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

FIFTH DISPUTATION. Who Assur the founder of the city Niniue was, and concerning the kingdom of the Assyrians

LatineEnglish

FIFTH DISPUTATION. Who Assur the founder of the city Niniue was, and concerning the kingdom of the Assyrians.1

QUINTA DISPUTATIO. Quis fuerit Assur conditor urbis Niniue, et de regno Assyriorum.

CUM Moses dixit ex terra Sennaar egressum esse Assur qui condidit civitatem Niniue, quaeritur quidnam vocabulo illo Assur intelligi oporteat hoc loco: utrum gentem vel regnum vel regionem Assyriorum, an vero virum aliquem eo nomine appellatum…
Since Moses has said that out of the land of Sennaar went forth Assur, who founded the city Niniue, it is asked what ought to be understood by that word ‘Assur’ in this place: whether the nation, or the kingdom, or the region of the Assyrians, or rather some man called by that name…2
…namque id satis per se obscurum est, simulque aliis quibusdam innexum atque implicatum est difficultatibus. B. Hieronymus vocem Assur interpretatus est regnum Assyriorum. Explanans enim verba illa: „Ex terra illa egressus est Assur,“ sic ait: „De terra illa Assyriorum pullulavit imperium, qui ex nomine Nini Beli filii Ninum condiderunt, urbem magnam, quam Hebraei appellant Niniue, ad cuius vel ruinam vel poenitentiam tota Ionae pertinet prophetia.“ Sic Hieronymus.
…for it is sufficiently obscure in itself, and is at the same time entangled and implicated with certain other difficulties. Blessed Jerome interpreted the word ‘Assur’ as the kingdom of the Assyrians. For in explaining those words, ‘Out of that land went forth Assur,’ he says thus: „From that land sprang up the empire of the Assyrians, who from the name of Ninus son of Belus founded Ninus, a great city, which the Hebrews call Niniue, to whose either ruin or repentance the whole prophecy of Jonah pertains.“ So far Jerome.3
GERARDUS autem Mercator voce Assur significari putat regionem Assyriorum, et Mosem his verbis significare Nemrod (quem ipse vult fuisse Ninum), postquam aedificaverat in terra Sennaar Babylonem, non contentum ditione et dominatione terrae Babylonicae inde ad alia regna acquirenda fuisse egressum. Itaque vox illa (Assur) Mercatori non significat virum aliquem, sicut plerique interpretati sunt, sed ipsam regionem Assyriae; „quid enim,“ ait ille, „magnum erat ac memorabile dicere de terra Babylonis egressum fuisse Ninum, cum ex ea omnes illi reges prodierint? Sed illis verbis significatur primum omnium Ninum non contentum paterno regno egressum finibus suis invasisse externa, aliena et longinqua regna: quod ante Ninum fecisse neminem tradit Iustinus.“ „Ante Ninum,“ inquit Iustinus, „fines imperii tueri magis quam proferre mos erat. Intra suam cuique patriam regna finiebantur. Primus omnium Ninus rex Assyriorum veterem et quasi avitum gentium morem nova imperii cupiditate mutavit. Hic primus intulit bella finitimis, et rudes adhuc ad resistendum populos ad Libyae terminos usque perdomuit. Domitis enim primo proximis, cum accessione virium ad alios fortiter transiret, et proxima quaeque victoria instrumentum insequentis esset, totius Orientis populos subegit.“ Ita Iustinus.
But Gerard Mercator thinks that by the word ‘Assur’ is signified the region of the Assyrians, and that Moses by these words signifies that Nemrod (whom he will have been Ninus), after he had built Babylon in the land of Sennaar, not content with the dominion and lordship of the Babylonian land, went forth thence to acquire other kingdoms. And so that word (Assur), to Mercator, does not signify some man, as most have interpreted, but the region of Assyria itself; „for what,“ says he, „great or memorable thing was it to say that Ninus had gone forth from the land of Babylon, since all those kings came forth from it? But by those words it is signified that first of all Ninus, not content with his father's kingdom, went out of his own borders and invaded external, foreign, and far-off kingdoms: which no one before Ninus did, as Justin hands down.“ „Before Ninus,“ says Justin, „it was the custom to guard rather than to extend the bounds of empire. The kingdoms of each were bounded within his own fatherland. First of all, Ninus king of the Assyrians changed the old and as it were ancestral custom of the nations by a new lust of empire. He first brought wars upon his neighbors, and subdued the peoples, still untrained to resist, as far as the bounds of Libya. For having first subdued the nearest, when with the accession of strength he passed bravely on to others, and each nearest victory was the instrument of the next, he subjugated the peoples of the whole East.“ So Justin.4
