CHAPTER 14
Commentary Ist respect of incest and shedding of blood and idolatry before the Lord exceedingly.' A similar interpretation is found in b. Sanh. 109; jer.
Sanh. 10: 3; t. Sanh. 13: 8; Gen. Rab. 40(41): 7. This last reads:
'"Evil" means that they were evil to one another; "sinners" in the matter of incest; "to the Lord" refers to idolatry; "exceedingly" refers to the shedding of blood.' Perhaps TO is closest to Jerome's rather terse comment, remarking that they were 'evil in matters concerning their wealth, and sinners with regard to their bodies'; PJ provides a longer explanation along the same lines, including the crimes listed in Gen. Rab. and TN. For the description of Zacharia and Elisabeth, see Luke 1: 6. Jerome ends by quoting Ps. 143: 2. verses 14~15 Another geographical note, similar to that in 12: 9, is given here. Like Jerome, TO, TN, PJ, and Pesh define the sea as the west.* CHAPTER 14 For further discussion, and analysis of Jerome's general principles in OHG which this chapter reveals, see my article 'Some Observations on Saint Jerome's "Hebrew Questions on Genesis" and the Rabbinic Tradition', PIBA 13 (1990), 58-76. verses 2~3 The Hebrew has: 'and the king of Bela: this is Zoar. All these were confederate together in the Vale of Siddim: this is the Sea of Salt.' The town Bela, LXX Bale, is regularly understood as 'swallowing up', in line with the meaning of the Hebrew root bl: see Gen. Rab. 42: 5, Tanb Lekh 8, Midrash Aggadah of this verse,
PJ, and TN. All these sources hold that its inhabitants were 'swallowed up', presumably in the earthquake to which Jerome next alludes.
Salisa, Hebrew Shalishah, is named at 1 Sam. 9: 4; 2 Kgs. 4: 425 but what follows is best explained by Isa.
5, where Zoar appears in one possible reading of the text to be identified with a place called Eglath-shelishiya: this latter means, literally, 'threeyear-old heifer'.! Extant Jewish sources do not, however, record a tradition exactly like the one Jerome sets out here; although they do
4 For the distinctiveness of this comment, as opposed to Origen's remarks in Sel. in Gen, 13: 3, see Kamesar, Jerome, 99.
1 See also In Esa. 5. 15: 5, 6. 15: 3—9. For discussion of these passages, see Jay, L'Exégése de saint Jéréme, 187; and Hayward, 'Some Observations', 60-1. r52 Commentary note that Zoar was spared while earthquakes were happening elsewhere (Gen. Rab. 49: 6) and remained standing for a year after the destruction of the other cities (b. Shabb. rob).
LXX had used Segor to represent Hebrew Soar, which means 'small': in Aramaic, called here by Jerome 'the Syrian language', it is zw7, and so PJ represents this place-name, as does TN on most occasions (although not in this verse, where it reproduces the Hebrew form of the name). See also Josephus, Ant. 1. 204. Jerome often uses this exegesis of Zoar and its smallness: see, for example, his comment on 19: 30; In Soph. 2: 8-11; Eps. 108. 11, 122. 1. He clearly regards the matter as of some significance, possibly because the exegesis of this verse affects a number of other biblical passages. Furthermore, Zoar wasa place visited by Christian pilgrims
(see Itinerarium Egeriae 12. 5-6), and for that reason would have been of interest. For the note about the Vale of Salt Pits (Vg: 'the wooded vale'—see further on 14: 7) and the Dead Sea, he depends without acknowledgement on Josephus, Ant. 1. 174; War 4. 4556, 476-85. verse
LXX have: 'And they cut in pieces the giants who were in Astaroth Karnain, and strong nations at the same time as them, and the Ommaioi who were in Saue the city'. The words 'before they reached Sodom' are not represented either in LXX or Hebrew. The Hebrew has: 'And they smote the Rephaim in Ashtaroth-Carnaim, and the Zuzim in Ham, and the Emim in Shaveh-Kiriathaim.'
Jerome's comments about this last place are confirmed in Lib. Loc.
966, where he records it as an ancient city in which the Amorites, a powerful people, once dwelt: it was destroyed by Cherdolaomer.
