Lecture 2 Lectio 2 Abraham to David Abraham ad David ^1:2 Abraham begot Isaac. And Isaac begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Judas and his brethren. [n. 24] ^1:2 Abraham genuit Isaac. Isaac autem genuit Iacob. Iacob autem genuit Iudam, et fratres eius. [n. 24] ^1:3 And Judas begot Phares and Zara of Thamar. And Phares begot Esron. And Esron begot Aram. [n. 33] ^1:3 Iudas autem genuit Phares, et Zaram de Thamar. Phares autem genuit Esrom. Esrom autem genuit Aram. [n. 33] ^1:4 And Aram begot Aminadab. And Aminadab begot Naasson. And Naasson begot Salmon. [n. 38] ^1:4 Aram autem genuit Aminadab. Aminadab autem genuit Naasson. Naasson autem genuit Salmon. [n. 38] ^1:5 And Salmon begot Booz of Rahab. And Booz begot Obed of Ruth. And Obed begot Jesse. [n. 45] ^1:5 Salmon autem genuit Booz de Rahab. Booz autem genuit Obed ex Ruth. Obed autem genuit Iesse, Iesse autem genuit David regem. [n. 45] ^1:6 And Jesse begot David the King. And David the King begot Solomon, of her that had been the wife of Urias. [n. 51] ^1:6 Iesse autem genuit David Regem. David autem genuit Salomenem ex ea, quae fuit Uriae, [n. 51] 23. Having set down the title, here he puts together the series of the genealogy. And it is divided into three parts, according to the three fourteens by which the aforesaid genealogical series is put together. 23. Proposito titulo, hic series genealogiae texitur: et dividitur in partes tres, secundum tres quaterdenarios quibus dicta genealogiae series texitur. The first fourteen is from Abraham to David, which proceeds through the patriarchs. The second is from David to the deportation to Babylon, and proceeds through the kings. The third is from the Babylonian deportation to Christ, and, beginning from leaders, it proceeds through private persons. Primus quaterdenarius est ab Abraham usque ad David, qui procedit per patriarchas. Secundus procedit a David usque ad transmigrationem Babylonis, qui procedit per reges. Tertius a transmigratione Babylonis usque ad Christum, qui incipit a ducibus, et procedit per personas privatas. The second begins at David the King begot Solomon. The third, at and after the transmigration of Babylon (Matt 1:12). Secunda, ibi David autem Rex genuit Salomonem. Tertia, ibi et post transmigrationem Babylonis et cetera. The first is divided into three parts. For the fathers who lived before the entrance into Egypt are placed first; second are placed those who lived at the time of the exodus and of the entrance into the promised land; third, those who lived after the entrance into the promised land. Prima dividitur in tres. Primo enim ponuntur patres qui fuerunt ante ingressum in Aegyptum; secundo ponuntur illi qui fuerunt in ipso exitu, et terrae promissionis ingressu; tertio illi qui fuerunt post ingressum terrae promissionis. 24. He says then first, Abraham begot Isaac. 24. Dicit ergo primo Abraham genuit Isaac. Before we proceed further, recall that two of the evangelists trace Christ’s generation according to the flesh, namely Luke and Matthew; but each traces it differently. There are differences between them in five respects. For they differ: first, as regards location in the Gospel; second, as regards the order of names; third, as regards the manner of expression; fourth, as regards the point where they end; fifth, as regards the persons enumerated. Hic considerandum est, antequam ulterius procedamus, quod duo Evangelistae generationem Christi secundum carnem prosequuntur, scilicet Lucas, et Matthaeus; sed differenter. Et haec differentia attenditur quantum ad quinque. Primo enim differunt quantum ad situm; secundo quantum ad ordinem; tertio quantum ad modum; quarto quantum ad terminum; quinto quantum ad personas numeratas. 25. First, I say that they differ according to location in the Gospel. For Matthew commences putting together the generation of Christ at the beginning of his Gospel; Luke places it, not at the beginning, but after the baptism. 25. Primo dico quod differunt quantum ad situm: quia Matthaeus generationem Christi in principio Evangelii incipit texere; Lucas autem non in principio, sed post baptismum. According to Augustine, the reason for this is that Matthew took up the fleshly generation of Christ as the thing to be described, and so he had to put it right at the beginning. Luke however intended most of all to set forward in Christ a priestly person; now the expiation of sins pertains to a priest, and so Luke fittingly places the generation of Christ after a baptism, in which the expiation of sins takes place. Et ratio huius est, secundum Augustinum, quoniam Matthaeus generationem Christi carnalem suscepit describendam, et ideo statim in principio debuit eam ponere. Lucas autem maxime intendit commendare in Christo personam sacerdotalem: ad sacerdotem autem pertinet expiatio peccatorum, et ideo post baptismum, in quo fit peccatorum expiatio, convenienter a Luca ponitur Christi generatio. 