Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

Book Fifteen — the multiplication of mankind after the flood

{The sons of Iaphet: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Iavan, Thubal, Mosoch, and Thiras.}

LatineEnglish

{The sons of Iaphet: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Iavan, Thubal, Mosoch, and Thiras.}1

Filii Iaphet: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Iavan, Thubal, Mosoch et Thiras.

COMMEMORANTUR hic septem filii Iaphet; ex quibus primi filii (id est Gomer) recensentur posteri, Ascenez, Riphat, Thogorma; quarti autem filii (id est Iavan) numerantur quatuor posteri, Elisa, Tharsis, Cethim, Dodanim. Omnes igitur posteri Iaphet hic memorati, tam filii quam nepotes, sunt numero quatuordecim. Sed codices Graeci, quos Augustinus libro 16 de Civitate Dei capite 3 secutus est, addunt octavum filium Iaphet nomine Elisa: quo fit ut posteros Iaphet numerent quindecim; sed illum Elisa nec scriptura Hebraica, nec paraphrasis Chaldaica, nec Graeca translatio Complutensis habet, neque codices Graeci quibus usus est Hieronymus habuerunt, ut ex Traditionibus eius Hebraicis in Genesim liquet. Omnem porro hanc progeniem Iaphet licet uno conspectu in hac descriptione digestam intueri: Iaphet septem filii — Gomer (Ascenez, Riphat, Thogorma); Magog; Madai; Iavan (Elisa, Tharsis, Cethim, Dodanim); Thubal; Mosoch; Thiras: omnes posteri Iaphet quatuordecim.
Here are mentioned seven sons of Iaphet; of whom the posterity of the first son (that is, Gomer) are reckoned — Ascenez, Riphat, Thogorma; and of the fourth son (that is, Iavan) four posterity are numbered — Elisa, Tharsis, Cethim, Dodanim. All the posterity of Iaphet here mentioned, therefore, both sons and grandsons, are fourteen in number. But the Greek codices, which Augustine in book 16 of the City of God chapter 3 followed, add an eighth son of Iaphet by name Elisa, whence it comes that they number the posterity of Iaphet at fifteen; but that Elisa neither the Hebrew scripture, nor the Chaldaic paraphrase, nor the Greek Complutensian translation has, nor did the Greek codices which Jerome used have it, as is clear from his Hebrew Traditions on Genesis. And this whole progeny of Iaphet may be seen, arranged in one view, in this description: Iaphet's seven sons — Gomer (Ascenez, Riphat, Thogorma); Magog; Madai; Iavan (Elisa, Tharsis, Cethim, Dodanim); Thubal; Mosoch; Thiras: all the posterity of Iaphet, fourteen. [genealogical table in the original]2
CETERUM quaeret fortasse quispiam, cum supra, in enumerandis filiis Noë, fere primo loco nominatus sit Sem, cur nunc Moses a Iaphet [orsus est]…
But someone will perhaps ask: since above, in enumerating the sons of Noah, Sem was named almost first, why now Moses [began] from Iaphet…3
…orsus est? An quia secundum Hebraeos (quos sequitur Tostatus, Lyranus aliique permulti) Iaphet primogenitus fuit Noë? at ob eam causam ultimo loco recenseri debebat posteritas Cham, ut qui minimus natu fuit. An contra potius, ut placet Augustino, orsus est a minimo filio, procedens usque ad maximum qui fuit Sem? Sed enim credibilius est Cham fuisse minorem Iapheto, cum supra capite nono dictus sit praecise frater minor, id est, secundum phrasim Hebraicam, minimus. An potius incoepit a Iapheto, quod in eo terminasset praecedens caput agens de filiis Noë, et ad extremum exposuit progeniem Sem, quod omnis de ea sequens historia subtexenda erat?
