That Hebron [was] taken and stormed by Joshua, ch. 10 of this book asserts (v. 36), thus: “Joshua went up, with all Israel, from Eglon into Hebron, and fought against it, and took it, and smote [it] with the edge of the sword.” And concerning the city “Debir” likewise afterward (v. 38): “thence, returning to Debir, he took it, and laid [it] waste.” Again, ch. 11, v. 21: “at that time Joshua came, and slew the Enakim from the mountains of Hebron, and Dabir, and Anab, and from every mountain of Juda [and] Israel, and destroyed their cities.” But [that] which the fifteenth chapter follows [adds], narrates [that] those giants [were] destroyed by Caleb, and both cities occupied by him, and wrested from the Canaanites (vv. 14, 15, & following). And the same is repeated [in] Judges 1:20. And [these] indeed seem [to differ] among
(col. 1151)
[And these accounts indeed seem] to fight among themselves; but [those] deny [that] they fight — and rightly deny — who acknowledge the Holy Spirit [as] the author and dictator of all these books. But various modes of removing the repugnancy are handed down by those same [authors]. First: Lyranus says there were “two Hebrons and two Debirs,” of which Joshua took one, but Caleb the other. But others think Hebron and Debir [are each] single, and bring forward these other modes. The first is that of Abulensis himself (ch. 10 of this book, q. 96): [that] it can be said [there] is one Hebron, but of which [there] are two parts — one in the plain, the other on the mountain; of which Joshua stormed the former, but Caleb the latter. The second, again, [is a] mode of Lyranus: [that] Caleb truly and properly took those cities, but [that] Joshua is said to have taken them “by anticipation,” because by his grant and authority Caleb took them afterward. For [the things] which are done by lesser Leaders are wont to be attributed to the greatest of all, or the commander of the war. And after perplexing disputations (ch. 11, qq. 84 & 85), Abulensis especially embraces this mode, and [so does] Caietanus (on this ch. 14 & 15), demonstrating [that] these [things] which are here said were said before the Joshuan battles with Hebron (chs. 10 & 11). Third: [there] is Masius’s mode: [that] the same cities [were] truly and properly taken by both. For [it] happened, after Joshua’s victories and life[time], that the remnants of the Canaanites stirred up a defection and rebellion; and so arms [were] taken by Caleb against them, and all their [cities] happily stormed. And hence, what is to be thought “concerning the time of the storming” is nearly understood. For it is twofold: the one, that very [time] in which Joshua finished the earlier wars; the other, after his death. And this latter time indeed is certain from ch. 1 of Judges; but that [earlier time] also [is] certain, if we embrace any of the given modes except the one which posits “anticipation.” Yet of those modes, that one cannot please me which “builds up twin Hebrons and Debirs.” For in the whole division of the land, only one “Hebron,” one “Debir,” always occurs; and in the slaughter of the Canaanite Kings (above chs. 9, 10, 11, 12), only one King of Hebron, one King of Debir. In all the other modes [there] is probability, but especially in the penultimate and the last; and let him prefer this last to that penultimate, who shall wish to adhere more to the context, and at the same time to reckon with himself how easily — after those cities [were] subdued by Joshua — some of the Canaanites and Enakim could afterward either creep or burst into them. For although Joshua had destroyed all [the Enakim] whom he had found, yet [there] survived of these, in neighboring Palestine, several, who — an occasion being seized afterward, by guile or by force — could claim those places for themselves again. For so it is signified (ch. 10:37), and (ch. 11:22) when it is written: “Joshua left not any of the stock of Enacim in the land of the children of Israel, except in the cities Gaza, and Geth, and Azotus, in which alone they were left.” But the occasion for those Enakim could have been either that no garrison [was] yet placed in these captured cities, while all the Israelites still clung together in the camp at Gilgal; or that there was some negligence of those [few] left there, or certainly a weakness of forces for resisting those [enemies] rushing in. For various and uncertain [are] the outcomes of garrisons and battles. Certainly, while Caleb here was seeking Hebron, those Enakim were again in it (v. 12), and Caleb was already meditating war against them, and wholly breathing [it] (same v. 12). But [enough] only concerning the question — in which, on account of the “τὸ ἐναντιοφανὲς [to enantiophanes]” [the apparent contradiction] here expounded, Abulensis confesses very much of difficulty (q. 85, ch. 11).