LatineEnglish
FIFTH DISPUTATION. On the discrepancy of the Latin reading from the Hebrew, which is in this place concerning the day on which the Ark is said to have rested on the Armenian mountains.
QUINTA DISPUTATIO. De discrepantia lectionis Latinae ab Hebraica, quae est hoc loco super diem quo Arca dicitur requievisse in montibus Armeniis.
ET Latina translatio, et Graeca Septuaginta Interpretum, habent hoc loco Arcam requievisse vigesimo septimo die mensis septimi: Scriptura vero Hebraica et Paraphrasis Chaldaica habent eam requievisse die decimo septimo eiusdem mensis; nec apparet quemadmodum hae duae lectiones invicem conciliari queant. Cum igitur utraque lectio non videatur vera esse posse, quaeritur utra iudicanda sit mendosa et falsa, et utra praeferri debeat. Equidem nefas duxerim mendosam esse dicere Latinam translationem, quam omnes ad unum Latini codices et nunc habent semperque habuerunt, nulla cum sit mendi suspicio: praesertim cum Graeci omnes Septuaginta Interpretum libri eandem lectionem habeant habuerintque semper, omnesque Patres, tam Graeci quam Latini, eam ipsam lectionem hoc loco secuti sint.
Both the Latin translation and the Greek of the Septuagint Interpreters have in this place that the Ark rested on the twenty-seventh day of the seventh month: but the Hebrew Scripture and the Chaldaic Paraphrase have that it rested on the seventeenth day of the same month; nor does it appear how these two readings can be reconciled with each other. Since, therefore, neither reading seems able to be true [together], it is asked which is to be judged faulty and false, and which ought to be preferred. For my part, I would consider it impious to say that the Latin translation is faulty — which all the Latin codices, to a man, both now have and always have had, there being no suspicion of error: especially since all the Greek books of the Septuagint Interpreters have, and always have had, the same reading, and all the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, followed that very reading in this place.1
NEC propterea tamen ausim pronuntiare falsam esse, atque omnino damnare lectionem Hebraicam, cum qua etiam consentit paraphrasis Chaldaica: quippe eam lectionem omnes Hebraei libri constanter habent. Difficile autem creditu est omnes Hebraeos libros ab Hebraeis esse corruptos: non enim casu aliquo corrupti sunt, siquidem casus nec omnibus libris nec omni aevo accidisset; nec consulto voluisse Iudaeos corrumpere omnes suos libros credibile est, cum nulla esset ratio cur potissimum hunc Mosis locum depravare vellent. Similiter enim et simili in re argumentatur B. Augustinus libro decimo quinto de Civitate Dei, capite decimo tertio, ubi, quod ipse scripsit de auctoritate Hebraeorum codicum, me quidem certe vehementer deterret ne communem omnium Hebraeorum librorum inveteratamque lectionem repudiare audeam. Sic enim ille scribit: Recte fieri nullo modo dubitaverim, ut cum diversum aliquid in utrisque codicibus invenitur (loquitur ibi Augustinus de Graecis et Hebraeis codicibus, idemque de Latinis existimandum videtur), quandoquidem ad fidem rerum gestarum utrumque esse non potest verum, ei linguae potius credatur, unde est in aliam per interpretes facta translatio. Sic Augustinus.
Nor, however, would I on that account dare to pronounce false, and utterly condemn, the Hebrew reading — with which the Chaldaic paraphrase also agrees: for that reading all the Hebrew books constantly have. And it is difficult to believe that all the Hebrew books were corrupted by the Hebrews: for they were not corrupted by any chance, since chance would not have befallen all the books nor in every age; nor is it credible that the Jews deliberately wished to corrupt all their books, since there was no reason why they should especially wish to deprave this passage of Moses. For St. Augustine argues similarly, and in a similar matter, in the fifteenth book of The City of God, chapter thirteen — where what he himself wrote about the authority of the Hebrew codices certainly strongly deters me from daring to repudiate the common and inveterate reading of all the Hebrew books. For he writes thus: “I should in no way doubt that it is rightly done, that when something different is found in both [sets of] codices (Augustine speaks there of the Greek and Hebrew codices, and the same seems to be thought of the Latin), since, for the credit of the things done, both cannot be true, that language should rather be believed from which the translation into another was made by the interpreters.” So Augustine.2
ERGO alii, maiore quam nos sumus ingenio et iudicio uberioreque sacrarum litterarum doctrina praediti, ad viam aliquam et rationem eas duas lectiones inter se conciliandi atque concordandi reperiendam incumbant. Dummodo illud ratum et fixum sit: si Hebraea lectio contradicat omnino Latinae, nec utraque simul cohaerere queat, standum esse potius Latinae quam Hebraeae, quippe cum illa Tridentini Concilii auctoritate tantopere commendata et communita sit. Nos tamen utramque lectionem hic ponemus, et quemadmodum numerus illorum dierum qui est in utraque lectione varie computari et vere constare queat, breviter ac dilucide ostendemus.
