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

TENTH DISPUTATION. Whether Sem was the eldest-born of the sons of Noah

LatineEnglish

TENTH DISPUTATION. Whether Sem was the eldest-born of the sons of Noah.1

DECIMA DISPUTATIO. Utrum Sem fuerit maximus natu filiorum Noë.

SEM fuisse priorem natu quam ipsum Cham ex praecedenti cap. 9 manifestum est: appellatur enim Cham illic filius Noë minor praecise, quod apud Hebraeos idem significat atque filius parvus vel minimus. Tota igitur contentio est inter Sem et Iaphet de principatu ortus. Et quamvis illud videatur arguere Sem fuisse primum natu filiorum Noë, quod semper in scriptura, cum nominantur filii Noë, primus omnium censetur Sem, ut in hoc libro cap. 5, 6, 9, 10 et initio prioris libri Paralipomenon, idque pro magno argumento ad id ipsum probandum afferunt nonnulli: attamen id non magnam vim habere videtur.
That Sem was earlier in birth than Cham himself is manifest from the preceding chapter 9: for Cham is there called precisely the ‘younger’ son of Noah, which among the Hebrews means the same as a ‘little’ or ‘least’ son. The whole contention, therefore, is between Sem and Japheth, about the primacy of birth. And although this seems to argue that Sem was the firstborn of the sons of Noah — that always in Scripture, when the sons of Noah are named, Sem is reckoned first of all, as in this book chapters 5, 6, 9, 10, and at the beginning of the first book of Paralipomenon — and some bring this forward as a great argument to prove that very thing: nevertheless this does not seem to have great force.2
…videtur. Namque etiam Cham inter filios Noë secundus memoratur, quem tamen minimum fuisse omnium, ut dudum dixi, planum est. Similiter Isaac nominatur ante Ismaelem, et Iacob ante Esau, non propter priorem ortum sed propter praerogativam electionis et benedictionis divinae maioremque eorum dignitatem. Quanquam non satis liquet cur semper Cham nominetur ante Iaphet, cum et ortu et dignitate posterior eo fuerit. Ac licet hoc loco secundum Latinam lectionem, quae habet Sem fuisse fratrem Iaphet maiorem, liquido appareat Sem fuisse maximum filiorum Noë: quia tamen secundum lectionem Hebraicam id ambiguum et dubium est, secundum autem lectionem Graecam contra potius res se habere videatur, idcirco multi putarunt Sem minorem fuisse Iaphet. Hanc igitur nos controversiam brevibus explicemus.
…seems [not to have great force]. For Cham too is recorded second among the sons of Noah, who nevertheless, as I said a while ago, was plainly the least of all. Similarly Isaac is named before Ismael, and Jacob before Esau, not on account of earlier birth but on account of the prerogative of election and of divine blessing, and their greater dignity. Although it is not clear enough why Cham is always named before Japheth, since he was later than he both in birth and in dignity. And although in this place, according to the Latin reading — which has that Sem was the elder brother of Japheth — it clearly appears that Sem was the eldest of the sons of Noah: yet because according to the Hebrew reading this is ambiguous and doubtful, and according to the Greek reading the matter rather seems to be the contrary, therefore many have thought that Sem was younger than Japheth. Let us, then, explain this controversy briefly.3
PRO illo vocabulo „maiore,“ cum dicitur „Iaphet maiore,“ Hebraice est hagadol, et illud quidem „ha“ articulus est emphasim habens apud Hebraeos sicut etiam apud Graecos. „Gadol“ autem significat magnum, non autem maiorem, quia carent Hebraei comparativis, et ad excessum comparationis declarandum utuntur praepositione cum Pronomine, ut „min hu,“ id est „ab illo,“ ut de Publicano in Evangelio legitur: „Discessit hic iustificatus ab illo.“ Hic non est talis Praepositio, quare sententia Hebraicae lectionis est, Sem fuisse fratrem Iaphet illum magnum. Ceterum quia „gadol,“ id est magnus, indeclinabile est (carent enim Hebraei casibus), potest id nominis accipi tam in Genitivo quam in Ablativo. Si accipiatur in Genitivo, iungitur cum nomine Iaphet, et est sensus: Sem fratrem fuisse Iaphet magni, id est qui erat magnus vel maior ceteris suis fratribus. Sin autem sumatur in Ablativo, necessario iungendum est cum vocabulo Sem, et hanc reddet sententiam: natos esse filios ex Sem fratre ipsius Iaphet maiore.
