Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Introduction
One asks first: Who was Isaiah? I answer: He was the son of Amos, as is clear from chapter 1, verse 1 — not the Amos who was the minor Prophet, as St. Epiphanius supposed in the Life of Amos, Clement of Alexandria in book I of the Stromata, and Cedrenus in his Compendium of History; for that name is written with an ayin at the beginning and a samech at the end, and he was a herdsman and rustic who gathered sycamore figs. But the other Amos, which begins with an aleph and ends with a tsade, signifies in Hebrew strength, virtue, fortitude; for the root word amats means to make firm, to strengthen.
Moreover, this Amos, the father of Isaiah, was of royal blood; whence in Isaiah's style there is such refinement, brilliance, elegance, and grace, that from this alone one may infer that he was raised in the court with royal manners.
It is believed by the Hebrews that this Amos was the brother of Amaziah, king of Judah, who was the father of Azariah or Uzziah, under whom Isaiah began to prophesy. Nor are there lacking those who add that Isaiah was also the father-in-law (that is, the great-father-in-law or the father of the father-in-law; for Isaiah was then 126 years old, as I shall presently show) of Manasseh, as St. Jerome testifies in book II of his Commentary on Isaiah, chapter 20; which opinion Isidore also holds, in his book On the Life and Death of the Saints, chapter 28. Indeed, St. Jerome in the Questions on II Paralipomenon, chapter 33, reports that the Hebrews hand down the tradition that Manasseh was the son of Isaiah's daughter; therefore Isaiah was the grandfather of Manasseh. From this it is clear that Isaiah began to prophesy at nearly the same time as Hosea and Joel, in the 17th year of Uzziah, says Eusebius. Now Uzziah began to reign in the year of the world 3137, which was some years before the beginning of the Olympiads; for these began to be counted around the 40th year of Uzziah, and therefore before the founding of Rome; for according to the chronology I prefixed to Genesis, Rome was founded around the 11th year of Jotham. For the Olympiads preceded Rome by 23 years. Therefore Romulus was a young man when Isaiah was growing old, and so Rome was founded around the 76th year of Isaiah's life. Clement of Alexandria supports this in book I of the Stromata, saying: "Isaiah is seen to have still been prophesying in the 200th year from the reign of Solomon, in whose time it was shown that Menelaus had come to Phoenicia." For the 200th year from the death and reign of Solomon falls in the 34th year of Uzziah, or Azariah, when Isaiah was still prophesying;
because he had already begun many years before, namely in the 17th year of Uzziah, and onward.
One asks second: How great is the dignity, excellence, and obscurity of the prophet Isaiah compared to the other Prophets? I answer: St. Jerome beautifully describes these qualities here, and they are evident from many things. First, because just as St. Paul was caught up to the third heaven, and there, made a doctor and apostle, was sent to the Gentiles, so Isaiah saw God, and by Him was made a Prophet, as will be discussed in chapter 6; whence in Sirach 48:25, Isaiah is called "a great Prophet, holy and faithful," because what God had revealed to him, he announced eagerly, freely, firmly, and faithfully. A testimony to his eagerness is in chapter 6, verse 8, where, when God seemed to hesitate about whom to send to the stubborn Jews, Isaiah, confident and joyful, offers himself. Second, because, kindled by the Seraphim with a burning coal, he was consecrated as a Prophet, and was made, as it were, a Seraph and of the Seraphic order, chapter 6, verse 6. For he was destined by God for this purpose: that he might inflame the cold and frozen hearts of men with His burning preaching, life, and charity, with the knowledge and love of God. Third, because in the Hebrew he is most eloquent, as St. Jerome testifies. Whence also St. Thomas (or whoever the author is) says in the Prologue to Isaiah: Isaiah, he says, excels other Prophets in three ways, namely in most beautiful similitudes, in expression of thought, and in elegance of words, because he was noble and eloquent. For the Holy Spirit is accustomed to accommodate Himself to His instruments, so that in the refined He appears refined, in the rustic He appears rustic, and in the eloquent He appears eloquent — just as a flute player plays delicately on delicate flutes and more coarsely on coarser ones, as our Antonius Fernandius says in his Prologue to the Visions of Isaiah. Fourth, because he had the most ample, most sublime, and most brilliant prophetic light. For there is scarcely anything pertaining to the state of the Hebrews and other nations, and predicted by other Prophets, that you would not find much more lucidly and weightily in Isaiah. "Isaiah," says Nazianzen in Oration 3, at the beginning, "surpassing all the Prophets in the sublimity of his voice;" whence elsewhere
