What Cain’s Reason Was for Building a City So Early in the History of the Human Race.

Chapter 8.—What Cain’s Reason Was for Building a City So Early in the History of the Human Race.

Caput VIII. Quae ratio fuerit, ut Cain inter principia generis humani conderet ciuitatem.

At present it is the history which I aim at defending, that Scripture may not be reckoned incredible when it relates that one man built a city at a time in which there seem to have been but four men upon earth, or rather indeed but three, after one brother slew the other,—to wit, the first man the father of all, and Cain himself, and his son Enoch, by whose name the city was itself called. But they who are moved by this consideration forget to take into account that the writer of the sacred history does not necessarily mention all the men who might be alive at that time, but those only whom the scope of his work required him to name. The design of that writer (who in this matter was the instrument of the Holy Ghost) was to descend to Abraham through the successions of ascertained generations propagated from one man, and then to pass from Abraham’s seed to the people of God, in whom, separated as they were from other nations, was prefigured and predicted all that relates to the city whose reign is eternal, and to its king and founder Christ, which things were foreseen in the Spirit as destined to come; yet neither is this object so effected as that nothing is said of the other society of men which we call the earthly city, but mention is made of it so far as seemed needful to enhance the glory of the heavenly city by contrast to its opposite. Accordingly, when the divine Scripture, in mentioning the number of years which those men lived, concludes its account of each man of whom it speaks, with the words, “And he begat sons and daughters, and all his days were so and so, and he died,” are we to understand that, because it does not name those sons and daughters, therefore, during that long term of years over which one lifetime extended in those early days, there might not have been born very many men, by whose united numbers not one but several cities might have been built? But it suited the purpose of God, by whose inspiration these histories were composed, to arrange and distinguish from the first these two societies in their several generations,—that on the one side the generations of men, that is to say, of those who live according to man, and on the other side the generations of the sons of God, that is to say, of men living according to God, might be traced down together and yet apart from one another as far as the deluge, at which point their dissociation and association are exhibited: their dissociation, inasmuch as the generations of both lines are recorded in separate tables, the one line descending from the fratricide Cain, the other from Seth, who had been born to Adam instead of him whom his brother slew; their association, inasmuch as the good so deteriorated that the whole race became of such a character that it was swept away by the deluge, with the exception of one just man, whose name was Noah, and his wife and three sons and three daughters-in-law, which eight persons were alone deemed worthy to escape from that desolating visitation which destroyed all men.

Nunc autem defendenda mihi uidetur historia, ne sit scriptura incredibilis, quae dicit aedificatam ab uno homine ciui tatem eo tempore, quo non plus quam uiri quattuor uel potius tres, postea quam fratrem frater occidit, fuisse uidentur in terra, id est primus homo pater omnium et ipse Cain et eius filius Enoch, ex cuius nomine ipsa ciuitas nuncupata est. Sed hoc quos mouet, parum considerant non omnes homines, qui tunc esse potuerunt, scriptorem sacrae huius historiae necesse habuisse nominare, sed eos solos, quos operis suscepti ratio postulabat. Propositum quippe scriptoris illius fuit, per quem sanctus Spiritus id agebat, per successiones certarum generationum ex uno homine propagatarum peruenire ad Abraham ac deinde ex eius semine ad populum Dei, in quo distincto a ceteris gentibus praefigurarentur et praenuntiarentur omnia, quae de ciuitate, cuius aeternum erit regnum, et de rege eius eodemque conditore Christo in Spiritu praeuidebantur esse uentura; ita ut nec de altera societate hominum taceretur, quam terrenam dicimus ciuitatem, quantum ei commemorandae satis esset, ut ciuitas Dei etiam suae aduersariae conparatione clarescat. Cum igitur scriptura diuina, ubi et numerum annorum, quos illi homines uixerunt, commemorat, ita concludat, ut dicat de illo, de quo loquebatur: Et genuit filios et filias, et fuerunt omnes dies illius uel illius quos uixit anni tot, et mortuus est: numquid quia eosdem filios et filias non nominat, ideo intellegere non debernus per tam multos annos, quibus tunc in saeculi huius prima aetate uiuebant, nasci potuisse plurimos homines, quorum coetibus condi possent etiam plurimae ‘ciuitates? Sed pertinuit ad Deum, quo ista inspirante conscripta sunt, has duas societates suis diuersis generationibus primitus digerere adque distinguere, ut seorsum hominum, hoc est secundum hominem uiuentium, seorsum autem filiorum Dei, id est hominum secundum Deum uiuentium, generationes contexerentur usque diluuium, ubi ambarum societatum discretio concretioque narratur; discretio quidem, quod ambarum separatim generationes commemorantur, unius fratricidae Cain, alterius autem qui uocabatur Seth; natus quippe fuerat et ipse de Adam pro illo, quem frater occidit; concretio autem, quia bonis in deterius declinantibus tales uniuersi facti fuerant, ut diluuio delerentur, excepto uno iusto, cui nomen erat Noe, et eius coniuge et tribus filiis totidemque nuribus, qui homines octo ex illa omnium uastatione mortalium per arcam euadere meruerunt.