26. Second, Luke and Matthew differ in putting together Christ’s genealogy as regards order. For Matthew puts together Christ’s generation by beginning with Abraham and descending to Christ, while Luke begins from Christ and, ascending, proceeds to Abraham and beyond. 26. Secundo autem, Lucas et Matthaeus in texendo genealogiam Christi differunt quantum ad ordinem: quia Matthaeus texit Christi generationem incipiendo ab Abraham, et descendendo usque ad Christum, Lucas autem incipit a Christo et ascendendo procedit usque ad Abraham et etiam ultra. The reason is that, as the Apostle says (Rom 4:25), there are two things in Christ, namely the humility of accepting the defects of our nature, and the power of the divinity and of grace through which he purified us from such defects; God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, because of the first, and has condemned sin in the flesh (Rom 8:3), because of the second. Matthew, therefore, who aims at the fleshly generation of Christ, through which he descended even to the assumption of our weakness, fittingly describes his generation by descending. But Luke, who sets forward his priestly dignity, through which we are reconciled to God and united to Christ himself, fittingly proceeds by ascending. Et ratio est quia, secundum Apostolum, Rom. IV, 25, in Christo fuerunt duo, scilicet humilitas suscipiendi defectus naturae nostrae, et potestas divinitatis et gratiae, per quam nos ab huius defectibus expiavit; Rom. VIII, 3: misit Deus Filium suum in similitudinem carnis peccati, propter primum, et de peccato damnavit peccatum in carne, propter secundum. Matthaeus ergo, qui intendit generationem Christi carnalem, per quam descendit usque ad infirmitatis nostrae assumptionem, congrue eius generationem descendendo describit. Sed Lucas, qui in ipso commendat sacerdotalem dignitatem, per quam Deo reconciliamur, et ipsi Christo unimur, congrue ascendendo procedit. 27. Third, they differ as regards manner. For in recounting the genealogy Matthew uses the verb begot while Luke uses the verb was. And this is because in his entire account Matthew includes only those who were fathers according to the flesh, while Luke includes many who were fathers according to law, or adoption. For the law commanded that if someone were to die without children, his brother should take his wife and beget children for him; hence those children did not belong to the one who begot them, but rather by a kind of adoption they were imputed to the first man. Hence Luke, who includes more than one son begotten by adoption, does not say begot, but who was; because although they had not begotten those men, nevertheless those men were theirs by a kind of adoption. But Matthew, who put down only fathers according to the flesh, says begot. 27. Tertio differunt quantum ad modum: quia in enarratione genealogiae Matthaeus utitur hoc verbo genuit, sed Lucas hoc verbo fuit. Et hoc est, quia Matthaeus in tota enarratione sua non ponit nisi patres carnales; sed Lucas ponit multos patres secundum legem, sive per adoptionem. Praeceptum enim fuit in lege quod si aliquis moreretur sine filiis, quod frater eius acciperet sponsam eius, et generaret sibi filios: unde filii illi non erant eius qui generabat, sed per quamdam adoptionem imputabantur priori. Unde Lucas, qui ponit multos filios genitos per adoptionem, non dicit genuit, sed fuit; quia quamvis ipsi eos non generassent, eorum tamen per quamdam adoptionem erant. Matthaeus autem, qui ponit solum patres carnales, dicit genuit. Now the reason for this is that, as was said, Matthew is concerned with Christ’s humanity. And since according to the flesh he was born of fathers according to the flesh, Matthew placed none in the genealogy who were not fathers according to the flesh. But Luke emphasizes Christ’s priestly dignity, through which we are adopted as sons of God, and so he puts down not only fleshly but also legal fathers. Ratio autem huius est quia, sicut dictum est, Matthaeus versatur maxime circa Christi humanitatem. Et quia secundum carnem natus est ex patribus carnalibus, ideo in genealogia Matthaei nullus ponitur, qui non fuerit pater carnalis. Lucas autem commendat maxime in Christo sacerdotalem dignitatem, per quam adoptamur in filios Dei; et ideo non solum carnales, sed etiam legales patres posuit. 