FOURTH DISPUTATION. Why God willed that of the clean animals neither more nor fewer than seven be received into the ark — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

FOURTH DISPUTATION. Why God willed that of the clean animals neither more nor fewer than seven be received into the ark.

QUARTA DISPUTATIO. Cur voluit Deus de mundis animalibus nec plura nec pauciora quam septem in arcam recipi.

BEATUS Ambrosius de Arca et Noë cap. 12 causam eius rei ad mysticam septenarii numeri virtutem et praestantiam refert. Etenim septenarius denotat munditiam, integritatem et perfectionem: at vero binarius, tanquam primus numerorum ab unitate recedens, dissensionem, discordiam, immunditiam et imperfectionem significat. Sed Ambrosii verba, explanantis illud de mundis septem et septem, sic habent: Et ut ego arbitror, inire mundam asserit hebdomadam, quia mundus et sacer septenarius numerus est. Nulli enim miscetur, nec ab alio generatur, idemque Virgo dicitur, quia nihil ex se generat. Meritoque, tanquam materni exors immunisque partus muliebris copula, etsi hebdomas femineo nuncupetur nomine, virilis habet sanctificationis gratiam. Secundus autem numerus non est plenus, quia divisus; quod autem non est plenum, vacuum habetur. Septimus autem numerus plenus est, quia hebdomas, ut decas, et similis illius primi, quia factus est ad similitudinem illius qui est semper, a quo profluunt et moventur quae sunt in omni genere virtutes. Haec Ambrosius.

St. Ambrose, in On the Ark and Noah, chapter 12, refers the cause of this matter to the mystical power and excellence of the number seven. For the number seven denotes cleanness, integrity, and perfection; but the number two, as the first of the numbers receding from unity, signifies dissension, discord, uncleanness, and imperfection. But the words of Ambrose, explaining that phrase “of the clean, seven and seven,” are these: “And as I judge, he declares that one enters upon a clean hebdomad, because the number seven is clean and sacred. For it is mixed with none, nor generated by another, and the same is called ‘Virgin,’ because it generates nothing from itself. And deservedly — as being free from and untouched by any maternal birth or womanly union — although the hebdomad is named with a feminine name, it has the grace of a manly sanctification. But the second number is not full, because it is divided; and what is not full is held to be empty. But the seventh number is full, because the hebdomad is like the decad, and is similar to that first [number], because it was made in the likeness of him who is always, from whom flow and are moved the virtues that are in every kind.” This [says] Ambrose.¹

SED Chrysostomus, tractans hanc ipsam quaestionem cur de mundis animalibus septem introducta in arcam, vehementer irridet eos qui causam huius rei ex arcanis numerorum virtutibus arcessunt: quin etiam huiusmodi ex numeris depromptas sacrarum rerum interpretationes et fabulosas et periculosas esse, utpote ab haereticis confictas, affirmat. Ad hunc enim modum scribit: Multi varias de hac re fabulas narrant, et hinc occasione sumpta observationes numerorum ostendunt. At non observatio, sed intempestiva hominum curiositas talia fingere molitur: unde et multae haereses sunt ortae, quod statim scietis. Etenim frequenter (ut videamur quasi ex abundantia eos qui ex suis opinionibus nova afferunt compescere) invenimus in scripturis numerum parem commendatum. Quippe quando Dominus misit discipulos, binos eos misit, et Apostoli omnes duodecim erant, et quatuor numero sunt Evangelia. At supervacaneum fuerit haec apud charitatem vestram commemorare, quae satis didicit huiusmodi dictis obturare aures.

But Chrysostom, treating this very question — why seven of the clean animals were brought into the ark — vehemently mocks those who fetch the cause of this matter from the hidden powers of numbers; nay, he even affirms that interpretations of sacred things of this kind, drawn from numbers, are both fabulous and dangerous, as being fabricated by heretics. For he writes in this manner: “Many tell various fables about this matter, and, taking occasion thence, set forth observances of numbers. But it is not observance, but the untimely curiosity of men, that contrives to invent such things: whence also many heresies have arisen, as you shall presently learn. For frequently (that we may seem, as it were, out of abundance, to restrain those who bring forward novelties out of their own opinions) we find in the Scriptures an even number commended. For when the Lord sent the disciples, he sent them two by two (Luke 10), and the Apostles were all twelve, and the Gospels are four in number. But it would be superfluous to recall these things before your Charity, which has sufficiently learned to stop its ears against sayings of this kind.”²