Therefore, although it is written, “And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bare Enoch, and he builded a city and called the name of the city after the name of his son Enoch,” it does not follow that we are to believe this to have been his first-born; for we cannot suppose that this is proved by the expression “he knew his wife,” as if then for the first time he had had intercourse with her. For in the case of Adam, the father of all, this expression is used not only when Cain, who seems to have been his first-born, was conceived, but also afterwards the same Scripture says, “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived, and bare a son, and called his name Seth.” Whence it is obvious that Scripture employs this expression neither always when a birth is recorded nor then only when the birth of a first-born is mentioned. Neither is it necessary to suppose that Enoch was Cain’s first-born because he named his city after him. For it is quite possible that though he had other sons, yet for some reason the father loved him more than the rest. Judah was not the first-born, though he gives his name to Judæa and the Jews. But even though Enoch was the first-born of the city’s founder, that is no reason for supposing that the father named the city after him as soon as he was born; for at that time he, being but a solitary man, could not have founded a civic community, which is nothing else than a multitude of men bound together by some associating tie. But when his family increased to such numbers that he had quite a population, then it became possible to him both to build a city, and give it, when founded, the name of his son. For so long was the life of those antediluvians, that he who lived the shortest time of those whose years are mentioned in Scripture attained to the age of 753 years. And though no one attained the age of a thousand years, several exceeded the age of nine hundred. Who then can doubt that during the lifetime of one man the human race might be so multiplied that there would be a population to build and occupy not one but several cities? And this might very readily be conjectured from the fact that from one man, Abraham, in not much more than four hundred years, the numbers of the Hebrew race so increased, that in the exodus of that people from Egypt there are recorded to have been six hundred thousand men capable of bearing arms, and this over and above the Idumæans, who, though not numbered with Israel’s descendants, were yet sprung from his brother, also a grandson of Abraham; and over and above the other nations which were of the same stock of Abraham, though not through Sarah,—that is, his descendants by Hagar and Keturah, the Ishmaelites, Midianites, etc.

Quod igitur scriptum est: Et cognouit Cain uxorem. suam, et concipiens peperit Enoch; et erat aedificans" ciuitatem in nomine filii sui Enoch: non est quidem consequens, ut istum primum filium genuisse credatur. Neque enim hoc ex eo putandum est, quia dictus est cognouisse uxorem suam, quasi tunc se illi primitus concumbendo miscuisset. Nam et de ipso patre omnium Adam non tunc solum hoc dictum est, quando conceptus est Cain, quem primogenitum uidetur habuisse: uerum etiam posterius eadem scriptura: Cognouit, inquit, Adam Euam uxorem suam, et concepit et peperit filium, et nominauit nomen illius Seth. Unde intellegitur ita solere illam scripturam loqui, quamuis non semper cum in ea legitur factos hominum fuisse conceptus, non tamen solum cum primum sibi sexus uterque miscetur. Nec illud necessario est argumento, ut primogenitum patri existimemus Enoch, quod eius nomine illa ciuitas nuncupata est. Non enim ab re est, ut propter aliquam causam, cum et alios haberet, diligeret eum pater ceteris amplius. Neque enim et ludas primogenitus fuit, a quo Iudaea cognominata est et Iudaei. Sed etiamsi conditori ciuitatis illius iste filius primus est natus, non ideo putandum est tunc a patre conditae ciuitati nomen eius inpositum, quando natus est, quia nec constitui tunc ab uno poterat ciuitas, quae nihil est aliud quam hominum multitudo aliquo societatis uinculo conligata; sed cum illius hominis familia tanta numerositate cresceret, ut haberet iam populi quantitatem, tunc potuit utique fieri, ut et constitueret et nomen primogeniti sui constitutae inponeret ciuitati. Tam longa quippe uita illorum hominum fuit, ut illic memoratorum, quorum et anni taciti non sunt, qui uixit minimum ante diluuium, ad septingentos quinquaginta tres perueniret. Nam plures nongentos annos etiam transierunt, quamuis nemo ad mille peruenerit. Quis itaque dubitauerit per unius hominis aetatem tantum multiplicari potuisse genus humanum, ut esset unde constituerentur non una, sed plurimae ciuitates? Quod ex hoc conici facillime potest, quia ex uno Abraham non multo amplius quadringentis annis numerositas Hebraeae gentis tanta procreata est, ut in exitu eiusdem populi ex Aegypto sescenta hominum milia fuisse referantur bellicae iuuentutis: ut omittamus gentem Idumaeorum non pertinentem ad populum Israel, quam genuit frater eius Esau, nepos Abrahae, et alias natas ex semine ipsius Abrahae non per Sarram coniugem procreato.

Chapter 9.—Of the Long Life and Greater Stature of the Antediluvians.

Caput IX. De longa uita hominum, quae fuit ante diluuium et de ampliore humanorum corporum forma.

Wherefore no one who considerately weighs facts will doubt that Cain might have built a city, and that a large one, when it is observed how prolonged were the lives of men, unless perhaps some sceptic take exception to this very length of years which our authors ascribe to the antediluvians and deny that this is credible. And so, too, they do not believe that the size of men’s bodies was larger then than now, though the most esteemed of their own poets, Virgil, asserts the same, when he speaks of that huge stone which had been fixed as a landmark, and which a strong man of those ancient times snatched up as he fought, and ran, and hurled, and cast it,—

Quam ob rem nullus prudens rerum existimator dubitauerit Cain non solum aliquam, uerum etiam magnam potuisse condere ciuitatem, quando in tam longum tempus protendebatur uita mortalium; nisi forte infidelium quispiam ex ipsa numerositate annorum nobis ingerat quaestionem, qua uixisse tunc homines scriptum est in auctoritatibus nostris, et hoc neget esse credendum. Ita quippe non credunt etiam magnitudines corporum longe ampliores tunc fuisse quam nunc sunt.

