LatineEnglish
SIXTH DISPUTATION. By whom and in how long a time the Ark was built.1
SEXTA DISPUTATIO. A quibus et quanto tempore aedificata sit Arca.
Mirantur nonnulli qui potuerit tantae molis opus a quatuor duntaxat hominibus (Noë dico et tres eius filii) absolvi. Verum ad hoc facilis est responsio; etenim licet illi quatuor principes fuerint eius operis artifices, credendum tamen est adhibitos fuisse alios complures operarios mercede conductos; nam quamvis illi non crederent Noë praenuncianti venturum diluvium, lucri tamen gratia libenter ad perficiendum id operis operas suas locabant. Pensandum item est tempus centum annorum construendae arcae consumptum; namque longinquitas fabricationis paucitatem fabricantium compensat; perinde enim est paucos homines centum annis...
Some wonder how a work of so great a mass could be finished by four men only — Noah, I mean, and his three sons. But to this the answer is easy; for although those four were the chief craftsmen of the work, yet it must be believed that many other workmen, hired for wages, were employed; for although those did not believe Noah foretelling that the Flood would come, yet for the sake of gain they willingly hired out their labor for the completing of that work. It must likewise be weighed that a hundred years’ time was spent in building the ark; for the length of the building offsets the fewness of the builders; for it is the same thing for a few men in a hundred years…2
...opus illud perfecisse, atque si plures uno anno absolvissent.
…to have finished that work, as if more men had completed it in one year.3
Constat certe, auctore Athenaeo, Hieronem Siciliae regem navigium illud incredibilis magnitudinis — in quo erat triplex contignatio, et apparatus materiae triremium sexaginta, remigationisve ordinum viginti — cum iam advecta esset materia ex Aetna monte, intra unum annum consummavisse, adhibitis operi faciundo trecentis fabris (praeter administros fabricae subservientes), Architecto operis Archia Corinthio.
It is certain, on the authority of Athenaeus, that Hiero, king of Sicily, completed that ship of incredible magnitude — in which there was a triple decking, and the apparatus of material of sixty triremes, or twenty banks of rowing — within one year, when the material had already been brought from Mount Aetna, three hundred workmen being employed in making the work (besides the assistants serving the building), the architect of the work being Archias of Corinth.4
Illud sane permagnum et memorabile videtur, quod de Ephesino templo Dianae a Plinio libro decimosexto capite quadragesimo est proditum, quadringentis annis perfectum esse tota Asia exstruente; quanquam idem Plinius libro trigesimosexto capite 14 duplo breviorem eius templi aedificationem facit, scribens ducentis annis a tota Asia fuisse fabricatum, ut alterutrum locum aut Plinii lapsu memoriae aut librariorum negligentiae vel inscitiae culpa mendosum esse necesse sit. Ad eundem modum B. Augustinus supradictam quaestionem explicat libro 15 de Civitate Dei capite ultimo. Nam illud, inquit, quod quidam disputant tantae magnitudinis arcam non potuisse compingi, ineptissime calumniantur, cum sciant immensas urbes fuisse constructas, nec attendunt centum annos quibus arca illa est fabricata. Nisi forte lapis lapidi adhaerere potest sola calce coniunctus ut murus per tot millia circumagatur, et lignum ligno per subscudines, clavos et gluten bituminis non potest adhaerere ut fabricetur arca, non curvis sed rectis lineis longe lateque porrecta, quam nullus in mare mittat conatus hominum, sed levet unda cum venerit naturali ordine ponderum, magisque divina providentia quam humana prudentia natantem gubernet ne incurrat ubicunque naufragium. Sic Augustinus.
