FIFTEENTH DISPUTATION. Upon these words: ‘Aran died before Thare his father, in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.’ Whether Abraham was cast into the fire by the Chaldees, and thence freed by a divine miracle — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

FIFTEENTH DISPUTATION. Upon these words: ‘Aran died before Thare his father, in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.’ Whether Abraham was cast into the fire by the Chaldees, and thence freed by a divine miracle.¹

DECIMA QUINTA DISPUTATIO. Super illis verbis: Mortuus est Aran ante Thare patrem suum in terra nativitatis suae, in Ur Chaldaeorum. Utrum Abraham coniectus fuerit in ignem à Chaldaeis, & inde divino miraculo liberatus.

ILLUD ante patrem suum dupliciter exponitur: vel, vidente & praesente patre, ut idem sit atque coram patre; vel, vivente adhuc patre, ut significetur ipsum fuisse mortuum ante patrem suum, & patrem fuisse superstitem filio: & hoc ipsum sonant Hebraea verba quae sic habent, Super faciem patris sui, id est, ipso vivente ac vidente. Illud autem, de Ur Chaldaeorum, dupliciter interpretari licet. Namque vocabulum Ur potest sumi ut nomen appellativum, idem significans Hebraeis quod Latinis vocabulum ignis; vel potest sumi ut nomen proprium urbis seu regionis, quemadmodum acceperunt Septuaginta interpretes, qui pro illo de Ur Chaldaeorum verterunt, de regione Chaldaeorum. Ex hac igitur ambiguitate vocis nata est famosa illa quaestio, Num Abraham, quòd noluerit more Chaldaeorum ignem adorare, coniectus sit in ignem, indeque salvus & incolumis divino beneficio liberatus.

That phrase ‘before his father’ is expounded in two ways: either, with the father seeing and present, so that it is the same as ‘in his father's presence’; or, while his father was still living, so that it is signified that he [Aran] died before his father, and the father survived the son — and this very thing the Hebrew words sound, which are thus, ‘Upon the face of his father,’ that is, while he was living and seeing. But that phrase, ‘of Ur of the Chaldees,’ may be interpreted in two ways. For the word ‘Ur’ can be taken as an appellative noun, meaning to the Hebrews the same as the word ‘fire’ to the Latins; or it can be taken as the proper name of a city or region, as the Seventy translators took it, who for ‘of Ur of the Chaldees’ translated ‘of the region of the Chaldees.’ From this ambiguity of the word, therefore, arose that famous question: Whether Abraham, because he refused to worship fire after the manner of the Chaldees, was cast into the fire, and thence safe and unharmed was freed by divine favor.²

EXTAT apud Lyranum & alios tradita quaedam Hebraeorum [traditio], quàm esse pervetustam indicio est quòd eam commemorat etiam B. Hieronymus. Aiunt Hebraei Thare patrem Abrahae adeo fuisse vesanum cultorem Idolorum, ut etiam filium suum Abraham, quòd ab idolatria Chaldaeorum vehementer abhorreret, detulerit ad Nemrod regnantem id temporis in Chaldaea; cuius ille iussu proiectus est in ignem, sed inde (Deo ipsum mirabiliter conservante) prorsus illaesus exiit. Interim, dum in igne esset, frater eius Aran, qui cultor erat Idolorum, ita cum animo suo reputabat: si Abraham ex igne salvus evaserit, ego quoque fidem & religionem eius sequar. Iussus igitur à Chaldaeis ignem adorare, respondit ita cum fratre suo Abraham unius tantùm Dei cultum & fidem tenere. Coniectus igitur & ipse in ignem, quia tantae fidei & virtutis non erat quanta praeditus fuerat…

There exists, handed down in Lyra and others, a certain tradition of the Hebrews — which is an indication of its being very ancient, that blessed Jerome also mentions it. The Hebrews say that Thare, the father of Abraham, was so insane a worshipper of idols that he even denounced his son Abraham — because he vehemently abhorred the idolatry of the Chaldees — to Nemrod [Nimrod], who reigned at that time in Chaldea; by whose command he was cast into the fire, but thence (God marvelously preserving him) he came out wholly unharmed. Meanwhile, while he was in the fire, his brother Aran, who was a worshipper of idols, thus reasoned within himself: ‘If Abraham comes out safe from the fire, I too will follow his faith and religion.’ Being therefore ordered by the Chaldees to worship the fire, he answered that he, with his brother Abraham, held the worship and faith of only one God. Being therefore himself also cast into the fire, because he was not endowed with such great faith and virtue as [Abraham had been]…³

…fuerat Abraham, incendio illo consumptus interiit. Et hoc significasse dicunt Mosen cùm dixit Aran mortuum esse ante Thare patrem suum, idest, patre spectante, procurante, & approbante eius interitum. Sic Hebraei.

