LatineEnglish
FOURTH DISPUTATION. Whence that seventh month is to be counted, in which month Moses said the Ark rested upon the mountains of Armenia.
QUARTA DISPUTATIO. Unde computandus sit mensis ille septimus, quo mense dixit Moses Arcam requievisse super montes Armeniae.
HIC quaeritur utrum dicatur mensis ille septimus ab initio anni sexcentesimi, an ab initio diluvii et ex quo Noë ingressus est in Arcam. Duae sunt sententiae auctorum: una est eorum qui illos centum quinquaginta dies (quibus aquae obtinuerunt terram, et post quos aquae diluvii coeperunt imminui, ut supra dixit Moses) auspicantur post quadraginta illos dies pluviae, ita ut ab initio diluvii usque ad id temporis quo coeperunt aquae diminui numerent centum nonaginta dies: et huius sententiae supra libro duodecimo diximus esse Iosephum, B. Chrysostomum, Tostatum et Caietanum. Secundum hos igitur non potest intelligi mensem quo requievit Arca fuisse septimum ab initio anni sexcentesimi. Nam (ut eisdem visum est) cum ab initio diluvii usque ad initium diminutionis aquarum transierint centum nonaginta dies, et iam ab initio anni transierant quadraginta sex dies usque ad principium diluvii (siquidem die decimo septimo mensis secundi incoepit diluvium), ergo ab initio anni usque ad principium diminutionis aquarum transivissent ducenti triginta sex dies, hoc est, fere octo menses. Si igitur Arca requievisset super montes vigesima septima die mensis septimi ab initio anni, sequeretur Arcam triginta diebus requievisse super montes priusquam aquae coepissent diminui: quod est per se absurdum, et narrationi Mosis manifeste contrarium. Necesse igitur est istos auctores septimum mensem quo requievit Arca computare non ab initio anni sexcentesimi, sed ab initio diluvii.
Here it is asked whether that seventh month is said [to be counted] from the beginning of the six hundredth year, or from the beginning of the flood and from when Noah entered the Ark. There are two opinions of the authors: one is of those who begin those hundred and fifty days (during which the waters held the earth, and after which the waters of the flood began to diminish, as Moses said above) after those forty days of rain, so that from the beginning of the flood up to that time at which the waters began to diminish they count a hundred and ninety days: and of this opinion we said above, in the twelfth book, were Josephus, St. Chrysostom, Tostatus, and Cajetan. According to these, therefore, it cannot be understood that the month in which the Ark rested was the seventh from the beginning of the six hundredth year. For (as they hold) since from the beginning of the flood up to the beginning of the diminution of the waters a hundred and ninety days passed, and from the beginning of the year forty-six days had already passed up to the beginning of the flood (since on the seventeenth day of the second month the flood began), therefore from the beginning of the year up to the beginning of the diminution of the waters two hundred and thirty-six days would have passed — that is, nearly eight months. If, therefore, the Ark had rested upon the mountains on the twenty-seventh day of the seventh month from the beginning of the year, it would follow that the Ark rested upon the mountains thirty days before the waters began to diminish: which is in itself absurd, and manifestly contrary to the narrative of Moses. It is necessary, therefore, that these authors count the seventh month in which the Ark rested not from the beginning of the six hundredth year, but from the beginning of the flood.1
SED quemadmodum eam computationem ipsi declarent, deinceps videndum est.
But how they explain that computation must next be seen.2
Caietanus quidem hoc loco sic eam computationem explicat: Si supputaveris, inquit, a die qua coepit diluvium usque ad diem decimum septimum mensis septimi quo requievit Arca (sic enim legit Caietanus, Scripturam Hebraicam secutus, cum nostra lectio Latina habeat diem vigesimum septimum, de qua varietate et discrepantia lectionis quaestione proxime sequenti disputabitur) — si, inquam, supputaveris a die quo coepit diluvium usque ad diem decimum septimum mensis septimi quo requievit arca, numerabis unum et nonaginta centumque dies, qui conficiunt menses sex et dies decem et septem, deputando secundum Hebraeos cuilibet mensi viginti novem dies: itaque quod decimus septimus dies mensis septimi fuit centesimus nonagesimus primus dies a principio diluvii. Et hinc patet quod numerus ille centum quinquaginta dierum aestimari debet post quadraginta dies pluviae. Haec Caietanus.
