FIFTH DISPUTATION. Whether Moses spoke of geometric cubits, as Origen held, each of which contains the measure of six common cubits — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

FIFTH DISPUTATION. Whether Moses spoke of geometric cubits, as Origen held, each of which contains the measure of six common cubits.¹

QUINTA DISPUTATIO. An Moses locutus sit de cubitis Geometricis, ut sensit Origenes, quorum unusquilibet sex vulgarium cubitorum mensuram contineat.

Quoniam magnitudo Arcae quam descripsit Moses visa multis est parva nimis et angusta, tot tantorumque animalium cunctis generibus praeterque cibariis eorum capiendis atque conservandis, propterea quidam commenti sunt genus quoddam cubitorum Geometricorum longe maius vulgatis et usitatis cubitis, ut hoc genere cubitorum constans magnitudo arcae procul dubio amplissima fuisse videatur atque omnium rerum quae in ea fuerunt capacissima. Origenes igitur ex traditione maiorum confirmat Mosen hoc loco, describendo magnitudinem arcae, usum esse cubitis Geometricis; ut quem omni sapientia Aegyptiorum (apud quos maximo in pretio et honore Geometria erat) eruditum fuisse testatus sit B. Stephanus. Unum autem cubitum Geometricum censet Origenes sex cubita usitata continere, et novem pedibus definiri. Sententiam Origenis ad hunc modum refert Augustinus libro 15 de Civitate Dei cap. ultimo: Si autem cogitemus, inquit, quod Origenes non ineleganter astruxit, Mosen scilicet, hominem eruditum, sicut scriptum est, omni sapientia Aegyptiorum qui Geometriam dilexerunt, Geometrica cubita significare potuisse, ubi unum quantum sex nostra valere asseverant: quis non videat quantum rerum capere potuerit illa magnitudo? Sic Augustinus. Quo licet intelligere apud Hugonem sancti Victoris in Annotationibus in Genesim mendose legi hoc loco cubitum Geometricum constare novem cubitis, cum tantum contineret secundum Origenem sex cubita. Vel igitur pro novem reponi debet sex, vel pro cubitis legi debet pedibus; revera enim cubitum Geometricum, si continebat sex cubita vulgaria, consequens erat ut contineret novem pedes, cum vulgare cubitum sit sesquipedale. Sed gratum fortasse lectori fuerit ipsa Origenis verba hoc loco legere. Secunda igitur homilia in sextum caput Geneseos in hanc sententiam scribit Origenes: Apelles, inquit, discipulus Marcionis sed alterius haereseos inventor, adversus structuram arcae disputat, probare volens scripta Mosis nihil habere divinae sapientiae nec esse a Spiritu sancto profecta. Disputat autem nullo modo fieri potuisse ut tam breve spatium arcae tot anima-...

Because the magnitude of the Ark which Moses described seemed to many too small and narrow for taking in and preserving so many and so great kinds of animals, and besides their foods, some therefore devised a certain kind of ‘geometric cubits,’ far greater than the vulgar and usual cubits, so that the magnitude of the ark, consisting of this kind of cubits, might without doubt seem most ample and most capacious of all the things that were in it. Origen, then, from the tradition of the ancients, affirms that Moses here, in describing the magnitude of the ark, used geometric cubits — inasmuch as the blessed Stephen testified that he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (among whom Geometry was held in the highest esteem and honor). And one geometric cubit Origen reckons to contain six usual cubits, and to be defined by nine feet. The opinion of Origen Augustine reports in this manner, in book 15 of The City of God, the last chapter: ‘But if we consider,’ he says, ‘what Origen not inelegantly maintained — namely, that Moses, a man learned, as it is written, in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, who loved Geometry, could have signified geometric cubits, where they assert one is worth as much as six of ours — who would not see how much of things that magnitude could have held?’ Thus Augustine. Whence one may understand that in Hugh of St. Victor, in his Annotations on Genesis, it is read faultily in this place that the geometric cubit consists of nine cubits, whereas according to Origen it contained only six cubits. Either, then, for ‘nine’ should be put ‘six,’ or for ‘cubits’ should be read ‘feet’; for in truth the geometric cubit, if it contained six vulgar cubits, must consequently have contained nine feet, since the vulgar cubit is a foot and a half. But it will perhaps be pleasing to the reader to read Origen’s own words in this place. In the second homily on the sixth chapter of Genesis, Origen writes to this effect: ‘Apelles,’ he says, ‘a disciple of Marcion but the inventor of another heresy, disputes against the structure of the ark, wishing to prove that the writings of Moses have nothing of divine wisdom, nor proceeded from the Holy Spirit. He argues that it could in no way have come about that so small a space of the ark could take in so many ani-…’²

