Joshua struck [made] a covenant with the people, as [it] is narrated (v. 25). But about the manner, some [things] are straightway expressed, and others are inquired into. [The things] which are expressed are four. First: [He] set before the people precepts and judgments in Sichem. Caietanus [Cajetan] thinks these precepts and judgments [were] handed down in the previous chapter, and thence gathers [that] one and the same [gathering] of this
(col. 1279)
[…gathers that] one and the same [occasion] of this and of the previous speech [is the case]. But the inference [collectio] is weak. For these two names [precepts and judgments] can be so expounded that, by this chapter too, [there] are contained in them the matters subjoined [to them]. For what [is] the whole exhortation of this chapter, but [an exhortation] to observing God’s precepts and judgments? Then all the other Interpreters say [that] here [it] is only said generally what was done, but not individually which precepts and judgments were set forth. Radak [David Kimhi], moreover, takes “to set forth” [proponere] for “monuments, to commit to memory”; and then [he] thinks the Hebrew “lo” [לו] superfluous — that is, “to them [ipsis]” — just as elsewhere I noted “to go to himself” for “simply to go.” But this exposition is repugnant to the Seventy, and to the Latin text, and to other Rabbis. For to these, “to set forth” is “to recite.” For [they] say [that] Joshua, in imitation of the dying Moses, publicly recited the chapters [heads] of the law — all [of them], or the principal [ones]. “Which indeed,” says Masius, “is credible.” Yet [Masius] himself prefers [that] “to set forth” here be “to impose,” so that the sense be: that, in the conditions of the covenant, this [was] imposed by Joshua on the Israelites — that [they] should keep the statutes and judgments of the law. But how “statutes” and “judgments” differ, the same [one] teaches from R. Moses Albo. But of these elsewhere.
Second: “He wrote also all these words in the volume of the law of the Lord” (v. 26) — that is, this covenant, and these admonitions and stipulations made by Joshua hitherto, and the responses and attestations by the people itself — [he wrote these] into that book of the law which Moses had once written: and [he recorded them] either beside the ark of the covenant, as [it] seems to Masius, or in the [ark] itself, as [it seems] to very many others. But whether [he] wrote [it] by himself, or through others, I have nothing to say. But to the Novators Junius and Tremellius only [it] pleases — what [is] a wonder — [that it] be attributed to the Priests of the tribe [of Levi], so that [they] say: “Joshua commanded [that] the Priests should record [it] in the book of the law of God (Deut. 31:26), which [book] they kept with them [penes se], and preserved, deposited in the sanctuary, before Jehovah.” So [think] those enemies of the Priests.
Third: “And he took a great stone, and set it under the oak, which was in the sanctuary of the Lord” (v. 26). For “he set” [posuit] [it] is, in Hebrew, “he erected, he set up” [erexit, statuit] — so that [it] may even have been a statue [pillar], and so seems to be so called (Judges 9:9) — of great magnitude indeed, but of a formless figure and shape, rude and unpolished, as the question [q. 30] indicates. S. Augustine [notes] nothing except that some inscription about that covenant seems to have been incised on it, as its end [purpose] declares — concerning which [there is more] not much after; and the Chaldean Paraphrast [Targum] expressly affirms this. But [as to] what [sort] that oak [was] “in the sanctuary of the Lord,” and how the stone [was] erected under it here? The Hebrew name for “oak” — “ala” [אלה], or “ela,” & “allon” [אלון] — is wont to be expounded variously. First: by Raschi [Rashi] here — not “a tree,” but “a threshold” [limen] — without cause, and against all [others]. Second: by others, “a tree”; but that [word] is also turned [translated], [in] the Seventy, τερέμινθος [terebinthos, “terebinth”], that is — as also, [in] q. 30, S. Augustine reads [it] — “terebinth”; by others, “holm-oak, pine, fir, elm, chestnut.” But [it] is indeed true, [that] which [is] noted by certain Rabbis: [that] the names of stones, trees, and beasts in the Hebrew tongue are either not accurately known, or polysemous [of many meanings]. Rightly, thereupon, our Interpreter [Vulgate] calls [it] “terebinth” (Gen. 35:4), and thereupon “oak” [here], as