LatineEnglish
FIRST DISPUTATION. On the year in which the Flood occurred, upon those words (verse 11): “In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month,” etc.
PRIMA DISPUTATIO. De anno quo factum est Diluvium, super illis verbis (vers. 11): Anno sexcentesimo vitae Noë, in mense secundo, decimo [septimo] die mensis, etc.
NOTATUR his verbis tempus quo Noëticum diluvium fieri coeptum est, sicut infra signatur tempus quo finitum est, ut, principio eius fineque notatis, quanta eius fuerit diuturnitas et quam longinqua Noë in Arca commoratio liquido notum esset.
By these words is noted the time at which Noah's flood began to occur, just as below is marked the time at which it ended — so that, its beginning and end being noted, how great was its duration, and how long Noah's stay in the Ark, might be clearly known.
Sed cur Noë septem ante initium diluvii diebus iussus a Deo est (ut docet Moses capite 7) in arcam ingredi? Hic nugantur more suo Hebraei, septem illos dies consumptos esse a Noë in luctu propter mortem avi sui Mathusalem: quem quidem etsi constat ipso diluvii anno excessisse, an is tamen septem tantum diebus, an multo pluribus diebus aut etiam mensibus ante diluvium decesserit, incertum est. Illud profecto credibile sit, Noë per illos septem dies omnia quae in Arca erant, prius quam procellis diluvii iactaretur et divexaretur Arca, disposuisse atque ordinasse, suo quaeque loco apte collocando, ut omnia essent ad hominum et animalium habitationem atque usum, ita ut opus futurum erat, maxime accommodata.
But why was Noah commanded by God, seven days before the beginning of the flood (as Moses teaches in chapter 7), to enter the ark? Here the Hebrews trifle, after their manner, [saying] that those seven days were spent by Noah in mourning for the death of his grandfather Methuselah — who, although it is agreed that he died in the very year of the flood, yet whether he departed only seven days, or many more days or even months, before the flood, is uncertain. This indeed may be credible: that Noah, during those seven days — before the Ark should be tossed and shaken by the storms of the flood — arranged and ordered all the things that were in the Ark, placing each fitly in its own place, so that all things might be most suitably adapted to the habitation and use of men and animals, as the need would be.1
NEC non et illa probabilis causa est quam Beatus Ambrosius attigit: propterea Noë per illos septem dies inclusum in arcam expectasse diluvium, ut ceteri, cernentes Noë metu imminentis diluvii sese in arcam inclusisse, saltem illo extremo tempore commoverentur pavore instantis exitii et converterentur ad agendam poenitentiam; neque enim, si voluissent, illo paucorum dierum spatio et poenitentiam rite agere et iram Dei placare non potuissent. Non est otiosum, inquit Ambrosius, quod nec plures nec pauciores quam septem interpositi sint dies, tot scilicet quot in constitutione mundi fuerunt. Sex enim diebus factus est mundus, septimo autem die requievit Deus ab operibus suis: quo declaravit indicio ipsum se auctorem esse mundi atque diluvii. Mundum propter bonitatem suam condidit, diluvium fecit nostrorum merito delictorum. Admoniti sunt igitur homines, vel ex numero dierum quibus mundus est conditus, quod conditorem suum non lacrimis solum et precatione, sed correctione morum reconciliare debuerant.
There is also that probable cause which St. Ambrose touched on: that Noah, shut up in the ark during those seven days, awaited the flood, in order that the rest — seeing that Noah had shut himself in the ark from fear of the imminent flood — might at least at that last time be moved by dread of the impending destruction and be converted to doing penance; for not even, if they had wished, would they have been unable, in that space of a few days, both to do penance duly and to appease the wrath of God. “It is not idle,” says Ambrose, “that neither more nor fewer than seven days were interposed — as many, that is, as there were in the constitution of the world. For in six days the world was made, and on the seventh day God rested from his works: by which token he declared that he himself is the author both of the world and of the flood. The world he founded on account of his goodness; the flood he made by the desert of our offenses. Men were therefore admonished, even by the number of days in which the world was created, that they ought to have reconciled their Creator not by tears and prayer alone, but by the correction of their morals.”2
Ergo spatium dedit ad poenitentiam Dominus, magis volens ignoscere quam punire, ut imminentis diluvii terrore suspensos ad veniam cogeret postulandam, quo, cum periculum futurae mortis horrescunt, impietati atque iniustitiae renuntiarent. Sic Ambrosius. SED illud hoc loco quaestionem affert: An, cum incepit diluvium, Noë sexcentesimum vitae annum expleverat, an inierat tantum?