“Scarce twelve strong men of later mould

Unde et nobilissimus eorum poeta Vergilius de ingenti lapide, quem in agrorum limite infixum uir fortis illorum temporum pugnans et rapuit et cucurrit et intorsit et misit: Vix illum — inquit — lecti bis sex ceruice subirent, Qualia nunc hominum producit corpora tellus, significans maiora tunc corpora producere solere tellurem.

That weight could on their necks uphold.”

thus declaring his opinion that the earth then produced mightier men. And if in the more recent times, how much more in the ages before the world-renowned deluge? But the large size of the primitive human body is often proved to the incredulous by the exposure of sepulchres, either through the wear of time or the violence of torrents or some accident, and in which bones of incredible size have been found or have rolled out. I myself, along with some others, saw on the shore at Utica a man’s molar tooth of such a size, that if it were cut down into teeth such as we have, a hundred, I fancy, could have been made out of it. But that, I believe, belonged to some giant. For though the bodies of ordinary men were then larger than ours, the giants surpassed all in stature. And neither in our own age nor any other have there been altogether wanting instances of gigantic stature, though they may be few. The younger Pliny, a most learned man, maintains that the older the world becomes, the smaller will be the bodies of men. And he mentions that Homer in his poems often lamented the same decline; and this he does not laugh at as a poetical figment, but in his character of a recorder of natural wonders accepts it as historically true. But, as I said, the bones which are from time to time discovered prove the size of the bodies of the ancients, and will do so to future ages, for they are slow to decay. But the length of an antediluvian’s life cannot now be proved by any such monumental evidence. But we are not on this account to withhold our faith from the sacred history, whose statements of past fact we are the more inexcusable in discrediting, as we see the accuracy of its prediction of what was future. And even that same Pliny tells us that there is still a nation in which men live 200 years. If, then, in places unknown to us, men are believed to have a length of days which is quite beyond our own experience, why should we not believe the same of times distant from our own? Or are we to believe that in other places there is what is not here, while we do not believe that in other times there has been anything but what is now?

Quanto magis igitur temporibus recentioribus mundi ante illud nobile diffamatumque diluuium! Sed de corporum magnitudine plerumque incredulos nudata per uetustatem siue per uim fluminum uariosque casus sepulcra conuincunt, ubi apparuerunt uel unde ceciderunt incredibilis magnitudinis ossa mortuorum. Vidi ipse non solus, sed aliquot mecum in Uticensi litore, molarem hominis dentem tam ingentem, ut, si in nostrorum dentium modulos minutatim concideretur, centum nobis uideretur facere potuisse. Sed illum gigantis alicuius fuisse crediderim. Nam praeter quod erant omnium multo quam nostra maiora tunc corpora, gigantes longe ceteris anteibant; sicut aliis deinde nostrisque temporibus rara quidem, sed numquam ferme defuerunt; quae modum aliorum plurimum excederent. Plinius Secundus. doctissimus homo. quanto magis magisque praeterit saeculi excursus, minora corpora naturam ferre testatur; quod etiam Homerum commemorat saepe carmine fuisse conquestum, non haec uelut poetica figmenta deridens, sed in liistoricam fidem tamquam miraculorum naturalium scriptor adsumens. Verum, ut dixi, antiquorum magnitudines corporum inuenta plerumque ossa, quoniam diuturna sunt, etiam multo posterioribus saeculis produnt. Annorum autem numerositas cuiusque hominis, quae temporibus illis fuit, nullis nunc talibus documentis uenire in experimentum potest. Nec tamen ideo fides sacrae huic historiae deroganda est, cuius tanto inpudentius narrata non credimus, quanto inpleri certius praenuntiata conspicimus. Dicit tamen etiam idem Plinius esse adhuc gentem, ubi ducentos annos uiuitur. Si ergo humanarum uitarum diuturnitates, quas experti non sumus, hodie habere creduntur incognita nobis loca, quur non habuisse credantur et tempora? An uero credibile est alicubi esse quod hic non est, et incredibile est aliquando fuisse quod nunc non est?

Chapter 10.—Of the Different Computation of the Ages of the Antediluvians, Given by the Hebrew Manuscripts and by Our Own.

Caput X. De differentia. qua inter Hebraeos et nostros codices uidentur annorum numeri dissonare.

Wherefore, although there is a discrepancy for which I cannot account between our manuscripts and the Hebrew, in the very number of years assigned to the antediluvians, yet the discrepancy is not so great that they do not agree about their longevity. For the very first man, Adam, before he begot his son Seth, is in our manuscripts found to have lived 230 years, but in the Hebrew mss. 130. But after he begot Seth, our copies read that he lived 700 years, while the Hebrew give 800. And thus, when the two periods are taken together, the sum agrees. And so throughout the succeeding generations, the period before the father begets a son is always made shorter by 100 years in the Hebrew, but the period after his son is begotten is longer by 100 years in the Hebrew than in our copies. And thus, taking the two periods together, the result is the same in both. And in the sixth generation there is no discrepancy at all. In the seventh, however, of which Enoch is the representative, who is recorded to have been translated without death because he pleased God, there is the same discrepancy as in the first five generations, 100 years more being ascribed to him by our mss. before he begat a son. But still the result agrees; for according to both documents he lived before he was translated 365 years. In the eighth generation the discrepancy is less than in the others, and of a different kind. For Methuselah, whom Enoch begat, lived, before he begat his successor, not 100 years less, but 100 years more, according to the Hebrew reading; and in our mss. again these years are added to the period after he begat his son; so that in this case also the sum-total is the same. And it is only in the ninth generation, that is, in the age of Lamech, Methuselah’s son and Noah’s father, that there is a discrepancy in the sum total; and even in this case it is slight. For the Hebrew mss. represent him as living twenty-four years more than ours assign to him. For before he begat his son, who was called Noah, six years fewer are given to him by the Hebrew mss. than by ours; but after he begat this son, they give him thirty years more than ours; so that, deducting the former six, there remains, as we said, a surplus of twenty-four.

