A great cross [difficulty] here, for both Jewish and Christian Interpreters. For [in] Num. 35:4 a size of cubits is attributed to those suburbs,
(col. 1241)
[…continued from col. 1240.] or of a thousand paces: “Which (suburbs), [reaching] from the walls of the cities outward, round about, [shall be] a thousand paces” (Num. 35:4). But in the next v. 5, the same size is said [to be] of two thousand cubits: “Toward the east [there] shall be two thousand cubits; and toward the south, likewise, [there] shall be two thousand; toward the sea too, which looks to the West, the same measure shall be; and the northern quarter shall be bounded by an equal limit” (Num. 35:5). In what way do these [two] agree? [There is] an almost eightfold endeavor of authors in establishing the consonance.
First: the 70 seem to hint [that there] is an error in the Hebrew — because, just as in the latter place, so [also] in the former, they always attribute to these suburbs “δισχιλίους πήχεις [dischilious pēcheis]” [“two thousand cubits”], twice a thousand cubits. But since the Hebrew copies all agree, and the Latin text follows them, and all the books (with all the Interpreters) [agree] — the Septuagint interpretation [is] indeed to be praised, [they] who, without any ambiguity, rendered the very [true] sense (as will appear below); nevertheless [one] must not desist, [but] rather let the true concord be sought in the Hebrew and Latin text.
Secondly: therefore, [there] are — in Lyra (Num. 35) — some Latins who observe that, in the Latin text, “paces” [are] put in the former verse, [and] “cubits” in the latter; and [they] say [that] two thousand of these [cubits] are not more than 1000 paces — because in a cubit [there] are two feet, [and] in a pace four; and so, by either manner of speaking, [there] are given to the suburbs four thousand feet. But, first: in the Hebrew, one [and] the same word is in both verses, which properly signifies “a cubit” — although [it] may not badly be taken for “a pace,” which is equal to it. Then: to a pace are wont to be attributed not four but five feet, as [is] known from the common verses recited in the rudiments of the Sphere and of Geography: “Five feet make a pace,” etc.
Thirdly: therefore Abulensis (Num. 35, q. 6) says [that] in the Latin text “a pace” is put in the former place, as [if] an explanation — [namely] that in it [the pace] are contained two cubits; and so [that] 1000 paces are 2000 cubits. But lest the same [Abulensis] be refuted by the already-cited verses, he distinguishes “a pace,” and says [it] is the space either which is interposed only between foot and foot, or both this and that [space] which is placed under a man’s foot, or feet. And in either way the pace is twofold. For [it] is either “standing [static]” or “ambulatory [walking].” In the former way, the “standing” [pace] has two feet; in the latter, four. For between the feet of a standing man, no more than a two-foot space is intercepted; and if to this be added [the space] which is under each foot of the same standing [man], [there] results a four-foot space. But the “ambulatory” [pace], in the former way, has three feet — because then the steps are wont to be enlarged; but in the latter way [it] has four, when motion and continuous walking is taken [into account]. For thus only that [part] of the space is taken which is under one foot, not under two — because thus only one foot presses the ground and cleaves to it; but the other, [being] lifted, when [it] falls back to the ground, occupies the space which pertains to the following pace. But the same ambulatory pace has five feet, when — both feet [being] fixed on the ground — the space both which [is] between the two, and [which is] under each, is taken. And the cited verses speak of the ambulatory pace of this latter kind; our Interpreter, in this place, [speaks] of the ambulatory [pace] of the former kind. That explanation is easy; and therefore [it was] also once briefly noted by me in [the work] The Joshuan Priests (ch. 5, num. 59); but [it] does not yet remove absolutely every scruple. First: because authors would have to be cited who used these standing and ambulatory paces in this way. For how else shall we believe [that] our Interpreter spoke about “a pace” in this way? Secondly: in that way the variety of the Hebrew text is not explained, where [there] is properly no mention of paces, but of cubits only.
Fourthly: others distinguish [kinds of] cubits. For the geometric cubits are either “sacred” or “common,” and those [sacred] [are] double the size of these [common]. Since, therefore, the discourse had been first about the sacred [cubits], those are afterward explained by the common [ones], and therefore [are] doubled. For thus the sacred shekels are double the size of the common [ones]; and [a] mention of that kind of sacred cubits seems [to be found] (1 Kings 6:2, & ch. 7:15). But, first: by what sign could [it] be gathered [that] the text speaks now of sacred, now of common [cubits]? Secondly: [it] would have to be proved [that] the use of sacred cubits [pertains] to the measurements of bare plots of land — and not only to the measurements of buildings and structures.
Fifthly: R. Salomon [Rashi] & the Talmudists (in the place indicated in the previous question) say [that] properly the “migraschim” and suburbs are the places nearest to the cities, which served only for walking-about, washing, and the recreation of men; and [that] these [were] only 1000 cubits. But [they say that], besides these, [there] were again other spaces contiguous to these, which — [being] more remote from the city — extended [another] thousand cubits; and [that] in these [it] was possible to plow, to sow, and to plant vineyards; and therefore [that] those spaces, joined to the former, [were] truly of 2000 cubits in every quarter of the land. This fiction Abulensis and Paul of Burgos disapprove — and deservedly. For [they] are, as [it] appeared from the previous question, all these [things] empty [vain] — since pastures alone were given to the Levites.