VERUM Mercatori communis Doctorum sententia dupliciter adversatur, tum quod eundem facit ipse Ninum atque Nemrod, quod falsum est et a nobis supra refutatum; tum quod vocabulo Assur non regionem Assyriae, ut expressit ipse, sed Assur filium Sem significari plerique arbitrantur. Audi Iosephum: „Sem,“ inquit, „tertio Noë filio, quinque fuere filii, qui Assyriam usque ad Indicum Oceanum incoluerunt, ab Euphrate propagandae ditionis initio facto; primus Elimus posteros reliquit Elimaeos, a quibus Persae originem traxerunt. Alter dictus Assur urbem Ninum condidit, et subditos de se Assyrios denominavit, quorum opes prae ceteris floruerunt.“ Idem sensit B. Augustinus in libro decimo sexto de Civitate Dei capite tertio, cuius verba cum paulo superius commemorata sint, hic ea repetere non est necesse. Quin etiam B. Hieronymus in libro de locis Hebraicis vocem Assur exponit personam Assur, filium dico Sem, non autem regnum Assyriorum, ut in Traditionibus Hebraicis interpretatus fuerat. Non attinet plures afferre huius interpretationis probatores, cum Iosephum quasi ducem fere posteriores secuti sint.
But the common opinion of the Doctors is opposed to Mercator in two ways: both because he makes Ninus the same as Nemrod, which is false and refuted by us above; and because most judge that by the word ‘Assur’ is signified, not the region of Assyria, as he expressed, but Assur the son of Shem. Hear Josephus: „To Shem, the third son of Noah, there were five sons, who inhabited Assyria as far as the Indian Ocean, the beginning of extending their dominion being made from the Euphrates; the first, Elimus, left as descendants the Elimaeans, from whom the Persians drew their origin. The other, called Assur, founded the city Ninus, and named his subjects after himself Assyrians, whose wealth flourished above the rest.“ The same was the view of Blessed Augustine in the sixteenth book of the City of God, chapter three, whose words, since they were mentioned a little above, it is not necessary to repeat here. Moreover Blessed Jerome, in his book On the Hebrew Places, expounds the word ‘Assur’ as the person Assur — I mean the son of Shem — and not the kingdom of the Assyrians, as he had interpreted in the Hebrew Questions. It is not worthwhile to bring forward more approvers of this interpretation, since later writers have followed Josephus almost as their leader.5
MEA triplex est sententia. Primum equidem sentio Ninum regem Assyriorum non fuisse Assur filium Sem: tum quod Ninus fuit ex stirpe Cham, eius scilicet abnepos, fuit enim filius Beli quem nos supra ostendimus fuisse Nemrod nepotem ipsius Cham: quod si Ninus fuit abnepos Cham, non potuit esse filius Sem: tum quod Belus pater Nini vir fuit impius et parens idololatriae, ab eo enim Hieronymus et Cyrillus aliique primam idololatriae originem repetunt: at Sem pater Assur, non modo pius et sanctus vir fuit, verum etiam verae pietatis et religionis custos, doctor et propagator.
My opinion is threefold. First, indeed, I think that Ninus king of the Assyrians was not Assur the son of Shem: both because Ninus was of the stock of Cham — namely his great-great-grandson, for he was the son of Belus, whom we showed above to have been Nemrod the grandson of Cham himself; and if Ninus was the great-great-grandson of Cham, he could not be the son of Shem; and because Belus the father of Ninus was an impious man and the parent of idolatry — for from him Jerome and Cyril and others trace the first origin of idolatry — whereas Shem the father of Assur was not only a pious and holy man, but also a guardian, teacher, and propagator of true piety and religion.6
QUOD autem quidam ex ratione temporum evidenter concludi putat Ninum non fuisse Assur filium Sem, quod non potuisset Ninus vivere usque ad ortum Abrahae, ut a multis traditur, id est, per annos trecentos; hoc inquam non videtur satis firmum: cur enim incredibile sit Assur filium ipsius Sem, qui post diluvium generatus est, ultra ortum Abrahae, id est, ultra trecentos annos vixisse, cum frater eius Arphaxad, eiusque filius Sale et nepos Heber ultra quadringentos annos vitam prorogaverint, scilicet plus centum annis ultra ortum Abrahae?
