PREFACE — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

PREFACE.

PRAEFATIO.

SEPTEM res hoc capite octavo praecipue narrantur a Mose: primo, quando coepta est fieri diminutio aquarum diluvii, et quibus ex causis facta sit; secundo, quo in loco, decrescentibus aquis, resederit arca Noë; tertio, quando primum apparuerint cacumina montium; quarto, qua ratione diminutionem et cessationem diluvii exploraverit et cognoverit Noë; quinto, quando finitum omnino sit diluvium et arefacta terra, egressusque arca Noë cum suis et animalibus; sexto, Noë, statim ut arca egressus est, sacrificium Deo de cunctis animalibus mundis obtulisse; septimo denique, Deum, insigni pietate ac religione ipsius Noë vehementer placatum ac delectatum, promisisse nunquam se in posterum generali diluvio perditurum orbem terrae.

Seven things are chiefly narrated by Moses in this eighth chapter: first, when the diminution of the waters of the flood began, and from what causes it came about; second, in what place, the waters decreasing, the ark of Noah settled; third, when the tops of the mountains first appeared; fourth, by what means Noah explored and knew the diminution and cessation of the flood; fifth, when the flood was wholly finished and the earth dried, and Noah went out of the ark with his family and the animals; sixth, that Noah, as soon as he went out of the ark, offered a sacrifice to God from all the clean animals; seventh, finally, that God, vehemently appeased and delighted by the notable piety and devotion of Noah himself, promised that he would never thereafter destroy the world by a general flood.¹

Recordatus est Deus Noë, cunctorumque animantium et omnium iumentorum quae erant cum eo in arca… NEC oblivio nec recordatio proprie cadunt in Deum: quippe cui omnia quae fuerunt, sunt, eruntque, ex omni aeternitate praesentia sunt; et, ut eius substantia, sic et scientia plane immutabilis est, cum apud eum nulla sit transmutatio, nec vicissitudinis obumbratio. Figurate igitur oblivisci et recordari Deus dicitur: scilicet ad similitudinem hominum, qui, quos non curant et in periculis deserunt nec iuvant cum possint, oblivisci eorum dicuntur; contra vero recordari, cum eis auxilium praebent, et malis quibus detinentur eripere nituntur.

“God remembered Noah, and all the living creatures and all the cattle that were with him in the ark.” Neither forgetfulness nor remembrance properly falls upon God: since to him all things that have been, are, and will be, are present from all eternity; and, as his substance, so also his knowledge is plainly immutable, since with him there is no transmutation, nor shadow of vicissitude. Figuratively, therefore, God is said to forget and to remember: namely, after the likeness of men, who are said to forget those whom they neglect and desert in dangers and do not help when they can; but on the contrary to remember [them], when they give them help, and strive to snatch them from the evils by which they are held.²

Videbatur igitur Deus quodammodo oblitus Noë, quem in Arcam illam velut in carcerem detrusum tot menses in illa horribili abysso diluvii dereliquerat: at cum incepit diluvium tollere, arcamque sistere, terram arefacere, et Noë ex arca educere, recordari eius videbatur. Audi Theodoretum: Loquitur, inquit, divina Scriptura prout hominibus expedit, et pro captu auditorum varias habet loquendi formas. Quemad[modum]…

God seemed, therefore, in a manner to have forgotten Noah, whom — thrust into that Ark as into a prison — he had left for so many months in that horrible abyss of the flood: but when he began to remove the flood, and to bring the ark to rest, and to dry the earth, and to lead Noah out of the ark, he seemed to remember him. Hear Theodoret: “Divine Scripture speaks,” he says, “as is expedient for men, and according to the capacity of the hearers has various forms of speaking. Just as…”³

…modum ergo paenitentia in Deo est administrationis diversitas: Paenitet enim me, ait, quod constituerim Saul regem, pro eo quod est, Decrevi alium in eius locum substituere. Et rursus, Paenitet me fecisse hominem, pro eo quod est, Statui hominibus inferre exitium. Sic quod hic dicitur, Recordatus est Dominus Noë, non pristinam oblivionem designat, sed maximam ipsius erga Noë humanitatem denotat, quod summo erga eum amore iusserit immensam illam copiam aquarum quam citissime exhauriri. Sic Theodoretus.