Jerome agrees with LXX and extant Targums that the Raphaim are giants. He seems to identify the mysterious Ashtaroth-Carnaim with Arabia, for which I can find no precedent. On the Zuzim and Emim (Hebrew mah means 'fear') he is very close to TO and PJ, and seems to set traditional Hebrew interpretation of these names against the LXX. He excuses the latter, however, because they convey the general sense of the Hebrew.
But in their translation of Hebrew bhm as 'at the same time as them', LXX have made a mistake, and he points out the cause of confusion. It appears that Jerome's Hebrew text read bhm (beham),
'in Hom', like some MSS of the Samaritan Pentateuch: TO and PJ 2 See Introd., p. 17; and Hayward, 'Some Observations', 61-2, where the relationship of Jerome's comments to Targumic material is discussed. follow this reading. But bhm (babem), 'among them', is read not only by LXX, but also TN, FTV, Gen. Rab. 41(42): 4, and Pesh.
The MT reads beham, which looks like a compromise between the two readings set out here. All this indicates that the textual problem is more complex than Jerome will admit: what is significant is that he opts here for the 'official' Jewish solution represented by TO and PJ, while in Vg he retains the LXX translation of 'among, with them'.? verse 7 Cades was not so called at the time of Abraham, but is here given its later, more familiar name 'by anticipation', a principle noted by Jerome at 31: 21; 46: 26-7, and described on two other occasions (21: 30-1; 46: 47) by the Greek word prolépsis.
Rabbinic exegesis knows the same device: see, for example, Gen.
Rab. 42: 7, Tanh Lekh 8, Huqqat 11, Num. Rab. 19: 6. Cades is identified with Petra by TO and PJ, the latter, like Gen. Rab. 42:7, adding reference to Moses judging the people; cf. Num. Rab. 19:
Jerome has, in essence, quoted the Hebrew text concerning the smiting of the Amalekites and Amorites. LXX have: 'and they smote all the princes of Amalek and the Amorites who were dwelling in Asasonthamar'. For Asasonthamar as Engaddi, see PJ, TO,
The final part of the comment refers to verse 8, and notes the translations given by Aquila and Theodotion of the Hebrew word hsdym, 'Siddim'. Above, on verse 3, Jerome has rendered this word as 'salt pits'; here, he apparently agrees with Aquila and Theodotion that the word means 'pleasant groves'. Hence, presumably, his Vg rendering here and in verse 3 as 'wooded valley'.
While what Jerome perceived the Greek of these translators to mean is clear, great doubt attends the words they actually used. The versions of Aquila and Theodotion reproduced here are problematic.' Jerome's understanding of these two translators, however,
3 See further Gen. Rab. 42: 6; McNamara, Targum and Testament, 203-4; Hayward, 'Some Observations', 62-3; and for PJ's renderings Geiger, Urschrift, weer Wevers, p. 165, who gives Aquila's reading as ton irineon6n: the codices read prinedeé6n and aprineainon. None of these words is found in the Greek lexicons (so CCSL 72 (S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera, i: Opera Exegetica), p. 18). Field, (i. 31) gives prinednon, likewise not found in the lexicons; see also Hayward, 'Some
5 Since we know what sense Jerome made of the two translations, the textual problem of the Greek words in not properly our concern. But the matter is of Commentary may be influenced by Jewish tradition now found in Targums PJ, TN (and v. 3), both of which took Siddim here as pardés, park or pleasure garden.® verse 11 Here and in Vg Jerome translated Hebrew rké as 'property', vocalizing the word as r°ki's rather than rekeS, 'steeds', as LXX had done. verse 13 Jerome understands that the word Hebrew derives from the root br, 'to pass by'. We may compare Gen. Rab. 42: 8; Philo,
De Mig. Abr. 20; and the Christian interpreters listed by Kamesar."
Note carefully, however, the discussion in Mekh. de R. Ishmael Nezikin 1: 31-43 about the ambiguity of the term bry as meaning either an Israelite, or merely one who had come from across the river Euphrates: this text strives to show that 'Hebrew' equals
'Israelite'. Jerome's comment does not resolve the ambiguity, and makes no attempt to do so. This is because Christians had long seen the 'Hebrews' as their spiritual ancestors, who had 'passed over' from darkness to light, from Egypt to the promised land, from the life of the world to the contemplation of God. Origen, in particular, had spoken of the Church as Hebrews who 'have crossed over', and his influence was sufficient to ensure widespread knowledge of the exegesis.® See also Ep. 71. 2.