he calls him "Grand of Speech." Fifth, because he so prophesies about Christ and Christians that he seems not to be foretelling the future, but to be weaving a history of the past, says St. Jerome, so that whoever reads Isaiah would think himself to be in the midst of the Gospel. Therefore in the Gospels and the whole New Testament, Isaiah alone is cited and heard more often than all the other prophets put together. For the Gospel is so studded and illuminated with Isaiah's testimonies as with stars, that whoever would expound it must at the same time interpret Isaiah, and whoever interprets Isaiah must at the same time interpret the Gospel. For here we read of the virgin giving birth, Christ conceived, born, sought and adored by the Magi, fleeing into Egypt, teaching, preaching, working miracles, suffering, dying, rising, coming to judgment, judging, and triumphing — not so much described in Scripture as expressed in a living image that we behold; so that this prophecy rightly above all others is called and inscribed a "Vision." Certainly Isaiah depicts the little Emmanuel born for us, and His sorrows, torments, and sufferings so graphically and pathetically, that the Passion of Jesus Christ can be read and pointed out according to Isaiah just as well as according to Matthew or Mark. Therefore Isaiah is full of the spirit — not only prophetic, but also Christian and Apostolic — and his prophecy is not only a prophecy but also a Gospel. Sixth, because he not only foresaw and foretold events that would happen shortly after, and not only those of the last ages of Christ, but also those that would come to pass at the time of the Antichrist at the end of the world; for this is what Sirach 48:27 says: "By a great spirit he saw the last things, and comforted those who mourned in Zion forever." Seventh, because he was a wonder-worker, and confirmed his oracles with miracles: for by his prayers he summoned the angel who struck down 185,000 Assyrians in the army of Sennacherib in a single night. Again, he brought back the sun and its shadow on the sundial of Ahaz, and by that sign restored health to King Hezekiah and added fifteen years to his life (Isaiah 36 and following). Eighth, because he prophesied for very many years, namely under Uzziah, who reigned 52 years; under Jotham, who reigned 16; under Ahaz, who reigned 16; under Hezekiah, who reigned 29; and he reached the reign of Manasseh, son of Hezekiah. Now if we suppose he began to prophesy in the 17th year of Uzziah, as Eusebius records in his Chronicle, there will remain 36 years from the reign of Uzziah. To these add 16 of Jotham, 16 of Ahaz, and 29 of Hezekiah, and you will gather 96 years in which Isaiah prophesied. Therefore, if we say that he, like Christ and John the Baptist, according to the custom of the Hebrews did not begin to prophesy before his thirtieth year of age, it will follow that he lived to a decrepit old age, up to the 126th year of his life and beyond; for Manasseh killed him, and not at the very beginning of his reign (for he began to reign as a boy at 12 years of age), but when he had grown older and more wicked. Ninth, because Isaiah was not only a Prophet and an Evangelist, but also an Apostle, say Cyril and Chrysos-
tom, in the homily On St. John the Baptist, volume III; for he was sent readily by God to the Jews (chapter 6, verse 8). Rightly therefore Isaiah was always held in the highest esteem in the Synagogue of the Jews above all other Prophets. Tenth, because he was distinguished for the holiness of his life and contempt of self: for completely naked in broad daylight, in his own homeland and the metropolis of Judea, namely Jerusalem, a most noble man and most famous in reputation and authority, he walked for three days by God's command, as will be evident in chapter 20. Again, his piety and mercy were illustrious; for he put the greatest effort into consoling the people and the Church: "For he comforted those who mourned in Zion," says Ecclesiasticus, so much so that he breathes nothing but consolation, because he was touched in his innermost feeling and sensed the affliction of his people (chapter 22, verse 4). Finally, Isaiah's fortitude, constancy, and freedom in speaking and censuring the vices of kings and princes, and in threatening them and predicting the punishments to be inflicted by God, shone forth, as is clear from chapters 1:10, 39:3, and elsewhere. This freedom was all the more illustrious in Isaiah because he had a wife, a family, and a son — all of whom he fearlessly exposed to the hatred of kings and princes for God and truth. And for this reason Isaiah deserved to be crowned with martyrdom. Whence St. Paul, in Romans 10:20, says: "But Isaiah is bold, and says;" where Origen comments: "He is bold, and preaches freely, knowing that death was threatening him on account of this."
