Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Preface

Preface to Benedict Pererius's Books of Commentaries on Genesis

LatineEnglish

Preface to Benedict Pererius's Books of Commentaries on Genesis.

Benedicti Pererii in libros Commentariorum in Genesim, Praefatio.

Librum Geneseos, in quo nascentis mundi primordia narrantur, et prima huius universitatis structura, omniumque partium eius dispositio atque exornatio describitur, interpretari aggredimur: arduum profecto et usquequaque impeditum opus, atque, ut nullis rhetorum coloribus depictum, nullisque humanae eloquentiae pigmentis fucatum ac speciosum, ita multijuga nec multis pervia refertum doctrina. Sed cum duabus maxime rebus constet atque aestimetur librorum claritas et nobilitas, materia atque auctoris dignitate, sane utraque res in hoc libro inprimis praeclara et eximia cernitur. Princeps enim huius voluminis materies mundus est, cuius nimirum novus exortus et exquasi natales dies, quibus a Deo procreatus est, in exordio libri a Mose celebrantur. Quid est autem mundo, in rebus a Deo conditis, mole maius, varietate admirabilius, specie magnificentius, ornatu elegantius, pulchritudine amabilius, robore valentius, ad incolumitatem ac diuturnitatem firmius,
We undertake to expound the Book of Genesis, in which the first beginnings of the nascent world are recounted, and the first structure of this universe, together with the arrangement and adornment of all its parts, is described — a task assuredly arduous and beset with difficulty at every turn; one that, just as it is painted with none of the rhetoricians' colors and is neither rouged nor made showy with any of the cosmetics of human eloquence, so too is filled with a manifold learning accessible to few. But since the renown and nobility of books rests and is appraised chiefly upon two things — the subject matter and the dignity of the author — both qualities are seen, in this book, to be especially illustrious and outstanding. For the foremost subject of this volume is the world, whose new arising and, as it were, birthdays, on which it was brought forth by God, are celebrated at the very opening of the book by Moses. And what is there, among the things established by God, greater than the world in mass, more admirable in variety, more magnificent in appearance, more elegant in adornment, more lovely in beauty, mightier in strength, more secure for its safety and endurance,1
decentissimo partium omnium ordine, miroque earum inter se quasi concentu quodam consensuque venustius, bonorum omnium copia plenius, perfectione absolutius? Denique cum dixi mundum, dixi omnia. Quid enim aut dici aut fingi potest, sive maximum sit sive minimum, quod non, ut mundi amplexu, sic mundi vocabulo comprehendatur? Iam vero si omnia Dei opera cogitatione percurramus, nullum inveniemus mundi natura vel ad investigandum abstrusius, vel ad reperiendum difficilius, vel ad cognoscendum iucundius, vel denique ad docendum utilius.
with a more fitting order of all its parts, and more graceful in a certain marvelous harmony, as it were, and concord among them, fuller in the abundance of all good things, more perfect in its completion? In short, when I have said "the world," I have said all things. For what can be either named or imagined, whether the greatest or the least, that is not embraced by the word "world" just as it is by the world's own compass? And indeed, if we run over in thought all the works of God, we shall find nothing more abstruse than the nature of the world to investigate, nothing more difficult to discover, nothing more delightful to come to know, and, finally, nothing more useful to teach.
Utilius dico: nam vel unum id quod Moses in principio huius libri verissime docuit — fide, mundus cognoscatur ac teneatur ipsum ex nihilo, ab aliquo temporis initio, esse factum a Deo — incredibile est ad cognitionem Dei mortalibus tradendam atque in eorum animis corroborandam quanta ex hoc uno efflorescat et redundet utilitas. Cui namque persuasum fuerit mundum, qui ex omni aeternitate nullus fuerat, et nulla ex materia novoque certi temporis ortu esse generatum, huic profecto nihil negotii erit persuadere esse Deum, et unum esse, et omnium rerum efficientem, conservantem, regentem, intelligentem atque providentem esse causam; eumque infinita vi ac potestate pollere; nec ulla naturae necessitate, sed sua tantum voluntate ac bonitate ad fabricandum mundum esse adductum; atque sibi ipsum ad omnia usquequaque sufficere; ex se ac se solo esse beatum, nec ad tuendam felicitatem suam ullius rei quae extra ipsum sit vel adminiculo vel accessione vel consortio indigere. Ecce tibi, uno fixo principio — id est, nova mundi effectione posita et concessa, quam ex Mose didicimus — quasi ianua quadam aditusque patefacto, quam facilis ad capessendam rerum divinarum scientiam ingressio, quamque longus fiat progressus!
I say "more useful": for take but the one thing that Moses most truly taught at the beginning of this book — that by faith the world may be known and held to have been made by God out of nothing, from some beginning of time. It is beyond belief how great a usefulness flowers and overflows from this one truth, for imparting the knowledge of God to mortals and for strengthening it in their minds. For whoever has been persuaded that the world — which through all eternity had been nothing, and was generated from no matter and by a new origin at a fixed time — to him it will surely be no trouble to be persuaded that God exists, and is one, and is the efficient, preserving, governing, knowing, and provident cause of all things; that He is mighty with infinite power and might; that He was led to fashion the world by no necessity of nature, but by His own will and goodness alone; that He suffices wholly unto Himself for all things; that He is blessed of Himself and by Himself alone, and needs nothing outside Himself — no support, increase, or fellowship — to preserve His own happiness. Behold, then: with one fixed first principle laid down and granted — namely the new making of the world, which we have learned from Moses — the door and entryway, as it were, being thrown open, how easy is the entrance upon the knowledge of divine things, and how long a progress may be made!
Sed cur Moses (nam hoc quaerat aliquis) hac de mundi origine
But why did Moses (for someone may ask this), concerning this origin of the world2
et molitione doctrinam, quae difficillimos habet explicatus nec habitura tamen erat pro varietate legentium fidem et assensum, simplici tantum narratione nudaque rerum expositione contexta tradiderit, nec ullis eam argumentationum quasi munimentis nullisque rationum adminiculis communire et confirmare voluerit? Equidem sex rationes, easque intelligentibus rerum aestimatoribus maxime probandas, afferre possum.
and its construction, deliver a teaching whose unfolding is most difficult, and which nonetheless was not going to win the belief and assent of its varied readers — handing it down by simple narrative alone and a bare exposition of the facts, and choosing not to fortify and confirm it with any defenses, as it were, of argumentation, nor with any props of reasoning? For my part, I can offer six reasons, ones that ought to be especially approved by discerning judges of such matters.3
Principio, haec Mosis doctrina plane historica est, quemadmodum hic mundus sit a Deo fabricatus distincte atque enucleate enarrans. Quamobrem in ea doctrina tradenda Moses non philosophi sed historici partes agere et implere debuit. Historia autem ratio fidelem rerum gestarum commemorationem deposcit; rationes autem et argumenta minime requirit.
First, this teaching of Moses is plainly historical, recounting distinctly and clearly how this world was fashioned by God. For this reason, in delivering that teaching Moses had to play and fulfill the part not of a philosopher but of a historian. Now history, by its very nature, calls for a faithful record of things done, but requires no reasonings or arguments at all.4
Postea, cum haec doctrina non sit humana — non enim est hominum diligentia et industria studioque comparata, sed divina sit et singulari Dei munere Mosi patefacta — rectissimum profecto fuit eam solius Dei, a quo erat tradita et cuius fides omnium pondere argumentorum longe gravior est, auctoritate niti, neque imbecilla hominum intelligentia ratiunculis aut coniecturis fulciri et sustentari.
Second, since this teaching is not human — for it was not procured by men's diligence and industry and study, but is divine, and was disclosed to Moses by a singular gift of God — it was surely most fitting that it rest on the authority of God alone, by whom it was delivered, and whose trustworthiness is far weightier than the whole mass of arguments; and that it not be propped up and sustained by the feeble little reasonings or conjectures of human understanding.5
Deinde placet B. Thomae, nec mihi displicet, novam mundi creationem firmis ac necessariis rationibus non posse concludi, sed fide tantum a nobis accepta et cognita haberi; cui sententiae suffragari videtur S. Paulus, cuius in Epistola quae scripta est ad Hebraeos c. 11 haec sunt verba: Fide intelligimus aptata esse saecula verbo Dei, ut ex invisibilibus visibilia fierent. Certe (quod apud omnes extra controversiam est) tunc factum esse mundum quando factus est, et non prius aut posterius, et eo partium ordine atque spatio temporis quo narrat Moses fuisse eum a Deo perfectum, nemo non solum certa ratione
Next, it is the view of St. Thomas — nor does it displease me — that the new creation of the world cannot be established by firm and necessary reasonings, but is held by faith alone, received and known by us; a view that St. Paul seems to support, whose words in the Epistle written to the Hebrews, ch. 11, are these: "By faith we understand that the ages were framed by the word of God, so that from things invisible visible things might come to be." Certainly — which is beyond dispute among all — that the world was made when it was made, and not earlier or later, and with that order of parts and span of time in which Moses relates it to have been completed by God: no one [can establish this] not merely by certain reasoning6
...ratione comprehendere, sed ne coniectura quidem assequi, aut suspicione aliqua attingere potuisset. Ad hoc, doctrina haec scripta et tradita est populo Hebraeo, rudi scilicet atque indocto, neque philosophicarum argumentationum capaci, et cui omnino persuasum erat omnia Mosis dicta et scripta a Deo esse profecta, cum quo illum tam frequenter familiariter loqui, et cuius potentia tot et tam insignia facere miracula cernebant. Adiice quod maximo Dei, nostrae utilitatis providentissimi, consilio ita factum esse reor; quo videlicet uberior nobis de Deo bene merendi seges ac materies praeberetur, fidei virtutem naviter exercendo, et verbis sine ulla dubitatione summaque cum animi demissione ac religione credendo. Si enim apud Pythagorae discipulos praeiudicata magistri tantum valuit opinio, ut ipsum dixisse satis illis esset ad credendum, quanto magis Dei auctoritas, arcana rerum caelestium per vates suos enuncians ac docens, instar omnium rationum esse debet?
