Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book Four — the creation of the first human beings

QUESTION X. Whether the precept of not eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was given to Adam alone, or also, at the same time, to Eve

LatineEnglish

QUESTION X. Whether the precept of not eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was given to Adam alone, or also, at the same time, to Eve.1

QVAESTIO X. An praeceptum non comedendi ex arbore scientiae boni & mali soli Adae sit datum, an simul etiam Euae.

CERTE non solùm Adam sed Euam quoque eo praecepto esse obstrictam, constat vel confessione ipsius Euae, quae dixit serpenti, De ligno quod est in medio Paradisi, praecepit nobis Deus ne comederemus. Nec sanè, si eo praecepto non esset astricta Eua, peccasset comedens fructum illius arboris, nec à Deo tantopere reprehensa & punita esset. Si autem eo praecepto obligabatur, necesse est id esse impositum & denunciatum ipsi. Verú illud habet difficultatem, quomodo praeceptum hoc datum sit Euae quae nondú creata erat, ut series ipsa narrationis Mosaicae demonstrat: sub haec enim verba memoratur ratio qua ductus est Deus ad procreandam Euam, & quemadmodum ea sit ex Adamo formata.
CERTAINLY, that not only Adam but Eve too was bound by that precept is established even by the confession of Eve herself, who said to the serpent: “Of the tree which is in the middle of Paradise, God has commanded us not to eat.” Nor, surely, if Eve had not been bound by that precept, would she have sinned in eating the fruit of that tree, nor would she have been so greatly reproved and punished by God. But if she was obligated by that precept, it is necessary that it was imposed and announced to her. Yet that has a difficulty: how this precept was given to Eve, who was not yet created — as the very sequence of the Mosaic narration demonstrates; for after these words is recorded the reason by which God was led to procreate Eve, and how she was formed from Adam.2
Tripliciter igitur Euae datum esse hoc praeceptú cogitari potest: vel ut simul utrique datú sit, id est, Adamo & Euae: vel ut primò datú sit Adamo, posteà vero per ipsum Adamú denúntiatum indictúque sit Euae: denique ut [...]
In three ways, therefore, can it be thought that this precept was given to Eve: either that it was given to both at once, that is, to Adam and to Eve; or that it was first given to Adam, and afterward, through Adam himself, announced and enjoined to Eve; or, finally, that [...] [continues]3
[...denique] ut primùm Adamo, tum simul ipsi & Euae lex haec lata & sancita sit. AVGVSTINVS in capite decimoseptimo libri octavi de Genesi ad litteram, secundum modum de tribus praedictis sibi magis probari significat. Tostatus idem censet super decimumtertium caput libri Geneseos, quaestione 217. atque hoc potest hisce argumentis persuaderi. Principio, non est recedendum ab ordine & serie historiae & narrationis divinae Scripturae sine necessaria ratione: sed Moses proximè quàm dixerat hominem esse à Deo positum in Paradiso, subiecit datum esse ei hoc praeceptum, semper de homine loquens numero singulari, post haec autem commemorat generationem Euae: ergo praeceptum hoc datum est soli Adae, priusquam Eua procrearetur.
[...finally] that this law was first borne and sanctioned to Adam, then at the same time to him and to Eve. Augustine, in the seventeenth chapter of the eighth book On Genesis according to the Letter, signifies that, of the three aforesaid ways, the second is the more approved by him. Tostatus judges the same, on the thirteenth chapter of the book of Genesis, question 217; and this can be persuaded by these arguments. In the first place, one must not depart from the order and series of the history and narration of divine Scripture without necessary reason: but Moses, immediately after he had said that man was placed by God in Paradise, subjoined that this precept was given to him, always speaking of man in the singular number; but after these things he records the generation of Eve: therefore this precept was given to Adam alone, before Eve was procreated.4
Quanquam verba quibus praeceptum hoc expressum est, in lectione Graeca quam citat Augustinus, partim habent numerum singularem, partim verò pluralem. sic enim se habent, ut ea citat Augustinus: Ex omni ligno Paradisi comedes; de ligno auté scientiae boni & mali ne comedas: in quacunque enim die comederitis ex eo, morte moriemini. Graeci autem Codices qui nunc sunt in manibus, habent etiam numerum pluralem in illis verbis, De ligno autem scientiae boni & mali ne comedatis. Gregorius autem libro tricesimoquinto Moralium, capite decimo, totum hunc locum legit numero plurali, sic eum citans: Ex omni ligno Paradisi comedite: de ligno autem scientiae boni & mali ne tetigeritis. At enim nec Hebraicè nec Chaldaicè aliter est, quàm in nostra translatione Latina, in qua omnia haec verba singulari numero efferuntur.
Although the words in which this precept is expressed, in the Greek reading which Augustine cites, partly have the singular number, partly the plural. For they stand thus, as Augustine cites them: “Of every tree of Paradise you (sing.) shall eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you (sing.) shall not eat: for in whatever day you (plur.) shall eat of it, you (plur.) shall die the death.” But the Greek Codices that are now in hand have the plural number even in those words, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you (plur.) shall not eat.” Gregory, moreover, in the thirty-fifth book of the Morals, chapter ten, reads this whole passage in the plural number, citing it thus: “Of every tree of Paradise eat (plur.); but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil touch (plur.) not.” But indeed, neither in Hebrew nor in Chaldee is it otherwise than in our Latin translation, in which all these words are expressed in the singular number.5
DEINDE, priùs Adam collocatus est in paradiso, posteriùs vero creata est Eua, ut narratio Mosis ostendit. Conveniens autem erat statim ut homo introductus est in paradisum, legem ei quam servaturus erat imponere; ut quamprimum agnosceret Deum esse dominum suum & se illius servum, & iam inde ab initio consuesceret divinae legi obedire: bonum enim est viro, ut dixit Hieremias, portare iugum Domini ab adolescentia sua. Ad haec, cum Deus Adamum propter esum fructus vetiti obiurgaret, illud ei exprobravit, quod edisset fructum à quo iusserat eum abstinere: id autem non dixit Euae, cùm eam increpavit, non igitur datum est ei praeceptum. His accedit, si non statim ut Adam positus est in paradiso, accepisset praeceptum illud nó edendi ex arbore scientiae boni & mali, fieri potuisset ut ederet ex ea arbore: quare posteà serpenti dempta esset occasio & opportunitas tentandi hominem, non enim potuisset ei iam [experto effectum eius arboris persuadere...]