For that word ‘elder,’ when it is said ‘Japheth the elder,’ in Hebrew it is hagadol, and that ‘ha’ is indeed an article having emphasis among the Hebrews, as also among the Greeks. But ‘gadol’ means ‘great,’ not ‘greater,’ because the Hebrews lack comparatives, and to declare the excess of comparison they use a preposition with a pronoun, as ‘min hu,’ that is ‘than he,’ as is read of the Publican in the Gospel: ‘This man went away justified rather than the other.’ Here there is no such preposition, wherefore the sense of the Hebrew reading is that Sem was the brother of Japheth that great one. But because ‘gadol,’ that is ‘great,’ is indeclinable (for the Hebrews lack cases), the noun can be taken either in the genitive or in the ablative. If it be taken in the genitive, it is joined with the name Japheth, and the sense is: that Sem was the brother of Japheth the great — that is, who was great or greater than his other brothers. But if it be taken in the ablative, it must necessarily be joined with the word Sem, and will render this sense: that sons were born of Sem the elder brother of Japheth himself.4
HANC ego lectionem magis approbo et amplector: primo quia eam habet Latina nostra translatio; tum quia codex Graecus vel Latinus quem secutus est Augustinus lib. 16 de Civitate Dei cap. 3 eandem continet lectionem et sententiam, et ipse Augustinus non uno loco affirmate dixit Sem fuisse maximum filiorum Noë: ambiguitatem quoque lectionis Hebraicae ad hanc potius sententiam applicarunt Caietanus, Pagninus, Vatablus. Ratio quoque probabilis hoc ipsum persuadet. Omnino, quae hic narrat Moses de Sem, ad commendandam eius excellentiam dignitatis pertinent, ut quod ipse pater fuerit omnium filiorum Heber, id est, populi Hebraei, et tot tantorumque virorum qui in eo populo claruerunt. Ergo quod subdit, ipsum fuisse fratrem Iaphet magnum, ad eiusdem quoque spectat commendationem. Quorsum enim hoc loco Moses dignitatem Sem significans dixisset illum fuisse fratrem Iaphet maioris ipso?
This reading I rather approve and embrace: first, because our Latin translation has it; then, because the Greek or Latin codex which Augustine followed in book 16 of the City of God, chapter 3, contains the same reading and sense, and Augustine himself in more than one place affirmatively said that Sem was the eldest of the sons of Noah; the ambiguity of the Hebrew reading too Cajetan, Pagninus, and Vatablus applied rather to this sense. A probable reason also persuades this very thing. Altogether, the things which Moses here relates about Sem pertain to commending the excellence of his dignity — as that he was the father of all the children of Heber, that is, of the Hebrew people, and of so many and so great men who shone in that people. Therefore what he subjoins, that he was the great brother of Japheth, likewise looks to his commendation. For to what purpose, in this place, would Moses, signifying the dignity of Sem, have said that he was the brother of a Japheth greater than himself?5
SED exponamus et perpendamus etiam contrariam opinionem. Hebraei in iis Commentariis quos super hunc locum ediderunt, tradunt…
But let us set forth and weigh also the contrary opinion. The Hebrews, in those Commentaries which they have published on this place, hand down…6
…tradunt Sem fuisse ultimum filiorum Noë, Cham secundum, denique Iaphet primum; quanquam nonnulli etiam primum locum tribuant Cham. Hebraeos secuti sunt Lyranus et Tostatus, idemque prodiderunt cum extrema verba quinti capitis libri Geneseos explanant. Genebrardus quoque eam opinionem probabilissimam putat in sua Chronologia. Sem autem novissimum fuisse fratrum suorum argumentantur isti hunc in modum: Noë coepit filios generare anno quingentesimo suae aetatis, id enim tradit Moses sub finem quinti capitis huius libri: ergo primogenitus Noë natus est quingentesimo ipsius anno: at Sem natum fuisse non quingentesimo sed quingentesimo secundo anno Noë evidenter colligitur ex cap. 11 Geneseos, ubi scriptum est Sem biennio post diluvium, cum genuit filium suum Arphaxad, fuisse centum annorum: diluvium vero contigit sexcentesimo anno vitae Noë. Ergo Noë anno quingentesimo genuit Iaphet; anno quingentesimo primo genuit Cham; anno vero quingentesimo secundo genuit Sem. Et cum anno sexcentesimo diluvium advenerit, idcirco recte dictum est Genes. 11 biennio post diluvium Sem fuisse centum annorum. Sic isti.
