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

SIXTH DISPUTATION. On the Kings of the Assyrians

LatineEnglish

SIXTH DISPUTATION. On the Kings of the Assyrians.1

SEXTA DISPUTATIO. De Regibus Assyriorum.

CETERUM quia hoc loco aperit sacra scriptura primam originem regum et regni Assyriorum, non fuerit alienum nos etiam ea de re nonnihil attingere. „Ninum fuisse primum Assyriorum regem atque monarcham, omnes,“ inquit Hieronymus, „tam Graecae quam Latinae narrant historiae.“ Et ante Ninum quidem pater eius Belus, ut tradunt fere scriptores Ecclesiastici, Babylone regnaverat sexaginta quinque annos: sed eo tantum regno et quidem permodico contentus fuit: vir non tam sua gloria clarus, quam Nini filii amplitudine imperii et rerum gestarum fama nobilitatus, maxime vero quod primus omnium mortalium a filio Nino in Deos relatus, et pro Deo publice coli iussus est: ex quo primum initium publicae idololatriae factum esse creditur.
But because in this place sacred Scripture discloses the first origin of the kings and kingdom of the Assyrians, it will not be amiss for us also to touch somewhat upon that matter. „That Ninus was the first king and monarch of the Assyrians, all,“ says Jerome, „both Greek and Latin histories relate.“ And before Ninus indeed his father Belus, as nearly all the ecclesiastical writers hand down, had reigned at Babylon for sixty-five years: but he was content with that kingdom only, and that a very small one: a man renowned not so much by his own glory as ennobled by the greatness of his son Ninus's empire and by the fame of his deeds; but most of all because he was the first of all mortals to be enrolled among the gods by his son Ninus, and ordered to be publicly worshipped as a god: from which the first beginning of public idolatry is believed to have been made.2
CUM autem Abraham natus esse dicatur anno quadragesimo tertio imperii Nini, et, ut ex ipsa scriptura colligitur, anno ducentesimo nonagesimo secundo post diluvium, hinc efficitur Belum, qui sexaginta quinque annos regnavit ante Ninum, iniisse regnum anno post diluvium centesimo octogesimo quarto, obiisse autem anno ducentesimo quinquagesimo. Ex quo potest obiter redargui manifestus in Chronologia error cuiusdam Thali scriptoris pervetusti, quem tamen errorem secutus est Theophilus scriptor Ecclesiasticus in libro de Temporibus, et Lactantius sub finem primi libri.
But since Abraham is said to have been born in the forty-third year of Ninus's empire, and, as is gathered from Scripture itself, in the 292nd year after the flood, it follows from this that Belus, who reigned sixty-five years before Ninus, entered upon his kingdom in the 184th year after the flood, and died in the 250th. From which there can incidentally be refuted a manifest error in chronology of a certain Thalus, a very ancient writer, which error, however, Theophilus, an ecclesiastical writer, followed in his book On Times, and Lactantius near the end of the first book.3
PRODIDIT Thalus Belum patrem Nini fuisse synchronon et aequalem Saturni, et praecessisse bellum Troianum annis duntaxat trecentis viginti duobus. Ponam hic sententiam Thali, ut eam refert Lactantius his verbis: „Theophilus in libro de Temporibus ad Autolycum scripto, ait in historia sua Thalum dicere, quod Belus, quem Babylonii et Assyrii colunt, antiquior Troiano bello fuisse inveniatur trecentis viginti duobus annis. Belum autem Saturni aequalem fuisse, et utrumque uno tempore adolevisse. Quod adeo verum est, ut ratione ipsa colligi possit. Nam et Agamemnon qui gessit bellum Troianum, Iovis abnepos fuit, et Achilles Aiaxque pronepotes, et Ulysses eodem gradu proximus. Ab excidio autem Troianae urbis colliguntur anni mille quadringenti septuaginta. Ex hac temporum ratione manifestum est, ante annos non amplius mille octingentos natum esse Saturnum, qui et Sator omnium Deorum fuisse dicitur.“ Sic Lactantius.
Thalus handed down that Belus the father of Ninus was contemporary and coeval with Saturn, and preceded the Trojan War by only three hundred and twenty-two years. I shall set down here the opinion of Thalus, as Lactantius reports it in these words: „Theophilus, in his book On Times written to Autolycus, says that in his history Thalus states that Belus, whom the Babylonians and Assyrians worship, is found to have been older than the Trojan War by three hundred and twenty-two years; and that Belus was coeval with Saturn, and both grew up at one time. Which is so true that it can be gathered by reckoning itself. For Agamemnon, who waged the Trojan War, was the great-great-grandson of Jupiter, and Achilles and Ajax great-grandsons, and Ulysses next in the same degree. And from the destruction of the city of Troy 1,470 years are reckoned. From this reckoning of times it is manifest that not more than 1,800 years ago Saturn was born, who is also said to have been the Sower (Sator) of all the gods.“ So far Lactantius.4
VERUM sententia istorum magnum continet in Chronologia errorem. Etenim Diodorus Siculus libro tertio capite sexto affirmat a Nino usque rege ad bellum Troianum mille annos praeteriisse: idemque posset ex sacris literis ostendi. Belus enim centum et octo annis ante ortum Abrahae regnare coepit; ab ortu porro Abrahae usque…
But the opinion of these men contains a great error in chronology. For Diodorus Siculus, in the third book, chapter six, affirms that from king Ninus down to the Trojan War a thousand years passed: and the same could be shown from the sacred letters. For Belus began to reign 108 years before the birth of Abraham; and from the birth of Abraham down to…5