The comment about the oak of Mambre is obscure. Kamesar argues that Jerome is trying to deal with a problem, more apparent in VL than in LXX, which emerges if we read (with one MS of QHG noted by Vallarsi ad loc.) Amorris for Amorrhaei in Jerome's citation of the scriptural verse and his succeeding comment. The latter might then mean: 'But the Amorite himself was sitting at the oak of Mambre the brother of Eschol.' Thus in VL the subject of intrinsic interest, and for discussion of the words and suggested emendations, see
Field, i. 31; Vallarsi, PL 23: roo9; CCSL 72, p.
18; Salvesen, Symmachus, 9; Hayward, 'Some Observations', 74.
© Aquila and Targum often share interpretations of Hebrew expressions: see A. E.
Silverstone, Aquila and Onkelos (Manchester, 1931), and C. T. R. Hayward, The Targum of Jeremiah, The Aramaic Bible, xii (Wilmington, 1987), index under See 'Kamesar, 'Thesis', 116-17 for Julius Africanus, Chronicon (Julii Africani quae supersunt ex quinque libris Chronographiae), PG 10: 69; Eusebius, Praep.
Evang. 7. 8. 21; Jerome, Lib. Heb. Nom. (p. 155); and see Petit, ii. 166 for the comments of Gennadius and Acacius.
8 See Origen, Sel. in Gen. 14: 13, Hom. in Gen. 20. 4, Mart. Exhort. 33, Hom. in Num. 19. 4, among other references collected and discussed by de Lange, Origen and the Jews, 31-2. the verb 'was sitting' is unclear; no less an authority than Augustine took 'the Amorite', rather than Abraham himself, to be the subject of the verb. Jerome, arguing from the original Hebrew, took 'the Amorite' as an adjective qualifying Mamre.' Jerome's reading, however, goes further: it means that Mam(b)re must be a person, not a place, a point made by R. Nehemiah in Gen. Rab. 41(42): 8.
Abraham, then, has three allies who are germanos, that is, both 'genuine ones' and 'brothers'.
R. Judah, however, in Gen. Rab. 42: 8, takes Mamre not as a person, but as a place, specifically a plain. This understanding is partially reflected in TN, 'in the plain of the vision of Mamre the Amorite', and TO, 'the plain of Mamre the Amorite', which last corresponds to Jerome's Vg translation in this verse, 'in convalle
Mambre Amorrhaei'. Yet all these Targums appear to regard Mamre as a person. The effect of TO's rendering in particular is to bridge the dispute between R. Judah and R. Nehemiah; Jerome seems to have been aware of this dispute, his comments in QHG showing sympathy and support for R. Nehemiah's viewpoint, while his Vg seems to adopt an Onkelos-like compromise with the opposing opinion of R. Judah.
Jerome also notes that the third ally of Abraham is in the Hebrew called Aner, and not Aunan as LXX and VL have it. He records this, no doubt, since Aunan is the form which LXX and VL use to transcribe the name of Onan (Gen. 38: 4, 8, 9), who was adjudged guilty of sexual sin. verse 14 See In Hiez. 8. 27: 29; InHier. 1. 80 on 4: 15. For Dan as Paneas, see also PRE 27: 2, and Jerome's Ep. 73. 8. His remarks about the sources of the Jordan may ultimately be based on his own observation, for they coincide neither with Rabbinic notions nor with the somewhat uneven information provided by Josephus. The former (b. Bekhoroth 55a) speaks of one source only for the river, which is interpreted as coming down (Hebrew yrd) from Dan.
Josephus speaks of two sources, but with some confusion of expression. In Ant. 1. 177 he names Dan as one of them, and in Ant.
18. 28 he says that Paneas is near the sources (plural) of the Jordan.
? See Kamesar, Jerome, 173-4. The original reading of LXX was almost certainly ho Amoris: see Wevers, p. 163, where the apparatus records the confusion which the word engendered in the tradition.