Indeed it seems very great and memorable, what is recorded by Pliny in book 16, ch. 40, about the temple of Diana at Ephesus: that it was completed in four hundred years, all Asia building it; although the same Pliny, in book 36, ch. 14, makes the building of that temple half as long, writing that it was built in two hundred years by all Asia — so that one or the other passage must necessarily be faulty, either by Pliny’s lapse of memory, or by the fault of the copyists’ negligence or ignorance. In the same manner the blessed Augustine explains the aforesaid question, in book 15 of The City of God, the last chapter. ‘For,’ he says, ‘what some argue — that an ark of so great a magnitude could not be put together — they most absurdly cavil, since they know that immense cities have been built, and do not attend to the hundred years in which that ark was built. Unless, perhaps, stone can cling to stone, joined by lime alone, so that a wall runs around for so many miles, and wood cannot cling to wood by dovetails, nails, and the glue of bitumen, so that an ark be built — stretched out far and wide not with curved but with straight lines, which no effort of men would launch into the sea, but the wave would lift when it came, by the natural order of weights, and which divine providence rather than human prudence would steer as it floated, lest it anywhere suffer shipwreck.’ Thus Augustine.5
Nec est hoc loco quaestio illa silentio involvenda, quanto tempore fabricata sit arca Noë. Berosus Annianus ait anno septuagesimo octavo ab inchoata navi quae instar arcae cooperta erat ex improviso accidisse diluvium; ex quo significatur septuaginta octo annos in fabricanda arca esse consumptos. Hanc Berosi sententiam in suis Commentariis exponens Ioannes Annius: Dubitabatur, inquit, de eo quod dixit Berosus arcam fabricari coeptam anno septuagesimo octavo ante diluvium, cum centum viginti annos supputet Moses capite sexto Geneseos. Sed ad hoc respondendum est mandatum fabricandae arcae accepisse Noë centum viginti annis ante diluvium, ut significat Moses; quadraginta vero et duobus annis praeparavit ligna Noe, ob immensitatem operis faciundi; unde anno sequente, qui erat septuagesimus octavus ante diluvium, inceptum est arcae opificium, ut Berosus supputat. Sic ille. Sed has ego vel fabulosas Berosi traditiones, vel (quod verius est) fictitias Annii commentationes atque interpretationes pro nihilo ducendas puto. Nam unde, quaeso, innotuit Beroso vel Annio duos et quadraginta annos, dum comparatur materia aedificationis arcae, praeteriisse? Cum igitur hoc illi sine gravi auctoritate, sine probabili ratione, sine aliqua verisimili coniectura dixerint, qua facilitate dictum est, eadem facilitate contemni aequum est.
Nor is that question here to be wrapped in silence: in how long a time was the ark of Noah built. Berosus Annianus says that in the seventy-eighth year from the beginning of the ship which was covered after the manner of an ark, the Flood happened unexpectedly; whereby it is signified that seventy-eight years were spent in building the ark. Expounding this opinion of Berosus in his Commentaries, John Annius: ‘It was doubted,’ he says, ‘about what Berosus said — that the ark began to be built in the seventy-eighth year before the Flood — since Moses reckons a hundred and twenty years in the sixth chapter of Genesis. But to this it must be answered that Noah received the command to build the ark a hundred and twenty years before the Flood, as Moses signifies; but for forty-two years Noah prepared the timber, on account of the immensity of the work to be done; whence in the following year, which was the seventy-eighth before the Flood, the building of the ark was begun, as Berosus reckons.’ Thus he. But these — whether the fabulous traditions of Berosus, or (what is truer) the fictitious comments and interpretations of Annius — I judge are to be counted as nothing. For whence, I ask, did it become known to Berosus or Annius that forty-two years passed while the material for building the ark was being procured? Since, then, they said this without weighty authority, without probable reason, without any likely conjecture, with the same ease with which it was said, it is fair that it be despised.6
Est altera pervetus et pervulgata Doctorum sententia, centum annis fabricatam esse arcam Noë. Nimirum hoc tradit Origenes libro quarto contra Celsum, Augustinus libro 15 de Civitate Dei capite ultimo et lib. 12 Contra Faustum cap. 18 et in libro Quaestionum in Genesim quaest. 5, Gregorius praeterea homilia 15 in Ezechielem, et Rupertus lib. 4 Commentariorum in Genesim cap. 20; denique his posteriorum doctorum eadem fere sententia est. Sed unde hoc isti colligunt? Videlicet eo quod Moses, cum extremo capite quinto dixisset Noë quingentorum fuisse annorum, proxime subiungit cum alia Dei verba dicta Noë, tum in primis mandatum Dei de fabricanda arca ei datum; erat igitur Noë quingentorum annorum cum iussus a Deo est fabricare arcam. Nec sit credibile Noë mandatum Dei de constructione arcae longum in tempus exequi distulisse, quin potius quamprimum facere opus aggressum, omni studio et opera ad eius operis effectionem et absolutionem incubuisse. Diluvium porro evenit anno vitae Noë sexcentesimo, scilicet statim ut finita est structura arcae. Ergo arcae confectio ab anno quingentesimo Noë usque ad annum eius sexcentesimum, id est per annos centum, duravit. Sic isti ratiocinantur.