…began? Was it because, according to the Hebrews (whom Tostatus, Lyra, and very many others follow), Iaphet was the firstborn of Noah? But for that reason the posterity of Cham ought to be reckoned in the last place, as he was the youngest in birth. Or rather, on the contrary, as it pleases Augustine, did he begin from the youngest son, proceeding up to the greatest, who was Sem? But it is more credible that Cham was younger than Iaphet, since above in chapter nine he was called precisely the “younger brother” — that is, according to the Hebrew idiom, the youngest. Or rather did he begin from Iaphet because the preceding chapter had ended on him in treating of the sons of Noah, and at the last set forth the progeny of Sem because all the following history was to be woven on about it?4
Ex hac vero posteritate Iaphet extat et apparet quam fuerit vera et efficax illa benedictio quam Noë impertivit Iaphet: Dilatet Deus Iaphet, et habitet in tabernaculis Sem. Quae dilatatio non tantum denotat numerosam posteritatis propagationem, verum praecipue amplissimas regiones quas occupaturi erant eius posteri, qui maximam orbis partem obtinuerunt, occupata tota Europa cum maiore Asiae parte et maris Mediterranei insulis; qui praeterea colonos in Africam quoque transmiserunt: nam Graeci, qui originem ex Iaphet duxerunt, littora Africae frequentarunt et egregiis urbibus compleverunt, ut ex profanis historiis discimus. Atque haec liquido intelligentur ex iis gentibus quae ex hac posteritate Iaphet per varias terrae oras disseminatae sunt. Nam quod de insulis dixi, perspicue docet Moses illis verbis: Ab his (scilicet posteris Iaphet) divisae sunt insulae gentium in regionibus suis.
And from this posterity of Iaphet it stands forth and appears how true and efficacious was that blessing which Noah imparted to Iaphet: “May God enlarge Iaphet, and may he dwell in the tents of Sem.” Which enlargement denotes not only the numerous propagation of his posterity, but chiefly the most ample regions which his posterity were to occupy — who obtained the largest part of the world, all Europe being occupied with the greater part of Asia and the islands of the Mediterranean sea; who besides sent colonists into Africa too: for the Greeks, who drew their origin from Iaphet, frequented the shores of Africa and filled them with excellent cities, as we learn from the profane histories. And these things will be clearly understood from those nations which, from this posterity of Iaphet, were disseminated through the various coasts of the earth. For what I said of the islands, Moses plainly teaches in those words: “By these (namely the posterity of Iaphet) were the islands of the nations divided in their countries.”5
NONNULLI putarunt nostram Iaphet non fuisse ignotum Ethnicis, sed fuisse eum ipsum quem illi appellarunt Iapetum, caelo terraque (ut poetae fabulabantur) natum, unumque de Titanibus cum Iove belligerantibus, et patrem Promethei avumque Deucalionis. Sed profecto inter nostrum Iaphet et Ethnicum Iapetum, praeter quandam nominis similitudinem, nulla est similitudo: cetera enim adeo diversa sunt (nihil dico de ratione temporum, quae utrique constare non potest) ut mirer viros minime indoctos ad id credendum et scriptis prodendum adductos esse.
Some have thought that our Iaphet was not unknown to the heathen, but was the very one whom they called Iapetus — born of Heaven and Earth (as the poets fabled), and one of the Titans warring with Jove, and the father of Prometheus and grandfather of Deucalion. But assuredly, between our Iaphet and the heathen Iapetus, besides a certain similarity of name, there is no resemblance: for the rest are so diverse (I say nothing of the reckoning of times, which cannot agree for both) that I marvel that men by no means unlearned were led to believe it and to publish it in writing.6
PRIMUS filius Iaphet nominatur Gomer, cuius posteros Gomeritas putat Iosephus (eumque secuti plerique omnes) fuisse eos quos Graeci appellarunt Gallo-graecos vel Galatas. Sed eos fuisse Gallos, a quibus profecti ii qui Delphos spoliarunt, et postea in Asia proxime Troadem consederunt, et Phrygiae partem maiorem occuparunt, concors est Geographorum sententia. Audi Iustinum libro 35: Tantus, inquit, terror Gallici nominis (sive armorum invicta felicitas) erat, ut aliter neque maiestatem suam reges tutam, neque amissam recuperare se posse sine Gallica virtute arbitrarentur; tantaque fuit id temporis fecunditatis Gallorum in iuventus, ut Asiam omnem velut examine aliquo implerent. Itaque in auxilium a Bithyniae rege invocati, regnum cum eo parta victoria diviserunt, eamque regionem Gallograeciam, quia mixti Graecis Galli fuerant, nominarunt.