...lium genera, eorumque cibos qui per totum annum sufficerent, capere potuerit. Cum enim bina et bina ex immundis animalibus (hoc est bini masculi et binae feminae), ex mundis vero septena et septena, in arcam dicantur indulta, quomodo fieri potuit ut spatium illud arcae descriptum a Mose vel quatuor tantum elephantos capere potuisset? Et postquam per singulas species hoc modo refragatur, concludit his verbis: Constat ergo, inquit, fictam esse fabulam; quod si est, constat a Deo non esse hanc scripturam. Sic Apelles. Sed ad haec nos (inquit Origenes) quae a prudentibus viris et Hebraicarum traditionum gnaris atque veteribus magistris didicimus, ad auditorum notitiam deferemus. Aiebant ergo maiores quod Moses, qui (ut scriptura testatur) omni sapientia Aegyptiorum fuerat eruditus, secundum artem geometricam quam praecipue Aegyptii callent, cubitorum numerum hoc loco posuit. Apud Geometras enim, secundum eam rationem qua apud eos virtus vocatur, ex solido et quadrato, vel in sex cubitos unus deputatur si generaliter, vel in trecentos si minutatim deducatur; qua utique ratione si observatur in huius Arcae mensura, invenientur et longitudinis et latitudinis tanta spatia quae vere totius mundi reparanda germina et universorum animalium rediviva seminaria capere potuerint. Sic eo loco Origenes. Idem libro quarto contra Celsum disputat amplissimam fuisse arcam illam Noë magnaeque urbi similem, utpote cuius basis longitudine fuerit nonaginta mille cubitorum, latitudine autem viginti quinque mille. Et haec quidem ab Origene. Sed ego me nec horum extremorum verborum, nec illorum superiorum de multiplicatione cubiti vel in sex vel in trecentos secundum virtutem Geometricam, ingenue fateor sententiam assequi; cumque consultissimos atque doctissimos Geometriae viros eadem re consuluissem, illi supradictis verbis Origenis diu multumque consideratis denique responderunt se, quid Origenes intelligere potuerit et verbis illis significare voluerit, nequaquam intelligere; ut me quidem minus pudeat nescire quod nesciam confiteri.

…mals, and their foods that would suffice for a whole year. For since two and two of the unclean animals (that is, two males and two females), but seven and seven of the clean, are said to have been let into the ark, how could it have come about that the space of the ark described by Moses could have held even four elephants only? And after he thus objects through the several species, he concludes in these words: ‘It is established, then, that the tale is fictitious; and if it is so, it is established that this Scripture is not from God.’ Thus Apelles. ‘But to these things,’ says Origen, ‘we will bring to the notice of our hearers what we have learned from prudent men, and those skilled in the Hebrew traditions, and ancient masters. The ancients, then, used to say that Moses, who (as Scripture testifies) had been learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, according to the geometric art in which the Egyptians are especially skilled, set down here the number of cubits. For among the Geometers, according to that reckoning which among them is called “power” (virtus), from the solid and the square, either one is reckoned for six cubits if [taken] generally, or for three hundred if [taken] in detail; and if this reckoning be observed in the measure of this Ark, there will be found such spaces both of length and of breadth as could truly have held the seeds of a whole world to be repaired, and the reviving seedbeds of all the animals.’ Thus Origen in that place. The same, in the fourth book against Celsus, argues that that ark of Noah was most ample and like to a great city, since its base was ninety thousand cubits in length and twenty-five thousand in breadth. And so far from Origen. But I, I frankly confess, do not grasp the meaning either of these last words or of those earlier ones about the multiplication of the cubit either into six or into three hundred according to the geometric ‘power’; and when I had consulted the most expert and most learned men of Geometry about this same matter, they — having long and much considered the aforesaid words of Origen — at last answered that they by no means understood what Origen could have understood and meant to signify by those words; so that I am the less ashamed to confess that I do not know what I do not know.³