“Therefore the Lord gave a space for penance, wishing rather to pardon than to punish, that he might compel those held in suspense by the terror of the imminent flood to beg for pardon — whereby, while they dread the peril of coming death, they might renounce impiety and injustice.” So Ambrose. But this raises a question in this place: whether, when the flood began, Noah had completed the six hundredth year of his life, or had only entered it?3
Cum dicitur diluvium coepisse sexcentesimo anno vitae Noë, quaeritur utrum intelligere oporteat illum sexcentesimum annum fuisse expletum, an tantummodo inchoatum. Utroque enim modo potest intelligi. Ac debere intelligi non completum sed inchoatum, multi sunt auctores — Lyranus, Tostatus, Caietanus, Oleaster aliique — cum in suis Commentariis hunc locum Mosis interpretantur. Adiuvat sane hanc interpretationem usitata computandi ratio, et olim et hodieque. Sic enim mos est computari annos Principum, ut, si quid illi initio tertii vel quarti anni principatus sui faciant, id fecisse eos anno tertio vel quarto sui principatus vulgo usurpetur, et in publica monumenta vel acta referatur.
When it is said that the flood began in the six hundredth year of Noah's life, it is asked whether one ought to understand that six hundredth year to have been completed, or only begun. For it can be understood in either way. And that it ought to be understood not completed but begun, there are many authors — Lyra, Tostatus, Cajetan, Oleaster, and others — when in their Commentaries they interpret this passage of Moses. This interpretation is indeed helped by the customary manner of reckoning, both formerly and today. For such is the custom of reckoning the years of Princes, that, if they do anything at the beginning of the third or fourth year of their reign, it is commonly said that they did it in the third or fourth year of their reign, and is recorded in the public monuments or records.4
AT enim vero mihi quidem contra videtur sentiendum: arbitror enim sexcentesimum illum annum non tantum fuisse inchoatum, sed plane completum, exactis praeterea quadraginta septem diebus anni sexcentesimi primi. Et hanc meam interpretationem atque sententiam tribus argumentis firmare possum. Principio, si annus ille sexcentesimus tantum inchoatus erat per unum mensem et paulo plus dimidio, ergo Arca fuisset fabricata uno et dimidio mense, siquidem Noë quingentorum annorum fuisse dicitur prius quam mandatum a Deo accepit de fabricanda Arca. Sed nec est credibile tanta brevitate temporis potuisse tantum opus absolvi, et reclamant plerique doctores a quibus proditum est annos circiter centum in fabricanda Arca esse transactos. Illud praeterea sequitur, inter denuntiationem diluvii et eius adventum minus duobus mensibus intercessisse — siquidem denuntiatio diluvii facta est a Deo post quingentesimum annum Noë, ut Moses supra narravit; atqui Deus post denuntiationem diluvii usque ad eius adventum tempus centum viginti annorum ad agendam poenitentiam mortalibus indulsit.
