Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book Three — Paradise

ON THE FIRST RIVER, PHISON

LatineEnglish

ON THE FIRST RIVER, PHISON.1

DE PRIMO FLUMINE PHISON.

GENESIS 2, verses 11 and 12. — The name of one is Phison: that is it which compasses all the land of Hevilath, where gold is born; and the gold of that land is the best, and there is found Bdellium and the onyx stone.2

GEN. 2. VERS. 11 et 12. — Nomen uni Phison, ipse est qui circuit omnem terram Hevilath, ubi nascitur aurum, et aurum terrae illius optimum est, ibique invenitur Bdellium et lapis Onychinus.

DE unoquoque dicturi quatuor fluminum quae Moses ait exire ex flumine Paradisi, convenit ut prius aliorum interpretationes et sententias exponamus; postea quod narrationi Mosis et doctrinae Sacrarum litterarum rectaeque rationi magis consentaneum videtur explicaturi. In Mosaica descriptione primi fluminis Phison tres insunt difficultates, non omnino quidem inexplicabiles, sed explicatu tamen difficiles. Prima difficultas, Quis fluvius sit פישון Phison, ex fluminibus terrae nostrae nobis cognitis; Secunda, quaenam terra sit Hevilath, et ad quam partem nostri orbis spectet; Tertia, quid sit Bdellium et lapis Onychinus.
Being about to speak of each one of the four rivers which Moses says go out from the river of Paradise, it is fitting that we first set forth the interpretations and opinions of others; afterward to explain what seems more consonant with the narrative of Moses, and with the doctrine of the Sacred writings, and with right reason. In the Mosaic description of the first river, Phison, there are three difficulties—not altogether inexplicable, indeed, but yet difficult to explain. The first difficulty: which river, of the rivers of our earth known to us, is פישון Phison; the second: what land Hevilath is, and to what part of our world it looks; the third: what Bdellium and the onyx stone are.3
SENTENTIA est omnium fere Interpretum ac Theologorum probata consensu, fluvium qui nominatur Phison non alium esse quam Gangen Indiae flumen. Hoc tradit Iosephus in primo libr. Antiquitatum; hoc Epiphanius in Ancorato; hoc Augustinus in lib. 8 de Genesi ad litteram cap. 7; et Hieronymus in libro traditionum Hebraicarum in Genesim. Sed quid pergo singulos eius sententiae auctores nominatim percensere, cum ea omnium fere sit sententia? Hieronymus in Epist[ola]...
It is the opinion approved by the consensus of almost all Interpreters and Theologians, that the river which is named Phison is none other than the Ganges, the river of India. This Josephus hands down in the first book of the Antiquities; this Epiphanius in the Ancoratus; this Augustine in the eighth book On Genesis according to the letter, chapter 7; and Jerome in the book of Hebrew traditions on Genesis. But why do I go on to review one by one, by name, the authors of that opinion, since it is the opinion of almost all? Jerome, in his Epistle...4

[Jerome, in the fourth Epistle which he wrote to Rusticus the monk, says:] The river Ganges, which the holy Scripture calls Phison, which compasses the whole land of Euilath, is said to carry down many kinds of pigments from the fountain of Paradise: where is born the carbuncle, and the emerald, and shining pearls, and the great pearls for which the ambition of noble women burns: and golden mountains, which it is impossible for men to approach, because of the griffins and dragons and the monsters of immense bodies: that it may be shown to us what kind of guardians avarice has. Thus far Jerome there.5

[Hieronymus in Epist. 4 quam scripsit ad Rusticum monachum:] Ganges fluvius, inquit, quem Phison sancta Scriptura commemorat, qui circumit totam terram Euilath, et multa genera pigmentorum de Paradisi dicitur fonte devehere: ubi nascitur carbunculus, et smaragdus, et margarita candentia, et uniones quibus nobilium feminarum ardet ambitio: montesque aurei, quos adire propter gryphes et dracones et immensorum corporum monstra hominibus impossibile est: ut ostendatur nobis quales custodes habeat avaritia. Haec ibi Hieronymus.

ORIGO Gangis est, auctore Strabone, in Caucaso Indiae monte: nam libro 15 ad hunc modum scribit:
The origin of the Ganges is, on Strabo's authority, in the Caucasus, the mountain of India: for in the fifteenth book he writes in this manner:6

All India is watered by rivers: of which some burst into the two greatest, the Indus and the Ganges; some are sent into the sea by their own mouths, and all have their rise from the Caucasus. Carried first to the south, afterward some remain in the same course (especially those which flow into the Indus); others are bent toward the East, as the Ganges, which, descending from the mountains, when it has come into the plain, turned toward the East and flowing past Palibothra the greatest city, advances into its sea, and has one mouth: although it is the greatest river of all the Indian ones. Thus Strabo.7

Tota India fluminibus irrigatur: quorum quaedam in duo maxima irrumpunt, Indum atque Gangem; quaedam propriis ostiis in mare emittuntur, et omnia ortum habent a Caucaso. Primo ad meridiem delata, postea alia in eodem permanent cursu (praesertim quae in Indum influunt); alia flectuntur ad Orientem, quemadmodum Ganges, qui a montibus descendens, cum in planitiem pervenerit, ad Orientem conversus et Palibothra civitatem maximam praeterfluens, in eius mare progreditur, et unum ostium habet: quanquam omnium Indicorum flumen maximum sit. Sic Strabo.

Plinius vero in libro 6 capite 18 de Gange ita scribit:
But Pliny, in the sixth book, chapter 18, writes thus about the Ganges:8

This [river] some said rises from uncertain sources, like the Nile, and watering the neighboring lands in the same way; others, that it rises in the Scythian mountains: and that nineteen streams flow into it, many of these navigable. Others, that it bursts out with a great crash from the very sources, and, hurled down through rocky and steep places, as soon as it reaches the soft plains, lodges in a certain lake: thence flows gently, in width at the least eight thousand paces, at the moderate a hundred stadia, in depth nowhere less than twenty paces. Thus Pliny.9

Hunc alii incertis fontibus, ut Nilum, rigantemque vicina eodem modo; alii in Scythicis montibus nasci dixerunt: ac influere in eo decem et novem amnes, ex his multos navigabiles. Alii cum magno fragore ipsis statim fontibus erumpere, deiectumque per scopulosa et abrupta, ubi primum molles planities contingat, in quodam lacu hospitari: inde lene fluere, ubi minimum octo mille passuum latitudine, ubi modicum stadiorum centum, altitudine nusquam minore passuum viginti. Haec Plinius.