…they hand down that Sem was the last of the sons of Noah, Cham the second, and finally Japheth the first; although some assign even the first place to Cham. Lyra and Tostatus followed the Hebrews, and handed down the same when they explain the last words of the fifth chapter of the book of Genesis. Genebrardus too thinks that opinion most probable in his Chronology. That Sem was the latest of his brothers these men argue in this manner: Noah began to beget sons in the five-hundredth year of his age, for this Moses hands down at the end of the fifth chapter of this book: therefore the firstborn of Noah was born in his five-hundredth year; but that Sem was born not in the five-hundredth but in the five-hundred-and-second year of Noah is evidently gathered from chapter 11 of Genesis, where it is written that Sem, two years after the flood, when he begot his son Arphaxad, was a hundred years old; and the flood happened in the six-hundredth year of Noah's life. Therefore Noah in the five-hundredth year begot Japheth; in the five-hundred-and-first year begot Cham; and in the five-hundred-and-second year begot Sem. And since the flood came in the six-hundredth year, therefore it was rightly said in Genesis 11 that two years after the flood Sem was a hundred years old. So these men.7
VERUM ratio haec parum firma est. Quemadmodum autem Caietanus eam rationem dissolvat (quoniam ad id de quo nunc agitur maxime facit), non ingratum fuerit lectori ex propriis verbis eius cognoscere. Sic igitur Caietanus locum illum ex cap. 11 Genesis paulo supra commemoratum explanans ait: „Ex hoc loco, quia duobus annis post diluvium describitur Sem centum fuisse annorum, inferre aiunt Hebraeos Sem non fuisse primogenitum Noë. Nam cum Noë quingentos annos natus generare coeperit, ut patet ex fine quinti capitis, necesse est primogenitum eius biennio post diluvium fuisse duorum et centum annorum. Sed haec ratio inefficax est, et contra literam Mosis. Contra literam quidem, quia ex cap. 10 colligitur Sem fuisse fratrem grandem seu magnum respectu Iaphet, et in cap. 9 dictum est Cham fuisse filium parvum Noë: haec autem manifestant Sem fuisse primogenitum Noë. Est autem etiam ratio inefficax: tum quia litera non dicit Sem cum esset centum annorum genuisse Arphaxad, sed sunt duae orationes interiecta coniunctione, altera habet ‘Sem filius centum annorum’ (Hebraeo more subintelligens verbum substantivum ‘erat’), altera ‘Et genuit Arphaxad duobus annis post diluvium.’ Tum quia minus libratur mos loquendi in Sacra Scriptura. Nam et in calce 5 capitis dicitur Noë, cum esset quingentorum annorum, genuisse Sem, Cham et Iaphet: at constat non eodem illo anno hos tres genuisse Noë, nisi quis dicat eodem partu eosdem esse generatos, quod tamen esset contra hos Hebraeos. Sed verus sensus est non ante quingentesimum annum sed post illum genuisse illos filios. Indubie igitur amplectendum est quod Scriptura testatur, Sem fuisse primogenitum. An autem fuerit centum praecise annorum biennio post diluvium, certum non est. Nam et intelligi potest eum fuisse genitum anno secundo post quingentesimum Noë annum, ut sic biennio post diluvium non excesserit ille aetatem centum annorum. Potest quoque intelligi fuisse eum genitum illo ipso quin[gentesimo…]“
