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

NINTH DISPUTATION. On Emath

LatineEnglish

NINTH DISPUTATION. On Emath.1

NONA DISPUTATIO. De Emath.

QUAENAM civitas fuerit Emath et ubi sita, etsi perfrequens in sacris literis eius fiat mentio, non plane tamen exploratum et certum est. Exponam quid a doctis viris ea de re scriptis proditum sit. B. Hieronymus in Traditionibus Hebraicis in Genesim super hoc decimum caput Geneseos: „Amath,“ inquit, „usque ad nostrum tempus, tam ab Assyriis quam ab Hebraeis, ita ut apud veteres dicta fuerat appellatur. Hanc Macedones qui post Alexandrum in Oriente regnaverunt Epiphaniam nuncupaverunt; nonnulli Antiochiam sic appellatam putant: alii, licet non vere, tamen opinionem suam quasi verisimili vocabulo consolantes, Emath primam ab Antiochia mansionem Edessam pergentibus appellari putant, et eandem esse quae apud veteres dicta sit Emath.“ Idem in libro de locis Hebraicis: „Apud Isaiam cap. decimo,“ inquit, „Emath Damasci est civitas quam oppugnavit rex Assyriorum; meminit huius Zacharias et Ezechiel. Amos quoque cap. 6 appellat Emath Rabba, quod sonat Emath Magnam. Haec postea dicta est Epiphania iuxta Emessam, quae usque hodie Syro sermone sic dicitur.“ In exordio autem libri tertii commentariorum suorum in Amos prophetam, explanans illa verba „Pertransite inde in Emath rabba“: „Haec,“ inquit, „civitas nunc Antiochia nominatur. Eam vero Rabba, id est Magnam, vocat ad distinctionem minoris Emath quae appellatur Epiphania. Unde usque hodie pergentibus Mesopotamiam prima mansio vocatur Emas, corrupto quidem vocabulo, sed pristini nominis vestigia retinens, cuius regio appellatur Reblatha, in qua, praesente Nabuchodonosor, Sedechiae regis interfecti sunt filii et oculi eius excaecati, ut habes in quarto Regum cap. 25.“ Denique idem Hieronymus super illa verba Zachariae „Emath quoque in terminis eius“: „Emath,“ inquit, „ipsa est quae ab Antiocho Epiphane condita, ex eo nomen accipiens, dicta est Epiphania, et nunc Syriae Caeles est civitas.“
What city Emath was, and where situated, although very frequent mention is made of it in the sacred letters, is nevertheless not plainly explored and certain. I shall set forth what has been handed down by learned men in their writings on the matter. Blessed Jerome, in the Hebrew Questions on Genesis, on this tenth chapter of Genesis: „Amath,“ he says, „down to our time, both by the Assyrians and by the Hebrews, is called just as it had been called among the ancients. The Macedonians, who reigned in the East after Alexander, named it Epiphania; some think Antiochia was so called: others, though not truly, yet comforting their own opinion with a quasi-plausible word, think that Emath is the name given to the first station from Antiochia for those going to Edessa, and that it is the same which among the ancients was called Emath.“ The same in the book On the Hebrew Places: „In Isaiah, chapter ten,“ he says, „Emath is the city of Damascus, which the king of the Assyrians assaulted; Zacharias and Ezekiel make mention of this. Amos too, chapter 6, calls it Emath Rabba, which sounds ‘Emath the Great.’ This was afterward called Epiphania, near Emessa, which to this day is so called in the Syrian tongue.