Post haec Chrysostomus subdit veram causam cur ex mundis animalibus septem introducta sint in arcam, quam nos paulo supra exposuimus. Ad extremum autem hisce verbis concludit disputationem Chrysostomus: Didicistis causam ob quam septena introducere praeceptum fuerit. Num posthac tolerabitis eos qui fabulari, divinaeque scripturae ordinem turbare, et quae ex suo capite finxerunt introducere nituntur? Hactenus ex Chrysostomo. Credo equidem verba haec Chrysostomi non esse dicta adversus Ambrosium aliosque…

After this Chrysostom subjoins the true cause why seven of the clean animals were brought into the ark — which we set forth a little above. And at the end Chrysostom concludes the disputation with these words: “You have learned the cause for which it was commanded to bring in seven. Will you henceforth tolerate those who strive to tell fables, and to disturb the order of divine Scripture, and to bring in the things which they have invented out of their own head?” Thus far from Chrysostom. For my part, I believe these words of Chrysostom were not spoken against Ambrose and others…³

…quamplurimos et gravissimos doctores Ecclesiae, qui in explicatione sacrarum literarum tractatuque rerum divinarum multa de numeris acute, docte, pie atque utiliter disputarunt. Sed ea valere adversus haereticos — Simonem dico, Valentinum, Basilidem, Marcionem et Gnosticos — qui fabulosis numerorum mysteriis absurdos et impios errores suos adornabant, et imperitis probare studebant.

…the very many and most weighty doctors of the Church, who, in the explanation of sacred letters and the treatment of divine things, have disputed much about numbers acutely, learnedly, piously, and usefully. But that [Chrysostom's words] hold good against the heretics — I mean Simon, Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion, and the Gnostics — who used to dress up their absurd and impious errors with fabulous mysteries of numbers, and strove to prove them to the unskilled.⁴

OMNINO inficias nemo ibit, septenarium numerum plurimis rebus in divina Scriptura nobilitatum atque commendatum et quasi consecratum esse. Quis nescit in veteri testamento septimum hebdomadis diem, septimum anni mensem, et septimum quemque annum, denique eum qui septem hebdomadas annorum consequebatur, quinquagesimum annum Iubilaeo dicatum — haec, inquam, fuisse sacrosancta et summa religione ac veneratione a Iudaeis celebrata? Non persequar alia quamplurima septenario numero insignita et commendata in sacris literis, ne in re nota et pervulgata multus sim et insolens.

No one at all will deny that the number seven is, in very many things, ennobled and commended and, as it were, consecrated in divine Scripture. Who does not know that in the Old Testament the seventh day of the week, the seventh month of the year, and every seventh year, and finally that fiftieth year which followed seven weeks of years, dedicated to the Jubilee (Lev. 25) — these things, I say, were celebrated by the Jews as most sacred and with the highest religion and veneration? I will not pursue the very many other things marked and commended by the number seven in the sacred writings, lest in a matter known and widely published I be prolix and tiresome.⁵

Sed ut hoc verum est, ita nec illud non est verissimum, septenarium numerum etiam in rebus pessimis et execrandis saepenumero esse positum et usurpatum in sacra Scriptura. Immundus spiritus (inquit Lucas cap. 11) assumit septem alios spiritus nequiores se. Marcus narrat capite ultimo Dominum ex Magdalena septem daemonia eiecisse. Ioannes in Apocalypsi vidit draconem habentem septem capita et septem diademata, et nominat septem plagas terrae et septem phialas irae Dei. Dixit quidem David: Septies in die laudem dixi tibi; at filius eius Salomon dixit: septies in die cadit iustus. Apparet igitur eosdem numeros aeque in bonis atque in malis poni et usurpari in sacra Scriptura.