…ad egressum Hebraeorum ex Aegypto numerantur quinque et quingenti anni; post id vero temporis, annis plus trecentis bellum fuit Troianum, quod nos alio loco vel in principatum Samsonis, vel in Heli pontificatum incidisse demonstravimus.
…the going-out of the Hebrews from Egypt, 505 years are reckoned; and after that time, by more than 300 years, was the Trojan War, which we have shown in another place to have fallen either in the rule of Samson or in the pontificate of Heli.6
SED redeo ad Ninum. Hic primus regum omnium scriptores rerum suarum nactus est, ut ait Diodorus, quod primam in terris maximeque diuturnam atque amplissimam, quae Assyriorum appellata est, monarchiam condiderit; quam et ipse, et post ipsum uxor eius Semiramis adeo prolataverunt, ut eos imperasse toti Asiae, quanta scilicet iacet inter Tanaim et Nilum, perdomito Oriente usque ad Indos et usque ad Libyam prolato dominatu, gravissimi auctores Diodorus, Iustinus, B. Hieronymus et Augustinus tradiderint. Quocirca valde miror Dionysium Halicarnasseum, peracris limatique iudicii et exquisitae diligentiae scriptorem, Assyriorum imperium tam modicis regionibus determinasse, ut in primo libro Romanarum antiquitatum scriptum reliquerit Assyriorum imperium modica tantum Assyriae parte fuisse contentum: „Antiquum,“ inquit, „illud Assyriorum imperium retro ad fabulosa usque pertingens tempora, modicam quandam Assyriae partem obtinuit: hoc in Medos translatum et auctum etiam opibus non longo duravit tempore, in quartam aetatem definens. Persae porro Medis devictis, Asia quidem pene tota potiti sunt.“ Sic ille.
But I return to Ninus. He, the first of all kings, obtained writers of his deeds, as Diodorus says, because he founded the first and longest-lasting and most ample monarchy in the lands, which was called that of the Assyrians; which both he, and after him his wife Semiramis, so extended, that those most weighty authors Diodorus, Justin, Blessed Jerome, and Augustine have handed down that they ruled over all Asia — as much, namely, as lies between the Tanais and the Nile — the East being subdued, their dominion carried as far as the Indians and as far as Libya. Wherefore I greatly wonder that Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a writer of very sharp and polished judgment and exquisite diligence, bounded the Assyrian empire by such modest regions, that in the first book of the Roman Antiquities he left it written that the Assyrian empire was content with only a modest part of Assyria: „That ancient empire of the Assyrians,“ he says, „reaching back to fabulous times, held a certain modest part of Assyria: this, transferred to the Medes and increased also in wealth, lasted no long time, ending in the fourth generation. The Persians, moreover, having conquered the Medes, possessed almost all Asia.“ So he.7
SICUT Ninum huius monarchiae primum regem faciunt auctores, ita novissimum statuunt Sardanapalum. Et intermedii quidem nullis virtutibus nullisque rebus gestis memorabiles, pariter quoque indecores atque incelebres fuerunt; Sardanapalus vero non minus flagitiis et muliebri desidia atque mollitie luxuque, quam alii praeclare factis, nobilitatus et a scriptoribus celebratus est.
Just as the authors make Ninus the first king of this monarchy, so they set Sardanapalus as the last. And the intermediate kings indeed, memorable for no virtues and no deeds, were likewise undistinguished and uncelebrated; but Sardanapalus was made notable and celebrated by the writers no less for his disgraces and womanish sloth and softness and luxury than others for illustrious deeds.8
QUOT porro fuerint huius Monarchiae reges a Nino usque ad Sardanapalum, variant scriptorum sententiae. Etenim Velleius Paterculus priori libro recenset triginta tres, et in his illud permirum fuisse ait: quod semper filius in regnum successerit patri. Eusebius in Chronico sex et triginta annotavit. Paulus Orosius primo libro numerat quinquaginta. Verum Diodorus, auctore Ctesia, triginta duntaxat reges commemorat. Sed enim quot fuerint in hac Monarchia reges, plures ne an pauciores, haud magni est momenti perceptum habere, praesertim vero prout huius Monarchiae explicatio ad sacrae historiae et Chronologiae cognitionem potest conducere. Illud sane maioris est momenti, quamdiu ea Monarchia steterit, exploratum et compertum habere. Quamobrem etiam de hoc in praesentia breviter quidem, sed non indiligenter disputandum est.
How many, moreover, were the kings of this Monarchy from Ninus down to Sardanapalus, the opinions of the writers vary. For Velleius Paterculus in the first book reckons thirty-three, and says that among them this was very wonderful: that always a son succeeded a father in the kingdom. Eusebius in the Chronicle noted thirty-six. Paulus Orosius in the first book counts fifty. But Diodorus, on the authority of Ctesias, mentions only thirty kings. But how many kings there were in this Monarchy, whether more or fewer, is of no great importance to know, especially in so far as the unfolding of this Monarchy can contribute to the knowledge of sacred history and chronology. That, indeed, is of greater importance: to have explored and ascertained how long that Monarchy stood. Wherefore on this too we must now dispute, briefly indeed, but not carelessly.9

