Moses said that the flood began on the seventeenth day of the second month. But it is asked, of what year that was the second month: whether it was the second month of the six hundredth year of Noah's life, which Moses just before named; or whether it was the second month of the common and customary year which was then being reckoned. There is a twofold opinion of the Doctors. Almost all think that that month was the second of the year which was then being reckoned, and, as we commonly say, of the year then current. And the year, at that time, was reckoned from the beginning of the world: for, just as the Romans counted years from the founding of the city, and we Christians from the birth of our Savior, so it is most likely that the men who lived before the flood were accustomed to count the years from the beginning of the founded world. And from the beginning of the world up to the flood are reckoned one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years: wherefore that month in which the flood began was the second month of the year 1656 from the founding of the world.¹

But just as they agree about this [the year], so they vary in their opinions about the character of this month: some affirming that that month was of spring-time and corresponding to our May; but others contending that that month fell in the Autumnal season and coincided with our November — arguing this from the fact that, although Noah's flood could not have come about without the supernatural omnipotence of God, yet it is not to be denied that many natural things were employed by God for bringing about the flood in some part (such as the breaking-open of all the fountains of the great deep, the unbarring of the floodgates of heaven, and the continuation of rain for forty days). Similarly, therefore, it is reasonable to believe that God chose the most opportune time of the year for bringing about the flood, and for ending the same. Now the time suitable for inundations is winter, not summer; just as, on the contrary, for drying the earth and checking the rains, summer is more opportune than winter. Therefore it is fitting that the flood began at the onset of winter — that is, around November — and lasted through the whole winter; and finally that in the summer-time the earth was dried and the flood ended.²

But if the flood had begun in the month of May, it would have been increased and strengthened in the summer-time, but ended in nearly the middle of winter: and all these things would have been done in a most alien and most contrary season of the year. And this indeed is nearly the opinion of the Hebrews, to which subscribe Lyra, Tostatus, and Oleaster in this place.³

The other opinion is of nearly all the Ecclesiastical writers: that the world was created in spring-time and around the month of March; and that the second month, in which the flood occurred, fell in part within our May. And Rupert confirms that that second month was of spring-time, by the argument of the dove which, returning to the ark, brought a little branch of olive with green leaves. For Rupert writes thus: “And lest that scruple trouble [anyone] — that the beginnings or ends of the years or months may here be reckoned according to the birth of Noah — let it be recalled to memory that, about a month more or less before the completed year of the flood, the dove which Noah sent out returned, carrying a branch of olive with green leaves in its mouth. Therefore, at whatever time of the year Noah's birth occurred, that this year was completed in spring-time is also a token of it.” So Rupert.⁴

But why God willed the flood to occur in spring-time rather than at another time of the year, Rupert offers two causes in the same place. And the one cause was this: that those most wicked men might perish in the flood with a sharper sense of grief — namely, grieving most bitterly that they were thrust out of the world and from life by so dire a punishment of death at that time, at which the world itself is most beautiful and most pleasant and most delightful, inviting and enticing men to enjoy delights and pleasures, of which pleasures the abundance and variety is greatest at that season.⁵

“That the second month was of spring-time is not doubted,” says Ambrose, “when growing things are increased, the field gives birth, and the offspring of the earth and of the living creatures alike pours itself forth. Then, therefore, he made the flood, when the grief of those who were being punished in their own abundance would be greater; then the vengeance [was] more terrible, as of God saying: ‘Behold, rich nature has generated all things according to the grace of the divine liberality and providence; the more fruitful earth has sprouted all things for the use of men; the crops are beheld; the fields are filled with wheat and barley; the foliage of the trees is clothed with fruits and flowers; the earth is not wanting in its services, the beasts are not wanting in their gifts, which are duly discharged in their birthings, so that nothing may be lacking to man: man alone is wanting to his own duties, knows not his Author from whom all things are supplied to him, neglects his Creator. Let all things, therefore, perish together with the man for whose sake all things were born. In his own riches man is consumed, that he may die with his own grief.’” So Ambrose.⁶

The other cause why the flood occurred in spring-time, Rupert thinks to have been this: that it might be more openly recognized, and believed without any doubt, that that flood of Noah was made not from natural causes alone, but chiefly through the supernatural omnipotence of God. Of this the clearest proof would be that the flood was made in the summer-time, but removed in the winter-time — each season, that is, being most adver[se] both to the creating and to the abolishing of the flood…⁷

…most adverse. “Whence,” says Rupert, “the more to be wondered at [was] the tempest of that flood, which no nature of the season aided, but the contrary: in May, in which month the Sun already advances higher and the sky naturally grows white-hot, an immense force of rains and waters burst forth; but around the time of winter — that is, in the month of November — the waters now being diminished, the Ark rested, shaken by so great and so long-lasting storms; and in the tenth month of the flood at last, which with us is February, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared.” So Rupert.⁸

Thus far it has been shown that the month in which the flood occurred is called by Moses the second (as most have thought) in respect of the year which was then being reckoned, the 1656th from the founding of the world. But as to whether that month corresponded to May, as some have said, or to November, as others — according as the opinion of the Doctors differs about the origin of the World, created either in Spring or in Autumn: which controversy we have treated diligently and accurately in the first book of our Commentaries on Genesis, when we explained the work of the third day.⁹

But as regards the present question, for my part I would neither dare nor wish to condemn the aforesaid interpretation and opinion, approved by so many and great authors. I will not, however, conceal that to me indeed the interpretation of Cajetan seems very probable, who judges that the second month was so called in respect of the six hundredth year of Noah's life — so that it is signified that the flood began in the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month of that year: that is, that the beginning of the flood occurred in the second month after the completed six hundredth year of Noah.¹⁰

This interpretation greatly pleases me, because according to it the construction of the words of Moses is plain and easy, and entangled in no difficulties. For if you disjoin the second month from the six hundredth year of Noah's life, and contend that it ought to be referred to another year (namely, of the world), you cannot deny that Moses spoke obscurely — not to say ambiguously — referring the years to one thing and the months to another, without even a word indicating that variation: especially since that is against the custom and usage of reckoning. For when we say that something was done in the third year and second month of some Prince, the year and month are always referred to the same thing — that is, either to the life or to the reign of that Prince. But that the year should be referred to the life or reign, while the month [is referred] to the common year then current, is new, unusual, and unheard of. Nor let it seem strange to anyone that the times are reckoned from Noah himself, since he was the father of a new age and of a reborn world.¹¹