CHAPTER 6
with consolabitur, 'will comfort', apparently following Aquila.
LAB 1: 20 has an explanation very close to that of QHG: Noah is so called because 'this man will give rest to us and to the earth, from those which are upon it; on whom punishment shall come because of the wickedness of their evil deeds'. See also John Chrysostom,
Hom. in Gen. 21. PJ, however, explains the name in a manner which encompasses both of Jerome's understandings: 'this man will console us from our work which does not prosper (i.e. rests, is inactive)... because of the sins of mankind'. The fact that the Hebrew provides an explanation of the name through root nhm rather than nwh is remarked by R. Yohanan in Gen. Rab. 25: 2.
CHAPTER 6 verse 2 This verse presented obvious problems for orthodox Jewish believers, since it might be interpreted in an anti-monotheistic sense. Hence, from early post-biblical times, these 'sons of God' were understood as 'angels', as a variant reading of LXX testifies: see also VL of this verse; Jub. 4: 15; I Enoch 6: 2; Test.
Reuben 5: 6-7; Test. Naph. 3: 5; Damascus Document 2: 16-21; Genesis Apocryphon 2: 1; Philo, De Gig. 6; Josephus, Ant. 1. 73; 2
Peter 2: 4; Jude 6; gloss of TN on Gen. 6: 2; Justin, Apology 1. 5; Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 5.
10; Tertullian, Apologeticum 22. 3, De Virginibus Velandis 7, Adv. Marc. 5. 18; PRE 22: 2. Jerome cites Ps. 82: 1 as a proof text for this exegesis.
Literal renderings of the Hebrew, however, were known and used from the first century AD onwards, as LAB 3: 1 makes clear: hence Aquila's version which Jerome cites here, that of Theodotion, and the transliteration of Pesh, which are equally 'literal'. Augustine, De Civ. Dei 15. 23, quotes Aquila with approval; and it is 'the sons of God' which Jerome himself uses in this verse of his Vg.
The reading of Symmachus, however, betrays a shift of understanding towards a Rabbinic view of the phrase revealed in TO, PJ, and Gen. Rab. 26: 5 (R. Simeon bar Yohai), which also interpret the phrase as 'sons of the mighty'. This may be compared with TN's rendering 'sons of the judges', found also in Sifre Num. 6; Sifre
Zutta 11: 4; elohim was taken as 'rulers' or 'judges', the sense which it apparently has in Exod. 22: 28. All these interpretations seem designed to avoid any notion of angels or supernatural beings;
Commentary indeed, R. Simeon bar Yohai put a curse on those who spoke of 'sons of God' in this verse. But Jerome appears to view Symmachus' reading as generally consonant with that of Aquila. verse 3 Jerome is concerned to remedy a possible misunderstanding of God's character which the LXX might imply, and demonstrates from two other biblical passages, Hos. 4: 14 and Ps. 89:
32-3, that God's punishment is inextricably linked with His mercy.
The Hebrew verb concerned is ydwn, found in this form only here in the whole Hebrew Bible, which LXX took as if it were ylwn or ydwr 'dwell, remain', the sense which it is given also by Jub. 5: 8,
TO, Pesh, Vg, jer. Sanh. 10: 3, and Gen. Rab. 26: 6. Indeed, a Hebrew text actually reading ydwr is now attested by the Dead Sea
Scroll 4Q252, whose original text may be conveniently consulted in the article by T. H. Lim, 'The Chronology of the Flood Story in a Qumran Text (4Q252)', JJS 43 (1992), 289. But ydwn more likely means 'will judge', and is rendered as such by LAB 3: 2, Josephus,
Ant. 1.75, PJ, TN, Ngl, FTP, FIV, and Symmachus. Origen, De Princ. 1. 3. 7 had used the LXX of this verse to argue that the Holy
Ghost is taken away from all who are unworthy, and that he dwells not with those who are flesh, but in those whose land has been renewed: cf. Contra Celsum 7. 38. Jerome's exegesis of the verb here as 'will not judge' would rule out Origen's interpretation.
In fact, however, Jerome appears to countenance both understandings of the verb as 'judge' and 'dwell': in this, he is not alone, for Jub., having translated the verb as 'dwell' in 5: 8, goes on to deliver a sustained homily on judgement, 5: 11-18. So also Gen.