There is another, very old and very widespread opinion of the Doctors: that the ark of Noah was built in a hundred years. This Origen hands down in the fourth book against Celsus; Augustine in book 15 of The City of God, the last chapter, and in book 12 Against Faustus, ch. 18, and in the book of Questions on Genesis, q. 5; Gregory, moreover, in homily 15 on Ezekiel; and Rupert in book 4 of the Commentaries on Genesis, ch. 20; and finally, of the later doctors the opinion is nearly the same. But whence do these men gather this? Namely, from this: that Moses, when at the end of the fifth chapter he had said that Noah was five hundred years old, next subjoins both other words of God spoken to Noah, and especially the command of God given to him about building the ark; Noah, therefore, was five hundred years old when he was ordered by God to build the ark. Nor is it credible that Noah put off carrying out God’s command about the construction of the ark for a long time, but rather that he set about the work as soon as possible and applied himself with all zeal and effort to its execution and completion. And the Flood came in the six-hundredth year of Noah’s life — namely, as soon as the building of the ark was finished. Therefore the making of the ark lasted from the five-hundredth year of Noah up to his six-hundredth, that is, for a hundred years. So these men reason.7
Verum has coniecturas quibus fulcitur et firmatur istorum opinio non esse valde firmas, etiam me non monente, facile lector per se animadvertet. Neque enim certum est quanto tempore post quingentesimum annum Noë datum fuerit mandatum ei de fabricanda arca, nec liquet quo tempore finita sit eius fabrica. Non enim, quia Moses memorato quingentesimo anno Noë subtexuit Dei mandatum de constructione arcae, propterea sequitur ut illo ipso anno quingentesimo datum sit illud mandatum; cum frequenter et Moses et alii scriptores sacri multa coniungant in sua narratione quae fuerunt inter se longis temporum intervallis disiuncta. Sane B. Augustinus, qui libro 15 De Civitate Dei capite 24 dixit verba Dei quae Moses capite sexto narrat dicta Noë fuisse ei dicta cum is quadringentorum et octoginta annorum esset, hoc est centum et viginti annis ante diluvium, consequens esse videbatur ut diceret arcam per centum et viginti annos fuisse constructam.
But that these conjectures, by which the opinion of these men is propped and supported, are not very firm, the reader will easily perceive of himself, even without my pointing it out. For it is not certain how long after the five-hundredth year of Noah the command about building the ark was given him, nor is it clear at what time its building was finished. For it does not follow, because Moses, having mentioned the five-hundredth year of Noah, appended God’s command about the construction of the ark, that the command was therefore given in that very five-hundredth year; since frequently both Moses and other sacred writers join in their narrative many things that were separated from each other by long intervals of time. Indeed, the blessed Augustine, who in book 15 of The City of God, ch. 24, said that the words of God which Moses in the sixth chapter relates to have been spoken to Noah were spoken to him when he was four hundred and eighty years old — that is, a hundred and twenty years before the Flood — it would seem to follow that he should say the ark was built over a hundred and twenty years.8
Ceterum multo minus centum annis arcam esse fabricatam posset fortasse quispiam argumentari ex illis verbis quae Deum locutum esse Noë narrat Moses capite sexto: Ponam foedus meum tecum, et ingredieris arcam tu et filii tui et uxores filiorum tuorum; his enim verbis significatur, quo tempore Deus praecepit Noë de arca extruenda, iam eo tempore filios Noë habuisse uxores. Ex quo sequeretur, si centum annis ante diluvium arca fabricari coepta est, etiam filios Noë centum annis ante diluvium uxores habuisse, quod profecto perspicue falsum est et contrarium divinae scripturae quae cap. 11 Geneseos narrat Sem filium Noë finito diluvio fuisse centum annorum; ergo Sem centum annis ante diluvium natus est, quomodo igitur id tempo-...