Let others, therefore — endowed with greater genius and judgment than we are, and with richer learning in the sacred writings — apply themselves to finding some way and method of reconciling and harmonizing those two readings with each other. Provided that this be settled and fixed: that if the Hebrew reading altogether contradicts the Latin, and both cannot cohere together, one must stand by the Latin rather than the Hebrew — since it has been so greatly commended and fortified by the authority of the Council of Trent. We, however, will here set down both readings, and will briefly and clearly show how the number of those days which is in each reading can be variously computed and truly hold good.3
SECUNDUM lectionem igitur Hebraicam, quae habet Arcam resedisse decimo septimo die mensis septimi, quadruplex computatio fieri potest. Sed illud ante ponatur, sex menses Lunares insuperque dies decem et septem continere centum nonaginta quatuor dies. Prima Computatio est: Si septimus mensis quo requievit Arca numeretur ab initio diluvii, et quadraginta dies pluviae separentur ab aliis centum quinquaginta diebus (de quibus supra dictum est), tunc reliqui erunt quatuor dies ab initio diminutionis aquarum usque ad diem quo resedit Arca.
According to the Hebrew reading, then, which has that the Ark settled on the seventeenth day of the seventh month, a fourfold computation can be made. But let this be set down beforehand: that six Lunar months, plus seventeen days, contain a hundred and ninety-four days. The first Computation is: If the seventh month in which the Ark rested is counted from the beginning of the flood, and the forty days of rain are separated from the other hundred and fifty days (about which it was said above), then there will remain four days from the beginning of the diminution of the waters up to the day on which the Ark settled.4
Secunda Computatio: Si mensem septimum auspicemur ab initio diluvii, dies tamen illos quadraginta pluviae includamus in illos centum quinquaginta dies, relinquentur quadraginta quatuor dies ab initio decrementi aquarum usque ad quietem Arcae. Atque hae duae Computationes satis sunt probabiles; secunda tamen multis videtur probabilior, propter causam a nobis paulo supra expositam.
The second Computation: If we begin the seventh month from the beginning of the flood, but include those forty days of rain in those hundred and fifty days, there will remain forty-four days from the beginning of the decrease of the waters up to the rest of the Ark. And these two Computations are sufficiently probable; the second, however, seems to many more probable, on account of the reason set forth by us a little above.5
TERTIA Computatio: Si numeretur septimus ille mensis non ab initio diluvii, sed ab initio anni, et quadraginta dies pluviae separentur ab aliis centum quinquaginta diebus, sic efficientur ab initio anni usque ad finem illorum centum quinquaginta dierum (post quos coepit diminui diluvium) ducenti et triginta sex dies, hoc est, octo menses. Hinc autem sequeretur Arcam duobus et quadraginta diebus ante diminutionem diluvii super montes resedisse; siquidem ab initio anni usque ad decimum septimum diem mensis septimi quo requievit Arca, numerantur centum nonaginta quatuor dies. Sed hoc et absurdum est, et divinae scripturae contrarium. Quarta Computatio: Si septimus mensis recenseatur ab initio anni, et illi quadraginta dies pluviae includantur in alios centum quinquaginta, ab initio anni usque ad principium decrementi aquarum centum nonaginta sex dies exstitissent, quapropter duobus ante diminutionem aquarum diebus Arca resedisset: quod licet minus absurdum sit quam quod paulo ante ex tertia Computatione concludebatur, absurdum tamen est, et narrationi Mosis contrarium. Et hactenus quidem de lectione Hebraica.