But this reasoning is little firm. How Cajetan dissolves that reasoning (since it makes most for the matter now in hand) it will not be unwelcome to the reader to learn from his own words. Thus, then, Cajetan, explaining that place from chapter 11 of Genesis mentioned a little above, says: „From this place, because two years after the flood Sem is described as having been a hundred years old, they say the Hebrews infer that Sem was not the firstborn of Noah. For since Noah, being five hundred years old, began to beget, as is plain from the end of the fifth chapter, his firstborn must have been a hundred and two years old two years after the flood. But this reasoning is ineffective, and against the letter of Moses. Against the letter, indeed, because from chapter 10 it is gathered that Sem was the grand or great brother in respect of Japheth, and in chapter 9 it was said that Cham was the little son of Noah: and these things make manifest that Sem was the firstborn of Noah. It is, moreover, also an ineffective reasoning: both because the letter does not say that Sem, when he was a hundred years old, begot Arphaxad, but there are two clauses with a conjunction interposed — one has ‘Sem, son of a hundred years’ (in the Hebrew manner understanding the substantive verb ‘was’), the other ‘And he begot Arphaxad two years after the flood’; and because the manner of speaking in Sacred Scripture is less precisely weighed. For at the close of the fifth chapter, too, Noah is said, when he was five hundred years old, to have begotten Sem, Cham, and Japheth: but it is agreed that Noah did not beget these three in that same year, unless one say they were begotten at the same birth — which, however, would be against these Hebrews. But the true sense is that he begot those sons not before the five-hundredth year, but after it. Without doubt, therefore, what Scripture testifies is to be embraced: that Sem was the firstborn. But whether he was exactly a hundred years old two years after the flood is not certain. For it can be understood that he was begotten in the second year after Noah's five-hundredth year, so that two years after the flood he had not exceeded the age of a hundred years. It can also be understood that he was begotten in that very five-hundredth [year…]“8
„…quingentesimo anno Noë, et ob id biennio post diluvium, cum genuit filium Arphaxad, fuisse centum et duorum annorum. Scriptura enim non dicit oppositum, immo adiungendo biennium post diluvium ad centum annos Sem, implicite insinuat eum duos super centum annos fuisse natum cum procreavit Arphaxad.“ Hactenus ex Caietano.
„…in Noah's five-hundredth year, and on that account two years after the flood, when he begot his son Arphaxad, to have been a hundred and two years old. For Scripture does not say the opposite; nay, by adding ‘two years after the flood’ to Sem's hundred years, it implicitly intimates that he was a hundred and two years old when he begot Arphaxad.“ Thus far from Cajetan.9
VERUM in his Caietani verbis duo sunt minime probabilia. Primum enim Caietanus verba illa Mosis ex cap. 11 Geneseos de aetate qua erat Sem cum genuit Arphaxad sic interpungit et distinguit, ut illis verbis duo significentur; alterum est, Sem fuisse centum annorum; alterum vero, genuisse Arphaxad duobus annis post diluvium. Sic enim habet lectio Caietani: „Sem filius centum annorum: et genuit Arphaxad duobus annis post diluvium.“ Verum eiusmodi distinctionem et interpunctionem eorum verborum et Graeca translatio nostraque editio vulgata excludere videtur. Sic enim eo loci habet: „Sem erat centum annorum quando genuit Arphaxad,“ quibus verbis perspicue declaratur biennio post diluvium et Sem fuisse centum annorum, et eo ipso tempore genitum ab eo fuisse Arphaxad. Illud praeterea Caietani dictum mihi etiam non probatur. Ait ipse scripturam eo loco non negare Sem cum genuit ipsum Arphaxad fuisse centum et duorum annorum; quinimo id ipsum significare, namque adiungendo biennium post diluvium ad centum annos Sem, tecte indicavit Sem fuisse centum et duorum annorum cum genuit Arphaxad. Sed non video equidem quomodo Scriptura ibi non illud neget; cum aperte dicat fuisse eum centum annorum cum genuit Arphaxad, id est, biennio post diluvium; namque illud biennium non est adiungendum ad centum annos Sem, sed est referendum ad diluvium, post quod, exacto biennio, Sem procreavit filium Arphaxad.