Attingamus praeterea quae de eo flumine nostri Theologi prodiderunt, Isidorum dico, Rabanum, Rupertum et Magistrum historiae scholasticae. Quidam aiunt vocabulum פישון Phison Hebraice significare immutationem oris ac vultus, quia saepe est sui dissimilis in cursu, vel in quantitate (aliquando latissime fusus, et aliquibus locis in angustum coarctatus), vel in colore (alicubi fluens pellucidus, alicubi turbidus), vel in sensibili qualitate (alicubi frigidus, alicubi calidus). Tradunt alii Phison interpretari Latine abundantiam, quippe abundat piscibus et quidem maximis, anguillis nempe triginta pedum longitudinis, ut libro nono capite tertio tradit Plinius. Isidorus 13 libro Etymologiarum capite vigesimo primo, Phison, inquit, significare catervam, propterea quod decem magna flumina aquas suas in ipsum exonerant: a Graecis Latinisque vocari Gangem, a Gangaro rege Indorum, sicut Tiberis primum est dictus Albula, sed a Tiberino rege postea nomen Tiberis accepit. Haec ab istis de fluvio Phison prodita sunt.
Let us touch besides on what our Theologians have set forth about that river—Isidore, I mean, Rabanus, Rupert, and the Master of the scholastic history. Some say the word פישון Phison signifies in Hebrew a change of face and countenance, because it is often unlike itself in its course, whether in quantity (sometimes spread very wide, and in some places constricted into a narrow channel), or in color (somewhere flowing clear, somewhere turbid), or in sensible quality (somewhere cold, somewhere hot). Others hand down that Phison is interpreted in Latin as abundance, since it abounds in fish, and indeed the greatest, namely eels thirty feet in length, as Pliny relates in the ninth book, chapter three. Isidore, in the thirteenth book of the Etymologies, chapter twenty-one, says that Phison signifies a throng, because ten great rivers discharge their waters into it; and that it is called Ganges by the Greeks and Latins, from Gangarus king of the Indians—just as the Tiber was at first called Albula, but afterward received the name Tiber from king Tiberinus. These things have been set forth by these men about the river Phison.10
MIHI diligenter omnia consideranti ac perpendenti nunquam visum est probabile Phison esse Gangem: multa sunt meae opinionis argumenta. Primo, ex narratione Mosis manifestum est haec quatuor flumina, ut orta ex eodem capite, fuisse inter se vicina: at inter Gangem...
To me, considering and weighing all things diligently, it has never seemed probable that Phison is the Ganges: there are many arguments for my opinion. First, from the narrative of Moses it is manifest that these four rivers, as sprung from the same head, were near to each other: but between the Ganges...11
...[at inter] Gangem et alios duos fluvios Tigrim et Euphratem intervallum intercedit septuaginta graduum, hoc est plus quater mille et trecenta milliaria continens, assignando cuique gradui secundum Ptolomaeum sexaginta duo milliaria. Postea, Moses ait haec quatuor flumina orta esse ex uno flumine Paradisi; haec autem quatuor flumina ex remotissimis et inter se longissime distantibus locis oriri cernuntur: Ganges ex Caucaso monte Indiae, Euphrates et Tigris ex montibus Armeniae, Nilus vero ex montibus lunae versus promontorium vulgo dictum caput Bonae spei.
...but between the Ganges and the other two rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates, there intervenes a distance of seventy degrees—that is, containing more than four thousand three hundred miles, assigning to each degree, according to Ptolemy, sixty-two miles. Then, Moses says that these four rivers sprang from one river of Paradise; but these four rivers are seen to rise from the most remote places, and ones very far distant from one another: the Ganges from the Caucasus, the mountain of India; the Euphrates and Tigris from the mountains of Armenia; but the Nile from the Mountains of the Moon, toward the promontory commonly called the Cape of Good Hope.12
NON sum nescius quid respondeat ad hoc Theodoretus in quaest. 29 super Genesim:
I am not ignorant of what Theodoret answers to this, in question 29 on Genesis:13

One may see, he says, other rivers also go out indeed from one place, then, flowing in the earth by certain channels, gush up again above: which happens also to these rivers. For they go out from there, as the divine Scripture says, and afterward, passing through certain subterranean passages, take there another origin. And this God, the [maker] of all, has so disposed not in vain, but in order to cut off the superfluous curiosity of men: for if all their passages lay open, some would surely attempt, following their banks, to survey the place of Paradise, but would be frustrated of their wishes, and, wearied by the length of the journey and laboring under the lack of necessaries, would now fall into rough places, now into deserts, and sometimes come into the hands of cruel and barbarous men. Foreseeing these things, therefore, the merciful God made their passages unknown.14

Videre licet, inquit, et alia flumina aliunde quidem egredi, deinde in terra quibusdam ductibus fluentia, iterum sursum scaturire: quod et his fluminibus accidit. Exeunt enim illinc, ut ait Scriptura divina, postea per quosdam meatus subterraneos transeuntia, ibi originem aliam sumunt. Quod quidem non frustra omnium Deus ita dispensavit, sed ut amputaret superfluam hominum curiositatem: nam si paterent omnes eorum meatus, quidam utique conarentur, eorum ripas prosecuti, locum Paradisi perlustrare, sed frustrarentur optatis, et longitudine itineris fessi atque necessariorum penuria laborantes, modo in aspera loca incidentes, modo in deserta, interdum in manus crudelium et barbarorum hominum devenirent. Haec igitur praevidens misericors Deus, ignotos illorum meatus effecit.