One asks third: Was Isaiah a martyr? I answer that he was; for the common tradition of the Hebrews and the Fathers — such as Origen here, homily 1; Dorotheus; Isidore; Epiphanius on Isaiah; Chrysostom in his letter to Cyriacus; Justin in Against Trypho; Augustine in book 18 of the City of God, chapter 24; and others — is that Isaiah was cut apart with a saw under King Manasseh. St. Jerome, in book 15 on Isaiah, at the end, calls this tradition most certain, and understands the passage in Hebrews 11, "they were cut apart," or as he himself reads, "they were sawn asunder," as referring to Isaiah.
Hear Tertullian in the Scorpiace, chapter 8: "David," he says, "is harassed, Elijah is put to flight, Jeremiah is stoned, Isaiah is sawn apart, Zechariah is slaughtered between the temple and the altar, leaving the enduring stains of his blood upon the stones." Whence the Roman Martyrology on July 6 says of Isaiah: "In Judea, [the feast] of the holy prophet Isaiah, who under King Manasseh was cut into two parts and perished." And the Alexandrian Chronicle, or the Sicilian Fasti, records: "The prophet Isaiah, divided by Manasseh with a saw, perished; he had prophesied for ninety years; he was buried beneath the oak of Rogel." And St. Ambrose, on Luke chapter 20: "Who was he," he says, "who was wounded in the head? Surely Isaiah, whose bodily frame the saw divided more easily than it bent his faith, wore down his constancy, or cut out the vigor of his mind." Hear also St. Zeno, Bishop of Verona and Martyr, in his sermon On the Martyrdom of Isaiah, speaking marvelous but obscure things: "Isaiah," he says, "when he was proclaiming Christ, or when he had announced to the Israelite people the declaration of the coming dominion, the barbarity of the blasphemers, roused by fierce savagery, cut him in two from the head down with
a slow torture, as it were splitting him into morsels; and he ordered his neck to be sawn from the head through the ears down to the shoulders." And further below: "When the saw was making its way through the head, that is, the navel of exhausted sensation, and with its reciprocal grinding was drawing furrows with its teeth, the blade was slipping, I believe, as it drove its teeth in. Then, as the sawyer anxiously fixed himself at the dwelling of the heart with the effort of his craft, the streams of the fountain, with the purple courses of the veins let loose — lest the profane man should stretch out the veins like worms with his thumb — a saffron shower poured itself forth abundantly." And then: "For there lay open the vaulted exchanges of the internal organs of the chaste-speaking young man, the sound of the striking trumpet, the deep vitality, and the dry fasts from pleasures; but the son of Belial, the son of Hezekiah (Manasseh), a bloody man and prodigal of his lineage, master of soothsayers, was seeking within the breastplate of the holy breast the assembly of faith, the court of the literature of public preaching."
