QUESTION XI. Against Cajetan, who held that what Moses wrote concerning the procreation of Eve from Adam is to be taken not historically, but parabolically — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

LatineEnglish

QUESTION XI. Against Cajetan, who held that what Moses wrote concerning the procreation of Eve from Adam is to be taken not historically, but parabolically.¹

QVAESTIO XI. Aduersus Caietanum, qui censuit, quae scripsit Moses de procreatione Euae ex Adam, non historicè, sed parabolicè accipienda esse.

NEc illa quaestio hoc loco praetermittenda est: An haec narratio Mosis, qua traditur Euam ex Adami latere & costa factam esse, sit historica & vt verba ipsa propriè significant intelligenda; an potiùs figurata sit & parabolica, nec nisi secundùm mysticum sensum interpretanda. Hanc nos quaestionem vnus Caietani causa tractandam hoc loco suscepimus.

Nor is that question to be passed over in this place: Whether this narration of Moses, by which it is delivered that Eve was made from the side and rib of Adam, is historical and to be understood as the words themselves properly signify; or rather is figurative and parabolic, and to be interpreted only according to the mystical sense. This question we have undertaken to treat in this place for the sake of Cajetan alone.²

[...Is enim] posthabita omnium Patrum doctrina omniúmque Interpretum sententia, noua quadam & inaudita & omnibus contraria commentatione locum hunc interpretari ausus est, & interpretationem suam obnixè defendere. Non erit igitur alienum nouam eius interpretationem & opinionem propriis ipsius verbis primùm exponere, tum refutare.

[...For he,] having set aside the doctrine of all the Fathers and the opinion of all Interpreters, dared to interpret this place with a certain new and unheard-of commentary, contrary to all, and to defend his interpretation obstinately. It will not, therefore, be amiss first to expound his new interpretation and opinion in his own words, then to refute it.³

Cajetan says: that he is compelled to understand and interpret this narration of the production of Eve from Adam, not according to the letter, but according to a mystery — not, indeed, by allegory, but yet by parable: lest, namely, if it be understood literally, that inevitable absurdity be incurred: For either that rib whence Eve was formed was among the necessary ribs of Adam — wherefore, it being taken away, Adam would have stood mutilated and maimed; or it was superfluous to Adam, from which it necessarily follows that before the removal of that rib Adam was deformed and monstrous. Whichever be said of Adam — who was the most beautiful and most perfect of all men — is utterly absurd.⁴

AIT Caietanus: cogi se hanc narrationem de productione Euae ex Adamo, non secundùm litteram, sed secundùm mysterium, non quidem allegoria, sed parabola tamen intelligere atque interpretari: ne scilicet, si litteraliter intelligatur, ineuitabile illud absurdum incurratur: Aut enim illa costa vnde formata est Eua erat ex necessariis costis Adae, quare ea sublata mutilus & mancus extitisset Adam; aut erat Adae superflua, ex quo sequitur necessariò, ante detractionem eius costae Adam fuisse deformem atque monstrosum. Vtrúuis dicatur de Adamo, qui fuit omnium hominum pulcherrimus & absolutissimus, perabsurdum est.

Verùm haec ratio non debuit tantopere Caietanum mouere, eam quippe nos paulò supra, tractando sextam quaestionem, planissimè dissoluimus. Adiicit praeterea Caietanus: satis insinuasse Mosem, quae narrat de productione mulieris ex Adamo, ea per metaphoram & parabolam esse accipienda, cùm dixit, Euam esse adductam ad Adamum. Nam si verè mulier ex viro formata esset, iuxta illum fuisset, nec ex alio loco ad eum fuisset adducta. Oportet igitur orationem Mosis non propriè, sed mysticè ac parabolicè interpretari. Sed hoc quoque leuissimum est. Nam, cur dictum sit Euam esse adductam ad Adamú, suprà nos abúdè docuimus, cùm in explanáda septima quaestione versaremur.

