Question X. By what limits [was] the Danite portion contained? what cities did [it] contain?

The seventh and last lot of the latter casting-of-lots placed the Danite [tribe] among the tribes [settled] in its inheritance; whose limits are here explained no otherwise than by an enumeration of some cities, which, however, do not hold any one order; but from which [it is] plain enough, [that] the greatest part of the Danite portion was enclosed within the Judaic limits — namely, for the same cause for which [it] was said above (this ch., q. 1, 2 & 3) [that] the Simeonic tribe [was] placed within the same [limits]. But this Danite [portion] is placed on the western Judaic limits, so that [it] is more northern than the Simeonic. And so the northern borders of the Simeonites are the southern [borders] of the Danites. But toward the North, outside the Judaic borders, on the same western side, the same Danite tribe runs out a little beyond “Joppe,” as v. 46 clearly indicates. Especially since [there] are added — [words] which, for the sake of explanation, [were] admitted into the Latin text — these words: “And [it] is terminated at the very end.” But therefore here [one] must part from Josephus, who (ch. 3, bk. 5) extends the borders of the Danites as far as the city “Dora.” For this too the interposed cords [portions] of the Ephraimites and Manassites prevent. But no sum [total] of the cities is here set up; but if we number those which are in the Latin text, from v. 41 to 47, [there] will be found 18. I said “in the Latin text.” First: because in the Hebrew, “Benebarac” (v. 45) seems to be one [word]; and likewise in the 70, “βαναιβακάτ [banaibakát]” for “βαναιβαράκ [banaibarák].” Secondly: because in the same 70 no more than 15 or 16 are read, in which [that] which in the Hebrew is called “hirsemes” — and in the same Latin is rendered “city of the sun” — is translated “πόλις [polis, ‘city’],” or rather “πόλις σαμμάυς [polis sammaus],” by interpreting the former part and retaining the latter Hebrew [part]. “Joppe” in Hebrew is called “Iaphoh,” just as [it is] also today “Iapha.” But [it] happened, after some time of this given lot and portion, that the Danites deemed themselves circumscribed by too-narrow limits — not because the allotted soil [glebe] was not long and broad, but because [they] had not yet occupied the whole of it. They decided, therefore, [that] they must burst out from their [own] straits, and seek new seats elsewhere. Which [thing] is here indeed briefly touched [upon] (v. 47), but [is] narrated and explained more fully [in] Judg. ch. 18. Here let only this be inspected: besides that [clause] (v. 47), “The children of Dan went up,” in the Hebrew, before this, [there] is: “And the border of the children of Dan went out from them [ex ipsis], or [ab] from, or [prae] beyond, them.” And the sense of the sacred words, says Masius, is this: “The Danites of old emigrated outside themselves — that is, outside that inheritance in which they had been placed by the divine lot — and [they] in fact went forth to seek other possessions.” Yet another sense of the same words can [be]. [Is it] this, namely? “The border of the children of Dan came out smaller than would suffice for them.” For this the Hebraism “ab” or “prae ipsis” can mean — that is, “beyond what would suit them,” namely as to [their] occupation and possession, [which was] impeded by the Canaanites. Otherwise the portion whose right [was] in their [hands] was ample enough. For so, also, this manner of speaking seems to be taken (Num. 16:8): “Is it a small [thing] for you, that the God of Israel has separated you?” — that is, “Is it less than [would] suit you?” — just as also above, in this chapter, q. 3.