Rab. 26: 6 plays with both readings of the verb as 'judge' and 'dwell'; and in jer. Sanh. 10: 3, R. Simeon interprets the words as 'My Spirit shall not judge him, because I will not put my Spirit in them whenI pay to the righteous their recompense'. Jerome was evidently aware of the two different senses traditionally attributed to ydwn, and has combined them to express a theology of Divine justice tempered with Divine mercy."
While Jerome makes LXX speak of God's activity with these men 'in aeternum', 'for ever', he understands the Hebrew to speak of 'in ' See P. S. Alexander, 'The Targumim and Early Exegesis of "Sons of God" in Genesis', JJS 23 (1972), 60~71; Salvesen, Symmachus, 31-2.
2 See further Bowker, The Targums, 154-7; J. P. Lewis, A Study ofthe Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature (Leiden, 1968), sempiternum', 'for evermore' or 'for everlasting', and remarks that God will not reserve them for everlasting tortures. He thus appears to be aware of the famous statement of m. Sanh. 10: 3 that the Generation of the Flood have no portion in the World to Come, nor shall they stand in the Judgement, which the Rabbis supported with reference to this very verse. They, however, understood m. Sanh. ro: 3 to mean that the Generation of the Flood were amongst the most despicable of God's enemies: they are listed along with those who deny the resurrection of the dead and the divine origin of the Torah, the 'Epicurean', readers of non-canonical books, sorcerers, blasphemers, the kings Jeroboam son of Nebat, Ahab, Manasseh, and other violent and deceitful persons. In other words, their particular punishment betokens not God's mercy, but his severity, as the later explanations of this Mishnah in t. Sanh. 13: 6, jer. Sanh. to: 3, and b. Sanh. 108a make clear. If Jerome is dependent on this
Mishnah, he has certainly altered it to suit his own exegetical purposes.? His remarks about the future leniency of God towards sinners rather reflect the Targumic tradition, which admits the completeness of God's judgement on the Generation of the Flood, but tempers it for the future: 'None of the wicked generations who are destined to arise shall be judged with the standard of judgement of the Generation of the Flood' (PJ, cf. TN of Gen. 6: 3). What follows is a statement of Jewish exegesis of the verse,* that the men of that generation were given 120 years in which to repent: their lives were not limited to 120 years, a point which Augustine makes (De Civ. Dei 15. 24) in words similar to Jerome's here, and with similar scriptural proof examples. See also his comment on 9:
29. There were those who, like Josephus, Ant.
1. 75, 152, used this verse to argue that 120 years was the span of human life: see, for example, Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 6. 11; and compare Hippolytus, Comm. in Psalm. fr. 4 (PG 1o: 714-15). But customary Jewish exegesis took the 120 years as space for repentance: see especially TO, PJ, FTP, FTV, Mekh. de R. Ishmael Shirta
5: 37-40, Tanh. Beshallab 15, and Seder 'Olam Rabbah 28. The antiquity of the interpretation is now confirmed by its presence in the Qumran document 4Q252; see further Lim, 'Chronology of 3 See Kamesar, Jerome, 183-5, who suggests (p. 183) that Jerome's reading of the verse was influenced by Symmachus, 'my Spirit shall not judge the men everlastingly, aionios'.
4 See Rahmer, Die hebraischen Traditionen, 23.
Commentary the Flood', 289-90, 292; and H. Jackson, '4Q252: Addenda', JJS 44 (1993), 118.
Finally, Jerome's exposition of this verse is close to the rendering of FIP, which includes the notions of 'doing repentance', the Divine 'decree', God's 'giving' that generation a 'duration' for repentance, and a creative elaboration of Hebrew ydd6n as 'judge' on the one hand and 'remain, endure' on the other:
And the Word of the Lord said: The generations who are destined to arise after the Generation of the Flood will not be so judged. The decree of judgement of the Generation of the Flood is sealed, to perish and be destroyed in complete destruction. Have I not put my Spirit upon the sons of men, that they should do good deeds? But because they are flesh, their deeds are evil. Behold, I have given them the duration of 120 years that they should do repentance, and they have not done it.