But as this is true, so neither is that untrue in the highest degree — that the number seven is also, in the worst and most execrable things, very often set down and employed in sacred Scripture. “The unclean spirit” (says Luke, ch. 11) “takes seven other spirits worse than himself.” Mark narrates, in the last chapter, that the Lord cast seven demons out of Magdalene. John in the Apocalypse saw a dragon having seven heads and seven diadems (Apoc. 12), and names seven plagues of the earth and seven vials of the wrath of God (Apoc. 15, 16). David indeed said: “Seven times a day I have given praise to thee” (Ps. 118); but his son Solomon said: “Seven times a day the just man falls” (Eccl. 7). It appears, therefore, that the same numbers are set down and employed equally in good things and in evil in sacred Scripture.⁶

QUAE igitur est vera et germana causa cur nec plura nec pauciora quam septem de mundis animalibus admissa sint in arcam? Difficile est divinare, sed illud fortasse non videbitur lectori prorsus improbabile: tria paria mundorum animalium eo servata esse, quod eiusmodi animalium conservatio tres ob causas esset necessaria. Primo quidem ad propagationem speciei, et ad hunc finem servatum est unum par. Deinde ad esum, nam post diluvium vescendi animalibus copia hominibus a Deo facta est, et ob hanc ipsam causam altero pari eorum animalium opus fuit. Denique ad usum sacrificiorum, et huius rei gratia tertium par conservari debuit. Ecce tibi, cur de mundis animalibus sex conservata sint. Septimum porro animal, quod erat mas solitarius, id est, sine coniuge femina, destinatum est sacrificio mox post diluvium faciendo, sicut factum est a Noë.

What, then, is the true and genuine cause why neither more nor fewer than seven of the clean animals were admitted into the ark? It is difficult to divine, but perhaps this will not seem to the reader altogether improbable: that three pairs of clean animals were preserved because the preservation of such animals was necessary for three causes. First, for the propagation of the species, and to this end one pair was preserved. Next, for eating, for after the flood the abundance of eating animals was given to men by God, and for this very cause a second pair of those animals was needed. Finally, for the use of sacrifices, and for the sake of this a third pair had to be preserved. Behold, then, why six of the clean animals were preserved. The seventh animal, moreover, which was a solitary male — that is, without a mate female — was destined for the sacrifice to be made soon after the flood, as was done by Noah.⁷

Oportuit autem esse marem, quia mas perfectior est femina, ob idque congruentior atque decentior divinis sacrificiis. Ad huius rei exemplum et similitudinem (ut hoc etiam velut in transcursu attingam) viros esse eos oportet, et sine coniuge feminas — id est, virili animo magnoque virtutis robore praeditos, omnique animi quasi feminea mollitie et infirmitate exutos — quicunque, seculo renunciato, in statu religioso seipsi spirituali[ter]…

And it had to be a male, because the male is more perfect than the female, and for that reason more congruent and more fitting for divine sacrifices. After the example and likeness of this matter (that I may touch on this too, as it were in passing): those men ought to be males, and without a mate female — that is, endowed with a manly spirit and great strength of virtue, and stripped of all, as it were, womanish softness and weakness of soul — whosoever, having renounced the world, in the religious state spiritual[ly]…⁸

…spiritualiter mactant et sacrificant Deo, ut in carne viventes extra carnem vivant, id est, ab omnibus carnis voluptatibus et oblectationibus, etiam per se non illicitis, seiugati et penitus abstracti.

…spiritually slay and sacrifice themselves to God, so that, living in the flesh, they may live outside the flesh — that is, separated and utterly withdrawn from all pleasures and delights of the flesh, even those not in themselves unlawful.⁹

CETERUM de numero animalium quae ingressa sunt in arcam, restant nonnullae dubitationes paucis expediendae. Prima dubitatio: Cur Deus, cum primo praecepit Noë de numero animalium quae recipienda erant in arcam, tantum generatim et praecise iussit bina de qualibet specie tolli (ut habes sub finem sexti Capitis: De cunctis, inquit, animantibus bina induces in arcam), cum tamen paulo infra, initio septimi Capitis, distincte iubeat tolli de immundis bina, de mundis autem septena? Respondendum est: cum prius iussit Deus tolli bina, illud bina non significat multitudinem introducendorum animalium — hanc enim infra expressit, distinguendo genera animalium mundorum et immundorum, et indicando de utrolibet istorum quot sumi deberent — sed illud bina significat combinationem sive coniugationem utriusque sexus, masculini et feminini. Unde protinus ipse subiunxit: Bina tolles, masculini sexus et feminini. Noluit enim sumi aut omnes aut plures masculos vel feminas, sed pariter mares cum feminis, et cum sua quemque marem femina coniugatum.

