Addition to Joshua

Note: They were not circumcised on the eighth day; such was the command to Abraham (Gen. 17). But because of some cause or occasion, the fathers delayed circumcising their sons, as stated in the Postil on Exodus 12, at the end, where it is said of the Israelites being in Egypt: it is said clearly that the Jews exiting Egypt, loving their sons too inordinately, left them uncircumcised, fearing that death or infirmity might happen to them from the circumcision. This is in the Postil. There it is said as a sign that the son of Moses was circumcised by his mother on the journey, so that Moses would not be killed by the angel because of the sin of the son's lack of circumcision, as appears in Exodus 4. It must be presumed that since Moses omitted the rite of circumcision, at least for a time, the other Israelites, less instructed, would have done the same. Therefore, when at the beginning of the first month, prior to the exit of Israel from Egypt, the command was given to Moses concerning the taking of the Paschal lamb and its immolation, of whose rite and religion it was that an uncircumcised man should not eat of it (Exodus 12), it must be said that in Egypt, as the Paschal time approached, a general circumcision of all the sons of Israel was made, who for some reason (as is stated above) had omitted circumcision. Regarding this, the circumcision performed by Joshua is called the second, although no other circumcision intervened between those two of which mention is made, especially since it is said here in the book of Joshua, chapter 5, that the people born in the desert were uncircumcised. To say, therefore, that that circumcision was celebrated in Egypt on the same night that the firstborn of Egypt were struck, as the Hebrews say, is fictional and has no authority nor likeness to truth, despite the reasons alleged by the Postil. But to say that as the Paschal time approached, specifically after the beginning of the first month and up to the 14th of the same, when the sons of Israel were in a great multitude, the circumcision was made for the coming Paschal solemnity, is entirely necessary. But what the Postil objects, that there is no mention in Scripture of an Egyptian circumcision, does not seem to hold. For even if there is no explicit mention, there is a tacit one, as is evident from what has been said. That which is also objected concerning the impediment of travel would be valid if they had been circumcised on the same night that they had set out, which is not said, but they anticipated it by some few days. For they knew the hour and day of their departure from divine revelation, as is evident in Exodus; hence they could anticipate by a time sufficient for their healing. It is different in the desert, where the time of travel proceeded from the lifting of the cloud, which was unknown to them, as is evident in Exodus, chapter 40, and in many other places. The same must be said to the third reason which the Postil makes, that it would hold if the circumcision had been performed on the night of the departure, and not otherwise.

Replica

4

In chapter 5 of Joshua, when the Postil explained the circumcision commanded here by Joshua as being the second with respect to that which had been commanded to Abraham, for that was the first and this is the second, Burgensis Paul of Burgos opposes it with weak reasons, asserting that at first there was no circumcision of the sons of Israel, because no one in the time of Abraham was a son of Israel, and therefore this, which is of the sons of Israel, cannot be called second with respect to that. I say: that at the time of this institution, neither Israel nor any son of his existed. Yet this circumcision was instituted through the son of Israel, and not only for his sons, but for those willing to be joined to their rite, as is expressly stated in Genesis 17. That, however, which Burgensis adds for the color of his opinion seems fictional, namely that the Jews being in Egypt did not circumcise their sons. For it is not probable that there was such a barbarity of that people, and to have named its own firstborn (Exodus 13), if this transgression of circumcision had existed among the people, as Burgensis invents. Nor is that which the Postil cites (Exodus 12) valid. For the Postil does not say explicitly that the Jews, but that some Jews, loving their sons too inordinately, left them uncircumcised, fearing that from the circumcision itself death or infirmity might occur. Those, therefore, who had remained uncircumcised up to the exit from Egypt needed to be circumcised before they ate the Passover. And because there were few or none, for that reason, when mention was made of the rite of eating the Passover (Exodus 12), it is not said of the circumcision of the sons of Israel, but of servants, pilgrims, and aliens, who were not to be admitted uncircumcised to the eating of the Passover, which rule in that rite was to be the same for the settler and the native, as is said there. If, therefore, some Jews had delayed circumcision for inordinate causes, and had performed it before the exit from Egypt, such circumcision would have been private and particular, not specially commanded, nor solemnly executed, as was the first in the time of Abraham, and the second here on the hill of foreskins, of which it is spoken here. Although Burgensis alleges regarding Moses, that he delayed the circumcision of his son, it has no place here, because he would have done the uncircumcision not from inordinate love, nor from a precept, but from fear of his wife and those pertaining to her. This son was circumcised on the way when that fear ceased, about which matter see Exodus 4. Nor does Burgensis succeed in the solution of the Postil's argument. For he avoids the Postil's argument, where it argues that in Scripture there is no mention of a solemn circumcision, either commanded or performed in Egypt, which is said to be the first, with respect to which this is called the second. This argument is often considered the Achilles' heel for Burgensis, because he always argues from authority negatively. Burgensis, in solving, says that a tacit mention is made of that circumcision, which however has been shown to be false. For the sons of Israel are excluded there rather than included, since in such a respect of first and second it would be necessary for an explicit mention to be made. That which can be said to satisfy Burgensis and the part of his admirers is that second ought to refer to the solemn precept of the circumcision itself, which was first made to Abraham, as appears in Genesis 17. Secondly, here in Joshua 5, it is not read that God had given another solemn command concerning circumcision, unless there and here. Let this construction, therefore, be built as follows: Circumcise the sons of Israel a second time, that is, in the instruction for the second time commanded, because it was first commanded to Abraham. This construction resonates with what follows. "This, however, is the reason for the second circumcision." And it does not add "of the sons of Israel," to signify that it is the circumcision commanded solemnly for the second time. By this, the argument made here by Burgensis is removed.