Hoc modo respondet Theodoretus. Similiter etiam respondet Augustinus lib. 8 de Genesi ad litteram cap. 7. SED hoc responsum parum esse firmum (nec tam quod cum natura rerum cohaereat, quam quod ad molestas et odiosas quaestiones defugiendas nonnihil valere videatur excogitatum) nemo est qui non animadvertat. Tanta enim est distantia inter origines istorum fluminum iam inde ab exordio mundi, ut nullam unius principii communionem habere posse videantur: praesertim cum ipsi non probent nec possint probare ista quatuor flumina, antea loca in quibus nunc nasci videntur et creduntur, ullum habere cursum subterraneum aut alibi conspici eorum fontes; id quod in iis fluminibus quae ipsi pro confirmatione suae opinionis adducunt manifeste conspicitur. Deinde, aut ita se habebant ista quatuor flumina tempore Mosis secundum origines et cursus suos ut fuerunt in exordio mundi—quare cum tempore Mosis flumina illa non orirentur ex uno flumine sed ex disiunctissimis locis, similiter quoque ab exordio mundi non habuissent originem ex uno fluvio: at hoc est contra Scripturam—aut tempore Mosis istorum fluminum origines et cursus mutati fuerant, videlicet propter diluvium, et aliter erant quam fuerant a principio: verum si hoc dicatur, non videtur posse excusari Moses quin valde obscure (ne dicam vitiose) descripserit locum Paradisi per ista quatuor flumina, non prout erant post diluvium sed prout fuerant ante, non admonendo lectorem mutationis eorum factae per diluvium, ne descriptio eius falsa putaretur, cum aliter se habeat origo[...]
In this way Theodoret answers. Similarly Augustine also answers, in the eighth book On Genesis according to the letter, chapter 7. But that this answer is not very firm—devised not so much because it coheres with the nature of things, as because it seems to avail somewhat for fleeing from troublesome and odious questions—there is no one who does not observe. For so great is the distance between the origins of those rivers, even from the very beginning of the world, that they seem unable to have any communion of one principle: especially since they themselves do not prove, nor can they prove, that these four rivers, before the places in which they now seem and are believed to rise, have any subterranean course, or that their sources are seen elsewhere—which is manifestly seen in those rivers which they themselves adduce for the confirmation of their opinion. Then, either these four rivers were in the time of Moses, according to their origins and courses, as they were in the beginning of the world—wherefore, since in Moses's time those rivers did not rise from one river but from the most disjoined places, likewise also from the beginning of the world they would not have had their origin from one river: but this is against Scripture—or in Moses's time the origins and courses of those rivers had been changed, namely on account of the flood, and were otherwise than they had been from the beginning: but if this be said, Moses does not seem able to be excused from having described the place of Paradise very obscurely (not to say faultily) by these four rivers, not as they were after the flood but as they had been before, without warning the reader of the change made in them by the flood, lest his description be thought false, since the origin [of those rivers] is otherwise[...]15
...[cum aliter se habeat] origo istorum fluminum quam ab ipso traditur. Nec dici potest tempore Mosis similiter fuisse ista flumina ut ab initio fuerant, postea vero eam mutationem quae nunc cernitur illis accidisse: tanta enim in maximis orbis nostri fluminibus mutatio non potuit fieri, nisi per generalem aliquam totius orbis terrarum mutationem, qualem per diluvium legimus esse factam. Talis autem mutatio post tempora Mosis usque adhuc nulla fuit. Quid quod, si aliter se habent post diluvium haec quatuor flumina secundum fontes suos et cursus quam erant ante diluvium, non possunt esse eadem flumina? nam unitas numerica fluminis proprie debet aestimari ex unitate fontis et originis suae. Non igitur qui fuit ante diluvium Phison est idem qui postea et nunc est Ganges. Male praeterea Moses flumina illa Paradisi descripsisset per alia flumina fontibus et cursibus diversissima.
...since the origin of those rivers is otherwise than it is handed down by him. Nor can it be said that in the time of Moses those rivers were the same as they had been from the beginning, but that afterward the change which is now seen befell them: for so great a change in the greatest rivers of our world could not happen except through some general change of the whole globe of lands, such as we read happened through the flood. But no such change has happened since the times of Moses up to now. What of the fact that, if these four rivers are otherwise after the flood, according to their sources and courses, than they were before the flood, they cannot be the same rivers? for the numerical unity of a river ought properly to be estimated from the unity of its source and origin. Not therefore is the Phison which was before the flood the same as that which afterward and now is the Ganges. Moreover, Moses would have described those rivers of Paradise badly, by other rivers most different in sources and courses.16
QUIS igitur, sententia nostra, fluvius erit Phison? Ego facile patior mihi persuaderi quod a doctis quibusdam viris proditum est, Phison et Gihon fuisse fluvios ex ipso Tigri vel Euphrate diductos et derivatos, qui diversum cursum agentes alter Aethiopiam, alter vero terram Hevilath peragraverint. Etenim ex eo loco ubi simul coeunt Tigris et Euphrates et instar unius fluminis mistis aquis aliquantisper decurrunt, rursus facto aquarum divortio existunt duo principales fluvii priora nomina Tigris et Euphratis retinentes: praeter hos derivabantur duo alvei, quorum alterum Moses appellat Phison, alterum Gihon; quos recte appellaveris eruptiones quasdam seu alveos vel Tigris vel Euphratis. Magnis enim fluminibus saepe contingit in varios dispartiri alveos, quos vulgus ramos vel brachia appellat, sicut fit in Danubio, Nilo et Pado seu Eridano. Euphratem autem et Tigrim quodam loco ab accolis appellari Phasim, quae vox cum vocabulo Phison magnam habet similitudinem, lib. 5 testatur Q. Curtius. Plinius lib. 6 cap. 27 tradit Tigrim findi in alveos duos, et ubi remeavere aquae, Pasitigrim appellari. Nec mirum cuiquam accidere debet hosce fluvios Phison et Gihon vel nunc non esse vel non memorari a Cosmographis: etenim constat complures fluvios aut exaruisse aut per alia loca cursum suum avertisse et deflexisse; multos item non admodum nobiles et memorabiles praeteriri tacitos a Cosmographis. Quid quod propria nomina locorum et fluminum saepius immutata esse non ignoramus?