...could not merely grasp it by certain reasoning, but could not even attain it by conjecture or touch upon it by any surmise. Besides, this teaching was written and handed down to the Hebrew people — rude, that is, and unlearned, incapable of philosophical argumentation, and wholly persuaded that all the sayings and writings of Moses had proceeded from God, with whom they saw him converse so often and familiarly, and by whose power they saw him work so many and so remarkable miracles. Add to this that it was so done, I judge, by the supreme design of God, most provident for our benefit — namely, that a richer field and material for meriting well in God's sight might be afforded us, by diligently exercising the virtue of faith, and by believing His words without any doubt and with the deepest submission and reverence of mind. For if among the disciples of Pythagoras the preconceived opinion of the master carried such weight that "he himself said it" was enough for them to believe, how much more ought the authority of God — declaring and teaching the hidden things of heaven through His prophets — to stand in the place of all reasonings?7
Postremo, hac scribendi et docendi ratione id sane perfectum est, ut quorundam superbia et contumacia, magisque contentionis quam veritatis cupida ingenia, et veteris illius Academiae volubilitatis atque instabilitatis aemula, coercerentur ac reprimerentur. Sunt enim multi (tanta est humani animi vanitas et perversitas), sunt inquam multi ad opinandum quodlibet audaces et proiecti, quique in oppugnanda veritate arguti et diserti videri velint, atque omnibus contradicendo nullisque rationibus quantumvis exquisitis acquiescendo, nomen suum maxime nobilitatum memoriamque in multa saecula prorogatum iri putent, summamque ingenii et doctrinae laudem atque gloriam existiment rebus claris lucem, firmis robur, certis fidem, veteribus auctoritatem, novis dignitatem auferre. Neque vero haec...
Finally, by this manner of writing and teaching it was assuredly accomplished that the pride and obstinacy of certain men — minds more eager for contention than for truth, and rivals of that old Academy's fickleness and instability — should be checked and held in restraint. For there are many (so great is the vanity and perversity of the human mind), there are, I say, many bold and reckless enough to hold any opinion whatever, who wish to seem sharp and eloquent in assailing the truth, and who, by contradicting everyone and acquiescing in no reasonings however refined, suppose that their name will thereby be most ennobled and their memory prolonged for many ages; who reckon the highest praise and glory of talent and learning to lie in stripping light from what is clear, strength from what is firm, credit from what is certain, authority from what is ancient, and worth from what is new. Nor indeed could this...8
...haec Mosis dicendi scribendique vel simplicitas, vel potius (sic enim est, si vere aestimetur) gravitas, cuiquam philosophorum iure potuit displicere: ipsorum namque princeps, et, ut vocant ipsi, philosophiae deus Plato, quam multa in Timaeo de hac ipsa mundi generatione et de prima rerum omnium procreatione, nullis argumentorum firmamentis munita, sed nuda tantum oratione simpliciter enarrata et explicata reliquit?
...could this either simplicity, or rather (for so it is, if it be truly weighed) gravity of Moses' speaking and writing have rightly displeased any of the philosophers? For their very chief, and, as they themselves call him, the god of philosophy, Plato — how much in the Timaeus, concerning this very generation of the world and the first procreation of all things, did he leave fortified by no supports of argument, but merely set forth and explained simply, in bare discourse alone?
Diximus de materia huius libri et de ratione eam tractandi qua usus est Moses, scilicet quod in praesens satis fore putavimus: sequitur ut, quod secundo loco propositum fuerat, etiam de auctore dicamus. Si libros suiusque auctoris nomen et gloria decorat atque nobilitat, magna profecto huius libri laus est Moses eius auctor — vir nimirum quanto dignior omni laude, tanto omni laudatione maior — ut propterea satius hoc loco futurum duxerim tacitus praeterire eius laudes, quam laudantis culpa, tenuiter et ieiune tractatas, infuscari atque inquinari. Et alioqui maioris videtur reverentiae, quod digne laudari non potest, id silentio venerari potius quam eloqui: praesertim autem cum non raro accidat ut quae, quanta ipsa sunt, dici non potest, ea, si dicantur, minora quam sunt esse videantur — iis qui rerum magnitudinem dicentis facultate metiuntur.
We have spoken of the subject matter of this book and of the method of treating it that Moses employed — which we thought would suffice for the present. It follows that we should also speak, as was proposed in the second place, of the author. If the name and glory of its author adorns and ennobles each book, then surely it is a great praise of this book that Moses is its author — a man, indeed, by as much more worthy of all praise as he is greater than all praising — so that for this reason I have judged it better in this place to pass over his praises in silence than to have them sullied and stained, treated thinly and meagerly through the fault of the one praising. And besides, it seems a mark of greater reverence to venerate in silence, rather than to express, what cannot be worthily praised — especially since it not rarely happens that things whose true greatness cannot be told appear, if they are told, to be less than they are, to those who measure the magnitude of things by the ability of the speaker.9
Verum, ut cetera de Mose nunc taceantur, illud tamen in praesentia non est tacendum: in eius viri aetate intuentibus statim occurrere et quasi lucere vetustatem huius operis, unde plurimum ei non commendationis tantum sed etiam venerationis accedat. Etenim si nullam habet Graecia scriptionem poematibus Homeri antiquiorem, quod priore libro adversus Appionem affirmat Iosephus, quis non videt quanta huius libri sit laus vetustatis, cuius auctor Moses quingentis annis Homerum...
But to be silent for now about all else concerning Moses, this at least must not be passed over at present: that to those who consider the age of this man, the antiquity of this work at once presents itself and, as it were, shines forth — whence there accrues to it very much not only of commendation but also of veneration. For if Greece has no writing more ancient than the poems of Homer (as Josephus affirms in the first book Against Apion), who does not see how great is the praise of this book's antiquity, whose author Moses preceded Homer by five hundred years...10
...Homerum anteivit? Eupolemus prodidit (ut in libro decimo de Praeparatione Evangelica refert Eusebius) primum omnium litteras Iudaeis tradidisse Mosem; a Iudaeis accepisse eas Phoenices; a Phoenicibus ad Graecos Cadmum transtulisse. Mosem vero longe priorem fuisse Cadmo, veteres historias et annales replicantibus non erit obscurum. Quanquam illud Eupolemi dictum, de litteris genti Hebraeorum a Mose primum traditum, non probat Augustinus in libro 18 de Civitate Dei, cap. 39: quin, ut linguam, ita quoque litteras Hebraicas ante Mosem fuisse censet. Augustini sententia sit Iosephi auctoritate probabilior: in primo enim libro Iudaicarum originum scribit nepotes Seth, ante generalem illam orbis terrarum eluvionem, scientiam rerum caelestium ab ipsis inventam, ne unquam casu aliquo periret, duabus in columnis (altera lapidea, altera lateritia) litteris insculptam consignatamque reliquisse. Verum antiquitas Mosis (persequamur enim quod dicere sumus exorsi) ex comparatione aliorum scriptorum etiam sapientium, quicumque apud alias gentes habiti sunt vetustissimi, facile existimari potest.
...preceded Homer? Eupolemus has recorded (as Eusebius reports in the tenth book of the Preparation for the Gospel) that Moses was the first of all to deliver letters to the Jews; that the Phoenicians received them from the Jews; and that Cadmus carried them over from the Phoenicians to the Greeks. That Moses was far earlier than Cadmus will not be obscure to those who review the ancient histories and annals. Yet that saying of Eupolemus — that letters were first delivered to the Hebrew nation by Moses — Augustine does not approve, in book 18 of the City of God, ch. 39: rather, he holds that Hebrew letters, like the Hebrew language, existed before Moses. Let Augustine's view be the more probable, on the authority of Josephus: for in the first book of the Jewish Antiquities he writes that the descendants of Seth, before that universal flood of the world, having themselves discovered the knowledge of heavenly things, left it inscribed and recorded in letters upon two columns — one of stone, the other of brick — lest it should ever perish by any mischance. But the antiquity of Moses (for let us pursue what we set out to say) can easily be appreciated from comparison with other writers, even the wise, who among other nations have been reckoned the most ancient.11
Socratem quidem certe, ex quo velut parente tot nobilium philosophorum familiae proseminatae sunt, post novissimos nostrorum prophetarum, Zachariam, Aggeum et Malachiam, fuisse constat. Septem autem illi sapientes, quorum princeps Thales primus in Graecia philosophari coepit, multo post eos prophetas qui maiores appellantur, post Salomonem autem plus quadringentis annis floruerunt. Ex quo apparet et extat, iam propemodum canescente in populo Dei sapientia, vix dum fuisse apud Graecos philosophiae incunabula. Nec vero Moses priscos tantum Gentilium poetas et theologos — Orpheum, Linum et Musaeum, Homero atque Hesiodo longe antiquiores — sed Mercurium etiam, philosophiae apud Aegyptios...
Socrates, certainly — from whom, as from a parent, so many families of noble philosophers were sown — is agreed to have lived after the latest of our prophets, Zechariah, Haggai, and Malachi. And those Seven Sages, whose chief, Thales, was the first to begin philosophizing in Greece, flourished long after those prophets who are called the greater, and more than four hundred years after Solomon. From which it appears and stands clear that, when wisdom was already, as it were, growing grey among the people of God, the cradle of philosophy had scarcely yet appeared among the Greeks. And indeed Moses preceded not only the ancient pagan poets and theologians — Orpheus, Linus, and Musaeus, far older than Homer and Hesiod — but even Mercury, the chief and inventor of philosophy among the Egyptians...12
...Aegyptios principem et inventorem, antecessit. Siquidem, ut eo loco quem paulo supra posui docet Augustinus, Mercurius qui Trismegisti cognomen invenit nepos fuit maioris Mercurii, cuius maternus avus Atlas astrologus, aequalis Promethei, eo tempore floruit quo tempore vixit Moses. Quid plura? Qui Graecorum historias et chronologiam cum divinarum litterarum historia diligenter et subtiliter compararunt, ab his verissime observatum et proditum est Mosem aequalem fuisse Cecropi, primi Atheniensium regis. Quaecumque autem a Graecis memoranda mirandaque, vel de claris hominibus vel de Heroibus atque etiam diis ipsorum, aut historiis tradita aut fabulosis celebrata miraculis narrantur, ea omnia liquet post Cecropem extitisse. Post Cecropem namque fuit Deucalionis diluvium, Phaethontis incendium, Proserpinae et Europae raptus, Cereris mysteria, et partus Apollinis. Post Cecropem Cadmus Thebas condidit primusque litteras a Phoenicibus acceptas Graecis tradidit; Dionysius seu Liber pater Indos subegit Orientemque domuit; Minos leges, scriptorum praeconiis nobilitatas, Cretensibus dedit; Aesculapius medicinae gloria excelluit, honores etiam divinos consecutus. Post Cecropem Persei victoria, Thesei acta, Herculisque labores celebrantur, et poetae, a quibus profluxit Graecorum theologia — Amphion, Linus, Orpheus et Musaeus — floruerunt. Non ero longior. XL post Cecropem annis bellum Troianum gestum est, eoque minimum 100 annis posterior fuit Homerus.