Quocirca etsi inter Hebraeos et nostros codices de ipso numero annorum nonnulla uidetur esse distantia, quod ignoro qua ratione sit factum: non tamen tanta est, ut illos homines tam longaeuos fuisse dissentiant. Nam ipse homo primus Adam, antequam gigneret filium, qui est appellatus Seth, ducentos triginta uixisse annos reperitur in codicibus nostris, in Hebraeis autem centum triginta perhibetur; sed postea quam eum genuit, septingentos uixisse legitur in nostris, octingentos uero in illis; adque ita in utrisque uniuersitatis summa concordat. Ac deinde per consequentes generationes antequam gignatur, qui gigni commemoratur, minus uixisse aput Hebraeos pater eius inuenitur centum annos; sed postea quam est genitus idem ipse, centum minus quam in Hebraeis inueniuntur in nostris; adque ita et hinc et inde numeri uniuersitas consonat. In sexta autem generatione nusquam utrique codices discrepant. In septima uero, ubi ille qui natus est Enoch non mortuus, sed quod Deo placuerit translatus esse narratur, eadem dissonantia est, quae in superioribus quinque de centum annis antequam gigneret eum, qui ibi commemoratus est, filium, adque in summa similis consonantia. Vixit enim annos, antequam transferretur, secundum utrosque codices trecentos sexaginta quinque. Octaua generatio habet quidem nonnullam diuersitatem, sed minorem ac dissimilem ceteris. Mathusalam quippe, quem genuit Enoch, antequam gigneret eum, qui in ipso ordine sequitur, secundum Hebraeos non centum minus, sed uiginti amplius uixit annos; qui rursus in nostris, postea quam eum genuit, reperiuntur additi, et in utrisque sibi summa uniuersi numeri occurrit. In sola nona generatione, id est in annis Lamech, filii Mathusalae, patris autem Noe, summa uniuersitatis discrepat, sed non plurimum. Viginti enim et quattuor annos plus uixisse in Hebraeis quam in nostris codicibus inuenitur. Namque antequam gigneret filium, qui uocatus est Noe, sex minus habet in Hebraeis quam in nostris; postea uero quam eum genuit, triginta amplius in eisdem quam in nostris. Unde sex illis detractis restant uiginti quattuor, ut dictum est.

Chapter 11.—Of Methuselah’s Age, Which Seems to Extend Fourteen Years Beyond the Deluge.

Caput XI. De annis Mathusalae, cuius aetas quattuordecim annis diluuium uidetur excedere.

From this discrepancy between the Hebrew books and our own arises the well-known question as to the age of Methuselah; for it is computed that he lived for fourteen years after the deluge, though Scripture relates that of all who were then upon the earth only the eight souls in the ark escaped destruction by the flood, and of these Methuselah was not one. For, according to our books, Methuselah, before he begat the son whom he called Lamech, lived 167 years; then Lamech himself, before his son Noah was born, lived 188 years, which together make 355 years. Add to these the age of Noah at the date of the deluge, 600 years, and this gives a total of 955 from the birth of Methuselah to the year of the flood. Now all the years of the life of Methuselah are computed to be 969; for when he had lived 167 years, and had begotten his son Lamech, he then lived after this 802 years, which makes a total, as we said, of 969 years. From this, if we deduct 955 years from the birth of Methuselah to the flood, there remains fourteen years, which he is supposed to have lived after the flood. And therefore some suppose that, though he was not on earth (in which it is agreed that every living thing which could not naturally live in water perished), he was for a time with his father, who had been translated, and that he lived there till the flood had passed away. This hypothesis they adopt, that they may not cast a slight on the trustworthiness of versions which the Church has received into a position of high authority, and because they believe that the Jewish mss. rather than our own are in error. For they do not admit that this is a mistake of the translators, but maintain that there is a falsified statement in the original, from which, through the Greek, the Scripture has been translated into our own tongue. They say that it is not credible that the seventy translators, who simultaneously and unanimously produced one rendering, could have erred, or, in a case in which no interest of theirs was involved, could have falsified their translation; but that the Jews, envying us our translation of their Law and Prophets, have made alterations in their texts so as to undermine the authority of ours. This opinion or suspicion let each man adopt according to his own judgment. Certain it is that Methuselah did not survive the flood, but died in the very year it occurred, if the numbers given in the Hebrew mss. are true. My own opinion regarding the seventy translators I will, with God’s help, state more carefully in its own place, when I have come down (following the order which this work requires) to that period in which their translation was executed. For the present question, it is enough that, according to our versions, the men of that age had lives so long as to make it quite possible that, during the lifetime of the first-born of the two sole parents then on earth, the human race multiplied sufficiently to form a community.