“ And at the opening of the third book of his commentaries on the prophet Amos, explaining those words ‘Pass over thence into Emath rabba’: „This city,“ he says, „is now named Antiochia. But he calls it Rabba, that is, the Great, for distinction from the lesser Emath which is called Epiphania. Whence to this day, for those going to Mesopotamia, the first station is called Emas — a corrupt word indeed, but retaining traces of the former name — whose region is called Reblatha, in which, in the presence of Nabuchodonosor, the sons of king Sedechias were slain and his eyes blinded, as you have in the fourth book of Kings, chapter 25.“ Finally the same Jerome, on those words of Zacharias ‘Emath also in its borders’: „Emath,“ he says, „is the very one which, founded by Antiochus Epiphanes and taking its name from him, was called Epiphania, and now is a city of Coele-Syria.“2
APPARET igitur ex his paucis quae produximus ex variis B. Hieronymi scriptis duplicem fuisse Emath, et utriusque in sacris literis mentionem fieri: alteram quae terminus est filiorum Israel versus Septentrionem et minor vocatur, de qua intelligitur illud frequenter usurpatum in sacris literis „Usque ad introitum vel aditum Emath,“ haec…
It appears, therefore, from these few things which we have produced from the various writings of Blessed Jerome, that there were two Emaths, and that mention is made of each in the sacred letters: the one which is the boundary of the children of Israel toward the North and is called the lesser, of which is understood that phrase frequently used in the sacred letters, ‘As far as the entrance or approach of Emath’ — this…3
…postea dicta est Epiphania, cuius urbis regio appellatur Reblatha. Altera nominatur Emath Magna, et auctore Hieronymo deinde nominata est Antiochia: quam Iosephus libro quinto de Bello Iudaico cap. 1 fuisse ait metropolim Syriae, ac tertium locum inter celeberrimas Romani orbis urbes retinere.
…was afterward called Epiphania, the region of which city is called Reblatha. The other is named Emath the Great, and according to Jerome was afterward named Antiochia: which Josephus, in the fifth book of the Jewish War, chapter 1, says was the metropolis of Syria, and held the third place among the most famous cities of the Roman world.4
ANDREAS Masius, vir limati iudicii nec vulgaris eruditionis, quae de civitate Emath cum ab aliis accepisset, tum sua ipse ductus coniectura existimaret, scripto ea prodens, „Mihi,“ inquit, „narraverunt homines Syri illarum regionum, ut videbantur, bene periti, urbem Emmas longe supra Damascum extare: ulterius autem in Alapiam (ut vocant) atque Mesopotamiam pergenti occurrere etiam alteram urbem, nunc a vulgo Hamath nuncupatam.“ De quibus omnibus ego coniicio maiorem Hemath, quam dicit Hieronymus et quam Syri Amath nominant, esse quam Ptolomaeus nominat Antiochiam; quam vero utrique nominant Emmas, eam Ptolomaeo esse Epiphaniam; sed harum alteram esse quam Hieremias et Zacharias ut Damasci municipium celebrarunt, nequaquam fieri credibile, siquidem Ptolomaeus Antiochiam duobus gradibus et dimidio, Epiphaniam vero usque sesquigradum altius collocat quam Damascum. Quamobrem coniectura auguror etiam tertiam urbem fuisse dictam Hemath, et alteram Reblam: nam urbem quandam extitisse iuxta Sephanam infra Iordanis ortum ex 34 capite libri Numerorum certum est, atque ab ea non longe abfuisse apparet quem scriptura solet appellare introitum sive aditum Emath, quem locum etiam Emath nominatum esse suspicor.
