That phrase, “until the waters were dried up,” signifies that it never returned into the Ark before the end of the flood: but it does not signify that, after the waters were dried and the flood ended, it returned to the Ark. For it is a familiar idiom of Scripture, as there: “Sit at my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool”; and elsewhere, “And he knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son.” But why did the raven not return? Most say that, finding floating corpses, it lingered in eating them — as a bird that wonderfully rejoices in such feeding. Hear Chrysostom: “Why did the raven not return? Perhaps, since it is an unclean bird, falling upon the corpses of men and beasts, it settled upon them as upon food congenial to it found: which itself was no small argument of good hope for Noah. For if this had not been, and the raven had found no food and consolation, it would surely have returned.” Augustine writes similar things in the Questions on Genesis.¹

But this, although the multitude and authority of those who assert it makes it very probable, nevertheless in truth is not without difficulty. For from the time when men and living creatures had perished in the flood, up to the time when the raven was sent, more than ten months had already passed: their corpses, therefore, could not have been preserved in the waters so long, but had long since been dissolved and devoured by fishes. Why, then, did the raven not return? Namely, either it remained on the ridge of some mountain (for forty days before, the tops of the mountains had appeared); or, hating the Ark, it would not return to it; or, wearied by flying, it perished in the waters.²

But here arises a hard question, long and much controverted among the Doctors. For the Latin and Greek reading agrees in having that the raven did not return to the Ark; but the Hebrew and Chaldaic reading has that the raven went out and returned. Since, therefore, both cannot be true (that is, that the raven returned and did not return), it must be confessed that one or the other reading is corrupt, and therefore to be rejected. Here those triumph who conten[d] that the Hebrew books were corrupted by the Jews…³

…contend [that the Hebrew books were corrupted]. For the reading which has that the raven did not return, since it is approved by all the Latin and Greek codices and by the authority of all the Fathers who so read, is without doubt to be held as true: therefore the Hebrew reading, which is contrary to this, is to be rejected as faulty and false. Indeed Jerome himself, who beyond others makes much of the Hebrew books, in the Dialogue against the Luciferians and in the epistle to Oceanus, cites this passage with the negation, just as it is in Latin and Greek.⁴

But I by no means assent to these. For it seems incredible to St. Augustine and St. Jerome that the Jews, dispersed throughout the world, either wished or were able to corrupt all their books, and, while they envy us the authority of Scripture, snatched the truth from themselves: especially since no reason can be brought why they should have wished to do this in this place. You will say, from envy and hatred of Christians. But what, I ask, did it profit the Hebrews against the Christians, that it should be read in this place that the raven returned to the Ark rather than did not return?⁵

Nor is it true, what these say, that the Hebrew reading is plainly contrary to the Latin and Greek. For thus, word for word, the Hebrew reading has: “It went out, going forth and returning,” or, “by going forth and returning”: and it is signified that the raven withdrew a little from the Ark, and repeatedly, by flying out and flying back, remained outside it — either on its roof or its sides. Therefore the raven returned to the Ark on the outside, as it is in Hebrew; and the same did not return — namely, on the inside, by entering into the Ark: and this the Latin and Greek reading signify. Although the Hebrews (whom Lyra and Tostatus follow) interpret the raven's returning and not returning by another reasoning: returning indeed, because in truth, withdrawing a little from the Ark, it returned to it again; but not returning, because it did not return as regards the errand for which Noah had sent it (namely, that, seeking far places, it might bring him from there some sign and token of the flood's cessation): because, therefore, it did not perform this, it was, as regards Noah's own purpose and desire, just as if it had never returned.⁶

But someone will say: if the raven, flying around the Ark, remained outside it until the end of the flood, whence did it have food for so many days? Either from the nearby mountains, which had long since been stripped of waters? Or rather did Noah provide it food through the window? This too can be asked: If the raven did not return, why did Noah not recognize from it that the flood had now ceased — as afterward, from the fact that the dove did not return, he judged that the flood was ended? But it can be answered in two ways: either Noah doubted lest by some chance the raven had died, or lest it had remained on some ridge of the mountains (for he was eager to know whether the lower and level places of the earth were dried of waters); or (according to the Hebrew reading) when Noah saw that the raven did not withdraw far from the Ark, from this he rather thought that all things were still full of waters.⁷