LatineEnglish
THIRTEENTH DISPUTATION. On the divine approbation of Noah's Sacrifice: Upon those words: “The Lord smelled a sweet savor.”1
DECIMA TERTIA DISPUTATIO. De divina approbatione Sacrificii Noë: Super illis verbis: Odoratus est Dominus odorem suavitatis.
QUAM gratum et acceptum Deo fuerit sacrificium Noë luculente declaravit Moses illis verbis: Odoratus est Dominus odorem suavitatis. Siquidem dupliciter solet sacra scriptura declarare sacrificium aliquod gratum fuisse Deo: primum, dicendo Deum respexisse ad illud sacrificium, quemadmodum de sacrificio Abel scriptum est, Respexit Dominus ad Abel et ad munera eius; tum etiam, dicendo Deum odoratum esse illud sacrificium in odorem suavitatis, id est, tanquam odorem suavissimum. Quemadmodum enim nos plurimum delectamur suavissimis odoribus, sic Deus sacrificiis piorum hominum. Paraphrasis Chaldaica sic habet: Suscepit Dominus in beneplacito suo oblationem eius.
How pleasing and acceptable to God Noah's sacrifice was, Moses clearly declared by those words: “The Lord smelled a sweet savor.” For sacred scripture is wont to declare in two ways that some sacrifice was pleasing to God: first, by saying that God looked upon that sacrifice — as it is written of Abel's sacrifice, “The Lord looked upon Abel and upon his gifts”; then also, by saying that God smelled that sacrifice as a sweet savor — that is, as a most pleasant odor. For just as we are greatly delighted by most pleasant odors, so [is] God by the sacrifices of pious men. The Chaldaic paraphrase has thus: “The Lord received his offering in his good pleasure.”2
SED pro illo, Odorem suavitatis, Hebraice ad verbum est, Odorem quietis: est enim hic vocabulum (Noach) significans non suave olere sed [quietem]…
But in place of “a sweet savor,” in Hebrew it is, word for word, “a savor of rest”: for here is the word (Noach) signifying not to smell sweetly, but [rest]…3
…sed quiescere. Dicebatur enim fumus adipum seu odor qui cum fumo ascendebat, odor quietis, quod faceret Deum quietum ab indignatione et placatum offerenti. Significatur igitur indignationem divinam, per quam diluvio destructus fuerat orbis terrarum, sacrificio Noë fuisse mitigatam, placatam, et (ut ita loquar) quietatam.
…but rest. For the smoke of the fats, or the odor which ascended with the smoke, was called the “odor of rest,” because it made God quiet from indignation and appeased toward the offerer. It is signified, therefore, that the divine indignation, by which the world had been destroyed by the flood, was by Noah's sacrifice mitigated, appeased, and (so to speak) quieted.4
AD differentiam, inquit Caietanus, odorum sensibilium, dicitur odor quietis, tanquam quietem sine fastidio pariens. Nullus est enim odor sensibilis qui diu perseverans non afficiat fastidio: quamobrem nullus odor sensibilis est odor quietis in ipso. Ad excludendum igitur eiusmodi fastidium, dicitur saepe in scriptura odor quietis: quia vere nunquam Deus fastidit devotionem offerentium. Non enim sacrificia propter animalia oblata, sed propter affectum devotae mentis offerentium placent Deo, tanquam odor suavitatis. Non enim incorpoream Dei substantiam corporeus odor per se potest delectare: quin etiam licet corporea esset et eiusmodi odoribus afficeretur, non esset tamen odor caesarum vel incensarum carnium talis ut vere dici posset odor suavitatis. Divina igitur approbatio et oblectatio ad devotionem utique offerentium referenda est.
“In distinction,” says Cajetan, “from sensible odors, it is called an odor of rest, as producing rest without weariness.” For there is no sensible odor which, long persisting, does not affect with weariness: wherefore no sensible odor is an odor of rest in itself. To exclude, therefore, such weariness, it is often called in scripture an odor of rest: because God truly never wearies of the devotion of those who offer. For sacrifices please God not on account of the animals offered, but on account of the affection of the devout mind of the offerers, as an odor of sweetness. For a corporeal odor cannot of itself delight the incorporeal substance of God: nay even, although it were corporeal and were affected by such odors, yet the odor of slain or burnt flesh would not be such that it could truly be called an odor of sweetness. The divine approbation and delight, therefore, is to be referred entirely to the devotion of the offerers.5
AUDI Tertullianum: Legimus Deum ad oblationes Abel advertisse et holocausta Noë odoratum esse libenter. Verum quae iucunditas sive viscerum vervecinorum, sive nidoris ardentium victimarum esse potest? Animus igitur simplex et Deum metuens offerentium ea quae a Deo habebant, et pabuli et suavis olentiae gratia apud Deum deputabatur. Sic Tertullianus. Non igitur munerum magnitudinem aut praestantiam, sed offerentium pietatem ac religionem aestimat Deus.