But someone might perhaps argue that the ark was built in far less than a hundred years, from those words which Moses in the sixth chapter relates that God spoke to Noah: ‘I will set my covenant with thee, and thou shalt enter the ark, thou and thy sons and the wives of thy sons’; for by these words it is signified that, at the time God commanded Noah about building the ark, Noah’s sons already had wives. From which it would follow that, if the ark began to be built a hundred years before the Flood, Noah’s sons too had wives a hundred years before the Flood — which is plainly false and contrary to divine Scripture, which in chapter 11 of Genesis relates that Shem, Noah’s son, was, when the Flood was over, a hundred years old; therefore Shem was born a hundred years before the Flood; how, then, at that ti-…9
...ris uxorem ille habere potuit? Verum a communis sententiae sectatoribus atque propugnatoribus responderi ad hoc posset non omnia quae narrat Moses hoc capite Deum esse locutum Noë uno atque eodem tempore locutum esse, sed alia prius, alia posterius, licet ea omnia Moses continenti serie et contextu narrationis coniungat; itaque mandatum illud extruendae arcae datum ei fuisse centum annis ante diluvium, illud autem de ingressu filiorum Noë eorumque uxorum in arcam mandatum esse structura arcae vel iam plane finita vel prope absoluta. Nisi forte magis illud placeat, omnia haec Deum eodem tempore locutum esse, sed illud de filiis Noë et uxoribus eorum ingressuris in arcam dixisse Deum non tanquam iam praesens, sed ut futurum multo ante denunciasse; ut hoc Deum dixisse et significasse Noë cogitemus: Fac tibi arcam quo possis venturi diluvii cladem effugere; in arcam porro intrabis tu et uxor tua et filii tui qui nuper tibi nati sunt, aut (si nondum nati fuerant) qui nascentur tibi, et insuper uxores filiorum tuorum quas illi suo tempore ducturi sunt; ut hisce verbis significare Deus voluerit quos ipse quotque homines ex diluvii exitio servare constituisset. Quanquam igitur sententia communis de centum annis fabricationis Arcae non admodum firmis rationibus fulciatur, quod ea tamen pervetus sit multorumque atque gravium auctorum, nec quanto plus minusve centum annis fabricata sit arca demonstrari possit, idcirco videtur ea opinio merito praeferenda ceteris.
…me could he have had a wife? But to this the followers and defenders of the common opinion could answer that not all that Moses relates in this chapter that God spoke to Noah was spoken at one and the same time, but some things earlier, some later, although Moses joins them all in a continuous series and context of narrative; and so that the command to build the ark was given him a hundred years before the Flood, but that about the entry of Noah’s sons and their wives into the ark was commanded when the building of the ark was already plainly finished, or nearly completed. Unless perhaps this pleases more: that God spoke all these things at the same time, but said that about Noah’s sons and their wives entering the ark not as a present thing, but announced it long beforehand as future — so that we may think that God said and signified this to Noah: ‘Make thee an ark, that thou mayest escape the calamity of the coming Flood; and thou shalt enter the ark, thou and thy wife and thy sons who have lately been born to thee, or (if they were not yet born) who shall be born to thee, and besides the wives of thy sons, whom they will marry in their time’ — so that by these words God meant to signify whom, and how many men, he had determined to save from the destruction of the Flood. Although, therefore, the common opinion about the hundred years of the Ark’s building is not supported by very firm reasons, yet, because it is very ancient and of many and weighty authors, and since it cannot be demonstrated how much more or less than a hundred years the ark was built, that opinion seems deservedly to be preferred to the rest.10
Translator’s notes
- Heading of the Sixth Disputation of Book X. ↩
- §33 (continues on p. 203): could four men build it? — hired workmen helped; and a hundred years’ span offsets the fewness of the builders. ↩
- §33 (continued from p. 202): the close of the comparison. ↩
- §34: Hiero of Syracuse’s vast ship (triple-decked, made in one year by 300 craftsmen) — Athenaeus. Margins: Athenaeus, bk. 5; ‘Hiero’s ship, a thing to wonder at.’ ↩
- §35: the temple of Diana at Ephesus took 400 (or 200) years (Pliny — a discrepancy in his own books); Augustine answers the objection (City of God 15.27). Margins: Pliny; Augustine. ↩
- §36 (continues on p. 204): how long the Ark was building — Berosus/Annius (78 years) rejected as a baseless fabrication. Margins: ‘In how long a time the Ark was built’; Berosus Annianus. ↩
- §37: the old common view — the Ark was 100 years in building (Origen, Augustine, Gregory, Rupert), inferred from Noah being 500 at the command and 600 at the Flood. Margins: ‘Whether the Ark was built in a hundred years’; Origen; Augustine; Gregory; Rupert. ↩
- §38: but these conjectures are weak — the time of the command and of the finishing are both uncertain; Scripture often joins things far apart in time (Augustine put the command 120 years before the Flood). Margin: Augustine. ↩
- §39 (continues on p. 205): one might argue for far less than 100 years from Gen 6:18 (the sons already had wives), since Shem was only 100 two years after the Flood. ↩
- §39 (continued from p. 204): the answer — not all God said was spoken at once; the command came 100 years before, the entry-clause later (or as a foretelling). The 100-year view, though weakly grounded, is preferred as ancient and well-attested. ↩