But this reasoning ought not to have moved Cajetan so much, since we dissolved it most plainly a little above, in treating the sixth question. Cajetan adds besides: that Moses sufficiently insinuated that the things he narrates of the woman's production from Adam are to be taken by metaphor and parable, when he said that Eve was led to Adam. For if the woman had truly been formed from the man, she would have been beside him, and would not have been led to him from another place. Therefore the speech of Moses must be interpreted not properly, but mystically and parabolically. But this too is most trivial. For why it was said that Eve was led to Adam, we taught abundantly above, when we were engaged in explaining the seventh question.⁵

QVAE igitur est istius Doctoris super hac narratione commentatio & sententia? Arbitratur Caietanus simul à Deo creatos esse Adam & Euam, nec Euam ex Adamo factam esse; propterea quòd in primo capite Geneseos dixit Deus, Faciamus hominem ad imaginé & similitudinem nostram, & mox subiecit Moses, Masculum & foeminam fecit eos, Benedixítque illis Deus, & ait, Crescite & multiplicamini. Simul igitur vtérque sexus est à Deo conditus. Nec officit intelligentiae, narrationem Mosis hoc loco videri esse historicam, ob idque, vt verba eius sonant, sic esse accipiendam. Namque narratio etiam sex dierum creationis mundi videtur historica, cùm tamen constet mundum & vniuersitatem rerum vno temporis puncto esse factá. Narratio item Mosis de sermocinatione serpentis cum Eua, & de poena quam serpenti Deus inflixit, videtur historica: sed esse figuratam eo patet, quòd se-[cundùm historiam...]

What, then, is this Doctor's commentary and opinion upon this narration? Cajetan thinks that Adam and Eve were created by God at the same time, and that Eve was not made from Adam — because in the first chapter of Genesis God said, “Let us make man to our image and likeness,” and Moses soon subjoined, “Male and female He made them, and God blessed them, and said, Increase and multiply.” At the same time, therefore, both sexes were founded by God. Nor does it hinder the understanding that Moses' narration here seems to be historical, and that on that account it is to be taken as his words sound. For the narration also of the six days of the creation of the world seems historical, although it is nevertheless agreed that the world and the universe of things were made in one point of time. Likewise the narration of Moses concerning the conversation of the serpent with Eve, and concerning the penalty which God inflicted on the serpent, seems historical: but that it is figurative is evident from this, that ac[cording to history...] [continues]⁶

[...that ac]cording to history it cannot have a true sense. Therefore the speech of Moses concerning the production of the woman from the man is a certain parable, similar to those which we read the Lord frequently used in teaching, in the Evangelists. But what Cajetan meant that parable should signify, and why he used it, he relates in this manner: “In the first place, that heavy and deep sleep sent by God upon Adam, from which Eve was formed, metaphorically signifies the defect of the virile power, from which defect it happens that a female is generated. For a sleeping man [is a half-man...] [continues]⁷

[...quòd se]cundùm historiam verum sensum habere nó possit. Ergo oratio Mosis de productione mulieris ex viro parabola quaedam est, similis earum quibus frequenter vsum esse Dominum in docendo legimus apud Euangelistas. QVID autem ea parabola Moses significare voluerit, & cur ea sit vsus, húc in modum enarrat Caietanus: Principio, grauis ille & profundus somnus à Deo immissus Adae ex quo formata est Eua, metaphoricè significat defectum virtutis virilis, ex quo defectu accidit vt generétur foemina. Homo [enim dormiens...]

