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

ELEVENTH DISPUTATION. Whether that name Phaleg was imposed from the division of the earth already made, or one to come long after

LatineEnglish

ELEVENTH DISPUTATION. Whether that name Phaleg was imposed from the division of the earth already made, or one to come long after.1

UNDECIMA DISPUTATIO. An illud nomen Phaleg impositum sit ex divisione terrae iam facta, an longe post futura.

UTRUM divisio linguarum et habitationum hominum contigerit eo ipso tempore quo natus est Phaleg et inde nomen ei sit inditum, an vero extrema eius aetate, discrepantes sunt auctorum sententiae. Hebraei in suo Chronico, quod appellant Seder Holam, tradunt divisionem linguarum factam esse extremo tempore vitae Phaleg: is autem natus est anno centesimo primo post diluvium, et vixit ducentis novem annis, ut colligitur ex capite undecimo Geneseos. Hinc efficitur factam esse divisionem linguarum anno trecentesimo quadragesimo post diluvium, decem scilicet annis ante mortem Noë: namque eum vixisse post diluvium trecentis quinquaginta annis scriptum reliquit Moses extremis verbis capitis noni. Iam vero cum Abraham, secundum Chronologiam Hebraicam et Latinam quae traditur in cap. 11 Geneseos, natus sit anno post diluvium ducentesimo nonagesimo secundo, ex eo conficitur divisionem linguarum contigisse cum Abraham octavum et quadragesimum aetatis annum ageret.
Whether the division of the languages and habitations of men befell at that very time at which Phaleg was born, and the name was thence given to him, or rather in his last age, the opinions of authors are discrepant. The Hebrews, in their Chronicle which they call Seder Olam, hand down that the division of the languages was made in the last period of Phaleg's life: but he was born in the 101st year after the flood, and lived 209 years, as is gathered from the eleventh chapter of Genesis. Hence it follows that the division of languages was made in the 340th year after the flood — namely, ten years before the death of Noah: for that Noah lived 350 years after the flood Moses left written in the last words of the ninth chapter. Now since Abraham, according to the Hebrew and Latin chronology handed down in chapter 11 of Genesis, was born in the 292nd year after the flood, it follows from this that the division of languages befell when Abraham was passing his forty-eighth year of age.2
ERGO Hebraei censent Heber magnum fuisse prophetam: quippe qui divino prophetiae lumine illustratus, quod plus ducentis annis post futurum erat providens, ex eo nomen nascenti filio imposuerit. Hebraeorum sententiae accedit B. Hieronymus, affirmans Heber vaticinio quodam, videlicet ex futuro eventu divisionis linguarum, nomen posuisse filio suo. Ad eandem sententiam videtur pertinere quod scripsit Chrysostomus homil. 30 in Genesim, explanans haec ipsa verba de nomine Phaleg: „Considera,“ inquit, „quemadmodum rei futurae praescientiam vocabulo nati pueri declaravit, ut, cum videris rem opere adimpletam, non ultra mireris videns divinitus id pueri nomine praedictum.“ Ad eandem sententiam propendent Tostatus et Lyranus hoc loco, et Genebrardus in sua Chronologia.
Therefore the Hebrews judge that Heber was a great prophet: inasmuch as, illumined by the divine light of prophecy, foreseeing what was to come more than two hundred years after, he imposed the name from it upon his newborn son. To the opinion of the Hebrews accedes Blessed Jerome, affirming that Heber, by a certain prophecy — namely, from the future event of the division of languages — set the name upon his son. To the same opinion seems to pertain what Chrysostom wrote in homily 30 on Genesis, explaining these very words about the name Phaleg: „Consider,“ he says, „how he declared the foreknowledge of the future thing by the name of the boy that was born, so that, when you see the thing fulfilled in fact, you may no longer wonder, seeing that it was divinely foretold by the boy's name.“ To the same opinion incline Tostatus and Lyra in this place, and Genebrardus in his Chronology.3
HANC isti opinionem ita confirmant. Non est credibile, inquiunt, spatio duntaxat centum annorum, id est, circa ortum Phaleg, in tantum fuisse ubique terrarum multiplicatas stirpes post diluvium, et adeo propagatum genus humanum, ut per omnes terrae plagas dispergi, easque inhabitare, colere et in posterum habitatoribus complere potuerint. Sed haec ratio perinfirma est: nulla enim ratio est plantas quae ubique terrarum sunt per centum annos post diluvium non potuisse generari, crescere et multiplicari. Idem de hominibus sentio. Si enim Iacob familia, quae septuaginta duntaxat fuit hominum cum ipse descendit in Aegyptum, per ducentos et quindecim annos tam numerose inibi propagata est, ut, cum egressi sunt ex Aegypto Hebraei, recensita in illis sint plus sexcenta millia hominum bellatorum, exceptis parvulis, senibus et feminis: quanto credibilius est post diluvium, etiam minori spatio temporis, numerosius esse propagatam familiam Noë, cum tanta hominum qui tunc in terris erant paucitas id exigeret, et futuram filiorum Noë maximam fecunditatem amplissimamque propagationem non obscure significaverit Deus cum eis benedixit dicens: „Crescite et multiplicamini et replete terram“?