Non me fugit quid Ioannes Buteo de hac Origenis opinione senserit et in scriptis reliquerit; sic enim Origenis verba interpretatur ut, ea revocans et accommodans ad cubicationem Geometricam, contendat rectam esse Origenis sententiam et rationibus ac placitis Geometricis maxime congruentem; cuius viri brevem super ea re disputationem visum est hoc loco cognoscendam lectori et considerandam proponere. Sic igitur ille ait in eo libello quem edidit de Arca Noë: Videndum quanam discretione sensus dictum Origenis stare possit. Iam in praecedentibus ostendi arcae solidum continere cubitales cubos quater centum quinquaginta millia. Planum est insuper arcae longitudinem fuisse sextuplam suae latitudinis. Basis igitur arcae in sex aequalia quadrata dividi potest, quorum commune latus est cubitorum quinquaginta; quod in se multiplicando, facies cubitos quadratos duo millia quingentos. Id erit Embadon unius ex sex quadratorum in basi. Rursus multiplicando cubitos quadratos duo millia quingentos in triginta cubitos altitudinis arcae, fient septuaginta quinque millia cubita-...

It does not escape me what John Buteo thought about this opinion of Origen and left in writing; for he so interprets Origen’s words that, recalling and accommodating them to geometric cubature, he contends that Origen’s opinion is correct and most agreeable to geometric reasonings and tenets; and it has seemed good here to set before the reader, to be learned and considered, that man’s brief disputation on the matter. Thus, then, he says in the little book he published on the Ark of Noah: ‘It must be seen by what distinction of sense Origen’s saying can stand. Already in the preceding I showed that the solid of the ark contains four hundred and fifty thousand cubical cubits. It is plain, besides, that the length of the ark was sextuple of its breadth. The base of the ark, then, can be divided into six equal squares, whose common side is fifty cubits; which, multiplying into itself, you will make two thousand five hundred square cubits. This will be the area (Embadon) of one of the six squares in the base. Again, multiplying the two thousand five hundred square cubits into the thirty cubits of the height of the ark, there will be made seventy-five thousand cubi-…’⁴

...lium cubitorum, quae est sexta pars corporis arcae. Ergo, ut ait Origenes, unusquisque talium cubitorum deputatur in sex, quoniam sexies septuaginta quinque millia cubitalium cubitorum summam quater centum quinquaginta millia constituunt, quae est arcae capacitas, eadem quam per meum ante calculum inveni.

…cal cubits, which is the sixth part of the body of the ark. Therefore, as Origen says, ‘each of such cubits is reckoned for six,’ since six times seventy-five thousand cubical cubits constitute the sum of four hundred and fifty thousand, which is the capacity of the ark — the same that I found before by my calculation.⁵

Alteram quoque dicti Origenis partem, unum scilicet cubitum in trecentos deputari, sic ostendo. Accipe alterutrum ex minoribus arcae planis, cuius unum latus est cubitorum triginta, alterum vero quinquaginta; haec inter se duo latera multiplicata cubita quadrata mille quingenta producunt; quem numerum multiplicans iterum in tertiam arcae dimensionem trecentorum cubitorum, ex unoquoque minutatim cubito quadrato trecentos solidos efficies, et in summam quater centum quinquaginta millia. Id autem est solidum arcae, sicut prius, quod erat demonstrandum. Et ita secundum rationem geometricam ex solido et quadrato verum habet Origenis dictum utroque modo. Non autem quod cubitus Geometricus tantum valeat quantum sex nostra cubita valent, ut asserit Augustinus; nec cubito Geometrico, sed cubicatione Geometrica quaestionem solvit Origenes, cum non cubitos Geometra sed cubicationem habeat seorsim ab usu communi. Illud tamen advertendum, esse vitiosum maxime quod res per se difficilis, insuper aenigmate affectato verborum sic ab Origene obscuratur ut divinare magis oporteat quam interpretari. Planum enim fuisset si dixisset numeros cuborum in descriptione Arcae positos rationibus geometricis inveniri efficere in corpus capacitatem arcae quater centum quinquaginta millium cubitorum. Hactenus verba fuere Buteonis.

