FOURTH DISPUTATION. What that great abyss was, whose fountains Moses said were broken up to bring about the flood — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

FOURTH DISPUTATION. What that great abyss was, whose fountains Moses said were broken up to bring about the flood.

QUARTA DISPUTATIO. Quaenam illa fuerit abyssus magna, cuius fontes dixit Moses fuisse ruptos ad efficiendum diluvium.

ABYSSUS Graeca vox est, de qua Suidas ita scribit: Abyssus aedes fuit Proserpinae, in qua multum auri omni aevo intacti servabatur; nomen ex eo factum est, quod id aurum vulgo non cerneretur, humi absconditum. Sacrae litterae natura aqueam dicunt abyssum. S. Basilius homilia secunda in Genesim: Abyssus, inquit, significat copiosam aquam, ad cuius fundum non facile penetrari possit deorsum versus. Beatus Augustinus super Psalmum quadragesimum primum sic definit: Abyssus est profunditas quaedam impenetrabilis et incomprehensibilis, et maxime solet dici in aquarum multitudine; ubi enim altitudo, ibi profunditas est, qua penetrari usque ad fundum non potest.

“Abyss” is a Greek word, about which Suidas writes thus: “The Abyss was a temple of Proserpina, in which much gold, untouched in every age, was kept; the name was made from this, that that gold was not commonly seen, being hidden in the ground.” The sacred writings call the abyss [something] aqueous by nature. St. Basil, in the second homily on Genesis: “Abyss,” he says, “signifies a copious [body of] water, to whose bottom one cannot easily penetrate downward.” St. Augustine, on the forty-first Psalm, defines it thus: “The abyss is a certain impenetrable and incomprehensible depth, and is especially wont to be said of a multitude of waters; for where there is height, there is depth, by which it cannot be penetrated to the bottom.”¹

Hebraea vox, thehom, qua utitur hoc loco Moses, proprie significat voraginem sive aquam magnae profunditatis: ut illa profunditas aquarum quae sunt sub terra videatur hic significari a Mose, unde per certos meatus terrae profluunt fontes et flumina. Tempore autem diluvii, terra multis et magnis hiatibus disrupta, tanta illinc effluxit vis aquarum, ut universam terram operuerint.

The Hebrew word “thehom,” which Moses uses in this place, properly signifies a chasm, or water of great depth: so that that depth of the waters which are beneath the earth seems here to be signified by Moses, whence, through certain channels of the earth, the springs and rivers flow forth. And in the time of the flood, the earth being broken open with many and great clefts, so great a force of waters flowed out thence that they covered the whole earth.²

SED quae sit illa aqua subterranea quam Moses nominavit abyssum, inquirendum et declarandum est. Vetus fuit opinio, eaque vulgo multumque celebrata, de multis terrae hiatibus unum esse intra terram maximum, perque universam terram traiectum et patentem: quem Homerus et Poëtae Barathrum et Tartarum appellarunt, et hic esse immensam vim et molem aquae circa ipsum centrum agitatae. Namque quia fundamentum et firmamentum quo nitatur ac firmetur ea vis aquae nullum habet, propterea huc illuc fluctuat et agitatur; qua fluctuatione, prout varias in partes incubuerit, variis quoque ex partibus terrae sursum emittit flumina. Atque hic Tartarus origo est et finis omnium aquarum terrestrium, et maris et fluminum et quarumlibet aquarum: illinc enim amnes effluunt, et rursus illuc, peractis cursibus suis, tandem refluunt.

But what that subterranean water is which Moses named the abyss must be inquired into and declared. There was an old opinion, and one widely and much celebrated, that among the many clefts of the earth there is one within the earth that is the greatest, traversing and open through the whole earth: which Homer and the Poets called the “Barathrum” and “Tartarus”; and that here there is an immense force and mass of water agitated about the very center [of the earth]. For because that force of water has no foundation and support on which to rest and be made firm, therefore it fluctuates and is agitated this way and that; and by this fluctuation, according as it has leaned toward various parts, it sends up rivers from various parts of the earth too. And this Tartarus is the origin and end of all terrestrial waters — both of the sea and of rivers and of any waters whatever: for thence the rivers flow out, and thither again, their courses completed, at last flow back.³