This opinion these men confirm thus. It is not credible, they say, that in the space of only a hundred years — that is, around the birth of Phaleg — the stocks were so far multiplied everywhere on earth after the flood, and the human race so far propagated, that they could be scattered through all the regions of the earth, and inhabit and cultivate them, and in time fill them with inhabitants. But this reasoning is very weak: for there is no reason why the plants that are everywhere on earth could not, in a hundred years after the flood, be generated, grow, and multiply. The same I think of men. For if Jacob's family — which was only seventy persons when he himself went down into Egypt — was in 215 years so numerously propagated there, that when the Hebrews went out of Egypt there were counted among them more than six hundred thousand fighting men, besides little ones, old men, and women: how much more credible is it that after the flood, even in a smaller space of time, the family of Noah was more numerously propagated, since so great a scarcity of the men who were then on earth demanded it, and God not obscurely signified the future greatest fecundity and most ample propagation of the sons of Noah when He blessed them, saying: ‘Increase and multiply and fill the earth’?4
ALTERA sententia est, nomen Phaleg positum fuisse non ex futuro eventu, sed ex eo quod iam factum et praeteritum fuerat: nam quia proxime post linguarum divisionem factam Heber genuit filium suum primogenitum, iccirco ex re illa tam memorabili nomen imposuit filio. Id autem voluit Heber notari in filio, ut inde animadverterent homines tempus ipsum quo memorabilis illa exstiterat inter mortales linguarum varietas atque confusio. Huius opinionis auctorem habeo Iosephum libro primo Antiquitatum, et B. Augustinum, qui libro decimo sexto de Civitate Dei capite 11 hunc in modum scribit: „Dixerit aliquis, si in diebus Phaleg filii Heber divisa est terra per linguas, ex eius nomine potius debuit appellari lingua illa quae fuit omnibus ante communis. Sed intelligendum est ipsum Heber propterea tale nomen imposuisse filio suo, ut vocaretur Phaleg, quod interpretatur divisio, quia tunc ei natus est quando per linguas terra divisa est, ut hoc sit quod dictum est: In…“
The other opinion is that the name Phaleg was set not from a future event, but from that which had already been done and was past: for because Heber begot his firstborn son next after the division of the languages was made, therefore he imposed the name on his son from that so memorable thing. And Heber willed this to be marked in his son, so that men might thence note the very time at which that memorable variety and confusion of languages had arisen among mortals. Of this opinion I have as author Josephus in the first book of the Antiquities, and Blessed Augustine, who in the sixteenth book of the City of God, chapter 11, writes in this manner: „Someone may say: if in the days of Phaleg the son of Heber the earth was divided by languages, that language which was before common to all ought rather to have been called from his name. But it must be understood that Heber himself for this reason imposed such a name on his son, that he should be called Phaleg — which is interpreted ‘division’ — because he was born to him then, when the earth was divided by languages, so that this is what was said: In…“5
„…diebus eius divisa est terra. Nam nisi adhuc Heber viveret quando linguarum facta est multitudo, non ex eius nomine nomen acciperet lingua quae apud illum potuit permanere.“ Sic Augustinus.