[...For a sleeping man] is a half-man, and likewise the principle generating a woman is half-virile; wherefore the woman is named by the Philosophers a ‘damaged and imperfect man.’ But because such a defect of the virile power is not by accident, in respect of universal nature, but is from the divine intention for propagating and preserving the species, therefore that sleep is described as having been sent by God, that it may be understood that God is the author of the deficient modes of producing. But the removal of a rib from the man to form the woman — insofar as a rib is a bone — is a likeness of the diminution of strength from the mind of the man on account of a wife. But insofar as it is a rib, it bears a likeness of the social life to be led between man and wife, and that the wife ought to be neither mistress nor servant, but the companion and ‘collateral’ of the man. But insofar as there was only one rib, it denoted the least strength, which is both in the body and in the mind of the woman: so that the proportion of womanly powers to virile powers and strength is such as is the proportion of one rib to all the rest of the ribs. Lastly, the flesh restored to Adam in place of the rib removed from him signified the recompense which is made to the man, by giving him carnal generation and the propagation of sons in place of the strength removed and diminished from him on account of marriage. For the man, incurring a diminution of virile mind by taking a wife, is excused, because he devotes effort to the carnal propagation and preservation of the human species.” And these things, described in nearly the same words of Cajetan, from his commentary upon this place of Genesis, we have wished to recount, in order to expound his opinion clearly and faithfully.⁸

[...Homo] enim dormiens semihomo est, & similiter principium generans mulierem semiuirile est, quocirca mulier à Philosophis nominatur vir laesus & imperfectus. Quoniá autem talis defectus virtutis virilis non est per accidens respectu naturae vniuersalis, sed est ex intentione diuina ad propagandá & conseruandam speciem, ideò describitur ille somnus immissus esse à Deo, vt intelligatur Deum esse auctorem deficientium modorum producendi. Ablatio verò costae ex viro ad formandam mulierem, quatenus costa est os, similitudo est diminutionis roboris ex animo viri ob vxorem. Quatenus autem est costa, similitudinem gerit socialis vitae inter virum & vxoré degendae, & quod vxor nec domina nec serua, sed socia & collateralis viri esse debeat. Quatenus auté vna tantùm fuit costa, denotauit minimum robur quod est tum in corpore, tum in animo mulieris: ita vt proportio virium muliebrium ad vires & robur virile talis sit, qualis est proportio vnius costae ad reliquas omnes costas. Postremò, caro restituta Adamo pro costa ei detracta significauit repensationem quae fit viro, dando ei carnalem generationem & propagationem filiorum loco roboris ei ob coniugium ablati & diminuti. Excusatur enim vir incurrens diminutionem virilis animi ducendo vxorem, eo quòd dat operam carnali propagationi & conseruationi speciei humanae. Atque haec quidem iisdem propemodum Caietani verbis ex commentario eius super hoc loco Geneseos descripta, ad ipsius opinionem enucleatè ac fideliter exponendam commemorare voluimus.

SED aduersatur Caietano concors omnium Patrum ac Theologorum, qui ex Adamo re vera formatam esse Euam & senserunt & scriptis prodiderunt, sententia: aduersatur etiam communis Ecclesiae Catholicae populíque Christiani sensus & iudicium. Beatus quidem certè Hieronymus super epistolam Pauli ad Philemonem, scribens & interpretans locum illum Exodi, Credidit populus Deo & Moysi seruo eius, inter alia multa quae omnibus credenda esse affirmat, & hoc commemorat, Euam ex costa & latere Adami esse fabricatam. Vult igitur Hieronymus, qui hoc de Eua non credit, eum nequaquam in Deum credere. Ex quo licet concludere, sententiam Caietani rectae fidei esse contrariam. Innocentius item Papa huius nominis tertius, extrà, de Diuortiis, cap. Gaudemus, decernens diuino iure prohibitum esse plures vxores simul habere, eam sententiam vt firmissimo argumento confirmat, eo quòd ab initio vna costa viri in vnam foeminam sit conuersa.