'0 Kamesar, Jerome, 174, notes also that Jerome may have adopted the reading of Symmachus here, and that Eusebius, Onomasticon 124. 5-7 also understood that Mambre might be either a person or a place.
Commentary In War 3. 509-13, however, he says it rises apparently at Panion, but actually in the pool Phiale, whence it flows underground to Panion. This information strongly implies only one source. Jerome also disagrees with Origen, Comm. in Joh.
6. 25, who derives Jordan from root yrd, 'to go down'; indeed, in Lib. Heb. Nom. (p.
67) he gives the meaning as 'their descending', to which he adds (p.
140) 'their laying hold upon, or one who sees judgement'. Jerome's etymology in QHG is based presumably on Hebrew y®6r (his Ior), a biblical word which refers to the river Nile (as in Gen. 41: 1-3;
17-18) and to watercourses in general, and the place-name Dan.
He may even be trying to make sense of Josephus' garbled information. See also Ep. 78, mansio 41. verses 18-19 LXX use the plural form of 'bread' in this verse, and record that God blessed Abram. On Jerome's description of his work as a collection of Hebrew quaestiones and traditiones, see the Introduction, pp. 2-7. He summarizes four Jewish traditions about Melchizedech, all of which are extant in Jewish sources.
First, Melchizedech is identified with Shem: this is assumed by b.
Ned. 32b; Gen. Rab. 43: 6; Lev. Rab. 25: 6; Num. Rab. 4: 8; ARNa 2; PRE 8: 2. The Targums PJ, TN, FTV, and FTP of Gen. 14: 18 all repeat the tradition, as do Midrash Pss. 76: 3; Midrash Aggadah 1:
23; MHG t. 187; Tanh Lekh 15. Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. 2. 1. 55.
6 (Contra Melchizedecianos) relates it as a Samaritan belief. There is no indication in Jerome's comment that the Jews have invented this tradition as an anti-Christian device. On the contrary, in Ep.
73. 9 he is keen, for Christological reasons, to stress the Jewish opinion that Melchizedech was a real human being, and not the Holy Ghost or an angel as some Christian authorities had argued.'
The indications are that the tradition is old: Philo emphasized the priestly character of Shem in De Sob. 65-6, and Jub. 8: 12-21 had spoken of Shem's territory as the site of the Garden of Eden and the Holy of Holies. Since the Bible supplies no genealogy for Melchizedech, it would be natural to search for a priestly character contemporary with him, and to identify the two. Shem seems to "| Ep. 73 Ad Evangelum (Evagrium) Presbyterum, PL 22: 679, tries to refute the contention of an anonymous author that Melchizedech was the Holy Spirit. At the same time, Jerome argues against Origen, Didymus the Blind, Hippolytus, Irenaeus,
Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Emesa, Apollinaris, and Eustathius, who seem to have regarded Melchizedech as an angel. He insists that the Christian use of the Melchizedech as a figure of Christ would be without foundation, unless he had been really and truly a human being who was both priest and king (Ep. 73. 3, 9)Commentary have fitted the bill, as the notice about Melchizedech's life may indicate.!?
Second, he is said to have lived until the days of Isaac. PJ of Gen.
22: 19 notes that Isaac went to study in the Beth Ha-Midrash of the great Shem for three years: without specifying the time-span, R.
Berekhiah reports the same tradition in the name of the Rabbis at Gen. Rab. 56: 11. PJ, FTP, and FTV of Gen. 24: 62 agree that Isaac came from Shem's Beth Ha-Midrash just before he met Rebecca for the first time; and in PJ of Gen. 38: 6 and Gen. Rab. 85: 10 in the name of R. Meir we hear that Tamar was Shem's daughter. All this agrees with what Jerome tells us were Jewish traditions, which he sets out more fully in Ep. 73.4
Third, the Targums stress that Melchizedech-Shem was the priest acting at that time (PJ), ministering before God Most High (TO) in the high priesthood (TN, FTP). For Melchizedech as high priest in Christian tradition, see the Canon of the Roman Mass (Traditional
Rite) in the prayer Supra Quae."* Before Aaron was appointed high priest, the first-born had exercised priestly functions: such is implied by Exod. 24: 5, and spelled out by PJ and Ngl of this verse; m.