Therefore Abulensis rashly denies this tradition in IV Kings 21, Question 17. The argument of Abulensis is this: Isaiah in his Proem did not name Manasseh, but only Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; therefore he did not prophesy under Manasseh, therefore he did not suffer under him. But this argument is weak, for both consequences can be denied. There could have been various reasons why he did not name Manasseh — for instance, that Manasseh was then still a boy, or that he did not prophesy long under him, or perhaps did not prophesy at all, but only wished to teach and rebuke him, and was therefore killed by him; for the Fathers commonly affirm that he was killed by him. Hear also the author of the Unfinished Work on Matthew, homily 46, on those words: "Jerusalem, you who kill the Prophets and stone those sent to you" — he says: "I sent Isaiah to you, and you sawed him apart; I sent Jeremiah to you, and you stoned him; I sent Ezekiel, and you dragged him over stones and dashed out his brains." See here what is the reward of Prophets, teachers, and preachers — namely, persecution, suffering, and martyrdom. This crown the Prophets, Christ, all the Apostles, St. John the Baptist, St. Stephen, St. Chrysostom, and others pursued and obtained. The same should good pastors and preachers expect today, and should consider this the exceedingly great reward of their freedom, constancy, and labors. Indeed Justin above, and Tertullian in book III of his poem Against Marcion, teach that this saw was made of wood; for Tertullian, speaking of Isaiah, sings thus:
"Whom the people, cut with wood, found without blemish,
The madmen killed the innocent one by a cruel death."
Which was certainly an atrocious torment, especially in an old man of 126 years. Whence it is clear that Isaiah by his death through wood prefigured the death of Christ on the wood of the cross, just as by his life he prefigured the life of Christ, and indeed by his name he prefigured the name of Jesus. For "Isaiah" in Hebrew means the same as "salvation," or "Savior of the Lord," or "Jesus is God," as Leo Castrius maintains. For what we say as "Isaiah," the Hebrews say "Jesaiah," which can be explained as Yeshua Yah, that is, Jesus
is God; for the whole of Isaiah looks to this one thing: to announce Jesus Christ our Redeemer and Teacher by words, or to express Him by his conduct. Rightly therefore St. Jerome says here: "Ignorance of the Scriptures (especially of Isaiah) is ignorance of Christ."
Now the cause of Isaiah's death and martyrdom was twofold. The first and true cause was that he had rebuked King Manasseh, the princes, and the people so freely, as I have said, and especially that in chapter 1, verse 10, he had called them "princes of Sodom and people of Gomorrah." Again, that he had said God would blind and reject the Jews, and would call the Gentiles in their place; for this is what Paul implies in Romans 10:20: "But Isaiah is bold and says: 'I was found by those who did not seek Me; I appeared openly to those who did not ask for Me'" — for this stung the hearts of the Jews to the utmost. By a similar logic St. Stephen courted martyrdom, saying to the Jews: "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit"; and St. Paul, in Acts 22:21, saying: "And He (the Lord) said to me: 'Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.' And they (the Jews) listened to him up to this word, and raised their voices saying: 'Away with such a fellow from the earth! For it is not fit that he should live.'" In a similar way, Joash, rebuked by Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, had him killed in the temple (II Paralipomenon 24:22); and King Amaziah threatened another Prophet who was reproving him
with death (ibid., chapter 25, verse 16); and King Asa threw the prophet Hanani, by whom he was being accused of foolishness, into the stocks, that is, into a harsh prison (ibid., chapter 16, verse 10). The latter and pretextual cause, sought as a pretext, was this: since the Lord had said to Moses in Exodus 33:20, "You cannot see My face, for no man shall see Me and live," Isaiah had said and written the contrary in chapter 6, verse 1, namely that he had seen the Lord sitting upon a high throne. And so they charged Isaiah with the crime of blasphemy, and on that account condemned him to death. So say St. Jerome, Basil, Haymo, and others, and even the Hebrews as reported by Galatinus, book IV, chapter 23 — who, however, in their usual fashion, mix in fables about a cedar tree which, opening itself, received Isaiah as he was fleeing from Manasseh, and in which and with which he was sawn apart by Manasseh.