...even Mercury, the chief and inventor of philosophy among the Egyptians. For, as Augustine teaches in the place I cited just above, the Mercury who invented the surname "Trismegistus" was the grandson of the elder Mercury, whose maternal grandfather Atlas the astrologer, contemporary of Prometheus, flourished at the very time at which Moses lived. What more? Those who have carefully and subtly compared the histories and chronology of the Greeks with the history of the divine Scriptures have most truly observed and reported that Moses was a contemporary of Cecrops, the first king of the Athenians. And whatever memorable and marvelous things are related by the Greeks — whether of famous men, or of heroes, or even of their own gods, whether handed down in histories or celebrated in fabulous miracles — all these, it is clear, came into being after Cecrops. For after Cecrops came the flood of Deucalion, the conflagration of Phaethon, the rape of Proserpina and of Europa, the mysteries of Ceres, and the birth of Apollo. After Cecrops, Cadmus founded Thebes and was the first to deliver to the Greeks the letters received from the Phoenicians; Dionysus, or Father Liber, subdued the Indians and mastered the East; Minos gave to the Cretans laws made famous by the praises of writers; Aesculapius excelled in the glory of medicine and even attained divine honors. After Cecrops are celebrated the victory of Perseus, the deeds of Theseus, and the labors of Hercules; and the poets from whom the theology of the Greeks flowed forth — Amphion, Linus, Orpheus, and Musaeus — flourished. I shall be no longer. Forty years after Cecrops the Trojan War was waged, and Homer was at least a hundred years later than that.13
Ex his palam est Mosem, qui Cecropi synchronos fuit, omnium quorum nunc extant scripta, vel quorum nomen in Gentilium scriptis proditum sit, primum fuisse theologum, philosophum, poetam, historicum. Et fuisse eum praestantissimum theologum, tribus ex rebus planissime intelligitur.
From these things it is plain that Moses, who was contemporary with Cecrops, was the first theologian, philosopher, poet, and historian of all those whose writings now survive, or whose name is recorded in the writings of the Gentiles. And that he was a most excellent theologian is understood most plainly from three things.14
Primum, quia frequentissimos eosque familiarissimos atque intimos cum Deo sermones habuit, cum ipso quasi amicus cum amico loqui et ex eius ore loqui, secretissima eius consilia cognoscere solitus. Deinde, quia monstravit nobis qualem esse Deum existimare oporteat: unum nempe, optimum, maximum, omnipotentem, mundi conditorem atque rectorem, omniumque rerum scientissimum et providentissimum administratorem. Ad extremum, quia Hebraeum populum docuit qua pietate et religione quibusque caeremoniis Deus rite colendus et venerandus esset; quibus item piacularibus victimis et sacrificiis iram Dei mitigare, elicere misericordiam, auxilium evocare, veniam denique sceleribus impetrare posset.
First, because he held most frequent and most familiar and intimate conversations with God, accustomed to speak with Him as a friend with a friend, and to speak from His mouth, and to learn His most secret counsels. Next, because he showed us what manner of being we ought to deem God to be: namely, one, best, greatest, almighty, founder and ruler of the world, and most knowing and most provident administrator of all things. Last, because he taught the Hebrew people with what piety and religion and with what ceremonies God was to be duly worshiped and venerated, and likewise by what expiatory victims and sacrifices one might appease the wrath of God, draw forth His mercy, summon His aid, and at last obtain pardon for crimes.15
Quam autem eximius philosophus fuerit Moses, nemini qui vel hunc modo librum legerit dubium esse potest: difficillimam quippe ac nobilissimam philosophiae partem — eam dico quae est de mundo et homine — hic liber, ut verissime ita graviter et mirabiliter ab ipso descriptam et explicatam, continet. Atque haec omnia Moses — non a se conficta, non ab hominibus accepta, non naturae vestigiis ductuque indagata, sed ipso Deo indicante ac docente sibi patefacta et cognita — litterarum monumentis consignavit. Poeticae vero laudis praestantiam duo eius elegantissima carmina seu cantica, quae in libro Exodi et Deuteronomii leguntur, aperte declarant; ut taceam partem libri Iob non minimam pulcherrima metri ratione ab ipso esse compositam. Quin gravissimus auctor Hieronymus affirmat esse Mosis undecim Psalmos, qui in libro Psalmorum ab octogesimo octavo usque ad centesimum numerantur. Reliqua est historia, cuius prima virtus et praecipua laus veritas est, quae tanta est in historia Mosis, ut ne de unius quidem verbi omnium scriptorum eius veritate...
Now how outstanding a philosopher Moses was can be in doubt to no one who has read even this one book; for this book contains the most difficult and most noble part of philosophy — I mean that which concerns the world and man — described and explained by him as truly as it is gravely and marvelously. And all these things Moses set down in written records — not invented by himself, not received from men, not tracked out by the traces and guidance of nature, but disclosed and made known to him by God Himself indicating and teaching. The excellence of his poetic merit is openly declared by two of his most elegant songs or canticles, which are read in the book of Exodus and of Deuteronomy — to say nothing of the fact that no small part of the book of Job was composed by him in a most beautiful metrical form. Indeed, that most weighty authority Jerome affirms that eleven of the Psalms are by Moses, namely those numbered in the book of Psalms from the eighty-eighth to the hundredth. What remains is history, whose first virtue and chief praise is truth — which is so great in the history of Moses that concerning the truth of not even a single word of all his writings...16
...veritate fas sit ambigere. Eo praeterea ceteris historicis praecelluit, quod longissimi temporis historiam scripsit: nam usque a mundi exordio repetitam ad 2500 annos pertexuit. Ceterum de antiquitate Mosis et virtutum ipsius excellentia, dabitur nobis et alius praedicandi magis idoneus locus, et aliud ad dicendum minus angustum restrictumque tempus.
...it is permitted to be in any doubt. Moreover, he surpassed the other historians in this, that he wrote a history of the longest span of time: for he wove it continuously, taken up from the very beginning of the world, over 2,500 years. But concerning the antiquity of Moses and the excellence of his virtues, there will be given us both another place more suitable for proclaiming it, and another time for speaking, less narrow and confined.17
Sed vereor ne illa fortasse hoc loco lectorem subeat cogitatio, non esse Mosen huius libri auctorem, sed Esdram. Vetus quippe fama est et opinio Irenaei lib. 3 c. 25, Tertulliani libro de Habitu Muliebri, Clementis Alexandrini lib. 1 Stromatum, Eusebii in Chronicis, B. Hieronymi in libro adversus Helvidium, aliorumque nobilium scriptorum auctoritate confirmata, quo tempore Hierosolyma capta sunt ac funditus eversa a Chaldaeis, simul etiam tam Mosis libros quam ceteros omnes Veteris Testamenti fuisse incensos, postea vero divino memoriae beneficio ac miraculo fuisse eosdem ab Esdra renovatos et pristinae integritati redditos; quo fit ut sacrorum librorum quos nunc habemus non Mosen sed Esdram scriptorem et auctorem censeri oporteat.
But I fear that perhaps at this point the thought may steal upon the reader that Moses is not the author of this book, but Ezra. For there is an old report and opinion — confirmed by the authority of Irenaeus (bk. 3, ch. 25), Tertullian (in the book On Women's Dress), Clement of Alexandria (bk. 1 of the Stromata), Eusebius (in the Chronicles), the blessed Jerome (in the book against Helvidius), and other noble writers — that at the time when Jerusalem was captured and utterly overthrown by the Chaldeans, the books of Moses, like all the rest of the Old Testament, were also burned, but that afterward, by a divine favor and miracle of memory, these same books were renewed by Ezra and restored to their former integrity; whence it comes about that of the sacred books which we now have, not Moses but Ezra ought to be reckoned the writer and author.18
Verum hoc nihil habet difficultatis: nam quia Esdras non fecit nec composuit novos sacros libros, sed priores, ita ut fuerant, eisdem plane sententiis ac verbis instauravit atque redintegravit, propterea non ipse auctor sacrorum librorum, sed refector tantum ac restitutor existimari et appellari debet. Quanquam pervulgatae illi et antiquae opinioni — de sacris libris ad unum omnibus Chaldaico incendio deperditis et multis post annis ab Esdra restitutis — nisi tot gravium virorum obstaret auctoritas, proclivius esset contradicere quam assentiri. Dicam hoc loco (non enim lectori, opinor, id molestum accidet) quibus rationibus huius sententiae fides, si non omnino labefactari et funditus everti, non parum tamen elevari ac debilitari videatur. Ac primum quidem...
But this has no difficulty in it: for since Ezra did not make or compose new sacred books, but restored and made whole again the earlier ones, just as they had been, in exactly the same sentences and words, for this reason he ought to be regarded and called not the author of the sacred books, but only their repairer and restorer. And yet, were it not that the authority of so many weighty men stood in the way, it would be easier to contradict than to assent to that widespread and ancient opinion that the sacred books were, to the very last one, all destroyed in the Chaldean fire and restored many years afterward by Ezra. I shall state in this place (for it will not, I think, prove tiresome to the reader) by what reasons the credibility of this opinion seems, if not wholly to be shaken and overthrown from its foundations, yet to be not a little lessened and weakened. And first, indeed...19