Non igitur mare, non Oceanus principium est aquarum, sed Tartarus, ex quo et ipsum mare et Oceanus ortum ducunt. Hanc veterum opinionem commemorat apud Platonem in Phaedone Socrates, et secundum ea nonnulli putant hinc locutum esse Mosen, ut quem illi Tartarum nominarunt, hic appellaverit abyssum. Certe ab ea opinione aut nihil aut proxime videntur abesse Vatablus et Oleaster hoc loco, et Franciscus Georgius in primo tomo Problematum, problemate 88.

Therefore neither the sea nor the Ocean is the beginning of the waters, but Tartarus, from which both the sea itself and the Ocean take their origin. This opinion of the ancients Socrates recalls, in Plato, in the Phaedo; and according to it some think that Moses spoke from this [view], so that what they named Tartarus, he called the abyss. Certainly from that opinion either nothing, or very little, do Vatablus and Oleaster seem to differ in this place, and Franciscus Georgius in the first volume of the Problems, problem 88.⁴

VERUM quia opinio illa falsa est, nullo modo fit credibile Mosen in tam gravi historia abuti voluisse falsa vulgi opinione ad originem aquarum diluvii. Et quidem falsam esse illam opinionem Aristoteles libro secundo Meteorologicorum argumentatur ad hunc modum: Si omnia flumina, omnesque super terram fluentes aquae originem trahunt ac profluunt ex Tartaro qui est circa centrum, ergo flumina a centro mundi ascendunt ad superficiem terrae, altitudinem scilicet trium millium et quingentorum milliarium. At contra naturam aquae est altius origine sua ascendere, nedum in tantam altitudinem suos cursus extollere.

But because that opinion is false, it is in no way credible that Moses, in so weighty a history, wished to misuse the false opinion of the common people regarding the origin of the waters of the flood. And that that opinion is false, Aristotle argues in the second book of the Meteorology in this manner: If all rivers, and all the waters flowing on the earth, draw their origin and flow forth from Tartarus, which is around the center, then the rivers ascend from the center of the world to the surface of the earth — a height, that is, of three thousand five hundred miles. But it is against the nature of water to ascend higher than its origin, much less to raise its courses to so great a height.⁵

Itaque secundum istam opinionem verum esset, inquit Aristoteles, vulgare illud et tritum sermone proverbium: SURSUM FLUMINA; quod proverbium in eos dicitur qui dicunt faciuntve aliquid quod, quia contra naturam rei est, fieri non potest. Huiusmodi est, Flumina sursum ascendere: nam quia contra naturam fluminum est ascendere, nec id fieri potest, et qui fieri posse opinantur, falso, ridicule et absurde opinantur. Ad diluvium autem Noëticum efficiendum, necesse fuisset aquas non solum ex centro ad superficiem terrae, sed praeterea super altissimos terrae montes quindecim cubitis attolli.

And so, according to that opinion, that common and well-worn proverb would be true, says Aristotle: “RIVERS UPWARD” — which proverb is said against those who say or do something which, because it is against the nature of the thing, cannot happen. Of this kind is “Rivers ascending upward”: for because it is against the nature of rivers to ascend, neither can it happen; and those who think it can happen, think falsely, ridiculously, and absurdly. But to bring about Noah's flood, it would have been necessary for the waters to be raised not only from the center to the surface of the earth, but moreover above the highest mountains of the earth by fifteen cubits.⁶

ALII putant vocabulo Abyssi Mosen significasse mare vel Oceanum, sic appellatum propter immensam eius profunditatem mortalibus impenetrabilem. Omnino negari non potest uti saepenumero divinam Scripturam, cum de mari loquitur, nomine abyssi: id quod perspicere licet ex capite decimo quinto Exodi, et Psal. 103 et 106, Proverbiorum 8, Ionae 2, Lucae 8. Verum quo modo ex mari vel Oceano profectum sit diluvium, dupliciter exponitur. Quidam arbitrantur mare longe maius et altius esse quam terram: nam licet iuxta littora humilius videatur terris, paulatim tamen intumescens, in tantam surgit altitudinem ut in medio celsissimorum terrae montium vertices vel excedat vel adaequet; Dei autem praecepto seu voluntate prohiberi ne terras inundet, sicut non obscure indicat Iob cap. 38, David Psalmo 103, Salomon Proverb. 8, Hieremias capite 5.

