FOURTEENTH DISPUTATION. Upon those same words: ‘Thare, when he was seventy years old, begot Abram, Nachor, and Aran.’ Whether Abraham was the firstborn of Thare, and whether Sara his wife was his uterine sister or not — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

FOURTEENTH DISPUTATION. Upon those same words: ‘Thare, when he was seventy years old, begot Abram, Nachor, and Aran.’ Whether Abraham was the firstborn of Thare, and whether Sara his wife was his uterine sister or not.¹

DECIMA QUARTA DISPUTATIO. Super iisdem illis verbis: Thare cùm esset septuaginta annorum genuit Abram, Nachor & Aran. Utrum Abraham fuerit primogenitus Thare, & an Sara uxor eius fuerit soror uterina ipsius nec ne.

SI Thare septuagesimo aetatis anno coepit generare tres illos filios, & illo septuagesimo anno (ut suprà ostensum est) genitus est Abraham, necesse est reliquos duos post Abraham esse genitos, & Abraham fuisse primogenitum patris sui Thare. Ex adverso autem gravissimum huic sententiae opponitur argumentum. Si enim Abraham, ut multorum fuit opinio, uxorem duxit Saram filiam Aran fratris sui, erat autem Abraham decem annis natu grandior quàm Sara, ut tradit Genes. 17: si fuisset Abraham primogenitus, eoque maior natu quàm Aran, necesse esset ipsum Aran ante decimum aetatis suae annum generasse filiam Saram, quod est incredibile: non igitur Abraham primogenitus fuit Thare, nec septuagesimo eius anno natus. Ex quo apparet huius disputationis tractationem ad plenam & absolutam superioris disputationis explicationem atque confirmationem esse necessariam.

If Thare in the seventieth year of his age began to beget those three sons, and in that seventieth year (as was shown above) Abraham was begotten, it must be that the other two were begotten after Abraham, and that Abraham was the firstborn of his father Thare. But on the contrary a very weighty argument is opposed to this opinion. For if Abraham, as was the opinion of many, married Sara the daughter of Aran his brother, while Abraham was ten years older than Sara (as Genesis 17 records): if Abraham had been the firstborn, and so older than Aran, it would be necessary that Aran begot his daughter Sara before the tenth year of his age, which is incredible. Therefore Abraham was not the firstborn of Thare, nor born in his seventieth year. From which it appears that the treatment of this disputation is necessary for the full and complete explanation and confirmation of the preceding disputation.²

MULTI tam veterum quàm recentiorum non obscuri nec ignobiles auctores, eo argumento quod proximè exposui permoti atque persuasi, putarunt Saram veram fuisse sororem Abrahae, non tamen uterinam; id est, eodem patre sed non eadem matre natam.

Many authors, both of the ancients and of more recent times, neither obscure nor ignoble, moved and persuaded by the argument I have just set out, thought that Sara was the true sister of Abraham, yet not uterine; that is, born of the same father but not of the same mother.³

Haec sententia placuisse videtur Clementi Alexandrino, cuius sub finem libri secundi Stromatum haec sunt verba: Abraham dixit de uxore sua, Soror mea est filia patris mei, sed non matris meae: docens eas quae ex eadem matre natae sunt, non esse ducendas uxores. Eidem sententiae adhaesit Lippomanus in Catena super vigesimum caput Genesis, & Sotus lib. 2 de Iustitia & Iure quaestione tertia. Caietanus verò sine dubitatione ulla id ipsum sentit: nam super illa verba capitis undecimi, Nomen uxoris Abrahae Sara, & nomen uxoris Nachor Melcha filia Aran patris Melchae & Iescha, ita scribit: Ex quo, nominando uxores Abrahae & Nachor Saram & Melcham, de sola Melcha dicitur quod erat filia Aran, argumentum habetur quod Sara non erat filia Aran. Non enim constat Saram fuisse appellatam duobus nominibus, videlicet Sare & Iescha; id enim multo rationabilius repellitur quàm facile dicitur.

This opinion seems to have pleased Clement of Alexandria, whose words near the end of the second book of the Stromata are these: “Abraham said of his wife, ‘She is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not of my mother’ — teaching that those who are born of the same mother are not to be taken as wives.” To the same opinion adhered Lippomanus in the Catena on the twentieth chapter of Genesis, and Soto, book 2 On Justice and Law, question three. Cajetan, moreover, without any doubt holds this same thing: for on those words of the eleventh chapter, “The name of Abraham's wife Sara, and the name of Nachor's wife Melcha, daughter of Aran, father of Melcha and of Iescha,” he writes thus: “From the fact that, in naming the wives of Abraham and Nachor as Sara and Melcha, it is said of Melcha alone that she was the daughter of Aran, an argument is had that Sara was not the daughter of Aran. For it is not established that Sara was called by two names, namely Sare and Iescha; for that is much more reasonably rejected than easily asserted.”⁴

SED idem Caietanus super caput vigesimum Geneseos, expendens illa verba Abrahae de Sara uxore sua, Vere soror mea est, filia patris mei sed non matris meae, multo apertioribus verbis maioreque asseveratione hoc ipsum docet; hoc enim modo scribit: Refert Iosephus Saram fuisse filiam Aran fratris sui, & sororem carnalem Lot. Sed contra textum Mosis nonnunquam scribere Iosephum, liquet conferentibus Historiam Mosis cum illius libris de Antiquitatibus Iudaicis; & propterea non est mirum si in hac etiam re aliquid finxerit. Nam secundum proprietatem supradictorum verborum Mosis, apertè dicitur Saram fuisse sororem carnalem Abrahae, non tamen uterinam. Si dixisset duntaxat, Soror mea est, irem (ait Caietanus) in communem sensum; sed adiungendo, filiam patris mei ipsa est, non autem matris meae, apertè significatur eam fuisse filiam patris sui, non autem avi sui aut fratris sui: Et hic est sensus literalis.

But the same Cajetan, on the twentieth chapter of Genesis, weighing those words of Abraham about Sara his wife, “Truly she is my sister, the daughter of my father but not of my mother,” teaches this same thing with much plainer words and greater assertion; for he writes thus: “Josephus reports that Sara was the daughter of Aran his brother, and the carnal sister of Lot. But that Josephus sometimes writes against the text of Moses is clear to those comparing Moses's History with his books of Jewish Antiquities; and therefore it is no wonder if in this matter too he invented something. For according to the propriety of the aforesaid words of Moses, it is plainly said that Sara was the carnal sister of Abraham, yet not uterine. If he had said merely, ‘She is my sister,’ I would go (says Cajetan) with the common sense; but by adding, ‘she is the daughter of my father, but not of my mother,’ it is plainly signified that she was the daughter of his father, and not [the daughter] of his grandfather or of his brother: and this is the literal sense.”⁵

Licitum enim erat tunc coniugium cum sorore non uterina. Nam si nomine patris intellexisset Abraham suum avum, non adiunxisset significatum illam, non filia matris meae. Et rursus sicut matris nomine utitur propriè, ita & patris. Denique si illis verbis, Vere soror mea est de patre sed non de matre mea, non significatur soror carnalis non uterina; quibus quaeso aliis verbis (etiam si fingere velis) id clarius & significatius demonstrare poteris? Haec Caietanus. NEC ab hac opinione abhorruisse videtur B. Hieronymus. Is enim in Traditionibus Hebraicis in Genesim super illa verba capitis vigesimi, Etenim verè soror mea est de patre sed non de matre mea, inquit fratris eius Aran filiam fuisse, non autem sororis. Sed quia in Hebraeo, inquit Hieronymus, sic est: Verè soror mea est, non filia matris meae, quod magis sonat Saram sororem fuisse Abrahae; in excusationem eius dicimus, nec dum illo tempore tales nuptias lege Mosis fuisse prohibitas. Sic ibi Hieronymus.