…[as Abraham] had been [endowed with], he [Aran] perished, consumed by that fire. And they say Moses signified this when he said that Aran died before Thare his father — that is, with his father watching, procuring, and approving his destruction. Thus the Hebrews.⁴

HANC traditionem Hebraeorum commemorat B. Hieronymus, & videtur eam quasi fabulam commemorare. Nam referens lectionem Septuaginta Interpretum quae habet Aran fuisse mortuum in regione Chaldaeorum, Tradunt, inquit, Hebraei ex hac occasione huiusmodi fabulam: quod Abraham in ignem missus sit, quia ignem adorare noluerit quem Chaldaei colunt, & Dei auxilio liberatus de idolatria sit; Aran quoque, quia similiter & ipse ignem adorare nollet, in igne Chaldaeorum positus incendio consumptus sit. Sic ibi Hieronymus. Ubi licet Traditionem illam appellet fabulam, idem tamen paulò infrà videtur eam ut veram approbare, ad hunc modum scribens: Vera est igitur illa Hebraeorum Traditio, quod Abraham Babylonio vallatus incendio, quia illud adorare nolebat, Dei sit auxilio liberatus; & ex illo tempore & dies vitae & tempus aetatis reputari, ex quo confessus est Deum spernens idola Chaldaeorum. Hactenus ex Beato Hieronymo.

This tradition of the Hebrews blessed Jerome mentions, and seems to mention it as a kind of fable. For, reporting the reading of the Seventy translators which has that Aran died in the region of the Chaldees, he says: “The Hebrews hand down, from this occasion, a fable of this sort: that Abraham was put into the fire because he refused to worship the fire which the Chaldees worship, and was freed by God's help from idolatry; Aran too, because he likewise would not worship the fire, was placed in the fire of the Chaldees and consumed by the burning.” Thus Jerome there. And though he calls that Tradition a fable, yet the same Jerome a little below seems to approve it as true, writing thus: “True therefore is that Tradition of the Hebrews, that Abraham, hemmed in by the Babylonian fire because he would not worship it, was freed by God's help; and that from that time both the days of his life and the period of his age are reckoned, from when he confessed God, spurning the idols of the Chaldees.” Thus far from blessed Jerome.⁵

PAULUS etiam Burgensis, in quadam sua Additione ad Postillam Lyrani super hunc locum capitis undecimi, etsi ait fabulosam videri Traditionem illam Hebraeorum quantum ad id quod ait de Thare, quia nullum, & contra literam Mosis, fundamentum habet; eam tamen prorsus fide carere non putat quantum ad divinam liberationem Abrahae vel ab igne, vel ab alio aliquo magno periculo in quo versatus ille fuerit in Chaldaea: id enim significari videtur verbis illis Dei Geneseos decimo quinto, Ego sum Dominus qui eduxi te de Ur Chaldaeorum; quae quidem verba sonant liberationem quandam divinitùs factam, non secus ac verba illa Dei Hebraeis dicta Exodi vigesimo, Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus qui eduxi te de terra Aegypti. Firmat hoc ipsum Burgensis testimonio Rabbi Moysis, qui in libro suo de Directione perplexorum refert, in quodam libro de agricultura Aegyptiaca narrari insignem quendam virum nomine Abraham publicè disceptasse cum idolorum cultoribus, affirmantem non esse Ignem pro Deo colendum; verùm regem, ne ille sua auctoritate & oratione populum ab illo cultu averteret, detrusisse eum in carcerem, & spoliatum bonis omnibus ex omni ditione sua exterminasse. Posset etiam Traditioni Hebraeorum fides adiungi ex eo quod scriptum est in libro secundo Esdrae capite nono: Tu ipse Domine Deus, inquit, qui elegisti Abram, & eduxisti eum de igne Chaldaeorum, & posuisti nomen eius Abraham. Atque haec est Traditio & opinio Hebraeorum.