“…[Just] as, then, repentance in God is a diversity of administration — for ‘It repenteth me,’ he says, ‘that I made Saul king,’ stands for ‘I have decided to substitute another in his place’; and again, ‘It repenteth me that I made man,’ stands for ‘I have determined to bring destruction upon men’ — so what is here said, ‘The Lord remembered Noah,’ does not designate a former forgetfulness, but denotes his very great kindness toward Noah: that, out of supreme love toward him, he commanded that immense abundance of waters to be drained off as quickly as possible.” So Theodoret.⁴

DICITUR porro Deus in sacris litteris et oblivisci et recordari, tam in bonum quam in malum, tam de personis quam de aliis rebus. Dicitur oblivisci Deus bonorum hominum, cum eos ad tempus in laboribus et periculis derelinquit, non statim eos liberans cum possit. Dicitur etiam oblivisci malorum hominum, cum eis diuturnam impunitatem aut etiam prosperitatem concedit. Contra vero dicitur recordari bonorum, cum aliquandiu afflictos liberat ac recreat, eorumque mala in maiora bona convertit. Dicitur item recordari malorum, cum dissimulatam aliquandiu eorum improbitatem meritis plectit suppliciis. Nec modo in personis, sed etiam in rebus, ut in virtutibus et vitiis, haec loquendi ratio usurpari solet. Dicitur enim Deus oblivisci alicuius virtutum et benefactorum, cum ea non statim et manifeste remunerat nec honorat, quin imo sinit male evenire bonis apud homines propter bona eorum facta. Dicitur etiam oblivisci peccatorum, cum ea non punit, sed potius finit flagitia ad tempus bene ac prospere succedere peccatoribus. Ex adverso item recordari Deus dicitur tam virtutum quam vitiorum, cum utrumque debitis vel praemiis vel suppliciis etiam in hoc mundo afficit. Hinc est illud quod vidua dixit Eliae: Ingressus es ad me, vir Dei, ut rememorarentur iniquitates meae? Mortuus enim fuerat ei unicus filius. Et in Psalmo 108 scriptum est: In memoriam redeat iniquitas patrum eius in conspectu Domini.

Moreover, God is said in the sacred writings both to forget and to remember, both for good and for evil, both concerning persons and concerning other things. God is said to forget good men, when he leaves them for a time in labors and dangers, not freeing them at once though he could. He is said also to forget evil men, when he grants them long impunity or even prosperity. But on the contrary he is said to remember the good, when, after they have been afflicted for a while, he frees and refreshes them, and turns their evils into greater goods. He is said likewise to remember the evil, when he punishes with deserved penalties the wickedness he had for a while overlooked. And not only in persons, but also in things — as in virtues and vices — this manner of speaking is wont to be used. For God is said to forget someone's virtues and good deeds, when he does not at once and manifestly reward or honor them; nay, even allows things to turn out ill for the good among men on account of their good deeds. He is said also to forget sins, when he does not punish them, but rather allows the crimes to succeed well and prosperously for the sinners for a time. On the contrary, God is said to remember both virtues and vices, when he affects each, even in this world, with their due rewards or punishments. Hence is that which the widow said to Elijah: “Hast thou come to me, O man of God, that my iniquities should be remembered?” — for her only son had died. And in Psalm 108 it is written: “May the iniquity of his fathers come into remembrance in the sight of the Lord.”⁵

QUOD autem Deus non solum Noë, verum etiam animalium quae cum ipso erant in arca recordatus esse dicitur, indicat: sicut animalia propter hominum peccata simul cum hominibus perierant, similiter ea propter hominem una cum viro iusto esse a Deo servata. Quo maiorem, inquit Theodoretus, immensae bonitatis suae significationem praeberet Deus, recordari voluit non solum Noë, sed etiam omnium animalium: nostra enim causa etiam illis consulere dignatus est. Quod et magnus ille David clamat, dicens: Qui producit fenum iumentis et herbam servituti hominum; et iterum: Homines et iumenta salvabis, Domine. Propter nos enim nostra curat.