The other part too of Origen’s saying — namely, that ‘one cubit is reckoned for three hundred’ — I show thus. Take either of the smaller planes of the ark, of which one side is thirty cubits, the other fifty; these two sides multiplied together produce one thousand five hundred square cubits; multiplying which number again into the third dimension of the ark, of three hundred cubits, you will make, out of each square cubit in detail, three hundred solids, and in the sum four hundred and fifty thousand. And this is the solid of the ark, as before, which was to be demonstrated. And thus, according to geometric reasoning, from the solid and the square, Origen’s saying holds true in both ways. Not, however, that a geometric cubit is worth as much as six of our cubits, as Augustine asserts; nor by a geometric cubit, but by a geometric cubature, does Origen solve the question, since a Geometer has not ‘cubits’ but ‘cubature’ apart from common use. This, however, must be noted: that it is most faulty that a thing in itself difficult is, moreover, so obscured by Origen with an affected riddling of words that one must rather divine than interpret. For it would have been plain if he had said that the numbers of the cubes set down in the description of the Ark are found, by geometric reasonings, to make in the body a capacity of the ark of four hundred and fifty thousand cubits. Thus far were the words of Buteo.⁶

Sed sit ita esse ut vult Buteo: nihilo tamen maior et capacior per istiusmodi cubita Geometrica exsistit arca quam si vulgaribus cubitis eiusdem arcae magnitudo definiatur; et hoc fatetur ipsemet Buteo. At enim Origenes, adversus calumniantes parvitatem eius arcae, demonstrare et probare voluit quia Moses, in describendo magnitudinem arcae, non vulgaribus sed Geometricis cubitis usus sit, eo fieri ut longe maior exstiterit arca quam ea, metientibus magnitudinem eius vulgaribus et usitatis cubitis, fuisse videatur. Omnes etiam scriptores Ecclesiastici qui secuti sunt Origenem multo ampliorem evadere arcam, si cubitis Geometricis magnitudo eius aestimetur, et senserunt ipsi, idemque sensisse Origenem scriptis suis confirmaverunt. Et vero si aequalis magnitudinis et capacitatis fuisset arca sive geometricis sive vulgaribus cubitis dimensiones eius definiamus, quorsum, obsecro, quaestionem de magnitudine arcae a communibus cubitis (quorum apud omnes manifesta cognitio et frequens usus est) traduxisset Origenes ad cubita Geometrica usque ad cubicationem Geometricam (ut censet Buteo), rem scilicet valde abstrusam et obscuram et perpaucis cognitam?

But grant that it is as Buteo will have it: yet by such geometric cubits the ark turns out no greater and no more capacious than if its magnitude be defined by vulgar cubits — and this Buteo himself confesses. But Origen, against those who carped at the smallness of that ark, wished to demonstrate and prove that, because Moses in describing the magnitude of the ark used not vulgar but geometric cubits, it came about that the ark was far greater than it would seem to have been to those measuring its magnitude by vulgar and usual cubits. And all the ecclesiastical writers who followed Origen both held themselves, and confirmed in their writings that Origen held, that the ark turns out much more ample if its magnitude be estimated by geometric cubits. And indeed, if the ark were of equal magnitude and capacity whether we define its dimensions by geometric or by vulgar cubits, to what end, I ask, would Origen have transferred the question of the ark’s magnitude from common cubits (of which there is among all a manifest knowledge and frequent use) to geometric cubits, even to a geometric cubature (as Buteo thinks) — a thing, namely, very abstruse and obscure and known to very few?⁷

Illud praeterea miror, cur Buteo alterum illud dictum Origenis, quod est libro quarto contra Celsum (paulo supra a nobis positum) affirmantis basim arcae fuisse longam nonaginta mille cubitis, latam vero viginti quinque mille — cur, inquam, hoc Buteo non itidem sus-...