Which river, then, in our opinion, will Phison be? I readily allow myself to be persuaded of what has been set forth by certain learned men: that Phison and Gihon were rivers drawn off and derived from the Tigris or Euphrates itself, which, running a diverse course, traversed the one Ethiopia, the other the land of Hevilath. For from that place where the Tigris and Euphrates come together and run for a while like one river, with mixed waters, again, the waters being parted, there exist two principal rivers retaining the former names of Tigris and Euphrates: besides these, two channels were derived, one of which Moses calls Phison, the other Gihon; which you might rightly call certain offshoots or channels of the Tigris or Euphrates. For it often happens to great rivers to be divided into various channels, which the common people call branches or arms, as happens in the Danube, the Nile, and the Po (or Eridanus). That the Euphrates and Tigris are in a certain place called by the inhabitants Phasis—a word which has a great similarity with the word Phison—Q. Curtius attests in the fifth book. Pliny, book 6, chapter 27, relates that the Tigris is split into two channels, and where the waters have flowed back together is called Pasitigris. Nor ought it to occur to anyone as a wonder that these rivers Phison and Gihon either no longer exist or are not mentioned by the cosmographers: for it is established that very many rivers have either dried up or turned and bent their course through other places; and likewise that many not very noble and memorable ones are passed over in silence by the cosmographers. What of the fact that we are not ignorant that the proper names of places and rivers have very often been changed?17
SED venio ad secundam difficultatem de terra Hevilath. Plerique putant terram Hevilath esse in regionibus Indiae, scilicet in parte superiori eius, ab Oriente longo terrarum tractu Septentrionem versus porrectam; sic appellatam a filio Iectan cui nomen Hevila, qui primus eam regionem incolens et posteris suis colendam relinquens hoc ei nomen imposuit. Hoc nempe necesse fuit dicere eos qui Phison esse Gangem censuerunt: nam si Phison circuit terram Hevilath, Phison autem est Ganges qui non alibi quam in India originem, cursum et exitum habet, profecto consequens est Hevilath esse[...]
But I come to the second difficulty, about the land Hevilath. Most think that the land Hevilath is in the regions of India, namely in its upper part, stretched from the East by a long tract of lands toward the North; so named from the son of Joktan whose name was Hevila, who, first dwelling in that region and leaving it to his posterity to be cultivated, imposed this name on it. This indeed it was necessary for those to say who held Phison to be the Ganges: for if Phison compasses the land of Hevilath, but Phison is the Ganges, which has its origin, course, and outlet nowhere else than in India, then surely it follows that Hevilath is[...]18
...[Hevilath esse] partem Indiae. Argumentum quoque eius rei trahunt ex 10 capite Geneseos: memorari eo loco aiunt duos fratres, Iectan filios, Ophir et Hevila: nec dubium terram Ophir esse in India, ubi aurum optimum abundabat, id quod liquido cernitur ex 3 Regum cap. 9, 10 et 22, et ex 2 libr. Paralipomenon cap. 8; inde enim magna vis auri devehebatur ad Salomonem. Accedit testis Iosephus libro 8 Antiquitatum, affirmans Ophir fuisse regionem Indiae, quam vocabant ipsius tempore Terram Auream seu Auream Chersonesum, nunc vulgo dictam Malaca. Idem confirmat Hieronymus in epistola 133 ad Marcellam, et ad Principiam virginem epist. 140. Si igitur Ophir, dicta ab Ophir fratre Hevila, fuit regio Indiae, credibile admodum est fratrem eius Hevila propinquas ei sedes tenuisse atque coluisse, et terram Hevilath quae ab eo nomen accepit ad regiones Indiae pertinuisse.
...that Hevilath is part of India. They also draw an argument for this thing from the tenth chapter of Genesis: they say that in that place there are mentioned two brothers, sons of Joktan, Ophir and Hevila: and there is no doubt that the land Ophir is in India, where the best gold abounded—which is clearly seen from the third book of Kings, chapters 9, 10, and 22, and from the second book of Paralipomenon, chapter 8; for from there a great quantity of gold was conveyed to Solomon. Josephus is added as a witness, in the eighth book of the Antiquities, affirming that Ophir was a region of India, which in his time they called the Golden Land, or the Golden Chersonese, now commonly called Malacca. The same Jerome confirms, in epistle 133 to Marcella, and to the virgin Principia, epistle 140. If, therefore, Ophir, named from Ophir the brother of Hevila, was a region of India, it is quite credible that his brother Hevila held and cultivated neighboring seats, and that the land Hevilath, which received its name from him, belonged to the regions of India.19
VATABLVS in scholiis suis super nonum caput tertii libri Regum, et Benedictus Arias Montanus (vir valde doctus) in Apparatu suo ad Biblia et in lib. cui Phalec nomen indidit, arbitrantur terram Ophir eandem esse quae nunc vulgo appellatur Peru, unde tanta vis auri iamdiu per singulos annos advehitur in Hispaniam. Nam inquiunt in 3 ca. 2 lib. Paralipomenon, pro eo quod versio nostra Latina sic habet, Porro aurum erat probatissimum, Hebraice ad verbum est, Aurum erat de loco פרוים Paruaim: quam vocem etiam Septuaginta Interpretes in translatione sua retinuerunt. Est autem Paruaim duale, cuius singulare esset Paru seu Peru: ponitur autem duali numero ad designandum utrumque Peru, maius et minus, seu quod proprie dicitur Peru, et quod appellatur Mexico. Sic isti de terra Hevilath.