Andreas Masius, a man of polished judgment and no common erudition, what he had both received from others about the city Emath, and judged by his own conjecture, setting forth in writing, says: „Syrian men of those regions, well skilled, as they seemed, told me that the city Emmas stands far above Damascus; but that, to one going farther into Alapia (as they call it) and Mesopotamia, there occurs also another city, now called by the common people Hamath.“ Concerning all which I conjecture that the greater Hemath, which Jerome speaks of and which the Syrians name Amath, is the one which Ptolemy names Antiochia; but the one which both name Emmas is, to Ptolemy, Epiphania; but that one of these is the one which Jeremiah and Zacharias celebrated as a town of Damascus is by no means credible, since Ptolemy places Antiochia two and a half degrees, but Epiphania up to one and a half degrees, higher than Damascus. Wherefore by conjecture I surmise that there was also a third city called Hemath, and another Rebla: for that a certain city existed beside Sephana below the rising of the Jordan is certain from the thirty-fourth chapter of the book of Numbers, and from it, it appears, was not far distant what Scripture is wont to call the entrance or approach of Emath, which place too I suspect was named Emath.5
ALII Ziglerum sequuntur, Geographiae scriptorem nec indoctum nec indiligentem, qui in sua Palaestina interpretatus est Emath Ituraeam. Ex sacris enim literis intelligitur Emath sitam esse post Libanum versus Damascum ad Trachonos montes, qui pertinent ad montana Galaad, in quam partem spectat Ituraea: idque ex limitibus terrae Hebraeis promissae, qui definiuntur Numer. 34, non obscure perspicitur. Itaque procul vero esse quod nonnulli tradiderunt, Emath partem fuisse terrae Chanaan Hebraeis promissae et ad tribum Nephtalim pertinuisse, siquidem Iosue cap. 13 introitus Emath, id est confinia Ituraeae, tanquam limites terrae promissae statuuntur; et in primo Paralipomenon cap. 18 memoratur Thou rex Emath, amicus regis Davidis, eam regionem tenens etiam quo tempore David latissime et felicissime regnabat. Quod si Emath pertinuisset ad terram Hebraeis promissam, non utique passus fuisset David, praesertim tanto Dei favore tantoque rerum successu ornatus, ab alienis occupari. Nam quod legitur in secundo libro Paralipomenon cap. octavo Salomonem iisse in Emath Soba et eam occupasse, id sectatores huius opinionis interpretandum putant ex eo quod scriptum antea fuerat primo Paralipomenon cap. 18, Davidem percussisse Adarezer regem Soba regionis Emath, cum pergeret ut dilataret regnum suum atque id proferret usque ad Euphratem. Salomon igitur vendicavit sibi Soba…
Others follow Zigler, a writer on Geography neither unlearned nor careless, who in his ‘Palestine’ interpreted Emath as Ituraea. For from the sacred letters it is understood that Emath is situated beyond Lebanon toward Damascus at the Trachon mountains, which belong to the highlands of Galaad, in which direction Ituraea faces: and this is not obscurely perceived from the boundaries of the land promised to the Hebrews, which are defined in Numbers 34. And so it is far from the truth, what some have handed down, that Emath was part of the land of Chanaan promised to the Hebrews and belonged to the tribe of Nephtalim; since in Joshua, chapter 13, the entrance of Emath — that is, the confines of Ituraea — is set as the limit of the promised land; and in the first book of Paralipomenon, chapter 18, there is mentioned Thou king of Emath, friend of king David, holding that region even at the time when David reigned most widely and most prosperously. But if Emath had belonged to the land promised to the Hebrews, David would surely not have allowed it — especially adorned with so great a favor of God and so great a success of affairs — to be occupied by aliens. For as to what is read in the second book of Paralipomenon, chapter eight, that Solomon went into Emath Soba and occupied it, the followers of this opinion think it must be interpreted from what had previously been written in the first book of Paralipomenon, chapter 18: that David smote Adarezer king of Soba of the region of Emath, when he was advancing to enlarge his kingdom and extend it as far as the Euphrates. Solomon, therefore, claimed for himself Soba…6
…quae fuerat regis Adarezer debellati a patre suo. Erat autem Soba regionis Emath. Itaque Salomon cepit Soba, sed intacta reliquit Emath.
…which had belonged to king Adarezer, conquered by his father. Now Soba was of the region of Emath. And so Solomon took Soba, but left Emath untouched.7
VERUM contra istorum sententiam facit, quod in libro Iosue cap. 19 inter civitates quae pertinebant ad tribum Nephthali commemoratur Emath: quod tamen isti, quoquo modo eludere conantes, respondent istam Emath diversam fuisse ab illa superiore quae pertinebat ad Syriam Damasci, sicut ex cap. 49 Ieremiae licet perspicere; diversitatem autem utriusque declarari etiam diversa orthographia qua duarum illarum urbium nomina scribuntur apud Hebraeos. Ast ego potius assentior B. Hieronymo eiusque libenter sententiae adhaeresco: fuit scilicet vir ille earum regionum atque locorum peritissimus, non solum ex sacrarum et profanarum literarum doctrina, quae in eo magna et exquisita erat, verum etiam quod omnia ea loca per se ipse visitaverit, peragraverit, et curiosissime contemplatus fuerit.