I wonder, moreover, why Buteo did not likewise undertake to interpret that other saying of Origen, which is in the fourth book against Celsus (set down by us a little above), affirming that the base of the ark was ninety thousand cubits long and twenty-five thousand broad — why, I say, Buteo did not likewise under-…⁸

...cepit interpretandum, cum vel falsum sit, vel si verum est obscurissimum habeat intellectum et perdifficilem explicatum. An forte eum locum Origenis Buteo non legerat? An eum quidem locum legerat, sed quia nullam eorum verborum satis commodam reperit interpretationem, prudenter scilicet intactum tacitumque praeterire maluit quam attingere quod expedire non posset? Apud Hugonem libro primo eorum quatuor quos de Mystico intellectu Arcae Noë scripsit, in capite tertio memini legere nescio quid ad huius dicti et sententiae Origenis intelligentiam pertinens.

…take to interpret it, since it is either false, or, if true, has a most obscure sense and a most difficult explanation. Had Buteo perhaps not read that passage of Origen? Or had he indeed read it, but, because he found no sufficiently apt interpretation of those words, prudently preferred to pass it by untouched and unmentioned rather than touch on what he could not expound? In Hugh, in the first of those four books which he wrote On the Mystical Sense of the Ark of Noah, in the third chapter, I remember reading something or other pertaining to the understanding of this saying and opinion of Origen.⁹

Sed utcunque res habeat, illam certe opinionem tam multis probatam — de cubitis Geometricis (quorum quilibet tantum valeat quantum sex de vulgatis cubitis) in describendo Arcae magnitudinem locutum fuisse Mosem — tanquam nec rationi nec divinae scripturae convenientem sed plane improbabilem, licet his argumentis confutare. Principio, mensura ista quam describit Origenes cubiti Geometrici nec apud ipsos Geometras, nec in ulla disciplina, nec apud aliquos artifices, nec denique apud gentes aliquas in usu est aut fuit unquam; non igitur de tali cubito locutum esse Mosen credendum est. Deinde Moses de iis cubitis locutus est in describenda magnitudine arcae de quibus loquitur in aliis suis libris, et quorum frequens in ceteris divinarum litterarum monumentis fit mentio; nam si hoc loco de aliis cubitis esset locutus, procul dubio ad praecidendam ambiguitatis et obscuritatis occasionem indicasset Moses variam cubiti significationem qua hic usus esset; sed omnibus aliis locis suorum scriptorum Moses loquitur de cubito vulgato et usitato, de cubito autem isto Geometrico nulla uspiam apud eum est littera; ergo remotum a ratione et a vero est arbitrari Mosen hoc loco de cubito Geometrico locutum esse.

But however the matter stands, that opinion certainly — approved by so many — that Moses, in describing the magnitude of the Ark, spoke of geometric cubits (each of which is worth as much as six of the vulgar cubits), may be refuted by these arguments, as agreeing neither with reason nor with divine Scripture, but plainly improbable. First, that measure of the geometric cubit which Origen describes is in use, and ever was, neither among the Geometers themselves, nor in any discipline, nor among any craftsmen, nor, finally, among any nations; it is therefore not to be believed that Moses spoke of such a cubit. Next, Moses spoke, in describing the magnitude of the ark, of those cubits of which he speaks in his other books, and of which frequent mention is made in the rest of the monuments of the divine letters; for if in this place he had spoken of other cubits, Moses would without doubt, to cut off the occasion of ambiguity and obscurity, have indicated the different signification of ‘cubit’ which he was here using; but in all other places of his writings Moses speaks of the common and usual cubit, and of that geometric cubit there is nowhere a single letter in him; therefore it is far from reason and from truth to suppose that Moses here spoke of a geometric cubit.¹⁰