Cajetan in this place thus explains that computation: “If you reckon,” he says, “from the day on which the flood began up to the seventeenth day of the seventh month on which the Ark rested” (for thus Cajetan reads, following the Hebrew Scripture, whereas our Latin reading has the twenty-seventh day — about which variety and discrepancy of reading it will be disputed in the next following question) — “if, I say, you reckon from the day on which the flood began up to the seventeenth day of the seventh month on which the ark rested, you will count a hundred and ninety-one days, which make six months and seventeen days, reckoning, according to the Hebrews, twenty-nine days to each month: and so the seventeenth day of the seventh month was the hundred and ninety-first day from the beginning of the flood. And hence it is plain that that number of a hundred and fifty days ought to be reckoned after the forty days of rain.” This [says] Cajetan.3
SED in Caietani computatione duo sunt minime probanda. Primum enim, contra sententiam omnium, et contra Hebraeorum atque omnium gentium consuetudinem, cuilibet mensi Lunari (tales autem erant menses Hebraeorum) non assignat nisi viginti novem dies; cum manifestum sit unumquemlibet mensem Lunarem continere viginti novem dies et insuper dimidium diem. Quamobrem Hebraei, alternis, unum mensem faciebant viginti novem dierum, alterum vero triginta. Hinc fit ut sex menses Lunares una cum decem et septem diebus efficiant dies centum nonaginta quatuor, non autem centum nonaginta et unum, sicut existimavit Caietanus. Deinde, secundum computationem Caietani, sequeretur ut eo ipso die quo coeperunt diminui aquae, etiam Arca resederit super montes: quod est improbabile; praesertim cum, ex quo resedit Arca donec apparuerunt cacumina montium, praeterierint (secundum ipsum Caietanum) septuaginta dies. Quo licet intelligere illa diminutio aquarum diluvii quam lente ac paulatim facta sit.
But in Cajetan's computation two things are by no means to be approved. For first, against the opinion of all, and against the custom of the Hebrews and of all nations, he assigns to each Lunar month (and such were the months of the Hebrews) only twenty-nine days; whereas it is manifest that each Lunar month contains twenty-nine days and, besides, half a day. Wherefore the Hebrews, alternately, made one month of twenty-nine days, but the other of thirty. Hence it comes about that six Lunar months together with seventeen days make a hundred and ninety-four days, not a hundred and ninety-one, as Cajetan thought. Next, according to Cajetan's computation, it would follow that on the very day on which the waters began to diminish, the Ark also settled upon the mountains: which is improbable; especially since, from when the Ark settled until the tops of the mountains appeared, seventy days passed (according to Cajetan himself). Whereby one may understand how slowly and gradually that diminution of the waters of the flood was made.4
TOSTATUS autem eandem computationem sic explanat: Si quis, inquit, ab initio diluvii numeret septem menses Lunares, inveniet septem et ducentos dies: cum autem ab initio diluvii quoad coeperunt imminui aquae praeterierint centum nonaginta dies (ut supra ostendimus), supererunt decem et septem dies, quibus dicemus Arcam, post initium decrementi aquarum, fluitasse huc illuc priusquam resideret super montes Armeniae. Verum in hac sua Computatione lapsus est Tostatus, numerans septem menses integros ab initio diluvii quousque resedit Arca, cum illi non fuerint integri, sed defuerint tres dies ad complementum septimi mensis; siquidem Arca resedit vigesimo septimo die mensis septimi, quocirca tres dies ad eius septimi mensis consummationem deerant. Non igitur a principio diminutionis aquarum usque ad diem qua resedit Arca excurrerunt decem et septem dies, ut vult Tostatus, sed quatuordecim tantum.
But Tostatus explains the same computation thus: “If anyone counts seven Lunar months from the beginning of the flood, he will find two hundred and seven days: and since from the beginning of the flood until the waters began to diminish a hundred and ninety days passed (as we showed above), there will remain seventeen days, during which we shall say that the Ark, after the beginning of the decrease of the waters, floated this way and that before it settled upon the mountains of Armenia.” But in this computation of his Tostatus erred, counting seven whole months from the beginning of the flood up to when the Ark settled — whereas they were not whole, but three days were lacking for the completion of the seventh month; since the Ark settled on the twenty-seventh day of the seventh month, wherefore three days were lacking for the completion of that seventh month. Therefore, from the beginning of the diminution of the waters up to the day on which the Ark settled, there did not run seventeen days, as Tostatus wishes, but only fourteen.5
ALTERA sententia est eorum auctorum qui illos centum quinquaginta dies numerant ab initio diluvii. Hanc autem sententiam tribuimus supra historiae scholasticae et Lyrano. Isti septimum mensem quietis Arcae numerant ab initio anni, non autem diluvii. Et huic sententiae consequens est inter eum diem quo coeperunt imminui aquae diluvii, et eum diem quo resedit Arca, interfluxisse octo dies, quibus diebus eatenus imminutae sunt aquae (quae altissimos montes quindecim cubitis supergressae fuerant) ut Arca, basi vel fundo suo verticem unius montium Armeniae contingens, super eum reseder[it]…
The other opinion is of those authors who count those hundred and fifty days from the beginning of the flood. And this opinion we attributed above to the Scholastic History and to Lyra. These count the seventh month of the Ark's rest from the beginning of the year, not of the flood. And it is consequent to this opinion that between the day on which the waters of the flood began to diminish and the day on which the Ark settled, eight days intervened — during which days the waters (which had surpassed the highest mountains by fifteen cubits) were so far diminished that the Ark, touching with its base or bottom the peak of one of the mountains of Armenia, settled upon it…6
…super eum resederit. Huius autem computationis ratio facile iniri et subduci ad hunc modum potest. Ab initio anni sexcentesimi usque ad initium diluvii (quod factum est decimo septimo die mensis secundi) praeterierunt quadraginta sex dies; et hos consecuti sunt centum quinquaginta dies quibus duravit incrementum diluvii. Ex utroque autem hoc numero exsistit summa centum nonaginta sex dierum. Restant igitur octo dies usque ad quatuor et ducentos, qui quidem efficiunt sex menses Lunares et insuper viginti septem dies — quo die vigesimo septimo mensis septimi dicitur requievisse Arca.