Paul of Burgos also, in a certain Addition of his to Lyra's Postilla on this place of chapter 11, although he says that Tradition of the Hebrews seems fabulous as to what it says about Thare — because it has no foundation, and is against the letter of Moses — yet does not think it wholly lacking in credit as to the divine deliverance of Abraham, whether from the fire or from some other great danger in which he was involved in Chaldea: for this seems to be signified by those words of God (Genesis 15), “I am the Lord who led you out of Ur of the Chaldees”; which words indeed sound a certain deliverance divinely wrought, just as do those words of God spoken to the Hebrews (Exodus 20), “I am the Lord your God who led you out of the land of Egypt.” Burgos confirms this same thing by the testimony of Rabbi Moyses [Maimonides], who in his book the Guide of the Perplexed reports that, in a certain book on Egyptian agriculture, it is narrated that a notable man named Abraham publicly disputed with the worshippers of idols, affirming that Fire is not to be worshipped for God; but that the king, lest by his authority and eloquence he should turn the people away from that worship, thrust him into prison, and, having despoiled him of all his goods, banished him from all his dominion. Credit could also be added to the Hebrews' Tradition from what is written in the second book of Esdras, chapter nine: “You yourself, Lord God,” it says, “who chose Abram, and led him out of the fire of the Chaldees, and set his name Abraham.” And this is the tradition and opinion of the Hebrews.⁶

SED eam Traditionem ratione ac fide vacuam esse, futilemque ac fabulosam, duplici argumento convincitur. Aiunt Hebraei coniectum esse Abraham in ignem iussu Nemrod, qui eo tempore regnabat apud Chaldaeos: sed id manifestum est in Chronologiis errorem continere. Nos enim superiore libro decimo quinto ostendimus…

But that this Tradition is empty of reason and of credit, and futile and fabulous, is convicted by a twofold argument. The Hebrews say that Abraham was cast into the fire at the command of Nemrod, who at that time reigned among the Chaldees: but it is manifest that this contains an error in the Chronologies. For in the foregoing fifteenth book we showed…⁷

…eundem hominem fuisse Nemrod atque Belum patrem Nini: Ninus autem post mortem Beli patris sui suscepit imperium, ut omnes tradunt qui eorum temporum historiam pertexuerunt. Abraham porrò natum esse quadragesimo tertio anno regni Nini, sententia est Eusebii, Hieronymi, Augustini, Cyrilli, Bedae, Isidori, & ut verbo dico, omnium scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum qui eius aetatis memoriam scripserunt. Ex his concluditur Abraham esse natum tribus & quadraginta annis post mortem Nemrod, qui alio nomine appellatus est Belus. Quomodo igitur fieri potest ut (quemadmodum nugantur Hebraei) Abraham proiectus sit in ignem iussu Nemrod tunc regnantis in Chaldaea?

…that the same man was Nemrod and Belus the father of Ninus. Now Ninus, after the death of Belus his father, took up the empire, as all hand down who have woven the history of those times. But that Abraham was born in the forty-third year of the reign of Ninus is the opinion of Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine, Cyril, Bede, Isidore, and — to say it in a word — of all ecclesiastical writers who have written the record of that age. From these it is concluded that Abraham was born forty-three years after the death of Nemrod, who by another name was called Belus. How then can it be that (as the Hebrews trifle) Abraham was cast into the fire at the command of Nemrod, then reigning in Chaldea?⁸

ILLUD verò quis credere inducat in animum, Thare adeo fuisse insanum cultorem idolorum ut, sensum omnem exuens humanitatis, paternumque affectum in saevissimi hostis vertens odium ac rabiem, atrocissimo mortis supplicio proprium filium sciens & volens obiiceret? Adde quod isti pro certo sumunt Thare fuisse idolatram, quod vel incertum est, vel (ut placet magnis viris) etiam falsum: sed ea de re paulo infrà propriè & accuratè disputabitur.

But who could bring himself to believe that Thare was so insane a worshipper of idols that, stripping off all sense of humanity and turning his fatherly affection into the hatred and rage of a most savage enemy, he would knowingly and willingly cast his own son into the most atrocious punishment of death? Add that these take for certain that Thare was an idolater — which is either uncertain, or (as great men hold) even false: but that matter will be properly and accurately disputed a little below.⁹