Et huius quidem nostrae argumentationis minor propositio (illam dico, quod aliis in locis Moses nunquam non loquatur de cubito vulgari) multis exemplis confirmari potest. In Exodo cap. 27 iubet Deus fieri altare longum quinque cubitis totidemque latum, altum vero tribus cubitis; quae altitudo iuxta rationem cubiti Geometrici Origenis contineret decem et octo cubitos vulgares, id est pedes septem et viginti; longitudo vero et latitudo eius altaris fuisset triginta cubitorum vulgarium, id est pedum quinque et quadraginta. At enim tanta eius altaris vastitas nulli ad sacrificia facienda usui esse poterat, et ob eius altitudinem non nisi scalis admotis ad aram eius ascendi potuisset; id autem a ritu sacrorum omnino abhorrebat, quin etiam vetitum a Deo fuerat, ut proditum est in capite vigesimo Exodi: Non ascendes, ait Deus, per gradus ad altare meum. Adhaec, in tertio capite Deuteronomii, ex magnitudine lecti Og regis Basan (qui erat longitudine novem cubitorum) significatur gigantea eius regis proceritas, quasi ea prope fuerit etiam novem cubitorum; novem autem cubita secundum rationem Geometricam Origenis continent de vul-...

And the minor premise of this our argument (I mean, that in other places Moses never fails to speak of the vulgar cubit) can be confirmed by many examples. In Exodus, ch. 27, God orders an altar to be made five cubits long, as many broad, and three cubits high; which height, by the reckoning of Origen’s geometric cubit, would contain eighteen vulgar cubits, that is twenty-seven feet; and the length and breadth of that altar would have been of thirty vulgar cubits, that is forty-five feet. But so great a vastness of that altar could be of no use for making sacrifices, and, because of its height, one could not have ascended to its hearth except by ladders set against it; and this was utterly abhorrent to the rite of the sacrifices — indeed it had been forbidden by God, as is recorded in the twentieth chapter of Exodus: ‘Thou shalt not go up,’ says God, ‘by steps to my altar.’ Besides, in the third chapter of Deuteronomy, from the size of the bed of Og, king of Bashan (which was nine cubits in length), is signified the gigantic tallness of that king, as though it was nearly even nine cubits; but nine cubits, according to Origen’s geometric reckoning, contain of vul-…¹¹

...gatis cubitis quinquaginta quatuor, id est pedes fere octoginta; at vero incredibile est eum regem aut ullum etiam mortalium tantae proceritatis unquam fuisse. Accedit ad haec, in libro primo Regum cap. 17 altitudinem gigantis Goliath describi sex cubitorum et palmi; quae mensura iuxta opinionem Origenis de cubitis Geometricis habet triginta sex cubita usitata, id est pedes quinquaginta quatuor; quare caput illius gigantis, secundum proportionem quam habet caput humanum ad reliquum corpus, fuisset prope novem pedum. Quomodo igitur David (ut eo loco scriptum est) caput Goliath a se abscissum (toto nempe se ipso grandius minimum tribus pedibus) manibus suis tollere et Hierusalem ferre potuisset?

…gar cubits fifty-four, that is nearly eighty feet; but it is incredible that that king, or even any mortal, was ever of such tallness. There is added to these: in the first book of Kings, ch. 17, the height of the giant Goliath is described as six cubits and a palm; which measure, according to Origen’s opinion of geometric cubits, has thirty-six usual cubits, that is fifty-four feet; wherefore the head of that giant, according to the proportion which the human head has to the rest of the body, would have been nearly nine feet. How, then, could David (as is written in that place) have lifted with his hands the head of Goliath cut off by him — bigger, namely, by at least three feet than his whole self — and carried it to Jerusalem?¹²

Ad extremum, secundum istam cubitorum Geometricorum mensuram, enormis atque incredibilis fuisset Arcae magnitudo; namque longitudo eius fuisset mille et octingentorum cubitorum, id est pedum bis mille septingentorum; latitudo trecentorum cubitorum, id est pedum quadringentorum quinquaginta; altitudo centum octoginta cubitorum, id est pedum ducentorum septuaginta. Denique capacitas Arcae continuisset nonagies septies millies mille et ducenta millia cubitorum; fuissetque maior et capacior quam Arca uti ea definita est a nobis secundum vulgaria cubita, ducenties decies sexies; quae tam immanis Arcae moles nec ulli fuisset usui (quaecunque enim in ea contenta sunt, minima eius particula capi et contineri poterant), nec videtur ulla ratione et opera hominum aedificari nec tractari potuisse. Teneamus igitur priorem Arcae magnitudinis descriptionem secundum usitata cubita; talis enim dimensio et capacitas Arcae, capiendis omnibus quae in eam illata dicuntur, abunde suffecit, quemadmodum paulo infra perspicue demonstrabitur.