But in these words of Cajetan two things are by no means probable. For first, Cajetan so punctuates and distinguishes those words of Moses from chapter 11 of Genesis, about the age at which Sem was when he begot Arphaxad, that two things are signified by those words: one is, that Sem was a hundred years old; the other, that he begot Arphaxad two years after the flood. For thus runs Cajetan's reading: „Sem, son of a hundred years: and he begot Arphaxad two years after the flood.“ But such a distinction and punctuation of those words both the Greek translation and our Vulgate edition seem to exclude. For in that place it has thus: „Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad,“ by which words it is clearly declared that two years after the flood both Sem was a hundred years old, and at that very time Arphaxad was begotten by him. That saying of Cajetan, moreover, I also do not approve. He says that Scripture in that place does not deny that Sem, when he begot Arphaxad, was a hundred and two years old; nay, that it signifies this very thing, since by adding ‘two years after the flood’ to Sem's hundred years it covertly indicated that Sem was a hundred and two years old when he begot Arphaxad. But I for my part do not see how Scripture there does not deny that; since it plainly says that he was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, that is, two years after the flood; for that ‘two years’ is not to be added to Sem's hundred years, but is to be referred to the flood, after which, two years elapsed, Sem begot his son Arphaxad.10
ERGO meo iudicio expeditior et probabilior fuerit responsio: vel Noë non cepisse generare quingentesimo aetatis suae anno praecise, sed quingentesimo secundo, eoque ipso anno generatum esse Sem, ob idque biennio post diluvium fuisse eum centum annorum: vel Sem secundo anno post diluvium, cum generavit Arphaxad, non fuisse centum annorum praecise, sed fuisse centum et duorum annorum. Namque, ut alias non semel diximus, mos est divinae Scripturae (id quod etiam in profana historia et Chronologia non raro fit) parvis et minutis numeris tacitis ac praetermissis, maximum et integrum numerum dumtaxat commemorare: quod multis exemplis illustrari firmarique posset, nisi rei satis manifestae et alias a nobis probatae iterata probatio supervacua foret.
