Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

Book Thirteen — the diminution and cessation of the flood

FIRST DISPUTATION. What that spirit was which the Lord brought upon the earth to dry the waters of the flood

LatineEnglish

FIRST DISPUTATION. What that spirit was which the Lord brought upon the earth to dry the waters of the flood.

PRIMA DISPUTATIO. Quis fuerit ille spiritus quem adduxit Dominus super terram ad siccandas diluvii aquas.

QUID hoc loco proprie significetur vocabulo spiritus, triplex interpretatio est. Quidam arbitrantur ea voce significari spiritum sanctum. Aut enim, inquiunt, significatur ventus aut spiritus sanctus (utrumque enim eo nomine exprimi solet in sacris litteris), neque huic loco nisi alterutrum convenire potest: sed non significatur ventus, siquidem incredibile est ullius venti naturalem vim tanti diluvii exsiccandi esse potuisse; ergo significatur Spiritus sanctus, qui sane cessationi diluvii commode attribuitur. Sicut enim effectio diluvii opus fuit divinae irae ac iustitiae scelerum ultricis et vindicis, ita diluvii cessatio et remotio opus fuit divinae clementiae et misericordiae. Solent autem opera clementiae et misericordiae divinae Spiritui sancto attribui, vel, ut loquimur in scholis, appropriari. Duos autem in primis graves ac nobiles huius sententiae auctores habeo…
What is properly signified in this place by the word “spirit,” there is a threefold interpretation. Some think that by that word is signified the Holy Spirit. For either, they say, a wind or the Holy Spirit is signified (for each is wont to be expressed by that name in the sacred writings), and to this place only one or the other can fit: but a wind is not signified, since it is incredible that the natural force of any wind could have dried up so great a flood; therefore the Holy Spirit is signified — who indeed is fitly attributed to the cessation of the flood. For just as the effecting of the flood was a work of the divine anger and justice, avenging and punishing crimes, so the cessation and removal of the flood was a work of the divine clemency and mercy. And the works of divine clemency and mercy are wont to be attributed to the Holy Spirit, or, as we say in the schools, “appropriated” [to him]. And I have, in the first place, two weighty and noble authors of this opinion…1
…habeo, Ambrosium et Theodoretum. Ambrosius quidem, tractans ea ipsa verba Mosis super quibus nunc disputatur, Et induxit Dominus spiritum super terram, et cessavit aqua, ad hunc modum scribit: Non puto hoc ita dictum, ut spiritus nomine ventum accipiamus: neque enim ventus poterat siccare diluvium. Alioquin, cum mare ventis exagitetur quotidie, exinaniretur profecto. Nam quomodo non evacuaretur mare ventorum vi, cui cessisset toto diffusum orbe diluvium, usque ad Herculis (ut aiunt) columnas, et mare magnum tectis montium excelsorum verticibus exaestuans? Spiritus igitur divini virtute invisibili diluvium illud repressum esse dubium non est, caelestique operatione, non flatu. Unde scriptum est: Emitte Spiritum tuum, et creabuntur, et renovabis faciem terrae. Est ergo Spiritus cuius operationi cedunt universa: in quo caeli ipsius virtus sit, sicut scriptum est: Verbo Domini caeli firmati sunt, et Spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum. Qui Spiritus est creator universorum, sicut Iob dixit: Spiritus divinus qui fecit me. Haec Ambrosius.
…namely, Ambrose and Theodoret. Ambrose, treating those very words of Moses about which we now dispute, “And the Lord brought a wind upon the earth, and the water ceased,” writes in this manner: “I do not think this was so said that we should take by the name ‘wind’ a [mere] wind: for neither could a wind dry up the flood. Otherwise, since the sea is daily agitated by the winds, it would surely be emptied. For how would the sea not be emptied by the force of the winds — the sea to which the flood, diffused over the whole world up to the columns of Hercules (as they say), had yielded, and the great sea surging over the covered peaks of the high mountains? There is no doubt, therefore, that that flood was repressed by the invisible power of the divine Spirit, and by a celestial operation, not by a [mere] blast. Whence it is written: ‘Send forth thy Spirit, and they shall be created, and thou shalt renew the face of the earth.’ There is, therefore, a Spirit to whose operation all things yield: in whom is the power of heaven itself, as it is written: ‘By the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of his mouth all their power.’ Which Spirit is the creator of all things, as Job said: ‘The divine Spirit that made me.’” This [says] Ambrose.2
Theodoretus vero (uti citatur in Catena in Genesim) in eandem sententiam breviter ita scribit: Non solent, inquit, aquae ventis imminui, sed potius fluctuare atque turbari. Iam enim hoc pacto amplissimi maris sinus essent exhausti. Spiritum ergo divinum innuit Moses, quo sane omnia fiunt, et agitata quiescunt. Sic Theodoretus.
But Theodoret (as he is cited in the Catena on Genesis) writes briefly to the same effect thus: “Waters,” he says, “are not wont to be diminished by winds, but rather to fluctuate and be disturbed. For in that way the bays of the vast sea would [long since] have been exhausted. Moses therefore hints at the divine Spirit, by which indeed all things are done, and agitated things rest.” So Theodoret.3