You will object: Those rebukes of the princes and prophecies of Isaiah had passed sixty years before. I answer: That is so, but the princes brought them up again before the new king Manasseh, who, being an impious and bloodthirsty man, when he was again rebuked in a similar manner by Isaiah — both because of those other past rebukes of the princes made by Isaiah and committed to writing and published, which were read daily by many — killed him.
Hear St. Jerome narrating in his work on Isaiah the calumnies and other matters pertaining to Isaiah and Manasseh, in the 1st Question on the book of II Paralipomenon, toward the end: "The Hebrews hand down," he says, "that Manasseh was the son of Isaiah's daughter, and therefore in this passage, although the mother's name is written, the name of her father is not
written, because the profane king was unworthy of so great a grandfather. The Hebrews hand down that Isaiah was killed because he called them princes of Sodom and Gomorrah; and because he said, 'I saw the Lord sitting,' whereas through Moses it had been said, 'For no man shall see Me and live'; and because he said, 'God will add fifteen years to your days,' whereas through Moses it had been said, 'And the number of your days I will fulfill'; and because he had said, 'Seek the Lord while He can be found, call upon Him while He is near,' whereas it is written, 'Who is so near as the Lord our God whenever we call upon Him?' And Manasseh recognized that the Lord Himself is God. For when he had been taken to Babylon and placed in a perforated bronze vessel with fire applied, he called upon all the names of the idols he had worshipped; and when he had not been heard by them, nor delivered, he remembered what he had often heard from his father: 'When you call upon Me in tribulation and are converted, I will hear you,' as it is written in Deuteronomy; and he was heard by the Lord, and freed and restored to his kingdom, and brought back in the manner of Habakkuk, just as the latter had been taken to Babylon."
St. Epiphanius and Dorotheus in the Life of Isaiah relate that by his prayers he obtained the fountain and waters of Siloam. They add that when enemies occupied Jerusalem, this fountain gave water to the Jews who came; but when enemies approached, it withdrew its waters. Therefore the Jews buried Isaiah near Siloam, so that by his prayers its waters would flow forever until the end of the world. Dorotheus adds that Isaiah, before being sawn apart, asked for water, and that water was divinely sent to him from this fountain; whence it was called Siloam, which is interpreted "Sent." Others narrate the matter thus: that Isaiah before death asked the executioner for water, and when the executioner refused, heavenly water divinely flowed into Isaiah's mouth, and thence that water was called Siloam, because it was "sent" from heaven — so that Isaiah sawn apart was a type of Christ, from whom likewise, when He was stretched out on the cross and thirsting, the Jews denied wine and water and offered Him gall instead. But the credibility of these accounts rests with those who report them. Finally, Cedrenus records that in the 35th year of Theodosius the Younger, the relics of Isaiah were transferred to Paneas and deposited in the church of St. Lawrence. Finally, hear the praises of Isaiah gathered together by Ecclesiasticus, chapter 48, verse 23: "He purged them (the Jews) by the hand of Isaiah, the holy Prophet. He cast down the camp of the Assyrians, and the Angel of the Lord crushed them. For Hezekiah did what was pleasing to God, and walked bravely in the way of David his father, as Isaiah the great Prophet, faithful in the sight of God, had commanded him. In his days the sun went backward, and he added years of life to the king. By a great spirit he saw the last things, and he comforted those who mourned in Zion. He showed what was to come until the end of time, and the hidden things before they happened."