But that God is said to have remembered not only Noah, but also the animals which were with him in the ark, indicates this: that, just as the animals had perished together with men on account of men's sins, so they were preserved by God, for man's sake, together with the just man. “In order that God might give a greater token of his immense goodness,” says Theodoret, “he willed to remember not only Noah, but also all the animals: for, for our sake, he deigned to provide for them also.” Which that great David too cries out, saying: “Who bringeth forth grass for the cattle, and herb for the service of men” (Ps. 103); and again: “Men and beasts thou wilt save, O Lord” (Ps. 35). For, for our sake, he cares for the things that are ours.⁶

VERUM dicet aliquis: Quomodo Deus recordari dicitur animalium, cum B. Paulus dixerit non esse Deo curam de bobus? Par autem ratio est aliorum animalium. Sed in promptu est responsio. Quantum enim ad naturalem et generalem providentiam curamque quam Deus gerit omnium rerum quas ipse condidit, procul dubio curae Deo [sunt et boves]…

But someone will say: How is God said to remember the animals, when St. Paul said that God has no care for oxen? — and the reasoning is the same for other animals. But the answer is at hand. For as regards the natural and general providence and care which God bears for all the things which he himself founded, without doubt [both oxen and all animals] are a care to God…⁷

…curae Deo sunt et boves, cunctaque animalia. Nam si aliter, quomodo dixisset David: Omnia a te expectant ut des illis escam in tempore? Et rursus: Aperis tu manum tuam, et imples omne animal benedictione? Quomodo Salvator noster dixisset in Evangelio: Respicite volatilia caeli, quoniam non serunt neque metunt neque congregant in horrea, et Pater vester caelestis pascit illa? Et iterum: Nonne duo passeres asse veneunt, et unus ex illis non cadet super terram sine Patre vestro? Vel ut refert Lucas: Unus ex illis non est in oblivione coram Deo? Non dicitur autem Deus habere curam boum vel animalium quantum ad praecipuam et singularem quandam providentiam et curam, qualem nempe Deus habet hominum, quos non tantum movet et regit per naturales causas aut per instinctus naturales, sed praecipue per leges (ut vocant) positivas, praecipiendo quid facere quidve fugere debeant; neque hoc tantum, sed praeterea varie docendo et commonendo exhortandoque, et tum ad bona propositis praemiis incitando, tum a malis comminatione suppliciorum deterrendo. Hoc dico genus curae et providentiae, quod per legem (ut dixi) declaratur, non exercet Deus erga animalia, quod eiusmodi providentiae sola rationalis natura capax sit.

…both oxen and all animals are a care to God. For if otherwise, how would David have said: “All things expect of thee that thou give them food in due season?” And again: “Thou openest thy hand, and fillest every animal with blessing?” How would our Savior have said in the Gospel: “Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and your heavenly Father feeds them?” And again: “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, and not one of them shall fall upon the ground without your Father?” — or, as Luke reports, “Not one of them is in forgetfulness before God?” But God is not said to have care of oxen or animals as regards a certain special and singular providence and care — such, namely, as God has of men, whom he not only moves and rules through natural causes or natural instincts, but especially through “positive” laws (as they call them), commanding what they ought to do or to shun; and not only this, but besides, by variously teaching and admonishing and exhorting, and both inciting to good by proposed rewards, and deterring from evils by the threat of punishments. This kind of care and providence, which is declared through law (as I said), God does not exercise toward animals, because only rational nature is capable of providence of this sort.⁸

Ac licet in lege Mosaica quaedam praecepta fuerint de animalibus (velut de sublevandis iumentis in foveam lapsis, et de aliis eiusmodi), ea tamen non propter ipsa animalia, verum propter homines praecepta sunt. Vel quia, cum animalia sint aliquid hominum qui ea possident, si quid bene aut male animalibus evenit, id etiam ad eorum hominum utilitatem aut detrimentum pertinet; vel ut ex eo quod praecipitur de animalibus, cognoscatur id ipsum multo magis erga homines servari oportere. Exempli causa, praeceperat lex Mosis non esse boui trituranti os alligandum, non quidem propter bovem, sed propter hominem. Nam si inhumanum est boui hominis causa laboranti os alligare, quanto inhumanius atque iniquius censeri debet homini tua causa operanti ac laboranti dignam mercedem non retribuere? Verum pergamus ad alia.