“For marriage with a non-uterine sister was then lawful. For if by the name ‘father’ Abraham had understood his grandfather, he would not have added the signification, ‘not the daughter of my mother.’ And again, just as he uses the name ‘mother’ properly, so also ‘father.’ Finally, if by those words, ‘Truly she is my sister, of my father but not of my mother,’ a carnal non-uterine sister is not signified — by what other words, I ask you (even if you should wish to invent them), could you demonstrate it more clearly and significantly?” Thus Cajetan. Nor does blessed Jerome seem to have shrunk from this opinion. For he, in the Hebrew Traditions on Genesis, on those words of the twentieth chapter, “For truly she is my sister, of my father but not of my mother,” says that she was the daughter of his brother Aran, but not of his sister. But because in the Hebrew, says Jerome, it is thus: “Truly she is my sister, not the daughter of my mother,” which rather sounds that Sara was the sister of Abraham — in his excuse we say that such marriages were not yet at that time prohibited by the law of Moses. Thus Jerome there.⁶

Idem tamen in eodem libro super caput undecimum Geneseos, contrariam sequens opinionem, ait Aran fratrem Abrahae genuisse filias duas, Melcham & Saram, quae alio nomine appellata est Iescha: & Melcham quidem uxorem duxit Nachor, Saram verò Abraham, ambo fratres ipsius Aran; nec dum quippe inter patruos & fratrum filias nuptiae fuerant lege prohibitae, quae in primis hominibus etiam inter fratres & sorores…

Yet the same Jerome, in the same book, on the eleventh chapter of Genesis, following the contrary opinion, says that Aran the brother of Abraham begot two daughters, Melcha and Sara, who by another name was called Iescha; and Melcha indeed Nachor took to wife, but Sara, Abraham — both being brothers of Aran himself; for marriages between paternal uncles and brothers' daughters had not yet been prohibited by law, which among the first men [were entered into] even between brothers and sisters…⁷

…initae sunt. Hactenus ex Hieronymo. NON est autem intelligendum ex verbis Hieronymi, nuptias inter patruum & filiam fratris fuisse Mosaica lege interdictas; siquidem nec in capite decimo octavo Levitici, inter gradus cognationis & affinitatis ad contrahendum matrimonium prohibitos, qui eo loco distinctè omnes explicatèque commemorantur, ulla fit mentio coniugii inter patruum & filiam fratris: & post legem Mosis fuisse licitum atque usitatum tale coniugium, declarat exemplum Othonielis, qui uxorem duxit Axam filiam Caleb fratris sui, ut in libro Iudicum capite primo scriptum est. Sed redeo ad primam opinionem: quam ne Tostatus quidem dissimulat esse admodum (ut ipse ait) rationabilem & consonam textui scripturae; sed tamen propterea se eam non sequi, quòd è contraria sit communis Doctorum opinio, & quia tale coniugium tempore Abrahae illicitum fuisse videatur. Sed hoc pernegant illius opinionis sectatores.

…were entered into. Thus far from Jerome. But it is not to be understood from Jerome's words that marriages between a paternal uncle and a brother's daughter were forbidden by the Mosaic law; since not even in the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus, among the degrees of consanguinity and affinity prohibited for contracting matrimony — which are there all distinctly and explicitly recounted — is any mention made of marriage between an uncle and a brother's daughter; and that such marriage was lawful and customary after the law of Moses is shown by the example of Othoniel, who married Axa the daughter of Caleb his brother, as is written in the book of Judges, first chapter. But I return to the first opinion: which not even Tostatus dissembles to be (as he himself says) quite reasonable and consonant with the text of scripture; but he nevertheless does not follow it, because the common opinion of the Doctors is to the contrary, and because such marriage seems to have been unlawful in Abraham's time. But the followers of that opinion utterly deny this.⁸

NEC ad eam opinionem firmandam & multa & firma desunt argumenta. Primum argumentum. In capite undecimo sic est: Duxerunt Abraham & Nachor duas uxores: nomen uxoris Abraham Sarai, & nomen uxoris Nachor Melcha filia Aran patris Melchae & patris Iescha. Ecce si Sara filia fuisset Aran, sicut hoc dictum est de Melcha, ita dictum esset de Sara. Non placet illud quorundam responsum, id fuisse dictum de Sara sub nomine Iescha, quasi uxor Abrahae duplex habuerit nomen, alterum Sarai, & alterum Iescha: hoc, dico, responsum non videtur probandum; non est enim credibile voluisse Mosen eo loco ludere ambiguitate verbi. Quorsum enim, quam & eo capite vocavit Sarai & deinceps in hoc libro semper eo nomine appellat, semel tantùm nominasset nomine Iescha, non indicando haec duo nomina fuisse eiusdem mulieris? Certè si quis non aliqua opinione occupatus legat narrationem illam Mosis, proculdubio intelliget & credet aliam fuisse mulierem Sarai & aliam Iescham.

Nor for confirming that opinion are arguments, both many and firm, lacking. First argument. In the eleventh chapter it stands thus: “Abraham and Nachor took two wives: the name of Abraham's wife Sarai, and the name of Nachor's wife Melcha, daughter of Aran, father of Melcha and father of Iescha.” Behold, if Sara had been the daughter of Aran, then, as this was said of Melcha, so would it have been said of Sara. That answer of certain people does not please — that it was said of Sara under the name Iescha, as if Abraham's wife had a double name, one Sarai and the other Iescha: this answer, I say, does not seem to be approved; for it is not credible that Moses wished there to play on the ambiguity of a word. For why, when he called her Sarai both in that chapter and ever after in this book always names her by that name, would he have named her just once by the name Iescha, without indicating that these two names belonged to the same woman? Certainly, if anyone not preoccupied by some opinion reads that narration of Moses, he will doubtless understand and believe that Sarai was one woman and Iescha another.⁹

ALTERUM argumentum. Magis etiam roborant hanc sententiam verba Mosis quae eo loco proximè sequuntur. Subdit enim: Tulit Thare Abraham filium suum, & Lot filium Aran filii sui, & Sarai nurum suam uxorem Abrahae filii sui. Si Sara fuisset filia Aran, sicut Lot filius fuit Aran, quemadmodum Moses nominavit Lot filium Aran, ita quoque Saram nominasset eius filiam. Cumque multò maior sit necessitudo & propinquitas inter avum & neptem quàm inter socerum & nurum, non debebat Moses dicere de Thare, Tulit Sarai nurum suam, sed dicere debuit, Tulit Thare neptem suam, vel filiam filii sui.

Second argument. The words of Moses which follow next in that place strengthen this opinion even more. For he subjoins: “Thare took Abraham his son, and Lot the son of Aran his son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, the wife of Abraham his son.” If Sara had been the daughter of Aran, as Lot was the son of Aran — just as Moses named Lot the son of Aran, so too would he have named Sara his daughter. And since the bond and kinship between a grandfather and granddaughter is much greater than between a father-in-law and a daughter-in-law, Moses ought not to have said of Thare, “He took Sarai his daughter-in-law,” but ought to have said, “Thare took his granddaughter,” or “the daughter of his son.”¹⁰

TERTIUM argumentum supra indicatum est, cùm verba Caietani commemoraremus; sumptum autem est ex verbis quae Abraham dixit Regi Abimelec expostulanti secum quòd ipse decepisset eum, dicens Saram esse sororem suam, cùm in re verà esset uxor. Sic enim respondit ei Abraham: Vere soror mea est, filia patris mei, & non filia matris meae, & duxi eam in uxorem. Quae verba apertè declarant Saram germanam…

Third argument: it was indicated above, when we recounted Cajetan's words; it is taken from the words which Abraham said to King Abimelech, who expostulated with him that he had deceived him by saying Sara was his sister when in fact she was his wife. For Abraham answered him thus: “Truly she is my sister, the daughter of my father, and not the daughter of my mother, and I took her to wife.” These words plainly declare Sara to be the full [sister]…¹¹

…nam fuisse sororem Abrahae, non tamen uterinam: hoc enim significat tum illud, Verè soror mea est, tum etiam illud, Filia patris mei, sed non matris meae; neque enim apertius vel expressius aliis verbis significari posset soror non uterina. Quartum argumentum: Si non erat Sara verè soror Abrahae, fefellit igitur Abraham & in errorem induxit regem Abimelec, qui verba Abrahae secundum propriam eorum significationem & sententiam accipiens, credidit Saram fuisse veram Abrahae sororem, ideoque non fuisse eius uxorem.

…to have been the sister of Abraham, yet not uterine: for this is signified both by that, “Truly she is my sister,” and also by that, “The daughter of my father, but not of my mother”; for a non-uterine sister could not be signified more openly or expressly by other words. Fourth argument: If Sara was not truly the sister of Abraham, then Abraham deceived and led into error King Abimelech, who, taking Abraham's words according to their proper signification and sense, believed Sara to be the true sister of Abraham, and therefore not his wife.¹²

ATQUE haec quidem est opinio multorum, ut ostendimus, gravium & nobilium scriptorum. Ex his autem plerique putarunt illo tempore fuisse licitum matrimonium inter sorores & fratres non uterinos; idque sensit Clemens Alexandrinus, & significat B. Hieronymus in Traditionibus Hebraicis in Genesim super caput vigesimum; idemque Caietanus, Lippomanus & Sotus opinati sunt. Cui opinationi fidem ex eo astrui volunt, quòd Thamar dixit fratri suo Amnon volenti eam violare & opprimere, ut scriptum est libro secundo Regum capite decimo tertio: Noli, frater mi, dixit illa, facere stultitiam hanc; quin potius loquere ad regem, & non negabit me tibi. Credidit igitur puella, licet tale coniugium tunc esset lege Mosis vetitum, attamen, quia ipsum audierat fuisse quondam ante legem apud Patriarchas usitatum, posse etiam tunc per dispensationem legis concedi, maximè verò ob spem vehementer cupienti. Quidam etiam putant Abraham contraxisse id matrimonium ex singulari quadam Dei revelatione, quo scilicet Abraham, generaturus populum fidelem, ad id muneris uxorem idoneam, nempe religiosam fidelemque sororem, acciperet. Nec desunt qui, lege illa Iustiniani adducti, inter fratrem sororemque nuptias esse prohibitas, sive eodem utroque parente sive altero tantùm nati sint, verùm si per adoptionem soror facta sit quandiu manet adoptio prohiberi, at si per emancipationem adoptio dissoluta sit posse inter eos rite iniri connubium; hac, inquam, lege adducti, coniectant fieri potuisse ut Sara filia fuerit Thare adoptiva, quam postea, emancipatam à patre adoptivo, Abraham legitimè ducere uxorem potuerit.