ALTERA interpretatio est, hic significari spiritus vocabulo ipsum Solem, qui ardentissimus cum est, incredibilem vim habet siccandi et consumendi humorem. Credibile enim est diluvium aestivo tempore (ut supra dictum est libro duodecimo) finitum esse. Adiungerent alii, tanquam adiutrices Solis ad id efficiendum, constellationes aliquas caelestes exsiccandi humoris efficacissimas. Omnino, Rupertus hunc locum Mosis strictim interpretans: Quem, inquit, Moses Spiritum appellat, iuxta litteram aut calidum ventum, aut etiam ipsum Solem qui hactenus sub densis nubibus latuerat, intelligimus. Dixit enim de illo Ecclesiastes: Lustrans universa per circuitum pergit Spiritus, et in circulos suos revertitur. Sic Rupertus. Quae verba Salomonis etiam B. Hieronymus in commentario eius loci de Sole interpretatur, affirmans eum nominatum esse spiritum, aut quia spiritu ipse vivifico animetur ac vigeat (ut Philosophis et Poëtis placet), aut quia vitalem rebus vim et motum inspiret atque infundat.
The second interpretation is that here, by the word “spirit,” the Sun itself is signified, which, when it is most burning, has an incredible force of drying up and consuming moisture. For it is credible that the flood was finished in the summer-time (as was said above in the twelfth book). Others would add, as helpers of the Sun for accomplishing this, certain celestial constellations most effective at drying up moisture. Rupert, interpreting this passage of Moses briefly, [says]: “What Moses calls ‘Spirit,’ we understand, according to the letter, either a hot wind, or even the Sun itself, which hitherto had lain hidden under the dense clouds. For Ecclesiastes said of it: ‘Surveying all things round about, the Spirit goeth, and returneth in its circuits.’” So Rupert. Which words of Solomon St. Jerome too, in the commentary on that passage, interprets of the Sun — affirming that it is named “spirit,” either because it is itself animated and flourishes by a life-giving spirit (as is the view of the Philosophers and Poets), or because it breathes and infuses a vital force and motion into things.4
CERTE Aristoteli (ut legere apud eum licet in libro secundo Meteorologicorum) visum est immensam aquae copiam, quae ex innumeris fluminibus in mare influentibus accedit mari, nec tamen ipsum plenius et redundantius facit, virtute Solis exsiccari et consumi. Quod his concinnis versibus etiam Lucretius expressit libro sexto: Praeterea magnam Sol partem detrahit aestu; / quippe videmus enim vestes humore madentes / exsiccare suis radiis ardentibus Solem. / At pelage multa et late substrata videmus: / proinde licet quamvis ex uno quoque loco Sol / humoris parvam delibet ab aequore partem, / largiter in tanto spatio tamen auferet undis.
Certainly to Aristotle (as one may read in him in the second book of the Meteorology) it seemed that the immense abundance of water, which accrues to the sea from innumerable rivers flowing into it — and yet does not make it fuller or more overflowing — is dried up and consumed by the force of the Sun. Which Lucretius too expressed in these neat verses, in the sixth book: “Besides, the Sun draws off a great part by [its] heat: for we see indeed the Sun dry, with its burning rays, garments wet with moisture. But we see many seas, spread out far and wide: therefore, although the Sun may take but a small part of moisture from the surface of any one place, yet over so great a space it will withal carry off [much] from the waves.”5
Sic Lucretius. In cuius quarto versu eorum quos memoravimus, posui pelage, non autem (ut vulgo legitur) pelago, secutus emendationem Lambini, qui optimo iudicio usus sic restituit et legendum edidit. Est enim pelage accusativus, a Graeco πελάγη.
So Lucretius. In the fourth verse of those which we have cited, I have put “pelage,” not (as is commonly read) “pelago,” following the emendation of Lambinus, who, using the best judgment, thus restored it and published it as the [correct] reading. For “pelage” is an accusative, from the Greek πελάγη (pelagē, “seas”).6
TERTIA est interpretatio, quae simplicior et planior magisque huic loco Mosis apta et accommodata videtur, vocabulo spiritus significari ventum quem Deus miserit ad siccandas et consumendas diluvii aquas. Similiter enim in libro Exodi, capite decimo quarto, legimus cum, percussu virgae Mosis, aquae maris rubri divisae utraque ex parte instar muri stetissent, locumque medium Hebraeis ad transeundum concessissent, ad fundum eius loci maris siccandum (quo scilicet inoffensis siccisque vestigiis transmitterent Hebraei) missum esse ventum vehementem atque urentem. Cum extendisset Moses manum suam super mare (inquit scriptura), abstulit illud Dominus, flante vento vehementi et urente tota nocte, et vertit in siccum, divisaque est aqua, et ingressi sunt filii Israël per medium sicci maris: erat enim aqua quasi murus a dextra eorum et laeva.
The third interpretation, which seems simpler and plainer, and more apt and suited to this passage of Moses, is that by the word “spirit” is signified a wind which God sent to dry and consume the waters of the flood. For similarly, in the book of Exodus, chapter fourteen, we read that, when by the striking of Moses' rod the waters of the Red Sea, divided, had stood on either side like a wall, and had given a middle place to the Hebrews for crossing, then, for drying the bottom of that place of the sea (so that the Hebrews might pass over with unhindered and dry footsteps), a vehement and burning wind was sent. “When Moses had stretched forth his hand over the sea” (says Scripture), “the Lord took it away, a vehement and burning wind blowing all the night, and turned it into dry ground; and the water was divided, and the children of Israel went in through the midst of the dried sea: for the water was as a wall on their right hand and on their left.”7
