Expressly the text affirms [that he] ought. Yet I know not what came into the mind either of Oleaster, or of certain [others] in his [work], that they preferred to render, “thou shalt give of thy descent,” or “of thy casting-down.” For 1. the Hebrew noun hod [הוד], since it is often in the Scriptures, always signifies “glory and comeliness,” or “power and fortitude,” whence glory is wont to arise — as Ps. 8, vv. 2 & 6; Ps. 95 [96], v. 6; Ps. 45, vv. 4, [5]; Prov. 5, v. 9; Ps. 145 [146], v. 12; Isa. 30:30; Deut. 33; ch. 11 [?]; Jer. 22:18; Hos. 14, v. 7; Habac. 3, v. 3; Zach. 10, v. 3; and the 70 also here rendered δόξαν [doxan, “glory”]. [2.] [Likewise the Seventy so rendered it.] 3. Oleaster’s own reason is very weak — namely, that yad [יד] avails, in Jer. 50, v. 14, [to mean] “to cast forth” [proiicere]; therefore hod [הוד] signifies descent and casting-down. For that noun neither is from that verb, nor can [it] be feigned how it should be; but Oleaster deduced [it] from ḥadah [חדה]. But how, in that place of Jeremiah, would yad [יד] be more imperative [there] and not hod [הוד]? He would rather—
(col. 200)
—have cited Isaiah ch. 11, v. 8, where “into the cavern the boy shall send his hand” [yado, ידו]; but it is there put, he [ה] for yod [י], R. Judah contends. And if those two words be [distinct], it appears they are of the same signification. And therefore, since the former [yad] signifies not only “to cast forth,” but also “to confess,” “to give thanks,” and “to praise,” the same is to be thought about the latter [hod]. How, then, does this noun draw [its meaning] rather from “casting-down” than from “confession” [and] “praise,” without necessity, without any cause? But [Oleaster] explains [it] in this twofold manner: 1. “thou shalt give of thy descent,” that is, of the spirit which descended upon thee when I constituted thee leader; 2. “thou shalt give of thy casting-down,” that is, of the humility — which virtue rendered Moses laudable and very glorious. But although the [things] which are said were true (which will be more examined in the following little question), yet those senses do not suit the text, as was already shown; and therefore that [reading] which Oleaster asserts about the former [word] is much less true. The truer sense seems [to be otherwise]. Yet two [things] are still to be sought here. One, why does our Interpreter render “thou shalt give part of thy glory”? For the Septuagint rendered δώσεις τῆς δόξης σου ἐπ’ αὐτόν [dōseis tēs doxēs sou ep’ auton, “thou shalt give of thy glory upon him”], or, as in certain books (St. Augustine testifies, quest. 55 on Numbers, and as appears from Origen, hom. 22, and some other Greek codices), τὴν δόξαν [tēn doxan, “the glory”]. I answer: our [translator] expressed what is in the Hebrew, “of thy glory.” For, of one’s own moneys, honors, or whatever things, “to give” is to bestow a part of them. And this same [thing] the 70 mean [when they render] “thou shalt give of thy glory upon him” — that is, something of thy glory, or some part [of it]. And therefore Procopius, Theodoret (q. 48), [and] St. Augustine (in the cited place), from these same [words], render “thou shalt give of thy glory,” as though it were ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης [apo tēs doxēs, “from thy glory”]; or, as I said, “thou shalt give thy glory” — not the whole, but as to something. The other. Since, at the end of the chapter, all the [things] are repeated which the Lord commanded to be done, and they are handed down [as] effected by Moses, why is this one [thing] omitted? Is it sufficiently expressed in this, which [is] verse 22, “Moses did as the Lord had commanded”? and verse 23, “He reviewed all [things] which the Lord had commanded”? — or, as in the Hebrew, “he commanded him according to what the Lord had said by the hand of Moses”? Or [is it] because this was not done at once, but was deferred until the death of Moses? We shall see [in] the following question.