And this indeed is the opinion of many grave and noble writers, as we have shown. Of these, most thought that at that time marriage between non-uterine brothers and sisters was lawful; and this Clement of Alexandria held, and blessed Jerome signifies (in the Hebrew Traditions on Genesis, on the twentieth chapter); and the same Cajetan, Lippomanus, and Soto thought. To which opinion they wish credit to be built from this, that Thamar said to her brother Amnon, who wished to violate and oppress her (as is written in the second book of Kings, thirteenth chapter): “Do not, my brother,” she said, “do this folly; but rather speak to the king, and he will not deny me to you.” The girl therefore believed that, although such a marriage was then forbidden by Moses's law, nevertheless — because she had heard it had once before the law been customary among the Patriarchs — it could even then be granted by dispensation of the law, especially as she vehemently desired it through hope [of escape]. Some also think Abraham contracted this marriage from a certain singular revelation of God, namely that Abraham, who was to beget a faithful people, might take for that office a fitting wife — a religious and faithful sister. Nor are there lacking those who, led by that law of Justinian — that marriage between brother and sister is prohibited, whether born of both the same parents or of only one; but that if she became a sister by adoption, it is prohibited as long as the adoption remains, while if by emancipation the adoption is dissolved, marriage can rightly be entered between them — led, I say, by this law, conjecture that it could have happened that Sara was Thare's adoptive daughter, whom afterward, emancipated from her adoptive father, Abraham could lawfully take to wife.¹³

ALTERA est communis ferè doctorum sententia, Saram fuisse filiam Aran fratris Abrahae, veramque sororem Lot: verùm consuetudine gentis Hebraeae, quae patruum sive avunculum, & filium vel filiam fratris, appellabat fratres vel sorores, Abraham appellasse eam sororem suam; quemadmodum idem cap. decimo tertio huius libri Lot fratris sui filium appellavit fratrem suum, & cap. 29 Laban fratrem appellavit Iacob, qui filius erat Rebeccae sororis suae. Qua loquendi consuetudine etiam Romanos non abhorruisse non obscurè indicavit Cicero initio libri quinti de Finibus, ubi Lucium Ciceronem patruelem suum appellavit fratrem. Romani enim filios…

The other is the well-nigh common opinion of the doctors: that Sara was the daughter of Aran, the brother of Abraham, and the true sister of Lot; but that, by the custom of the Hebrew nation — which called a paternal or maternal uncle, and the son or daughter of a brother, ‘brothers’ or ‘sisters’ — Abraham called her his sister; just as the same Abraham, in chapter thirteen of this book, called Lot, his brother's son, his ‘brother,’ and in chapter 29 Laban called Jacob ‘brother,’ who was the son of Rebecca his sister. That the Romans too did not shrink from this manner of speaking, Cicero indicated not obscurely at the beginning of the fifth book of On Ends, where he called Lucius Cicero, his cousin, ‘brother.’ For the Romans [called] sons…¹⁴

…duorum appellabant patrueles, filios autem duarum sororum, consobrinos; at filios fratris & sororis, amitinos.

…[the sons] of two [brothers] they called ‘patrueles’ (paternal cousins), the sons of two sisters ‘consobrini’ (maternal cousins), but the sons of a brother and a sister ‘amitini.’¹⁵

SED audi Augustinum, idipsum quod docui clarissimis verbis enarrantem atque confirmantem: in libro enim vigesimo secundo adversus Faustum, capite trigesimo quinto, hoc modo scribit: Cum Abraham eo tempore viveret in rebus humanis, quo tempore iam fratres ex utroque aut altero alterave parente natos necti coniugio non licebat, filios autem fratrum, aliosque longinquiore gradu generis consanguineos, nulla lege, nulla potestate prohibita consuetudo iungebat: quid mirum si sororem suam, id est ex patris sui sanguine procreatam, habebat uxorem? nam hoc ipse reddendi sibi eam regi dixit, de patre esse sororem, non de matre. Ubi certè ut sorori mentiretur, nullo erat timore coactus: quando ille uxorem eius esse didicerat, & eam divinitus territus non motam reddebat. Fratres autem istae sorores generali nomine consanguineos vel consanguineas solere apud veteres appellari, scriptura testatur. Nam & Tobias iunior, quam accipiebat uxorem, appellavit sororem, non quidem eiusdem matris aut matris satu natam, sed ex eadem tribu cognationis exorta. Et Lot Abrahae frater dicitur, cuius tamen patruum fuisse Abraham eadem scriptura declarat. Similiter in Evangelio fratres Domini nominantur, non iisdem matris filii, sed ex eadem consanguinitate propinqui. Haec ibi Augustinus, idem quoque scribens libro decimo sexto de Civitate Dei capite decimo nono, quem secutus est S. Thomas Secunda secundae quaestione centesima decima.

But hear Augustine, narrating and confirming in clearest words the very thing I have taught: for in the twenty-second book against Faustus, chapter thirty-five, he writes thus: “Since Abraham lived among human affairs at a time when brothers born of both parents, or of one or the other, could not be joined in marriage, while the sons of brothers, and others kindred in a more distant degree of stock, custom joined together, prohibited by no law and no authority — what wonder if he had as wife his sister, that is, one procreated from the blood of his father? For he himself said this in giving her back to the king, that she was his sister on the father's side, not on the mother's. Where certainly he was constrained by no fear to lie that she was his sister, since the king had learned she was his wife, and, divinely terrified, was restoring her unmoved. But that those more distant sisters are wont to be called among the ancients by the general name of consanguineous [kin], Scripture attests. For Tobias the younger called her whom he took to wife ‘sister,’ not indeed born of the same mother or of his mother's stock, but sprung from the same tribe of kindred. And Lot is called the brother of Abraham, of whom yet the same scripture declares Abraham to have been the uncle. Similarly in the Gospel the ‘brethren’ of the Lord are named, not sons of the same mother, but near in the same consanguinity.” Thus Augustine there, writing the same also in the sixteenth book of the City of God, chapter nineteen, whom St. Thomas followed (Secunda Secundae, question one hundred and ten).¹⁶

SED huius sententiae vetustissimus auctor est Iosephus, in libro primo Antiquitatum ita scribens: Abraham fratris sui Aran filiam Saram in matrimonium duxit, & Lot eiusdem filium adoptavit sibi filium, quod germani sibi fuerant. Idque factum esse subindicat Iosephus, cùm Abraham Dei monitu proficisceretur ex Mesopotamia in terram Chanaan. Hoc tamen Iosephi dictum non sit verisimile: siquidem post adventum Abrahae in terram Chanaan, ut narrat Moses capite decimo tertio, Abraham appellavit Lot fratrem suum, dicens ei: Ne quaeso sit iurgium inter me & te, & inter pastores meos & pastores tuos: fratres enim sumus; at si filius eius per adoptionem fuisset, non appellasset eum fratrem sed filium.

But the most ancient author of this opinion is Josephus, who in the first book of the Antiquities writes thus: “Abraham took in marriage Sara the daughter of his brother Aran, and adopted Lot, the son of the same [Aran], as a son to himself, because they were his near kin.” And Josephus intimates that this was done when Abraham, at God's admonition, was setting out from Mesopotamia into the land of Canaan. Yet this saying of Josephus may not be likely [in one part]: since after Abraham's coming into the land of Canaan, as Moses narrates in the thirteenth chapter, Abraham called Lot his brother, saying to him: “Let there be no quarrel, I pray, between me and you, and between my shepherds and your shepherds: for we are brothers”; but if Lot had been his son by adoption, he would not have called him brother, but son.¹⁷

SUNT qui putent Chrysostomum alienum fuisse ab hac sententia: quibus ego minimè assentior. Ponam verba Chrysostomi ex homilia eius in Genesim quadragesima quinta, ubi explanans illam sententiam Abrahae quae est in capite vigesimo libri Geneseos, Etenim soror mea est ex patre, sed non ex matre, sic ait: Idque eundem illum patrem vocat quem & ego patrem appello; idcirco & ipsam ego sororem vocavi. Non ait Chrysostomus, quia eundem patrem habet quem ego, sed quia eundem patrem appellat: nam quia Thare avus erat ipsius Sarae, idcirco Sara ritè nominabat eum patrem suum; quemadmodum enim avi nepotes & neptes appellare solent filios vel filias, ita vicissim nepotes & neptes avos vocant patres suos. Erat praeterea quaedam propria & praecipua ratio cur id faceret Sara: Aran enim pater eius multò ante Thare obierat; quare Sara, mortuo patre, ipsum Thare non solùm in avi sed etiam in patris loco habebat. Sed non attinet plures huius opinionis probatores ac defen-…

