This question already occurred before (ch. 10); but it [is] now to be explained here. And first, the “antiquity” of this city is indicated by Moses (Num. 13:23): “Hebron was founded seven years before Tanis of Egypt.” And this indeed — to the Hebrews [who had] stayed so long in Egypt, and had recently gone out from it — was then most well-known; but to us, like other ancient [things] of that kind, [it is] very obscure. For when was the Egyptian “Tanis” (concerning which also Ps. 77) founded? But the “Tanitic mouth of the Nile,” and the “Tanitic prefecture” or “Nome,” is [named] from it, as Strabo indicates (bk. 17), where he teaches [that] the same city is also called “Sain [Sais].” Namely, since [it] is called “Tsohan [Zoan]” in Hebrew, and the letter “ts” [tsade] is worth “ts,” some retained “t,” others “s.” Pliny (bk. 5, chs. 9 & 10) prefers to call [it] the “Tanite nome” and the “Tanic mouth.” And from the same city some, in Abulensis (Num. 13, q. 6), derive the “Titans” — by no, or a very slender, argument. But although the certain year in which either Tanis or Hebron was built be unknown, yet [that] both [were] built not long after the flood will be clear from [the things] which will be subjoined concerning Abraham. Josephus (bk. 4 of the Captivity, ch. 31), in the Greek, compares it not with “Tanis” but with “Memphis” — either because the antiquity of this city [Memphis] too was then known, or because he thought the Hebrew word “Tsohan” should be rendered
(col. 1145)
“Memphis” — but I would not believe that, because always the 70 (whom Josephus reads) render “Tanis,” and the Chaldee Paraphrast likewise. But Memphis, to those same [70], is [the city] which [is] in Hebrew “Noph,” as I said on Isaiah and Jeremiah. But Josephus says Hebron [is] more ancient than that Memphis of his — and indeed so, that at the time when he wrote, 2300 years of this city were counted. But since he wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, which was finished in the 212th Olympiad, it comes about that — ascending thence to prior times — it [Hebron] seems to have been founded about the 90th year from the flood, as our Pererius rightly disputes (Disputation 5 on Gen. 13).
II. Its first and ancient name was “Cariath Arbe,” as [it] is here said (v. 15) & [in] Gen. 23:2, 35[?], 27 — not as in certain Greek [copies], and in the 70 [at] Gen. 23, “ἀρβόκ [arbok],” or here “ἀρβέ [arbe],” as St. Jerome often admonished concerning that former [form] (bk. On places). Yet the same 70, [at] Gen. 35, render “πόλιν τοῦ πεδίου [polin tou pediou]” [“the city of the plain”], as if [it] were not “Arbah” but “harbah.” But worst [of all], [at] Judg. 1:12, in the same 70 is written “Καριαθαρβοκσεφερ [Kariath-arbok-sepher]” [conflating the two names]. For that “Sepher” is from the city of which mention is made a little after, “Cariath Sepher.” But some think [it] named thus because that word signifies “four,” and there dwelt of old four pious men — “Abraham, Eschol, Aner, and Mamre” (Gen. 14; thence Abraham pursued and routed the 4 Kings, ibid.); [and] there [are] buried 4 very famous women — “Eva, Sara, Rebecca, Lia”; and just as many most celebrated men — “Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” So the Rabbis, who heap up several quaternions [groups of four] of this kind in “Bereshith Rabbah.” Annius, in the book On equivocals, [says that] because it was a “tetrapolis” — that is, so great that it comprehended 4 cities — it is called “Arba.” I have seen [one] who interprets “Arba” [as] “reclining [accubitus],” and applies to it, “while the King was in his reclining [couch].” But since [there] is no such signification, let its own author delight himself with it. But to others “Arba” is the proper name of a giant; and that [is] truer. First: because at the end of this chapter, in the Hebrew, [it] is clearly enough signified [that] “Arba” is “a great man,” as will be explained below. Second: because before Abraham, and the other men or women whose quaternions the Rabbis collect, [it] was already of old called “Cariath Arbe” — because (Gen. 13) Abraham fixed [his] tent at Hebron; but before the name of Hebron existed, the ancient name was “Cariath Arbe,” here [at the] last verse. Third: because [it] is not clear [that] Adam and Eve [were] buried there, as will be discussed afterward. But since “Cariath Arbe” is the same as “the city of Arba,” why, and how, is it called “his [Arba’s]”? Some answer, [that] this city [was] built by him; others, [that it was] held by [his] dominion and rule, and indeed for a long time. Which is more probable, [it] would be [a task] for an Oedipus to conjecture — although from [the things] following, something (but of a very slender conjecture) seems able to be drawn. Rashi indeed thinks [it] built by “Ham” the son of Noah; Annius, in the book On equivocals, [thinks it built] by “Adam.”
