An Exposition of Genesis

Preface

Moses was beloved of God, and men . . . The Lord gave him a law of life and instruction, that he might teach Jacob his covenant, and Israel his judgments. Sirach 45:1, 6.

In these words the famous prophet and lawgiver, Moses most-mild, is praised in several lofty ways. First, from the excellence of his gifts of sanctifying grace, as he is declared: Beloved of God, etc. For he was clearly equipped with so much holiness, agreeableness, and mildness, that he might be beloved and pleasing to both God and men. Second, from the prominence of his gifts of freely given grace, as it is added: The Lord gave him a law of life. That is, he appointed him the lawgiver of his people and the mediator between the people and himself. For the making and enacting of laws as an apostle and prophet pertains to the gifts of freely given grace. Third, he was entrusted with the loftiness of his office, as it follows: That he might teach Jacob, etc. That is, he himself was made the teacher of the Israelites. For he was given the law for this purpose, that he might show the Jewish people the Old Testament and divine precepts.

However, a distinction should be made between the law of the gospel and Mosaic law. For the law of the gospel contains and confers grace, namely because it includes the collected and combined sacraments of grace, which produce what they describe. The law of Moses, on the other hand, does not. Because of that the Apostle calls it the ministration of death⊕2 Corinthians 3:7. and damnation; not because it emerged directly as such, but incidentally, not offering grace and virtue for fulfilling what it commanded. Thus, the Lord testified through Ezechiel: I gave them statutes that were not good, and a law in which they shall not live.⊕Ezekiel 20:25. Nevertheless, the same law is rightly called the law of life, insofar as it contained divine precepts, particularly regarding morals, through which the fulfillment of a life of grace was fostered, and a life of glory was merited—not by force or virtue of the law, but by faith shaped by the future coming of Christ. Hence the Apostle acknowledges after all: The law indeed is holy and good.⊕Romans 7:12. Furthermore, the same law was a law of discipline, i.e., of rigidity and chastisement, since it imposed inflexible punishments on its transgressors, as in Hebrews it is stated: A man making void the law of Moses, dies without any mercy under two or three witnesses.⊕Hebrews 10:28. For that reason, it is called a law of fear. It is also called a law of instruction, i.e., useful teachings, since it was a renewal and declaration of natural law, prohibited idolatry, and prevented various errors. Indeed it presignified and foretold the mysteries of Christ and the Church, and it was largely arranged according to gospel law. For that reason, the Savior said to the Jews: If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me.⊕John 5:46.

And so, at the bidding and instruction of God, Moses related to his people the law and everything pertaining to it, writing in five books. These books contain some passages that are obscure and difficult, and some which are clear and easy. I now intend to put forth explanations for all of them, as much as the Spirit of truth will deem worthy to provide, devoting extensive attention to the more difficult ones, and quickly touching on the easier ones. To all that is to be suitably completed, I call for encouragement and illumination, worshiping the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, who with the eternal Father and his only begotten Son is one eternal God, true and most high.

Article 1

On the various translations of the Old Testament, a comparison of the translations of the Septuagint and Saint Jerome to each other, and that in which Jerome and Augustine appear to agree and disagree concerning the Septuagint translation.

The Scriptures of the Old Testament were translated long before the incarnation of Christ by the seventy interpreters,Septuagint comes from septuaginta, the Latin word for seventy. whose translation was used by the Church up to the time of Jerome. But after the coming of Christ, several others translated these same Scriptures. First came Aquila, then Theodotion, then later Symmachus. There was also another translation whose author is unknown, which is called the fifth edition. All of these were translated from Hebrew into Greek. There were several others as well who translated these Scriptures from Greek into Latin. Eventually Jerome, led by many reasonable motives, was the first to translate these Scriptures from Hebrew into Latin. But of these matters, more will be said later on.

In short, concerning the seventy interpreters and their translation, Augustine says in the eighteenth book of The City of God that while Eleazar was high priest of the Jews, they had been sent to Ptolemy, king of Egypt.Ptolemy II Philadelphus (309-246 BC). King Ptolemy himself, being a prudent man and wishing to test the fidelity of the interpreters, ordered them to separate so each one of them might translate the same Scripture apart from the rest. This being done, it was found that they had translated so harmoniously that they did not disagree with each other, neither in any particular word, nor in the order of words. Thus, it was all interpreted in the same way by each person, as if they might have been only one translator—which was in fact very astounding and extraordinary, even divinely inspired, as it could not otherwise have happened except by God. And indeed the one Spirit was truly in all these men. And for that reason, they received such an extraordinary gift from God, so that through this, the authority of those Scriptures might be commended as truly divine, not human, to advance the belief of the Gentiles—which after the coming of Christ we see fulfilled. Augustine states this concisely in the previously named book, chapter 42.