Per hanc autem discrepantiam Hebraeorum codicum adque nostrorum exoritur illa famosissima quaestio, ubi Mathusalam quattuordecim annos uixisse post diluuium conputatur, cum scriptura ex omnibus, qui in terra tunc fuerant, solos octo homines in arca exitium commemoret euasisse diluuii, in quibus Mathusalam non fuit. Secundum codices enim nostros Mathusalam priusquam gigneret illum, quem uocauit Lamech, uixit annos centum sexaginta septem; deinde ipse Lamech, antequam ex illo natus esset Noe, uixit annos centum octoginta octo, qui fiunt simul trecenti quinquaginta quinque; his adduntur sescenti Noe, quoto eius anno diluuium factum est: qui fiunt nongenti quinquaginta quinque, ex quo Mathusalam natus est usque ad annum diluuii. Omnes enim anni uitae Mathusalam nongenti sexaginta nouem conputantur, quia, cum uixisset annos centum sexaginta septem et genuisset filium, qui est appellatus Lamech, post eum genitum uixit annos octingentos duo; qui omnes, ut diximus. nongenti sexaginta nouem fiunt. Unde detractis nongentis quinquaginta quinque ab ortu Mathusalae usque ad diluuium remanent quattuordecim, quibus uixisse creditur post diluuium. Propter quod eum nonnulli, etsi non in terra, ubi omnem carnem, quam uiuere in aquis natura non sinit, constat fuisse deletam,. cum patre suo qui translatus fuerat aliquantum fuisse adque ibi, donec diluuium praeteriret, uixisse arbitrantur, nolentes derogare fidem codicibus, quos in auctoritatem celebriorem suscepit ecclesia, et credentes Iudaeorum potius quam istos non habere quod uerum est. Non enim admittunt, quod magis hic esse potuerit error interpretum, quam in ea lingua esse falsum, unde in nostram per Graecam scriptura ipsa translata est, sed inquiunt non esse credibile septuaginta interr pretes, qui uno simul tempore unoque sensu interpretati sunt, errare potuisse aut ubi nihil eorum intererat uoluisse mentiri; Iudaeos uero, dum nobis inuident, quod lex et prophetae ad nos interpretando transierint, mutasse quaedam in codicibus suis, ut nostris minueretur auctoritas. Hanc opinionem uel suspicionem accipiat quisque ut putauerit; certum est tamen non uixisse Mathusalam post diluuium, sed eodem anno fuisse defunctum, si uerum est quod de numero annorum in Hebraeis codicibus inuenitur. De illis autem septuaginta interpretibus quid mihi uideatur, suo loco diligentius inserendum est, cum ad ipsa tempora, quantum necessitas huius operis postulat, commemoranda adiuuante Domino uenerimus. Praesenti enim sufficit quaestioni secundum utrosque codices tam longas habuisse uitas illius aeui homines, ut posset aetate unius, qui de duobus, quos solos terra tunc habuit, parentibus primus est natus, ad constituendam etiam ciuitatem multiplicari genus humanum.

Chapter 12.—Of the Opinion of Those Who Do Not Believe that in These Primitive Times Men Lived So Long as is Stated.

Caput XII. De opinione eorum. qui primorum temporum homines tam longaeuos, quam scribitur, fuisse non credunt.

For they are by no means to be listened to who suppose that in those times years were differently reckoned, and were so short that one of our years may be supposed to be equal to ten of theirs. So that they say, when we read or hear that some man lived 900 years, we should understand ninety, ten of those years making but one of ours, and ten of ours equalling 100 of theirs. Consequently, as they suppose, Adam was twenty-three years of age when he begat Seth, and Seth himself was twenty years and six months old when his son Enos was born, though the Scripture calls these months 205 years. For, on the hypothesis of those whose opinion we are explaining, it was customary to divide one such year as we have into ten parts, and to call each part a year. And each of these parts was composed of six days squared; because God finished His works in six days, that He might rest the seventh. Of this I disputed according to my ability in the eleventh book. Now six squared, or six times six, gives thirty-six days; and this multiplied by ten amounts to 360 days, or twelve lunar months. As for the five remaining days which are needed to complete the solar year, and for the fourth part of a day, which requires that into every fourth or leap-year a day be added, the ancients added such days as the Romans used to call “intercalary,” in order to complete the number of the years. So that Enos, Seth’s son, was nineteen years old when his son Cainan was born, though Scripture calls these years 190. And so through all the generations in which the ages of the antediluvians are given, we find in our versions that almost no one begat a son at the age of 100 or under, or even at the age of 120 or thereabouts; but the youngest fathers are recorded to have been 160 years old and upwards. And the reason of this, they say, is that no one can beget children when he is ten years old, the age spoken of by those men as 100, but that sixteen is the age of puberty, and competent now to propagate offspring; and this is the age called by them 160. And that it may not be thought incredible that in these days the year was differently computed from our own, they adduce what is recorded by several writers of history, that the Egyptians had a year of four months, the Acarnanians of six, and the Lavinians of thirteen months. The younger Pliny, after mentioning that some writers reported that one man had lived 152 years, another ten more, others 200, others 300, that some had even reached 500 and 600, and a few 800 years of age, gave it as his opinion that all this must be ascribed to mistaken computation. For some, he says, make summer and winter each a year; others make each season a year, like the Arcadians, whose years, he says, were of three months. He added, too, that the Egyptians, of whose little years of four months we have spoken already, sometimes terminated their year at the wane of each moon; so that with them there are produced lifetimes of 1000 years.