One asks fourth: What is the argument of this entire work and book of Isaiah? I answer: The compendium of the work, as it were, is its very first chapter. For both in chapter 1 and throughout the entire work that follows, he rebukes the sins of the people of his time — namely, ignorance and neglect of God, pride, trust in their own strength and works, contempt for their wretched brethren, fraud in public judgments, sodomy, and especially idolatry. Then secondly, he often passes to the rejection of the Jews, the calling of the Gentiles, and other mysteries of Christ and the Church; and this he often does covertly and suddenly, as it were flying from type to antitype, from the Jews to Christ and Christians. For this is the manner and rapture of the Prophets, especially of Isaiah; and for this reason he is rather obscure. Therefore there are two principal parts of this work: the first contains a sad, reproachful, and threatening oracle; it comprises five sections and extends from chapter 1 to chapter 40.
The first section runs from chapter 1 to 7, in which he convicts the Jews of their crimes and threatens them with destruction — the Assyrian destruction by Sennacherib, the Babylonian by Nebuchadnezzar, and the Roman by Titus — and finally, in chapter 6, their blinding and rejection in the time of Christ. The second section extends from chapter 7 to 13, in which he graphically depicts Emmanuel's birth from a virgin, His victory, names, dominion, grace, preaching, the conversion of the Gentiles, the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, the cross, the glorious sepulchre, and the triumph through a song of victory. The third section from chapter 13 to chapter 24 contains the burdens, that is, prophecies of the destruction of Babylon, the Philistines, Moab, Damascus, Ethiopia, Egypt, Idumea, Arabia, Judea, and Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar. The fourth, from chapter 24 to 28, contains the burden, that is, the prophecy of the destruction of the world on account of the impiety of men at the end of the world; of the hell of the reprobate, the glory of the few who will be saved and their canticles and Eucharistic hymns, and of the vengeance and destruction of the kingdom of Leviathan, that is, of the devil. The fifth, from chapter 28 to 40, returns to the burdens of the present time, and treats various ones in mixed fashion — namely, the destruction of the ten tribes, then of the two, then of Sennacherib, then of the whole world, then of unbelief and impiety through the coming of Christ — up to chapter 36; for from there up to chapter 40, he passes from prophecy to the history of Sennacherib and Hezekiah, and narrates that the things he had predicted about them were actually fulfilled.
The second principal part of Isaiah contains a sweet and joyful oracle about Christ and the Church, consisting of exhortations, consolations, and promises; and although this part is often intermingled with the first, it properly begins at chapter 40 and extends to the end of the book. In it Isaiah often rejoices and exults, especially where (which he does very frequently) he treats of the calling of the Gentiles to the faith, grace, and salvation of Christ.
Moreover, Isaiah's style and eloquence in this so varied subject matter is manifold and admirable. For now he rises to the sublime, now he lowers himself humbly; now he freely enlivens his style, now he tightens and sharpens it, now he slows and now he quickens; now he threatens,
now he gently consoles; now he kindly rouses the teachable, now he violently assails the resistant, and as if thundering strikes them down. Whence Isaiah is called by St. Chrysostom, in homily 8 on Genesis, "the most vocal of Prophets," and in homily 40 on I Corinthians, "the most grand of speakers."
Note first: Besides this book, Isaiah wrote another about the deeds of King Uzziah, as is evident from II Paralipomenon 26:22.
Second, the heretics fabricated a book of Isaiah which is called the Anabasis, that is, the Ascension, which the Archontics use, as St. Jerome and Epiphanius attest. This book among other things teaches that Melchisedech was the Holy Spirit — which is an established error and heresy.
Third, there appeared at Venice a book or vision of Isaiah with this title: The Admirable Vision of Isaiah the Prophet in Ecstasy of Mind, which contains the mysteries of the divine Trinity and the redemption of fallen mankind. The witness is Sixtus of Siena on Isaiah.
Finally, the Jews believe, as R. David Kimchi testifies, that Isaiah wrote the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. But the common opinion of Catholics is that these are not Isaiah's but Solomon's.
One asks fifth: Who and what sort of commentators are there on Isaiah? I answer: St. Jerome says that first, Origen wrote 30 volumes on Isaiah and 25 homilies (yet now only nine survive, and those mostly on chapter 6).