But against the opinion of these men makes the fact that in the book of Joshua, chapter 19, among the cities that belonged to the tribe of Nephthali, Emath is mentioned: which, however, these men, trying in any way to evade it, answer that that Emath was different from the former one which belonged to Syria of Damascus, as may be perceived from chapter 49 of Jeremiah; and that the difference of the two is declared also by the different orthography with which the names of those two cities are written among the Hebrews. But I rather assent to Blessed Jerome and gladly cleave to his opinion: for that man was most skilled in those regions and places, not only from the learning of sacred and profane letters, which in him was great and exquisite, but also because he himself in person visited, traversed, and most curiously contemplated all those places.8
CETERUM unus hoc loco nodus exsolvendus est priusquam hinc abeamus ad alia quae sequuntur: cur hoc loco inter filios Chanaan, a quibus possessa est terra Hebraeis a Deo promissa et in tempore tradita, non sint commemorati tam Pherezaei quam Chananaei, qui tamen et hoc ipso libro paulo infra cap. 15 et in Exodo cap. 23, quin etiam in libris Numerorum, Deuteronomii et Iosue, censentur inter gentes quae habitabant et tenebant terram Hebraeis promissam, ex qua illi a Deo eliminandi erant: hos enim ex ipso Chanaan genus duxisse et progeneratos ex illius stirpe fuisse non est dubitandum. Sed hic nodus ad hunc modum solvendus est: Pherezaeos fuisse eosdem quos hoc loco nominat Moses Samaraeos, a quibus regio Samariae primum habitata et nominata est. Manifestum enim est ex sacris literis Pherezaeos habitasse circa Samariam. Nisi quis velit dicere Pherezaeos non fuisse inter primos seu proximos filios Chanaan, qui recensentur hic a Mose, sed ex posteris eorum esse ortos, propriumque sibi nomen asciuisse.
But one knot must here be untied before we go off from here to the other things that follow: why in this place, among the sons of Chanaan, by whom was possessed the land promised to the Hebrews by God and in time delivered, there are not mentioned the Pherezites as well as the Chananeans — who nevertheless, both in this very book a little below, chapter 15, and in Exodus, chapter 23, nay even in the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua, are reckoned among the nations that dwelt in and held the land promised to the Hebrews, out of which they were to be eliminated by God: for that these drew their stock from Chanaan himself and were begotten of his line is not to be doubted. But this knot is to be untied in this manner: that the Pherezites were the same whom Moses in this place names the Samarites, by whom the region of Samaria was first inhabited and named. For it is manifest from the sacred letters that the Pherezites dwelt around Samaria. Unless one wish to say that the Pherezites were not among the first or nearest sons of Chanaan who are reviewed here by Moses, but were sprung from their descendants and adopted a name for themselves.9
IDEM licet existimare de Chananaeis qui descenderunt ex aliquo undecim filiorum Chanaan quos hic enumerat Moses: sed vel pietatis vel honoris causa asciverunt sibi nomen Chanaan, qui omnium illarum gentium parens et auctor fuerat. Quando autem primum gens ista Pherezaeorum et Chananaeorum vel certe earum appellatio esse coeperit in illa terra, incompertum est; nisi quod, cum primum Abraham ex Mesopotamia venit in terram Chanaan, reperisse eum illius terrae habitatores et incolas Pherezaeos atque Chananaeos legimus in libro Geneseos cap. 13…
The same may be thought of the Chananeans, who descended from one of the eleven sons of Chanaan whom Moses here enumerates: but for the sake of either piety or honor they adopted for themselves the name of Chanaan, who had been the parent and author of all those nations. But when first that nation of the Pherezites and Chananeans, or at least their appellation, began in that land, is unknown; except that, when Abraham first came from Mesopotamia into the land of Chanaan, we read that he found the dwellers and inhabitants of that land to be the Pherezites and Chananeans, in the book of Genesis, chapter 13…10
…Illud sane scire convenit septem illas gentes quae eam terram habitabant et tenebant aliquando pluribus in sacra scriptura nominibus, aliquando paucioribus significari: nam in populosissima regione familias habitasse diversas et plurimas satis credibile est. Neque vero semper easdem iisdem esse appellatas nominibus certum est.