III. But whence, and when, [it] was called “Hebron,” [is] equally obscure. For a long [time now] Jerome (bk. On the Hebrew places) thinks the name [was] derived from Caleb’s son, who (1 Chron. 2:42) is called “Hebron.” But first, that Caleb was not — as I said (q. 3) — this Caleb of ours, but earlier than this one. And his sons were in Egypt; they never saw the region of Hebron. From any of them, therefore, why [would] the name [come] for it? Next, that Hebron [is] never the immediate, but only the mediate [i.e. remoter], son of the prior Caleb; but the immediate son of Marese himself, as is said in the same place. And although, with Masius, we might think [that] in Paralipomena [Chronicles] the father of Hebron is called [so], as [one] who had dominion in that city — just as “Machir, father of Galaad,” is called [so] — yet the reason of the name would not [thereby] be established, because (as I said) Hebron and the others served servitude in Egypt, but did not rule in Hebron. I would prefer [it] to be so called from the “society and friendship” which Abraham entered into with the chief men of that place (Gen. 14:13). For “Cheber,” “Chebrah,” and “Chebron,” [are] in Latin rendered “society and conjunction,” as Origen too notes (homilies 17 & 18). And thence afterward certain descendants of the prior Caleb could be called “Hebrons,” and at last that [city] come down to the later Caleb. Hence too would that question be very easily solved — about which Masius [speaks] so often — “how in Genesis the word ‘Hebron’ is read, which [had] not yet [a cause]” in Moses’s age (the cause [of] which he and others suppose), as I touched in Prolegomenon 2 of this book.
IV. Many things [were] once done here. For — that I may omit the fables of Annius, in the cited place, saying “Noah was born in this city” — here “Abraham,” [as] a sojourner, pitched [his] tabernacle (Gen. 13:18); hence he proceeded against those Kings who were leading away Lot, and much Sodomite booty, and vanquished them (Gen. 14); here “Sara” died (Gen. 23), and gave the beginning to that field-buying, which here — for his own and his family’s burial — Abraham bought (same ch. 23:19). Here, like [his] father, “Isaac” dwelt (Gen. 35:27); and afterward “Jacob” himself too (Gen. 37:14). Hither, by Joseph and his brothers, [were] brought the relics of that holy [patriarch], deceased, carried from Egypt (Gen. 49:29 & ch. 50:13). Hither the “Mosaic explorers” came (Num. 13:23). Hence, through Bersabee, into Egypt, “Jacob” proceeded with [his] whole family (Gen. 46). Its King “Joshua” overcame and killed (above ch. 10, and then chs. 11 & 12). This city [was] “once a Sacerdotal [priestly city], and [a city] of fugitives,” as St. Jerome says (bk. On places), and [as] will be clear below (ch. 20:7). Here, from the enemy’s spoils, “David” sent gifts to [his] friends (1 Sam. 30:31); and he himself afterward, by God’s command and oracle, came [here] (2 Sam. 2:2). Here the same King reigned 7 years (2 Sam. 5; & 3; 1 Chron. 29). He mourned and buried “Abner” ([in] the same bk. [2 Sam.], ch. 3, v. 32). Hither, ambitious, under the appearance of vows, “Absalom” proceeded; and there — his father living and reigning — he called himself King (same bk., ch. 15). Here, as [it] seems to Baronius (vol. 1 of the Annals), and to our Delrio (in the panegyric of the Visitation), and to others, “Zacharias,” the father of John the Baptist, had [his] domicile and seat. Hither, into the mountains, from Nazareth, the Blessed Virgin ascended, visiting the mother of that Baptist. This city — when the destruction to be brought upon Jerusalem by Titus was now imminent — “Simeon the Gerasene,” leader of the factious and of robbers, took and plundered, as [it] is in Josephus (bk. 4 of the War, ch. 31). Hither St. Paula ascended, as St. Jerome narrates in [her] Epitaph — where also, before, the mother of Constantine the Great, the truly great Helena, had raised a most splendid church, as Nicephorus reports (bk. 8, ch. 30). Here also an Episcopal see [was established] by the Catholic Latins, after — under the Lorraine Duke “Godfrey” [of Bouillon] — they
(col. 1147)
[after — under the Lorraine Duke Godfrey — they] had recovered the holy land, [the see] was erected, as William of Tyre notes (bk. 20, ch. 3). This [old Hebron] now lies wholly ruined and overthrown; but a new Hebron [was] procreated from it, which is distant from the old [by] a space of about three bowshots: infamous for a “Mosque” of the filthiest Turkish superstitions. And in the same way, that old “holm-oak,” or “oak,” or “terebinth,” which was [there] in Abraham’s time (Gen. 35) and [in that] of the historian Josephus — as he himself says (bk. 4 of the Captivity, ch. 31) — and still stood even in the age of the Emperor Constantius, procreated from itself a new holm-oak, or oak, or terebinth, from which Brocardus writes [that] he took wood and fruit.