But against Cajetan stands the concordant opinion of all the Fathers and Theologians, who both held and handed down in their writings that Eve was truly formed from Adam: against him stands also the common sense and judgment of the Catholic Church and of the Christian people. Blessed Jerome, indeed, certainly, on Paul's epistle to Philemon, writing and interpreting that place of Exodus, “The people believed God and Moses His servant,” among many other things which he affirms must be believed by all, mentions this too — that Eve was fashioned from the rib and side of Adam. Jerome holds, therefore, that he who does not believe this concerning Eve in no way believes in God. From which it may be concluded that Cajetan's opinion is contrary to right faith. Likewise Pope Innocent III, in the Decretals, On Divorces, the chapter Gaudemus, decreeing that by divine law it is forbidden to have several wives at once, confirms that opinion as by a most firm argument — namely, that from the beginning one rib of the man was converted into one woman.⁹

VERVM, super omnia euidenter Caietano aduersatur diuina Scriptura, quae multis in locis apertè docet non simul esse creatos Adamum & Euam, sed prius quidem Adamum, posteriùs verò Euam ex Adamo esse factam. In libro Sapientiae cap. 10. scriptum est, Adamum primum & solum esse à Deo creatum: & in libro Ecclesiastici cap. 17. sic est, Deus creauit de terra hominem, & secundùm imaginem suam fecit illum: & quibusdam interiectis, deinde subiungit, Creauit ex ipso adiutorium simile sibi. Paulus quóque in Actis Apostolorum cap. decimoseptimo, Deus, inquit, fecit ex vno omne genus hominum: & prioris [epistolae...]

But, above all, divine Scripture evidently opposes Cajetan, which in many places openly teaches that Adam and Eve were not created at the same time, but that Adam was first, and Eve afterward made from Adam. In the book of Wisdom, chapter 10, it is written that Adam was the first and alone created by God; and in the book of Ecclesiasticus, chapter 17, it is thus: “God created man from earth, and made him according to His own image”; and, certain things being interposed, then He subjoins, “He created from him a helper like himself.” Paul also, in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter seventeen, “God,” he says, “made from one all the race of men”; and of the former [epistle...] [continues]¹⁰

[...prioris] epistolae ad Corinthios, capite 11. Non vir, ait Paulus, ex muliere est, sed mulier ex viro. Idemque in capite 2. prioris epistolae quam misit ad Timotheum: Adam, inquit, primus formatus est, deinde Eua. Denique hoc ipsum meridiana luce clarius est ex narratione Mosis, qua procreatio Euae describitur: traditur enim Deum Adamo dormienti exemisse costam, ex eáque conformatam esse Euam, Adamúmque vaticinando dixisse, Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, & caro ex carne mea: haec vocabitur Virago, quoniam de viro sumpta est. Quid potuit apertiùs dici, quo Euam ex Adamo factam esse intelligi posset? Est enim, vt supe-[rius...]

[...of the former] epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 11: “Not the man,” says Paul, “is from the woman, but the woman from the man.” And the same in chapter 2 of the former epistle which he sent to Timothy: “Adam,” he says, “was first formed, then Eve.” Finally, this very thing is clearer than the midday light from the narration of Moses, by which the procreation of Eve is described: for it is delivered that God took a rib from sleeping Adam, and from it Eve was formed, and that Adam, prophesying, said, “This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Virago, because she was taken from man.” What could be said more openly, by which it might be understood that Eve was made from Adam? For it is, as ab[ove...] [continues]¹¹

[...Est enim vt supe]rius dixi de aliorum rerum quas commemorauit Moses, sic & huius rei narratio planè historica: quamobrem verba eius propriè, non autem figuratè sunt accipienda. Nec aliam ob causam Origenes tam grauiter ab Epiphanio reprehensus est in epistola quam scripsit ad Ioannem Hierosolymitanum Episcopum, & ab Hieronymo in epistola quam misit ad Pammachium, nisi quod tria prima libri Geneseos capita non historicè, sed allegoricè intelligenda & interpretanda esse censuerit: qua etiam de causa damnatus est in sexta Synodo generali.

