When opponents of contraception look for biblical support for their position, they inevitably point to the story of Onan in Genesis 38, claiming that the sin committed by Onan was his commission of ''coitus interruptus''. However, this is an almost exclusively Western reading of the text. The only Eastern Father to read the Onan account as a condemnation of contraception was [[Epiphanius of Cyprus | St Epiphaniusof Cyprus]]. [[Origen ]] had not done so in his commentary on the passage, <ref>Selections on Genesis, PG 12.129</ref>, nor had [[John Chrysostom | St John Chrysostom ]] <ref>''Homilies on Genesis'' 62.1, PG 54.533)</ref>, nor [[Ephrem the Syrian | St Ephrem the Syrian]]<ref>''In Genesim et in Exodum commentarii'', 34.1</ref>. Moreover, according to Noonan, Epiphanius had taken this position “only in the context of his anti-Gnostic polemic.”<ref> Noonan, p. 101.</ref> It was his friend [[Jerome | St Jerome ]] who was to shape the Western (mis)reading of Onan through his [[Vulgate]], which departed significantly from both the Hebrew and Old Latin he used as the basis of his translation. In addition to adding the word for semen which is not in the original, he slants the text to make it appear that ''coitus interruptus'' was the reason he was punished by God, saying “God slew him because he did a detestable thing". But the Hebrew has only “he did not please God,” and the Old Latin that “he appeared evil before the Lord,” neither of which focuses on the act.<ref>See Noonan, pp. 101-102.</ref>.