Commentaria in Josue
Second, Andreas Masius is of opinion that Chanaan was described in twelve equal parts, and that by little papers drawn by chance from an urn, or a like manner of casting lots, to each tribe its portion of land fell, equal to that of any other tribe. But Abulensis, Question 5 on chapter 18, rightly refutes this, who with Lyranus thinks that the portions of the region were unequal.
And rightly: for the tribes were very unequal: for some were very numerous, as the tribe of Juda was double the tribe of Manasses and of Benjamin, as is plain from Numbers chapter 1. Wherefore it would have been unjust to make the tribe of Dan equal to the tribe of Juda in the portion of possession.
Third, Abulensis thinks that the surveyors and describers of Chanaan divided it into twelve unequal parts, and assigned to each tribe its part, greater or less according to its size or smallness; that they then went to the lots; and that the lots confirmed and approved the division already made by them. But this does not sufficiently agree with Scripture, which here and in Numbers chapter 26, verses 55 and 56, and Numbers chapter 33, verse 54, expressly commands the land to be divided by lot, so that what by lot has fallen to each shall fall to him, and each shall take that which by lot has fallen to him. Whence it is clear that the lot first accomplished this division, and not the partition of the describers.
Fourth, Josephus, book 5 of the Antiquities, chapter 1, relates that the names of the several tribes were drawn from an urn by lot, and that the tribe whose name was drawn first chose first, by option, for itself that part of Chanaan which it preferred above the others. In like manner the tribe drawn second chose by option a part of Chanaan for itself, and then the one drawn third, and so of the rest. But this is a mutilated and defective lot, namely of the tribes alone, not of the regions as well; nor is it so much a lot as an option and choice: but Scripture says that the land itself was to be divided by lot, and was in fact divided, and to each a portion assigned as the lot fell, not as each one’s option chose.
Fifth, more probably the Rabbis, in the book On Pacts or Contracts, part 1, chapter 2, relate that there were two urns of lots, and that into one were cast the names of the twelve tribes casting lots, and into the other the names of the described regions, and that the high priest Eleazar then shook the urn before all, and agitated it up and down; then drew out of one the name of the tribe turning up by lot and chance, and out of the other the name of the region first falling into his hand, and by this lot assigned this region to that tribe.
I say, then, that it seems more probable that the whole of Chanaan was described in twelve parts, equal not so much in size as in valuation, namely in goodness and fertility (for the greatest account was taken of this in the valuation of these lots, Josephus relates), and that these again were subdivided into other smaller ones, as is sufficiently gathered from the description of the towns through the several regions, since they had examined the greatness or smallness of the several tribes, and had made their proportion among themselves, some by a fourth part, some by a half, some by a third, etc.; some tribes were greater than others, some less, some equal, and therefore the smaller, out of the twelve portions of Chanaan already distributed, demanded for themselves, according to their smallness, either a fourth part of one portion, or a half, or a third only. The greater, on the other hand, according to their size, besides one whole twelfth portion of Chanaan, claimed by their right that there be added to themselves another fourth part of another portion, or a half, or a third: for what was taken from one smaller was added to another greater, and vice versa. This done, they cast the papers of the names of the twelve tribes into one urn, and those of the twelve portions of the region with their subdivisions, already mentioned, into the other urn, and then first drew from the one urn the name of a tribe, and from the other the name of the portion of land first turning up, and assigned it to the tribe drawn; but in geometrical proportion, according to the size or smallness of each tribe; so that, namely, according to it they drew the papers of the region which contained a whole, or half, or one and a half, or another proportion of a portion due to each tribe; for example, if we suppose the tribe of Juda to have been double the others, it must be said that a double portion of land was given to it by lot, but neighbouring and contiguous, that the whole tribe might dwell together in the same region, and one part not be torn from another by dwelling apart. Again, by a like lot the portion of each tribe was subdivided among its several families. That this was the manner of the lot and casting of lots Scripture indicates, Numbers chapters 26 and 33, and here chapters 18 and 19, where it is likewise clearly signified that the tribe whose name was first drawn by lot from the urn drew first from the other urn the lot of the region and portion that was to fall to it, and then the one drawn second, third, fourth, etc., each in the order of its lot and turn. Whence chapter 19, verse 1, it is said: “And the second lot came forth for the children of Simeon.” And verse 10: “And the third lot fell to the children of Zabulon.” And verse 17: “The fourth lot came out to Issachar.” And verse 24: “And the fifth lot fell to the tribe of the children of Aser,” etc.
Moreover the describers of the regions of Chanaan seem to have made a mistake in its first description, in the designation of the portion which fell to Juda, or at least in estimating the size and proportion of the tribe of Juda relative to the other tribes: for it is clear that too great a part fell to the tribe of Juda, from the fact that this tribe afterwards ceded some part of its region to the tribe of Simeon, as is plain from chapter 19, verse 1, indeed also to the tribe of Dan, as is plain from Saraa and Estaol, which in this chapter, verse 33, are assigned to Juda, whereas in chapter 19, verse 41, they are attributed to the tribe of Dan, and thence Samson sprang, who was a Danite. And for this reason, namely the error committed, Josue, doubtful of it, to correct it, in chapter 18 sent new describers, who a second time and more surely should describe seven lots for the seven tribes in the land still undivided, or, if it be smaller than just, even in the land already divided.