[...For it is, as ab]ove I said of the other things which Moses recorded, so the narration of this matter too is plainly historical: wherefore his words are to be taken properly, and not figuratively. Nor for any other cause was Origen so gravely reproved by Epiphanius, in the epistle which he wrote to John, Bishop of Jerusalem, and by Jerome, in the epistle which he sent to Pammachius, than that he judged the first three chapters of the book of Genesis were to be understood and interpreted not historically, but allegorically: for which cause also he was condemned in the sixth general Synod.¹²

NAM quod nobis obiecit Caietanus, distinctionem sex dierum mundani opificij, tametsi modo historico tradatur, non propriè tamen & historicè, sed figuratè intelligi oportere, id nos pernegamus: & falsum esse, suprà in primo huius Operis libro multis argumentis peruicimus. Quod autem deinde opponit de colloquio serpentis & eius poena, quasi haec non aliter quàm figuratè possint verè intelligi, etiam falsum esse ostendemus, cùm ad explanationem eius historiae ventum erit. Sed vt hoc daremus Caietano, non propterea tamen consentaneum & aequum esset, vt si quid in omni narratione Mosis sit eiusmodi vt id ratio veritatis & pietatis Christianae figuratè interpretari cogat, omnia quae in ea narratione traduntur similiter accipi & explanari debeant.

For what Cajetan objected to us — that the distinction of the six days of the world's making, although delivered in a historical manner, should yet be understood not properly and historically, but figuratively — this we utterly deny; and that it is false we have proved above, in the first book of this Work, by many arguments. And what he next opposes concerning the conversation of the serpent and its penalty, as if these could not truly be understood otherwise than figuratively, we shall likewise show to be false, when we come to the explanation of that history. But even were we to grant this to Cajetan, it would not therefore be consistent and fair that, if anything in the whole narration of Moses be of such a kind that the reason of truth and of Christian piety compels it to be interpreted figuratively, all the things delivered in that narration ought likewise to be taken and explained figuratively.¹³

St. Augustine, in the opening of the eleventh book On Genesis according to the Letter, about to explain that history of the conversation of the serpent and Eve, written by Moses in the third chapter of the book of Genesis, prefaced these things: “Before we treat in order the text of this proposed Scripture, I think it should be admonished — what I remember I have already premised elsewhere in this work — that this must be demanded by us: that what he who wrote it narrates as done be defended according to the propriety of the letter. But if in the words of God, or of any person assumed into a prophetic office, something is said which according to the letter cannot be understood except absurdly, doubtless, being said figuratively, it ought to be taken as for some signification; that it was said, however, it is not lawful to doubt: for this is required by the faith of the narrator and the promise of the expositor.” Thus Augustine.¹⁴

Sanctus Augustinus in exordio libri 11. de Genesi ad litteram, explicaturus historiam illam de colloquio serpentis & Euae in tertio capite libri Geneseos à Mose scriptam, haec praefatus: Antequam huius proposita Scriptura textum ex ordine pertractemus, admonendum arbitror quod iam me & alibi in hoc opere memini praelocutum, illud à nobis esse flagitandum, vt ad proprietatem litterae defendatur quod gestum narrat ipse qui scripsit. Si autem in verbis Dei, vel cuiusquam persona in officium propheticum assumpta, dicitur aliquid quod ad litteram, nisi absurdè, non possit intelligi, proculdubio figuratè dictum, ob aliquam significationem accipi debet: dictum tamen, dubitare fas non est; hoc enim à fide narratoris & pollicitatione expositoris exigitur. Sic Augustinus.

INFIRMVM quoque est illud Caietani argumentum: in primo capite Geneseos Mosem, cùm induxisset Deum ita loquentem, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem & similitudinem nostram, proximè subiecisse, Creauit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam, masculum & foeminam creauit eos: ex quo vult Caietanus intelligi simul esse factos Adam & Euam, & non vnum post alterum, nec vnum ex altero. At enim, Scriptura [...]