The first son of Iaphet is named Gomer, whose posterity, the Gomeritae, Josephus thinks (and most all have followed him) to have been those whom the Greeks called Gallo-Greeks or Galatians. But that they were Gauls — from whom set out those who plundered Delphi, and afterward settled in Asia close to the Troad, and occupied the greater part of Phrygia — is the concordant opinion of the Geographers. Hear Justin, book 35: “So great was the terror of the Gallic name (or the unconquered felicity of their arms), that kings thought they could neither keep their majesty safe, nor recover it when lost, without Gallic valor; and so great was the fecundity of the Gauls in youth at that time, that they filled all Asia as with a swarm. And so, called in for aid by the king of Bithynia, they divided the kingdom with him, the victory being won, and named that region Gallograecia, because the Gauls had been mingled with the Greeks.”7
QUALES igitur Gomeritae populi fuerint, quasve terras insederint, conici potest ex vaticinio Ezechielis quod est in capite 38 his verbis: Gomer et universa agmina eius, domus Thogorma, latera Aquilonis, et totum robur eius, populique multi tecum. Describit eo loco Ezechiel bellicas copias principis Gog ex variis gentibus collectas, quas ille ducturus erat ad debellandos Iudaeos bonisque omnibus spoliandos, postquam illi Babylone regressi sunt in patriam. Ex vaticinio autem Danielis capite 11, et ex historia Iosephi, constat Iudaeos post reditum ex Babylonica captivitate saepe ac vehementer vexatos esse a regibus Aegypti et Syriae seu Asiae, praesertim autem ab Antiocho Epiphane, ut docet historia Machabaeorum. Ergo Gomeritas credibile est fuisse populos in Asia, quae Aquilonaris est seu Septentrionalis Palaestinae, vel etiam in aliqua parte Syriae, nec longe tamen remotos a Palaestina: dici vero Aquilonares comparatione Iudaeae, talem enim positum ea regio habet ad Palaestinam. Quapropter Daniel capite 11 reges Syriae appellat reges Aquilonis, sicut reges Aegypti nominat reges Austri, nempe utrumque comparatione Iudaeae.
What sort of people, therefore, the Gomeritae were, and what lands they settled, can be conjectured from the prophecy of Ezekiel in chapter 38 in these words: “Gomer and all its troops, the house of Thogorma, the sides of the North, and all its strength, and many peoples with thee.” In that place Ezekiel describes the warlike forces of the prince Gog collected from various nations, which he was to lead to war down the Jews and despoil them of all goods, after they had returned from Babylon to their fatherland. And from the prophecy of Daniel chapter 11, and from the history of Josephus, it is established that the Jews, after the return from the Babylonian captivity, were often and vehemently harassed by the kings of Egypt and of Syria (or Asia), but especially by Antiochus Epiphanes, as the history of the Maccabees teaches. Therefore it is credible that the Gomeritae were peoples in Asia, which is to the north or northward of Palestine, or even in some part of Syria, yet not far removed from Palestine: and they are called Northerners in comparison with Judea, for that region has such a position toward Palestine. Wherefore Daniel chapter 11 calls the kings of Syria ‘kings of the North,’ as he names the kings of Egypt ‘kings of the South’ — namely, each in comparison with Judea.8