This Targum may, in fact, throw light on Jerome's comments in QHG and may also explain his decision to translate yadon in Vg as 'remain': all the senses of the word which he notes have Jewish pedigrees. verse
The Hebrew n'pilim, which derives from the root mpl, 'to fall', was rendered as 'giants' by LXX, and Jerome followed this in Vg: it is a common translation, found in Theodotion, TO, and TN, owing much to the appearance of n*pilim in Num. 13: 33(34).
There they are huge individuals, making Israel seem like grasshoppers. So they are seen as part of an ancient giant-band which has many names: Gen. Rab. 26: 7 gives seven. Not entirely out of kilter with this interpretation is Symmachus, whose translation 'violent ones' emphasizes their character without commenting on their physical stature.
But the second occurrence of 'giants' in the LXX represents a different Hebrew word, gibborim; Symmachus again represented this as 'violent ones', while 'giants' remains the rendering of TO,
TN, and PJ. Aquila translated as 'the powerful', and Jerome followed this interpretation for his Vg, potentes.' Jerome's point seems to be that Symmachus translated both n'pilim and gibborim as 'violent ones'; and that the supernatural beings and their offspring can rightly be understood as equally sharing in the character of 'falling ones'.
5 See further Salvesen, Symmachus, 34-5. verse 9 In qualifying the degree of Noah's righteousness, Jerome follows closely a well-known Jewish tradition summed up by R.
Yohanan in.b. Sanh. 108a: Noah was righteous in his own deeply corrupt generation, but not by the standards of other generations.
The same opinion is found in Tanh. Noah 5; Lekh 26; Gen. Rab.
30: 9; Midrash Aggadah 34. Indeed, Jerome's comment about Noah's following God's footsteps may recall R. Judah's view stated in Gen. Rab. 30: to, that Abraham was able to walk before God
(Gen. 17: 1), whereas Noah could only walk with Him, since he had formerly been sunk in deep mire (i.e. sins).
His recording of this Jewish tradition, although unacknowledged, is striking, in that Christians tended to regard Noah as a model of righteousness. There were representatives of this school of thought within Judaism also, most particularly the Aramaic Targums PJ and TN. Even within the sources we have quoted, we find voices raised in favour of Noah: Resh Lakish in b. Sanh. 108a asks if Noah were righteous in his particularly wicked generation, how much more righteous would he have been in any other time?
See also Gen. Rab. 30: 9, for similar sentiments expressed by R.
Nehemiah.° However, Jerome may owe something to Origen, who speaks of Noah's relative righteousness in Hon. in Num. 9. 1; or both he and Jerome may have derived their interpretation from Philo, who in De Abr. 36 states that Noah was not good in the absolute sense, but only compared with others of his day." verse 14 The Hebrew calls the wood goper, a word found nowhere else in the Bible. Jerome's explanation of it may be related to the requirement that the ark be smeared with pitch, Hebrew képer, set out later in this verse: see also Vg.
Its meaning was quite uncertain. TO has 'cedar wood', in common with LAB 3: 4, Gen.
Rab. 31: 8, PJ, VN, FIP, FTV, Tanh. Noah 5; but Pesh has 'juniper wood', and in Vg Jerome translated it as 'smoothed wood'. verse 16 The Hebrew says that Noah should make sdhar, 'light', for the ark. The word is unexpected, and caused uncertainty. LXX
© See Rahmer, Die hebrdischen 'Traditionen, 24. On the Jewish tendency to denigrate Noah, and on Christian praise of his character, see Lewis, Noah and the Flood, 159 ff.
7 See also Quod Deus Immutabilis Sit 117; QG 1. 97, where a similar understanding may be implied; and de Lange, Origen and the Jews, 127.
Commentary translated it as episunagon, 'gathering together' or 'compacting', which Jerome translates here literally. Presumably LXX meant that the ark was to be made compactly, or narrowed as it was built from the keel upwards. The notion that it was to be made of two or three stories, found in Origen, Hom. in Gen. 2. 1; Ambrose, Hexaemeron
6. 72; and Augustine, OG 6, depended on the LXX rendering of sohar.' Jerome's understanding, however, is based on the common
Hebrew word shrym, 'noonday', which is Aquila's rendering in the verse. He evidently regards Symmachus, however, as having captured the true sense of the word, for in Vg he translates as 'window'. This understanding is shared by TN, and by R. Abba bar
Kahana in Gen. Rab. 31: 11 (against the view discussed below), and could claim support from Gen. 8: 6 with its reference to a window (Hebrew: ballon). Jerome alludes to this below in his translation of 8: 6-7.