Finally, according to that measure of geometric cubits, the magnitude of the Ark would have been enormous and incredible; for its length would have been one thousand eight hundred cubits, that is two thousand seven hundred feet; the breadth three hundred cubits, that is four hundred and fifty feet; the height one hundred and eighty cubits, that is two hundred and seventy feet. And finally the capacity of the Ark would have contained ninety-seven million two hundred thousand cubits, and would have been greater and more capacious than the Ark as it is defined by us according to the vulgar cubits, two hundred and sixteen times over; which so monstrous a mass of an Ark would have been of no use (for whatever is contained in it could be taken in and held in the smallest part of it), nor does it seem to have been able to be built or handled by any means and labor of men. Let us therefore hold the former description of the Ark’s magnitude according to the usual cubits; for such a dimension and capacity of the Ark amply sufficed for taking in all that is said to have been brought into it, as will be plainly demonstrated a little below.¹³

Translator’s notes

Heading of the Fifth Disputation of Book X. ↩
§27 (continues on p. 199): because the Ark seemed too small, some invented ‘geometric cubits’; Origen held Moses used these (1 geometric = 6 common = 9 feet); Augustine (City of God 15.27) reports it; a note correcting Hugh’s text. Margins: Origen; Acts 7; Augustine; Hugh of St. Victor. ↩
§27 (continued from p. 198): Apelles’s objection (the ark couldn’t hold four elephants) and Origen’s reply (Moses, learned in Egyptian geometry, used a numbering ‘from the solid and square’). Margins: Gen. 7; Acts 7; Origen. ↩
§28 (continues on p. 200): Buteo’s interpretation defending Origen — the Ark’s 450,000 cubic cubits; its base divisible into six 50×50 squares. Margins: John Buteo; ‘Buteo’s interpretation of Origen’s saying on geometric cubits set out and examined.’ ↩
§28 (continued from p. 199): Buteo — six × 75,000 = 450,000 (the ‘one reckoned for six’). ↩
§29: Buteo on the ‘one reckoned for three hundred’; he insists Origen meant not a geometric cubit but a geometric cubature, and that Origen needlessly obscured it. ↩
§30: but even on Buteo’s reading the Ark is no larger than by common cubits (he admits it) — yet Origen meant it to be far larger; why else divert the question from common cubits to a recondite geometric cubature? ↩
§31 (continues on p. 201): Pererius wonders why Buteo did not also interpret Origen’s other saying (against Celsus, base 90,000 × 25,000 cubits). ↩
§31 (continued from p. 200): perhaps Buteo had not read that passage, or found no fit interpretation and prudently passed it by; Hugh’s On the Mystical Sense of the Ark touches on it. ↩
§(refutation): in any case, the geometric-cubit view is refutable — such a cubit was never in use anywhere; and Moses everywhere else uses the common cubit, with no hint of a different one here. Margin: ‘Refutation of Origen’s opinion on the geometric cubits, by which he thinks Moses spoke here.’ ↩
§(examples, continues on p. 202): Moses always uses the common cubit — the altar (Exod. 27; cf. Exod. 20); Og’s bed (Deut. 3). Margins: Exod. 27; Exod. 20; Deut. 3. ↩
§(examples, continued from p. 201): Og would be ~80 ft tall, Goliath’s head ~9 ft (David could not have carried it) — absurd. Margin: 1 Kings 17. ↩
§32: with the geometric cubit the Ark’s size would be monstrous (1,800 × 300 × 180 cubits; capacity 97,200,000 cubits, 216× the ordinary), useless and unbuildable; so keep the ordinary cubit. Margin: ‘How great the Ark’s size would have been by Origen’s geometric cubits.’ ↩