But as for what some think can be evidently concluded from the reckoning of times — that Ninus was not Assur the son of Shem, because Ninus could not have lived down to the birth of Abraham, as is handed down by many, that is, for three hundred years — this, I say, does not seem firm enough: for why should it be incredible that Assur the son of Shem himself, who was begotten after the flood, lived beyond the birth of Abraham — that is, beyond three hundred years — when his brother Arphaxad, and his son Sale and grandson Heber, prolonged their lives beyond four hundred years, that is, more than a hundred years beyond the birth of Abraham?7
DEINDE censeo, si quis contendat vocabulo Assur significari Ninum regem Assyriorum, ei dicendum esse vocem Assur hoc loco non esse nomen proprium significans Assur filium Sem; iam enim ostensum est Ninum et Assur filium Sem plane diversos fuisse. Quapropter vox Assur hoc loco significat Assyrium vel regem Assyriorum; qua significatione usurpatur frequenter in sacris literis, ut supra indicavimus, idque liquet ex quarto libro Regum capite decimo quinto et Psalmo 82 et Isaia 10 et 31. Erit igitur sententia horum verborum, „Ex terra Sennaar egressum Assur,“ id est, Ninum regem Assyriorum non contentum Babylonico regno quod pater eius Belus fundaverat, ad alias gentes subiugandas aliaque regna capessenda processisse, et inter alia eius praeclara opera fuisse aedificationem Niniue civitatis magnae.
Next, I judge that, if anyone contends that by the word ‘Assur’ is signified Ninus king of the Assyrians, it must be said to him that the word ‘Assur’ in this place is not the proper name signifying Assur the son of Shem; for it has already been shown that Ninus and Assur the son of Shem were plainly different. Wherefore the word ‘Assur’ in this place signifies an Assyrian or the king of the Assyrians; in which signification it is frequently used in the sacred letters, as we indicated above, and this is clear from the fourth book of Kings, chapter fifteen, and Psalm 82, and Isaiah 10 and 31. The meaning of these words, then, ‘Out of the land of Sennaar went forth Assur,’ will be: that Ninus king of the Assyrians, not content with the Babylonian kingdom which his father Belus had founded, proceeded to subjugate other nations and seize other kingdoms, and that among his other illustrious works was the building of Niniue, a great city.8
ILLUD quoque arbitror, si qui nominatur hoc loco Assur fuit ille filius Sem (id quod multis placere video), quod subditur ab eo esse aedificatam Niniue, interpretandum esse quasi dictum per anticipationem. Ille enim Assur aedificavit eam urbem, quam Ninus multis post annis vel iam dirutam reficiens, vel ex parva amplissimam et magnificentissimis operibus ornatissimam efficiens, abolita prioris conditoris memoria priorique eius urbis appellatione, de suo nomine Niniue seu Ninum appellavit. Itaque quod hic dicitur: „Haec est civitas magna,“ non debet referri ad primam eius urbis originem, cum est aedificata ab Assur filio Sem, sed ad aedificationem eius a Nino profectam, vel ad magnitudinem eius qua erat eo tempore quo Moses hanc historiam scripsit; et ad hanc interpretationem sententia Iosephi, Hieronymi et Augustini accommodari potest.
This too I judge: that if the one named in this place ‘Assur’ was that son of Shem (which I see pleases many), then what is subjoined — that Niniue was built by him — must be interpreted as if said by anticipation. For that Assur built the city, which Ninus many years after — either repairing it when already ruined, or making it out of a small thing most ample and most adorned with most magnificent works — named after his own name Niniue or Ninus, the memory of the former founder and the former appellation of the city being abolished. And so what is here said, ‘This is the great city,’ ought not to be referred to the first origin of the city, when it was built by Assur the son of Shem, but to its building set on foot by Ninus, or to its magnitude such as it was at the time when Moses wrote this history; and to this interpretation the opinion of Josephus, Jerome, and Augustine can be accommodated.9