ILLUD praeterea fundamentum istius traditionis & opinionis, quod vocabulum Ur hoc loco significet ignem vel incendium, est profecto infirmissimum, aut, ut verius dicam, planè nullum. Namque eo vocabulo significari nomen proprium urbis quae erat in Chaldaea, quatuor argumentis firmare possum. In hoc enim capite undecimo Geneseos ita scriptum est: Tulit Thare Abraham filium suum & Lot filium Aran filii sui, & Sarai nurum suam, & eduxit eos de Ur Chaldaeorum, ut irent in terram Chanaan. Ecce tibi vocabulum Ur hoc loco non potest significare ignem vel incendium, sed esse proprium nomen civitatis, luce ipsa meridiana clarius est. Neque enim Thare eduxit Abraham ex igne Chaldaeorum, cùm secundum istos ipse auctor fuisset Chaldaeis ut Abraham coniiceretur in ignem. Septuaginta quoque interpretes illud Ur Chaldaeorum verterunt hoc loco regionem Chaldaeorum: scilicet tollere illi voluerunt ambiguitatem vocabuli Hebraei, quod significare poterat & proprium nomen loci & ignem. Idem confirmat Iosephus, qui libro primo Antiquitatum historiam huius loci enarrans ita scribit: Aran mortuus est in regione Chaldaeorum, in urbe quae Ur Chaldaeorum vocatur, & sepulchrum eius nunc usque ostenditur. Apud Eusebium item, libro nono de Praeparatione Evangelica capite quarto, Eupolemus pervetustus scriptor prodidit Abraham natum esse in Camarina urbe Babyloniae, quam alii appellant Ur.

That foundation, moreover, of that tradition and opinion — that the word Ur in this place signifies fire or burning — is indeed most weak, or, to speak more truly, plainly null. For that by this word is signified the proper name of a city that was in Chaldea, I can confirm by four arguments. For in this eleventh chapter of Genesis it is written thus: “Thare took Abraham his son and Lot the son of Aran his son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, and brought them out of Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Chanaan.” Behold, the word Ur in this place cannot signify fire or burning, but must be the proper name of a city — clearer than the noonday light itself. For Thare did not bring Abraham out of the fire of the Chaldees, since, according to these, he himself was the author to the Chaldees that Abraham should be cast into the fire. The Seventy translators too rendered ‘Ur of the Chaldees’ in this place ‘the region of the Chaldees’: namely, they wished to remove the ambiguity of the Hebrew word, which could mean both a proper name of a place and fire. The same Josephus confirms, who in the first book of the Antiquities, narrating the history of this place, writes thus: “Aran died in the region of the Chaldees, in the city which is called Ur of the Chaldees, and his tomb is shown to this day.” Likewise in Eusebius, the ninth book of the Preparation of the Gospel, chapter four, Eupolemus, a very ancient writer, reported that Abraham was born in Camarina, a city of Babylonia, which others call Ur.¹⁰

DEINDE, tantum Dei miraculum & tam gloriosum Abrahae facinus non tacuisset Moses in hoc libro, in quo alia multa eius facta, minus sanè clara & mira, tam expressè & distinctè commemorat. Auctor quoque libri Ecclesiastici, capite quadragesimo quarto laudes Abrahae praedicans, hoc factum eius, summa dignum praedicatione, non praetermisisset. Nec verò…

Next, so great a miracle of God and so glorious a deed of Abraham, Moses would not have passed over in silence in this book, in which he commemorates so expressly and distinctly many other deeds of his that are certainly less clear and wonderful. The author of the book of Ecclesiasticus too, proclaiming the praises of Abraham in chapter forty-four, would not have omitted this deed of his, worthy of the highest proclamation. Nor indeed…¹¹

…verò B. Paulus id reticuisset in Epistola ad Hebraeos capite undecimo, ubi magnis laudibus effert magnitudinem & devotionem fidei Abrahae: quòd divinis iussis obtemperans, derelicto natali solo, in extraneam sibi atque ignotam venisset terram Chanaan; quòd contra spem in spem credens, ex sterili uxore proprium naturae cursum & ordinem filium procreasset; quòd denique Deo filii caedem imperante, immolare eum paratissimus fuerit. Cùm igitur, si Abraham propter unius veri Dei confessionem & praedicationem vivus flammis uri non recusasset, in hoc maximè eius praestantia fidei enituisset, non id profecto Paulus in praeteritis dereliquisset, sed ut maxima dignum admiratione & commendatione ante omnia celebrasset. Quid quod Iosephus in primo libro Antiquitatum, quae insignia erant ad laudem Abrahae non tantùm ex sacris verum etiam ex profanis scriptoribus carpens & colligens, nullum de hoc Abrahae facto verbum fecit? nam neque vir Iudaicarum rerum peritissimus istud ignorasse credendus est, nec, si non ignoravit (cùm esset in primis memorandum), praetermittere voluisse. Philo quoque nullam huius rei mentionem fecit, qui tamen duos libros de Abraham edidit, virtutes & facta eius diligenter exponens.