Neque enim ullo modo audiendi sunt, qui putant aliter annos illis temporibus conputatos, id est tantae breuitatis, ut unus annus noster decem illos habuisse credatur. Quapropter, inquiunt, cum audierit quisque uel legerit nongentos annos quemque uixisse, debet intellegere nonaginta; decem quippe illi anni unus est noster et decem nostri centum illi fuerunt. Ac per hoc, ut putant, uiginti trium annorum fuit Adam, quando genuit Seth, et ipse Seth uiginti agebat et sex menses, quando ex illo natus est Enos, quos appellat scriptura ducentos et quinque annos; quoniam sicut isti suspicantur, quorum exponimus opinionem, unum annum, qualem nunc habemus, in decem partes illi diuidebant et easdem partes annos uocabant; quarum partium habet una quadratum senarium, eo quod sex diebus Deus perfecerit opera sua, ut in septimo requiesceret (de qua re in libro undecimo, sicut potui, disputaui); sexiens autem seni, qui numerus quadratum senarium facit, triginta sex dies sunt; qui multiplicati deciens ad trecentos sexaginta perueniunt, id est duodecim menses lunares. Propter quinque dies enim reliquos, quibus solaris annus inpletur, et diei quadrantem, propter quem quater ductum eo anno, quo bissextum uocant, unus dies adicitur, addebantur a ueteribus postea dies, ut occurreret numerus annorum, quos dies Romani intercalares uocabant. Proinde etiam Enos, quem genuit Seth, decem et nouem agebat annos, quando ex illo natus est filius eius Cainan, quos annos dicit scriptura centum nonaginta. Et deinceps per omnes generationes, in quibus hominum anni commemorantur ante diluuium, nullus fere in nostris codicibus inuenitur, qui, cum esset centum annorum uel infra uel etiam centum uiginti aut non multo amplius, genuerit filium; sed qui minima aetate genuerunt, centum sexaginta, et quod excurrit, fuisse referuntur; quia nemo, inquiunt, decem annorum homo potest gignere filios, qui numerus centum appellabantur anni ab illis hominibus; sed in annis sedecim est matura pubertas et proli iam idonea procreandae, quos centum et sexaginta annos illa tempora nuncupabant. Ut autem aliter annum tunc fuisse conputatum non sit incredibile, adiciunt quod aput plerosque scriptores historiae reperitur, Aegyptios habuisse annum quattuor mensum, Acarnanas sex mensum, Lauinios tredecim mensum. Plinius Secundus cum commemorasset relatum fuisse in litteras quendam uixisse centum quinquaginta duos ⟨annos⟩, aliam decem amplius, alios ducentorum annorum habuisse uitam, alios trecentorum, quosdam ad quingentos, alios ad sescentos, nonnullos ad octingentos etiam peruenisse, haec omnia inscitia temporum accidisse arbitratus est. ‘Alii quippe, inquit, aestate ⟨unum⟩ determinabant annum et alterum hieme, alii quadripertitis temporibus. sicut Arcades, inquit, quorum anni trimenstres fuerunt.’ Adiecit etiam aliquando Aegyptios, quorum paruos annos quaternorum mensum fuisse supra diximus, lunae fine limitasse annum. ‘Itaque aput eos, inquit, et singula milia annorum uixisse produntur.’ His uelut probabilibus argumentis quidam non destruentes fidem sacrae huius historiae, sed adstruere nitentes, ne sit incredibile quod tam multos annos uixisse referuntur antiqui, persuaserunt sibi, nec se suadere inpudenter existimant, tam exiguum spatium temporis tunc annum uocatum, ut illi decem’ sint unus noster et decem nostri centum illorum.

By these plausible arguments certain persons, with no desire to weaken the credit of this sacred history, but rather to facilitate belief in it by removing the difficulty of such incredible longevity, have been themselves persuaded, and think they act wisely in persuading others, that in these days the year was so brief that ten of their years equal but one of ours, while ten of ours equal 100 of theirs. But there is the plainest evidence to show that this is quite false. Before producing this evidence, however, it seems right to mention a conjecture which is yet more plausible. From the Hebrew manuscripts we could at once refute this confident statement; for in them Adam is found to have lived not 230 but 130 years before he begat his third son. If, then, this mean thirteen years by our ordinary computation, then he must have begotten his first son when he was only twelve or thereabouts. Who can at this age beget children according to the ordinary and familiar course of nature? But not to mention him, since it is possible he may have been able to beget his like as soon as he was created,—for it is not credible that he was created so little as our infants are,—not to mention him, his son was not 205 years old when he begot Enos, as our versions have it, but 105, and consequently, according to this idea, was not eleven years old. But what shall I say of his son Cainan, who, though by our version 170 years old, was by the Hebrew text seventy when he beget Mahalaleel? If seventy years in those times meant only seven of our years, what man of seven years old begets children?

Hoc autem esse falsissimum documento euidentissimo ostenditur. Quod antequam faciam, non mihi tacendum uidetur, quae credibilior possit esse suspicio. Poteramus certe hanc adseuerationem ex Hebraeis codicibus redarguere adque conuincere, ubi Adam non ducentorum tringinta, sed centum triginta annorum fuisse reperitur, quando tertium genuit filium; qui anni si tredecim nostri sunt, procul dubio, primum quando genuit, undecim uel non multo amplius annorum fuit. Quis potest hac aetate generare usitata ista nobisque notissima lege naturae? Sed hunc omittamus, qui fortasse etiam quando creatus est potuit; non enim eum tam paruum, quam infantes nostri sunt, factum fuisse credibile est. Seth filius eius non ducentorum quinque, sicut nos legimus, sed centum quinque fuit, quando genuit Enos; ac per hoc secundum istos nondum habebat undecim annos aetatis. Quid dicam de Cainan eius filio, qui cum aput nos centum septuaginta reperiatur, aput Hebraeos septuaginta legitur fuisse, quando genuit Maleleel? Quis generat homo septennis, si tunc anni septuaginta nuncupabantur qui septem fuerunt?. Ii

Chapter 13.—Whether, in Computing Years, We Ought to Follow the Hebrew or the Septuagint.

Caput XIII. An in dinumeratione annorum Hebraeorum magis quam septuaginta interpretum sit sequenda auctoritas.