Others think that by the word “Abyss” Moses signified the sea, or the Ocean, so called on account of its immense depth, impenetrable to mortals. It cannot at all be denied that divine Scripture often uses the name “abyss” when it speaks of the sea: which one may perceive from the fifteenth chapter of Exodus, and Psalms 103 and 106, Proverbs 8, Jonah 2, and Luke 8. But in what way the flood proceeded from the sea or Ocean is explained in two ways. Some think that the sea is far greater and higher than the earth: for although near the shores it seems lower than the lands, yet, gradually swelling, it rises to such a height that in the middle it either exceeds or equals the peaks of the highest mountains of the earth; but that by God's command or will it is prevented from inundating the lands — as Job indicates not obscurely in chapter 38, David in Psalm 103, Solomon in Proverbs 8, [and] Jeremiah in chapter 5.⁷

Tempore autem diluvii, mare permissu Dei, quasi refractis carceribus quibus coërcebatur, effusum esse in terras, etiam montes quoslibet altissime supergressum. Sed hanc ego interpretationem tribus argumentis possum refellere. Primo quidem falsum est quod isti sumant, mare esse maius et altius terra. Sed quia hoc multis argumentis confutatum a nobis est in primo libro nostrorum Commentariorum in Genesim, cum enarraremus opus tertiae diei, nihil attinet in praesentia de eo dicere. DEINDE, si mare in terras effusum effecit diluvium, ipsum fuisset causa diluvii non solum principalis, sed etiam unica et sola: neque opus fuisset praeterea reserare cataractas caeli et pluere per totos quadraginta dies. Siquidem mare, cum sit multo altius altissimis quibusque montibus terrae (ut isti putant), sola effusio maris in terras efficiendo diluvio fuisset suffi[ciens]…

And in the time of the flood, the sea, by God's permission, as if the barriers by which it was confined were broken, overflowed onto the lands, even surpassing any mountains whatever to the greatest height. But this interpretation I can refute by three arguments. First, it is false, what these assume, that the sea is greater and higher than the earth. But because this has been refuted by us with many arguments in the first book of our Commentaries on Genesis, when we expounded the work of the third day, it is not pertinent to say anything about it at present. Next, if the sea overflowing onto the lands brought about the flood, it itself would have been the cause of the flood not only principal but also the one and only [cause]; nor would there have been need, besides, to unbar the cataracts of heaven and to rain for forty whole days. For since the sea — being much higher than any of the highest mountains of the earth (as these think) — the overflowing of the sea alone onto the lands would have been suffi[cient] for bringing about the flood…⁸

…efficiendo diluvio fuisset sufficiens. Ad hoc: Cur Moses causas diluvii effectrices commemorans nullum de mari, quod secundum istos praecipua diluvii causa fuit, verbum fecit? Dicent illi mare significatum esse a Mose vocabulo abyssi. Verum in promptu est hoc refellere. Namque isti volunt mare, immensam aquae suae molem exonerans et effundens in terra, fecisse diluvium; at Moses ait scissos esse fontes abyssi, et per illas scissuras fontium emanasse ex abysso aquam quae terras inundaverit. Denique Rupertus praecise negat ex maris inundatione et effusione in terras factum esse diluvium.

…would have been sufficient for bringing about the flood. To this [the third argument]: Why did Moses, when recalling the efficient causes of the flood, make no word about the sea — which, according to these, was the principal cause of the flood? They will say that the sea was signified by Moses by the word “abyss.” But it is easy to refute this. For these want the sea, unloading and pouring out the immense mass of its water, to have made the flood on the earth; but Moses says that the fountains of the abyss were cleft, and that through those clefts of the fountains the water flowed out from the abyss which inundated the lands. Finally, Rupert flatly denies that the flood was made from the inundation and overflowing of the sea onto the lands.⁹

ALII existimant eo profectum esse diluvium ex mari, quod per multos terrae meatus, nunc occultos tunc apertos, plurimum aquae ex mari redundarit in terras: quemadmodum enim aquae terrestres desinunt in mare, sic ex mari ortum ducunt, ut scriptum est in exordio Ecclesiastae. Et hoc indicare videtur B. Hieronymus in Quaestionibus in Genesim, et Rupertus libro quarto Commentariorum in Genesim, capite vigesimo.