Weak too is that argument of Cajetan: that in the first chapter of Genesis Moses, having introduced God speaking thus, “Let us make man to our image and likeness,” next subjoined, “God created man to His image, male and female He created them”: from which Cajetan wishes it to be understood that Adam and Eve were made at the same time, and not one after the other, nor one from the other. But indeed, Scripture [...] [continues]¹⁵

[...At enim,] Scriptura non dicit eos simul esse factos. Nam cú Moses eo loco sexti diei opera commemoraret, strictim & sub compendio posuit creationem viri & foeminae, vt quae ad opus sexti diei pertineret. Creati igitur sunt simul, id est, eodem die sexto, sed non simul, id est, eodé temporis puncto. Absoluta verò operú omniú quae sex illis primis diebus à Deo facta sunt expositione, Moses c. 2. reuertitur ad enarrandá productionem viri & foeminae, declarás quàm diuerso modo vtriusque corpus à Deo factum sit: viri scilicet ex puluere terrae, mulieris autem ex costa viri. Et verò, frequens est in Scriptura primùm rem breuiter ac pressè [narrari...]

[...But indeed,] Scripture does not say that they were made at the same time. For when Moses, in that place, recorded the works of the sixth day, he set down briefly and in summary the creation of man and woman, as pertaining to the work of the sixth day. They were created, therefore, at the same time — that is, on the same sixth day — but not at the same time, that is, at the same point of time. But the exposition of all the works which God made in those first six days being completed, Moses in chapter 2 returns to narrate the production of man and woman, declaring how diversely the body of each was made by God: the man's, namely, from the dust of the earth, but the woman's from the rib of the man. And indeed, it is frequent in Scripture for a thing first to be narrated briefly and concisely, [then...] [continues]¹⁶

[...primùm rem breuiter ac pressè narrari], posteà verò per singulas partes & circunstantias subtiliùs, distinctiùs, & explicatiùs declarari. Et vt hanc disputationé concludam, illud contédo aduersus Caietanum: Si quae narrat Moses de procreatione mulieris ex viro non sint historicè accipienda, sed parabolicè, ex eo necessariò effici, nusquá tradi in Scriptura modú quo generata sit Eua: nam extra hunc locú, nusquam alibi ea de re sit mentio. Parabolica verò Caietani interpretatio non singularé & propriam Euae procreationem demonstrat, sed generalem omnium mulierum quae naturali modo fit generationem ostendit. Denique illud sciat lector, Caietano non solos hac in re Doctores omnes Catholicos, sed etiam Hebraeorum omnium, ingenio & doctrina facilè principem, Iosephum, in primo libro de antiquitatibus Iudaicis, praecipuósque Iudaeorú Rabbinos qui librum hunc Geneseos interpretati sunt, aduersarios esse.

[...for a thing first to be narrated briefly and concisely], but afterward to be declared more subtly, more distinctly, and more explicitly through its individual parts and circumstances. And, to conclude this disputation, I contend this against Cajetan: If the things which Moses narrates concerning the procreation of the woman from the man are not to be taken historically, but parabolically, it necessarily follows that the manner in which Eve was generated is nowhere delivered in Scripture: for outside this place, nowhere else is there mention of that matter. But Cajetan's parabolic interpretation does not demonstrate the singular and proper procreation of Eve, but shows the general generation of all women, which happens in the natural way. Finally, let the reader know that against Cajetan in this matter are not only all the Catholic Doctors, but also Josephus — easily the chief of all the Hebrews in talent and learning — in the first book of the Jewish Antiquities, and the principal Rabbis of the Jews who have interpreted this book of Genesis, are his adversaries.¹⁷