Sixthly: Rabbi Nehemias [Nehemannus] will [have it] that, around each city, a square is to be taken, whose individual sides are of 500 cubits. But how, hence, are the spaces drawn out from the very walls of the ramparts [to] 1000 cubits? For the whole square indeed is of 2000 cubits [in perimeter]; but the spaces are not 2000 cubits toward the East, nor toward the West, nor toward the other parts.
Seventhly: Paul of Burgos, in [his] “addition” (on ch. 35 of Num.), describes a similar square around the cities, but whose individual sides are of 2000 cubits; and [that], from the walls of the cities, as [if] from a center, the spaces are of 1000 cubits. And he says the former verse treats of these 1000 [cubits]; [and] the latter [verse treats] of the 2000 cubits of the individual sides, which are extended toward all quarters. This pleases Arias Montanus, in ch. 14 of this book; but he adds three [points]. First: [that] a square of this kind exists only when the city would occupy no space, and when from it — as [if] from a point, devoid of all magnitude — lines of 1000 cubits would be drawn in every direction. Secondly: but when the city is posited to obtain some magnitude — as [it] truly always obtains — lines of 1000 cubits can indeed be drawn from it in every direction; but from these no square will result. For as much as [is] given to the city’s magnitude, so much assuredly will be subtracted from the square. As if, for example,
(col. 1243)
[…continued from col. 1242.] if the city were square, whose individual sides were 100 cubits long, 400 cubits will be lacking from the sides of that greater square — that is, four little squares, whose individual sides are 100 cubits. Third [point of Arias]: he gathers [that] that measure of the squares is here indicated, from the phrase which is used in the latter verse in Hebrew. For since in the former verse [it] had been simply said [that] “the suburbs, from the wall or rampart of the city, and toward the outer part, ought to be 1000 cubits, round about,” in the latter [verse it] is not said [that] 2000 cubits ought to be numbered, but “twice a thousand in the cubit.” But that phrase is wont to be used when two sides of a square are signified — [sides] which individually have that set number, [and] the four sides [have] the quadrupled number. And therefore “twice a thousand in the cubit” here signifies [that] a square [is] to be made whose individual sides are 2000 cubits, [and] all [sides together] 8000. So elsewhere “six in the cubit,” that is, a square whose each side is 6 cubits, [and] the whole 24. And concerning that phrase the same author [Arias] refers the Reader to his “Thubalcain,” and the book “On fabrics [structures]” in the sacred Apparatus of the Bibles — where, however, I see no solid proof. Yet [it] is an ingenious and erudite explanation.
Eighthly, and lastly: Masius (in ch. 14) bids [that], from the city’s wall toward the east, and the other quarters, lines of a thousand cubits be drawn. Two such opposite lines are of two thousand cubits; and from the extremity of the one to the extremity of the other — the city-space, which is in their middle, [being] passed over — [there] are two thousand cubits. And therefore, if you place yourself on the city wall, [and] look at the suburbs in whatever direction, [they] will be of 1000 cubits; and conversely, if, placed at the extremity of the suburbs, you look only as far as the very walls of the city. But if, standing at one extremity of the same suburbs, you turn [your] eyes to the other extremity, [they] will be — the city always (as I said) [being] omitted — two thousand cubits, from whatever to whatever opposite quarter the view and measurement is made [in] this manner.
[Compass-rose diagram.] A round city is drawn at the center, with four wall-points on its circumference and four outer (suburb-edge) points at the ends of the four cardinal lines:
Quarter City-wall point Outer (suburb) point North — Septentrio (top) E C South — Meridies (bottom) F D East — Oriens (left) g A West — Occidens (right) H B The explanation (keyed to the figure): 1. The city is [the square] “e·f·g·h.” 2. From the wall of the city “g” toward the east as far as “a,” [there] are 1000 cubits. Similarly toward the west, from the wall “h” as far as “b”; likewise from “f” as far as “d,” and from “e” as far as “c.” And so, from the wall, the suburbs are of 1000 cubits, as v. 4 says. 3. But from “a” as far as “b” [there] are 2000 cubits — the city-space “d·g” [being] omitted. So from “c” to “d,” “e·f” [being] omitted; and the reverse. And so, in every quarter, v. 5 numbers 2000 cubits.
This exposition certainly seems most consonant with the text — since in the former verse (4) [it] is so expressly said “from the wall,” but in the latter [verse] the measurement of the suburbs is made “from quarter to quarter”; and in that [latter verse] [it] is even added, “[that] the cities are in the middle of those quarters” — as if [it] clearly admonished [that] their interior space [is] by no means to be numbered, but only its exterior amburbial [around-the-city] spaces, proceeding from one side to the opposite other — that is, from East to West, from North to South, and the reverse. Nor does that exposition fit only if the city be round, but also if [it be] in any way figured and angular — three-cornered, four-cornered, five-cornered, and so on — provided [that] from each side of the wall, toward the four quarters of the world, the lines are said [to be] perpendicular; according to which the measurement is wont to be made by the Mathematicians, as our [commentary] on the 1st chapter “of the Sphere” teaches — [and] Clavius, from Ptolemy’s book “On the analemma.” But then, whatever figure the city’s walls have, the [outer suburb-]walls too obtain the same [figure], being described by equal perpendiculars.
[Shape-figures.] A row of figures illustrates the same for cities of various shapes — a triangle, a square, a diamond [rotated square], a pentagon, and a hexagon — each with perpendicular lines radiating outward from the middle of every side (and a small mark for the city at the center), so that the surrounding suburb-boundary repeats the city’s own figure.