There are those who think Chrysostom was averse from this opinion; with whom I by no means agree. I will set down Chrysostom's words from his forty-fifth homily on Genesis, where, explaining that saying of Abraham in the twentieth chapter of Genesis, “For she is my sister by the father, but not by the mother,” he says thus: “And she calls the same one ‘father’ whom I too call father; therefore I also called her sister.” Chrysostom does not say ‘because she has the same father as I,’ but ‘because she calls [him] the same father’: for since Thare was the grandfather of Sara herself, Sara rightly named him her father; for just as grandfathers are wont to call grandsons and granddaughters their sons or daughters, so in turn grandsons and granddaughters call their grandfathers their fathers. There was besides a certain special and chief reason why Sara did this: for Aran her father had died long before Thare; wherefore Sara, her father being dead, held Thare not only in the place of a grandfather but also of a father. But it does not pertain [to recount] more approvers and defenders of this opinion…¹⁸

…sores nominari, cùm ea sit communis, ut dixi, Doctorum sententia: extra quam nec ipsum B. Hieronymum fuisse, satis indicat quae scribit ille in Traditionibus Hebraicis in Genesim super caput undecimum, cuius verba paulò suprà commemoravimus. Cumque Iosephus, qui vixit seculo illo Christi domini & Apostolorum, id senserit, perquam credibile sit eam fuisse id temporis apud Hebraeos & Synagogae sententiam.

…[approvers and defenders] to be named, since this is, as I said, the common opinion of the Doctors; and that not even blessed Jerome himself was outside it is sufficiently indicated by what he writes in the Hebrew Traditions on Genesis on the eleventh chapter, whose words we recounted a little above. And since Josephus, who lived in that age of Christ the Lord and the Apostles, held this, it is very credible that this was at that time the opinion among the Hebrews and of the Synagogue.¹⁹

CONFIRMATUR porrò multis & validis rationibus haec opinio. Prima ratio. Proditum est in capite undecimo Geneseos Aran, qui frater fuit Abrahae & Nachor, duas genuisse filias, Melcham dico & Iescham; cùm igitur Nachor Melcham sibi matrimonio iunxerit, verisimile sit Abraham quoque alteram filiam Aran, quae Iescha dicebatur, uxorem duxisse, haec autem alio nomine appellata est Sarai. Id enim & Thare & Abrahae & ipsi Ieschae seu Sarae optatissimum & gratissimum esse debuit; praesertim cùm mos fuerit illorum Patriarcharum, non alieni generis & gentis mulieres, sed ex sua gente ac stirpe uxores accipere. Quocirca Abraham adiuravit servum suum ne acciperet uxorem filio suo Isaac de gente Chananaeorum: Sed ad terram, inquit, & cognationem meam proficisceris, & inde accipies uxorem filio meo Isaac. Et ipse Isaac mittens filium suum Iacob in Mesopotamiam: Noli, ait, accipere coniugem de gente Chanaan; sed vade ad domum Bathuelis patris matris tuae, & accipe inde tibi uxorem de filiabus Laban avunculi tui.

This opinion is moreover confirmed by many and strong reasons. First reason. It is set down in the eleventh chapter of Genesis that Aran, who was the brother of Abraham and Nachor, begot two daughters, Melcha I say and Iescha; since therefore Nachor joined Melcha to himself in matrimony, it is likely that Abraham too married the other daughter of Aran, who was called Iescha, and she by another name was called Sarai. For this must have been most desired and most pleasing to Thare and to Abraham and to Iescha (Sara) herself — especially since it was the custom of those Patriarchs to take wives not of another race and nation, but of their own race and stock. Wherefore Abraham adjured his servant not to take a wife for his son Isaac of the Chanaanite nation: “But you shall go,” he said, “to my land and my kindred, and thence shall take a wife for my son Isaac.” And Isaac himself, sending his son Jacob into Mesopotamia: “Do not,” he said, “take a wife of the nation of Chanaan; but go to the house of Bathuel your mother's father, and take thence a wife for yourself of the daughters of Laban your uncle.”²⁰

ALTERA ratio. Ex ipsa narratione Mosis elicitur non leve argumentum, Saram non fuisse filiam Thare & sororem Abrahae. Sic enim scribit Moses capite undecimo: Tulit Thare Abram filium suum, & Lot filium Aran filii sui, & Sarai nurum suam, uxorem Abram filii sui, & eduxit eos de Ur Chaldaeorum, ut irent in terram Chanaan. Si Sara fuisset filia Thare, cùm longè maior sit necessitudo patris & filiae quàm soceri & nurus, non appellasset Moses Saram nurum Thare, sed filiam eius. Itaque argumentum quod ex hoc loco ducunt qui opinantur Saram non fuisse filiam Aran fratris Abrahae, sed sororem ipsius Abrahae, propterea quod Moses hoc loco non appellavit Saram filiam Aran sicut Lot, sed tantùm nurum Thare & uxorem Abrahae: hoc, inquam, argumentum, si quam vim habet, eam certè maiorem contra istos quàm contra nos habet; namque consimili ratione argumenti possumus [colligere] Saram non fuisse filiam Thare, quòd eam Moses potius filiam Thare quàm nurum eius appellasset.

Second reason. From Moses's own narration no slight argument is drawn that Sara was not the daughter of Thare and the sister of Abraham. For Moses writes thus in the eleventh chapter: “Thare took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Aran his son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, the wife of Abram his son, and brought them out of Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Chanaan.” If Sara had been the daughter of Thare — since the bond of father and daughter is far greater than that of father-in-law and daughter-in-law — Moses would not have called Sara the daughter-in-law of Thare, but his daughter. So the argument which those draw from this place who think Sara was not the daughter of Aran, the brother of Abraham, but the sister of Abraham himself — because Moses here did not call Sara the daughter of Aran, as he did Lot, but only the daughter-in-law of Thare and wife of Abraham — this argument, I say, if it has any force, certainly has more against them than against us; for by a like reasoning of argument we can [conclude] that Sara was not the daughter of Thare, since Moses would rather have called her the daughter of Thare than his daughter-in-law.²¹

TERTIA ratio. Tempore Abrahae nec in usu erat, nec licitum erat coniugium inter fratrem & sororem, sive utroque sive altero tantùm parente natos: ergo Sara uxor Abrahae non fuit eius soror; neque enim sanctorum hominum Abrahae & Sarae matrimonium contra proborum hominum eius temporis consuetudinem & honesta instituta contractum esse, fas est credere. Non fuisse autem id genus coniugii usitatum eo tempore ac licitum, patet eo argumento, quod propterea suasit Abraham Sarae ut, dissimulans se uxorem esse ipsius, diceret se esse sororem eius; quasi quae soror esset, eadem non posset esse…

Third reason. In Abraham's time marriage between brother and sister, whether born of both parents or of only one, was neither in use nor lawful: therefore Sara the wife of Abraham was not his sister; for it is not right to believe that the marriage of the holy persons Abraham and Sara was contracted against the custom and honorable institutions of upright men of that time. That this kind of marriage was not customary or lawful at that time is clear from this argument: that Abraham for this reason persuaded Sara that, concealing that she was his wife, she should say she was his sister — as if she who was [his] sister could not also be [his wife]…²²

…esse uxor: quapropter cùm primùm Abimelech cognovit Saram esse uxorem Abrahae, sine dubitatione intellexit non esse veram sororem: eodemque postea indicio deprehendit idem Rebeccam veram esse uxorem Isaac, non autem germanam sororem, ut narrat Moses infra capite vigesimo sexto.

…also be [his] wife: wherefore as soon as Abimelech recognized that Sara was the wife of Abraham, he understood without doubt that she was not [his] true sister; and by the same indication he afterward detected likewise that Rebecca was truly the wife of Isaac, and not his full sister, as Moses narrates below in the twenty-sixth chapter.²³

ACCEDIT ad huius rei confirmationem, quod matrimonium inter fratrem & sororem, cùm sit in primo gradu consanguinitatis, naturali iure vetitum est. Extat apud Innocentium caput Gaudemus de Divortiis, decretum ut eiusmodi matrimonia infidelium, cùm ipsi venerint ad fidem Christi, rescindantur & dissolvantur tanquam invalida & planè nulla. Namque effugium illius distinctionis uterinae & non uterinae sororis, primùm à Clemente Alexandrino inventum, & posteà tum à Caietano tum etiam à quibusdam aliis approbatum, cùm nulla ratione probabili nitatur, infirmissimum est, & à B. Augustino libro vigesimo secundo contra Faustum capite trigesimo quinto (cuius verba paulò superius exposuimus) refutatum & reiectum. Quod autem dixerint alii id fecisse Abraham ex singulari revelatione & concessu Dei, cùm ex sacra scriptura id minimè probari queat, temerè dicitur, & qua facilitate dicitur, eadem contemnitur.