Masius shows. And this oak is asserted by the Rabbis and Christians [to be] the same in number [= the identical tree] under which, in the Sichemite field, Abraham sat, when [he] first came into the land of Chanaan — where [there was] also an altar — after [he] had heard the Lord appearing [to him], and promising that land, and had built [it] (Gen. 12:7); and under which Jacob buried the idols (Gen. 35:4). But [as to whether] this tree was “in the sanctuary of the Lord” — as [was said] — [there] is not one exposition. First, indeed, some take “sanctuary” [sacrarium] improperly, for a sacred place: namely, where [something] was sacrificed to God, and [where] something was done in [the matter of] his worship and honor. And so Masius & Caietanus [Cajetan] call the place of this oak a “sanctuary,” because, as I have already said, Abraham had once erected an altar there, and Jacob had condemned the Gods into darkness and buried [them there]; or [they take “sanctuary”] for a place where [there] would be a newly-erected altar, yet without a tabernacle — which was at Silo [Shiloh]. Others, in truth, take “sanctuary” properly, but at first so that [it] was Sichem [Shechem], [to which] the tabernacle [was] translated at the time of the assembly [comitia], and [so that] this oak was comprehended in its court [atrium] then: and so Abulensis (q. 19). Others [say that] the tabernacle, as I said above, remained at Silo, and expound this place in two ways. For [some] Rabbis say [that] their preposition “be” [בְּ] is taken for “beside [iuxta]” — so that this oak stood not precisely in the sanctuary, but near [prope] it, in the Sichemite field. Others, in truth, prefer [that] this tree was in the court of the Siloan tabernacle itself; and both this — with those [things] which [were] said about the place of this gathering (q. 1) — would cohere. But [it] is objected: [that it] was forbidden (Deut. 16:21) “lest a grove [lucus] and any tree be planted beside the Lord’s altar.” Some respond [that it] was indeed not lawful to plant [a tree], but, if [it] had already once been planted, [it] could have been left [standing]. But Abulensis rightly rejects that: [that it] was against the end [purpose] of the law — which was, lest [there] be any occasion or appearance of idolatry, since the Gentiles were wont to have a certain divine honor for groves and trees, or to worship nefarious Gods through arbors of this kind. But for that end, [it was] not only [not lawful] to plant [one], but [it was] not even lawful to leave [standing] the trees — which [Abulensis] also proves by reasons adjoined [in] Philo, bk. 2 On Monarchy: so that, on that account, [he] who recently (bk. 1 On the [golden] calf, ch. 11) said [there] was a grove here — the learned man Moncaeus — is in no way to be heard. Abulensis himself, therefore, responds [that it] was not lawful [for the tree] to be left, if indeed the tabernacle were to be fixed there for long; but if [it] were applied there only for some few days, [it] was lawful. And so indeed [it] was now done in Sichem. But when the tabernacle was placed somewhere, all that cleanness and sanctity which the Lord required was to be employed — even if [it] had to stay there for only one day. Then [to the objection that it] was denied above [that] a translation of the tabernacle to Sichem was made: I respond, therefore, [that] the standing [status] of one or another tree in the subdial [open-air] and open court of the tabernacle is not forbidden — especially if [it] had already been there before, and its use [purpose] is agreed [to be] right and simple [innocent]. For [as to] what Abulensis objects — [that] in the text [it is] “every forbidden tree” — I respond [that it is] not forbidden as [though] a member distinct from the grove: but [that it forbids] every [tree] which is part of a grove — or “a grove out of every tree” [lucum ex omni arbore] — as, from the Hebrew and Greek, the Latin is rightly understood. For all [these authorities] speak by apposition, which is best resolved into “a grove out of any kind of trees.” But one or another tree [a single tree] is not a grove. And [it] could, most fittingly [of all], [that] this so-aged oak — ennobled by so many and so great things, by so many and so great Patriarchs — be left [standing], since by its very aspect [sight it leads] to the true religion of God, and [to the memory] of those Saints
(col. 1281)
[…and might excite the imitation] of those Saints.
