← Back St. Lawrence of Brindisi on Creation and the Fall: A Verse by Verse Commentary on Genesis 1-3
St. Lawrence of Brindisi on Creation and the Fall: A Verse by Verse Commentary on Genesis 1-3

St. Lawrence of Brindisi on Creation and the Fall: A Verse by Verse Commentary on Genesis 1-3

Download PDF
AuthorsLawrence of Brindisi, St. Toth, Craig R. Warkulwiz, Fr. Victor, M.S.S., Ph.D.
PublisherKolbe Center for the Study of Creation
Published13 feb 2018
Date29 feb 2020
Languageseng
Identifiersuri: https://kolbecenter.org/product/st-lawrence-of-brindisi-on-creation-and-the-fall-e-book-pdf/, oclc: 1027705599, isbn: 9780988860353
FormatsPDF

Description

Explanatio in Genesim

San Lorenzo gives excellent explanations for

cited in the article "Who Would Want to be the Barren Woman?," which cites St. Lawrence's commentary on Gen. 3:16 (PDF pp. 205-212) regarding infertility/childlessness (II-II q. 164 a. 2 ad 3) and how preserving virginity is a laborious task (PDF p. 210 begins: "Although virgins are also not entirely included in the decree [of punishment due to Original Sin], since the Lord raised them to a better condition, they are still not free from the womanly pains within.").

PDF pp. 195ff.are on the Protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15).

The number 322 is a favorite of the gnostic Skull & Crossbones society, whose motto is "There is No God But Man," ∵ of Gen. 3:22: "The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil!" (which, pace the gnostics, S. Lorenzo di Brindisi correctly interprets (PDF p. 230) as being an ironic or mocking allusion "to what the serpent had said: You will be like gods, knowing good and evil. ")

Marriage benefits the more more, it seems, being a remedy for one of her punishments (pp. 185-6 on Gen. 3:16; cf. Fuentes vs. Owens):

The meaning could be as follows: And your desire shall be to your husband , from a natural desire by which the woman desires her husband for her sustenance, defense, protection, companionship, security, and delight, all of which the woman, as it were, is lacking. This is just as something imperfect always is accustomed to desire the perfect, by which it can be perfected and its defects are about to be satisfied.

Let me return briefly to the matter of the “formless void,” starting afresh with the kind of material I would have put forward to treat of it whenever we discussed it before.

Recall, to start with, Gen 1:1-2, laid out as follows for rhythmic reading/recitation clarity:

בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ

וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ

וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם

וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת

.עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם

And recall:

E 0 א ↔ E 1 א ↔ E 2 א ↔ E 3 א

with E 3 standing for CNNE3, that which Can Never Not Exist = necessary (created) existence (שמים/“Heavens”); E 2 for CCNE2, that which Can Come Not to Exist = contingent existence (ארץ/“Earth”); E 1 for CCE1, that which Can Come to Exist = potential existence (מים/“Waters”); and E 0 for CNCE0, that which Can Never Come to Exist = impossible existence (תהום/“Abyss”).

This is the structural totality of existence that is made, namely created (בָּרָא) “In (בְּ) the “head/principle” (ראש) of “the Six [Days]/the Hexaemeron (שִׁית).”

Now, we zoom in to look at the very end of verse 1, and beginning of verse 2

וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ … ←

וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ

The state of created existence E 2 described as הָאָרֶץ, “the Earth,” corresponds to CCNE2, or contingent existence. As we begin verse 2, the same state (E 2) or “Earth” is further described as תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ (tōhû va vōhû), two terms linked by the conjunction וָ (vaw). No known lexicon gives a consistent translation for this compound Hebraic expression.

But if it is characterized by what defines the state of contingency, and if it is described (beginning of verse 2) as something (תֹהוּ/tōhû) and something else (בֹהוּ/vōhû), then we have a good interpretive blueprint for making a case against the often repeated demiurgic appraisal attached to this expression in many biblical commentaries.