ALTER Iapheti filius nominatur Magog: cuius posteros Magogaeos quidam putarunt fuisse Gothos, ut narrat Hieronymus in Traditionibus Hebraicis in Genesim; alii Getas, Massagetas, denique Scythas, quae est Iosephi, Hieronymi ac fere omnium sententia. E Scythis autem origo est Tartarorum ac Turcarum. Nec desunt qui contendant Magogaeos fuisse populos Caelesyriae, propinquos Palaestinae, coniecturam eius rei facientes ex illis verbis Plinii libro 5 capite 23: Caele habet Apamiam, Marsya amne divisam a Nazerinorum Tetrarchia, et Bambycem, quae alio nomine Hierapolis vocatur, Syris vero Magog, etc. Magog igitur, ut ex Plinio licet intelligere, sacra fuit et augusta urbs Syrorum (id enim sonat Hierapolis), cuius urbis et regionis principem facit Gog in capite 38 Ezechiel; ubi Magogaei recensentur inter varias gentes quae sub principe Gog (id est, regibus Syriae) militaturae et bellaturae erant adversus Iudaeos ex Babylonica captivitate reductos. Iudaeos enim recens Babylone reversos in Iudaeam fuisse valde infestatos et vexatos a finitimis gentibus, Samaritis et Syris, non obscure intelligitur ex libris Esdrae.
The second son of Iaphet is named Magog: whose posterity, the Magogaei, some have thought to have been the Goths (as Jerome narrates in the Hebrew Traditions on Genesis); others the Getae, the Massagetae, finally the Scythians — which is the opinion of Josephus, Jerome, and of nearly all. And from the Scythians is the origin of the Tartars and Turks. Nor are there lacking those who contend that the Magogaei were peoples of Coele-Syria, near Palestine, making their conjecture of this from those words of Pliny, book 5, chapter 23: “Coele has Apamia, divided by the river Marsyas from the Tetrarchy of the Nazerini, and Bambyce, which by another name is called Hierapolis, but by the Syrians Magog,” etc. Magog, therefore, as may be understood from Pliny, was a sacred and august city of the Syrians (for that is what ‘Hierapolis’ means), of which city and region Ezekiel in chapter 38 makes Gog the prince; where the Magogaei are reckoned among the various nations which, under the prince Gog (that is, the kings of Syria), were to serve as soldiers and wage war against the Jews brought back from the Babylonian captivity. For that the Jews, lately returned from Babylon into Judea, were greatly harassed and vexed by the neighboring nations, the Samaritans and Syrians, is not obscurely understood from the books of Esdras.9
TERTIUS Iapheti filius appellatur Madai. Inter omnes convenit ex Madai esse ortos Medos, populos in Asia maiori celebres, a primo quidem subiectos Assyriis, sed postea per Arbacum praefectum, debellato Sardanapalo novissimo Assyriorum monarcha, non servitutis modo iugum excussisse, verum etiam imperium Asiae annos prope quadringentos obtinuisse. A Medis quoque Babyloniorum imperium eversum esse per Darium Medum, et narrat Daniel cap. 5, et ante praedictum fuerat ab Isaia cap. 14 et Hieremia cap. 51.