Second, Eusebius Pamphili wrote 15 volumes.
Third, Didymus wrote 18.
Fourth, Apollinaris also wrote, but only at intervals and in a scattered fashion.
Fifth, the Martyr Victorinus wrote in Latin; but neither he nor the others reviewed so far now survive.
Sixth, more learnedly than all of these, Cyril wrote a commentary.
Seventh, St. Basil wrote on the first 16 chapters, and here and there inserts certain outstanding moral passages. Leo Castrius notes, on page 68, that the Latin version of Cyril and Basil seems to have been sprinkled by someone here and there with Jewish traditions or fables, because these are not found in the Greek exemplar.
Eighth, St. Chrysostom in volume 12 of tome I has 8 homilies on Isaiah, of which five are on chapter 6. Procopius of Gaza also wrote, in his usual manner, briefly, vigorously, and learnedly. Among the Latins, first both in time and in learning, especially in tracing the literal sense, stands St. Jerome, whose highest praise is found in these Commentaries on Isaiah and the other Prophets.
St. Jerome is followed, as a kind of abbreviator, by Haymo, Bishop of Halberstadt, who briefly and clearly explains Isaiah and the Prophets. After Haymo, Rupert wrote, who chiefly treats the allegorical sense and interprets almost everything as referring to Christ — in his usual fashion he is moral. After Rupert, Joachim, Abbot of Flora, wrote, who explains Isaiah and Jeremiah in a new and marvelous way, namely prophetically. For the prophecies about the ancient nations before Christ he explains as referring to the faithful nations after Christ. He therefore acts as much the Prophet as Isaiah or Jeremiah, and is often more obscure than they. For example, the burdens of Babylon, the Philistines, and other nations treated by Isaiah in chapters 13 and following, he thus generally explains and applies: "The burden of Babylon," he says, "according to the concordance refers to Rome, just as Chaldea refers to Germany" (Why not rather Italy? For just as Babylon was the metropolis of Chaldea, so Rome is the metropolis of Italy). "The burden of the Philistines, according to the concordance, refers to the Lombards and other Italians; the burden of Moab and the sons of Ammon, to Latin and Greek princes; the burden of the desert of the sea, to the Africans and other Saracens; the burden of Dumah or Idumea, refers to Jewish merchants, Wise Men, Legists, and Greeks; the burden of Arabia, to the Spanish and people of the Marches; the burden of the valley of vision, to the Regulars of whatever Order; the burden of Tyre, to the Sicilians and subjects of the kingdom; the burden of Egypt, to the Jews, Danes, and Franks; the burden of Damascus refers to the Tuscans and Ligurians, to be poured out and crushed by the sword of the word of the Lord and by iron." Similarly, writing on Jeremiah chapter 4 and Apocalypse chapter 14, he prophesies that there would be two Orders that would reform the Church, and that they were foreshadowed by the raven and the dove that Noah sent out from the ark (Genesis 8). Indeed, they report that by his order St. Dominic and St. Francis were depicted with their stigmata and habits above the doors of the old sacristy of St. Mark's in Venice, which remain to the present day.