„…in his days was the earth divided. For unless Heber were still living when the multitude of languages was made, the language which could remain with him would not receive its name from his name.“ So far Augustine.6
HAEC mihi quoque sententia magis probatur. Nam cum nulla ratio afferri queat quae necessario concludat vel etiam probabiliter demonstret non potuisse fieri divisionem linguarum et discessionem hominum in varias terrae partes eo tempore quo natus est Phaleg (ut ex his quae dudum docuimus palam est), certe multo est creditu proclivius Heber ex eo potius quod iam acciderat tunc cum natus ei filius est, quam ex eo quod erat plus ducentis annis post eventurum, vocabulo Phaleg divisionem linguarum denotante, filium suum insigniri voluisse. Sed ego adversus istos qui divisionem linguarum in extremum Phaleg annum reiiciunt valde firmum (ut in rebus quae in Chronologia et historia versantur esse potest) argumentum habeo. Aiunt isti divisionem linguarum et dispersionem hominum in diversas terrae plagas novissimo Phaleg anno, qui in quadragesimum octavum aetatis Abrahae annum competit, esse factam. Ergo necesse est eam divisionem contigisse annis triginta octo post obitum Nini, qui primus fuit rex Assyriorum: regnavit enim Ninus duobus et quinquaginta annis, et quadragesimo tertio regni eius anno Abraham natus est. Et haec quidem apud auctores tam Ethnicos quam Christianos in confesso sunt. At enim cum Ninus regnare coepit, id est, annis plus octoginta ante id temporis quo censent isti factam esse divisionem linguarum, iam tunc orbis terrarum secundum omnes fere eius partes completus erat habitatoribus cultoribusque habentibus diversas linguas, diversa item regna et reges, atque eos amplissimis imperiis, numerosissimis exercitibus maximisque divitiis atque opibus praepotentes.
This opinion too is more approved by me. For since no reason can be brought forward that necessarily concludes, or even probably demonstrates, that the division of languages and the departure of men into the various parts of the earth could not have been made at the time when Phaleg was born (as is plain from what we taught a while ago), it is certainly far more easy to believe that Heber willed his son to be marked with the word Phaleg, signifying the division of languages, rather from that which had already happened when the son was born to him, than from that which was to come more than two hundred years after. But against those who throw the division of languages back to Phaleg's last year, I have a very firm argument (as can be in matters that are concerned with chronology and history). These men say that the division of languages and the dispersion of men into the diverse regions of the earth was made in Phaleg's last year, which falls in the forty-eighth year of Abraham's age. Therefore that division must necessarily have happened thirty-eight years after the death of Ninus, who was the first king of the Assyrians: for Ninus reigned fifty-two years, and in the forty-third year of his reign Abraham was born. And these things indeed are agreed upon among authors, both pagan and Christian. But when Ninus began to reign — that is, more than eighty years before the time at which these men think the division of languages was made — already then the world was, in almost all its parts, full of inhabitants and cultivators having diverse languages, and also diverse kingdoms and kings, and these powerful with most ample empires, most numerous armies, and the greatest riches and resources.7