It is possible that Jerome deliberately opted for the meaning 'window', like Symmachus, to rule out a tradition that sdbar signified a precious stone as the source of light.' This last is found in Gen. Rab. 31: 11 (R. Levi), where the stone is called mrglyt, as also in PJ of this verse; b. Sanh. r08b; jer. Pes. 1: 1; and PRE
1. TO is tantalizingly ambiguous, rendering the word as 'light': in all probability, it refers to the Haggadah of the precious stone.1° But this view needs modification, since Kamesar observes that the word used by Symmachus, diaphanes, may also refer to a mineral: he cites Galen, to show that diaphanes is like the Roman lapis specularis, that is the mica or moonstone, and Pliny Nat. Hist. 9.
13, to indicate that there was a pearl, margarita, similar to the lapis specularis. Indeed, margarita appears in Hebraized form as a loanword in Gen. Rab. 31: 11 defining the sdhar, the precious stone illuminating the ark.
He suggests that Jerome has taken Symmachus' translation, but has accommodated it to his own use by making it mean 'window': it should, however, be noted that diaphanes does primarily mean 'that which is clear, translucent'.
Kamesar also accounts for Jerome's interest in this verse. By rendering sohar here as they have done, and by rendering the 'window' of 8 See further Harl, Bible d'Alexandrie, i. 132.
° Rahmer, Die hebrdischen Traditionen, 24.
'© See also B. Grossfeld, The Targum Ongelos to Genesis, The Aramaic Bible, vi (Edinburgh, 1988), 55.
8: 6 as 'door', LXX created a difficulty: how could Noah be said to open the door (8: 6), when God had shut the ark completely (7:
16)? The heretic Apelles had heavily emphasized this problem, as Origen shows in Hom. in Gen. 2. 1-2. Jerome unravels the confusion by careful attention to the Hebrew text, where no such difficulty exists."!
CHAPTER 8 verses 1-3 LXX's 'revealed' represents Hebrew wayyissak'rit, 'shut up, stopped'. Hence in Vg Jerome put 'were shut up', 'clausi sunt': some witnesses to VL read this also, but most have the similar
'conclusi sunt'. The translators to whom Jerome refers are first Symmachus, who reads 'were closed'; then Aquila, who has 'were sealed'. He may also have in mind the Targums: TO, Ngl, and GM
(cf. Pesh) have 'were shut', TN 'were sealed, stopped', and PJ 'were locked'.
He sets the Hebrew 'turned back' against LXX 'subsided' (Greek: enedidou), translating the latter with cessavit, 'stopped', the very word which VL had used to render LXX's verb ekopasen in verse
1, describing the ceasing of the water. He brings proof from Eccles.
1: 7 that the Hebrew Bible is consistent in its usage. He makes this point elsewhere: see, for example, his comments on 1: 10; 12: 9-10.
Thus for Jerome the Flood disappeared naturally, its waters going back to the sea: in this, he differs from some other authorities, who assume that their abatement was miraculous.' verses 6-7 Codex Alexandrinus here reads of his sending out the raven 'to see if the water had ceased'. On the window, see 6: 16. In introducing the raven, Jerome again (cf. his comment on 4: 15) alludes obliquely to a matter he had discussed in another work.
Here, he says that the Hebrew expresses 'differently' what is found in LXX. He means that in the LXX the raven is said not to return
(ouk anestrepsen), while in the Hebrew we read that it used to go out and then come back (wayyézé' yas6' was6b).* The importance of See Kamesar, "Thesis', 183-7, who also discusses Origen's attempts to deal with the door and window on LXX evidence without recourse to the Hebrew.
1 Thus John Chrysostom, Hom. in Gen. 26. 3; Didymus, Comm. in Gen. 194.
22-195. 1, cited by Kamesar, 'Thesis', 139-40.
2 Pesh has 'and did not return'. In the Hexapla, the reading of 'the Syrian' (see