Translator’s notes

Eleventh question — a polemic against Cardinal Cajetan's parabolic reading of Gen 2:21-22. ↩
Decorated initial 'N.' The question stated: is the Eve-from-Adam narrative historical/literal, or figurative/parabolic (mystical only)? Undertaken solely because Cajetan raised it. Catchword 'Is enim' (signature PP 2). ↩
Cajetan set aside all the Fathers and interpreters with a novel, contrary reading, defended stubbornly. Pererius will state it in Cajetan's own words, then refute. ↩
Cajetan's own words (block-quote): the account must be read as a parable (not allegory), lest the literal sense force the dilemma already met in Q.VI — a necessary rib (→ Adam maimed) or a superfluous one (→ Adam deformed beforehand) — both absurd of the most beautiful of men. ↩
Pererius rebuts both supports of Cajetan: the dilemma was already dissolved in Q.VI; and 'led to Adam' (Cajetan's second proof of parable) was explained literally in Q.IX (Pererius says 'the seventh question'). ↩
Cajetan's positive view: Adam and Eve created together (from Gen 1:26-28, 'male and female'), Eve not made from Adam. A historical-seeming narrative need not be literal — cf. the six-days account (though the world, he holds, was made in one instant) and the serpent's speech and sentence (figurative, since literally untenable). Marginal gloss: 'Caietani opinio.' ↩
Cajetan: the narrative is a parable like the Lord's Gospel parables. Begins Cajetan's allegorical decoding (block-quote): the deep sleep = the defect of male generative power, from which a female (rather than a male) is generated. Page breaks at catchword 'Homo.' ↩
End of Cajetan's allegory (block-quote): woman as the 'damaged man' (the sleep = generative defect, sent by God who authors even deficient modes); the rib-as-bone = the man's strength diminished by marriage; the rib-as-rib = the wife as companion, neither mistress nor servant; one rib = woman's lesser strength (one rib : all ribs); the restored flesh = the man's recompense (offspring for lost strength). Pererius notes he has reported Cajetan faithfully. ↩
The refutation: against Cajetan stands the unanimous Fathers, the Church's common sense, Jerome (on Philemon, on Exod 14:31 — Eve from Adam's rib is among things all must believe, so denying it is not believing in God → Cajetan's view contrary to right faith), and Innocent III (Decretals X 4.19.8 'Gaudemus' — monogamy proved from one rib → one woman). Marginal glosses: 'Refellitur Caietanus.'; 'Exodi 14.' ↩
Scripture itself refutes Cajetan: Adam was made first, Eve after, from him — Wisdom 10:1 (Adam first and alone created); Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 17:1-6 ('God created man from earth ... created from him a helper like himself'); Acts 17:26 ('from one, all the race of men'); and 1 Cor[inthians...] (continues p.486). Page breaks at catchword 'epistolae' (signature PP 3). ↩
Scripture refuting Cajetan (continuing): 1 Cor 11:8; 1 Tim 2:13 ('Adam first formed, then Eve'); and Moses' own narration (the rib, and Adam's prophetic 'bone of my bones ... Virago, because taken from vir'). Gen 2:23's 'Virago' renders the Hebrew pun ishshah/ish. ↩
This narrative, like the rest Moses recorded, is plainly historical — words taken properly, not figuratively. Origen was reproved (Epiphanius to John of Jerusalem; Jerome to Pammachius) and condemned at the Sixth Ecumenical Council precisely for reading Genesis 1–3 allegorically rather than historically. Marginal gloss: 'Origenes damnatur.' ↩
Cajetan's objections dissolved: the six-days account is not merely figurative (refuted in Book 1); the serpent's speech and sentence will be shown literal at Gen 3. And even granting some figurative passages, it does not follow that the whole of Moses must be read figuratively. Marginal gloss: 'Diluuntur obiectiones Caietani.' ↩
Augustine block-quote (de Genesi ad litteram 11, opening): defend the literal sense of what is narrated as done; only where the literal sense is absurd take it figuratively — but never doubt that it was said. The hermeneutical rule against Cajetan's wholesale parabolizing. ↩
Cajetan's last argument (Gen 1:26-27, 'male and female He created them' → simultaneous creation) is weak. Pererius' rebuttal continues on the next page. Catchword 'Scriptura.' ↩
Rebuttal: Gen 1 only summarizes the sixth-day creation; 'created together' means on the same day, not the same instant. Gen 2 then returns to detail how each body was made (man from dust, woman from rib) — Scripture's habit of stating briefly first, then expounding. ↩
Two closing arguments against Cajetan: (1) on his reading, Scripture nowhere tells how Eve was made (this is the only mention); (2) a parable would describe all women's natural generation, not Eve's unique making. Against Cajetan stand all Catholic Doctors, Josephus (Ant. 1), and the chief Jewish Rabbis. ↩