Others think that the flood proceeded from the sea in this way: that through many channels of the earth, now hidden, then opened, a great deal of water overflowed from the sea onto the lands; for just as the terrestrial waters end in the sea, so they take their origin from the sea, as is written at the opening of Ecclesiastes. And this St. Jerome seems to indicate in the Questions on Genesis, and Rupert in the fourth book of the Commentaries on Genesis, chapter twenty.¹⁰

CAIETANUS autem, explanans verba illa Mosis de scissis fontibus abyssi et reseratis cataractis caeli, scribit utrumque non proprie sed metaphorice dictum a Mose. Metaphoricus est, inquit, sermo utrobique: describitur enim ex parte terrae eruptio aquarum, tanquam si amplissima aquarum multitudo occultata in terra detineretur, parvis meatibus fontium non permittentibus illam exire; secundum hanc enim metaphoram describuntur scissi fontes omnes amplissimae abyssi, ut sic per scissos meatus ingens copia aquarum erumperet. Et similiter ex parte caeli describuntur aquae tanquam detentae claustris fenestrarum, et apertis fenestris praecipites ruisse: quorum neutrum est verum secundum proprietatem, sed tantum secundum similitudinem.

But Cajetan, explaining those words of Moses about the cleft fountains of the abyss and the unbarred cataracts of heaven, writes that both were said by Moses not properly but metaphorically. “The speech is metaphorical in both places,” he says: “for on the part of the earth is described an eruption of waters, as if a very great multitude of waters were detained, hidden in the earth, the small channels of the springs not permitting it to go out; for according to this metaphor are described all the cleft fountains of the vastest abyss, so that thus, through the cleft channels, a huge abundance of waters might burst forth. And similarly, on the part of heaven, the waters are described as detained by the bars of windows, and, the windows being opened, to have rushed down headlong: neither of which is true according to propriety, but only according to likeness.”¹¹

Significatur enim tam ex parte caeli quam terra concurrisse duo ad faciendum diluvium: alterum ut causam secundam, alterum ut actionem eius causae. Ex parte quidem terrae describitur abyssus magna ut causa, in qua intelligitur causa proxima generativa fluminum et fontium in terris existens. Actio autem describitur tantus effluxus, ut fuerit ad similitudinem scissorum meatuum immensae aquae. Ubi nota quod non dicitur, Ruptae sunt viae abyssi, sed, Rupti sunt fontes: ad significandum non esse scissas vias Oceani ad eluendam terram, sed esse scissos fontes aquarum dulcium, fluminum videlicet, stagnorum et huiusmodi. Sic Caietanus.

“For it is signified that, both on the part of heaven and of earth, two things concurred to make the flood: the one as second cause, the other as the action of that cause. On the part of the earth, the great abyss is described as a cause, in which is understood the proximate generative cause of rivers and springs existing in the lands. And the action is described [as] so great an outflow that it was after the likeness of cleft channels of an immense [body of] water. Where note that it is not said, ‘The ways of the abyss were broken,’ but, ‘The fountains were broken’: to signify that the ways of the Ocean were not cleft to wash away the earth, but that the fountains of fresh waters were cleft — namely, of rivers, lakes, and the like.” So Cajetan.¹²

EGO CREDIDERIM vocabulo Abyssi hoc loco significari subterraneas cavernas, praecipue amplissimas et profundissimas (ut sit positum hic singulare pro plurali, ut alias frequenter in sacris litteris): cavernas dico plenas aquarum vel stantium vel fluentium, quas aquas illae accipiunt aut ex mari per occultos meatus, vel ipsae generant intra se, vapores quos intra se continent plurimos, frigore suo densatos ac refrigeratos in aquam vertentes, perenni eiusmodi vaporum et aquarum commutatione: qualem esse fontium et fluminum originem sensit Aristoteles. In terra igitur, ut supra et extra, ita sub[ter]…