…settled upon it. And the reasoning of this computation can easily be entered upon and worked out in this way. From the beginning of the six hundredth year up to the beginning of the flood (which happened on the seventeenth day of the second month) forty-six days passed; and these were followed by the hundred and fifty days during which the increase of the flood lasted. From both this number there arises a sum of a hundred and ninety-six days. There remain, therefore, eight days up to two hundred and four, which indeed make six Lunar months and, besides, twenty-seven days — on which twenty-seventh day of the seventh month the Ark is said to have rested.7
HANC opinionem illud facit mihi quidem valde probabilem, quod eodem modo secundum eam computantur omnes menses qui in hac narratione numerantur a Mose, scilicet ab initio anni: at secundum priorem sententiam necesse est eos varie computari, quosdam quidem a principio anni, alios vero ab initio diluvii. Namque sectatores eius opinionis mensem secundum (quo factum est diluvium), et mensem decimum (quo apparuerunt cacumina montium), et mensem primum sexcentesimi primi anni (quo dicitur Noë tectum Arcae aperuisse), et mensem secundum eius anni (quo Arcam egressus est Noë): hos, inquam, menses omnes illi computant ab initio anni; solum autem mensem septimum (quo requievit Arca super montes) volunt illi esse computandum non ab initio anni, ut ceteros, sed ab initio diluvii. Quis autem inducat in animum credere Mosen in hac sua tam brevi narratione varie et ambigue posuisse menses, nulla eius varietatis facta significatione? Secunda igitur sententia, computans illum septimum mensem quo requievit Arca ab initio anni, primae videtur praeferenda.
This opinion is made, to me indeed, very probable by this: that, according to it, all the months which are counted in this narrative by Moses are computed in the same way — namely, from the beginning of the year; but according to the former opinion it is necessary that they be computed variously, some from the beginning of the year, others from the beginning of the flood. For the followers of that opinion compute all from the beginning of the year — the second month (in which the flood occurred), and the tenth month (in which the tops of the mountains appeared), and the first month of the six hundred and first year (in which Noah is said to have opened the covering of the Ark), and the second month of that year (in which Noah went out of the Ark): these months, I say, they all compute from the beginning of the year; but only the seventh month (in which the Ark rested upon the mountains) they wish to be computed not from the beginning of the year, like the others, but from the beginning of the flood. But who would induce himself to believe that Moses, in this so brief narrative of his, set down the months variously and ambiguously, with no indication made of that variation? The second opinion, therefore, which computes that seventh month in which the Ark rested from the beginning of the year, seems to be preferred to the first.8
Translator’s notes
- §36. The question; the first school (Josephus etc.) must count the seventh month from the flood's start, not the year's. ↩
- §37 begins. Continues on p. 348. ↩
- §37. Cajetan's computation (191 days to the Ark's rest, reckoning 29-day months). Margin: Cajetan. ↩
- §38. Two faults in Cajetan's reckoning (the 29-day months; and the Ark resting the very day the waters began to fall). Margin: “Cajetan is refuted.” ↩
- §39. Tostatus's reckoning and its slip (seven months not whole; 14 days, not 17). Margin: “Tostatus is refuted.” ↩
- §40. The second school (Hist. Schol., Lyra): the 150 days from the flood's start; the seventh month from the year's. Continues on p. 349. ↩
- The arithmetic of the second view (the 27th of the 7th month = day 204 of the year). ↩
- §41. Pererius prefers the second view (all the months reckoned uniformly from the year's start). ↩