Vatablus, in his scholia on the ninth chapter of the third book of Kings, and Benedictus Arias Montanus (a very learned man), in his Apparatus to the Bible and in the book to which he gave the name Phaleg, judge the land Ophir to be the same as that which is now commonly called Peru, whence so great a quantity of gold has long been conveyed every year into Spain. For, they say, in the third chapter of the second book of Paralipomenon, for that which our Latin version has, "Moreover the gold was most tried," in Hebrew, word for word, it is, "The gold was from the place פרוים Paruaim"—which word the Seventy Interpreters also retained in their translation. But Paruaim is a dual form, whose singular would be Paru or Peru: it is put in the dual number to designate both Perus, the greater and the lesser—that is, what is properly called Peru, and what is called Mexico. So these men on the land Hevilath.20
VERUM in promptu est ostendere ex sacris litteris terram Hevilath et longissime abfuisse ab India, nec fuisse procul Palaestina atque Assyria, scilicet Euphrati fluvio vicinam. Illud tamen praemonendum, vocem quae a Latino interprete dicitur Hevilath, secundum Scripturam et pronuntiationem Hebraicam, debere reddi Latine Chauila. Legimus igitur 25 capite Geneseos habitationes Ismaëlis et Ismaëlitarum ad hunc modum describi a Mose, Habitavit Ismael ab Hevilath usque Sur, quae respicit Aegyptum introeuntibus Assyrios: ex quo loco intelligitur Hevilath nequaquam pertinuisse ad Indiam, sed inter Assyriam et Palaestinam fuisse locatam. Simile quiddam scriptum est in 1 libro Regum c. 15, Percussit, inquit, Saul Amalech ab Hevilath donec venias Sur, quae est e regione Aegypti; non est autem Saul persecutus Amalechitas usque ad Indiam. Regio nempe Amalechitarum, ut Palaestinae Orientem versus proxima, in sacris litteris describitur. Ad hoc, Strabo Geographorum diligentissimus, inter gentes Arabiae qua parte contingit Mesopotamiam, recenset Nabathaeos, quos Scriptura vocat Agarenos et Chaulataeos, hauddubie per Chaulataeos paululum mutata voce significans Chauilataeos, a regione Chauilath de qua nunc agimus appellatos. Nec quia in...
But it is easy to show from the sacred writings that the land Hevilath was very far indeed from India, and was not far from Palestine and Assyria—that is, near the river Euphrates. This, however, must be premised: that the word which is called Hevilath by the Latin interpreter, according to Scripture and the Hebrew pronunciation, ought to be rendered in Latin as Chauila. We read, then, in the twenty-fifth chapter of Genesis, that the dwellings of Ishmael and the Ishmaelites are described by Moses in this manner: Ishmael dwelt from Hevilath as far as Sur, which faces Egypt as you enter toward the Assyrians: from which place it is understood that Hevilath in no way belonged to India, but was located between Assyria and Palestine. Something similar is written in the first book of Kings, chapter 15: Saul, it says, smote Amalek from Hevilath until you come to Sur, which is over against Egypt; but Saul did not pursue the Amalekites as far as India. For the region of the Amalekites is described in the sacred writings as nearest to Palestine toward the East. To this, Strabo, the most diligent of Geographers, among the peoples of Arabia where it touches Mesopotamia, reckons the Nabathaeans, whom Scripture calls Agarenes and Chaulataeans—doubtless, by Chaulataeans, with the word slightly changed, signifying Chauilataeans, named from the region Chauilath of which we now treat. Nor, because in...21
...[Nec quia in terra Hevilath erat copia auri optimi, propterea fit ut ea fuerit in] India: multis enim aliis in locis et Syriae et prope Palaestinam olim fuisse magnam auri abundantiam in sacris litteris proditum est. David enim debellatis Syris, Ammonitis et Idumaeis immensam vim auri deportavit, sicut videre est in priori libr. Paralipomenon cap. 22, futuram postea Salomoni in materiam simulatque sumptus magnificentissimo templo construendo. In exordio libri Deuteronomii traditur tempore Mosis trans Iordanem in campestribus Moab inter Tophel et Haseroth fuisse auri plurimum. Nec vero quia Ophir petiit Indiam, ex eo conficitur Hevilath eius fratrem in Indiam quoque profectum esse: siquidem tertius eorum frater memoratur eodem loco Saba, a quo fuit terra gens Sabaeorum, nequaquam pertinens ad Indiam.
...[Nor, because in the land of Hevilath there was an abundance of the best gold, does it follow that it was in] India: for that there was once a great abundance of gold in many other places, both of Syria and near Palestine, has been handed down in the sacred writings. For David, having conquered the Syrians, Ammonites, and Idumaeans, carried off an immense quantity of gold, as may be seen in the first book of Paralipomenon, chapter 22—to be afterward material for Solomon, as soon as the expenses for building the most magnificent temple [were undertaken]. At the beginning of the book of Deuteronomy it is handed down that, in the time of Moses, across the Jordan, in the plains of Moab, between Tophel and Hazeroth, there was very much gold. Nor indeed, because Ophir went to India, is it thereby concluded that his brother Hevilath also set out for India: since a third brother of theirs is mentioned in the same place, Saba, from whom came the land [and] people of the Sabaeans, in no way belonging to India.22