...quidem nullo modo dubitandum est, librorum Mosis ceterorumque divinae scripturae quamplurima fuisse apud Iudaeos exemplaria, praesertim autem penes sacerdotes, quorum in eo populo multa erant millia: his namque, tum ad sacerdotalia munera rite obeunda, tum ad docendum populum eiusque lites et controversias convenienter divinae legi diiudicandas ac dirimendas, divinorum voluminum, maxime vero Mosis, diligens et assidua lectio pernecessaria erat. Fuisse autem permulta divinorum voluminum exemplaria, illo praeterea argumento constat, quod in priori lib. Machab. c. 1 scriptum est, ex mandato regis Antiochi sacros omnes libros, apud quoscunque Hebraeorum reperiebantur, discissos esse atque combustos; erant igitur multi et varie dispersi, nec tanta eius regis tamen diligentia factum est ut omnes libri perirent. Namque post id temporis (in eodem lib. c. 3 legimus) venisse Iudaeos in Mespha, ibique ieiunasse, et discissis vestibus induisse cilicia, et expandisse libros legis. Quin aliquot annis post Ionathas in Epistola quam scripsit ad Spartiatas: “Nos,” inquit, “cum nullo horum indigeremus, habentes solatia sanctos libros qui sunt in manibus nostris,” etc. Et vero si omnia divinae scripturae volumina fuissent tunc ab Antiocho combusta, undenam sacri libri qui erant tempore Domini nostri et Apostolorum extitissent? An finget quispiam alterum quendam Esdram, a quo iterum sint illi refecti? Quod si tempore Machabaeorum — cum iussu regis Antiochi, qui crudelissimo dominatu omnem Iudaeam oppressam tenebat, sacri libri summa cum diligentia conquirebantur omnibusque vestigiis indagabantur, et apud quoscunque inventi essent cremabantur — multi tamen ex illo incendio servati sunt: quanto minus credibile est fuisse eos a Chaldaeis omnes combustos? cum neque Chaldaeos combussisse aliquos libros, neque [com]burere...
...first, indeed, it must in no way be doubted that there were a very great many copies of the books of Moses and of the rest of divine Scripture among the Jews, but especially in the keeping of the priests, of whom there were many thousands among that people; for to these a careful and constant reading of the divine volumes — and especially of Moses — was wholly necessary, both for duly discharging the priestly offices, and for teaching the people, and for fittingly deciding and settling their suits and controversies according to the divine law. That there were very many copies of the divine volumes is established, moreover, by this argument: that in the first book of Maccabees, ch. 1, it is written that, by command of King Antiochus, all the sacred books, wherever they were found among any of the Hebrews, were torn up and burned; they were therefore many and widely scattered, and yet, for all that king's diligence, it did not come about that all the books perished. For after that time (we read in the same book, ch. 3) the Jews came to Mespha (Mizpah), and there fasted, and, with their garments rent, put on sackcloth, and spread open the books of the Law. Moreover, some years later Jonathan, in the letter he wrote to the Spartans, says: “We, though we needed none of these things, having for our comfort the holy books that are in our hands,” and so forth. And indeed, if all the volumes of divine Scripture had then been burned by Antiochus, whence would the sacred books have come that existed in the time of our Lord and of the Apostles? Or will someone invent yet another Ezra, by whom they were a second time restored? And if, in the time of the Maccabees — when, by order of King Antiochus, who held all Judaea oppressed under a most cruel tyranny, the sacred books were sought out with the utmost diligence and tracked down by every trace, and were burned wherever they were found among anyone — many were nonetheless saved from that burning: how much less credible is it that they were all burned by the Chaldeans? since the Chaldeans neither burned any books, nor sought to burn...20
...[com]burere voluisse, usquam scriptura testetur? Quinimo cum omnia, quae Chaldaei captis Hierosolimis aut incenderunt, aut destruxerunt, aut Babylonem asportarunt, ea distincte ac minutatim in quarto lib. Regum, in 2. Paralipomeno, et apud Hieremiam commemorentur, de sacris tamen libris tunc combustis nulla prorsus uspiam in sacris litteris fit mentio. Non esset autem id tacitum, si esset factum, quemadmodum sacrorum voluminum combustio, quae tempore Machabaeorum facta est, in eorum libris expresse ac diserte narratur. Adiice quod non sit credibile Hieremiam, qui permissu regis Babylonis ex Chaldaico illo urbis et templi excidio incendioque arcam, altare incensi, et tabernaculum (ut scriptum est in secundo libro Machabaeorum) eripuit atque servavit, non maiori cum studio et cura, certe minori labore et difficultate, divinos libros, ne prorsus omnes interirent, fuisse conservaturum. Quid? Quod in illa urbis et templi conflagratione non esse libros sacros a Chaldaeis inflammatos et perditos, non minimum signum est: post illud tempus annis prope septuaginta, et plus octoginta ante Esdram, Danielem meminisse librorum Hieremiae et Mosis, tanquam qui tunc salvi et integri essent; Iosephum quoque in libro undecimo Iudaicarum antiquitatum narrare Cyrum regem, ad donandam Iudaeis libertatem potestatemque reficiendi templi, ostenso sibi Esaiae libro a Iudaeis (vel ut Theodoretus tradit ab ipso Daniele), in quo vates nominatim ipsi amplissimum imperium Dei verbis pollicebatur, esse permotum; erat igitur tempore Cyri, tot nempe annis post incendium Chaldaeorum, et ante Esdram, integer liber Isaiae. Non longum faciam: praedicti huius opinionis auctores et sectatores nullo eam scripturae testimonio, nulla ratione...
...sought to burn [them] — does Scripture anywhere attest it? Nay rather: since all the things that the Chaldeans, when Jerusalem was taken, either burned or destroyed or carried off to Babylon are recorded distinctly and in detail in the fourth book of Kings, in the second of Paralipomenon (Chronicles), and in Jeremiah — yet of the sacred books being burned at that time no mention whatever is anywhere made in the sacred writings. But it would not have been passed over in silence, had it happened, just as the burning of the sacred volumes that took place in the time of the Maccabees is narrated expressly and plainly in their books. Add to this that it is not credible that Jeremiah — who, by leave of the king of Babylon, rescued and preserved from that Chaldean destruction and burning of the city and Temple the ark, the altar of incense, and the tabernacle (as is written in the second book of Maccabees) — would not, with no less zeal and care, and certainly with less labor and difficulty, have preserved the divine books, lest they all utterly perish. What of it? That it is no small sign that the sacred books were not set ablaze and lost by the Chaldeans in that burning of the city and Temple: that some seventy years after that time, and more than eighty years before Ezra, Daniel makes mention of the books of Jeremiah and of Moses as being then safe and entire; and that Josephus too, in the eleventh book of the Jewish Antiquities, relates that King Cyrus — in order to grant the Jews their liberty and the power of rebuilding the Temple — was moved to it when the book of Isaiah was shown him by the Jews (or, as Theodoret reports, by Daniel himself), in which the prophet had by name promised him, in [God's] own words, that most ample empire; therefore at the time of Cyrus — that is, so many years after the Chaldean burning, and before Ezra — the book of Isaiah was intact. I shall not make this long: the aforesaid authors and followers of this opinion confirm it by no testimony of Scripture, by no [firm] reason...21
firma, nulla vel probabili coniectura confirmant. Est sane in lib. 4 Esdrae c. 14 nescio quid, unde fortasse illi eam sententiam hauserunt: inducitur enim Esdras Deo supplicans, ut quia lex eius incensa erat, ad eam renovandam Spiritum sanctum sibi impartiretur; et post haec subiicitur huic Esdrae petitioni fuisse a Deo satisfactum. Verum hoc inane ac futile est argumentum: quis enim nescit librum illum esse apocryphum, et nullam eius libri esse apud Hebraeos aeque quam apud Christianos fidem et auctoritatem? Quanquam non agit eo loco Esdras de restitutione divinorum voluminum, sed de aliorum librorum scriptione, quibus videlicet contineretur interior quaedam et abditior mystica librorum Mosis et sacrarum rerum intelligentia, quam nonnulli putant esse eam quae Cabalistica vulgo appellatur. Siquidem in eo ipso libro traditur Esdram per quadraginta dies quatuor et ducentos libros scripsisse, quorum centum triginta quatuor in vulgus indicasse ac publicasse, novissimos autem septuaginta in publicum efferre Dei iussu esse prohibitum. Quo licet intelligere quae tradita sunt eo loco de libris ab Esdra scriptis ad refectionem divinorum voluminum, qua de nunc agimus, nequaquam pertinere. Nec vero in praeteritis relinquam Athanasium istiusmodi divinae scripturae restitutionem tanto miraculo ab Esdra factam non intellexisse: nam cum is agit in Synopsi de libris Esdrae, ita scribit: “Narratur et hoc de Esdra, cum libri sacri per incuriam populi et diuturnam captivitatem perirent ipsum, cum esset vir industrius et lector perdiligens, verique ac recti studiosissimus, eos omnes libros apud se custodiisse, et postea eos in commune protulisse, atque ita ab interitu quodammodo vindicatos conservasse.” Haec dixi de hac opinione, non auctori[tate...]
...by no firm or even probable conjecture do they confirm it. There is, to be sure, in the fourth book of Ezra, ch. 14, some matter or other, from which perhaps they have drawn that opinion: for Ezra is brought in supplicating God that, because his law had been burned, the Holy Spirit might be imparted to him for renewing it; and after this it is added that this petition of Ezra was granted by God. But this is an empty and futile argument: for who does not know that that book is apocryphal, and that it has no credit or authority among the Hebrews any more than among Christians? And besides, in that passage Ezra is not dealing with the restoration of the divine volumes, but with the writing of other books — those, namely, which would contain a certain inner and more hidden mystical understanding of the books of Moses and of sacred matters, which some think to be that which is commonly called the Cabbalistic [doctrine]. For in that very book it is related that Ezra in forty days wrote two hundred and four books, of which he disclosed and published to the public one hundred and thirty-four, but the last seventy he was forbidden by God's command to bring before the public. From which one may understand that what is recorded in that passage about the books written by Ezra in no way pertains to the restoration of the divine volumes of which we are now speaking. Nor will I leave aside that Athanasius did not understand any such restoration of divine Scripture to have been accomplished by Ezra by so great a miracle; for, treating of the books of Ezra in his Synopsis, he writes thus: “This too is related of Ezra: that, when the sacred books were perishing through the people's neglect and the long captivity, he — being an industrious man, a most diligent reader, and most devoted to the true and the right — kept all those books by him, and afterward brought them forth for common use, and thus preserved them, rescued, in a manner, from destruction.” These things I have said about this opinion, not with the authority [of one passing judgment...]22
[...non auctori]tate censentis, sed disputantis libertate: neque enim tam volui inveteratae receptaeque opinioni adversari, quam quid in ea videri possit vel obscurum, vel dubium, vel cum divinis litteris parum congruens, vel denique nec pronum ad credendum nec ad probandum facile, more disputantium indicare.
[...These things I have said about this opinion, not with the author]ity of one passing judgment, but with the freedom of one disputing; for I have not so much wished to oppose an inveterate and received opinion, as to point out, in the manner of those who dispute, what in it may seem either obscure, or doubtful, or little in accord with the divine writings, or, finally, neither easy to believe nor readily to be proved.23

Whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch entirely such as it now is.24

An Moses Pentateuchum scripserit omnino qualis nunc est.

Illud etiam hoc loco in disputationem adduci potest: an, quales Mosis libros iam olim habemus, tales omnino sint ab eo scripti, ut nihil in eis contineatur quod non sit a Mose profectum litterisque mandatum. Non esse libros Pentateuchi, ut nunc sunt, ita scriptos a Mose quidam eo argumento colligunt, quod in cap. 21 libri Numerorum citatur liber Bellorum Domini, Proverbia item et Carmina, quae post Mosis tempora esse scripta non est dubitandum; quin eo loco eorum proverbiorum et carminum auctores appellantur Hebraice Moschelim, hoc est (si verbum de verbo Latine reddas) Parabolantes seu Proverbiantes: nempe qui figurata dictione, quae Parabolis et Proverbiis constaret, tam dicendo quam scribendo utebantur. Quo licet intelligere fuisse eos argutos elegantesque scriptores. Mâchâl enim Hebraeis est genus dicendi scribendique urbanum, acutum et elegans. Nimirum isti res maxime insignes et memorabiles populi Dei partim ligata oratione, partim soluta scribebant.
This too may be brought into dispute in this place: whether the books of Moses, such as we now have them of old, were entirely written by him [Moses], so that nothing is contained in them which did not proceed from Moses and was committed by him to writing. That the books of the Pentateuch, as they now are, were not written thus by Moses, some gather from this argument: that in ch. 21 of the book of Numbers the Book of the Wars of the Lord is cited, and likewise Proverbs and Songs, which there is no doubt were written after Moses' times; for in that place the authors of those proverbs and songs are called in Hebrew Moschelim — that is, if you render word for word into Latin, “Parable-makers” or “Proverb-makers”: namely, those who used figured diction, made up of parables and proverbs, both in speaking and in writing. From which one may understand that they were ingenious and elegant writers. For mâchâl, among the Hebrews, is a witty, acute, and elegant manner of speaking and writing. Doubtless these men wrote the most notable and memorable affairs of the people of God, partly in bound discourse (verse), partly in loose (prose).25
Ita censent alii. Ego, ut credam maximam Pentateuchi partem esse Mosis, adducor tum consentiente omnium auctoritate, tum etiam quod in sacris libris (Exod. 17 et 24, et Deuteron. 31) multa in scriptis Mosen reliquisse comperio. Nec leve argumentum eius rei est, quod Dominus noster dixit Iudaeis (Ioan. 5): "Si crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi: de me enim ille scripsit. Si autem illius litteris non creditis, quomodo verbis meis credetis?" Et...
So others judge. I, for my part, am led to believe that the greatest part of the Pentateuch is Moses' own — both by the agreeing authority of all, and also because I find in the sacred books (Exod. 17 and 24, and Deut. 31) that Moses left many things in writing. Nor is it a slight argument for this that our Lord said to the Jews (John 5): "If you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" And...26
Et apud Ioannem capite primo, Philippus dixit Nathanaeli: "Quem scripsit Moyses in lege et Prophetae, invenimus, Iesum filium Ioseph a Nazareth." Placet etiam mihi eorum sententia qui existimant hoc Pentateuchum longo post Mosen tempore, interiectis multifariam verborum et sententiarum clausulis, veluti sarcitum et explicatius redditum, et ad continuandam historiae seriem melius esse dispositum. Illud quoque simillimum vero est, fuisse in Synagoga priscis illis temporibus Diaria et Annales, in quibus res sacrae memorabiles, ad sacrae doctrinae propagationem utiles, scribebantur continuata serie ab his qui omni aetate eruditionis ac pietatis laude florebant; e quorum scriptis sumpta esse multa eorum quae nunc sunt in sacris libris (brevius tamen, distinctius tradita et in meliorem ordinem adducta) magno argumento est, quod saepe in divinis libris citantur alii libri, in quibus eadem res uberius narrabantur, qui libri omnes interciderunt.
And in John, ch. 1, Philip said to Nathanael: "We have found him of whom Moses in the Law, and the Prophets, wrote — Jesus, the son of Joseph, from Nazareth." I also approve the view of those who think that this Pentateuch was, long after Moses' time — with clauses of words and sentences inserted in various places — as it were patched up and rendered more explicit, and better arranged for maintaining the continuity of the narrative. This too is most like the truth: that in the Synagogue, in those ancient times, there were Journals and Annals, in which memorable sacred matters, useful for the propagation of sacred teaching, were written in a continuous series by those who in every age were distinguished for the praise of learning and piety. That many of the things now in the sacred books were taken from their writings — though handed down more briefly, more distinctly, and brought into better order — is strongly argued by the fact that in the divine books other books are often cited, in which the same matters were related more fully, books which have all perished.27
Talis fuit liber Bellorum Domini, qui in capite vigesimo primo libri Numerorum nominatur; liber item Iustorum, cuius in libro Iosue capite decimo et in libro secundo Regum capite primo fit mentio. Commemorantur etiam in tertio libro Regum capite undecimo et decimo quarto liber Verborum Dierum Salomonis, et liber de Actis Israel et Regum Iuda; gesta quoque Davidis a Samuele, Nathan et Gad prophetis conscripta; itemque praeclarum illud opus de omnibus quae acta sunt regnante Davide, tam in terra Israel quam in cunctis aliarum gentium regnis, quorum scriptorum extremis verbis prioris libri Paralipomenon habetur memoria. Praeterea libri Verborum Nathan; liber Ahiae Silonitis; visio Addo contra Hieroboam, in secundo Paralipomenon capite nono; sermones etiam Ozai de rebus Manassis regis, in secundo Paralipo[menon]...
Such was the Book of the Wars of the Lord, named in the twenty-first chapter of the book of Numbers; likewise the Book of the Just (Jasher), mentioned in the book of Joshua, ch. 10, and in the second book of Kings (2 Samuel), ch. 1. There are also mentioned, in the third book of Kings (1 Kings), chs. 11 and 14, the Book of the Words of the Days of Solomon, and the book of the Acts of Israel and of the Kings of Judah; likewise the deeds of David recorded by the prophets Samuel, Nathan, and Gad; and that notable work concerning all that was done during David's reign, both in the land of Israel and in all the kingdoms of other nations, of which writings mention is made in the closing words of the first book of Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles). Besides these: the books of the Words of Nathan; the book of Ahijah the Shilonite; the vision of Iddo against Jeroboam, in the second Paralipomenon (2 Chron.), ch. 9; and also the discourses of Hozai concerning the affairs of King Manasseh, in the second Paralipo[menon]...28
...[Paralipo]menon cap. 33; liber quoque Dierum sacerdotii Ioannis Hyrcani, extremo priore libro Machabaeorum, memorantur. Quid multa? Auctor posterioris libri Machabaeorum, in eius libri capite secundo, fatetur unum se in volumen coarctasse res gestas Iudae Machabaei, quinque libris a Iasone Cyrenaeo latius et enucleatius expositas. Sed cur istiusmodi scripta in album divinarum scripturarum non sint reposita, cum alii eorundem auctorum libri in canonicis et sacris habeantur, nec pauca sint in divinis litteris ex illiusmodi scriptis expromta, causam aliquam reperire cupiens Augustinus in 38 cap. lib. 18 de Civitate Dei ad hunc modum scribit:
...[Paralipo]menon ch. 33; the book also of the Days of the priesthood of John Hyrcanus is mentioned at the end of the first book of Maccabees. Why say more? The author of the latter book of Maccabees, in the second chapter of his book, confesses that he compressed into one volume the deeds of Judas Maccabaeus that had been more amply and minutely set forth in five books by Jason of Cyrene. But as to why writings of this sort were not placed on the roll of the divine Scriptures — although other books by the same authors are held canonical and sacred, and not a few things in the divine writings are drawn from such writings — Augustine, wishing to find some cause, writes thus in ch. 38 of book 18 of the City of God:29