Second Circumcision

Nicholas of Lyra

Division

Jericho, however. Here begins the second principal part of this book, concerning the conflict and acquisition of the land. And first, concerning the acquisition of Jericho. Second, concerning the acquisition of Ai, chapter 7. Third, concerning the defeat of five kings, chapter 10. Fourth, concerning the defeat of several kings gathered together, chapter 11. The first is divided into two parts, namely into the principal part and the incidental. The second is mentioned in the beginning of chapter 7. Concerning the capture of Jericho, first the mode of capture is taught. Second, the act of execution is subjoined, where it says: "And when Joshua had finished all things," etc. Concerning the first, it must be known that God taught Joshua the mode of capture, and Joshua announced [it to the people.]

5

[This column continues the argument regarding the circumcision rite, refuting Burgensis's claim that no such rite occurred before the desert, reiterating that the text implies a solemn second command following the initial Abrahamic covenant.]

Nicholas of Lyra

And it is clear that the text is little except for those interpreting it. "And no one dared enter" to help those enclosed in the city, "or go out" to flee for their own safety. "And the Lord said to Joshua." Some say with probability that the Lord taught Joshua through an angel appearing to him, as has been said of those things which follow, namely the mode of taking the city.

a The World.

b c Worldly cunning: or constructed.

c Father Christ.

Jericho, however, Chapter VI: "Jericho was closed and fortified," [due to the fear] of the sons of Israel, "and no one dared enter or go out." "And the Lord said to Joshua: Behold I have delivered into your hands Jericho." In which not only the command which the Lord gave to Joshua is stated, but the cause of the given command is promised, on the part of the obstinacy of Jericho, when it is said: "closed and fortified," and secondly on the part of divine foreknowledge, faithfully and fortified in faith and customs it is sophistically argued. Joshua, however, through whom Christ is signified, not only in deeds but also in name (as has been said concerning the name), organizes the army for this city: i.e., those who are the priests carrying the ark of the Lord, by whom are signified doctors in writing, and doctors in schools explaining the Sacred Scripture. Which is well signified by the ark, for in it the divine mysteries are contained. There were also seven other priests sounding with trumpets, by whom are signified the preachers themselves. Isaiah 58: "Cry, cease not, as a trumpet exalt your voice, and announce to my people their wicked deeds, and to the house of Jacob their sins." By the seven trumpets can be understood the seven virtues, which preach for the destroying of the seven contrary vices. They were to go around by sounding seven times. And that the whole time is revolved by the septenary of days, therefore through these seven days the whole course of time in which the city of God fights against the city of the devil is signified. On the seventh day the circuit is made seven times, to signify that in the seventh age of the world the aforementioned [battle] would be made stronger, which already was made in the time of the martyrs, and will be even stronger in the time of the Antichrist. And that the fall of the city is in the last circuit signifies the final ruin of the Antichrist himself. 2 Thessalonians 2: "Whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth." By this, however, Rahab with her own is saved because of the preservation of the spies; it signifies that some who were of the city of the devil are finally saved because of works of mercy, and are placed in the city of God.

d

Morally. a Jericho, etc. From Jericho the city of the devil is signified, which by reason of obstinacy in sins: and

Morally.