ILLUD porro neutiquam credibile est, Ophir celebratum in Scriptura esse regionem nunc dictam Peru. Mitto enim alia argumenta, unum enim illud satis superque est isti refellendae opinioni: in regione Peruana constat nec elephantes esse, nec pavos, nec simias, nec ligna thina pretiosissima, qualia ex Ophir asportari solita narrat Scriptura. Neque consentaneum est Salomonem ex mari Rubro (in eius enim littore erat Asiongaber unde solvebat classis Salomonis, sicut scriptum est in lib. 3 Regum c. 9 et libr. 2 Paralipomenon c. 8) relicta India Orientali viciniori atque notiori, multarumque rerum pretiosarum fertiliori, immenso circuitu navigationem instituisse ad regionem Americanam et Peruensem, praesertim cum ad eam regionem ex Ioppe vel alio portu maris Mediterranei per fretum Gaditanum, multo breviori faciliorique et magis usitata navigatione, spatio circiter quinque mensium, pervenire potuisset.
Moreover, this is in no way credible, that the Ophir celebrated in Scripture is the region now called Peru. For I pass over other arguments, since that one is more than enough for refuting this opinion: in the Peruvian region it is established that there are neither elephants, nor peacocks, nor apes, nor most precious thyine woods, such as Scripture relates were wont to be carried off from Ophir. Nor is it consonant that Solomon, from the Red Sea (for on its shore was Ezion-geber, whence the fleet of Solomon set sail, as it is written in the third book of Kings, chapter 9, and the second book of Paralipomenon, chapter 8), having left aside the East Indies, nearer and better known and more fertile of many precious things, should have set up a voyage by an immense circuit to the American and Peruvian region—especially since he could have reached that region from Joppa, or another port of the Mediterranean sea, through the Strait of Gibraltar, by a much shorter and easier and more usual voyage, in the space of about five months.23
RESTAT tertia difficultas de Bdellio et Onychino lapide, paucis expedienda. Bdellium ita definit Plinius lib. 12 cap. 9: In Bactriana Bdellium est nominatissimum, qua arbor nigra est, magnitudine oleae, folio roboris, fructu caprifici naturaque. Deinde subdit eam nasci et in Arabia Indiaque, et Media ac Babylone. Onyx (unde Onychinus lapis inde appellatus, quod habet in se permistum candorem in similitudinem unguis humani) hunc gignit India et Arabia: sed Indicus igniculos habet albis cingentibus zonis, Arabicus autem niger est cum candentibus zonis (vide Plinium lib. 37 cap. 6). Pro his Septuaginta posuerunt Carbunculus et Prasinus: est autem Carbunculus lapis pretiosus, et (sicut nomine ipso prae se fert) ignei fulgoris tanti ut noctis tenebras illuminare queat (de quo lege quae scribit Plinius cap. 7 lib. 37). Prasinus autem est lapis pretiosus viridantis aspectus et porracei coloris, unde nomen habet (nam porrum Graeci prason vocant; de quo vide Plinium eodem lib. cap. 8). Hebraice sunt duo vocabula, הבדלח Habbedolach et השהם ha-Shoham; Chaldaice dicitur Burla, id est Beryllus, viridis coloris, de quo multa Plinius c. 5 eiusdem lib.
There remains the third difficulty, about Bdellium and the onyx stone, to be dispatched in few words. Pliny, in book 12, chapter 9, thus defines Bdellium: In Bactriana the Bdellium is most famous, where the tree is black, of the size of an olive, with the leaf of an oak, and the fruit and nature of a wild fig. Then he adds that it grows also in Arabia and India, and in Media and Babylon. The Onyx (whence the onyx stone is so named, because it has in itself a whiteness mixed in, in the likeness of a human nail) India and Arabia produce: but the Indian one has little sparks of fire with white encircling zones, the Arabian, however, is black with white zones (see Pliny, book 37, chapter 6). For these the Seventy put Carbunculus and Prasinus: the Carbuncle is a precious stone, and (as it bears forth by its very name) of so great a fiery brilliance that it can illuminate the darkness of night (about which read what Pliny writes in chapter 7 of book 37). The Prasinus is a precious stone of greenish aspect and leek-like color, whence it has its name (for the Greeks call a leek prason; about which see Pliny, the same book, chapter 8). In Hebrew there are two words, הבדלח Habbedolach and השהם ha-Shoham; in Chaldee it is called Burla, that is, Beryl, of green color, about which Pliny says much in chapter 5 of the same book.24
AUGUSTINUS Eugubinus et Hieronymus Oleaster arbitrantur Bedolach esse id quod Latini appellant Margaritam seu Unionem, vulgo Perla: nam in libro Numerorum capite 11 dicitur Manna fuisse quasi semen coriandri, et colorem eius sicut est color הבדלח Habbedolach (sic enim ibi est Hebraice); cum autem color Mannae fuerit albus, necesse est Bedolach fuisse albi coloris sicut est Margarita. Soham autem incertum est quid proprie significet: nam si ductum sit a radice Sadech, significat lapidem usquequaque teretem et aequabilem, quoniam Sabach Hebraeis est aequare. Sed profecto et ipsi Hebraei confitentur, et per se manifestum est, huiusmodi nomina propria pretiosorum lapidum, fluminum, et arborum quae sunt in Scriptura Hebraica quid proprie significent in obscuro et incerto esse: quo fit ut Scripturae interpretes, tam Graeci quam Latini, ea saepe transtulerint non qualia sunt Hebraice, sed qualia reperiebantur apud Graecos et Latinos, illis similitudine aliqua et proportione respondentia.
Augustinus Eugubinus and Jerome Oleaster think that Bedolach is that which the Latins call Margarita or Unio, commonly the Pearl: for in the book of Numbers, chapter 11, it is said that the Manna was as it were the seed of coriander, and its color as is the color of הבדלח Habbedolach (for so it is there in Hebrew); but since the color of the Manna was white, it is necessary that Bedolach was of white color, as is the Pearl. But what Soham properly signifies is uncertain: for if it be derived from the root Sadech, it signifies a stone everywhere smooth and even, since Sabach in Hebrew is "to make even." But indeed the Hebrews themselves confess, and it is self-evident, that the proper meanings of such names of precious stones, of rivers, and of trees which are in the Hebrew Scripture are in obscurity and uncertainty: whence it comes about that the interpreters of Scripture, both Greek and Latin, often translated them not such as they are in Hebrew, but such as were found among the Greeks and Latins, corresponding to them by some likeness and proportion.25