…would blessed Paul have kept silent about it in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter eleven, where with great praises he extols the greatness and devotion of Abraham's faith: that, obeying the divine commands, he abandoned his native soil and came into the land of Chanaan, foreign and unknown to him; that, believing in hope against hope, he begot a son from a barren wife beyond the proper course and order of nature; that finally, when God commanded the slaying of his son, he was most ready to immolate him. Since therefore, if Abraham had not refused to be burned alive in the flames for the confession and preaching of the one true God, his excellence of faith would have shone forth most of all in this, Paul certainly would not have left it out among things past, but would have celebrated it before all else as worthy of the greatest admiration and commendation. And what of the fact that Josephus, in the first book of the Antiquities, culling and gathering the notable things to Abraham's praise not only from sacred but also from profane writers, made no word of this deed of Abraham? For neither is so expert a man in Jewish matters to be believed to have been ignorant of it; nor, if he was not ignorant of it (since it was among the foremost things to be recorded), to have wished to omit it. Philo too made no mention of this matter, who yet published two books on Abraham, diligently expounding his virtues and deeds.¹²

VERUM age, contrarias rationes supra positas diluamus. Urgebant illi verba illa capitis decimi quinti Geneseos: Ego dominus qui eduxi te de Ur Chaldaeorum, ut darem tibi terram istam & possideres eam, quasi Deus his verbis significaverit eductionem illam Abrahae ex Ur Chaldaeorum fuisse valdè mirabilem ac memorabilem. Sed cur? Nam eduxisse Abraham ex terra Chaldaeorum in terram Chanaan, quid obsecro habuit mirabile aut memorandum? reperitur igitur illis verbis memoria divini beneficii, quòd Abraham eductus fuerat ex Ur, id est, ex igne Chaldaeorum. Sic isti. Sed profecto alia est illorum verborum Dei sententia. Nam ut excitaret atque firmaret Deus in animo Abrahae fidem fiduciamque eius promissionis quam tunc ei dabat, de innumerabili multiplicatione posteritatis eius & de possessione terrae Chanaan in qua tunc Abraham versabatur, renovare voluit in eo memoriam eius promissionis, cùm iussit proficisci eum ex Mesopotamia in terram Chanaan. Sic enim ei locutus est, ut narrat Moses capite duodecimo: Egredere de terra tua & de cognatione tua & de domo patris tui, & veni in terram quam monstravero tibi; faciamque te in gentem magnam & benedicam tibi, & magnificabo nomen tuum, erisque benedictus. Benedicam benedicentibus tibi, & maledicam maledicentibus tibi, atque in te benedicentur universae cognationes terrae. Haec Deus tunc dixit & promisit Abrahae. Huius igitur primae promissionis commemoratione voluit ipse firmare animum Abrahae, ut sine ulla dubitatione fore crederet ac speraret quod ei promittebat. Ergo sententia illorum Dei verborum haec est: Ego qui nunc tibi promitto possessionem terrae…

But come, let us dissolve the contrary reasons set out above. They urged those words of the fifteenth chapter of Genesis: “I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land and that you should possess it” — as if God by these words signified that that leading-out of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees was greatly wonderful and memorable. But why? For what, I ask, was wonderful or memorable in having led Abraham out of the land of the Chaldees into Canaan? Therefore in those words is [supposedly] found the memory of a divine benefit — that Abraham had been led out of Ur, that is, out of the fire of the Chaldees. Thus these. But surely the meaning of those words of God is otherwise. For, to rouse and strengthen in Abraham's mind the faith and confidence of the promise which He then gave him — about the innumerable multiplication of his posterity and the possession of the land of Canaan in which Abraham then dwelt — God wished to renew in him the memory of that promise, when He commanded him to set out from Mesopotamia into the land of Canaan. For thus He spoke to him, as Moses narrates in the twelfth chapter: “Go out from your land and from your kindred and from your father's house, and come into the land which I shall show you; and I will make you into a great nation and will bless you, and will magnify your name, and you shall be blessed. I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you, and in you shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.” This God then said and promised to Abraham. By the commemoration of this first promise, therefore, He wished to strengthen Abraham's mind, that he might believe and hope without any doubt that what He promised would come to pass. Therefore the meaning of those words of God is this: ‘I who now promise you the possession of the land…¹³

…terrae Chanaan & multiplicationem posteritatis, sum ille ipse Deus qui te ex Mesopotamia transmigrare iussi in terram Chanaan, & haec tibi tam magnifica promissa tunc primùm dedi; ut omnino certus esse debeas de huiusmodi promissis saepius à me datis atque confirmatis.