There is added to the confirmation of this matter that marriage between brother and sister, since it is in the first degree of consanguinity, is forbidden by natural law. There exists in Innocent [III] the chapter ‘Gaudemus’ on Divorces, a decree that marriages of this kind among unbelievers, when they come to the faith of Christ, are to be rescinded and dissolved as invalid and utterly null. For that evasion of the distinction of a uterine and a non-uterine sister — first invented by Clement of Alexandria, and afterward approved both by Cajetan and also by certain others — since it rests on no probable reason, is most weak, and was refuted and rejected by Augustine (book 22 against Faustus, chapter 35, whose words we set out a little above). But that others have said Abraham did this from a singular revelation and concession of God — since this can by no means be proved from sacred scripture — is rashly said, and with the same ease with which it is said, it is despised.²⁴

QUOD verò nonnulli dixerunt Saram fuisse adoptivam filiam Thare & sororem Abrahae, duplici cum errore exploditur: tum quia, cùm id sine ratione ulla dicatur, temerè dicitur, quare pro nihilo ducendum est; tum quia, etiam si esset, sequeretur Saram non fuisse veram uxorem Abrahae, vel non potuisse iure appellari sororem eius: nam manente adoptione, non poterat esse legitima uxor eius, ut ostendimus; soluta autem adoptione, simul quoque desineret omnino esse soror: cùm tamen nec dubitare liceat legitimam fuisse eius uxorem, & ipsemet dixerit verè appellatam à se illam fuisse sororem suam.

But what some have said — that Sara was the adoptive daughter of Thare and the sister of Abraham — is exploded with a double error: both because, since it is said without any reason, it is rashly said, and so is to be reckoned as nothing; and because, even if it were so, it would follow that Sara was not the true wife of Abraham, or could not rightly be called his sister: for while the adoption remained, she could not be his lawful wife, as we have shown; but the adoption being dissolved, she would at the same time cease altogether to be a sister — whereas it is not permitted even to doubt that she was his lawful wife, and he himself said that she was truly called by him his sister.²⁵

DENIQUE non fuisse temporibus Abrahae coniugium fratrum & sororum in usu apud probos viros, nec licitum, expressa est B. Augustini sententia. Nam praeter locum illum quem proximè nominavi ex libro vigesimo secundo contra Faustum, quo loco id apertissimis verbis tradit, idem quoque confirmat libro decimo quinto de Civitate Dei capite decimo sexto, ubi de coniugio fratrum & sororum disputans, quod in exordio Mundi propter hominum paucitatem necessitate compellente usurpatum fuerat, sic ait: Quod profectò coniugium, quantò est antiquius compellente necessitate, tantò post factum est damnabilius religione prohibente. Et paulo infrà: Fuit, inquit, antiquis patribus religiosae curae, ne ipsa propinquitas, se paulatim propaginum ordinibus dirimens, longius abiret & propinquitas esse desisteret, eam nondum longè positam rursus matrimonii vinculo colligere, & quodammodo revocare fugientem. Unde, etiam cùm iam plenum esset hominibus terrarum, non quidem sorores ex patre vel matre vel ex ambobus suis parentibus natas, sed tamen amabant de suo genere ducere uxores.

Finally, that marriage of brothers and sisters was not, in Abraham's times, in use among upright men, nor lawful, is the express opinion of Augustine. For besides that passage I just named from book 22 against Faustus, where he hands this down in the plainest words, he confirms the same also in book 15 of the City of God, chapter 16, where, disputing about the marriage of brothers and sisters which at the beginning of the world, on account of the fewness of men, had been practiced under compelling necessity, he says thus: “Which marriage indeed, the more ancient it is under compelling necessity, the more damnable it became afterward, when religion forbade it.” And a little below: “It was,” he says, “a matter of religious care to the ancient fathers, lest kinship itself, gradually severing through the ranks of the generations, should go further off and cease to be kinship — to gather it again, while not yet far removed, by the bond of matrimony, and in a manner to call back kinship as it fled. Whence, even when the earth was now full of men, they did not indeed [choose] sisters born of their father or mother, or of both their parents, yet they loved to take wives of their own stock.”²⁶

ET paulo ante haec verba, cùm de coniugii sororum & fratrum evitatione locutus esset, ita dixerat: Quod, inquit, humano genere cres-…

And a little before these words, when he had spoken of the avoidance of marriage of sisters and brothers, he had said thus: “Which,” he says, “as the human race grows…”²⁷

…cente & multiplicante, etiam inter impios deorum multorum falsorumque cultores sic observari cernimus, ut etiam si perversis legibus permittantur fraterna coniugia, melior tamen consuetudo ipsam malit exhorrere licentiam: & cùm sorores accipere in matrimonium primis humani generis temporibus omnino licuerit, sic aversetur quasi nunquam licere potuerit. Ad humanum enim sensum vel alliciendum vel offendendum mos valet plurimum, qui cùm in hac causa immoderationem concupiscentiae coerceat, eum perverti atque corrumpi meritò esse nefarium iudicaretur. Si enim iniquum est aviditate possidendi transgredi limitem agrorum, quanto est iniquius libidine concumbendi subvertere limitem morum? Haec Augustinus.

“…and multiplies, we see this observed even among the impious worshippers of the many false gods, so that even if fraternal marriages are permitted by perverse laws, yet a better custom prefers to shrink from that license itself; and although in the first times of the human race it was wholly lawful to take sisters in marriage, [custom] so abhors it as if it could never have been lawful. For custom is most powerful to allure or to offend human feeling; and since in this case it restrains the immoderation of concupiscence, [a custom] perverting and corrupting it would deservedly be judged nefarious. For if it is unjust, from greed of possessing, to transgress the boundary of fields, how much more unjust is it, from the lust of lying together, to subvert the boundary of morals?” Thus Augustine.²⁸

QUOD autem Augustinus dixit fraterna coniugia perversis legibus apud nonnullas gentes fuisse permissa, haud dubiè pertinet ad Persas & Aegyptios, qui coniugia sororum & fratrum sine ulla religione usurpabant. Aegyptii (ait Diodorus) hanc legem praeter communem omnium morem sanxere, ut esse uxorem à fratre sororem capi. Quam legem & consuetudinem quidam Ethnicus poëta, ut planè barbaram & ferinam, execratur: Tale est, inquit, omne barbarum genus: pater cum filia, filius cum matre miscetur, soror cum fratre. Nuptias quidem Ptolemaei Philadelphi regis Aegypti cum sorore sua Arsinoe Theocritus poëta sordida adulatione celebravit carminibus, comparans eas nuptiis Iovis & Iunonis: sed eas saniori iudicio veriore sententia, ut honestis Macedonum institutis contrarias & foedissimis Aegyptiorum moribus convenientes, damnavit Pausanias. Coniugium porrò & commixtio fratris & sororis, sive utroque sive altero tantùm parente nati fuerint, quàm sit indecens & naturali reverentiae atque honestati repugnans, satis ostendit turpissima & atrocissima poena qua Deus eos qui id attentassent puniri voluit, commixtionem cum commixtione qua quis cum iumento vel masculo coit consocians & comparans. Sic enim scriptum est Levitici vigesimo: Qui acceperit sororem suam, filiam patris sui vel filiam matris suae, & viderit turpitudinem eius, illaque conspexerit fratris ignominiam, nefariam rem operati sunt; occidentur in conspectu populi sui, eo quod turpitudinem suam mutuo revelaverint, & portabunt iniquitatem suam.

But what Augustine said — that fraternal marriages were permitted by perverse laws among some nations — doubtless pertains to the Persians and Egyptians, who practiced marriages of sisters and brothers without any scruple. “The Egyptians (says Diodorus) sanctioned this law, contrary to the common custom of all, that a sister be taken as wife by a brother.” Which law and custom a certain pagan poet [Euripides] execrates as plainly barbarous and beastly: “Such,” he says, “is every barbarian race: father is mingled with daughter, son with mother, sister with brother.” The marriage indeed of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, with his sister Arsinoe, the poet Theocritus celebrated in verses with base flattery, comparing it to the marriage of Jupiter and Juno; but Pausanias, with sounder judgment and a truer opinion, condemned it as contrary to the honorable institutions of the Macedonians and conformable to the most foul customs of the Egyptians. Moreover, how indecent the marriage and commingling of brother and sister is — whether born of both or of only one parent — and how repugnant to natural reverence and honor, the most base and atrocious penalty sufficiently shows by which God willed those who attempted it to be punished, associating and comparing that commingling with the commingling by which one lies with a beast or a male. For thus it is written in Leviticus 20: {He who shall take his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother, and shall see her shame, and she shall behold her brother's disgrace: they have done a nefarious thing; they shall be slain in the sight of their people, because they have mutually revealed their shame; and they shall bear their iniquity.}²⁹