Translator’s notes

  1. A new sub-section: On the First River, Phison (Pishon). The side-reference reads "GEN. 2. VERS. 11 & 12." ↩
  2. Scripture lemma: Genesis 2:11–12—the first river Phison, which compasses the land of Havilah, with its best gold, bdellium, and onyx stone. ↩
  3. Before treating each of the four rivers, Pererius will first set out others' interpretations, then explain what best fits Moses, Scripture, and right reason. In the description of the first river **Phison** there are three difficulties: (1) which known river is **פישון** (Phison/Pishon)? (2) what land is Havilah, and where in our world does it lie? (3) what are Bdellium and the onyx stone? [Hebrew פישון verified on the 300-dpi crop.] ↩
  4. Marginal gloss: "An Phison sit Ganges." **First difficulty:** by the consensus of almost all interpreters and theologians, the river **Phison is none other than the Ganges** of India—so Josephus (Antiquities bk. 1), Epiphanius (Ancoratus), Augustine (de Genesi ad litteram 8.7), and Jerome (Book of Hebrew Traditions / Questions on Genesis). Why list each author when it is nearly everyone's view? Jerome, in his Epistle... Continues onto next page (catchword "Epist."; signature T3). Resume PDF 375 with "Hieronymus in Epistola..." ↩
  5. Block quotation of Jerome (Epistle 125 ["4"] to Rusticus): the **Ganges = Phison** of Scripture, compassing Havilah, carrying pigments from Paradise's fountain—carbuncle, emerald, pearls (coveted by noble women)—and golden mountains guarded by griffins and dragons, unapproachable by men: "to show us what kind of guardians avarice has." (Continues the Phison=Ganges consensus opened on p.333.) ↩
  6. Marginal gloss: "Origo Gangis secundum Strabonem." Pererius adduces Strabo (Geography bk. 15) on the Ganges' source in the Indian Caucasus. The quotation follows. ↩
  7. Block quotation of Strabo (Geography 15): all India's rivers rise from the Caucasus; some join the Indus or Ganges, some reach the sea by their own mouths. The Ganges descends from the mountains, turns east in the plain, flows past **Palibothra** (Pataliputra/Patna), and enters its sea by one mouth—the greatest of all Indian rivers. ↩
  8. Pererius adds Pliny (Natural History 6.18) on the Ganges. The quotation follows. ↩
  9. Block quotation of Pliny (Natural History 6.18) on the Ganges: variously said to rise from uncertain sources (like the Nile) or in the Scythian mountains; fed by nineteen tributaries (many navigable); bursting from its sources with a crash, then resting in a lake, and flowing gently—at least 8 miles wide (100 stadia at the narrower), nowhere less than 20 paces deep. ↩
  10. The theologians' etymologies of **פישון** (Phison): some say it means in Hebrew a "change of face" (the river being unlike itself in size, color, temperature along its course); others, "abundance" (it teems with fish, even 30-foot eels, per Pliny 9.3); **Isidore** (Etymologies 13.21) says it means "a throng" (ten great rivers empty into it), and is called Ganges by Greeks and Latins from king Gangarus—as the Tiber was first "Albula," later named from king Tiberinus. [Hebrew פישון verified on the crop.] ↩
  11. Marginal gloss: "Auctor demonstrat Phison non fuisse Gangem." **Pererius rejects Phison = Ganges**, with several arguments. **First**: Moses's narrative shows the four rivers, springing from one head, were *near each other*; but between the Ganges [and the Tigris/Euphrates the gap is enormous]... Continues onto next page (catchword "Gangem"). ↩
  12. Pererius's arguments against Phison = Ganges continued: **(1)** between the Ganges and the Tigris/Euphrates lies a gap of **70 degrees** (>4,300 miles, at 62 miles per degree per **Ptolemy**)—but Moses shows the four rivers were near each other. **(2)** Moses says all four sprang from one river of Paradise, yet they rise in utterly remote places: the **Ganges** from India's Caucasus, the **Euphrates and Tigris** from Armenia's mountains, the **Nile** from the "Mountains of the Moon" toward the **Cape of Good Hope.** ↩
  13. Pererius adduces Theodoret's reply (Questions on Genesis, q.29) to the distance objection. The quotation follows. ↩
  14. Block quotation of Theodoret (Questions on Genesis, q.29): other rivers too go out from one place, run underground, and resurface—and so do these four. God so arranged it to *cut off men's curiosity*: if the passages lay open, some would try to trace the rivers' banks to find Paradise, but would be frustrated, exhausted, starved, lost in deserts, or fall among barbarians—so the merciful God made their passages unknown. ↩
  15. Marginal gloss: "Refellitur Theodoreti responsum." So Theodoret (and Augustine, de Gen. ad litt. 8.7) answer. But Pererius **refutes** the response as weak—a device for escaping troublesome questions, not grounded in nature: (a) the rivers' origins are so distant *from the world's beginning* that they can share no one source, and the proponents can't show any subterranean course or alternate sources (as is visible in their parallel rivers); (b) a dilemma—either the four rivers in Moses's time rose as they did at creation (then they never sprang from one river, against Scripture), OR their courses were changed by the flood (then Moses described Paradise *obscurely/faultily* via pre-flood rivers without warning of the change). Continues onto next page (catchword "origo"). ↩
  16. Conclusion of the refutation: nor can one say the rivers stayed the same until Moses, then changed—so great a change needs a *universal* upheaval (like the flood), and there has been none since Moses. And if the four rivers differ in source and course after the flood from before, they *cannot be the same rivers* (a river's identity rests on its source)—so the pre-flood **Phison ≠ the present Ganges**, and Moses would have described Paradise's rivers badly via wholly different ones. ↩
