The “mountain” which Caleb seeks from Joshua (v. 12), [understood] generally. I. [It] is the mountain promised to him by God (same v. 12) — that is, the mountainous land, promised also by Moses (v. 9). But because it is thus said, “The land which thy foot has trodden shall be thy possession,” the Rabbis think [that] the land is signified which — on account of the dangers and the horror of the giants dwelling there — no others of the explorers dared to approach, but Caleb alone entered and explored. And they confirm this,
(col. 1143)
because Num. 13:23, in the Hebrew, is thus read: “They went up (the explorers) to the South: and he came into Hebron.” For why, they say, is it said in the singular, “HE CAME,” and not “THEY CAME,” unless because Caleb alone penetrated thither? But this [is] a figment worthy of the Rabbis. For Joshua too was in the number of the explorers — was he so timorous and cowardly that he shrank from the approach to that land? And is [it] not most usual in the Hebrew language, that a singular verb be attributed to a plural [subject], and the speech be made distributive, whose sense is “any of them did this or that”? [As a] verse-example: “The explorers went up to the South, and each of them came to Hebron” — which is equivalent to that which is in our text: “They went up to the south, and they came to Hebron.” And if that singular “he came” were to be understood of one only, why would Caleb’s name not be added? why would it be understood of this one rather than of Joshua? This is the land promised by Moses’s oath (v. 9), where something more seems [to be] in the Hebrew than in our text, namely: “And Moses swore in that day: if not: The land which thy foot has trodden,” etc. That “if not” is an aposiopesis, which in the formulas of execrations was indeed expressed in full, but in the narrations of the same is often omitted — either as [being] then known, or as [being] dire and ominous. For in this or a similar way the speech ought to be completed — whether it be affirming (as Gen. 14:22; [or] in the Hebrew [of] ch. 21:23) or negating, as here: “If I do not [do] what I say, may the Lord avert [punish] me; may he smite me with all calamities; may I be devoted to all curses; may I not live; may I not be who I am, [but] be held vain and lying.” But our Interpreter [Vulgate] sometimes kept silent that aposiopesis, because he converted [it into] a plain and absolute oath, which [he] who violates is liable to punishment. Now Moses is said to have promised that land [by] swearing — because the oath by which God promised it (Num. 14:20), he [Moses], as [God’s] internuncio and legate, proposed to Caleb.
Thirdly: that “mountain” and that land was promised to Caleb by God and Moses, Joshua himself hearing (v. 12). Some think this promise of a particular and definite portion of Canaan was made to Caleb privately — in the tabernacle of God or of Moses, or certainly in some other place secret from the multitude; and because Joshua was very frequently present with Moses, and was conscious [a witness] of almost all his deeds and words, [they think] it was heard by this one [Joshua]; nor yet is this elsewhere handed down in writing. To this opinion — because it has nothing that is discordant — anyone may assent. But I rather assent to Masius, judging [that] the inheritance of a definite and designated place was promised to Caleb openly and publicly, all hearing (and therefore Joshua himself too), by those words of the Lord (Num. 14:24): “My servant Caleb, who, full of another spirit, has followed me, I will lead into this land, which he has gone around: and his seed shall possess it.” This land was certainly not all Canaan, which he had traversed with the other explorers. For what [part] would [all Canaan] have been for the whole people? But [rather] a definite part of it, which he had gone over with those same [explorers]. For [as to] what the Jews say — [that] Caleb alone penetrated to this place — the other explorers themselves refute [it], when (Num. 13:29) they cry out, “We saw the stock of Enac there.” And indeed, [that] that certain part, where those Enakim were, [was] attributed to him by those words, is gathered also either from the antithesis, or from Caleb’s mind and virtue. The antithesis is, [that] the Lord willed that the part which the seditious [spies] most reviled — and from whose inhabitants and cities they snatched the chief material of terror, and the torch of seditions — that [part], since it was the best, be made over to its patron, defender, and vindicator, Caleb. But [a mark] of his mind and virtue [is], [that] he himself demanded that part for himself, and proclaimed himself content and blessed with that one [part] which the others most vaunted [as] horrible, pathless, and inexpugnable. And perhaps to the definition and determination of this part pertain the words which are subjoined there (v. 25): “Since the Amalekite and the Canaanite dwell in the valleys.” In Hebrew: “And the Amalekite and the Canaanite dwells in the valley.” Furthermore, the same promise [is in] Deuteronomy 1, v. 36.
Fourthly: [it] is the mountain “in which are the Enakim, and cities great and fortified” (v. 12). The same [things] are said [in] Num. 13:28 & 34. Whence it is gathered [that] the “Henakim” were men of gigantic size, descendants of a certain very famous giant of ancient time, whose name [was] “Henak”; which, since it signifies “torque [neck-chain],” the Rabbis think “Henakim” is an appellative [common] name, by which “the torqued [collared]” are signified — namely, men noble in wealth and power. For these [things] they easily procured by force and rapine, because they prevailed in bodily strength. But, as I said, from “Henak,” the first author of their race, they got that appellation — just as from “Heber” the Hebrews, from “Israel” the Israelites, from “Ismael” the Ishmaelites, or “Ismaelim,” as they are called [in] Genesis 47.
Fifthly: Now specifically the mountain and place which Caleb asks from Joshua is “Hebron” — concerning which (because [it is] frequent in the Scriptures) [more] amply in the following question.