Therefore, in my judgment, the readier and more probable answer will be: either that Noah did not begin to beget exactly in the five-hundredth year of his age, but in the five-hundred-and-second, and that in that very year Sem was begotten, and on that account two years after the flood he was a hundred years old; or that Sem, in the second year after the flood, when he begot Arphaxad, was not exactly a hundred years old, but was a hundred and two. For, as we have said more than once elsewhere, it is the custom of divine Scripture (which also not rarely happens in profane history and chronology), the small and minute numbers being passed over in silence, to mention only the greatest and whole number: which could be illustrated and confirmed by many examples, were not a repeated proof of a matter sufficiently manifest and elsewhere proved by us superfluous.11

Translator’s notes

  1. Liber XV, Disputation 10 (title): was Sem the eldest of Noah's sons? ↩
  2. §132. Disp. 10 opens: Sem was older than Cham (Gen 9 calls Cham the ‘younger,’ i.e. least, son). The real contention is Sem vs. Japheth for the birth-primacy. Sem is always named first (Gen 5, 6, 9, 10; 1 Chron 1) — some make this a great argument for his being firstborn, but it does not seem to have much force (continues to next batch). Margin: Sem older than Cham. ↩
  3. §132 (cont.). Naming-order proves little: Cham is named second though least; Isaac before Ismael, Jacob before Esau (by election, not birth); and Cham, though later, is always named before Japheth. The Latin reading makes Sem the eldest, but the Hebrew is ambiguous and the Greek suggests the opposite — so many think Sem younger than Japheth. ↩
  4. §133. The Hebrew ‘hagadol’ (Japheth ‘the great’): ‘ha’ is the emphatic article; ‘gadol’ = ‘great,’ not ‘greater’ (Hebrew lacks comparatives, expressing them with a preposition, e.g. ‘min hu’ = ‘than he,’ as in the Publican of Lk 18 — absent here). Being indeclinable, ‘gadol’ can be genitive (Sem brother of Japheth ‘the great,’ greatest of the brothers) or ablative (joined to Sem: sons born of Sem, the elder brother of Japheth). Margin: Lk 18. ↩
  5. §134. Pererius approves the reading ‘Sem the elder brother of Japheth’ (= Sem eldest): the Vulgate, Augustine's codex (City of God 16.3, affirming Sem the eldest), and Cajetan/Pagninus/Vatablus applying the Hebrew ambiguity this way. Reason confirms it: all Moses says of Sem here commends his dignity (father of Heber's line = the Hebrews and its great men), so ‘the great brother of Japheth’ must too — Moses would not commend Sem by calling him brother of a greater Japheth. Margins: Augustine; the argument of the Hebrews that Sem was the least of his brothers. ↩
  6. §135. The contrary opinion of the Hebrews begins (continues p. 456). ↩
  7. §135 (concl.). The Hebrews (followed by Lyra, Tostatus, Genebrardus) make Sem the youngest, Cham second, Japheth first. Argument: Noah began begetting at 500 (Gen 5), so the firstborn was born then; but Sem was 100 two years after the flood (Gen 11), and the flood was Noah's 600th year — so Noah begot Japheth at 500, Cham at 501, Sem at 502. Margins: Lyra; Tostatus; Genebrardus; Gen 6. ↩
  8. §136. Cajetan dissolves the Hebrews' argument (quoted): it is against the letter (Gen 10 makes Sem the ‘great’ brother, Gen 9 Cham the ‘little’ son — so Sem firstborn), and weak, since the verse is two clauses (‘Sem a hundred years old’ + ‘he begot Arphaxad two years after the flood’), and Scripture's reckoning is loose (Gen 5 says Noah begot all three at 500, though not in one year). So Sem was indubitably firstborn; whether exactly 100 two years post-flood is uncertain (continues p. 457). Margins: how Cajetan dissolves the argument of the Hebrews; Cajetan. ↩
  9. §136 (concl.). End of Cajetan: Sem may have been begotten in Noah's 500th year and so 102 when he begot Arphaxad two years after the flood — Scripture does not contradict this but implies it. ↩
  10. §137. Pererius faults two points in Cajetan: (1) his punctuation splitting the verse into ‘Sem 100 years old’ + ‘begot Arphaxad 2 years after the flood’ is excluded by the Greek and the Vulgate (‘Sem was 100 when he begot Arphaxad’ — both 100 and the begetting two years post-flood); (2) his claim that the verse covertly means 102: rather, the ‘two years’ attach to the flood (Sem begot Arphaxad two years after it), not to Sem's 100. Margin: a remark on Cajetan. ↩
  11. §138. Pererius's own simpler answer: either Noah began begetting at 502 (Sem born then, so 100 two years post-flood), or Sem was 102, not exactly 100, when he begot Arphaxad — since Scripture (like profane history) habitually gives only round numbers, dropping the small remainders. Margin: a more probable solution of the Hebrews' argument. ↩