And although in the Mosaic law there were certain precepts about animals (such as about lifting up beasts of burden fallen into a pit, and other things of this kind), these were nevertheless commanded not for the sake of the animals themselves, but for the sake of men. Either because, since the animals are something of the men who own them, if anything good or bad happens to the animals, that too pertains to the profit or detriment of those men; or so that, from what is commanded about animals, it may be recognized that the same ought much more to be observed toward men. For example, the law of Moses had commanded that the mouth of the ox treading out [the grain] should not be muzzled — not indeed for the ox's sake, but for man's. For if it is inhuman to muzzle the mouth of an ox laboring for a man's sake, how much more inhuman and unjust ought it to be judged not to render a worthy wage to a man working and laboring for your sake? But let us pass on to other matters.⁹

Adduxit Dominus spiritum super terram, et imminutae sunt aquae. Et clausi sunt fontes abyssi et cataractae caeli, et prohibitae sunt pluviae de caelo. Reversaeque sunt aquae de terra euntes et redeuntes, et coeperunt minui post centum quinquaginta dies. INDICAT Moses his verbis et quomodo et quando diminui coeperint aquae diluvii. Duas autem causas diminutionis diluvii tangit: unam (ut vocant) positivam — haec est spiritus vehemens maximaque pollens vi siccandi et [consumendi] aquas; altera causa est negativa, id est, occlu[sio]…

“The Lord brought a wind upon the earth, and the waters were diminished. And the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of heaven were closed, and the rains from heaven were restrained. And the waters returned from off the earth, going and returning; and they began to be abated after a hundred and fifty days.” Moses indicates by these words both how and when the waters of the flood began to diminish. And he touches on two causes of the diminution of the flood: one (as they call it) positive — this is a vehement wind, prevailing with the greatest force of drying and consuming the waters; the other cause is negative — that is, the clos[ing]…¹⁰

…occlusio fontium abyssi et cataractarum caeli, itemque prohibitio pluviae. Nam si ex fontium abyssi et cataractarum caeli apertione diluvium exstitit, ex earum ipsarum rerum occlusione cessatio diluvii proficisci debuit. His enim causis, ait Ambrosius, minuitur diluvium quibus crevit. Erupti erant fontes aquarum, apertae fuerant cataractae caeli, ut undique influentibus aquis terra inundaretur: debuerunt claudi ea ex quibus diluvii origo manavit, ut eius inciperet esse defectus. Sic Ambrosius.

…the closing of the fountains of the deep and of the cataracts of heaven, and likewise the restraining of the rain. For if the flood arose from the opening of the fountains of the deep and the cataracts of heaven, the cessation of the flood ought to proceed from the closing of those same things. “For by those causes,” says Ambrose, “the flood is diminished by which it grew. The fountains of waters had burst forth, the cataracts of heaven had been opened, that the earth might be inundated by waters flowing in from every side: those things had to be closed from which the origin of the flood flowed, that its failing might begin.” So Ambrose.¹¹

QUOMODO autem per istas causas tam brevi immensa illa aquarum moles diminui potuerit, putat Chrysostomus ratione humana esse incomprehensibile. Qua ratione, inquit, poterit hoc unquam comprehendere? Aqua tanta quomodo desiit? Omnia abyssus erant. Quomodo igitur tantus aquarum impetus subito minor factus est? Quis hoc humana ratione invenire poterit unquam? Quid igitur est? Dei praeceptum est quod facit omnia. Ne igitur nos curiosius exploremus, Quomodo; sed tantum credamus quod iussit, et exaltata est abyssus; et praecepit, et iterum suum continuit impetum, et ad proprium concessit locum, quem solus ipse Dominus scit qui condidit. Haec Chrysostomus.

But how, by those causes, that immense mass of waters could be diminished in so short a time, Chrysostom thinks incomprehensible to human reason. “By what reason,” he says, “could one ever comprehend this? How did so great a water cease? All things were the abyss. How, then, was so great an onset of waters suddenly made less? Who could ever find this out by human reason? What, then, is it? It is the command of God which does all things. Let us, therefore, not search too curiously How; but only believe that he commanded, and the abyss was raised up; and he commanded, and again it restrained its onset, and withdrew to its own place, which the Lord alone knows who founded it.” This [says] Chrysostom.¹²

PRO eo quod nos legimus, Adduxit spiritum super terram, Hebraice ad verbum est: Transire fecit spiritum super terram: quod magnam emphasim habet et incredibilem vim illius spiritus demonstrat. Nam illud, Super terram, intelligi vult Caietanus de terra usquequaque et altissime cooperta aquis; et illud, transire, significat spiritum illum seu ventum per totam profunditatem aquarum penetrasse ac permeasse. Quis porro fuerit hic spiritus, quemadmodum generatus, quantamque et qualem vim habuerit, mox disputabitur in Disputatione quae super hoc caput octavum infra tractabitur. Pro illo, Imminutae sunt aquae, Graece est, Cessavit aqua. Hebraeum verbum hoc loco, sachah, Cessare, quiescere et remitti significat. Pro illo, Clausi sunt fontes abyssi, Hieronymus legit, Revelati sunt: sic enim scribit: Et quievit aqua, et revelati sunt fontes abyssi. Pro revelatis fontibus clausos et obturatos omnes interpretes transtulerunt. Chrysostomus quoque videtur legisse revelatos esse fontes.