…of the land of Canaan and the multiplication of your posterity, am that same God who commanded you to migrate from Mesopotamia into the land of Canaan, and who then for the first time gave you these so magnificent promises; so that you ought to be wholly certain about promises of this kind, given and confirmed by me more than once.’¹⁴

AD illud porrò quod, ex capite nono libri secundi Esdrae depromptum, nonnihil negotii facessere videbatur — quòd eo loco disertis verbis scriptum erat Deum eduxisse Abraham ex igne Chaldaeorum — dupliciter responderi potest. Etenim verisimile putet quispiam Latinum interpretem proposuisse eo ipsum vocabulum Hebraeum Ur, sicut fecit in aliis locis ubicunque idem vocabulum occurrit; sed aliquem in margine posuisse eius vocabuli interpretationem, id est, ignem, quae postea vox ignis inserta atque intexta fuerit historiae: nam nonnulla fuisse hoc modo admixta textui Scripturae, animadverterunt & prodiderunt Lyranus, Tostatus, Caietanus, Melchior Canus. Neque haec vana videtur coniectura. Si enim aliis omnibus locis Latinus interpres retinuit ipsum vocabulum Hebraicum Ur, ut nuspiam interpretatus sit illud per ignem, non sit sanè credibile uno tantùm eo in loco vocem Ur interpretari voluisse ignem: praesertim cùm Septuaginta interpretes semper id nomen pro certa regione & loco Chaldaeae posuissent. Verùm si hoc lectori non placet, illud aliud commodius & probabilius responsum: cùm dicitur Abraham eductus de igne Chaldaeorum, vocabulum ignis non propriè sed metaphoricè positum esse pro persecutione, tribulatione & afflictione. Etenim persaepe in sacris literis ignis ponitur pro tribulatione, ut in Psalmis: Igne me examinasti, & non est inventa in me iniquitas; & in alio loco: Transivimus per ignem & aquam, & eduxisti nos in refrigerium; & apud Hieremiam in Lamentationibus capite primo: De excelso misit ignem in ossibus meis, & erudivit me. Sic etiam interpretantur quidam illud Ioannis Baptistae de Christo domino dictum: ipse vos baptizabit in Spiritu Sancto & igni; quanquam hîc verius dictum fuerit significari abundantiam illam Spiritus sancti sub specie ignis in die Pentecostes datam discipulis: verbum enim baptizandi nonnunquam idem significat quod copiosè & abundanter dari, ut ex illis verbis Domini nostri quae post resurrectionem suam dixit Apostolis licet perspicere: Ioannes quidem, inquit, baptizavit aqua, vos autem baptizabimini Spiritu sancto.

To that, moreover, which, taken from the ninth chapter of the second book of Esdras, seemed to cause some trouble — that there it was written in express words that God led Abraham out of the fire of the Chaldees — a twofold answer can be given. For someone might think it likely that the Latin translator set down there the Hebrew word itself, Ur, as he did in other places wherever the same word occurs; but that someone put in the margin the interpretation of that word, namely ‘fire,’ which word ‘fire’ was afterward inserted and woven into the text: for that some things were in this way mixed into the text of Scripture, Lyra, Tostatus, Cajetan, and Melchior Cano have noted and reported. Nor does this conjecture seem vain. For if in all other places the Latin translator retained the Hebrew word Ur, so that nowhere did he interpret it by ‘fire,’ it is surely not credible that in that one place alone he wished to interpret the word Ur as ‘fire’: especially since the Seventy translators always set down that name for a certain region and place of Chaldea. But if this does not please the reader, here is another more fitting and probable answer: that when Abraham is said to have been led out of the fire of the Chaldees, the word ‘fire’ is set down not properly but metaphorically for persecution, tribulation, and affliction. For very often in the sacred letters fire is put for tribulation, as in the Psalms: “You have tried me by fire, and iniquity was not found in me”; and in another place: “We have passed through fire and water, and you have led us out into refreshment”; and in Jeremiah, Lamentations chapter one: “From on high He sent fire into my bones, and instructed me.” So also some interpret that saying of John the Baptist about Christ the Lord: “He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire” — although here it is more truly said to signify that abundance of the Holy Spirit given to the disciples under the appearance of fire on the day of Pentecost: for the word ‘to baptize’ sometimes means the same as to be given copiously and abundantly, as may be perceived from those words of our Lord which He said to the Apostles after His resurrection: “John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”¹⁵