The third son of Iaphet is called Madai. Among all it is agreed that from Madai sprang the Medes, peoples famous in greater Asia — at first indeed subject to the Assyrians, but afterward, through their commander Arbaces, Sardanapalus the last monarch of the Assyrians being overcome, they not only shook off the yoke of servitude, but even held the empire of Asia for nearly four hundred years. And that the empire of the Babylonians was overthrown by the Medes through Darius the Mede, both Daniel narrates in chapter 5, and it had been foretold before by Isaiah chapter 14 and Jeremiah chapter 51.10
INTER eiusdem Iapheti filios quarto loco memoratur Iavan, ex quo (sententia omnium) proseminati sunt Iones, satores parentesque Graecorum. Quocirca multis in scripturae locis pro Hebraea voce Iavan Septuaginta verterunt Hellada, Latinusque interpres Graeciam; et pro plurali Iavanim illi Hellenes, hic Graecos transtulit, ut videre est apud Isaiam capite 66, Ezechielem 27, Ioelem 3. Nonnunquam tamen Septuaginta retinuerunt ipsum vocabulum Hebraeum, sed nonnihil tamen immutatum, ut hic nominarunt Iouan. Hecataeus apud Strabonem libro nono ait Ionas ex Asia venisse in Graeciam, unde sit origo Atheniensium, quos fuisse antiquitus dictos Iones, et Atticam eorum regionem appellatam esse Ioniam, docet Plutarchus in Theseo.…
Among the same sons of Iaphet, in the fourth place is mentioned Iavan, from whom (in the opinion of all) sprang the Ionians, the sowers and parents of the Greeks. Wherefore in many places of scripture, for the Hebrew word Iavan the Septuagint translated Hellas, and the Latin interpreter Greece; and for the plural Iavanim, they [translated] Hellenes, he Greeks, as may be seen in Isaiah chapter 66, Ezekiel 27, Joel 3. Yet sometimes the Septuagint retained the Hebrew word itself, but somewhat changed, as here they named it Iouan. Hecataeus, in Strabo book 9, says that the Ionians came from Asia into Greece, whence is the origin of the Athenians, whom Plutarch in the Theseus teaches to have been anciently called Iones, and their region of Attica to have been called Ionia. [continues]…11
…Verum quia se primos hominum et quasi aborigenes iactabant Athenienses, idcirco dixerunt se non a principio dictos fuisse Iones, sed post Deucalionem, cuius filius Xuthus, fratres suos ex Thessalia fugiens Athenas receptusque ab Erichtheo, ex eius filia filium suscepit Ionem, ex quo Athenienses dicti sint Iones, qui missis in Asiam colonis inibi Ioniam condiderunt. Quam opinionem secutus est Strabo libro octavo, et Pausanias in Achaicis. Sed prior sententia verior est.
…But because the Athenians boasted themselves the first of men and, as it were, aboriginals, they therefore said that they were called Iones not from the beginning, but after Deucalion — whose son Xuthus, fleeing his brothers from Thessaly to Athens, and received by Erichtheus, begot of his daughter a son Ion, from whom the Athenians were called Iones, who, colonists being sent into Asia, founded Ionia there. This opinion Strabo followed in book eight, and Pausanias in the Achaica. But the former opinion is truer.12
QUINTUS filius Iaphet nominatur Thubal. Thubalaeos vero Iosephus putat esse Iberos, id est, Hispanos; Hebraei vero Italos, prius dictos Hesperios. Verum quia Thubal saepissime iungitur et consociatur cum Mosoch (ut apud Ezechielem cap. 27, 32, 38, 39), quidam autem opinantur Mosoch fuisse Cedarenos (id est, Arabes), putarunt iidem Thubalaeos fuisse populos Asiaticos, sed Syriae et Arabiae vicinos, non autem Europaeos, id est, vel Hispanos vel Italos. Septuaginta Interpretes et paraphrastes Chaldaeus appellant Thobel.
The fifth son of Iaphet is named Thubal. And the Thubalaei Josephus thinks to be the Iberians, that is, the Spaniards; but the Hebrews, the Italians, formerly called Hesperians. But because Thubal is very often joined and associated with Mosoch (as in Ezekiel ch. 27, 32, 38, 39), and some opine that Mosoch was the Cedareni (that is, the Arabs), the same have thought that the Thubalaei were Asiatic peoples — but neighbors of Syria and Arabia, not Europeans, that is, neither Spaniards nor Italians. The Septuagint Interpreters and the Chaldaic paraphrast call him Thobel.13
SEXTUS filius recensetur Mosoch, ex quo opinatur quidam generatos Moscos seu Moscovitas, propter similitudinem nominis; quae tamen similitudo non est in voce Hebraea Mesech, nam Latina vox Mosoch sumpta est ex Septuaginta Interpretibus qui Graece verterunt Mosoch. Iosephus ait Mesechaeos vel Mesochaeos postea dictos a Graecis Cappadoces, et priscae appellationis indicem et testem esse civitatem quandam apud Cappadoces cui Masecha nomen est. Probabilius videtur aliis Mosochaeos populos fuisse Syriae et Arabiae vicinos et confines Cedarenis Arabibus, qui sunt iuxta Nabathaeos auctore Plinio lib. 5 capite 11. Cedar enim filius fuit Ismaelis (Genef. 25), unde Ismaelitae et Arabes postea dicti Saraceni — fortasse quod Sara velut auctore (uti est in capite 16 Geneseos) Abraham duxit Agar uxorem, ex qua Ismaelem suscepit illius gentis parentem.
