [he] who declares — in any deliberations, counsels, or responses — [something] other than what seems true to himself. And here [Caleb] is a signal example for the counselors of Princes, the Senators of Commonwealths, the procurators of Lords, actuaries, messengers, and all servants. They often bring great detriment to the public good, who — in zeal for hunting after some advantage or favor — keep silent the truth through flattery:
(col. 1141)
or who, for the sake of fleeing some disadvantage or [someone’s] wrath, through cowardice and fear, utter [something] other than what they feel. But because in the Hebrew it is “I reported the matter to Moses, as it was in my heart,” the unhappy Rabbis trifle [nonsensically claiming] [that] Caleb reported before Moses not [the things] which he had had in [his] mouth before the querulous and seditious other explorers, but [the things] which [he had kept] secret from them, in [his] heart — as if he were a dissembler and wicked hypocrite, whose tongue differed from [his] heart: a most timid old trickster, who had approved the baseness of [his] companions with [his] mouth, [but] accused [it] in [his] heart — a most criminal impostor, who had fostered, aided, [and] augmented the wickedness of the others on the journey, by nod and word, against the judgment of his mind and soul, [and who] afterward most vehemently attacked, tore, and detested those same [men]. Away with the Machiavellians! The Septuagint render “κατὰ τὸν νοῦν αὐτοῦ [kata ton noun autou],” that is, “according to his own mind” — which [was], namely, the same [as that] of Caleb, so that the truth might be spoken and understood.
Secondly: “My brethren, who went up with me, dissolved the heart of the people; and I nonetheless followed the Lord my God.” In a throng of the wicked — when the number of those who act criminally is greater — to keep the mind defiled by no contagion, to cleave to God rather than to men: that indeed is [a mark] of outstanding and excellent virtue, as I taught on Tobias 1. But this is [that] which Caleb narrates about himself; in whose Hebrew speech, for “I followed the Lord God,” is read “I fulfilled after the Lord my God” — as also below (v. 14) & [in] Num. 14, v. 24; and it is signified [that he was] not simply [one who] followed the Lord, but [who] fully and perfectly followed. For it is an elliptical phrase, which one may complete thus: “I fulfilled [= accomplished fully] to go after the Lord.” The 70: “ἐγὼ προσετέθην ἐπακολουθῆσαι κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ μου [egō prosetethēn epakolouthēsai kyriō tō theō mou]” [“I set myself to follow the Lord my God”]. But this [was] already expounded by me (q. 4, bk. 1 of Joshua).
Thirdly: [there] is the testimony of Moses about him (v. 9) and of God (v. 10). If to be praised by a praised man is praise (as one of the ancients said), what [then is it] to be extolled by God’s servant, and by God himself, with so excellent a proclamation? For he [Moses] indeed says, “thou hast followed the Lord my God” — fully and perfectly, as above; but he [God] both spoke to Moses about Caleb himself, and guarded and defended his [Caleb’s] survival up to that very time with a singular enclosure of protection. For “my God,” in Moses’s speech, the 70 put “θεὸν ἡμῶν [theon hēmōn],” that is, “our God,” so that he [Moses] may speak as much about himself as about Caleb. And therefore there some Latins, less rightly, have “thy God.”
Fourthly: [it is a mark] of a perspicacious and good mind, to behold, acknowledge, [and] profess all the benefits by which one is endowed by God — even those which seem natural, and are scarcely weighed [appreciated] by few. His life, therefore, and his [so] advanced and lively age, Caleb gladly and gratefully ascribes to God (v. 10): “The Lord has granted me life, as he spoke, until the present day.” Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 46, v. 11: “The Lord gave strength to Caleb himself, and even to [his] old age [his] virtue” — or strength — “remained in him.” Indeed, in the Scriptures elsewhere, very often, “length of days” is referred [as] received from the Lord himself (Exod. 20:12; Ps. 20:5; Ps. 90:16; Prov. 3:2 & 16; Sirach 23, last v.). For he bestows the body’s coagulum [constitution], and “εὐκρασίαν [eukrasian]” [good temperament]; he supplies the necessaries of life; he removes [the things] adverse to health; he calms [us] with a good mind and tranquil conscience; and finally he rouses us to living moderately, wisely, and soberly — from all which [comes] a long, strong, vigorous, and blessed life, as far as this can be in the world.
Fifthly: But in truth one blemish seems to obscure and deform these praises of Caleb — [namely] that he seems to praise, and almost to boast of, himself, when (v. 7) he commemorates the candor of his mind, the truth of his mouth, (v. 8) the constancy of his breast, and [his] full and perfect obedience to the Lord. But truly [there is] no blemish in this matter. For it is lawful, and good, and right to proclaim one’s own good deeds and virtues, when necessity or usefulness demands it; and both [are] regarded in respect either of God, or of the man himself proclaiming about himself, or of others. Of God, indeed, when his glory requires [it] — that [the things] which he kindly did for man, and the gifts he gave, be known by others, who therefore may themselves also look up to him, praise, hear, love, and follow [him]. And this, for the Apostle, is “to glory in the Lord” (1 Cor. 1:31; 2 Cor. 7:17). Of the man himself, proclaiming about himself, when he ought to guard his own reputation and it concerns others — so that not only a depraved, but even a meaner and more contemptible opinion about him be removed, and a greater and more august [one] instilled. For thus St. Paul (2 Cor. 10 & 11) discloses about himself very many and the greatest [things], which otherwise would have lain hidden from all mortals. Of “others,” finally, in respect [of those] whom we wish to benefit. And so, among disciples, a Master; among sons, a Father; among the younger, an elder — can narrate certain praises of his own, either because authority among those [people] is necessary to him, or because [it] behooves [him] to rouse them to virtue and imitation. So CHRIST the Lord: “Learn from me, for I am meek, and humble of heart” (Matt. 11). “You call me Master and Lord: and you say well, for I am [so]. If then I have washed your feet — [I] the Lord and Master — you also ought to wash one another’s feet.” So St. Augustine (epistle 68; tract 8 on John; & bk. 50, homily 25). But of these [there is] more in my second “Doxologicon,” [the things] which nearly all fit Caleb. For he [Caleb] proclaims the glory of God, when he shows him [to be] the best searcher of the heart, and the most just rewarder of the well-doer (v. 9). For he recites, as it were, the sealed tablets of the divine testimony and of the promised reward, and holds [them] from God himself declaring and attesting [them] — so that he said [he had] fully obeyed the Lord (v. 8). He also guards his own reputation, since otherwise he would seem importunate, ambitious, and injurious to others, if he concealed the cause why he demands a portion for himself before others. He also provides for [the good of] others, to whom [there] would otherwise be cause for crying out against [him], resisting, and suspecting ill of him.