But if I say this, I shall presently be answered, It is one of the Jews’ lies. This, however, we have disposed of above, showing that it cannot be that men of so just a reputation as the seventy translators should have falsified their version. However, if I ask them which of the two is more credible, that the Jewish nation, scattered far and wide, could have unanimously conspired to forge this lie, and so, through envying others the authority of their Scriptures, have deprived themselves of their verity; or that seventy men, who were also themselves Jews, shut up in one place (for Ptolemy king of Egypt had got them together for this work), should have envied foreign nations that same truth, and by common consent inserted these errors: who does not see which can be more naturally and readily believed? But far be it from any prudent man to believe either that the Jews, however malicious and wrong-headed, could have tampered with so many and so widely-dispersed manuscripts; or that those renowned seventy individuals had any common purpose to grudge the truth to the nations. One must therefore more plausibly maintain, that when first their labors began to be transcribed from the copy in Ptolemy’s library, some such misstatement might find its way into the first copy made, and from it might be disseminated far and wide; and that this might arise from no fraud, but from a mere copyist’s error. This is a sufficiently plausible account of the difficulty regarding Methuselah’s life, and of that other case in which there is a difference in the total of twenty-four years. But in those cases in which there is a methodical resemblance in the falsification, so that uniformly the one version allots to the period before a son and successor is born 100 years more than the other, and to the period subsequent 100 years less, and vice versâ, so that the totals may agree,—and this holds true of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh generations,—in these cases error seems to have, if we may say so, a certain kind of constancy, and savors not of accident, but of design.

Sed cum hoc dixero, continuo referetur illud Iudaeorum esse mendacium, de quo superius satis actum est; nam septuaginta interpretes laudabiliter celebratos uiros non potuisse mentiri. Ubi si quaeram, quid sit credibilius, Iudaeorum gentem tam longe lateque diffusam in hoc conscribendum mendacium uno consilio conspirare potuisse et, dum aliis inuident auctoritatem, sibi abstulisse ueritatem, an septuaginta homines, qui etiam ipsi Iudaei erant, uno in loco positos, quoniam rex Aegyptius Ptolomaeus eos ad hoc opus asciuerat, ipsam ueritatem gentibus alienigenis inuidisse et communicato istuc fecisse consilio: quis non uideat quid procliuius faciliusque credatur? Sed absit ut prudens quispiam uel Iudaeos cuiuslibet peruersitatis adque malitiae tantum potuisse credat in codicibus tam multis et tam longe lateque dispersis, uel septuaginta illos memorabiles uiros hoc de inuidenda gentibus so ueritate unum communicasse consilium. Credibilius ergo quis dixerit, cum primum de bibliotheca Ptolomaei describi ista coeperunt, tunc aliquid tale fieri potuisse in codice uno, sed primitus inde descripto, unde iam latius emanaret; ubi potuit quidem accidere etiam scriptoris error. Sed hoc in illa quae1! stione de uita Mathusalae non absurdum est suspicari, et in illo alio, ubi superantibus uiginti quattuor annis summa non conuenit. In his autem, in quibus continuatur ipsius mendositatis similitudo, ita ut ante genitum filium, qui ordini inseritur, alibi supersint centum anni, alibi desint; post genitum autem ubi deerant supersint, ubi supererant desint, ut summa conueniat; et hoc in prima, secunda, tertia, quarta, quinta, septima generatione inuenitur: uidetur habere quandam, si s dici potest, error ipse constantiam nec casum redolet, sed industriam. .

Accordingly, that diversity of numbers which distinguishes the Hebrew from the Greek and Latin copies of Scripture, and which consists of a uniform addition and deduction of 100 years in each lifetime for several consecutive generations, is to be attributed neither to the malice of the Jews nor to men so diligent and prudent as the seventy translators, but to the error of the copyist who was first allowed to transcribe the manuscript from the library of the above-mentioned king. For even now, in cases where numbers contribute nothing to the easier comprehension or more satisfactory knowledge of anything, they are both carelessly transcribed, and still more carelessly emended. For who will trouble himself to learn how many thousand men the several tribes of Israel contained? He sees no resulting benefit of such knowledge. Or how many men are there who are aware of the vast advantage that lies hid in this knowledge? But in this case, in which during so many consecutive generations 100 years are added in one manuscript where they are not reckoned in the other, and then, after the birth of the son and successor, the years which were wanting are added, it is obvious that the copyist who contrived this arrangement designed to insinuate that the antediluvians lived an excessive number of years only because each year was excessively brief, and that he tried to draw the attention to this fact by his statement of their age of puberty at which they became able to beget children. For, lest the incredulous might stumble at the difficulty of so long a lifetime, he insinuated that 100 of their years equalled but ten of ours; and this insinuation he conveyed by adding 100 years whenever he found the age below 160 years or thereabouts, deducting these years again from the period after the son’s birth, that the total might harmonize. By this means he intended to ascribe the generation of offspring to a fit age, without diminishing the total sum of years ascribed to the lifetime of the individuals. And the very fact that in the sixth generation he departed from this uniform practice, inclines us all the rather to believe that when the circumstance we have referred to required his alterations, he made them; seeing that when this circumstance did not exist, he made no alteration. For in the same generation he found in the Hebrew ms., that Jared lived before he begat Enoch 162 years, which, according to the short year computation, is sixteen years and somewhat less than two months, an age capable of procreation; and therefore it was not necessary to add 100 short years, and so make the age twenty-six years of the usual length; and of course it was not necessary to deduct, after the son’s birth, years which he had not added before it. And thus it comes to pass that in this instance there is no variation between the two manuscripts.