In addition, in chapter 43 of the same book, he writes these words: There have been others who translated these Scriptures into Greek, yet the Church received the translation of the seventy interpreters as if there were no other; and it is used by the Greek faithful, most of whom do not know there is any another. In our times there was also the priest Jerome, a most learned man, who translated these same Scriptures into Latin speech not from Greek, but from Hebrew. And although his translation is acknowledged by the Jews to be conveying truth, and they do in fact affirm the seventy interpreters have made mistakes in many places, still the churches of Christ conclude that no translation is to be preferred to the authority of the Septuagint. For, even if the one Spirit of God had not appeared in them, but in the manner of learned men they compared the words of their translations between them so that what pleased them all might remain, still no single interpreter should be preferred to them. But since so great a sign of divinity appeared in them, namely that they all separately translated so harmoniously (as was previously mentioned), it is clear that anyone else who truly translated these Scriptures is in agreement with the translation of those seventy, or if he is translating differently that those seventy, then they had spoken prophetically. For the same Spirit who was in the Prophets when they spoke the words of the Scriptures was likewise in the seventy while they translated them, whereby the Spirit was able to say different things through the seventy interpreters, and in the same way to omit certain things as well as to insert others—showing both, namely the authors of the Scriptures and the seventy interpreters, to have been prophets. In fact, it is said by Augustine in the fifteenth book of The City of God:In chapter 14 when he speaks of the different lifespans given in Genesis in the Greek and Hebrew texts. The seventy interpreters are rightly believed to have received the Spirit of God, so if they altered or stated anything differently, there should be no doubt it was divinely done. Augustine states the same thing in several other places. For instance in the fourth book of On Christian Doctrine,In chapter 7 when he contrasts the alterations of the Septuagint translators with the metaphors of the prophet Amos. he acknowledges that the seventy interpreters, whose interpretation was divinely inspired by the Spirit, therefore translated some passages differently than shown in the Hebrew, since from this diversity the reader's attention is moved to careful study of the spiritual sense.

And so, given these premises, it is understood that Jerome was aware of the seventy interpreters and their translation. After all, in his own prologue on Genesis, he says among other things: I do not know who was the first to construct with his lying the seventy cells of Alexandria into which they (those interpreters) were separated so each could write—with Aristeas, the hyperaspistFrom the Greek ὑπερασπιστής, literally meaning over-shielder. of Ptolemy (i.e., protector or guardian), and Josephus having recorded no such thing, but rather that they had been assembled in the same hall and translated by comparison, not by prophesying. For it is one thing to be a seer, and another to be an interpreter. Those seventy interpreted the Scriptures before the coming of Christ, and what they did not know, they brought forward with uncertain meanings. In these words it seems that Jerome differs from Augustine in three ways. First, because he asserts that what is said of the seventy having translated in separate cells or rooms is fabricated or erroneous. Second, because he claims that they had not interpreted in a prophetic spirit. And third, because he states that they had not understood or comprehended certain words which they translated, and had therefore brought them forward ambiguously.

In addition, in his prologue on Job he says: It cannot be that those very same ones who have been observed to have omitted many things, may not also be shown to have erred in some other things, especially in Job. In these words Jerome says it is necessary to concede that the seventy, who left out some things, also made mistakes in other things. Yet at first appearance, that does not seem to be expressed well. Likewise, nor do the words of Jerome harmonize with what is depicted elsewhere—especially since the holy Apostles and Evangelists, and indeed the universal Church up to the time of Jerome, are found to have been using the Septuagint translation. Jerome actually writes in his prologue on the book of Chronicles: If the edition (that is the translation) of the seventy interpreters had remained pure and exactly as it was turned by them into Greek,The reference text incorrectly says Latin. you would have urged me superfluously, Chromatius,Saint Chromatius, a bishop of Aquileia in the late fourth century. that I should translate the Hebrew scrolls into Latin speech for you. And shortly afterwards: But now that genuine and ancient translation is corrupted and violated. In these words he insinuates that the seventy had truly and sufficiently translated the Scriptures, but their translation became corrupted after a while. He appears to have hinted at this again in his prologue on Ezra.

Article 2

How to make sense of the previous discussion.

Concerning what was introduced above, one might ask whose statements might be agreed to more—Jerome or Augustine? To that, Henry of LangensteinDenis refers to him as Henry of Hesse. responds in his work on Genesis that the position of Jerome seems to be more true due to the fact that Jerome appears to have been a man of much authority on account of his way of life, his knowledge, and also his experience—especially concerning the divine Scriptures, languages, and history. Thus even Augustine said of Jerome, as included in the Decretum Gratiani:⊕Decretum, C.2 q.7 c.34. Although a bishop may be greater than a priest according to the customary use of the words, Jerome is nevertheless greater than Augustine.This quote is from Augustine's Letter 82 to Jerome. Similarly, the reasoning introduced by Jerome in his prologue on Genesis is powerful, yet the conclusions are weak according to the previously mentioned Doctor of the Church (Augustine). For it does not follow that because Aristeas and Josephus record nothing of those cells, that the seventy did not therefore translate separately in cells.

Nevertheless, as far as I can tell Jerome's argument appears to be widely accepted. For in separately creating such a unified translation as Augustine tells it, it would have been a most extraordinary and divine work. It strongly appears that Aristeas and Josephus, in describing the process by which the Septuagint translation was made, should by no means have passed that over in silence. Besides, Augustine claims nothing on his own behalf, but only generally says: It is reasonably related that the seventy may have translated in just as many cells,Possibly a reference to On Christian Doctrine, book 2, chapter 15. and he does not express from what source this might have been related.

Translation in Progress