QUONIAM igitur Abraham gravem insectationem & tribulationem propter unius Dei cultum passus est à Chaldaeis, qua tribulatione liberatus à Deo est, propterea dicitur Deus eduxisse Abraham de igne Chaldaeorum. Abraham verò passum esse persecutionem à Chaldaeis, testis est Iosephus libro primo Antiquitatum: Cùm videret, inquit, Abraham, quòd veri Dei cultum palam & liberè praedicaret, Chaldaeos & Mesopotamios contra se insurgere, consilium migrandi cepit…

Since therefore Abraham suffered grave persecution and tribulation from the Chaldees for the worship of the one God, from which tribulation he was freed by God, therefore God is said to have led Abraham out of the fire of the Chaldees. That Abraham suffered persecution from the Chaldees, Josephus is witness (first book of the Antiquities): “When Abraham saw,” he says, “that, because he openly and freely preached the worship of the true God, the Chaldees and Mesopotamians were rising up against him, he took the resolve of migrating…”¹⁶

…cepit, & voluntate ac favore Dei fretus terram Chanaan tenuit. Testis quoque est Beatus Augustinus libro decimo sexto de Civitate Dei capite decimo tertio, ita scribens: unde manifestum est domum Thare persecutionem passam fuisse à Chaldaeis pro vera pietate qua unus & verus ab eis colebatur Deus.

…[took the resolve of migrating], and, relying on the will and favor of God, held the land of Chanaan. Blessed Augustine too is witness, in the sixteenth book of the City of God, chapter thirteen, writing thus: “Whence it is manifest that the house of Thare suffered persecution from the Chaldees for the true piety by which the one and true God was worshipped by them.”¹⁷