…It is indeed fitting to know that those seven nations which dwelt in and held that land are signified in sacred Scripture sometimes by more names, sometimes by fewer: for it is quite credible that in a most populous region diverse and very many families dwelt. Nor indeed is it certain that the same were always called by the same names.11
DE supradictis autem undecim populis qui ex stirpe Chanaan pullularunt, quinque excisi ac deleti sunt ab Hebraeis: Amorrhaeos dico, Hethaeos, Heuaeos, Iebusaeos et Gergesaeos; praeterque hos duae aliae gentes, una Pherezaeorum, altera Chananaeorum. Namque has septem gentes, quae terram Hebraeis a Deo promissam tenebant, praecepit Deus Hebraeis ut, in eam terram ingressi, sine ulla commiseratione aut exceptione penitus delerent, ut scriptum est Deuteronomii cap. 7. Et quia septem illae gentes tum numero tum robore ac fortitudine bellica Hebraeos longe superabant, ne ob eam causam illi de earum excidio diffiderent, Deus per Iosue capite tertio promisit se eas gentes destructurum: et destructas quidem fuisse illas gentes B. Paulus, ut est in Actis Apostolorum cap. 13, perspicuis verbis confirmavit. At enim, ut maxima ex parte deletas esse eas gentes non est dubitandum, ita negari non potest reliquias earum longo tempore inibi mansisse. Certe fuisse eas etiam regnante Salomone posterior liber Paralipomenon capite octavo dubitare non sinit. Sic enim illic scriptum est: „Omnem populum qui derelictus fuerat de Hethaeis, Amorrhaeis, Pherezaeis, Heuaeis et Iebusaeis, qui non erant ex stirpe Israel, de filiis eorum et de posteris quos non interfecerant filii Israel, subiugavit Salomon in tributarios usque in diem hanc.“
Of the aforesaid eleven peoples who sprouted from the stock of Chanaan, five were cut off and destroyed by the Hebrews: I mean the Amorrhites, the Hethites, the Hevites, the Jebusites, and the Gergesites; and besides these, two other nations, one of the Pherezites, the other of the Chananeans. For these seven nations, which held the land promised to the Hebrews by God, God commanded the Hebrews, on entering that land, to destroy utterly without any pity or exception, as is written in Deuteronomy, chapter 7. And because those seven nations far surpassed the Hebrews both in number and in strength and warlike valor, lest for that cause they should despair of their destruction, God through Joshua, chapter three, promised that He would destroy those nations: and that those nations were indeed destroyed, Blessed Paul, as is in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 13, confirmed in plain words. But, just as it is not to be doubted that those nations were for the greatest part destroyed, so it cannot be denied that remnants of them remained there for a long time. Certainly that they existed even while Solomon reigned, the latter book of Paralipomenon, chapter eight, does not allow us to doubt. For thus it is written there: „All the people that was left of the Hethites, Amorrhites, Pherezites, Hevites, and Jebusites, who were not of the stock of Israel — of their children and of the descendants whom the children of Israel had not slain — Solomon subjugated as tributaries unto this day.“12

Translator’s notes

  1. Liber XV, Disputation 9 (title): the city of Emath. ↩
  2. §121. Disp. 9 opens: Emath, though often named in Scripture, is of uncertain identity. Jerome's varied statements (Hebrew Questions; On Hebrew Places; on Amos; on Zacharias): the Macedonians named it Epiphania; some say Antiochia; Isa 10 makes it Damascus's city; Amos 6 ‘Emath Rabba’ (the Great) = later Antiochia, vs the lesser Emath = Epiphania (near Emessa); the first station toward Mesopotamia, ‘Emas,’ in the region Reblatha (where Sedechias's sons were killed and he was blinded, 2 Kgs 25). Margins: Jerome; Emath the Great; double Emath — the Great called Antiochia, the lesser Epiphania. ↩