28. Fourth, they differ as regards the ending point. For Matthew begins his generation from Abraham and extends it to Christ; Luke however extends his genealogy from Christ, not only to Abraham, but even to God. 28. Quarto differunt quantum ad terminum: quia Matthaeus generationem suam incipit ab Abraham, et protendit usque ad Christum; Lucas autem a Christo, non solum usque ad Abraham, sed etiam usque ad Deum. The reason for this can be found in the fact that Matthew wrote to the Hebrews. Now the Hebrews prided themselves chiefly on Abraham. We are the seed of Abraham (John 8:33), who was the first beginning of believing. And so Matthew began from Abraham. But Luke wrote to the Greeks, who knew nothing of Abraham except through Christ; for if there had not been Christ, they would never have known anything about Abraham. And so Luke began from Christ, and ended not merely in Abraham, but in God. Cuius ratio potest sumi ex hoc quod Matthaeus scripsit Hebraeis. Hebraei autem maxime gloriabantur de Abraham, Ioan. VIII, 33: semen Abrahae sumus, qui fuit primum credendi principium; et ideo Matthaeus ab Abraham incepit. Lucas autem scripsit Graecis, qui nihil de Abraham sciebant nisi per Christum: si enim non fuisset Christus, nihil unquam scivissent de Abraham; et ideo Lucas incepit a Christo, et terminavit non solum in Abraham, sed in Deum. 29. Fifth, they differ as regards the persons enumerated. For in the whole series of the genealogy Luke mentions absolutely nothing about a woman, but in Matthew some women are interspersed. 29. Quinto differunt quantum ad personas enumeratas: quia in tota serie genealogiae Lucae nulla prorsus de muliere fit mentio; in Matthaeo autem aliquae interponuntur mulieres. According to Ambrose, the reason for this is that Luke, as was said, sets forward most of all the priestly dignity. Now in a priest, purity is required most of all. But Matthew puts together his generation according to the flesh, and for this reason some women are set down there. Cuius ratio est, secundum Ambrosium, quia Lucas, sicut dictum est, commendat maxime sacerdotalem dignitatem; in sacerdote autem maxima requiritur puritas. Matthaeus autem eius texit generationem carnalem: et ideo ibi ponuntur aliquae mulieres. 30. Yet one should notice that in the entire genealogy of Matthew the only women set down are sinners, or those who were known for some sin, as was Thamar who fornicated (Gen 38), and Ruth who was an idolater because she was a gentile, and the wife of Urias who was an adulteress (2 Sam 11). And according to Jerome, this is to point out that he whose genealogy is put together here entered for the sake of redeeming sinners. 30. Notandum tamen quod in tota genealogia Matthaei non ponuntur nisi mulieres peccatrices, vel quae in aliquo fuerant peccato notatae, sicut Thamar, quae fornicata est, Gen. XXXVIII, 24, et Ruth, quae fuit idololatra, quia gentilis, et uxor Uriae, quae fuit adultera, II Reg. XI, 2 ss. Et hoc ad designandum, secundum Hieronymum, quod ille cuius genealogia texitur, intravit propter peccatores redimendos. Ambrose touches upon another reason, namely to remove the Church’s embarrassment. For if Christ willed to be born of sinners, unbelievers ought not to laugh if sinners come to the Church. Alia ratio tangitur ab Ambrosio, scilicet ut tolleretur confusio Ecclesiae. Si enim Christus ex peccatoribus nasci voluit, non debent infideles irridere, si peccatores ad Ecclesiam veniant. Another reason can be given, I believe according to Chrysostom, namely to show the imperfection of the law, and to show that Christ came to fulfill the law. For the fact that certain sinful women are mentioned points out that those who were greatest in the law were sinners, such as David and Judas. And by this he points out the imperfection of the others; for if those men were sinners, much more the others as well. All have sinned (Rom 3:23). And so these are placed in the generation of Christ to indicate that he himself had fulfilled the law. Alia ratio potest assignari, credo secundum Chrysostomum, ut ostendatur imperfectio legis: et quod Christus venit legem implere. Per hoc enim quod tanguntur quaedam mulieres peccatrices, denotatur quod illi, qui erant maximi in lege, erant peccatores; sicut David et Iudas. Et in hoc designat imperfectionem aliorum. Si enim isti fuerunt peccatores, multo magis et alii; Rom. III, 23: omnes peccaverunt, et egent gloria Dei. Et ideo isti ponuntur in generatione Christi, ut designetur, quod ipse legem impleverat. Yet notice that those women, however much they may all have been sinners, still they were not sinners during the time in which their genealogy was put together, but were already cleansed through penitence. Nota tamen quod istae mulieres quamvis fuerint omnes peccatrices, non tamen pro tempore illo quo texitur earum genealogia, sed iam erant mundatae per poenitentiam. 