Translator’s notes

Disp. 15 title (on Gen 11:28). Whether Abraham was thrown into a fire by the Chaldees (for refusing fire-worship) and miraculously delivered by God — the third of the Third Part's questions. Margin: 'Genesis ch. 11, v. 28.' ↩
§232. Two phrases of Gen 11:28 parsed: ‘before his father’ = either ‘in his father's presence’ or ‘his father surviving him’ (the Hebrew ‘upon the face of his father’ supports the latter); and ‘Ur of the Chaldees’ = either ‘fire’ (Hebrew ‘Ur’ = fire) or a place-name (the LXX's ‘region of the Chaldees’). From this ambiguity sprang the famous question of Abraham's deliverance from the fire. ↩
§233 (begins). The Hebrew legend (from Nicholas of Lyra and others; its antiquity shown by Jerome mentioning it): Thare, a fanatical idolater, denounced Abraham to Nimrod for abhorring Chaldean idolatry; Abraham was cast into the fire but came out unharmed by God's preservation. His brother Aran, watching, resolved to follow Abraham's faith if he survived; ordered to worship the fire, he professed the one God, was cast in, but — lacking Abraham's faith — [perished] (continues next page). Margin: 'Lyra.' ↩
§233 (concl.). The Hebrew legend completed: Aran, lacking Abraham's faith, perished in the fire; and ‘Aran died before his father’ (Gen 11:28) is taken to mean Thare watched, even procured and approved, his son's death. ↩
§234. Jerome reports the legend (on the LXX's ‘Aran died in the region of the Chaldees’) and calls it a ‘fable,’ yet a little later seems to approve it as ‘true’ — even reckoning Abraham's years from his confession amid the fire (the same idea behind Disp. 13's Hebrew solution). Margin: 'Jerome in the Hebrew Traditions on Genesis.' ↩
§235. Paul of Burgos (Additions to Lyra) deems the legend fabulous as to Thare (no scriptural basis, against the text), but credits Abraham's divine deliverance — from the fire or some great Chaldean danger — citing Gen 15:7 (‘who led you out of Ur of the Chaldees,’ parallel to Exod 20:2's ‘out of Egypt’), and Maimonides (Guide of the Perplexed), who reports an ‘Egyptian agriculture’ book in which a man named Abraham publicly disputed the fire-worshippers and was imprisoned, despoiled, and banished by the king; plus Neh 9:7 (‘led him out of the fire of the Chaldees’). It closes: ‘And this is the tradition and opinion of the Hebrews.’ Margin: 'Paul of Burgos; Genesis 15; Rabbi Moses.' ↩
§236 (begins — the refutation). The Hebrew tradition is convicted as groundless and fabulous by a twofold argument. First (chronology): the Hebrews say Abraham was cast into the fire by Nemrod, then reigning in Chaldea — but this is chronologically impossible, as shown in Bk. 15 (continues next page). Margin: 'The aforesaid Hebrew tradition refuted; Nemrod did not live in Abraham's time.' ↩
§236 (concl.). The first (chronological) argument completed: Nemrod (= Belus, father of Ninus) died, and Abraham was born only in Ninus's 43rd regnal year — i.e. 43 years after Nemrod's death (per Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine, Cyril, Bede, Isidore). So Abraham could not have been cast into the fire by Nemrod, who was long dead. ↩
§237. A second consideration: it is incredible that Thare would so strip off humanity as to have his own son put to death. Moreover, the legend assumes Thare was an idolater, which is uncertain or even false (to be settled in the next disputation, Disp. 16). ↩
§238 (the second main argument). ‘Ur’ here means a Chaldean city, not ‘fire’ — confirmed by four arguments. (1) Gen 11:31, ‘Thare brought them out of Ur of the Chaldees,’ cannot mean ‘out of the fire’ (Thare himself was the legend's cause of the fire). (2) The LXX rendered it ‘region of the Chaldees.’ (3) Josephus (Antiquities 1) names Ur a city where Aran's tomb is shown. (4) Eupolemus (in Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 9.4) says Abraham was born in Camarina, ‘which others call Ur.’ Margin: 'That Ur of the Chaldees was a city or region of Chaldea; Josephus; Eupolemus in Eusebius.' ↩
§239 (begins — a further argument). Moses would not have omitted so great a miracle (he records lesser deeds of Abraham distinctly); nor would Sirach (Ecclesiasticus 44, in praise of Abraham) (continues next page). ↩
§239 (concl.). The argument from silence completed: Paul (Heb 11) extols Abraham's faith (leaving his homeland; the son from barren Sara; readiness to sacrifice Isaac) and would surely have crowned the list with the fire-confession had it happened; and Josephus (Antiquities 1) and Philo (two books On Abraham), who gathered all his praiseworthy deeds, say nothing of it. Margin: 'Hebrews 11; below ch. 15; below ch. 22; Josephus; Philo.' ↩
§240 (begins — dissolving the pro-fire arguments). The fire-party cite Gen 15:7 (‘I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldees’) as implying a wonderful rescue (from fire). Pererius answers: there was nothing wonderful in merely leaving Chaldea; rather, God recalled the promise (Gen 12:1–3 — a great nation, a blessed name, all kindreds blessed in him) to strengthen Abraham's faith in the pledged posterity and land (continues next page). Margin: 'Solution of the contrary reasons; a passage of Genesis ch. 15; ch. 12.' ↩
§240 (concl.). The sense of Gen 15:7 completed: God identifies Himself as the one who first called Abraham out of Mesopotamia with the great promises, so that Abraham may be wholly certain of the repeated, confirmed pledges — no reference to a fire. ↩
§241. The Nehemiah 9:7 objection (‘out of the fire of the Chaldees’) answered two ways: (1) ‘fire’ was a marginal gloss on ‘Ur’ that crept into the Latin text — such interpolations are noted by Lyra, Tostatus, Cajetan, Cano; the translator kept ‘Ur’ everywhere else, and the LXX always read it as a place. (2) ‘Fire’ is a metaphor for persecution/tribulation, as often in Scripture (Ps 17:3; Ps 66:12; Lam 1:13), and as in ‘baptize with fire’ (the Pentecost abundance, Acts 1:5). Margin: 'A passage of Esdras bk. 2 ch. 9; Lyra, Tostatus, Cajetan on 2 Kings ch. 8, Cano, Loci Theologici bk. 2; fire put for tribulation often in Scripture; Ps 16[17]; Ps 65[66]; Acts 1.' ↩
§242 (begins). So ‘led out of the fire of the Chaldees’ = delivered from the persecution Abraham suffered for preaching the one God. Josephus (Antiquities 1) attests this persecution: seeing the Chaldees and Mesopotamians rise against him for his open worship of the true God, Abraham resolved to migrate (continues next page). Margin: 'Josephus.' ↩
§242 (concl., closing Disp. 15). Augustine (City of God 16.13) confirms that the house of Thare suffered Chaldean persecution for worshipping the one true God — which both explains ‘out of the fire’ as persecution and bears on the next question (Thare's house worshipped the true God). Margin: 'Augustine.' ↩