Fourth: Joshua said (v. 27) to all the people: “Behold this stone shall be to you for a testimony, that it hath heard all the words of the Lord which he hath spoken to you.” For so [it is] rightly corrected in the Latin Roman Bibles [the Clementine Vulgate], since certain copies had “which you have heard” [quod audieritis]. For the booksellers [librarii] of those copies shuddered to attribute hearing to a stone. But by the Hebrew and the Greek Seventy [it] is attributed [to the stone], and the stone is said to have heard all the words of the Lord. Which, however, is explained by all through a trope [figure of speech] — but variously. (1) As to the effect, as if [he] should say: this stone so attests all [the things] which the Lord has spoken, as if, in the manner of witnesses, [it] had heard those [words] with its [own] ears; and this the Chaldean paraphrast [Targum] means when [he] translates: “Behold this stone shall be to us, as [it were] two stone tables of the covenant. For we make it for a testimony. For the words which are inscribed on it report all the words which the Lord has spoken to us.” (2) So that “to hear” is “to obey”; and therefore not of the Israelites, but of God, the stone here is said to have heard the words. For all creatures obey God at [his] nod. So nearly [thinks] Caietanus [Cajetan]. (3) So that, through prosopopoeia [personification], hearing is attributed to the stone, for showing the magnitude of the matter — as Theodoret observes (q. 19), just as [in] Isaiah 1[:2]: “Hear, O heavens,” and Deut. 32:1: “Hear, O ye heavens, [the things] which I speak, let the earth hear the words of my mouth.” But here the end [purpose] of this stone, or statue [pillar], [was] namely to attest perpetually, and to bring back into the memory of all, the compact [pactio] of this covenant.
But this [passage] has great emphasis, which the Novators [Junius] and Tremellius removed from its [proper] place, out of their zeal for novelty, when [they] translated: “This stone itself was present [interfuit], attesting all the discourses of Joshua, by which [he] spoke with us.” But beautifully and truly here (q. 30) St. Augustine notes four [things] through anagogy. First: [that] by that stone is signified CHRIST the Lord, who is “the corner stone” [lapis angularis] (1 Peter 2; Psalm 117), “the spiritual rock” [petra spiritalis] (Exod. 17:1; 1 Corinthians 10). And this anagogy of the Holy Father R. Moses Nehemannus [Nachmanides] also notes and embraces — which [is] greatly to be observed. Second: [that] against the unbelieving Jews this stone cries out; and therefore also Joshua said to those [Jews]: “Lest perhaps hereafter you deny [it], and lie to our God.” Third: [that], since already once Moses had struck a covenant with the Israelite people (Exod. 24), by this now iteration and renewal of the covenant — instituted by Joshua — is signified the new testament, which the true Jesus sanctioned: [that] by Moses [it is] established [to have been] so done, when [he] struck that first covenant, of which now the renewal is treated (Exod. 24). Nevertheless, by Moses [there] were there 12 erected stones; by Joshua only one: because those [12] signified the 12 tribes, which made peace with the Lord, but this [one] denotes the Lord, who makes peace with the tribes. Nor far from here were those other 12 stones which (ch. 8) are said [to have been] set up by Joshua, when [it was] sacrificed between the mountains Garizim and Hebal [Gerizim and Ebal]. And if [it] please to pursue the anagogy shown by St. Augustine — is not the one corner stone CHRIST JESUS? Is not [there] one highest and most solid rock, on which all the other lesser [stones] lean? Nay, in the [new] testament [there] was not need of so many symbols and figures as in the old Mosaic [one], since there all [things] were types, shadows, and images of [things] to come in the time of CHRIST the Lord. But, all these [things] being finished, the assembly [comitia] [was] dissolved: and Joshua sent the people away, each into his [own] possession (v. 28). Fourth [of Augustine’s anagogy]: [that] by the terebinth or oak tree is signified the wood of the holy cross, under which — through humility — and on which Christ the Lord (the stone already named) was erected. Yet [it] is not hence gathered that the Lord’s cross was [made] of terebinth or oak, as our Gretser proves at length against Chacón [Ciacconius] (bk. 1 On the Cross, ch. 6). And these [things] about that Joshuan covenant the text relates expressly.
Other [things], in truth, are inquired by Abulensis (q. 13 & 14). But briefly thus Masius: “It is most likely [that] here no solemn rite was omitted, so that the covenant might be in all ways most holy. And because by this compact [the people] was again, as [it were], initiated into the sacred religion, [it is likely that] not only was [there] sacrificing, but also — as [by] a certain bond — [that] partly the altar of God (as [it were] God himself), partly the people, was sprinkled with the blood of the victim by a solemn rite, as [it] is established [to have been] so done by Moses, when [he] struck that first covenant, of which now the renewal is treated (Exod. 24).” Nevertheless, by Moses [there] were there 12 erected stones; by Joshua only one.