Translator’s notes

  1. Liber XV, Disputation 5 (title): the identity of Assur, founder of Nineveh, and the Assyrian kingdom. ↩
  2. §79. Disp. 5 opens: does ‘Assur’ (Gen 10:11) mean the nation/kingdom/region of the Assyrians, or a man of that name? (continues p. 433). ↩
  3. §79 (cont.). The question is obscure and entangled. Jerome reads ‘Assur’ as the kingdom of the Assyrians: from that land sprang the Assyrian empire, which named Nineveh after Ninus son of Belus — the city of Jonah's prophecy. Margin: Jerome, Hebrew Questions on Genesis. ↩
  4. §79 (cont.). Mercator: ‘Assur’ = the region of Assyria, and the verse means Nemrod (= his Ninus), not content with Babylon, went out to conquer other kingdoms; it names no man but the region. He cites Justin: before Ninus, kings only guarded their borders; Ninus first, from lust of empire, made wars on neighbors and subdued the whole East to Libya. Margins: Mercator's Chronology; Justin, opening of bk. 1; Ninus. ↩
  5. §79 (concl.). The common view refutes Mercator twice: he wrongly equates Ninus with Nemrod (already refuted), and most take ‘Assur’ as Assur son of Shem, not the region. Josephus: Shem's son Assur founded Nineveh and named the Assyrians after himself; so too Augustine (City of God 16.3) and Jerome (On Hebrew Places, correcting his Hebrew Questions). Later writers follow Josephus as their guide. Margins: Josephus, Antiquities; Augustine; Jerome. ↩
  6. §80. Pererius's threefold opinion. (1) Ninus ≠ Assur son of Shem: Ninus was of Cham's stock (great-great-grandson, son of Belus = Nemrod, Cham's grandson), so cannot be Shem's son; and Belus was impious, the parent of idolatry (Jerome, Cyril), whereas Shem (Assur's father) was holy, a guardian and teacher of true religion. Margins: Ninus was not Assur son of Shem; Jerome; Cyril. ↩
  7. §80 (cont.). Pererius rejects one chronological argument: that Ninus ≠ Assur son of Shem because Ninus could not have lived 300 yrs to Abraham's birth — this is not firm, since Assur's relatives Arphaxad, Sale, and Heber lived 400+ yrs (over 100 yrs past Abraham's birth). ↩
  8. §80 (concl.). (2) If ‘Assur’ means Ninus, then it is not the proper name (Assur son of Shem) — since Ninus and that Assur are distinct — but ‘an Assyrian’ or ‘king of the Assyrians’ (a frequent scriptural usage; 2 Kgs 15, Ps 83/82, Isa 10 & 31). So the verse = Ninus, not content with his father Belus's Babylon, went out to conquer other nations, among his works building great Nineveh. ↩
  9. §81. (3) If ‘Assur’ is Shem's son (as many prefer), then ‘he built Nineveh’ is by anticipation: Assur built the city, which Ninus long after rebuilt/enlarged and renamed after himself (Niniue/Ninus), erasing the first founder's memory. ‘This is the great city’ refers not to Assur's first founding but to Ninus's building, or to its size in Moses's day — fitting Josephus, Jerome, and Augustine. (Disp. 6 begins next page.) ↩