The doctors have gone into two opinions. For to some these [things] seem to have been said at Silo [Shiloh], but to others in Sichem [Shechem]; and each [opinion] indeed is supported by the text. For thus the Seventy have (v. 1): Καὶ συνήγαγεν Ἰησοῦς πάσας τὰς φυλὰς Ἰσραὴλ εἰς σηλώ [Kai synēgagen Iēsous pasas tas phylas Israēl eis Sēlō, “And Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shiloh”]: and below again (v. 25): Ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ νόμον καὶ κρίσιν ἐν σηλώ [Edōken autō nomon kai krisin en Sēlō, “he gave him law and judgment in Shiloh”]: and this reading and opinion B. Augustine followed (q. 27 on Joshua). But the Hebrew text, the Chaldean [Targum], and our Latin [have] (v. 1): “Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel in Sichem.” And so too some Greeks read εἰς συχέμ [eis Sychem, “to Shechem”], as the annotation on the Seventy notes. Yet either opinion can be deemed true. For indeed, while we depart from Joshua’s city and dwelling [Timnath-serah], no place occurs [that is] more convenient, none more holy, and — for all [the things] which were now to be said and done — [none] more apt [than Shiloh]. And these words proclaim, as [it were] with a voice uttered [from] Silo [Shiloh], (v. 1): “and they stood in the sight of the Lord” — [they] who, namely, had gathered at Joshua’s summons; or, as [it] is in the Hebrew: “they set themselves before the Lord” — which, in the Septuagint, is itself attributed to Joshua, because by his summons and command [they] thus stood: ἔστησεν αὐτοὺς ἀπέναντι τοῦ Θεοῦ [estēsen autous apenanti tou Theou, “he set them before God”]. And again, that [passage] (v. 26): “He took a great stone, and set it under the oak, which was in the sanctuary of the Lord, and said to all the people: Behold this stone shall be to you for a testimony.” But since the Hebrew and Latin text names Sichem [Shechem] so expressly, [this] is not to be denied, but [is] so to be explained: that, in these texts, “Sichem” is named — not the city Sichem itself, but the Sichemite field [territory], in which Silo [Shiloh] was. For so, below in this chapter (v. 32), Joseph’s bones are said [to be] buried “in Sichem,” when nevertheless [they] were situated not in the city, but in the city’s field — as there [it] is subjoined to them: “in the part of the field which Jacob had bought of the sons of Hemor.” And, that [there] may be no doubt that this field was outside the city, let Gen. 33:18 and the following [verse] be read. Nor are similar modes of speaking lacking in profane writers — which the Jurisconsults also note, when [they] exclude [a person’s suburban estate] from [his] being said to be “at Rome” [Romae esse]. In both [places], therefore, that gathering took place, and so [were spoken] the Joshuan words; but at Silo properly [strictly], at Sichem broadly. And hence [it] appears [that] the preceding gathering was held rather in Joshua’s city than at Silo — unless one should wish [there to be] one and the same speech [for] the preceding and this chapter, and one and the same assembly [comitia]. But how inept would the splitting of those chapters be? how perturbed [confused] the narration of things? how absurd the inculcation [repetition] of those same chapters? Yet [that there] was one gathering, but held on different days, and indeed in the city of Sichem itself, Caietanus [Cajetan] holds. For hence [he reasons that] their faces [were] turned toward the forefront of the tabernacle [that was] absent and fixed at Silo
(col. 1271)
[…their faces, turned toward the forefront of the Silo tabernacle, all turned that] direction; and so [they are said] to be called [summoned] here as standing in the Lord’s sight. But Masius thinks [that] the tabernacle [was] brought from Silo into Sichem. But [those things] which I said [are] more certain, and more congruent with the text.