"I confess that the cause of this is hidden from me, except that I think that even those men, to whom the Holy Spirit revealed the things that ought to be of religious authority, were able to write some things as men, by historical diligence, and others as Prophets, by divine inspiration; and that these were so kept distinct that the former should be judged to be attributed to the men themselves, but the latter to God speaking through them; and thus the former pertained to the richness of knowledge, the latter to the authority of religion, in which authority the canon is guarded." Thus far Augustine.30

"Cuius rei fateor causam me latere, nisi quod ego existimo etiam ipsos homines, quibus ea quae in auctoritate religionis esse deberent sanctus utique Spiritus revelabat, alia sicut homines historica diligentia, alia sicut Prophetas inspiratione divina scribere potuisse; atque haec ita fuisse distincta, ut illa tanquam ipsis, ista vero tanquam Deo per ipsos loquenti iudicarentur esse tribuenda; ac sic illa pertinerent ad ubertatem cognitionis, haec ad religionis auctoritatem, in qua auctoritate custoditur canon." Hactenus Augustinus.

Restat ut illud, extremo huius praefationis loco, aperiamus: unde Moses hanc de mundi opificio doctrinam, nulla ratione humana comprehensibilem, acceperit, et quo eam tempore litteris scriptisque mandaverit. Quae scripsit Moses de mundi fabricatione, ea potuit ipse dupliciter habere cognita: partim a Deo, lumine prophetico illustratus — quo lumine quae occultissima sunt atque omnem humanae intelligentiae vim captumque excedunt, sive praesentia sive futura sive praeterita sint, manifesto cernuntur — partim doctus et eruditus a maio[ribus]...
It remains that we disclose, in the last part of this preface: whence Moses received this teaching about the creation of the world — comprehensible by no human reasoning — and at what time he committed it to letters and writings. The things that Moses wrote about the fashioning of the world he could have known in two ways: partly from God, being enlightened by the prophetic light — by which light the most hidden things, exceeding all the power and grasp of human understanding, whether present, future, or past, are plainly discerned — and partly taught and instructed by his fore[fathers]...31
...[a maio]ribus, fidelissima posterorum traditione, qua eiusmodi rerum doctrina, inde ab Adamo usque, quasi per manus transmissa et ad Mosen usque perducta fuerat. Etenim quae in hoc libro scripsit Moses, potuit ea cognoscere ipse de filiis vel nepotibus Ioseph Patriarchae: inter mortem enim Ioseph et ortum Mosis anni non plures quatuor et sexaginta interfuerunt. Ioseph autem eadem nosse potuit ex patre suo Iacob; hic ex Isaac, qui didicit ex Abraham; hunc vero Sem et Noë docere potuerunt: post ortum quippe ipsius Abrahae octo et quinquaginta annos vixit Noë; Sem autem per triginta tres annos Abrahae superstes fuit. Noë porro hanc ipsam doctrinam accipere potuit ab avo suo Mathusalem, qui ad annum Noë sexcentesimum pervenit; quoniam autem simul cum Adamo ducentos et quadraginta tres annos vixit Mathusalem, potuit ipsum Adamum saepenumero et videre praesentem et loquentem audire, et ab eo plurima de rebus divinis edoceri.
...by his forefathers, through the most faithful tradition of their descendants, by which the teaching of such matters had, from Adam onward, been transmitted as it were from hand to hand and brought down all the way to Moses. For the things that Moses wrote in this book he could have learned from the sons or grandsons of the Patriarch Joseph: for between the death of Joseph and the birth of Moses there intervened no more than sixty-four years. And Joseph could have known the same things from his father Jacob; he from Isaac, who learned them from Abraham; and Abraham, in turn, Shem and Noah could have taught — for Noah lived fifty-eight years after the birth of Abraham himself, and Shem survived Abraham by thirty-three years. Noah, moreover, could have received this very teaching from his grandfather Methuselah, who reached the six-hundredth year of Noah; and since Methuselah lived two hundred and forty-three years together with Adam, he could many times both have seen Adam present and heard him speak, and have been instructed by him in very many things concerning matters divine.32
Liquet igitur quae continentur hoc volumine ea fuisse Mosi explorata et percepta, tum divina tum humana ratione, et utraque quidem verissima et certissima, sed priore tamen divinam huic scripturae fidem et auctoritatem adstruente: cui nimirum nec falsi quicquam subesse posset, nec refragari aut non credere cuiquam fas esset. Sed quo tempore hunc librum scripsit Moses? Videlicet liberante decessu Hebraeorum ex Aegypto. Hoc censuit Eusebius, et in lib. 7 de Praeparatione Evangelica cap. 2 non obscure indicavit. Eiusdem rei duplicem ego, nec, opinor, non probabilem, coniecturam habeo. Altera coniectura est, quod Moses Aegypto profugus per quadraginta annos in terra Madian versatus est, ubi soceri sui gregem pascendi curam agens, et otio et solitudine — duabus ad commentandum scriben[dumque]...
It is clear, therefore, that the things contained in this volume were ascertained and grasped by Moses both by divine and by human reasoning — and each indeed most true and most certain, yet the former lending divine credit and authority to this writing — to which, of course, nothing false could underlie, and which it would be lawful for no one to gainsay or to disbelieve. But at what time did Moses write this book? Namely, after the departure that freed the Hebrews from Egypt. This was Eusebius's view, and he indicated it not obscurely in book 7 of the Preparation for the Gospel, ch. 2. Of the same matter I have a twofold conjecture, and one, I think, not improbable. The one conjecture is that Moses, a fugitive from Egypt, spent forty years in the land of Midian, where, taking charge of pasturing his father-in-law's flock, by leisure and solitude — two [aids] most opportune for meditating and writ[ing]...33
...[scriben]dumque rebus maxime opportunis, ad res divinas animo pertractandas litterisque prodendas mirabiliter illectabatur. Altera coniectura est, scriptionem huius libri plurimum eo tempore conferre potuisse ad consolandos et erigendos animos Hebraeorum, qui id temporis diuturna et praegravi Aegyptiorum servitute oppressi tenebantur. Ponebat enim hic liber ante oculos eorum qui Hebraei populi fuere principes ac parentes eximias virtutes, res praeclare gestas, maxime vero in rebus adversis invicti animi magnitudinem atque constantiam: scilicet Iudaei, tam insignibus maiorum suorum patientiae exemplis et fiducia divini auxilii (quod illos saepe rebus plane desperatis expertos fuisse legebant), in illa suorum temporum acerbitate et calamitate maiorem in modum sustentari ac recreari poterant.
...most opportune, he was wondrously drawn to handle divine matters in his mind and to set them down in letters. The other conjecture is that the writing of this book could at that time have contributed very much to consoling and raising up the spirits of the Hebrews, who were then held oppressed by the long and most grievous servitude of the Egyptians. For this book set before the eyes of those who had been the chiefs and fathers of the Hebrew people their outstanding virtues, their illustrious deeds, and above all, in adversity, the greatness and constancy of their unconquered spirit; namely, the Jews, by such notable examples of their ancestors' patience and trust in divine aid (which, they read, those ancestors had often experienced in utterly desperate circumstances), could be greatly sustained and refreshed in that bitterness and calamity of their own times.
Repraesentabat etiam hic liber eorum animis magnifica Dei oracula et promissa, et in primis illud quod praedictum fuerat Abrahamo: fore ut post ortum filii sui Isaac posteri eius quadringentorum annorum laboriosa peregrinatione durissimaque servitute affligerentur, sed post eius temporis decursum iri omnes mirabiliter liberatum, et promissa optataque terra Chananaeorum possessione potituros — eius autem temporis finis iam tunc proxime aberat. His igitur argumentis fit ut opinio Eusebii mihi quidem ad veritatis similitudinem propensior videatur. Sic enim eo loci quem paulo supra posui scribit Eusebius:
This book also represented to their minds the magnificent oracles and promises of God, and especially that which had been foretold to Abraham: that after the birth of his son Isaac his descendants would be afflicted by a laborious sojourn of four hundred years and a most harsh servitude, but that after the elapsing of that time all would be marvelously delivered, and would obtain possession of the promised and longed-for land of the Canaanites — and the end of that time was now close at hand. By these arguments, then, it comes about that the opinion of Eusebius seems to me, at least, the more inclined toward the likeness of truth. For thus writes Eusebius in the place I cited a little above:34

"First among the Hebrews, that excellent Theologian Moses left writings; who by divine [inspiration], before he laid down laws, impressed upon the minds of men the lives of the ancestors; and thus, having exhorted them by the rewards of the good and the punishments of the impious to embrace virtue and flee impiety, he at last set the Law before them. He judged also that, lest perhaps the Jews should find the most difficult precepts of the Law [too hard]..."35

"Primus apud Hebraeos eximius ille Theologus Moses scripta reliquit, qui divinitus, antequam leges poneret, maiorum vitas animis hominum impressit; ita bonorum praemiis et impiorum suppliciis ad amplexandam virtutem et fugiendam impietatem exhortatus, legem tandem in medium proposuit; iudicavit etiam, ne forte difficillima legis praecepta ducerent Iudaei..."

"...[should find the precepts of the Law too hard] and so recoil from them, the examples of the ancients should be set forth, that it might be plain to all that the ancestors of the Jews had lived most excellently relying on reason alone, without the commands of laws; and that therefore it would not be difficult for them to imitate those ancestors, if they desired to obtain from God like rewards." Thus Eusebius.36

"...[difficillima legis praecepta] ducerent, atque ab illis resilirent, priscorum exempla esse proponenda, ut omnibus pateret, absque legum mandatis, sola ratione nixos, optime maiores Iudaeorum vixisse, atque ideo non fore ipsis difficile illorum imitari, si paria divinitus consequi praemia desiderarent." Sic Eusebius.

At vero Theodoretus in quaest. 1 earum quaestionum quas scripsit in Genesim, et Tostatus super 13 cap. Genes. quaest. 132, opinantur scriptum esse librum hunc a Mose post legem Hebraeis latam, quo nimirum tempore Moses cum Hebraeis, quorum dux erat, in solitudine versabatur. Bedam quoque in eadem sententia licet ponere. Cui opinioni fides duobus argumentis potest adstrui. Etenim Moses in 2 cap. huius libri ait Deum, quod in die septima requievit ab omnibus operibus quae fecerat in mundi fabrica, propterea benedixisse ei diei ipsumque sanctificasse: quae benedictio et sanctificatio non est profecto aliud quam vacatio ab omni labore et opere servili, quae in usu esse coepit apud Iudaeos post legem a Deo ipsis datam. Ex quo intelligitur, cum illud scripsit Moses, procul dubio eum spectasse tempus iam promulgatae legis, quo nimirum tempore librum hunc ipse scribebat.
But Theodoret, in question 1 of those questions he wrote on Genesis, and Tostatus on Genesis ch. 13, question 132, are of the opinion that this book was written by Moses after the Law had been given to the Hebrews — namely, at the time when Moses was in the wilderness with the Hebrews, of whom he was the leader. Bede too may be placed in the same opinion. This view can be supported by two arguments. For Moses, in the second chapter of this book, says that God, because on the seventh day He rested from all the works He had made in the fashioning of the world, therefore blessed that day and sanctified it; and this blessing and sanctification is surely nothing other than the cessation from all servile labor and work, which began to be in use among the Jews after the Law was given them by God. From which it is understood that, when Moses wrote this, he undoubtedly had in view the time of the Law already promulgated — the very time at which he was writing this book.37
Deinde in 7 cap. libri Geneseos, Noë iussu Dei septena de mundis animalibus, bina vero ex immundis in arcam intulit: distinctio autem mundorum et immundorum animalium per legem Hebraeis est cognita et constituta. Quoniam igitur septena illa animalia erant de genere eorum quae postea per legem declarata sunt munda, bina vero ex eorum numero quae lex ostendit esse immunda, propterea Moses, habito ad id temporis respectu quo librum Genes. scribebat (scilicet post legem Hebraeis latam, quo tempore distinctio mundorum immundorumve animalium erat illis notissima), recte appellavit septena illa mun[da]...
Again, in the seventh chapter of the book of Genesis, Noah, at God's command, brought into the ark seven of the clean animals, but two of the unclean; and the distinction of clean and unclean animals was made known and established for the Hebrews by the Law. Since, therefore, those seven animals were of the kind later declared clean by the Law, and the two of the number that the Law showed to be unclean, Moses — with regard to the time at which he was writing the book of Genesis (namely after the Law had been given to the Hebrews, at which time the distinction of clean and unclean animals was very well known to them) — rightly called those seven clea[n]...38
...[septena illa mun]da, bina immunda — nempe figura anticipationis, in sacris litteris satis frequenti. Atque hac duplici ratione opinio haec Theodoreti, Bedae et Tostati confirmatur; sed neutra profecto admodum firma ratio est, faciliterque repelli potest. Dicetur enim multa, quae per legem Mosaicam constituta sunt, etiam ante legem fuisse in more et usu apud probos et religiosos viros, non quidem lege aliqua Dei praecepto sancita, sed ex maiorum traditione — vel usque ab Adamo, vel certe ab eius nepote Enos (cuius tempore captum esse dicitur invocari nomen Domini) — profecta. Quo fit ut longe ante Mosaicam legem in sacris litteris legamus fuisse in usu constructiones altarium et oblationes, certos ritus sacrificiorum, vota item et decimas, abstinentiam quoque a sanguine et suffocato, necnon et suscitationem seminis fratris qui sine liberis esset mortuus. Quare in horum numero etiam sabbati observantia et distinctio mundorum atque immundorum animalium esse potuit; quamobrem licet utraque haec opinio sit probabilis, mihi tamen prior, quam dixi placuisse Eusebio, videtur probabilior.
...[those seven] clean, the two unclean — namely, by the figure of anticipation (prolepsis), one frequent enough in the sacred writings. And by this twofold reasoning the opinion of Theodoret, Bede, and Tostatus is confirmed; yet neither is really a very firm reason, and each can easily be refuted. For it will be said that many things which were established by the Mosaic Law were also, before the Law, in custom and use among upright and religious men — not, indeed, sanctioned by any law or precept of God, but derived from the tradition of the ancestors, whether from Adam himself or at least from his descendant Enos (in whose time the name of the Lord is said to have begun to be invoked). Whence it comes about that, long before the Mosaic Law, we read in the sacred writings that there were in use the building of altars and oblations, certain rites of sacrifices, vows likewise and tithes, abstinence too from blood and from what is strangled, and also the raising up of seed for a brother who had died without children. Wherefore, among the number of these, the observance of the Sabbath too, and the distinction of clean and unclean animals, could have existed; and on that account, although each of these opinions is probable, yet the former — which, as I said, pleased Eusebius — seems to me the more probable.39
Verum nos, paucis his praefati, ad explanandum mundi opificium per sex dies a Deo consummatum — quod Moses ut verissime ita brevissime descripsit — aggrediamur, eiusque rei tractatu primum horum commentariorum volumen consumamus.
But we, having prefaced these few things, let us now set about explaining the fashioning of the world, accomplished by God in six days — which Moses described as truly as he did most briefly — and in the treatment of that matter let us spend this first volume of these commentaries.40