RESTAT ut rationes pro contraria opinione supra expositas, quae videntur officere huic sententiae, breviter diluamus. Principio, quod Moses Saram non appellaverit filiam filii Thare, causa fuit quia iam erat matrimonio iuncta Abrahae, id quod honorificentius erat. Et hoc argumentum, ut supra dixi, vehementius & validius retorquetur in adversarios: si enim Sara filia Thare fuisset, ut isti volunt, cur eam Moses non potius appellasset filiam Thare quàm nurum eius? Quod autem Sara fuerit eadem quae ibi appellatur nomine Iescha, sententia est Hieronymi, Augustini, aliorumque complurium & nobilium scriptorum. Fortasse priusquam Thare familiam suam…

It remains that we briefly dissolve the reasons set out above for the contrary opinion, which seem to oppose this opinion. First, that Moses did not call Sara the daughter of Thare's son [Aran], the cause was that she was already joined in matrimony to Abraham, which was more honorable [to note]. And this argument, as I said above, is more forcibly and validly turned back upon the adversaries: for if Sara had been the daughter of Thare, as these wish, why would Moses not rather have called her the daughter of Thare than his daughter-in-law? But that Sara was the same who is there called by the name Iescha is the opinion of Jerome, Augustine, and several other noble writers. Perhaps before Thare [led] his family…³⁰

…educeret ex Chaldaea, vel utroque nomine appellabatur, vel etiam frequentius nomine Ieschae: posteà verò ferè Sara appellata est. Quorsum autem Moses inseruisset eo loco nomen Ieschae, si ea non pertinuisset ad Abraham vel ad Nachor? Nec verò Abraham, cùm dixit Saram esse sororem suam, fefellit aut regem Abimelech: verum enim dixit, licet Abimelech secus ac dictum fuerat intellexerit. Et fortasse non, ut in Chaldaea vel in familia Thare, sic in Aegypto vel in regione Chanaan, nomen sororis simpliciter dictum in usu erat tam pro vera sorore quàm pro filia fratris, sed tantùm pro filia eiusdem patris vel matris.

…led his family out of Chaldea, [Sara] was called either by both names, or even more frequently by the name Iescha; but afterward she was generally called Sara. And to what purpose would Moses have inserted the name Iescha in that place, if she had not pertained to Abraham or to Nachor? Nor indeed did Abraham, when he said Sara was his sister, deceive King Abimelech: for he said what was true, although Abimelech understood it otherwise than it was said. And perhaps the name ‘sister,’ said simply, was not — in Egypt or in the region of Canaan, as in Chaldea or in the family of Thare — in use as much for a true sister as for a brother's daughter, but only for the daughter of the same father or mother.³¹

ILLUD porrò ex capite vigesimo Genesis, Vere soror mea est, non est dictum ab Abraham ut significaret Saram esse veram & germanam sororem suam (id est, ab eodem patre proximè genitam), sed ut ostenderet se non esse mentitum cùm dixit illam esse sororem suam; verè enim id esse dictum, quia suae gentis ac familiae, & eiusdem patris filius vel filia, verum etiam avunculi & fratrum filii aut filiae, verè nominabantur fratres & sorores. Itaque illud adverbium Vere non iungitur cum vocabulo soror, quasi diceret illam fuisse veram & germanam sororem, sed pertinet ad veritatem sententiae quam dixerat Abraham; ut sit sensus, Non sum mentitus cùm dixi esse sororem meam, nam verè, id est reverà, soror mea est. Addidit autem & illud, Filia patris mei & non matris meae, quia omnes qui erant ex familia Thare, ipsum appellabant patrem: hunc verò credibile sit ex alia uxore generasse Abraham, & ex alia ipsum Aran patrem Lot & Sarae.

That phrase, moreover, from the twentieth chapter of Genesis, “Truly she is my sister,” was not said by Abraham to signify that Sara was his true and full sister (that is, immediately begotten of the same father), but to show that he had not lied when he said she was his sister; for it was truly said, because [members] of his own race and family, and the son or daughter of the same father, but also truly the son or daughter of an uncle and of brothers, were truly named brothers and sisters. So that adverb ‘truly’ is not joined with the word ‘sister’ as though he said she was his true and full sister, but pertains to the truth of the statement which Abraham had made; so that the sense is: “I did not lie when I said she was my sister, for truly — that is, really — she is my sister.” But he added also that, “The daughter of my father, and not of my mother,” because all who were of Thare's family called him father; and it is credible that Thare begot Abraham of one wife, and that same Aran, the father of Lot and Sara, of another.³²

RELIQUUM est ut ad principale argumentum, supra in initio huius disputationis positum, brevissimè respondeamus. Argumentabamur Saram non fuisse filiam Aran fratris Abrahae, ad hunc modum: Sara decem duntaxat annis natu minor erat quàm Abraham; sed Abraham natus fuerat ante Aran, quippe cùm Moses, commemorando filios Thare, primum nominaverit Abraham, secundum Nachor, tertium Aran; ergo Aran ante decimum aetatis suae annum genuisset Saram, quod est incredibile: vel igitur Sara non fuit filia Aran, vel Abraham non fuit primogenitus. Ad hoc igitur ita respondendum est: Abraham revera non fuisse primogenitum filiorum Thare, sed multis annis posteriorem ipso Aran: recenseri autem primum inter filios Thare, non modò propter virtutis eius praestantiam, aut propter praerogativam dignitatis quòd futurus esset pater multarum gentium & populi Dei, quin etiam omnium credentium; sed quia ipse verè genitus fuerat anno illo septuagesimo aetatis Thare, Aran verò multis annis ante. Et quia Moses voluit eum tantùm Thare annum nominare quo anno genitus fuerat Abraham, ut per ipsum series & ordo temporum continuaretur, idcirco in anno septuagesimo Thare signavit ortum Abrahami. Nachor autem & Aran pro-…

It remains that we respond very briefly to the principal argument set out above at the beginning of this disputation. We argued that Sara was not the daughter of Aran the brother of Abraham, in this way: Sara was only ten years younger than Abraham; but Abraham had been born before Aran, since Moses, in recounting the sons of Thare, named first Abraham, second Nachor, third Aran; therefore Aran would have begotten Sara before the tenth year of his age, which is incredible: therefore either Sara was not the daughter of Aran, or Abraham was not the firstborn. To this, then, it must be answered thus: that Abraham was really not the firstborn of Thare's sons, but many years later than Aran himself; and that he is recounted first among the sons of Thare not only on account of the excellence of his virtue, or on account of the prerogative of dignity because he would be the father of many nations and of the people of God — indeed, of all believers — but because he was truly begotten in that seventieth year of Thare's age, while Aran [was begotten] many years before. And because Moses wished to name only that year of Thare in which Abraham was begotten, so that through it the series and order of the times might be continued, therefore he marked the birth of Abraham in Thare's seventieth year. But Nachor and Aran…³³

…propterea nominavit, quòd illi quoque ad seriem huius Historiae quodammodo pertinerent: Nachor quidem propter uxores Isaac & Iacob quae ab illo genus duxerunt; Aran verò propter Lot & Saram.

…he named for this reason, that they too pertained in a manner to the series of this History: Nachor indeed on account of the wives of Isaac and Jacob, who traced their descent from him; but Aran on account of Lot and Sara.³⁴

ERGO illorum verborum Mosis, Vixit Thare septuaginta annis & genuit Abraham, Nachor & Aran, hic est germanus & verissimus intellectus: cùm Thare esset septuaginta annorum, iam genuerat istos tres filios; sed ita ut septuagesimo anno genuerit Abraham, ante ipsum verò genuerat Nachor, & ante utrumque genuerat Aran, quem quadragesimo vel quinquagesimo anno Thare genitum esse credi posset. Cùm igitur tota via illius argumentationis eo niteretur quod pro certo sumeret Abraham fuisse primogenitum omnium filiorum Thare, hoc sublato, necesse est infirmatam esse ac nullam eius rationis conclusionem; illam dico conclusionem, Saram non fuisse filiam Aran fratris Abrahae.

Therefore, of those words of Moses, “Thare lived seventy years and begot Abraham, Nachor, and Aran,” this is the genuine and truest understanding: when Thare was seventy years old, he had already begotten those three sons; but in such wise that in his seventieth year he begot Abraham, while before him he had begotten Nachor, and before both he had begotten Aran, who may be believed to have been begotten in Thare's fortieth or fiftieth year. Since therefore the whole way of that argumentation rested on taking it for certain that Abraham was the firstborn of all Thare's sons, this being removed, the conclusion of that reasoning must be weakened and made null — that conclusion, I say, that Sara was not the daughter of Aran the brother of Abraham.³⁵

POSSET praeterea quispiam dicere Saram non fuisse filiam Aran, nec fuisse eam quam Moses nominavit Iescham, sed fuisse natam ex alio quopiam filio Thare quem is genuerit ante septuagesimum annum quo natus est Abraham. Itaque cogitare licet Thare ante illos tres filios, Abraham, Nachor & Aran, genuisse ex diversa uxore aliquos alios, vel unum aliquem ex quo nata sit Sara; illos autem filios propterea tacuisse Mosem, quòd illi ad argumentum & seriem Historiae quam scribendam Moses susceperat minimè pertinerent. Quemadmodum prisci illi patres, quos ante & post diluvium fuisse narrat Moses, alios filios genuerunt etiam priores iis quos Moses commemorat, sicut docet Augustinus libro decimo quinto, & à nobis probatum est libro septimo Commentariorum nostrorum in Genesim, in Disputatione de Chronologia quae describitur ante diluvium, in quaestione quarta. Et hac quidem solutione admissa, devitatur incommodum aliquod quo premi videbatur opinio eorum qui censent Saram fuisse filiam Aran fratris Abrahae; simulque concedi potest Abraham natu priorem fuisse quàm Nachor & Aran.