The sixth son reckoned is Mosoch, from whom a certain one opines were generated the Mosci or Moscovites, on account of the similarity of name — which similarity, however, is not in the Hebrew word Mesech, for the Latin word Mosoch is taken from the Septuagint Interpreters who in Greek translated Mosoch. Josephus says that the Mesechaei or Mesochaei were afterward called by the Greeks Cappadocians, and that an index and witness of the ancient appellation is a certain city among the Cappadocians which has the name Masecha. It seems more probable to others that the Mosochaei were peoples neighboring Syria and Arabia and bordering on the Cedarene Arabs, who are next to the Nabataeans, on the authority of Pliny book 5 chapter 11. For Cedar was the son of Ismael (Gen. 25), whence the Ismaelites and Arabs were afterward called Saracens — perhaps because, with Sara as it were the author (as is in chapter 16 of Genesis), Abraham took Agar to wife, of whom he received Ismael, the parent of that nation.14
MESECH autem fuisse gentem propinquam habitatoribus Cedar potest conici ex Psalmo 120, ubi David, de miseria sui exilii queribundus, in illas voces lamentabiles prorupit: Heu mihi, quia incolatus meus prolongatus est, habitavi cum habitationibus Cedar. Sic enim eum locum Latinus interpres, Graecam versionem secutus, expressit. Atqui pro illo prolongatus est, Hebraice est Mesech: ut David queratur se procul a patria peregre agere in Mesech, et habitare inter tabernacula Cedar, id est, versari inter gentes barbaras perfidasque et continuis incursationibus atque latrociniis gaudentes. Iuxta quam sententiam Paraphrastes Chaldaeus ita reddidit eum locum: O me miserum, quia peregrinatus sum cum Asianis, habitavi cum tabernaculis Arabum.…
That Mesech was a nation near the dwellers of Cedar can be conjectured from Psalm 120, where David, complaining of the misery of his exile, broke forth into those lamentable words: “Woe is me, that my sojourning is prolonged; I have dwelt with the inhabitants of Cedar.” For thus the Latin interpreter, following the Greek version, expressed that place. But in place of that “is prolonged,” in Hebrew it is Mesech: so that David complains that, far from his fatherland, he passes his time abroad in Mesech, and dwells among the tents of Cedar — that is, lives among barbarous and perfidious nations, delighting in continual raids and robberies. According to which sense the Chaldaic Paraphrast rendered that place thus: “O wretched me, that I have sojourned with the Asians, I have dwelt with the tents of the Arabs.” [continues]…15
…Consentaneum igitur est, secundum istos, Gomeritas, Magogaeos, Thubalaeos et Mesechaeos populos fuisse vel in Asia, vel in Syria, vel non inde procul, Palaestinae circumfusos, et principi Gog (id est, regum Syriae atque Asiae qui post Alexandrum regnarunt) imperio subiectos.