Recall next that we can also look at the four concomitantly distinct states of existence (E 0 E 1 E 2 E 3) or differentiated totality created in Gen 1:1-2

א הַשָּׁמַיִם↔ א הָאָרֶץ ↔ הַמָּיִם א ↔ תְהוֹם א

as the quaternity of “order-ness,” i.e. the structural logical (Logos-given) foundation undergirding both the world and the intellect, both angelic and human (removing the א operator for visual clarity):

~(κ ∨~κ) ↔ ~κ ↔ κ ∧~κ ↔ κ **

I borrow the Greek letter κ from the word κόσμος (the literal meaning of which is “order”). With this notation and its quaternary logical operations, we can arrive at some better appreciation and understanding of the uniqueness and remarkable precision of the revealed text, as shown from of its use of such an unusual compound expression, tōhû and vōhû.

The two terms are linked as conjunction of one and its negative, κ ∧~κ. Specifically then, κ ∧~κ ≡ CCNE2 ≡ E 2 ≡ הָאָרֶץ is properly seen as denoting the structural substance governing physics (“the Earth,” where contingency rules), which indeed consists in an unbreakable tension of order (κ) & non-order (~κ); meaning, in the Hebrew text of Gen1:2, an unbreakable tension of תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ. Retranslating this very verse, we thus can read it as follows:

“And the Earth (CCNE2) was order (κ ≡ תֹהוּ) &/וָ non-order (~κ ≡ בֹהוּ)…”

Physics, which pertains to הָאָרֶץ, is constitutively the intrinsic “mixture” of κ and ~κ , which is in fact what the world of (real) particles and their interactions actually displays. Hence, all the aspects of matter contingent upon the properties of (electric) particles and their forces also fall within the analytic framework of κ ∧~κ.

E 3, הַשָּׁמַיִם, is what comes first in Gen 1:1, as “strict order” (κ) immanent to both visible and invisible Creation and comprising the set of what we may call the “laws of its nature,” CNNE3.

E 1, הַמָּיִם, the “Waters” of “non-order” (~κ), represents the state of all things potential in Creation, CCE1.

E 0, תְהוֹם the “Abyss,” represents a limit, as it delineates all “things” impossible in Creation, CNCE0; and further points, as “neither order nor non-order” (~(κ ∨~κ), to the irreducible nature of the human intellect created in the image and likeness of God (an abyss in which man, therefore, cannot look nor try to apply measurements, as he might, for example, in secular, pride-driven IQ tests).

Ter sanctum Nomine, quod est Tav (+):

“[…] omnem autem super quem videritis thau [+], ne occidatis…”(Ezechielis 9:6)

וְעַל-כָּל-אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-עָלָיו הַתָּו [+] אַל-תִּגַּשׁוּ

“Et videbunt faciem ejus : et Nomen ejus in frontibus eorum.”(Apocalypsis 22:4)

See attachment!

Nos autem gloriari oportet in cruce Domini nostri.

The linear order of the spelled Name is not contradictory with the order we express it in the Sign of the Cross. The subsistent relations, by virtue of their identity with the One Godhead, are (as it were) “commutative” in their circumincessio.

The W aw or Vaw (ו) occurs between the two H e (ה, which is not like a T, but is pronounced like a slightly emphasized “h” sound), which marks R2 (W2)’s mediating agency as co-principle of R3 (H3) with R1 (Y1), since R3 (H3) proceeds from both R1 (Y1) and R2 (W2).

Also, importantly, the pictographic meaning—intrinsic to the word-picture function—of the three letters in YHWH is in keen agreement with the Sign of the Cross (in relation to our body):

Y/י = Hand, power –> the Head/principle without principle;

W/ו = a pole planted in the ground (of earth) –> the vertical connection between Heaven and Earth;

H/ה = breath (and/or window) –> across the chest, where air is inhaled and exhaled.

There is indeed a reason [why the letters [of the Tetragrammaton] are ordered the way they are].

The doctrine of the Most Blessed Trinity was disclosed to Moses on Mount Sinai through the revelation of the Thrice Holy Name.

Consider the following.

Linearly speaking, it makes complete sense that the 4 = 3 revealed consonants are expressed as they are in יהוה (YHWH). For such a form is typographically consistent with 1) the doctrine of divine relationality as subsisting; and 2) distinctiveness of the three divine Persons through relative opposition (⇥ R(1,2,3)).