  17. Marginal gloss: "Auctoris opinio." **Pererius's own answer on Phison:** he accepts what some learned men report—that **Phison and Gihon were channels derived from the Tigris or Euphrates**, running diverse courses (one through Ethiopia, the other through Hevilath). Where the Tigris and Euphrates join and run a while as one, then split again into the two principal rivers, two further channels branched off—Phison and Gihon—rightly called offshoots of the Tigris/Euphrates. Great rivers often split into "branches" (Danube, Nile, Po). Q. Curtius (bk. 5) attests the Euphrates/Tigris are locally called *Phasis* (much like *Phison*); Pliny (6.27) says the Tigris splits and is called *Pasitigris* where it rejoins. No wonder Phison and Gihon no longer exist or go unmentioned—rivers dry up or change course, lesser ones are passed over, and place/river names change. ↩
  18. Marginal gloss: "Quid de terra Hevilath senserint scriptores." **Second difficulty:** the land of **Hevilath**. Most place it in India (its upper part, stretching far north from the East), named from **Hevila, son of Joktan**, who first dwelt there. The Phison=Ganges party *had* to say this: if Phison compasses Hevilath, and Phison is the Ganges (which rises, runs, and ends only in India), then Hevilath must be [part of India]. Continues onto next page (catchword "esse"). ↩
  19. Marginal glosses: "An Hevilath fuerit regio Indiae" and "Qua regio fuerit Ophir secundum Iosephum et Hieronymum." The India argument continued: Gen 10 names two brothers, sons of Joktan—**Ophir** and **Hevila**; Ophir is doubtless in India, abounding in the best gold (1 Kings/3 Reg 9, 10, 22; 2 Chron/Paral. 8—whence great gold came to **Solomon**). **Josephus** (Antiquities 8) calls Ophir a region of India, in his day the "Golden Land" or "Golden Chersonese," now **Malacca**; **Jerome** confirms (Epist. 133 to Marcella; Epist. 140 to Principia). So if Ophir was in India, credibly his brother Hevila held neighboring lands, and Hevilath belonged to India. ↩
  20. Marginal gloss: "Peru etiam Iudaeorum tempore notum fuisse." **Vatablus** (scholia on 1 Kings/3 Reg 9) and the very learned **Benedictus Arias Montanus** (Apparatus to the Bible; his *Phaleg*) think **Ophir = Peru**, whence so much gold has long come yearly to Spain. For in 2 Chron 3:6, where the Vulgate has "the gold was most tried," the Hebrew literally is "the gold was from the place **פרוים** (Paruaim)"—a word the Septuagint kept. *Paruaim* is a *dual* (singular *Paru*/Peru), designating both Perus, greater and lesser—Peru proper and Mexico. [Hebrew פרוים verified on the crop.] ↩
  21. Marginal glosses: "Auctoris sententia de terra Hevilath" and "Strabo lib. 16." **Pererius's own view:** Scripture readily shows **Hevilath was far from India, and near Palestine and Assyria—i.e. near the Euphrates.** (Note: the Vulgate's "Hevilath" should be rendered "Chauila" per Hebrew.) Gen 25:18: "Ishmael dwelt from Hevilath to Sur, which faces Egypt as you go toward Assyria"—so Hevilath lay between Assyria and Palestine, not India. Similarly 1 Sam/1 Reg 15:7: "Saul smote Amalek from Hevilath until Sur, over against Egypt"—and Saul did not pursue Amalek to India (the Amalekites' land is nearest Palestine eastward). Also **Strabo** (bk. 16) lists, among the Arabian peoples touching Mesopotamia, the **Nabathaeans**—whom Scripture calls Agarenes and "Chaulataeans," doubtless meaning "Chauilataeans," named from the region Chauilath. Breaks mid-sentence (catchword "in"; signature V; page-foot "Comm. in Gen. Tom. 1"). Resume PDF 379 with "Nec quia in..." ↩
  22. Continuation (from p.337) of Pererius's case that Hevilath was *not* India. The gold-argument fails: gold abounded near Palestine and Syria too—David's immense spoils from the Syrians, Ammonites, and Edomites (1 Chron 22), later material for Solomon's temple; and Deuteronomy notes much gold in Moab (between Tophel and Hazeroth) in Moses's day. Nor does Ophir's going to India prove his brother Hevila did: a *third* brother, **Saba** (whence the Sabaeans), belongs nowhere near India. ↩
  23. Marginal gloss: "Ophir non esse Peruanam regionem." **Ophir ≠ Peru**: one argument suffices—Peru has no elephants, peacocks, apes, or precious thyine wood, which Scripture says came from Ophir. Nor would Solomon, whose fleet sailed from the **Red Sea** (Ezion-geber, 3 Reg 9 / 2 Chron 8), bypass the nearer, richer, better-known East Indies to sail by an immense circuit to America/Peru—especially as he could reach it from Joppa through the **Strait of Gibraltar** by a much shorter voyage of ~5 months. ↩
  24. Marginal glosses: "Quid sit Bdellium et Onychinus"; "Prasinus." **Third difficulty: bdellium and onyx.** **Pliny** (12.9): the most famous bdellium is in Bactria—a black tree the size of an olive, oak-leaved, with wild-fig fruit; also in Arabia, India, Media, Babylon. **Onyx** (named from its whiteness mixed like a human nail): bred by India and Arabia (Indian = fiery sparks with white zones; Arabian = black with white zones; Pliny 37.6). The **Septuagint** rendered these "Carbunculus and Prasinus"—the *carbuncle*, a stone so fiery it lights the dark (Pliny 37.7); the *prasinus*, a leek-green stone (Greek *prason* = leek; Pliny 37.8). In Hebrew the two words are **הבדלח** (Habbedolach, bdellium) and **השהם** (ha-Shoham, onyx); in Chaldee, *Burla* = green Beryl. [Hebrew הבדלח and השהם verified on the crop.] ↩
  25. Marginal glosses: "Bedolach"; "Soham quid." **Augustinus Steuchus of Gubbio** and **Jerome Oleaster** think *bedolach* is the Latin *Margarita/Unio* (pearl): Numbers 11 says the manna was like coriander seed, its color like **הבדלח** (Habbedolach); since manna was white, bedolach must be white like a pearl. What *Soham* means is uncertain (if from the root *Sadech*, a smooth even stone; *Sabach* = "to make even"). But the Hebrews confess—and it is self-evident—that the proper meanings of such Hebrew names of stones, rivers, and trees are obscure; so the Greek and Latin interpreters often rendered them not as they are in Hebrew, but by the nearest Greek/Latin equivalents. [Hebrew הבדלח verified.] ↩