But concerning the number of animals that entered the ark, there remain some doubts to be dispatched in a few words. The first doubt: Why did God, when he first commanded Noah about the number of animals that were to be received into the ark, command only generally and precisely that two of each species be taken (as you have toward the end of the sixth chapter: “Of all living creatures,” he says, “thou shalt bring two into the ark”), while yet a little after, at the beginning of the seventh chapter, he distinctly commands two to be taken of the unclean, but seven of the clean? It must be answered: when God first commanded two to be taken, that word “two” does not signify the multitude of animals to be brought in — for this he expressed below, by distinguishing the kinds of clean and unclean animals, and by indicating how many of either of these were to be taken — but that “two” signifies the combination or pairing of both sexes, male and female. Whence he immediately subjoined: “Two thou shalt take, of the male sex and the female.” For he did not wish either all, or many, males or females to be taken, but males together with females in equal number, and each male paired with its own female.¹⁰

ALTERA dubitatio: Cur Moses, loquens de duplici sexu animalium introducendorum in arcam, nunc appellat marem et feminam, aliquando vero uxorem et maritum? Nam pro eo quod nostra translatio habet cap. 7 (ex omnibus animantibus mundis tolles septena et septena, masculum et feminam; de animantibus vero immundis duo et duo, masculum et feminam), pro illo, inquam, quod bis dicitur, masculum et feminam, Hebraice bis pariter ad verbum est, Uxorem et maritum. Hanc dubitationem Caietanus super eum locum ita solvit: Maris, ait, et feminae vocabulo utitur Moses ad significandum diversitatem sexus; metaphora autem mariti et uxoris utitur ad significandum aetatem maris et feminae aptam ad generandum et multiplicandum: ut explicaretur quod, nec ex nido nec vetuli, sed aetatis iuvenilis, tam mas quam femina salvarentur. Haec Caietanus.

The second doubt: Why does Moses, speaking of the double sex of the animals to be brought into the ark, now call them “male and female,” but sometimes “wife and husband”? For in place of what our translation has at chapter 7 (“of all clean living creatures thou shalt take seven and seven, the male and the female; but of the unclean living creatures two and two, the male and the female”) — in place, I say, of that which is said twice, “the male and the female” — the Hebrew has, likewise twice, word for word, “wife and husband.” Cajetan, on that passage, solves this doubt thus: “Moses uses the word ‘male and female,’” he says, “to signify the diversity of sex; but he uses the metaphor of ‘husband and wife’ to signify the age of the male and female suitable for generating and multiplying: so that it might be explained that the [animals] saved were neither nestlings nor too old, but of youthful age, both male and female.” This [says] Cajetan.¹¹

Sed quia illud nomen uxoris et mariti non generatim nec indifferenter in quolibet genere animalium posuit Moses, sed in iumentis tantum et in terrestribus animantibus, non autem in avibus, idcirco solutio Caietani difficultatem non omnino exhaurit. Quocirca Oleaster ita eam solvit, dicens in iumentis modum commixtionis feminae cum mare, ipsaque generationis membra, similiora esse humanis quam in genere avium; et ob id illis potius quam his nomen uxoris et mariti merito fuisse tributum.

But because Moses placed that word “wife and husband” not generally nor indifferently in every kind of animal, but only in beasts of burden and in land animals, and not in birds, therefore Cajetan's solution does not entirely exhaust the difficulty. Wherefore Oleaster solves it thus, saying that in beasts of burden the manner of the female's mingling with the male, and the very members of generation, are more similar to human ones than in the kind of birds; and on this account the name “wife and husband” was deservedly attributed to those rather than to these.¹²

TERTIA dubitatio: Cur Moses, loquens de iumentis sive terrestribus animantibus, distinxit ea in munda atque immunda; de avibus autem loquens, non eas distinxit in mundas et immundas, sed, quasi omne genus avium esset mundum, simpliciter de avibus dixit tollenda esse septena — at non pauca genera avium fuisse olim immunda patet ex undecimo capite Levitici et decimo quarto Deuteronomii?