31. He says then, Abraham begot Isaac. One should note first that there are three things here to be considered: the letter, or the literal sense; second, that the fathers who are set down designate Christ; third, that even they are referred, or can be referred, to our instruction. 31. Dicit ergo Abraham genuit Isaac. Notandum primo, quod hic duo sunt consideranda secundum litteram, sive sensum litteralem. Primo, quod per patres istos positos designatur Christus; secundo, quod etiam ista referuntur, et possunt referri, ad instructionem nostram. He says then first, Abraham begot Isaac. And this is found elsewhere in Scripture (Gen 21). And Isaac begot Jacob (Gen 25). Dicit ergo primo Abraham genuit Isaac. Et hoc habetur Genes. XXI. Isaac autem genuit Iacob, Genes. XXV. 32. Jacob begot Judas and his brethren. Here it is asked, since Abraham had another son besides Isaac, namely Ishmael, and similarly Isaac had other sons, why does he not mention them the way it says here, Judas and his brethren? 32. Iacob autem genuit Iudam et fratres eius. Hic quaeritur, cum Abraham alium habuerit filium quam Isaac, scilicet Ismael, et similiter Isaac, quare non fit mentio de eis, sicut hic dicitur Iudam et fratres. Similarly, why is Judas mentioned by name any more than the others? Item, quare magis exprimitur Iudas ex nomine, quam alii. The reason is that Judas and his brothers remained under the worship of the one God, and this is why they are mentioned in the generation of Christ. And it does not say, Isaac and Ishmael, or Jacob and Esau. Ratio est, quia Iudas et fratres eius sub cultura unius Dei permanserunt: et ideo de eis fit mentio in generatione Christi, non autem Isaac, et Ismael, nec Iacob, et Esau. As regards the second question, this was to show that the prophecy of Jacob was fulfilled in Christ: the sceptre will not be taken away from Judah, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, and he will be the expectation of nations (Gen 49:10). For it is evident that our Lord sprung out of Judah (Heb 7:14). For this reason he is mentioned rather than the others. Ad secundum, quod hoc fuit ut impleri ostenderetur in Christo prophetia Iacob, Genes. XLIX, 10: non auferetur sceptrum de Iuda, et dux de femore eius, donec veniat, qui mittendus est: et ipse erit expectatio gentium. Manifestum enim est quod de Iuda ortus est Dominus, ut dicitur Hebr. VII, 14; et ideo fit magis mentio de ipso quam de aliis. 33. And Judas begot Phares and Zara of Thamar. Here it is asked, since the Lord was not born of Zara, but of Phares, why he is mentioned. 33. Iudas autem genuit Phares et cetera. Hic quaeritur, cum Dominus non sit natus de Zaram, sed de Phares, quare fit mentio de eo. And why he is described by name? For previously it said, his brethren. So why does he mention the name of Zara? Item, quare nominaliter exprimitur. Prius enim dixit fratres eius, quare ergo expressit nomen Zaram? And one should say, according to Ambrose, that this was done in a mystery. To make this clear, notice the history, that in Thamar’s labor Zara appeared first (Gen 38). The midwife tied a scarlet thread onto his hand, saying, this will come forth the first, and so she called his name Zara. Later, he drawing back his hand, the other came forth, and the midwife said, why is the partition divided for you? Now Zara, who appeared first, signifies the people of the Jews, onto whose hand the midwife tied a scarlet thread, that is, circumcision, which was accompanied by a flow of blood. But he drawing back his hand, the other came forth (2 Cor 1), because blindness in part has happened in Israel (Rom 11:25). For in this way the gentile people, separated from God’s people, entered into the light of faith. It came forth from the womb of ignorance and unbelief. Et dicendum, secundum Ambrosium, quod hoc in mysterio factum est. Ad cuius evidentiam nota historiam, quae habetur Genes. XXXVIII, quod in partu Thamar prior apparuit Zaram, in cuius manu obstetrix ligavit filum coccineum dicens: iste egredietur prior, et ideo vocavit nomen eius Zaram: postea illo retrahente manum egressus est alter, dicente obstetrice: quare propter te divisa est maceria? Zaram autem, qui prior apparuit, significat populum Iudaeorum, in cuius manu obstetrix filum coccineum ligavit, hoc est circumcisionem, quae fiebat cum sanguinis effusione. Sed illo retrahente manum etc. egressus est alter: quia caecitas ex parte contigit in Iudaeis. Sic enim populus gentilis divisus intravit in lucem fidei, egressus de vulva ignorantiae et infidelitatis.