Question IV. How many, and which, cities [were] given to the chief families of the Levites?

The chief families and divisions of the Levites are reckoned in three ways. First: according to the flesh [lineage], namely so that [there] be as many as were the sons of Levi himself; and so [there] are only three families — [those] of the Gersonites, Caathites, and Merarites (Exod. 6:16, & elsewhere often). Secondly: according to the office and duty which was discharged by them in the worship of God; and so [there are] two divisions — namely, of the Priests and of the non-Priests. The former are wont to be called, from the first Priest (and parent and begetter of all the rest), “Aaronites”; but the others retain the common name of “Levites.” Thirdly: according to both — namely, both lineage and office. For that second family, of the Caathites, embraces all the Priests, and besides [them] other Levites, who had not been begotten from Aaron, but either from his brother Moses, or from the paternal-uncles of both — Isaar [Izhar], Hebron, & Oziel [Uzziel]. For these three, with Amram (the father of Aaron and Moses), were the sons of Caath himself, grandsons of Levi himself (Exod. 6:18). And in this manner [there] are here constituted four divisions of the Levites: the first, [that] of the Caathite Priests; the second, [that] of the Caathite non-Priests; the third, [that] of the Gersonites; the fourth, [that] of the Merarites. And to the first division indeed [there] were given 13 cities (v. 4): of which [there] were 9 from the tribe of Judah and of Simeon, [and] the remaining 4 from the tribe of Benjamin. And [it] was indeed admirable [that] so many cities [were] attributed to so few Priests. For — as I was saying [in] ch. 5, part 2, q. 1 — at the crossing of the Jordan [they] were not much more than 24; and after those 14 years, even if we multiply all those [24] fourteen times over, [there] still could not be four hundred Priests in that division of the land. And if [one] should wish to divide 400 by 13, we shall find [that] fewer than 31 Priests could be placed in each and every one of the cities. Admirable likewise [is] that the lot so fell out, that to the Priests there fell those cities which were nearest to the tabernacle and temple, [and] to the very future royal city and metropolis of the whole people. Then, [so] that the Levites might more conveniently contract marriages with the Judaic tribe — as Theodoret admonishes [at] q. 18 in this place: “For these tribes,” he says, “the Lord permitted to be mingled, because he who was to be born from the tribe of Juda was called not only King, but also Pontiff [Priest].”

To the second division, of the Caathites, [there] were given 10 cities, from the tribes of Ephraim, Dan, & cis-Jordanian Manasses (v. 5). To the third division, 13 [cities], from the tribes of Issachar, Aser, Nephtali, & trans-Jordanian Manasses (v. 6). To the fourth division, 12 [cities], from the tribes of Ruben, Gad, Zabulon (v. 7). In sum, 48 — of which [these are] the names:

(col. 1235)

[…the list of the 48 Levitical cities, continued from col. 1234:]

But concerning those last four [cities], doubts arise. The first: from which Scripture they are sourced — for the Hebrew text of the Masoretes does not have them, and these [Jews] praise the more ancient copies, which lack those same [cities]. But [they] are in our [Latin] text, in the Greek 70, in the Chaldee, and in other very ancient Hebrew copies — as not only Tostatus (between q. 8 & 9) and Masius, from our [side], but also from the Jews, Radak confesses in this place, who also professes himself an eye-witness. And truly, unless [they] be added, [then] first, cities would not have been given to the Levites by all the tribes, since the Rubenite [tribe] would be omitted. But that [is] against the express command of God (Num. 26), against the assertion of v. 3 of this chapter (“The children of Israel gave out of their possessions, according to the command of the Lord”), [and] against the history [in] 1 Chron. 6:78 & 79. Secondly: the cities of the Merarites would not have been 12, as [the text] says in this chapter (v. 38), but only 8. Thirdly: finally, the cities of the Levites would not all be 48, but only 44 — against the conclusion of the previous question. And hence [it] is clear, first, [that] which [was] asserted in the Biblical Prolegomena — [that] the Hebrew Masoretic bibles, which are today boasted by the Jews [to be] most-correct, are incorrect and corrupted. [It] is clear, secondly, [that] these cities, in the Latin edition, [were] not simply expressed from the Greek 70 translation (as Masius asserts and Montanus praises), but from the old Hebrew text, which — as Abulensis rightly says in the cited place — was extant in our Interpreter’s [Jerome’s] time. [It] is clear also, thirdly, [from] 1 Chron. 6, [that] those [cities are] present here. For hence, if [they] had been absent, the whole history and reckoning of this chapter would waver, as [was] indicated a little before. And truly, the different names of this chapter and that [1 Chron. 6] show the diversity not of the cities (as will be said a little after), but of the text — so that those [names] cannot be [considered] translated hither from Chronicles.