CERTE, esse quosdam ventos incredibili efficacia siccandi humoris praeditos, manifestis experimentis notissimum est. Aquilo, dissipans pluvias, appellatur a Salomone. Et vero, cum is perquam vehemens et pertinax est, serenat caelum, imbres et imbriferas nubes profligat; terram quamvis humidam aut etiam caenosam celerrime siccat, et ipsam aquam vehementer conglaciat, et in duritiam lapidis gelat, tribuens ei vim herbas aliaque terrae virentia non siccandi modo, verum etiam urendi, ut in libro Ecclesiastici capite 43 scriptum est. Lucretius, cur mare tot tantisque fluminibus in ipsum decurrentibus nunquam redundet, causam refert tum ad alia, tum etiam ad ventos qui totam illam aquam in mare infusam velut everrentes absumant. Sic enim ait: Tum porro venti magnam quoque tollere partem / humoris possunt, verrentes aequora Ponti: / una nocte vias quoniam persaepe videmus / siccari, mollisque luti concrescere crustas.
Certainly, that there are certain winds endowed with an incredible efficacy of drying moisture is most well known by manifest experiments. The North Wind (Aquilo) is called by Solomon “the scatterer of rains.” And indeed, when it is very vehement and persistent, it clears the sky, drives away rains and rain-bearing clouds; it most rapidly dries the earth, however moist or even muddy; and it strongly freezes the very water, and congeals it into the hardness of stone, giving it the force of not only drying but even burning herbs and other green things of the earth, as is written in the book of Ecclesiasticus, chapter 43. Lucretius, [as to] why the sea, with so many and so great rivers running down into it, never overflows, refers the cause partly to other things, and partly also to the winds, which, as it were sweeping, consume all that water poured into the sea. For thus he says: “Then, moreover, the winds too can carry off a great part of the moisture, sweeping the surfaces of the Sea: since very often we see the roads dried in a single night, and the crusts of soft mud harden.”8
VERUM roget me fortasse quispiam num ventus ille naturalis fuerit, an praeter ordinem et supra vim naturae aliquid habuerit. Equidem sine dubitatione dixerim generationem illius venti non fuisse naturalem. Cum enim diluvium totam undique terram aquis obrutam, etiam quindecim cubitis super altissimos montes, tot menses obtinuerit, unde quaeso naturaliter extrahi e terra, et in sublime supra diluvii altitudinem extolli, potuit exhalatio calida et sicca, quae generando illi vento calidissimo et siccissimo materia esset idonea? Non igitur generatio illius venti naturalis fuit, sed per omnipotentiam Dei supra vim et potestatem naturae facta. Et ad hoc indicandum, signate dixit Moses adduxisse Dominum ventum super terram, vel ut habent Hebraea, transire fecisse ventum super terram.
But perhaps someone will ask me whether that wind was natural, or had something beyond the order and above the force of nature. For my part, I would say without hesitation that the generation of that wind was not natural. For since the flood held the whole earth, on every side overwhelmed with waters — even fifteen cubits above the highest mountains — for so many months, whence, I ask, could a hot and dry exhalation be naturally drawn out of the earth, and raised on high above the height of the flood, which would be suitable matter for generating that most hot and most dry wind? The generation of that wind, therefore, was not natural, but made by the omnipotence of God above the force and power of nature. And to indicate this, Moses said pointedly that the Lord brought a wind over the earth — or, as the Hebrew has it, made a wind to pass over the earth.9
NUM autem virtus illius venti, qua siccavit aquas diluvii, fuerit naturalis (id est, talis qualem natura ferre et ventis tribuere possit), non sine causa dubitari potest. Sed ne longum faciam, ego sic sentio: Si ventus ille vim habuit siccandi et consumendi totam illam diluvii aquarum molem, reor equidem vim illam non fuisse naturalem: non videtur enim tanta illa vis proficisci posse ex ullis causis naturalibus; sed credendum est, sicut Deus ventum illum praeter ordinem naturae creavit, ita dedisse ei longe maiores vires quam natura tribuere potuisset: ut ventus ille miraculi loco haberi debeat, tam propter generationem eius quam propter vim et efficacitatem.
But whether the power of that wind, by which it dried the waters of the flood, was natural (that is, such as nature could produce and assign to winds), can not without cause be doubted. But, not to be long, I think thus: If that wind had the force of drying and consuming that whole mass of the waters of the flood, I judge indeed that that force was not natural: for so great a force does not seem able to proceed from any natural causes; but it must be believed that, just as God created that wind beyond the order of nature, so he gave it far greater powers than nature could have given: so that that wind ought to be held in the place of a miracle, both on account of its generation and on account of its force and efficacy.10
SIN autem ventus ille non tam missus est ad siccandas et consumendas diluvii aquas (licet ad id etiam ille non parum contulerit) quam ut penitus siccaret terram, quae etiam aquis nudata remanserat valde humida et caenosa, talisque ut nisi siccaretur, nec homines nec animalia per eam inoffense commodeque possent ingredi: si ad hoc, inquam, praecipue ventus ille missus est, non ibo inficias virtutem eius naturalem esse potuisse. Neque enim effectus ille, id est, siccatio terrae, talis aut tantus fuit, ut quantamlibet vim cuiusvis venti naturalem excederet.
But if that wind was sent not so much to dry and consume the waters of the flood (although to that too it contributed not a little) as to dry thoroughly the earth — which, even when stripped of the waters, had remained very moist and muddy, and such that, unless it were dried, neither men nor animals could walk over it without hindrance and conveniently: if, I say, that wind was sent chiefly for this, I will not deny that its force could have been natural. For that effect — that is, the drying of the earth — was neither such nor so great as to exceed any natural force whatever of any wind.11