Besides, someone could say that Sara was not the daughter of Aran, nor was she the one Moses named Iescha, but was born of some other son of Thare whom he begot before the seventieth year in which Abraham was born. So one may suppose that Thare, before those three sons Abraham, Nachor, and Aran, begot of a different wife some others, or some one from whom Sara was born; and that Moses was silent about those sons because they did not pertain to the argument and series of the History which Moses had undertaken to write. Just as those ancient fathers, whom Moses narrates to have lived before and after the flood, begot other sons even earlier than those Moses mentions — as Augustine teaches in book 15, and as we have proved in book 7 of our Commentaries on Genesis, in the Disputation on the Chronology described before the flood, question four. And with this solution admitted, some inconvenience is avoided by which the opinion of those who think Sara was the daughter of Aran the brother of Abraham seemed to be pressed; and at the same time it can be conceded that Abraham was elder in birth than Nachor and Aran.³⁶

NEQUE verò illud quod paulò suprà de Iescha dictum est, valdè urget. Dicebatur enim, nisi Iescha fuisset uxor Abrahae quae alio nomine dicta est Sara, nullam fuisse rationem cur mentionem eius facere eo loco Moses voluisset. Ad hoc autem facilis est responsio: saepe enim nominantur in sacris literis aliquae personae, non quòd per se attingant Historiam quae tractatur, sed quòd habeant coniunctionem cum iis quae ad seriem & ordinem Historiae propriè spectant. Atque hoc quidem non in viris modò, verùm etiam in feminis verum est, sicut licet animadvertere: siquidem in capite quarto libri Geneseos memorantur duo filii Lamech & filia nomine Noema; in vigesimo secundo capite eiusdem libri nominatur concubina Nachor quae appellabatur Roma; denique in eiusdem libri trigesimo sexto…

Nor indeed does that which was said a little above about Iescha press very hard. For it was said that, unless Iescha had been the wife of Abraham who by another name was called Sara, there would have been no reason why Moses would have wished to make mention of her in that place. But to this the answer is easy: for often in the sacred letters certain persons are named, not because they of themselves touch the History being treated, but because they have a connection with those things which properly regard the series and order of the History. And this is true not only of men, but also of women, as one may observe: for in the fourth chapter of Genesis are mentioned the two sons of Lamech and a daughter by name Noema; in the twenty-second chapter of the same book is named the concubine of Nachor who was called Roma [Reuma]; finally in the thirty-sixth chapter of the same book…³⁷

…capite traditur Anam genuisse filium Dison & filiam Oolibamam: neque tamen istarum trium mulierum alibi quàm in his locis mentio fit in sacra Scriptura.

…chapter it is recorded that Ana begot a son Dison and a daughter Oolibama; and yet of these three women no mention is made anywhere else than in these places in sacred Scripture.³⁸