The third Computation: If that seventh month is counted not from the beginning of the flood, but from the beginning of the year, and the forty days of rain are separated from the other hundred and fifty days, thus there will be made, from the beginning of the year up to the end of those hundred and fifty days (after which the flood began to diminish), two hundred and thirty-six days, that is, eight months. But hence it would follow that the Ark settled upon the mountains forty-two days before the diminution of the flood; since from the beginning of the year up to the seventeenth day of the seventh month, on which the Ark rested, a hundred and ninety-four days are counted. But this is both absurd and contrary to divine scripture. The fourth Computation: If the seventh month is reckoned from the beginning of the year, and those forty days of rain are included in the other hundred and fifty, from the beginning of the year up to the beginning of the decrease of the waters there would have been a hundred and ninety-six days; wherefore the Ark would have settled two days before the diminution of the waters: which, although less absurd than what was a little before concluded from the third Computation, is nevertheless absurd, and contrary to the narrative of Moses. And thus far concerning the Hebrew reading.6
LATINA porro et Graeca lectio, quae habet Arcam requievisse vigesimo septimo die mensis septimi, similiter quatuor et ipsa Computationum est capax. Sed ponamus (id quod certum est) ab initio anni usque ad vigesimum septimum diem mensis septimi, secundum rationem mensium Lunarium, numerari dies quatuor et ducentos. Prima igitur Computatio sit, supputando mensem septimum quo requievit Arca ab initio diluvii, et separando quadraginta dies pluviae ab aliis centum quinquaginta: restant dies quatuordecim, quibus post initium decrementi aquarum Arca fluctuabat, donec tandem super montibus subsisteret. Secunda Computatio: Numerando mensem septimum ab initio diluvii, nec tamen separando quadraginta dies pluviae ab aliis centum quinquaginta, reliqui fiunt quinquaginta quatuor dies, inter principium diminutionis aquarum et quietem Arcae interiecti. Utraque Computatio haec probabilis est; sed propter causam supradictam probabilior videtur secunda quam prima.
Moreover, the Latin and Greek reading, which has that the Ark rested on the twenty-seventh day of the seventh month, is likewise capable of four Computations. But let us suppose — what is certain — that from the beginning of the year up to the twenty-seventh day of the seventh month, according to the reckoning of Lunar months, two hundred and four days are counted. The first Computation, then, is, reckoning the seventh month in which the Ark rested from the beginning of the flood, and separating the forty days of rain from the other hundred and fifty: there remain fourteen days, during which, after the beginning of the decrease of the waters, the Ark floated, until at last it came to rest upon the mountains. The second Computation: counting the seventh month from the beginning of the flood, but not separating the forty days of rain from the other hundred and fifty, the remaining days are fifty-four, set between the beginning of the diminution of the waters and the rest of the Ark. Each of these Computations is probable; but on account of the aforesaid reason the second seems more probable than the first.7
Tertia Computatio: Incipiendo mensem septimum ab initio anni, et separando quadraginta illos dies ab aliis centum quinquaginta, efficitur Arcam duobus et triginta diebus priusquam diminuerentur aquae resedisse. Quarta computatio: Incipiendo similiter septimum mensem ab initio anni, non tamen separando quadraginta dies pluviae ab aliis centum quinquaginta, relinquentur octo dies, quibus post initium diminutionis aquarum Arca fluctuavit, tandemque requievit. Harum autem duarum Computationum, ut tertia est omnino reiicienda, sic quarta et ultima (multorum sententia) ceteris probabilior habenda est. Verum de his satis.
The third Computation: beginning the seventh month from the beginning of the year, and separating those forty days from the other hundred and fifty, it comes about that the Ark settled thirty-two days before the waters were diminished. The fourth computation: beginning likewise the seventh month from the beginning of the year, but not separating the forty days of rain from the other hundred and fifty, there will remain eight days, during which, after the beginning of the diminution of the waters, the Ark floated, and at last rested. And of these two Computations, as the third is altogether to be rejected, so the fourth and last (in the opinion of many) is to be held more probable than the rest. But enough of these things.8
Translator’s notes
- §42. The Latin/Greek (27th) vs. Hebrew/Chaldaic (17th) discrepancy; the Latin not to be called faulty. ↩
- §43. The Hebrew not to be condemned either (Augustine on trusting the source language). Margins: Augustine; “A notable opinion of Augustine.” ↩
- Pererius's rule: where they conflict, stand by the Latin (commended by Trent); but he will show both work arithmetically. ↩
- §44. The Hebrew reading (17th), with the first of four computations. Margin: “The Hebrew reading is explained.” Continues on p. 351. ↩
- The second computation of the Hebrew reading. ↩
- §45. The third and fourth computations of the Hebrew reading (both absurd). ↩
- §46. The Latin/Greek reading (27th): the first two computations. ↩
- The third and fourth computations of the Latin reading; the fourth is the most probable overall. ↩