Moses sufficiently clearly teaches by these words that the flood was wholly ended and Noah went out of the Ark in the six hundred and first year, in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day. Since, therefore, above in chapter 7 Moses indicated when the flood began (namely in the six hundredth year, on the seventeenth day), but now shows when it wholly ceased: it is fitting in this place to dispute how long the flood lasted and how long Noah remained in the Ark.²

Xenophon Annianus, whose book is entitled On Equivocals (De Aequivocis), makes five inundations of waters: the First, general over the whole world under the ancient Ogyges, and that it was of nine months. For Annius judges, in his Commentary on that book, that that ancient Ogyges was the same whom the sacred letters call Noah, and that that Ogygian flood was the same as the Noachic; which he himself thinks was of nine months, as the Ogygian was — as, besides this Xenophon, Solinus confirms in chapter seventeen. The second inundation he makes the Nilotic, and of one month, under the Egyptians Hercules and Prometheus; the third, under Ogyges of Attica in Achaia, of two months; the fourth, under Deucalion in Thessaly, of three months; the fifth, the Pharonic, under Proteus the Egyptian, at the rape of Helen. So Xenophon Annianus.³

That that book of Xenophon is a fabrication ought to be judged even from this argument. This Xenophon makes two Ogygeses and two Ogygian floods: but the ancients, both Greeks and La[tins], knew only one Ogyges and one flood of Ogyges…⁴

…both Greeks and Latins. Next, Annius wishes that flood under the ancient Ogyges to have been the Noachic: but Augustine plainly denies that the Noachic flood was known to Greek or Roman histories. Besides, Julius Africanus, as is found in Eusebius of Caesarea, confirms by the authority of many writers that the flood of Ogyges preceded the first Olympiad by a thousand and twenty years: but the Noachic flood preceded the Olympiads by more than a thousand five hundred years.⁵

But that which makes for the present matter — that the Noachic flood was of nine months — is evidently false, from wherever one pleases to count the beginning and end of the flood. For if the flood be reckoned from its beginning up to the time at which it began to diminish, it lasted only a hundred and fifty days, that is, five solar months; or according to another computation a hundred and ninety days, that is, six months and ten days. But if the flood be reckoned up to the resting of the Ark upon the mountains, according to one computation it lasted a hundred and fifty-eight days, that is, five months and eight days; according to another computation, six months and twenty-seven days. But if the flood be reckoned up to the appearance of the tops of the mountains, it lasted seven months [and] thirteen days; if up to where the earth was uncovered of the waters, ten months and thirteen days; if finally up to the perfect drying of the earth and Noah's going out of the Ark, it lasted one whole solar year. From these it appears that what Annius said — that the Noachic flood was of nine months — has no probability; nay, it is even contrary to Moses' narrative.⁶

Cajetan judges that the flood, from the time it began up to the time at which it wholly ceased (the earth being utterly dried and Noah having gone out of the Ark), lasted ten Lunar months and twenty-five days — that is, three hundred and fourteen days — which he gathers from Moses' narrative in this manner: First, forty days of rain; then a hundred and fifty after which the decrease of the flood began; then seventy days up to the appearance of the tops of the mountains; to these forty days after which Noah opened the window and sent out the raven; lastly twice-seven days after which he sent out the dove. From all these is made up the sum of three hundred and fourteen days, from which Cajetan thinks there result ten Lunar months and besides twenty-five days, assigning to each Lunar month twenty-nine days.⁷

But Cajetan, in this his reasoning or computation, assumes some things doubtful, others false. The doubtful are: that the forty days of rain were distinct from the other hundred and fifty; and that the seventh month in which the Ark rested ought to be computed from the beginning of the flood, not from the beginning of the year: for that the contrary opinion seems more probable was shown above. The false are: that the ten[th] month…⁸

…that the tenth month in which the tops of the mountains appeared is to be computed from the beginning of the flood; and that after the forty days from when the tops of the mountains appeared, up to the six hundred and first year, only fourteen days flowed in between. Those things also are false: that among the ancient Egyptians the year was only of three hundred and sixty days; and that to each Lunar month only twenty-nine days ought to be assigned. Finally, this is in no way probable or credible: that Moses, in this brief narrative of the flood, varied the computation of the months which he names in three ways, and yet gave no indication of that variation — first computing the months from the beginning of the flood, then from the beginning of the years of Noah's life, besides from the beginning of the customary and then-current year. Many things which we have laid down in this refutation of Cajetan and in that of Xenophon Annianus, but have not proved, we have diligently disputed and explained in earlier disputations: wherefore we have judged it sufficient now only to have indicated them.⁹

The true opinion, therefore, is this: that from when the flood began up to when it wholly ceased (that is, up to the perfect drying of the earth and Noah's going out of the Ark) there passed one Lunar year and besides eleven days — that is, one whole Solar year: for the Lunar year consists of three hundred and fifty-four days, but the Solar year of three hundred and sixty-five. And that among the Hebrews Lunar years were in use, since it is clear by the confession of all, needs no proof. Since, therefore, the flood began in the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day, as Moses said above in chapter seven; and wholly ceased in the six hundred and first year, in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day, as the same Moses relates in chapter eight: from this it is plain that there passed one Lunar year and besides ten or eleven days, which is a Solar year. So long, therefore, the flood lasted, and so long Noah remained in the Ark. Unless perhaps someone prefers the opinion which we indicated above — that Noah entered the Ark seven days before the flood began: for according to this opinion it must be said that Noah remained in the Ark seven days over a whole Solar year. But if Moses had used the Solar year, it would have to be confessed that Noah remained in the Ark one whole Solar year and over it ten days.¹⁰