Translator’s notes

  1. Liber XV, Disputation 6 (title): the kings of the Assyrians. ↩
  2. §82. Disp. 6 opens. Jerome: all histories make Ninus the first Assyrian king. His father Belus had reigned 65 yrs at Babylon (content with that small realm), ennobled by his son's empire — and notably the first mortal deified (by his son Ninus) and publicly worshipped: held to be the first origin of public idolatry. Margins: Jerome on Hosea 2; what kind of man Belus was, how long he reigned, and that he was the first mortal worshipped as a god. ↩
  3. §83. Chronology: Abraham born in Ninus's 43rd yr = yr 292 after the flood; so Belus (reigning 65 yrs before Ninus) began yr 184 and died yr 250. This refutes the chronological error of the ancient Thalus, followed by Theophilus (On Times) and Lactantius (end of bk. 1). ↩
  4. §84. The false dating: Thalus made Belus coeval with Saturn, preceding the Trojan War by only 322 yrs (quoted via Lactantius/Theophilus, On Times to Autolycus). The reckoning by the generations of Agamemnon, Achilles, Ajax, Ulysses (descendants of Jupiter) puts the fall of Troy 1,470 yrs back and Saturn's birth ~1,800 yrs ago. Margins: on the time of Belus — the false opinion of Thalus, Theophilus, and Lactantius. ↩
  5. §85. Refutation: Diodorus (bk. 3 ch. 6) makes 1,000 yrs from Ninus to the Trojan War (provable from Scripture too): Belus began 108 yrs before Abraham's birth (continues p. 436). Margin: Diodorus. ↩
  6. §85 (concl.). From Abraham's birth to the Exodus = 505 yrs; the Trojan War came 300+ yrs later, falling (shown elsewhere) in Samson's rule or Heli's pontificate — refuting Thalus's much shorter span. ↩
  7. §86. Ninus, first king to have his own historians (Diodorus), founded the first, longest, greatest monarchy (Assyria); he and Semiramis extended it over all Asia (Tanais to Nile, to the Indians and Libya) — per Diodorus, Justin, Jerome, Augustine. Pererius marvels that Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Roman Antiquities bk. 1) confined the Assyrian empire to a small part of Assyria, transferred to the Medes (lasting to the 4th generation) then to the Persians. Margins: how great Ninus's Assyrian empire was; Diodorus bk. 3; Justin bk. 1; Jerome on Hosea 2; Augustine, City of God 16.17 & 18.22; a remark on Dionysius of Halicarnassus. ↩
  8. §87. Ninus the first king, Sardanapalus the last; the kings between were undistinguished, while Sardanapalus became notorious for his disgraceful sloth, softness, and luxury. ↩
  9. §88. The number of Assyrian kings (Ninus→Sardanapalus) varies: Velleius Paterculus 33 (marveling that always son succeeded father), Eusebius 36, Orosius 50, Diodorus/Ctesias 30. The number matters little; more important is how long the Monarchy stood — the next topic. Margins: how many kings of the Assyrians from Ninus to Sardanapalus; Velleius Paterculus; Eusebius; Orosius; Diodorus. ↩