Here is how we can “spell out” YHWH to highlight the subsisting relations and their oppositions, which linearly illustrates the theological Trinitarian soundness built-into the revealed Tetragrammaton:

{R1/י/Y1} {R0/ה/H0} {R2/ו/W2} {R3/ה/H3}

{R1/י/Y1} {Active Spiration ≡ Y1&W2 ≡ ¬ [⇥ R(1,2,3)]} {R2/ו/W2} {R3/ה/H3}

{R1 ⇥ R2} {R1&R2 ⇥ R0} {R1 ⇤ R2} {R1&R2 ⇤ R3}

{R1/י/Y1} {R0/ה/H0 ≡ R1/י/Y1&R2/ו/W2} {R2/ו/W2} {R3/ה/H3}

Vertically speaking, this very doctrine is expressed in a way together consonant with the directionality built-into the sign of the Cross (+ = Tav) and consistent with the pictographic meaning of the three letters comprising the sacred Tetragrammaton, namely: י (hand, power), ו (pole, stick, picket planted in the ground), and ה (breath, window), as shown in my Tetragrammatic/Trinitarian Cross (here attached again as PDF, to avoid possible character confusion when you open the Word version).

Both the linear (= written) and vertical (= signed onto the human body) expressions of the One Thrice Holy Name give echo to the same Trinitarian doctrine entrusted to the Catholic Church ever since it was first revealed to Moses (cf. John 5:46).

St. Lawrence's top-cited rabbis:

pdfgrep -o "Rabbi [A-Z][a-z]*" *.pdf | sort | uniq -c | sort -n | xclip

53 Rabbi Solomon
29 [Rabbi [Solomon] Ibn Gabirol, "Avicebron", Neoplatonist, 11th cen., what "Rabbi Solomon" is now known as, "whose exegetical comments Ibn Ezra preserved in his great commentary on the Pentateuch." (p. 5, PDF p. 27 n2)
7 Rabbi David
6 Rabbi Abrabanel
3 Rabbi Abraham
2 Rabbi Samuel
2 Rabbi Moses
2 Rabbi Joseph
1 Rabbi Sepharadi
1 Rabbi Sahadiah
1 Rabbi Saadiah
1 Rabbi Mor
1 Rabbi Jose
1 Rabbi Jonah
1 Rabbi Isaac
1 Rabbi Hosha
1 Rabbi H
1 Rabbi Aben

This work is a translation from Latin into English of St. Lawrence of Brindisi's commentary on the first three chapters of Genesis.

Fr. Victor Warkulwiz, M.S.S. has edited a translation of St. Lawrence’s commentary on the first three chapters of Genesis in his Explanatio in Genesim (Explanation of Genesis), which is the third volume of his complete works as compiled by a commission of Capuchin Fathers. Explanation of Genesis is a commentary on the first eleven chapters of Genesis, excluding chapter ten which is strictly genealogical. The translation from Latin into English and transliterations from Hebrew and Greek letters into Roman letters were done by Craig Toth.

This volume, which is entitled St. Lawrence of Brindisi on Creation and the Fall, is intended to be an informative work for the liberally educated Catholic layman and not a critical edition for scholars. The translation is colloquial rather than scholarly literal to make it agreeable to the modern ear. It is intended to show how genuine Catholic exegesis of Genesis should proceed. That does not mean that everything St. Lawrence says is necessarily accurate. He was limited, like we are, by the sciences of his time. But he does give modern exegetes a model to imitate. And, most important of all, he shows how far exegesis can proceed, how much we can learn about our origins, if we accept without reservation the veracity of the text of Genesis.

St. Lawrence is the exemplar for the exegesis of Genesis 1-11 in the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is evident from his commentary on Genesis 1-3 that he took those chapters as an inerrant literal historical account of beginning of the world and the human species as related by the prophet Moses under divine inspiration. He realized that Scripture sometimes expresses literal truth in obvious metaphors, just as we do in our everyday speech. But that did not mean to him that Genesis 1-3 is a string of metaphors, or an allegory, that has to be deciphered by experts, which seems to be the opinion of modern Catholic exegetes. Instead, Lawrence saw that careful study of the language of text uncovers deeper strata of its literal meaning. He employs tradition, both Jewish and Catholic, the sciences of his day, and common sense imbued with deep faith.