In place of what we read, “He brought a wind upon the earth,” the Hebrew word for word is: “He made a wind to pass over the earth” — which has great emphasis, and demonstrates the incredible force of that wind. For that phrase, “over the earth,” Cajetan wishes to be understood of the earth everywhere and most deeply covered with waters; and that word, “to pass over,” signifies that that spirit or wind penetrated and passed through the whole depth of the waters. But who this spirit was, how it was generated, and how great and of what kind its force was, will soon be disputed in the Disputation which will be treated below on this eighth chapter. In place of “The waters were diminished,” the Greek is, “The water ceased.” The Hebrew word here, sachah, signifies to cease, to rest, and to be slackened. In place of “The fountains of the deep were closed,” Jerome reads, “were revealed”: for he writes thus: “And the water rested, and the fountains of the deep were revealed.” For “revealed fountains” all the [other] interpreters translated “closed” and “stopped up.” Chrysostom too seems to have read that the fountains were revealed.¹³

SED quomodo revelatio seu reclusio fontium ad minuendum et tollendum diluvium conduxerit, et non potius ad conservandum et augendum (nam et supra, quo diluvium fieret, legimus ruptos fuisse abyssi fontes), haud equidem intelligo. Nisi propterea revelati dicantur, ut resorberent aquas quas evomuerant super terram — innuente id Chrysostomo, qui interpretans illud, Revelatis fontibus, ait placuisse Deo ut iterum in sua regione manerent aquae, neque ultra redundarent, sed paulatim desinerent. An vero, quod hic dicitur de occlusione fontium abyssi et cataractarum caeli, et de prohibitione pluviae, intelligendum sit esse factum post illos centum quinquaginta dies diluvii (ut hic significatur), an potius ante illos dies, videlicet statim post quadraginta illos dies pluviae, et hic a Mose memoratum sit per recapitulationem, satis dubium et controversum est. Verum hoc infra disputabitur in quadam disputatione super hoc caput.

But how the revealing or re-opening of the fountains contributed to diminishing and removing the flood, and not rather to conserving and increasing it (for above, too, in order that the flood might occur, we read that the fountains of the deep were broken up), I do not indeed understand — unless they are said to be “revealed” for this reason, that they might resorb the waters which they had vomited out over the earth; Chrysostom hinting at this, who, interpreting that phrase, “the fountains being revealed,” says it pleased God that the waters should again remain in their own region, and no longer overflow, but gradually cease. But whether what is here said about the closing of the fountains of the deep and the cataracts of heaven, and about the restraining of the rain, is to be understood to have been done after those hundred and fifty days of the flood (as is here signified), or rather before those days — namely immediately after those forty days of rain, and is here mentioned by Moses by recapitulation — is sufficiently doubtful and controverted. But this will be disputed below in a certain disputation on this chapter.¹⁴

SEQUITUR: Reversae sunt aquae de terra euntes et redeuntes. Id est: Coeperunt aquae deserere terram, et non stare in tanta altitudine super terram. Illud, Euntes et redeuntes: vel Hebraismus est, significans idem quod paulatim et magis magisque decrescentes; vel significat, propter vehementem illius venti flatum, coepisse coagitari et fluctuare aquas, cum antea immobiles stetissent. Tanta enim fuerat (inquit Caietanus) aquarum diluvii copia et altitudo, ut privaverit aquas officio fluxus et refluxus: primusque effectus clausorum fontium et cataractarum caeli et illius venti a Deo missi fuerit reversio aquarum ad fluendum et refluendum super terram. Vel dicitur aquae reversae ad sua loca nativa, unde praeter naturam exierant ad inundandam terram — hoc est, vel in abyssum, vel in Oceanum, vel in proprios alveos fluminum, lacuum et paludum. Nota, inquit Hieronymus, secundum Ecclesiasten, quod omnes aquae atque torrentes per occultas venas ad matricem abyssum revertantur. Pro illo, Euntes et revertentes, Septuaginta habent: Cedebat aqua vadens de terra. Illud denique, Coeperunt minui post centum quinquaginta dies, denotat tempus quo diminutio aquarum diluvii primum fieri coepta est. Unde autem istorum centum quinquaginta dierum sumendum sit initium — utrum a principio diluvii, an post quadraginta dies pluviae — in controversia est: quam nos supra explicavimus, cum tractaremus quandam hac ipsa de re disputationem super cap. 7.