Translator’s notes

  1. §11. First interpretation: the ‘spirit’ = the Holy Spirit. Margins: “First interpretation: the spirit here is the Holy Spirit”; “The opinion of Ambrose and Theodoret.” Continues on p. 338. ↩
  2. Ambrose for the Holy-Spirit reading. Margins: Ambrose, On Noah and the Ark, ch. 16; Ps. 103; Ps. 32; Job 33. ↩
  3. Theodoret likewise. Margin: Theodoret. ↩
  4. §12. Second interpretation: the ‘spirit’ = the Sun (Rupert, Jerome). Margins: “Second interpretation: the spirit that dried the flood was the Sun”; Rupert, Commentaries on Genesis, bk. 4, ch. 22; Eccles. 1; Jerome. ↩
  5. §13. Aristotle and Lucretius: the Sun consumes the sea's excess. Margins: Aristotle; Lucretius. Continues on p. 339. ↩
  6. A philological note (Pererius endorses Lambinus's emendation of Lucretius). Margin: Lucretius. ↩
  7. §14. Third interpretation (Pererius's preferred): the ‘spirit’ = a wind (cf. the wind at the Red Sea, Exod. 14). Margin: “Third interpretation: by the name ‘spirit’ is signified a wind.” ↩
  8. §15. The drying power of winds (the North Wind; Lucretius). Margins: Prov. 25; Lucretius, bk. 6. ↩
  9. §16. The wind's generation was supernatural (no dry exhalation could rise from the flooded earth). Margins: “That the generation of that wind was not natural”; Gen. 7. Continues on p. 340. ↩
  10. §17. Whether the wind's drying-power was natural: if it dried the whole Flood, the power too was miraculous. Margin: “Whether the power of that wind was natural.” ↩
  11. But if the wind chiefly served to dry the (already exposed) muddy ground, its force could have been natural. ↩