HOC ego clarum certumque lectori faciam ex unius historia Diodori, quam plerique tam prophani quam Ecclesiastici scriptores secuti sunt. In exordio lib. 3 scribit Diodorus Ninum, cum regnare orsus est, incredibili dominandi cupiditate totum paene orbem animo complexum, initio societatem iniisse cum Arico rege Arabum, qui eo tempore plurimum opibus atque armis praestabant, cum quo exercitum duxit adversus Babylonios (nondum quidem condita Babylone, sed multis circa et claris urbibus habitatis); quibus superatis tributoque imposito, regem eorum captum cum filiis interemit. Deinde nonnullis Armeniae civitatibus in potestatem redactis, Barzanem regem sibi cum muneribus occurrentem clementer atque perhumaniter tractavit. Inde Mediam ingressus, Farnum regem cum uxore et septem filiis cruci affixit. Tam prospera fortuna elatum cupido incessit totius Asiae, quae inter Tanaim iacet ac Nilum, potiundae. Quocirca ad reliquam subiiciendam Asiam profectus, omnem, septem et decem annis, praeter Indos ac Bactrianos, subiugavit. Subiecit omnes maritimas ac propinquas gentes, Aegyptios, Phoenices, interiorem Syriam, Ciliciam, Pamphyliam, Lyciam, Cariam, Phrygiam, Mysiam, Lydiam, Troada et Phrygiam quae est super Hellespontum, Proponti[dem…]
This I shall make clear and certain to the reader from the single history of Diodorus, which most writers, both profane and ecclesiastical, have followed. At the opening of book 3 Diodorus writes that Ninus, when he began to reign, having embraced almost the whole world in his mind with an incredible lust of ruling, at first entered into alliance with Aricus king of the Arabs, who at that time excelled most in wealth and arms; with whom he led an army against the Babylonians (Babylon not yet founded, but with many famous cities round about inhabited); and these being overcome and tribute imposed, he killed their king, captured, together with his sons. Then, some cities of Armenia being reduced to his power, he treated king Barzanes, who met him with gifts, gently and most humanely. Then, having entered Media, he affixed to the cross king Farnus, with his wife and seven sons. Raised up by such prosperous fortune, the desire seized him of gaining all Asia which lies between the Tanais and the Nile. Wherefore, having set out to subdue the rest of Asia, he subjugated it all in seventeen years, except the Indians and Bactrians. He subdued all the maritime and neighboring nations, the Egyptians, Phoenicians, interior Syria, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lycia, Caria, Phrygia, Mysia, Lydia, the Troad and the Phrygia which is above the Hellespont, the Proponti[s…]8
…dem etiam atque Bithyniam et Cappadociam, gentesque iuxta Pontum Barbaras usque ad Tanaim flumen suae ditionis fecit. Adiecit imperio Cadusios, Tapyrios, Hyrcanos, Drangas, Dernicos, Carmanios, Choromnaeos, Rhombos, Borcanios, Parthos, Persas, Husianos Caspiosque, pluresque alias gentes et nationes, quas propter earum ignobilitatem hic recensere non attinet. Ad extremum debellavit Zoroastrem regem Bactrianorum, qui, comparato hominum quadringentorum millium exercitu, adversus Ninum pugnaturus obviam ei processit: cum id temporis haberet Ninus in exercitu suo (ut proditum est a Ctesia) peditum decies septies centena millia, equitum ducenta millia, curruum autem falcatorum paulo minus decem millibus et sexcentis. Hactenus ex Diodoro. Ex his liquido apparet plurimis annis prius quam factam esse divisionem linguarum et dispersionem hominum isti arbitrantur, omnem fere terrarum orbem non solum habitatoribus fuisse completum, nec diversas tantum fuisse tunc linguas, sed diversas item provincias, nationes, regna regesque incredibili potentia bellica opibusque praepollentes. Dicent fortasse isti fabulosa esse haec, et a Diodoro vel potius a Ctesia conficta, vel ex mendacissimis historiis deprompta. Sed enim non solum Ethnici scriptores, verum et nostrates et Ecclesiastici, iique maximae nobilitatis et auctoritatis, historiam illam Diodori ut maxime credibilem et crediderunt ipsi et scriptis suis consignatam firmatamque posteritati transmiserunt. Nec sane qui Diodoro fidem abrogant, cur ei credendum non sit rationem probabilem ullam afferre possunt.