seeing that it is established that Joachim preceded St. Dominic and St. Francis in time, but only by a little. For they were already living when St. Dominic and St. Francis — who shortly afterward founded their Orders — were alive, as Possevinus notes in his Bibliotheca under the entry "Joachim." He prophesies many other things about the Emperor Frederick, Henry, and others, but often so obscurely and enigmatically that an Oedipus is needed. About what is to be thought of these, I shall say in my Proem to the Apocalypse, which I intend to publish after the Prophets. He seems to have wished to apply his prophecies
of Scripture to his own age and times, namely the 12th and 13th centuries after Christ (for he flourished around the year of the Lord 1200); but how fittingly and truly, is not sufficiently clear, especially since he speaks indefinitely and generally, and does not designate a certain time when the things he prophesies are to be fulfilled. Therefore his prophecies are of little use — both because they are general, because they are obscure, because they concern the past, and because they are ambiguous. For he mostly prophesies by means of parables about the seven ages of the Church and the burdens of the sixth age; and in this matter Peter Galatinus, Ubertinus de Casalis, and similar writers on the Apocalypse, who adapt it to seven future states of the Church, seem to have followed him. Their foundation is that they believe nothing was done in the Old Testament that is not likewise done or to be done in the New — on which subject Joachim wrote in his book On the Concordance of the New and Old Testaments. After Joachim, St. Thomas wrote on Isaiah and Jeremiah; however, Sixtus of Siena, Adam Sasbout, and our Delrio hold that this commentary is not by St. Thomas Aquinas, or that at least many things were inserted into it, for in many respects it Judaizes. As an example, consider that passage in chapter 8: "Go to the prophetess" — this means, he says, go to your wife, O Isaiah — which is a Jewish interpretation. Antonius of Siena, however, in the Bibliotheca of the Order of Preachers, contends with others that this work is by St. Thomas Aquinas, because it has the flavor of his teaching and style, for in the manner of St. Thomas it often uses Scholastic terms and here and there intermixes Scholastic questions. The truer view is that this Commentary is by Thomas the Doctor — not the Angelic, but the English — who, from the Order of Preachers, flourished as a Professor of Scholastic Theology around the year of Christ 1400.
For by the same author are the Commentaries on Genesis, which are similar to these, and are falsely attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas; for it is quite clear that this author is later than R. Solomon and Lyra, and received these Jewish traditions from them.
Among more recent writers, many have written. Outstanding are Francisco Foreiro of Lisbon, of the Order of St. Dominic and preacher to the kings of Portugal, who from the Hebrew text searches out and presents hidden meanings; likewise Adam Sasbout of the family of St. Francis, formerly a professor at Louvain, who expounds the letter learnedly, piously, and aptly for moral application. Leo Castro wrote a vast volume: he is entirely devoted to explaining the Septuagint version, is most versed in the Fathers, and is a most fierce opponent of the Jews, against whom he turns almost all the sayings of Isaiah. Vatablus with a brief note illuminates in his customary way his — that is, Leo the Hebrew of Zurich's — version from the Hebrew. Hector Pinto also wrote richly, for he often digresses into moral matters. Hieronymus Osorius published a good paraphrase of Isaiah. Finally, Arias Montanus wrote at length and eloquently, though here he is briefer and more learned than elsewhere; likewise Didacus Alvarez and Paulus a Palatio. Most recently, a fitting
volume on Isaiah was written by our Father Gaspar Sanchez, and it is equally learned and elegant, with a distinguished paraphrase of each chapter. Our Martin Delrio, in his book on Adages, accurately and learnedly explains many of the more obscure statements and phrases of Isaiah and the other Prophets.
Among the heretics, Oecolampadius, Zwingli, Luther, Calvin, Pellicanus, and Musculus wrote: from whom Augustinus Marloratus stitched together his Catena, which I have read through entirely. Indeed it is tedious to read these heterodox and verbose babblers; but they must be read and refuted for the sake of confirming orthodox truth. Among these readings, as Cicero said when frequently reading Ennius, "I gather gems from the dung heap." For why not also "some good ear of grain even in a bad crop?"
Finally, there exists in Rome, in the Vatican and Medici Libraries, a Syriac version of the Bible; likewise an Arabic version by an anonymous author, both of them ancient. Of the Arabic there are two copies: one brought from Antioch, which they call the Antiochene; the other from Egypt, which they call the Alexandrine. Both were translated into Latin by the Most Reverend Lord Ser-
of our Society, public professor of the Syriac language at the Roman College. I shall cite both versions in the more notable passages, where they either shed light or offer a new meaning, for the sake of fulness. Let the reader attribute and assess them to those authors.