The third doubt: Why did Moses, speaking of beasts of burden or land animals, distinguish them into clean and unclean; but, speaking of birds, did not distinguish them into clean and unclean, but, as though every kind of bird were clean, simply said of the birds that seven were to be taken — whereas that not a few kinds of birds were formerly unclean is plain from the eleventh chapter of Leviticus and the fourteenth of Deuteronomy?¹³

Huic dubitationi tribus modis occurri potest. Primo, si dicatur distinctionem mundi et immundi non fuisse in avibus observatam ante promulgationem legis Mosaicae. Deinde potest dici quod ait Carthusianus, Mosen, insinuandi alicuius mysterii gratia, distinctionem mundi et immundi in avibus tacuisse: nempe ut ea re significaretur admixtionem mundi et immundi in his versari, qui ad similitudinem terrestrium animalium terrenarum rerum studiis curisque distinentur atque implicantur, vel qui adhuc in terris vitam degunt; horum enim alii sunt mundi, alii vero immundi.

This doubt can be met in three ways. First, if it be said that the distinction of clean and unclean was not observed in birds before the promulgation of the Mosaic law. Next, it can be said, as the Carthusian says, that Moses, for the sake of insinuating some mystery, kept silent about the distinction of clean and unclean in birds — namely, that by this it might be signified that the mixture of clean and unclean is found in those who, after the likeness of land animals, are detained and entangled in the pursuits and cares of earthly things, or who still pass their life on earth; for of these, some are clean, others unclean.¹⁴

At in his qui, similes volucrum caeli, animos mentesque suas tollunt ad sublimium et divinarum rerum contemplationem, et quorum (ut dixit Apostolus) conversatio in caelis est; vel qui, terrenis corporibus exuti, iam evolarunt ad caelestes et beatas sedes — in his, inquam, distinctio mundi et immundi locum habet plane nullum. Scriptum enim est in Apocalypsi nihil coinquinatum et immundum in caelestem illam beatarum mentium patriam intrare.

But in those who, like the birds of heaven, lift up their souls and minds to the contemplation of sublime and divine things, and whose “conversation” (as the Apostle said) “is in heaven” (Phil. 3); or who, stripped of their earthly bodies, have already flown up to the heavenly and blessed seats — in these, I say, the distinction of clean and unclean has plainly no place. For it is written in the Apocalypse that nothing defiled and unclean enters into that heavenly fatherland of the blessed minds.¹⁵

Sed illud verius dictu est, Mosen distinctionem mundi et immundi brevitatis causa in avibus tacuisse, verum quam proxime ante in iumentis sive terrestribus animantibus expresserat, eandem voluisse in avibus intelligi. Magnam facit huic interpretationi fidem translatio Septuaginta Interpretum, quae etiam in avibus distinctionem mundi et immundi expresse posuit. Namque initio septimi capitis sic habet illa: Et a volatilibus caeli mundis septem septem, masculum et feminam; et ab omnibus volatilibus immundis duo duo, masculum et feminam. Ergo, quod Mosen studio brevitatis tacuisse putarunt, hoc ipsi, quo dilucidius Mosis sententiam exprimerent, distincte et expresse addiderunt.

But this is more truly said: that Moses kept silent about the distinction of clean and unclean in birds for the sake of brevity, but wished the same [distinction], which he had just before expressed in beasts of burden or land animals, to be understood in birds. Great credit is given to this interpretation by the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, which expressly placed the distinction of clean and unclean in birds also. For at the beginning of the seventh chapter it has thus: “And of the clean fowls of heaven, seven seven, the male and the female; and of all the unclean fowls, two two, the male and the female.” Therefore, what they supposed Moses had kept silent about out of a zeal for brevity, this the Seventy themselves, in order to express the meaning of Moses more clearly, added distinctly and expressly.¹⁶

QUARTA dubitatio: An de his quae de numero animalium introducendorum in arcam scripsit Moses, omnes translationes inter se congruant, et cum Hebraica scriptura concordent? Non omnino congruunt, sed quibusdam rebus (levissimis tamen) dissonant. Quadruplex autem varietas hoc loco annotari potest. Primo, sub finem sexti capitis, tam Latina translatio quam paraphrasis Chaldaica et Scriptura Hebraica habet semel, et sine geminatione eiusdem numeri, bina animalia esse inducenda in arcam; Septuaginta autem interpretes habent eundem numerum geminatum, dicentes, duo, duo. Deinde, in exordio septimi capitis, Latina translatio et Septuaginta interpretum habent ex immundis animalibus sumenda esse duo et duo; Hebraice vero et Chaldaice semel tantum est illud, duo.