SECONDLY, Adam was first placed in paradise, and afterward Eve was created, as the narration of Moses shows. But it was fitting, as soon as man was introduced into paradise, to impose on him the law he was to keep — so that, as soon as possible, he might recognize God to be his lord and himself His servant, and from the very beginning grow accustomed to obey the divine law: for it is good for a man, as Jeremiah said, to bear the yoke of the Lord from his youth. Besides this, when God upbraided Adam for the eating of the forbidden fruit, He reproached him with this — that he had eaten the fruit from which He had commanded him to abstain; but this He did not say to Eve when He rebuked her: therefore the precept was not given to her. To this is added: if Adam had not received, as soon as he was placed in paradise, that precept of not eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it could have happened that he ate from that tree — and so, afterward, the occasion and opportunity of tempting man would have been taken from the serpent; for he could not then have [persuaded him, now experienced in the effect of that tree...] [continues]6
[...non enim potuisset ei iam] experto effectum eius arboris persuadere, fore ut si ex ea comederet, velut quidam Deus sciens bonum & malum existeret. Postremò, simul utrumque denunciatum est Adae, & ut non ederet ex arbore scientiae boni & mali, & ut ederet ex omni arbore paradisi: sed hoc posterius denúciandum ei fuit statim ut positus est in paradiso, propter naturalem indigentiam cibi, ergo & prius illud tunc ei denunciatum est, videlicet prius quàm Eua procreata esset. Sic igitur secun-[di modi...]
[...for he could not then,] when man was already experienced in the effect of that tree, have persuaded him that, if he ate of it, he would become like a certain god knowing good and evil. Lastly, both were announced to Adam at once — both that he not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and that he eat from every tree of paradise; but this latter had to be announced to him as soon as he was placed in paradise, on account of the natural want of food; therefore that former too was then announced to him — namely, before Eve was procreated. Thus, then, of the secon-[d way...] [continues]7
[...Sic igitur secun]di modi de illis tribus quos suprà memoravimus, probabilitas ostendi & confirmari potest. SED enim primum modum nec sua carere probabilitate, ita demóstrari posset: suprà in extremo 1. cap. narravit Moses, Deum Adamo & Euae dixisse, Ecce dedi vobis omnem herbam afferentem semen super terram, & universa ligna, &c. ut sint vobis in escam, quaerendú est, quando hoc illis dixerit? an prius quàm daret hoc praeceptum, an posterius, an verò eo ipso tempore quo praeceptum dedit? Si prius, ergo iam condita erat Eua ante illud praeceptum: quod negant qui secundum illum modum probant ac defendunt.
[...Thus, then,] the probability of the second of those three ways which we mentioned above can be shown and confirmed. BUT that the first way too does not lack its own probability could be demonstrated thus: above, at the end of the first chapter, Moses narrated that God said to Adam and Eve, “Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all the trees, etc., that they may be for food to you.” It must be asked, when did He say this to them? Before He gave this precept, or after, or at the very time at which He gave the precept? If before, then Eve was already created before that precept — which those deny who approve and defend the second way.8
Nec verò id credibile est, non enim Deus tam praecisè & absolutè fecisset eis copiam comedendi ex omni arbore; periculum enim fuisset ne comederent ex ea arbore, à qua iussurus erat eos abstinere. Si autem illa verba dixit Deus Adamo & Euae postquam id praeceptum dederat Adamo: certè non videbatur congruum, Deum tam universè & absolutè illud eis dicere, sed cum exceptione illius arboris vetitae, ne videretur legem à se latam abrogare. Si autem simul illa verba dixit utrique, & praeceptum nó edendi ex arbore illa dedit, concluditur illud praeceptum nó soli Adamo, sed ipsi & Euae datum esse. Atq́ hęc est sentétia tum aliorum, tum in primis Ruperti in lib. 2. de Trinitate & operibus eius, cap. 32. Cur igitur solius, Adae cui datum fuerat praeceptú, nomen expressit Moses? Quia nempe soli Adamo principaliter datú est, ex cuius scilicet observátia aut violatione conservatio felicitatis quam à Deo acceperat, vel eius [amissio & sui totiúsque posteritatis exitium pendebat...]
Nor indeed is that credible [that the 'Behold I have given' came before the precept]; for God would not so precisely and absolutely have granted them the abundance of eating from every tree, since there would have been danger lest they eat from that tree from which He was going to command them to abstain. But if God spoke those words to Adam and Eve after He had given that precept to Adam, then certainly it did not seem fitting for God to say it to them so universally and absolutely, but with the exception of that forbidden tree, lest He seem to abrogate the law borne by Himself. But if He spoke those words to both at once, and gave the precept of not eating from that tree, it is concluded that that precept was given not to Adam alone, but to him and to Eve. And this is the opinion both of others and, in the first place, of Rupert, in book 2 On the Trinity and His Works, chapter 32. Why, then, did Moses express the name only of Adam, to whom the precept had been given? Because, namely, it was principally given to Adam alone — on whose observance or violation depended the conservation of the happiness which he had received from God, or its [loss and the ruin of himself and his whole posterity...] [continues]9
[...vel eius] amissio & sui totiúsque posteritatis exitium pendebat. Si enim Adam praeceptum custodivisset, licet Eua id non servasset, nihil mali tamen Adamo & posteris eius cótigisset. Contrà verò, peccante Adamo, licèt Eua nó peccasset, eadem tamen mala que utrisq́ peccantibus evenerunt, nihilominus tamen posteris eorum accidissent. Vterque igitur modus probabilis est, mihi tamen secundus magis probatur.
[...or its] loss and the ruin of himself and of his whole posterity. For if Adam had kept the precept, even though Eve had not observed it, no evil would nevertheless have befallen Adam and his posterity. But, on the contrary, with Adam sinning, even though Eve had not sinned, the same evils which came upon both when sinning would nonetheless have befallen their posterity. Both ways, therefore, are probable; to me, however, the second is the more approved.10