There follows: “And the waters returned from off the earth, going and returning.” That is: the waters began to leave the earth, and not to stand at so great a height over the earth. That phrase, “going and returning”: either it is a Hebraism, signifying the same as “gradually and more and more decreasing”; or it signifies that, on account of the vehement blast of that wind, the waters began to be agitated and to fluctuate, when before they had stood motionless. For so great (says Cajetan) had been the abundance and height of the waters of the flood, that it had deprived the waters of the function of ebb and flow: and the first effect of the closed fountains and cataracts of heaven, and of that wind sent by God, was the return of the waters to flowing and ebbing over the earth. Or the waters are said to have returned to their native places, whence they had gone out, beyond nature, to inundate the earth — that is, either into the abyss, or into the Ocean, or into the proper channels of rivers, lakes, and marshes. “Note,” says Jerome, “according to Ecclesiastes, that all waters and torrents return through hidden veins to the mother-abyss.” In place of “going and returning,” the Septuagint has: “The water was withdrawing, going from the earth.” Finally, that phrase, “They began to be abated after a hundred and fifty days,” denotes the time at which the diminution of the waters of the flood first began. But whence the beginning of those hundred and fifty days is to be taken — whether from the beginning of the flood, or after the forty days of rain — is in controversy: which we explained above, when we treated a certain disputation on this very matter on chapter 7.¹⁵

Translator’s notes

Preface to Liber XIII: the sevenfold plan of Genesis 8. ↩
Commentary on Gen. 8:1 begins: ‘God remembered’ is figurative speech (no change in God). Margin: James 1. ↩
Theodoret on Scripture's accommodated language. Margin: Theodoret, q. 42 on Genesis. Continues on p. 334. ↩
§1 (concl.). Theodoret on ‘remember/repent’ as accommodated speech. Margins: 1 Sam. 15; Gen. 6. ↩
§2. The Scriptural senses of God ‘forgetting’ and ‘remembering.’ Margins: “What it is for God to forget or remember, of the good as of the bad”; 3 Kings 17. ↩
§3. Why God ‘remembered’ the animals too (Theodoret). Margins: Theodoret, ibid.; Ps. 103; Ps. 35. ↩
§4. The objection from 1 Cor. 9 (‘God has no care for oxen’). Margins: “The passage of Paul, 1 Cor. 9”; “How God both does and does not care for animals.” Continues on p. 335. ↩
§4 (cont.). God's general providence extends to beasts; his ‘legislative’ providence only to rational creatures. Margins: Ps. 103; Ps. 144; Matt. 6; Matt. 10; Luke 12. ↩
§5. The Mosaic animal-laws were given for man's sake. Margins: Exod. 23; Deut. 25; 1 Cor. 9. ↩
§6. Gen. 8:2–3; the two causes (the wind, and the shutting of the deep). Margin: Gen. 8, v. 2. Continues on p. 336. ↩
Completes §6. Margin: Ambrose, On Noah and the Ark, ch. 17. ↩
§7. Chrysostom: the swift draining is beyond human reason — God's command. Margin: Chrysostom, hom. 25 on Genesis. ↩
§8. The Hebrew ‘made the wind pass over’; textual variants (‘ceased’; ‘revealed’ vs ‘closed’ fountains). Margins: Cajetan; Jerome, On the Hebrew Traditions in Genesis; Chrysostom, hom. 26. ↩
§9. The puzzle of the ‘revealed’ fountains, and whether the closing came after the 150 days or by recapitulation. Margin: Chrysostom, ibid. ↩
§10. ‘Going and returning’; the waters' return to the deep (Cajetan, Jerome); the 150-days controversy recalled. Margins: Cajetan, on Gen. ch. 8; Jerome; Eccles. 1. ↩