V. But one thing is said [to have been done] at the end of this chapter, concerning which [there] is something of controversy and question. For our text thus speaks: “Adam, the greatest, was laid there among the Enakim.” Whence the widespread opinion flowed [arose], [that] here “Adam” the protoplast [first-formed man] was buried. For in the Epitaph of St. Paula, cited before, St. Jerome [says]: “She went up to Chebron. This is Cariath-arbe — that is, the town of four men: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, [and] Adam the great, whom the Hebrews maintain [was] buried there, according to the book of Jesus [Joshua] son of Nave, although most think Caleb [the] fourth, whose memorial is shown at the side.” And in the book On Hebrew places, under “Arboch”: “Corruptly,” he says, “in our codices it is written ‘Arbach,’ whereas in the Hebrew it is read ‘Arbee,’ that is, ‘four,’ because there four Patriarchs — Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — are buried, and Adam the great, as is written in the book of Jesus [Joshua], although some suspect him [to be] buried in the place of Calvary.” Abulensis (q. 10 on this 14th chapter): “Adam the greatest, that is, the first man (who is the greatest, since he is the Father and origin of the whole species), was laid among the Enakim — that is, was buried in the city of Hebron, in the land of the giants.” And that is the truer and more common sense, which nearly all Catholics hold. But others deny [that] Adam [was] laid in that place — and these [are] partly ancients (as these very ones who, by St. Jerome, are handed down to think him buried on Mount Calvary, and who substitute Caleb [as] the fourth in place of Adam), partly more recent [men] (as, in this place, Caietanus & Masius, and Pererius on Gen. 13, Disputation 5). But there are very many of them who say [he was] buried on Mount Calvary: St. Augustine (sermon 71, On the season), St. Cyprian (sermon On the resurrection of CHRIST), St. Athanasius (On the passion of the Savior), B. Ambrose (bk. 5, Epistle 19), Origen (tract 35 on Matthew), Theophylact (on ch. 19 of John), St. Chrysostom (homily 84 on John), St. Epiphanius (heresy 46), St. Basil (on Isaiah, ch. 5), and St. Jerome himself (in the epistle of Paula to Marcella) — who, however, on Matt. 27, says: “A favorable opinion, and soothing the ear of the people, yet not true.” A certain third ingenious opinion lately came forth, which our Delrio explains and adorns (in the 7th Panegyric of the Blessed Virgin), and Villalpandus (in the Apparatus of the city of Jerusalem, bk. 1, ch. 9): [namely] that Adam was buried in two places — and first indeed at Cariath-Arbe (as the first, already-cited, opinion says), then on Mount Calvary (as some say in the second opinion) — as Honorius of Autun wrote in [his] Chronicles. For St. Ephrem’s teacher, Jacob of Orrhoa [Edessa] — or the Edessene — handed down to memory (as Masius himself refers, [in commenting] on the last chapter of this book) [that] Noah religiously brought the bones of the first father [Adam] into the ark; and after the globe of lands [was] dried from the deluge of waters, [that] he divided those bones too, with the globe of lands itself, to [his] sons; and [that] to Shem, whom he loved before the rest, he gave the skull [calvaria], and with the skull, that part of the lands which they afterward called Judaea. Villalpandus (in the cited place) relates [that] R. Simeon [the Helbaite] assents.