Hear Tertullian: “We read that God attended to the offerings of Abel and smelled the holocausts of Noah willingly. But what pleasantness can there be either of the entrails of wethers, or of the reek of burning victims? The simple mind, therefore, of the offerers, fearing God — [offering] those things which they had from God — was reckoned with God for the sake both of the food and of the sweet smell.” So Tertullian. God therefore esteems not the greatness or excellence of the gifts, but the piety and religion of the offerers.6
APUD magnos etiam principes, dona quae illis offeruntur non tam ex rerum pretio quam ex donantium studio commendantur. Praeclarum illud est quod de Artoxerse Persarum rege scripsit Plutarchus. Nihil erat, inquit, tam parvum ei donatum quod non perhumaniter acciperet. Paupere quodam malum punicum eximiae magnitudinis ei offerente: Per Solem, inquit, si huic crederetur, hic ex parva civitatem magnam faceret. Alium, dum idem rex iter faceret, aliis alia regi offerentibus, cum nihil ad manum suppeteret, ad flumen currentem et utraque manu haustam aquam regi deferentem, vehementer gavisus Artoxerses aurea phiala et mille daricis donavit.
Among great princes too, the gifts which are offered to them are commended not so much from the price of the things as from the zeal of the givers. Famous is that which Plutarch wrote about Artaxerxes king of the Persians. “Nothing,” he says, “was given him so small that he did not receive it most graciously. When a certain poor man offered him a pomegranate of extraordinary size: ‘By the Sun,’ he said, ‘if this man were trusted, he would make a great city out of a small one.’ Another — while the same king was making a journey, others offering the king various things — when nothing was at hand, ran to the river and brought the king water drawn in both hands; and Artaxerxes, greatly delighted, gave him a golden bowl and a thousand darics.”7
SED non est id praetermittendum quod a Platone de sacrificiis quae Deo offeruntur scriptum est. Non est, inquit Plato, talis Dei natura ut ducatur muneribus, quemadmodum improbus fenerator: etenim grave esset si Deus ad donaria et sacrificia hominum respiceret potius quam ad animum. Nihil enim prohibet eum qui multa in Deum peccaverit, sive rei privatus sit sive Respublica, sumptuosissima dona et magnifica sacrificia Deo frequenter offerre. Deus autem, utpote a muneribus incorruptus, spernit haec omnia, ut ipse Deus eiusque propheta praedixit. Sic Plato.
But this is not to be omitted, which Plato wrote about the sacrifices that are offered to God. “Not such,” says Plato, “is the nature of God that He should be led by gifts, like a wicked usurer: for it would be grievous if God looked rather to the offerings and sacrifices of men than to the mind. For nothing prevents him who has sinned much against God — whether he be a private man or a State — from frequently offering most costly gifts and magnificent sacrifices to God. But God, as being incorruptible by gifts, spurns all these, as God Himself and His prophet foretold.” So Plato.8
LEGIMUS etiam apud Ethnicos scriptores Gentilium deos induci tanquam suaviter odorantes sacrificia, eorumque nidore gau[dentes]…
We read also among the pagan writers that the gods of the Gentiles are introduced as smelling the sacrifices sweetly, and rejoicing in their reek…9
…dentes. Unde Plato in Alcibiade secundo refert ex Homero Troianos, cum suburbanum aedificium molirentur, dicasse diis pretiosa sacrificia, boum nidorem vero ex campo suavem ad caelum usque ventis esse sublatum. Lucianus in Timone Iovem inducit sic loquentem: Obliti sumus eius viri qui tot taurorum et caprarum adipes nobis posuit in aris, ut etiam nunc eorum nidorem in naribus habeam. Haec ibi Lucianus. Sic nimirum daemones qui pro diis colebantur a Gentibus, simulantes se delectari sacrificiis (id quod proditum de vero Deo noverant), eos ludificabantur, et variis superstitionum erroribus eorum animos imbuebant atque corrumpebant.
…rejoicing. Whence Plato in the second Alcibiades relates from Homer that the Trojans, when they were building a suburban edifice, dedicated precious sacrifices to the gods, and that the sweet reek of the oxen was carried up from the field to heaven by the winds. Lucian in the Timon introduces Jupiter speaking thus: “We have forgotten that man who set for us on the altars the fats of so many bulls and goats, so that even now I have their reek in my nostrils.” Thus there Lucian. So, no doubt, the demons who were worshipped instead of gods by the Gentiles, pretending that they were delighted by the sacrifices (which they knew had been revealed about the true God), mocked them, and imbued and corrupted their minds with various errors of superstitions.10
Translator’s notes
- Margin: Gen. 8, v. 21. ↩
- §104. The two scriptural ways of marking an acceptable sacrifice (God ‘looked upon’ / ‘smelled’ it); the Chaldee paraphrase. Margin: Gen. 4. ↩
- §105. The Hebrew has ‘savor of rest’ (Noach), a play on Noah's name. Continues on p. 305. ↩
- §105 (cont.). The Hebrew ‘odor of rest’ = God appeased — a play on Noah's name. ↩
- §106. Cajetan on ‘odor of rest’; God values the offerer's devotion, not the victims. Margin: Cajetan on Gen. ch. 8. ↩
- §107. Tertullian: God prized the offerers' simple, God-fearing mind, not the flesh. Margin: Tertullian, Against [Marcion], bk. 2. ↩
- §108. The Artaxerxes anecdotes: princes prize the giver's zeal over the gift. Margins: Plutarch, Apophthegms (at the beginning); Artaxerxes. ↩
- §109. Plato: God is no ‘usurer’ swayed by costly gifts. Margin: Plato (On Prayer / περὶ εὐχῆς). ↩
- §110. The pagans imagined their gods literally enjoying the reek of sacrifice. Continues on p. 306. ↩
- §110 (cont.). Homer (via Plato) and Lucian's Jupiter as examples; the demons aped the true God's acceptance to deceive the heathen. Margins: Plato; Lucian. ↩