But to me, indeed, it seems the contrary should be thought: for I judge that that six hundredth year was not only begun, but plainly completed, with forty-seven days of the six hundred and first year besides being elapsed. And this interpretation and opinion of mine I can establish by three arguments. First, if that six hundredth year had been begun only by one month and a little more than half, then the Ark would have been built in one and a half months — since Noah is said to have been five hundred years old before he received the command from God about building the Ark. But neither is it credible that so great a work could have been completed in so brief a time; and most doctors object, by whom it has been reported that about a hundred years were spent in building the Ark. This, moreover, follows: that between the announcement of the flood and its coming less than two months intervened — since the announcement of the flood was made by God after Noah's five hundredth year, as Moses narrated above; and yet God, after the announcement of the flood until its coming, granted to mortals the time of a hundred and twenty years for doing penance.5
VERUM huic rationi occurrerent isti: cum supra dictum est fuisse Noë quingentorum annorum, similiter intelligi debere de quingentesimo anno tantum inchoato, non autem expleto; quamobrem a denuntiatione diluvii et Dei mandato de Arca fabricanda usque ad ipsum diluvium centum anni praeterierunt. Sed istis adversatur B. Augustinus, affirmans Noë, cum ei praecepit Deus de fabricanda Arca, fuisse quadringentorum et octoginta annorum. Deinde, si, cum coepit diluvium, erat inchoatus tantum sexcentesimus annus Noë et non impletus, ergo ab exordio mundi usque ad diluvium non fluxissent mille sexcenti quinquaginta sex anni (tot nempe recensentur ab optimis quibusque Chronographis), sed numerari oportere secundum istos mille quinquaginta sex [1656 vs. 1655?].
But these [authors] would meet this argument: that, since it was said above that Noah was five hundred years old, it ought similarly to be understood of the five hundredth year only begun, not completed; wherefore from the announcement of the flood and God's command about building the Ark up to the flood itself a hundred years passed. But St. Augustine opposes them, affirming that Noah, when God commanded him about building the Ark, was four hundred and eighty years old. Next, if, when the flood began, only the six hundredth year of Noah was begun and not completed, then from the beginning of the world up to the flood there would not have flowed one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years (for so many are reckoned by all the best Chronographers), but, according to these [authors], it would be necessary to count one fewer.6
ILLUD denique hoc ipsum evidenter demonstrat, quod infra Capite nono scriptum est Noë post diluvium vixisse trecentos quinquaginta annos, omnes autem dies vitae Noë fuisse nongentorum et quinquaginta annorum. At enim si, ut isti aiunt, Noë cum coeptum est diluvium tantum per duos menses inchoaverat sexcentesimum annum, fieri non potuit ut, si post diluvium vixit trecentos quinquaginta annos, cum mortuus est fuerit nongentorum quinquaginta annorum, sed fuisse eum tantummodo octingentorum et quinquaginta annorum necesse est.
Finally, this very thing evidently demonstrates it: that below, in the ninth chapter, it is written that Noah lived three hundred and fifty years after the flood, and that all the days of Noah's life were nine hundred and fifty years. But if, as these [authors] say, Noah, when the flood began, had begun the six hundredth year only by two months, it could not be that, if he lived three hundred and fifty years after the flood, he was nine hundred and fifty years old when he died — but it would necessarily be that he was [fewer]. [The arithmetic of the third argument is corrupt in the OCR; Pererius's point is that the figures only reconcile if the 600th year was complete.]7
Translator’s notes
- §2. The seven days before the Flood. Margins: “Why Noah entered the ark seven days before the flood”; Gen. 5. ↩
- Ambrose's reason: the seven days mirror the seven of creation. Margins: Ambrose, On Noah and the Ark, ch. 13; Gen. 1; below, 2. ↩
- §3 begins (the year-reckoning question). Margin: “When the flood began to occur.” Continues on p. 290. ↩
- §3 (cont.). The ‘begun, not completed’ view. Margins: “Whether Noah had only begun, or had already completed, the 600th year”; Lyra; Tostatus; Cajetan; Oleaster. ↩
- Pererius's contrary view (year completed + 47 days), with the first argument. Margin: Gen. 6. ↩
- Second argument (and Augustine's 480-year datum). Margins: Augustine, City of God, bk. 15, ch. 24. [The second figure is garbled in the OCR; the point is the standard 1,656-year creation-to-Flood span would be reduced by one.] ↩
- Third argument, from Noah's total lifespan (Gen 9: 600 + 350 = 950). The OCR's ‘850’ appears to be a printing error. ↩