…It is consonant, therefore, according to these, that the Gomeritae, Magogaei, Thubalaei, and Mesechaei were peoples either in Asia, or in Syria, or not far thence, spread around Palestine, and subject to the dominion of the prince Gog — that is, of the kings of Syria and Asia who reigned after Alexander.16
SEPTIMUS atque ultimus Iapheti filius recensetur Thiras, ex quo fere omnes genus et originem ducunt eorum quos Graeci appellarunt Thraces. Cur id senserint non aliam video rationem quam congruam denominationem, a Thira Thiraces, et melioris soni gratia Thraces. Verum alii Thracum nomen repetunt a Thrace filio Martis; alii ab asperitate eius regionis, quae nec caelo laeta (inquit Mela) nec solo est, et nisi qua propinqua mari, infecunda et praefrigida, eorumque quae feruntur maligne admodum patiens; viris quoque asper et indecens corporum habitus, ad ferociam et feritatem compositus. Plerisque tamen Ethnicorum visum est Thraces dictos esse quasi truces: namque Isidorus libro nono Etymologiarum, Thraces, inquit, ex filio Iaphet qui Thiras nominatus est, orti et cognominati sunt; licet Gentiles eos ex moribus ita dictos existiment, quod sint truces. Saevissimos enim omnium gentium fuisse perhibent, quippe qui captivos diis suis litarent, et humanum sanguinem ossibus capitum exceptum potare soliti essent. Hic Thiras nusquam alias nisi 1 Paralipomenon cap. 1 nominatur in scriptura, fortasse quod ipse atque eius posteri terras insederint longe dissitas a Iudaeis; eos enim fere populos commemorare solet Scriptura qui vel Palaestinae vicini fuerunt, vel, hostium populi Dei castra secuti, infestarunt et vexarunt Iudaeos.
The seventh and last son of Iaphet reckoned is Thiras, from whom nearly all derive the race and origin of those whom the Greeks called Thracians. Why they thought this, I see no other reason than the fitting derivation, from Thira ‘Thiraces,’ and for the sake of a better sound ‘Thraces.’ But others repeat the name of the Thracians from Thrax, the son of Mars; others from the harshness of that region, which is glad neither in sky (says Mela) nor in soil, and, except where near the sea, barren and very cold, and very grudgingly enduring of the things that are sown; and the men too of harsh and unseemly bodily condition, composed to ferocity and wildness. Yet to most of the heathen it has seemed that the Thracians were so called as if ‘truces’ [savage]: for Isidore, in book nine of the Etymologies: “The Thracians,” he says, “sprang and were named from the son of Iaphet who was called Thiras; although the Gentiles think them so called from their manners, because they are savage. For they relate that they were the most savage of all nations, since they sacrificed captives to their gods, and were wont to drink human blood received in the bones of [their enemies'] heads.” This Thiras is nowhere else named in scripture except in 1 Chronicles chapter 1 — perhaps because he and his posterity settled lands far removed from the Jews; for Scripture is wont to mention generally those peoples who were either neighbors of Palestine, or who, following the camps of the enemies of God's people, harassed and vexed the Jews.17

Translator’s notes

  1. Gen 10:2 (lemma). Margin: v. 2. ↩
  2. §7. Japheth's seven sons; the posterity of Gomer (3) and Iavan (4) = 14 in all (the Greek codices wrongly add an eighth son Elisa). Includes a genealogical table in the original. Margin: St. Augustine. ↩
  3. §8. Why Moses begins the genealogy with Japheth (not Shem, named first elsewhere). Continues on p. 401. ↩
  4. §8 (cont.). The possibilities: Japheth firstborn (Hebrews, Tostatus, Lyra); or youngest-first up to Shem (Augustine); or Moses simply resumed where ch. 9 left off, saving Shem (the thread of the coming history) for last. ↩