Itaque illa diuersitas numerorum aliter se habentium in codicibus Graecis et Latinis, aliter in Hebraeis, ubi non est ista de centum annis prius adbitis et postea detractis per tot generationes continuata parilitas, nec malitiae Iudaeorum nec diligentiae uel prudentiae septuaginta interpretum, sed scriptoris tribuatur eirori, qui de bibliotheca supradicti regis codicem describendum primus accepit. Nam etiam nunc, ubi numeri non faciunt intentum ad aliquid, quod facile possit intellegi uel quod appareat utiliter disci, et neglegenter describuntur et neglegentius emendantur. Quis enim sibi existimet esse discendum, quot milia hominum tribus Israel singillatim habere potuerunt? quoniam prodesse aliquid non putatur; et quotus quisque hominum est, cui profunditas utilitatis huius appareat? Hic uero, ubi per tot contextas generationes centum anni alibi adsunt, alibi desunt, et post natum, qui commemorandus fuerat, filium desunt ubi adfuerunt, adsunt ubi defuerunt, ut summa concordet: nimirum cum uellet persuadere, qui hoc fecit, ideo numerosissimos annos uixisse antiquos, quod eos breuissimos nuncupabant, et hoc de maturitate pubertatis, qua idonea filii gignerentur, conaretur ostendere, adque ideo in illis centum annis decem nostros insinuandos putaret incredulis, ne homines tamdiu uixisse recipere in fidem nollent, addidit centum, ubi gignendis filiis habilem ao non inuenit aetatem, eosdemque post genitos filios, ut congrueret summa, detraxit. Sic quippe uoluit credibiles facere idonearum generandae proli conuenientias aetatum, ut tamen numero non fraudaret uniuersas aetates uiuentium singulorum. & Quod autem id in sexta generatione non fecit, hoc ipsum est quod magis mouet ideo illum fecisse, cum res, quam dicimus, postulauit, quia non fecit, ubi non postulauit. Inuenit namque in eadem generatione aput Hebraeos uixisse Iared, antequam genuisset Enoch, centum sexaginta duos (aonos), qui secunłU dum illam rationem breuium annorum fiunt anni sedecim et aliquid minus quam menses duo; quae iam aetas apta est ad gignendum, et ideo addere centum annos breues, ut nostri uiginti sex fierent, necesse non fuit, nec post natum Enoch eos detrahere, quos non addiderat ante natum. Sic factum est ut hic nulla esset inter codices utrosque uarietas.

This is corroborated still further by the fact that in the eighth generation, while the Hebrew books assign 182 years to Methuselah before Lamech’s birth, ours assign to him twenty less, though usually 100 years are added to this period; then, after Lamech’s birth, the twenty years are restored, so as to equalize the total in the two books. For if his design was that these 170 years be understood as seventeen, so as to suit the age of puberty, as there was no need for him adding anything, so there was none for his subtracting anything; for in this case he found an age fit for the generation of children, for the sake of which he was in the habit of adding those 100 years in cases where he did not find the age already sufficient. This difference of twenty years we might, indeed, have supposed had happened accidentally, had he not taken care to restore them afterwards as he had deducted them from the period before, so that there might be no deficiency in the total. Or are we perhaps to suppose that there was the still more astute design of concealing the deliberate and uniform addition of 100 years to the first period and their deduction from the subsequent period—did he design to conceal this by doing something similar, that is to say, adding and deducting, not indeed a century, but some years, even in a case in which there was no need for his doing so? But whatever may be thought of this, whether it be believed that he did so or not, whether, in fine, it be so or not, I would have no manner of doubt that when any diversity is found in the books, since both cannot be true to fact, we do well to believe in preference that language out of which the translation was made into another by translators. For there are three Greek mss., one Latin, and one Syriac, which agree with one another, and in all of these Methuselah is said to have died six years before the deluge.

Sed rursus mouet, quur in octaua generatione, antequam de Mathusalam nasceretur Lamech, cum aput Hebraeos legantur centum octoginta duo anni, uiginti minus inueniuntur in codicibus nostris, ubi potius addi centum solent, et post genitum Lamech conplendam restituuntur ad summam, quae in codicibus utrisque non discrepat. Si enim centum septuaginta annos propter pubertatis maturitatem decem et septem uolebat intellegi, sicut nihil addere, ita nihil detrahere iam debebat, quia inuenerat aetatem idoneam generationi filiorum, propter quam in aliis centum illos annos, ubi eam non inueniebat, addebat. Hoc autem de uiginti annis merito putaremus casu mendositatis accidere potuisse, nisi eos, sicut prius detraxerat, restitaere postea curaret, ut summae conueniret integritas. An forte astutius factum existimandum est, ut illa, qua centum anni prius solent adici et postea detrahi, occultaretur industria, cum et illic, ubi necesse non fuerat, non quidem de centum annis, uerum tamen de quantulocumque numero prius detracto, post reddito, tale aliquid fieret? Sed quomodolibet istuc accipiatur, siue credatur ita esse factum siue non credatur, siue postremo ita siue non ita sit: recte fieri nullo modo dubitauerim, ut, cum diuersum aliquid in utrisque codicibus inuenitur, quando quidem ad fidem rerum gestarum utrumque esse non potest uerum, ei linguae potius credatur, unde est in aliam per interpretes facta translatio. Nam in quibusdam etiam codicibus Graecis tribus et uno Latino et uno etiam Syro inter se consentientibus inuentus est Mathusalam sex annis ante diluuium fuisse defunctus. u