…and also Bithynia and Cappadocia, and the barbarous nations beside the Pontus as far as the river Tanais, he made of his dominion. He added to his empire the Cadusii, Tapyrii, Hyrcanians, Drangae, Dernici, Carmanians, Choromnaei, Rhombi, Borcanii, Parthians, Persians, Husiani and Caspians, and several other peoples and nations, which on account of their ignobility it is not worthwhile to recount here. At the last he conquered Zoroaster king of the Bactrians, who, an army of four hundred thousand men being assembled, came out to meet Ninus to fight against him: Ninus at that time having in his army (as is recorded by Ctesias) 1,700,000 foot, 200,000 horse, and of scythed chariots a little less than 10,600. Thus far from Diodorus. From these things it plainly appears that very many years before the division of languages and the dispersion of men was made (as these men judge), almost the whole world was not only filled with inhabitants, and there were not only diverse languages then, but also diverse provinces, nations, kingdoms, and kings prevailing with incredible warlike power and wealth. These men will perhaps say that these things are fabulous, and were fabricated by Diodorus, or rather by Ctesias, or drawn from most lying histories. But not only pagan writers, but also our own and ecclesiastical ones — and those of the greatest nobility and authority — both believed that history of Diodorus as most credible, and, sealed and confirmed in their writings, transmitted it to posterity. Nor indeed can those who withdraw credence from Diodorus bring forward any probable reason why he is not to be believed.9

Translator’s notes

  1. Liber XV, Disputation 11 (title): whether ‘Phaleg’ named a division already made or one long future. ↩
  2. §146. Disp. 11 opens: was the division at Phaleg's birth or his last age? The Hebrews (Seder Olam): at the end of Phaleg's life — born yr 101 after the flood, lived 209 yrs (Gen 11), so the division was yr 340 (10 yrs before Noah's death at yr 350, Gen 9). Since Abraham was born yr 292 (Gen 11), the division fell when Abraham was 48 (continues p. 461). Margin: when the Hebrews say the division of languages was made. ↩
  3. §146 (concl.). So the Hebrews make Heber a great prophet, foreseeing by divine light an event 200+ yrs off and naming his son from it. Jerome agrees (Heber named the son by prophecy of the future division); also Chrysostom (hom. 30 on Genesis: the boy's name declared foreknowledge of the future), Tostatus, Lyra, and Genebrardus. Margins: Jerome; Chrysostom; Tostatus; Lyra; Genebrardus. ↩
  4. §146 (cont.). Their confirming argument: in only ~100 yrs (Phaleg's birth) mankind could not have multiplied to fill the earth. Pererius rebuts: plants could multiply in 100 yrs; so could men — Jacob's family of 70 grew in 215 yrs to 600,000+ fighting men (Gen 46; Exod 12); much more credibly Noah's family grew fast after the flood, given the scarcity and God's blessing ‘Increase and multiply and fill the earth’ (Gen 9). Margins: Gen 46; Exod 12; Gen 9. ↩
  5. §147. The other opinion (Pererius's): ‘Phaleg’ was named from a past event — Heber begot his firstborn just after the division and named him from it, marking the time of that memorable confusion of tongues. Authorities: Josephus (Antiquities bk. 1) and Augustine (City of God 16.11: Heber named the son ‘Phaleg’ = ‘division’ because he was born when the earth was divided by tongues) (continues p. 462). Margins: the author's opinion; Josephus; Augustine. ↩
  6. §147 (concl.). End of Augustine (City of God 16.11): unless Heber were still alive when the tongues multiplied, the surviving language (Hebrew) would not be named from him. ↩
  7. §148. Pererius prefers this view: no reason forbids the division at Phaleg's birth, so it is far likelier Heber named him from a past than a future event. A firm argument against the ‘Phaleg's last year’ view: that would put the division 38 yrs after Ninus's death (Ninus reigned 52 yrs, Abraham born in his 43rd) = Abraham's 48th yr; but when Ninus began (80+ yrs earlier), the world was already full of peoples with diverse tongues, kingdoms, kings, vast empires and armies. ↩
  8. §149. Pererius proves it from Diodorus (bk. 3, followed by most writers): Ninus, at the start of his reign, allied with Aricus king of the Arabs, defeated the Babylonians (Babylon not yet founded), spared Barzanes of Armenia but crucified Farnus of Media; then in 17 yrs subdued all Asia (Tanais to Nile) except the Indians and Bactrians — Egyptians, Phoenicians, Syria, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lycia, Caria, Phrygia, Mysia, Lydia, the Troad (continues p. 463). Margins: Diodorus; the progress of king Ninus's wars and victories; Aricus king of the Arabs. ↩
  9. §149 (concl.). Ninus further took Bithynia, Cappadocia, the Pontic nations to the Tanais, the Cadusii, Hyrcanians, Parthians, Persians, Caspians, etc., and finally conquered Zoroaster king of the Bactrians (400,000 men) with an army (per Ctesias) of 1,700,000 foot, 200,000 horse, ~10,600 scythed chariots. So, many years before the supposed division of tongues, the world was already full of peoples, languages, kingdoms, and kings of vast power. The objection that Diodorus/Ctesias is fabulous fails — eminent pagan, native, and ecclesiastical writers credited and transmitted it, and no probable reason disproves it. Margin: Ctesias. ↩