The fourth doubt: As to those things which Moses wrote about the number of animals to be brought into the ark, do all the translations agree among themselves, and concord with the Hebrew Scripture? They do not entirely agree, but in certain matters (very slight ones, however) they are discordant. And a fourfold variety can be noted in this place. First, toward the end of the sixth chapter, both the Latin translation and the Chaldaic paraphrase and the Hebrew Scripture have once, and without doubling of the same number, that two animals are to be brought into the ark; but the Seventy interpreters have the same number doubled, saying “two, two.” Next, at the opening of the seventh chapter, the Latin translation and that of the Seventy have that two and two of the unclean animals are to be taken; but in Hebrew and Chaldaic that “two” is only once.¹⁷

Ad haec, Scriptura Hebraica eo ipso loco, cum de iumentis loquitur, tribuit eis nomen uxoris et mariti, et item vocabulum maris et feminae; Latine vero, Graece et Chaldaice tantum ponitur nomen maris et feminae. Postremo, in avibus, Septuaginta interpretum translatio ponit distinctionem mundi et immundi, quam distinctionem nec Latina translatio habet, nec paraphrasis Chaldaica, nec Scriptura Hebraica.

Besides, the Hebrew Scripture, in that very place where it speaks of beasts of burden, attributes to them the name “wife and husband,” and likewise the term “male and female”; but in Latin, Greek, and Chaldaic only the name “male and female” is set down. Finally, in birds, the translation of the Seventy places the distinction of clean and unclean — which distinction neither the Latin translation has, nor the Chaldaic paraphrase, nor the Hebrew Scripture.¹⁸

Translator’s notes

§14. Ambrose, On the Ark and Noah, ch. 12 — the arithmological excellence of seven (the ancient ‘virgin’ number that neither generates nor is generated within the decad). Margins: Ambrose; “The excellence of the number seven.” ↩
§15. Chrysostom (hom. 24 on Genesis) mocks numerological exegesis as a heretical device. Margins: Chrysostom, hom. 24 on Genesis; “What he thinks of the mysteries of numbers”; Luke 10; Matt. 10. ↩
§16. Continues on p. 249. ↩
§17. Pererius reconciles Chrysostom with the orthodox numerological tradition: the rebuke targets the heretics. ↩
Margins: “What the author thinks of the number — whether it is mystical”; on seven; Lev. 25. ↩
Seven used for evil as well as good. Margins: Apoc. 12; below, 15; below, 16; Ps. 118; Eccl. 7. ↩
§18. Pererius's own resolution: three pairs (propagation / food / sacrifice) + a solitary seventh male for the sacrifice. Margin: “The author's opinion why seven clean animals were admitted into the ark.” ↩
The solitary male as a figure of those in the religious (celibate) life. Continues on p. 250. ↩
Completes §18. ↩
§19 (First doubt). Margin: “Four doubts about the number of animals that entered the Ark.” ↩
§20 (Second doubt). Margin: “Why he calls the animals brought into the ark now ‘male and female,’ now ‘husband and wife.’” Cajetan in Genesim. ↩
Margin: Oleaster. ↩
§21 (Third doubt) begins. Margin: “Why Moses did not distinguish the birds into clean and unclean.” Answers continue on p. 251. ↩
§21 (continued). Margin: Dionysius the Carthusian. ↩
Margins: Phil. 3; Apoc. (last ch.). ↩
§22. Pererius's preferred answer: the distinction is implied; the Septuagint makes it explicit. ↩
§23 (Fourth doubt). Margin: “In the number of animals brought into the ark, a fourfold variety of the translators.” ↩
The third and fourth of the four textual divergences among the versions. ↩