But if anyone should wish to know what my opinion is, it is [this]: [that] these two questions seem [needing] to be distinguished — “Was Adam buried at Cariath-Arbe? and is that gathered from the words of this 14th chapter?” For [that] Adam was buried at Cariath-Arbe — on account of the authority of certain ancients, and that [authority] supported by a certain tradition (which Abulensis also confirms from the neighboring valley of tears) — “is probable”; yet the text of this 14th chapter does not affirm that burial. For in Hebrew, word for word, it is thus read: “And the name of Hebron anciently was Cariath-arba. This [was] the great man among the Enakim himself.” But who [is] “this man,” except “Arba,” concerning whom the discourse had been? And who [is] “great among the Enakim,” except “Arba”? Of the first parent [Adam] no mention had been made; and neither was he among the Enakim, but before all those [Enakim] — nay, before every [one], whatever of men [there] is anywhere. And what fitting reason could be feigned, why Adam’s burial should be treated here? Is it [as] Abulensis says, [that] it is treated [here] for this reason, because [it] was not treated elsewhere? But that is [the very thing] which is asked: why [is it] not treated anywhere else, and [is] treated here — and so abruptly? But the Greek in the 70 text departs much from the Hebrew; yet it mentions nothing at all of Adam, or of [his] burial. For in place of the cited words, it renders these other [words] — which are rather frequently brought forward by Eusebius (On places): “Μητρόπολις τῶν Ἐνακὶμ αὕτη [Mētropolis tōn Enakim hautē]” [“This [is] the metropolis of the Enakim”]. But the Latin [Vulgate] can admit the same sense which is in the Hebrew. For by “Adam” is not necessarily understood the first of men, but “man” — whether it be taken for the whole human race, or for some [particular] one of men. Just as 2 Sam. 7:19: “This is the law of Adam [= of man], Lord God”; Hosea 11:4: “In the cords of Adam [= of men] I will draw them, in the bonds of charity.” Eve herself too is called in the Hebrew (and in the old Greek [copies], and in the Latin) “Adam” (Gen. 5:2): “he called their name Adam.” And very often, where our Interpreter renders “man,” in the Hebrew is “Adam”: as Gen. 1:26, “let us make man to our image and likeness”; ch. 2, v. 5, “There was no man who should till the earth”; ch. 6, v. 1, “When men had begun to multiply upon the earth”; & v. 3, “My spirit shall not remain in man”; v. 4, “the sons of God went in to the daughters of men”; v. 5, “God seeing that much malice of men was on the earth”; v. 6, “it repented him that he had made man”; v. 7, “I will blot out man, whom I created, from the face of the earth, from man even to the beasts.” Why should I pursue the other examples, which are very many? But that “he was laid there” is indeed not in the Hebrew word-for-word, but [is supplied] so that [it] may be understood. For “among the Enakim himself” can be equivalent to “he is among the Enakim.” But since those [Enakim] are dead, and laid at Hebron, this one too [Arba] is dead among them, and laid at Hebron. It can also be equivalent to “he was among the Enakim.” And since of old they were [there], the same Enakim died and were buried at Hebron; and therefore “Arba” [was buried] among them. And so, from that sense which
(col. 1149)
[And so, from that sense which] the Hebrew words suggest to us — namely, [that] “Arba [was], among the Enakim, a certain great man” — the Latin [words] are not discordant. But that Arba is called “great” either in body, or in dignity. If in body, the sense is, [that] among those who, by [their] vast bodily size, surpassed the rest of men, this one was the greatest and most vast. For even among giants, some are greater and more vast than others. If in dignity, the sense is, [that] he had the principate among the Enakim. Whence also [in] the following ch. 15, v. 13, it is said [that] the same Arba is “the father of Enac”; and just as he was the author [founder] of a race horrific by so great a tallness and vastness of bodies, so he also excelled all in the same [qualities], and likewise in authority, power, and dignity. Both greatness — as much of body as of power and dignity — and likewise the founding of the city of Hebron, Toletus attributes to this Arba (on ch. 19 of John, note 12): “Arbee,” he says, “was the name of a man of great body, from whom that city had before received [its] name — as Rome from Romulus, Aelia from Aelius. And thus it seems [it is] to be read: ‘Before, [it] was called Cariath Arbe. This [was] the greatest man among the Enakim.’” In Origen [there] is not “he was laid [buried],” but “the greatest among the Enakim himself” — that is, “There was a certain outstanding and excellent man, Arbe, from whom the city received [its] name.”