The second doubt. In our [Latin] text and in the Greek 70, among those four cities, “Misor” is placed [as a fifth], and so the cities become five, and the sums of the numbers overflow. For thus [there] would be 5 cities from the Rubenite tribe (against v. 37); 13 cities of the Merarites (against v. 38); 49 cities of the Levites (against v. 39). [It is] to be said, first, [that] this name crept into the Latin text altogether from the margin of some [who], from the 70, had noted “τὴν μισώ [tēn misō],” as [it] is now published in the Roman [editions], or rather “τὴν μισὼρ [tēn misōr],” as [it] is in our text; and [it] is confirmed from the signification, concerning which [we speak] now. Secondly: [that] “Misor” is not a new city [distinct] from “Bosor,” but [that] by this word [it] is signified [that] “Bosor” is situated in a plain — as [was] said in the previous chapter, q. 6. For in Hebrew “misor” or “mischor” is “a plain,” as above (ch. 13), thrice (v. 9, 18, 20); and clearly, above (ch. 20, the penultimate verse), that [city] is said to be “bammidbar bammischor,” that is, “in the wilderness, in the plain.” And [it] is confirmed from the Greek text itself, where [it is] thus: “βοσὸρ τὴν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, τὴν μισὼρ [bosor tēn en tē erēmō, tēn misōr]” [“Bosor, the [one] in the wilderness, the Misor (the plain)”]. For [it is] to be observed [that], in the numbering of the other three adjoined cities, “ke [καὶ]” — that is, ”&” [and] — is prefixed, so that [they] be signified [as] distinct. But “Misor” is so connected with “Bosor” that the sense is: “Bosor, which is in the desert, which [is] in the plain” — or, “and which is in the level [ground].”

The third doubt. In Latin and Greek “Iazer” is here named, which in the Hebrew copies does not exist. I answer: either [it] is the same as that which — here, and [in] 1 Chron. 6:29 — is called “Cademoth”; or certainly [it] is the same which, duplicated in the Latin (not in the Greek 70 nomenclature), is called “Iethson,” [and] in Chronicles “Iassa” or “Iadesa.” And then in the Latin a city would be lacking, which in the Hebrew here, and in Chronicles, is “Cademoth” or “Cedemoch,” in the Greek “δεκμών [dekmōn]” — namely, by a metathesis [transposition] of letters, for “κεδμὼν [kedmōn]” or “κεδμώθ [kedmōth]”; nay, from the nearby v. 36, in place of “Cademoth,” a new [city], “Iazer,” migrated hither.

The fourth doubt is: whether those four cities are to be numbered in the last place? In the better Hebrew copies, and in the Roman Latin correction, “Ruben” himself is placed before “Gad” — that is, a transposition of verses 36, 37 takes place; and so, after these four cities, the others are numbered, which [are] here placed before:

And hence [it] appears [that] a wound [was] inflicted upon this text from some [source] — both in the Latin and Greek [copies], as [well as] in the Hebrew — which hitherto [has] not [been] sufficiently healed.

The fifth doubt: why “Jerusalem” is not among those [cities]? Namely, because [it] was still held by the Jebusites; because [it] belonged to different tribes; and because in it, too, [there] could be a place for them [the Levites] to dwell — as will be said in the following question.

The sixth and last doubt: why do certain names differ from those [names] placed before, in [the catalogues of] the tribes? [This has been] answered often.