LatineEnglish
QUESTION IV. How so great an inequality of age in the begetting of sons could have existed among men before the flood.1
QUAESTIO IIII. Quomodo tanta aetatis inaequalitas in generando filios, in hominibus ante diluvium, esse potuerit.
Illud fortasse mirandum lectori accidat, in his generationibus quas Moses ab Adamo numeravit usque ad Noe, tantam fuisse in generatione filiorum penes eorum Patres aetatis diversitatem. Siquidem Cainan septuaginta natus annos genuit Malaleel; hic autem, cum quinque et sexaginta annorum esset, genuit Iared; eiusdem aetatis cum esset etiam Henoch, genuit Mathusalem. At vero Iared centum sexaginta duos annos natus genuit Henoch; hoc etiam senior Mathusalem, id est centum octoginta septem annorum cum esset, genuit Lamech; hic autem centum octoginta duos annos natus genuit Noe, a quo, cum esset ipse quingentorum annorum, tres filii procreati sunt, Sem, Cham et Iaphet. Cum igitur eo tempore aetas septuaginta annorum iam matura et firma esset ad generandum, ut exemplo Cainan, Malaleel et Henoch manifestum est, qui factum est ut alii tam sero, id est amplius centum annis, et Noe plusquam quadringentis annis seniores filios procrearint? Neque enim verisimile est eos qui sero genuerunt continentiae studio diu ab uxoribus abstinere voluisse. Nam tunc opus ipsum generationis, eo tempore quo multiplicari debebat genus humanum, honestum et laudabile erat; et Henoch, qui propter eximiam et singularem eius sanctitatem translatus a Deo est, ante septuagesimum annum vacasse generationi et filios procreasse legitur. Noe vero ante quingentesimum annum vel abstinuisse a coniugio vel impotentem generandi fuisse respuit animus credere.
It may perhaps strike the reader as wonderful that, in these generations which Moses numbered from Adam to Noah, there was so great a diversity of age in the begetting of sons on the part of their fathers. For Cainan at seventy years begot Mahalalel; and he, when he was sixty-five, begot Jared; Enoch too, when of the same age, begot Methuselah. But Jared at one hundred sixty-two years begot Enoch; Methuselah, older still, that is at one hundred eighty-seven years, begot Lamech; and he at one hundred eighty-two years begot Noah, from whom, when he himself was five hundred years old, three sons were procreated, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Since, then, at that time an age of seventy years was already mature and firm for begetting, as is clear from the example of Cainan, Mahalalel, and Enoch, how did it come about that others begot so late -- that is, more than a hundred years late, and Noah more than four hundred years -- their sons? For it is not likely that those who begot late chose from a zeal for continence to abstain long from their wives. For at that time the very work of generation, in the age when the human race ought to be multiplied, was honorable and praiseworthy; and Enoch, who for his surpassing and singular holiness was translated by God, is read to have devoted himself to generation and procreated sons before his seventieth year. But that Noah, before his five-hundredth year, either abstained from marriage or was impotent to beget, the mind refuses to believe.2
Quid igitur ad hoc respondebimus? Sanctus Augustinus longam hac de re et accuratam habet disputationem in capite 20 libri 15 de Civitate Dei; sed ego quid sentiam lectori paucis indicabo. Mihi quidem simillimum vero fit seriem illam decem generationum ab Adamo usque ad Noe non esse perpetuo descriptam a Mose per filios primogenitos, sed in aliquibus generationibus contextam esse per alios filios posteriores, per quos scilicet deducebatur recta linea progenies ipsius Seth usque ad Noe, quo potissimum intendebat Moses seriem illam generationum perducere. Neque igitur Henoch fuit primogenitus filius Iared, neque primus filius quem genuit Mathusalem fuit Lamech, neque huius primogenitus fuisse putandus est Noe, quem ante quingentesimum annum complures alios filios generasse credibile est; sed quia illi vel naturali vel violenta morte extincti diluvio superstites non fuerunt, sicut alii tres filii Sem, Cham et Iaphet, per quos post diluvium genus humanum multiplicatum est, propterea,
What, then, shall we answer to this? Saint Augustine has a long and careful disputation on this matter in chapter 20 of book 15 of the City of God; but I shall indicate to the reader in a few words what I think. To me indeed it seems most like the truth that that series of ten generations from Adam to Noah was not throughout described by Moses through firstborn sons, but in some generations was woven together through other, later-born sons -- namely those through whom the direct line of Seth's posterity was carried down to Noah, to whom above all Moses meant to conduct that series of generations. Enoch, therefore, was not the firstborn son of Jared, nor was the first son whom Methuselah begot Lamech, nor is Noah to be thought the firstborn of Lamech, who it is credible begot several other sons before his five-hundredth year; but because those, cut off by either natural or violent death, did not survive the flood, as did the other three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, through whom after the flood the human race was multiplied, therefore,3
propterea, illis praetermissis, hos duntaxat Moses commemorare voluit. Neque inusitatum est in Scriptura, cum series aliqua generationum contexitur usque ad eum cuius generatio praecipue intenditur, non eam seriem per filios primogenitos describere, sed per eos duntaxat unde is cuius generatio potissimum describenda suscipitur originem duxerit. Exempli simul et argumenti loco esse potest genealogia Salvatoris nostri, quam ab Abrahamo usque deduxit Matthaeus, non semper per filios primogenitos, sed per eos tantum ex quorum stirpe Dominus noster generatus est. Atque ob hanc ipsam causam tacuit Ismael et nominavit Isaac; et omisso Esau memoravit Iacob; de filiis Iacob, tribus natu maioribus Ruben, Simeon et Levi praeteritis, Iudam tantum adhibuit; denique Salomonem commemoravit, posthabitis aliis filiis Davidis illo prioribus. Hoc idem igitur Mosem in pertexendis generationibus quae ab Adamo fuerunt usque ad Noe spectasse et observasse arbitror.
therefore, those others being passed over, Moses chose to record only these. Nor is it unusual in Scripture, when some series of generations is woven together down to him whose birth is chiefly intended, to describe that series not through firstborn sons but only through those from whom he whose descent is principally undertaken to be described drew his origin. For an example and proof at once there is the genealogy of our Savior, which Matthew carried down from Abraham, not always through firstborn sons, but only through those from whose stock our Lord was born. And for this very reason he was silent about Ishmael and named Isaac; and, Esau omitted, he recorded Jacob; of Jacob's sons, the three elder by birth -- Reuben, Simeon, and Levi -- being passed over, he employed Judah only; finally he commemorated Solomon, David's other sons prior to him being set aside. This same thing, then, I judge that Moses regarded and observed in weaving through the generations that ran from Adam to Noah.4
Translator’s notes
- Fourth quaestio of the chronology disputation on Genesis 5, in Book VII. ↩
- Marginal gloss: 'Resolution of the difficulty. Moses did not number the firstborn but those through whom [the line] was carried down to Noah.' Sets out the puzzle: Cainan, Mahalalel, and Enoch begot at 65-70, yet Jared, Methuselah, Lamech begot at ~180 and Noah at 500. ↩
- Cross-reference: Augustine, De civitate Dei XV.20. Pererius's own solution: the genealogy names not firstborns but the sons who carried Seth's direct line to Noah; the earlier-born sons perished and left no post-diluvian posterity. Continues on the next page (catchword 'propterea'). ↩
- Marginal gloss: 'Matthew 1 and the following [chapter].' Pererius supports his solution from Matthew's genealogy of Christ (Matt 1), which likewise selects line-bearers -- Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Judah over his elder brothers, Solomon over David's elder sons -- rather than firstborns. ↩