Translator’s notes

  1. First of the four questions of this disputation (printed 'QVAESTIO X.' — the numeral as it stands in the original; the disputation's intro announces four questions to follow). ↩
  2. Large decorated initial 'C'. Eve was bound by the precept (her own words to the serpent; her sin and punishment prove it); but the difficulty: she was not yet created when it was given. Marginal gloss: 'Praeceptum quomodo datum sit Euae nondum creatae.' ↩
  3. The three ways the precept could have reached Eve: (1) to both at once; (2) first to Adam, then through Adam to Eve; (3) [the third, on the next page]. Marginal gloss: 'Tripliciter intelligi potest Euae datum praeceptum.' Page ends at the catchword 'ut' (signature KK). RESUME POINT for next batch: PDF 483, the third way ('denique ut...'). ↩
  4. Completes the third way (the catchword 'ut' from PDF 482 rejoined). Augustine (de Gen. ad lit. 8.17) and Tostatus prefer the SECOND way; first argument for it: the narrative order, with man named in the singular before Eve's creation. ↩
  5. The textual variants of Gen 2:16-17: Augustine's Greek mixes singular and plural; current Greek codices and Gregory (Moralia 35.10) read plural; but the Hebrew, the Targum (Chaldee), and the Vulgate read singular (favoring the precept's address to Adam alone). Marginal gloss: 'Varia lectio huius loci.' ↩
  6. Second argument: the precept fittingly came at once (Jer 2:2 / Lam 3:27 'the yoke from youth'); and God reproached only Adam (Gen 3:17). Third argument begins: had the precept come later, the serpent would have lost his opening. ↩
  7. Third argument completed: the permission to eat was needed at once (for food), so the prohibition came with it — before Eve existed. Sentence breaks at the catchword 'secun.' ↩
  8. The case for the FIRST way (precept to both at once): Gen 1:29's address 'to you (plural)' implies Eve already existed. Marginal gloss: 'Vtrique, id est, Adamo & Euae simul datum esse illud praeceptum.' ↩
  9. Rupert (de Trin. 2.32) and others hold the precept was given to both; Moses names Adam alone because it was given principally to him (on whom all hung). ↩
  10. All hung on Adam, not Eve: hence Moses names him. Pererius' verdict: both views are probable, but he prefers the second (precept first to Adam, before Eve). ↩