I would believe that by the word “Abyss” in this place are signified subterranean caverns — especially the vastest and deepest (so that here the singular is put for the plural, as frequently elsewhere in the sacred writings): caverns, I say, full of waters either standing or flowing, which waters they receive either from the sea through hidden channels, or themselves generate within themselves, turning into water the many vapors which they contain within themselves, condensed and cooled by their cold, by a perpetual interchange of vapors and waters of this kind: such as Aristotle judged the origin of springs and rivers to be. In the earth, therefore, as above and outside, so be[neath]…¹³

…subter et intra lacus et flumina et maria esse, intimis terrae visceribus conclusa, non est dubitandum: hoc enim a veridicis cosmographis et historicis proditum est, et manifestis compertum indiciis, praesertim autem argumento terrae motus, quo quassata terra et latissime dehiscens saepe tantam aquarum vim evomuit, ut ubi prius non fuerant novi fontes, flumina et lacus exsisterent. Haec subterranea aqua vel non exit supra terram, vel per exiguos tantum fontes et tenues meatus: tempore autem diluvii, et prioribus meatibus multum dilatatis novisque factis, et terra multifariam in vastissimos hiatus discissa, immensa vis aquarum ad obruendam terram erupit. Atque hoc esse reor quod dixit Moses, fontes abyssi magnae ruptos esse ad efficiendum diluvium.

…that beneath and within the earth there are lakes and rivers and seas, enclosed in the innermost bowels of the earth, is not to be doubted: for it has been reported by truthful cosmographers and historians, and ascertained by manifest signs — but especially by the argument of earthquakes, by which the earth, shaken and gaping most widely, has often vomited forth so great a force of waters that, where there had been none before, new springs, rivers, and lakes came into being. This subterranean water either does not come out above the earth, or [only] through small springs and slender channels; but in the time of the flood — the earlier channels being much widened, and new ones made, and the earth cleft in many places into the vastest chasms — an immense force of waters burst forth to overwhelm the earth. And this, I think, is what Moses said: that the fountains of the great deep were broken up to bring about the flood.¹⁴

Translator’s notes

§14. The meaning of ‘abyss.’ Margins: Suidas; “What the word Abyss signifies”; Basil; Augustine. ↩
The Hebrew ‘thehom’ = the subterranean deep. ↩
§15. The old ‘Tartarus’ theory: a central subterranean reservoir as the source of all waters. Margins: “What Tartarus is among the poets”; Homer. ↩
Margins: Plato; Vatablus; Oleaster; Franciscus Georgius. ↩
§16. Aristotle's refutation of the Tartarus theory (water cannot rise above its source). Margins: “That Tartarus is not the origin of the flood-waters”; Aristotle. ↩
Margin: Proverb. ↩
§17. The view that ‘abyss’ = the sea/Ocean (first version: the sea higher than the land). Margin: “Whether the abyss of the waters is the Ocean.” ↩
Pererius's first two refutations of the ‘higher sea’ view. Margin: “Whether the overflowing of the sea onto the lands made the flood.” Continues on p. 300. ↩
Pererius's third refutation (Moses names the abyss's fountains, not the sea). Margin: Rupert, Commentaries on Genesis. ↩
§18. The second ‘from the sea’ version (sea-water rising through hidden channels). Margins: Eccles. 1; Jerome; Rupert. ↩
§19. Cajetan: both ‘fountains of the abyss’ and ‘cataracts of heaven’ are metaphors. Margin: Cajetan, on Gen. ch. 7. ↩
Cajetan continued: ‘fountains,’ not ‘ways,’ points to fresh waters, not the Ocean. ↩
§20. Pererius's own view: ‘abyss’ = the deep subterranean water-caverns. Margins: “What ‘abyss’ signifies here, according to the author”; Aristotle, Meteorology bk. 2. Continues on p. 301. ↩
Conclusion of §20 (earthquakes prove the existence of vast underground waters). ↩