Translator’s notes

Disp. 14 title (the 14th disputation of Liber XVI overall; first of the Third Part). On Gen 11:26/27 — whether Abraham was Thare's firstborn, and whether his wife Sara was his full (uterine) sister. ↩
§205. The case for Abraham being firstborn (Thare began begetting at 70, and Abraham was born that year, so the others came later). The grave counter-argument: if (per many) Abraham married Sara, daughter of his brother Aran, and Abraham was 10 years older than Sara (Gen 17), then were Abraham the eldest, Aran would have had to beget Sara before age 10 — incredible. So Abraham was not the firstborn nor born in Thare's 70th year. This disputation thus completes the previous one (Disp. 13). ↩
§206 (begins). The first view: many notable authors held Sara was Abraham's true but half-sister — same father (Thare), different mother (continues next page). ↩
§206 (concl.). Proponents of the half-sister view: Clement of Alexandria (Stromata bk. 2, quoting Abraham's ‘daughter of my father not my mother’), Lippomanus (Catena on Gen 20), and Soto (De Iustitia et Iure bk. 2 q. 3). Cajetan's argument from Gen 11: since only Melcha is called ‘daughter of Aran,’ Sara was not Aran's daughter — and identifying Sara with Iescha (a double name) is more reasonably rejected than asserted. Margin: 'Clement of Alexandria; Genesis 20; Lippomanus; Dominic de Soto; Cajetan.' ↩
§207. Cajetan, on Gen 20, more emphatically: Josephus's claim that Sara was Aran's daughter (Lot's full sister) contradicts Moses, and Josephus is known to deviate from the text. Abraham's ‘daughter of my father, not of my mother’ plainly makes Sara a carnal but non-uterine sister — not his grandfather's or brother's daughter. This is the literal sense. ↩
§207 (concl.) + §208 (begins). Cajetan finishes: such marriage was then lawful; ‘father’ and ‘mother’ are used properly, and no words could signify a non-uterine sister more clearly. §208: Jerome too leans this way — on Gen 20 he says Sara was daughter of Abraham's brother Aran (not his sister), yet notes the Hebrew (‘not the daughter of my mother’) sounds as if Sara were Abraham's sister, excused because such marriages were not yet forbidden by Mosaic law. Margin: 'Josephus; Jerome.' ↩
§208 (cont.). But Jerome elsewhere (same work, on Gen 11) takes the CONTRARY view: Aran begot two daughters, Melcha and Sara (= Iescha); Nachor married Melcha, Abraham married Sara — both being Aran's brothers, since uncle–niece marriages were not yet forbidden, as among the first men even brother–sister marriages were (continues next page). ↩
§208 (concl.) + §209. Pererius clarifies: Jerome's words do not mean uncle–niece marriage was Mosaically forbidden — Leviticus 18's prohibited degrees never list it, and Othoniel's marriage to Axa, daughter of his brother Caleb (Judges 1), shows it was lawful even after the Law. §209: Tostatus admits the half-sister (first) opinion is reasonable and scriptural, but declines it because the common opinion opposes it and such marriage seems to have been unlawful in Abraham's day — which the first opinion's followers deny. Margin: 'Tostatus on Genesis 11.' ↩
§210 (first argument for the half-sister view). Gen 11 calls only Melcha ‘daughter of Aran’; had Sara been Aran's daughter, it would say so of her too. The counter-claim that Sara = Iescha (a double name) is rejected: Moses would not pun obscurely, calling her Sarai everywhere but Iescha just once without noting they are the same — a plain reader takes Sarai and Iescha as two different women. ↩
§211 (second argument). Gen 11:31 calls Sarai only Thare's ‘daughter-in-law’ (wife of his son Abram). Had she been Aran's daughter, Moses would have named her Thare's granddaughter — the closer relationship — just as he named Lot ‘son of Aran.’ ↩
§212 (begins — third argument). From Abraham's reply to Abimelech (Gen 20:12): ‘Truly she is my sister, the daughter of my father and not of my mother, and I took her to wife’ — plainly making Sara a full (but non-uterine) sister (continues next page). ↩
§212 (concl.) + fourth argument. The phrases ‘truly my sister’ and ‘daughter of my father, not of my mother’ could not more expressly denote a non-uterine sister. Fourth argument: if Sara were not truly Abraham's sister, Abraham would have deceived Abimelech, who took the words in their proper sense and believed her his sister, not his wife. ↩
§213. Summary of the first opinion (Sara = half-sister) and why such marriage was lawful then: most proponents (Clement, Jerome, Cajetan, Lippomanus, Soto) say non-uterine sibling marriage was permitted before the Law — supported by Thamar's words to Amnon (2 Sam 13:13). Variants: some say Abraham married her by a special divine revelation (a fit, faithful wife for the father of the faithful people); others, citing Justinian's law (sibling marriage barred, but allowed after an adoptive tie is dissolved by emancipation), conjecture Sara was Thare's adopted daughter whom Abraham could lawfully marry once emancipated. Margin: 'Clement of Alexandria; St. Jerome; Cajetan; Lippomanus; Soto; Hamerus on Genesis; Justinian, Institutes bk. [1].' ↩
§214 (begins — the Author's own opinion). The nearly common view of the doctors, which Pererius adopts: Sara was the daughter of Aran (Abraham's brother) and true sister of Lot, but called ‘sister’ by the Hebrew idiom that names uncles and a brother's children ‘brothers/sisters’ — as Abraham called his nephew Lot ‘brother’ (Gen 13) and Laban called Jacob, his sister Rebecca's son, ‘brother’ (Gen 29). The Romans spoke likewise: Cicero (On Ends, bk. 5 opening) called his cousin Lucius Cicero ‘brother’ (continues next page). Margin: 'The author's opinion: that Sara was not the carnal sister of Abraham but the daughter of his brother; Cicero.' ↩
§214 (concl.). The Roman kinship vocabulary completing the point that kindred are loosely called ‘brothers’: sons of two brothers = patrueles, sons of two sisters = consobrini, sons of a brother and sister = amitini. ↩
§215. Pererius adduces Augustine (Contra Faustum 22.35; City of God 16.19; followed by Aquinas, Summa II-II q.110) in support — chiefly for the principle that kindred were loosely called ‘brothers/sisters’ (Tobias's wife a ‘sister’ of the same tribe; Lot called Abraham's ‘brother’ though his nephew; the Lord's ‘brethren’ as near kin). The quoted passage also frames Sara as a father's-side sister and notes Abraham did not lie to Abimelech, being under no compulsion. Margin: 'Augustine; Tobit 6 & 8; Gen 11 & 13; Matthew 13 and elsewhere; St. Thomas; Josephus.' ↩
§216. The most ancient witness for the niece view is Josephus (Antiquities bk. 1): Abraham married Sara, daughter of his brother Aran, and adopted Aran's son Lot — done as he left Mesopotamia. Pererius accepts the marriage but doubts the adoption of Lot: Gen 13 has Abraham call Lot ‘brother’ (‘for we are brothers’), not ‘son.’ Margin: 'Josephus.' ↩
§217 (begins). Against those who enlist Chrysostom for the half-sister view, Pererius argues Chrysostom (Homily 45 on Genesis) actually supports the niece view: explaining Gen 20:12, Chrysostom says Sara ‘calls the same one father’ — i.e. she called Thare (her grandfather) ‘father,’ as grandchildren do, all the more since her real father Aran had died long before Thare. Margin: 'Chrysostom.' ↩
§217 (concl.). The niece view is the common opinion of the doctors; even Jerome (on Gen 11) was within it; and since Josephus (who lived in the apostolic age) held it, it was very likely the Hebrew and Synagogue view of that time. Margin: 'Jerome.' ↩
§218 (first confirming reason). Gen 11 says Aran begot two daughters, Melcha and Iescha; Nachor married Melcha, so Abraham likely married the other, Iescha (= Sarai) — pleasing to all and fitting the patriarchs' custom of marrying within their own stock (cf. Abraham's charge to his servant about Isaac, Gen 24; Isaac's charge to Jacob, Gen 28). Margin: 'That Sara was not the full sister of Abraham is proved by three reasons'; 'Gen 24 & 28.' ↩
§219 (second reason). Gen 11:31 calls Sarai only Thare's ‘daughter-in-law,’ not his daughter — so she was not Thare's daughter (hence not Abraham's sister). Pererius turns the opponents' own argument (that Moses calls Lot ‘son of Aran’ but not Sara) back on them: by the same logic, the failure to call her Thare's daughter shows she was not his daughter. ↩
§220 (begins — third reason). Sibling marriage (full or half) was neither customary nor lawful in Abraham's day; one cannot believe these holy people married against the upright custom of their time. Proof: Abraham had Sara conceal being his wife by claiming to be his sister — implying sister and wife were mutually exclusive (continues at printed 560, PDF 663). Margin: 'That marriage between brothers and sisters was not lawful in Abraham's time.' ↩
§220 (concl.). The proof that sibling marriage was not lawful, completed: Abimelech, once he learned Sara was Abraham's wife, concluded she was not truly his sister — and inferred the same of Rebecca and Isaac (Gen 26). So ‘sister’ and ‘wife’ were taken as mutually exclusive. ↩
§221. Confirmation against the half-sister view: sibling marriage is barred by natural law (first degree); Innocent III's decretal ‘Gaudemus’ (on Divorce) nullifies such marriages of converts. The uterine/non-uterine distinction (Clement, Cajetan) is groundless and was refuted by Augustine (Contra Faustum 22.35); the ‘special revelation’ defense is unprovable and dismissed. Margin: 'Pope Innocent; Augustine.' ↩
§222. The adoptive-daughter theory (from §213, via Justinian's law) is rejected on a double error: it is asserted without reason, and it is self-defeating — while the adoption stands Sara could not be Abraham's lawful wife, and once dissolved she would no longer be a ‘sister’; yet she was indubitably his lawful wife and truly called his sister. ↩
§223. Augustine's express testimony (besides Contra Faustum 22.35, also City of God 15.16): sibling marriage, practiced from necessity at the world's start, became damnable once religion forbade it; the ancient fathers married within their kindred (to keep kinship from dissolving) but no longer took actual sisters. Margin: 'Augustine.' ↩
§224 (begins). A further Augustine excerpt (City of God 15.16) on the avoidance of sibling marriage — ‘as the human race grows…’ (continues next page). ↩
§224 (concl.). Augustine's excerpt completed: even pagans came to abhor sibling marriage; custom powerfully shapes feeling, and to transgress the ‘boundary of morals’ by lust is worse than to encroach on a neighbor's fields. ↩
§225. Augustine's ‘perverse laws’ point applied: the Persians and Egyptians practiced sibling marriage shamelessly (Diodorus, bk. 1; Euripides condemns it as barbarous; Theocritus flattered Ptolemy II Philadelphus's marriage to his sister Arsinoe, but Pausanias condemned it). Its gravity is shown by Lev 20, which ranks brother–sister incest with bestiality and sodomy and decrees death. Margin: 'Among which nations marriages between brothers and sisters were in use; Diodorus bk. 1 ch. 2; Euripides in Andromeda; Ptolemy Philadelphus; Theocritus; Pausanias in the Attica; Leviticus 20.' ↩
§226 (begins). Pererius now dissolves the opponents' arguments. First: Moses called Sara Thare's ‘daughter-in-law’ (not ‘daughter of Aran’) because she was already Abraham's wife, the more honorable title — and the argument rebounds on the opponents (else why not call her Thare's daughter?). That Sara = Iescha is held by Jerome, Augustine, and others (continues next page). ↩
§226 (concl.). Before the migration Sara was called Iescha (or both names); Moses named Iescha there precisely because she married into the family (Abraham). Abraham did not deceive Abimelech — he spoke truly, though Abimelech misunderstood; perhaps in Egypt/Canaan ‘sister’ (unlike in Chaldea) meant only a true sister, not a niece, hence the misunderstanding. Margin: 'A passage of Genesis ch. 20.' ↩
§227. Reconciling Gen 20:12 with the niece view: the ‘truly’ in ‘truly she is my sister’ affirms the truth of Abraham's statement (he didn't lie), not that she was a full sister — since kin (including a brother's children) were truly called ‘brother/sister.’ And ‘daughter of my father, not my mother’ works because all Thare's family called him ‘father,’ and Abraham and Aran (Sara's father) were likely born of different wives of Thare. ↩
§228 (begins). Answering the opening dilemma (§205): Abraham was NOT the firstborn — Aran was many years older. Abraham is named first by dignity (father of many nations / the people of God / all believers, cf. Rom 4) and because he was born in Thare's 70th year, which Moses used as the chronological anchor; Nachor and Aran were begotten earlier (continues next page). Margin: 'Genesis 17; Romans 4.' ↩
§228 (concl.). Moses named Nachor and Aran because they bear on the history — Nachor as ancestor of the wives of Isaac (Rebecca) and Jacob (Leah, Rachel), Aran as father of Lot and Sara. Margin: 'Genesis 24; below, ch. 29.' ↩
§229. The true sense of Gen 11:26: by his 70th year Thare had begotten all three — Abraham in the 70th year, Nachor before him, and Aran first (around Thare's 40th or 50th year). Since the opponents' argument rested on Abraham being firstborn, it collapses, and so does their conclusion that Sara was not Aran's daughter. ↩
§230. An alternative solution: Sara may have been the daughter of some other, unnamed, earlier son of Thare (not Aran, not Iescha) — Moses omitting such sons as irrelevant to his history, just as the pre/post-flood patriarchs had earlier unnamed children (Augustine, City of God 15; Pererius's own vol. 1 bk. 7, q. 4). This would let Abraham still be elder than Nachor and Aran. Margin: 'Augustine.' ↩
§231 (begins). Answering an objection to §230's alternative: that Iescha is named does not force Iescha = Sara, for Scripture often names persons (even women) only for their connection to the history — e.g. Lamech's daughter Noema (Gen 4), Nachor's concubine Reuma (Gen 22), and [Oolibama, Gen 36] (continues next page). ↩
§231 (concl.). The third example: Ana's daughter Oolibama (Gen 36). None of these three women (Noema, Reuma, Oolibama) is mentioned elsewhere — so Iescha too could be named once for connection's sake without being Sara. This closes Disp. 14. ↩