Translator’s notes

  1. Marginal gloss: "Moses' teaching about the world, how useful" (Doctrina Mosis de mundo, quam utilis). The sentence continues onto printed p. 2. Catchword: decentissimo. ↩
  2. Sentence continues on printed p. 3. ↩
  3. Marginal gloss: "Why Moses related the origin of the world without arguing, but as though narrating." ↩
  4. First of the six reasons. ↩
  5. Second reason. ↩
  6. Third reason. Marginal citation: St. Thomas, Summa I, q. 46, art. 2. Quotation is Hebrews 11:3 (Vulgate). Sentence continues on the next page. ↩
  7. Fourth and fifth of the six reasons (the count is not numbered in the margin here). Marginal gloss: "the field of God['s favor]." ↩
  8. Sixth reason. Sentence continues onto printed p. 5. ↩
  9. Marginal glosses: "The praise of Moses"; "The antiquity of Moses." ↩
  10. Marginal gloss: "Homer's poetry is older than all Greek writing." Sentence continues onto printed p. 6. ↩
  11. Marginal citations: Eusebius, Praep. Evang. bk. 10; "Whether Moses delivered letters to the Hebrews"; Josephus, Antiquities bk. 1, ch. 3. ↩
  12. Marginal glosses: "Socrates later than the latest of the Prophets"; "The Seven Sages." Sentence continues onto printed p. 7. ↩
  13. Marginal glosses: "Mercury Trismegistus later than Moses"; "Moses a contemporary of Cecrops, and more ancient than many." ↩
  14. Marginal gloss: "Moses was a theologian, philosopher, poet, and historian." ↩
  15. The three proofs that Moses was a most excellent theologian. ↩
  16. Marginal citations: Exod. 15; Deut. 32; Jerome, Letter 139 (to Cyprian). Sentence continues onto printed p. 9. ↩
  17. Marginal gloss: "...of his virtues." ↩
  18. Marginal gloss: "Whether Ezra renewed the [sacred] books." ↩
  19. Marginal gloss: "That not all the sacred books were burned by the Chaldeans." Sentence continues onto printed p. 10. ↩
  20. First argument against the Ezra-redaction theory. Inline scripture: 1 Macc. 1 (Antiochus' burning of the books), 1 Macc. 3:46–48 (the fast at Mizpah, the rending of garments and spreading open of the books of the Law), 1 Macc. 12:9 (Jonathan's letter to the Spartans). Re-verified word-by-word against a 300-dpi rasterization. Sentence continues onto printed p. 11. ↩
  21. Verified word-by-word against a 300-dpi rasterization. Key readings: 'urbis et templi excidio' (the city, not 'orbis'/world); 'altare incensi' = the altar of incense (cf. 2 Macc. 2:4–5, where Jeremiah hides the tabernacle, ark, and altar of incense); 'integer liber Isaiae.' Marginal citations: 4 Kings (2 Kings) 25, 2 Paralipomenon (2 Chron.) 36, Jeremiah 52; 2 Macc. 2; Daniel 9; Josephus, Antiquities bk. 11; Theodoret (de fide, bk. 1), Isaiah 45. Sentence continues onto printed p. 12. ↩
  22. Verified word-by-word against a 300-dpi rasterization. Key corrections from the earlier reading: 'Dei iussu esse prohibitum' (forbidden by God's command, not 'Deus illum prohibuit'); 'verique ac recti studiosissimus' (most devoted to the true and the right). Inline: 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) 14 — the 204 books, 134 published and 70 kept secret; Athanasius, Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae. The closing sentence runs over onto printed p. 13. ↩
  23. Continues the sentence carried over from printed p. 12; closes the Ezra digression. ↩
  24. Marginal rubric marking a new disputed question, which runs from here onto printed p. 14. ↩
  25. Corrected reading: 'tales omnino sint AB EO scripti' — i.e. whether the books were written entirely BY HIM (Moses), not 'a Deo' (by God), as a 220-dpi reading had it. The disputed question is the completeness of Mosaic authorship. The objection rests on Num. 21 and the Hebrew term mâchâl / Moschelim ('makers of parables/proverbs'). Verified against a 300-dpi rasterization. ↩
  26. Pererius's own position: most of the Pentateuch is genuinely Mosaic. Marginal gloss: "The author's opinion." Inline scripture: Exod. 17 & 24; Deut. 31; John 5:46–47. Verified against a 220-dpi rasterization. The sentence runs over onto printed p. 14 ("Et apud Ioannem cap. primo…"). ↩
  27. Continues the disputation begun on printed p. 13 (whether Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch): "Et apud Ioannem…" links straight from the John 5 quotation ending p. 13. Pererius grants that the Pentateuch was later editorially expanded while holding that its substance is Mosaic. Inline scripture: John 1:45. ↩
  28. Pererius's catalogue of lost books cited within Scripture. Sentence continues onto printed p. 15. Citations as given: Num. 21; Josh. 10; 2 Kings (2 Sam.) 1; 3 Kings (1 Kings) 11 & 14; 1 Paralipomenon (1 Chron., closing verses); 2 Paralipomenon (2 Chron.) 9. ↩
  29. Marginal glosses: "Why writings of this sort were not received into the number of the sacred Scriptures"; "The opinion of St. Augustine." Citations: 1 Macc. 16 (end); 2 Macc. 2. ↩
  30. Quotation from Augustine, City of God 18.38. ↩
  31. Marginal gloss: "Whence Moses received this teaching of the world's generation." Sentence continues onto printed p. 16. ↩
  32. Marginal gloss: "The tradition of the Mosaic teaching from Adam down to Moses." Pererius's chain of transmission: Adam → Methuselah → Noah → Shem → Abraham → Isaac → Jacob → Joseph → Moses. ↩
  33. Marginal glosses: "At what time Genesis was written by Moses"; "Exod. 2 & 3." Eusebius, Praep. Evang. bk. 7, ch. 2. Sentence continues onto printed p. 17. ↩
  34. Marginal gloss: "Gen. 15" (the prophecy of the 400 years of affliction). ↩
  35. Quotation from Eusebius, Praep. Evang. (continues onto printed p. 18). ↩
  36. End of the Eusebius quotation. ↩
  37. Marginal gloss: "The opinion of Theodoret and Tostatus." First of the two supporting arguments (the Sabbath rest). ↩
  38. Marginal gloss: "Lev. 11 & Deut. 14" (the law of clean and unclean animals). Second supporting argument. Sentence continues onto printed p. 19. ↩
  39. Marginal glosses: "Many things which were in use before the Law in the worship of the ancient Patriarchs"; "Gen. 4" (Enos and the invoking of the Lord's name). Pererius rebuts the Theodoret/Bede/Tostatus dating. ↩
  40. Closing sentence of the Praefatio. The next page begins the section headed HISTORIA MOSIS (the Vulgate text of Genesis 1–2). ↩