  3. §121 (cont.). Conclusion from Jerome: there were two Emaths in Scripture. The lesser = Israel's northern boundary (‘as far as the entrance of Emath’) (continues p. 450). ↩
  4. §121 (concl.). The lesser Emath = Epiphania (region Reblatha); the greater = Emath Magna, later Antiochia (Josephus, Jewish War bk. 5: metropolis of Syria, third among the Roman world's cities). Margin: Josephus. ↩
  5. §122. Andreas Masius (on Josh 9): Syrians told him of ‘Emmas’ far above Damascus, and another city now called ‘Hamath’ toward Aleppo/Mesopotamia. He conjectures the greater Hemath = Ptolemy's Antiochia, ‘Emmas’ = Ptolemy's Epiphania; neither can be a town of Damascus (per Ptolemy's coordinates). He surmises a third city ‘Hemath’ (and another ‘Rebla’) near Sephana below the Jordan's source (Num 34) — the scriptural ‘entrance of Emath.’ Margins: Masius on Josue 9; Ptolemy. ↩
  6. §123. Others follow Zigler (a sound geographer): in his ‘Palestine’ he made Emath = Ituraea — beyond Lebanon toward Damascus at the Trachon mountains (highlands of Galaad), the limit of the Promised Land (Num 34; Josh 13). So it is wrong that Emath belonged to the Promised Land / tribe of Nephtalim: Thou king of Emath was David's ally (1 Chron 18) holding it at David's height; David would not have left a promised land in alien hands. Solomon's taking ‘Emath Soba’ (2 Chron 8) = reclaiming Soba (which David had smitten under king Adarezer, 1 Chron 18) (continues p. 451). Margin: Zigler. ↩
  7. §123 (concl.). Solomon reclaimed Soba (formerly Adarezer's, conquered by his father David); Soba was within the region of Emath, but Solomon left Emath itself untouched. ↩
  8. §124. Against Zigler's followers: Josh 19 lists an Emath among the cities of Nephthali — they reply this Emath differs from the Damascene one (per Jer 49 and a different Hebrew spelling). But Pererius rather sides with Jerome, most skilled in these regions both by learning and by having personally visited and surveyed the places. Margin: Jerome. ↩
  9. §125. A knot: why are the Pherezites and Chananeans not listed here among Chanaan's sons, though elsewhere (Gen 15; Exod 23; Numbers/Deuteronomy/Joshua) they are reckoned among the nations of the Promised Land — surely of Chanaan's line? Solution: the Pherezites = the ‘Samarites’ Moses names here (the Pherezites dwelt around Samaria) — or else they sprang from descendants and took their own name. Margin: a question — why Moses did not mention the Pherezites and Chananeans here. ↩
  10. §126. Likewise the Chananeans descended from one of Chanaan's eleven sons but took the name ‘Chanaan’ (parent of all those nations) for piety/honor. When these nations or their names began is unknown — only that Abraham, coming from Mesopotamia, found the Pherezites and Chananeans dwelling there (Gen 13) (continues p. 452). ↩
  11. §126 (concl.). Note: the seven Canaanite nations are named in Scripture sometimes by more, sometimes fewer names — credibly, many diverse families dwelt in so populous a region, and they were not always called by the same names. ↩
  12. §127. Of the eleven, five were destroyed by the Hebrews (Amorrhites, Hethites, Hevites, Jebusites, Gergesites), plus two more (Pherezites, Chananeans) = the seven nations God commanded utterly destroyed (Deut 7), promising it through Joshua (Josh 3), confirmed by Paul (Acts 13). Yet remnants long survived — even under Solomon (2 Chron 8: he made the leftover Hethites/Amorrhites/Pherezites/Hevites/Jebusites tributaries). Margin: which of the aforesaid nations were destroyed by the Hebrews. ↩