  5. §9. Japheth's posterity proves the blessing ‘May God enlarge Japheth’ — they held most of the world (all Europe, much of Asia, the Mediterranean islands, colonies in Africa). Margin: “How far and wide over the world the posterity of Japheth is spread.” ↩
  6. §10. Some identify Japheth with the pagans' Iapetus (the Titan, father of Prometheus); but apart from the name there is no resemblance. Margin: “Whether Japheth was the same as the heathen Iapetus.” ↩
  7. §11. Gomer — Josephus & most: his posterity = the Gallo-Greeks/Galatians; the geographers agree they were Gauls (who plundered Delphi, settled in Asia); Justin on the terror of the Gallic name and the founding of ‘Gallograecia.’ Margins: “Whether Gomer was the father of the Galatians”; Josephus; Justin. ↩
  8. §12. Where the Gomeritae dwelt, from Ezekiel 38 (Gomer, the house of Thogorma, ‘the sides of the North’) — peoples north of Palestine, in or near Syria, subject to Gog; hence Daniel calls Syria's kings ‘of the North,’ Egypt's ‘of the South,’ relative to Judea. Margins: “The passage Ezekiel ch. 38”; Josephus. ↩
  9. §13. Magog — some: the Goths (Jerome); others: Getae/Massagetae/Scythians (Josephus, Jerome, most — whence the Tartars and Turks); others: Coele-Syrians (Pliny: Hierapolis called ‘Magog’ by the Syrians; Ezekiel's Gog its prince). Margins: “What nations sprang from Magog”; Jerome; Pliny. ↩
  10. §14. Madai — all agree the Medes sprang from him (under Arbaces they overthrew Sardanapalus and held Asia ~400 yrs; under Darius the Mede they overthrew Babylon — Daniel 5, foretold by Isaiah 14, Jeremiah 51). Margin: “The origin of the Medes.” ↩
  11. §15. Iavan — all agree the Ionians (parents of the Greeks) sprang from him; the LXX render ‘Iavan’ as ‘Hellas,’ the Latin ‘Greece’ (Isaiah 66, Ezekiel 27, Joel 3); Hecataeus (via Strabo 9): the Ionians came from Asia; the Athenians anciently called Iones (Plutarch). Margins: “The origin of the Ionians”; Hecataeus; “Whether the Athenians sprang from the Ionians”; Plutarch. Continues on p. 403. ↩
  12. §15 (cont.). The Athenians' counter-claim (called Iones only after Deucalion's grandson Ion — Strabo, Pausanias); but the former view (Ionians from Asia) is truer. Margins: Strabo; Pausanias. ↩
  13. §16. Thubal — Josephus: the Iberians (Spaniards); the Hebrews: the Italians (formerly ‘Hesperians’); but since Thubal is paired with Mosoch (Ezekiel), some make both Asiatic peoples near Syria/Arabia. Margins: “Of what nations Thubal was the author”; Josephus. ↩
  14. §17. Mosoch — some: the Moscovites (by name-likeness, absent in the Hebrew Mesech); Josephus: the Cappadocians (the city Masecha attests it); others more probably peoples near Syria/Arabia bordering the Cedarene Arabs (Pliny; Cedar son of Ishmael, Gen 25 — whence the ‘Saracens’). Margins: “What nations Mosoch was the parent of”; Josephus; Pliny; Gen. 25. ↩
  15. §18. Mesech near Cedar's dwellers (Ps 120 — ‘prolonged’ is Hebrew ‘Mesech’; David laments dwelling among barbarous peoples; the Chaldee ‘the Asians… the Arabs’). Margin: “The passage Psalm 120.” Continues on p. 404. ↩
  16. §18 (cont.). So (on this view) the Gomeritae, Magogaei, Thubalaei, and Mesechaei were peoples in or near Asia/Syria around Palestine, subject to ‘Gog’ (the post-Alexander kings of Syria/Asia). ↩
  17. §19. Thiras — nearly all: the Thracians (Thiraces→Thraces); others from Thrax son of Mars, or the region's harshness (Mela); the pagans: ‘Thraces’ ≈ ‘truces’ (savage — Isidore: they sacrificed captives and drank blood from skull-cups); named only in 1 Chron. 1 (his line dwelt far from the Jews). Margins: “The origin of the Thracians”; Mela bk. 2, ch. 2; Isidore. ↩