Zeb. 14: 4; b. Zeb. 115b; b. Bekhoroth 4b; and Exod. Rab. 28: 3.
Since Genesis speaks of sacrifices to God in those days, it was natural that the question of who might legitimately have ministered as priests at that time should arise. Philo, too, seems to have approached the Rabbinic view that the first-born acted in this way.!5 Jerome specifies that these were first-born sons of Noah: in Ep. 73 he gives further details, and says that their succession and order has been copied out by the Jews.'* Such a listing of priests in order from the ancestor Noah is found in Num. Rab. 4: 8, which tells why unsuitable persons like Esau were excluded from office.
Finally, identification of Salem in this verse with Jerusalem is a Jewish tradition found in Genesis Apocryphon 22: 13; Josephus
War 6. 10; Ant. 1. 180; and the Targums PJ, TN, TO, FTP, FTV.
12 On Shem and Melchizedech, see Bowker, The Targums, 196-9; le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque, i. 163-5, and literature cited there.
13 See Ep. 73 Ad Evangelum (Evagrium) Presbyterum, PL 22: 679; and Rahmer, Die hebriiischen Traditionen, 72.
14 See R. le Déaut, 'Le Titre de Summus Sacerdos donné 4 Melchisédech est-il dorigine juive?'? RSR 50 (1962), 222~9.
1S See De Congr. 98; De Sac, 118-20, commenting on Num. 3: 12-133; 8: 16-18; and the Targums of those verses. On the priesthood of the first-born, see also R. le
Déaut, La Nuit pascale (Rome, 1963), 85 n. 43.
16 The Latin has: 'cuius series et ordo describitur'.
Commentary It is assumed in the Rabbinic literature generally, and is strongly implied by Scripture in Ps. 76: 2. Among Christian writers, Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 1. 5, refers to it. There were other places called Salem, as Jerome admits in his comment on 33: 18, where he appears to accept the view that Melchizedech was priest-king of Jerusalem; but Eusebius of Emesa (Devreesse, p. 67) denied the identification of Salem with Jerusalem in this chapter.
It is remarkable that Jerome does not dismiss all this as Jewish fable. Rather, he contents himself with juxtaposing to it Christian exegesis of Melchizedech without further comment. What follows is based on Heb. 7: 1-10, in the course of which Christ is compared with Melchizedech. But Jerome goes further, seeing in this man not a Jewish high priest, but a Gentile who is uncircumcised: here he follows earlier writers like Justin Martyr and Tertullian, who had strongly emphasized that Melchizedech was a type of the true priestly Christian race.!" Jerome develops this along the lines of Heb., not noting that Abraham was in fact uncircumcised when
Melchizedech blessed him! The whole emphasis, as might be expected, is on the superiority of Melchizedech's priesthood, and its power to bless the later Aaronic line. Perhaps to counter this view of things, R. Isaac the Babylonian stated that Melchizedech was born circumcised (Gen. Rab. 43: 6; ARNa 2), but of this possibly polemical statement Jerome appears happily ignorant. For Jerome,
Melchizedech's priesthood constitutes a mystery (see also 18: 6; 35:
213; 49: 9, 19), a truth about Christ's saving work, and its historical and eternal significance, which is concealed in the text of the Scriptures.'8
Jerome at last quotes Ps. rro. 4 on the order of Melchizedech's priesthood: this verse is the subject of attention in Heb. 5: 6; 6: 20;
7: 17, where it is applied to Christ. Melchizedech had brought forth bread and wine, which encapsulate the order of his priesthood.
Christ had declared that bread and wine were his body and blood, to be offered in sacrifice by the Church as his memorial. But the Christian sacrifice is unbloody, and Jerome, like his predecessors, can contrast it with the bloody, non-rational victims of Aaron's
17 See Justin, Dial. 19. 2-4, 28. 2-5; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 2; Jerome, Ep. 73; and Hayward, 'Pirge de Rabbi Eliezer and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan', 228-9.
'8 On mysterium and its significance in Jerome's commentaries, see Jay, L'Exégése de saint Jéréme, 266~9.