--- title: "City of God · De civitate Dei" author: "Augustine" translator: "Marcus Dods" languages: [la, en] shelf: "Church Fathers" section: 76 of 116 url: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/76/ cite: "Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods, City of God · De civitate Dei, section 76. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/76/" --- # City of God · De civitate Dei *Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods* “Two loves have made two cities.” Augustine’s Latin, in Hoffmann’s critical text, beside Dods’s English, chapter by chapter. > Latin: Augustine, De civitate Dei, ed. Emanuel Hoffmann, CSEL 40 (Vienna: Tempsky, 1899–1900), as encoded by the Open Greek and Latin project, University of Leipzig (stoa0040.stoa003.opp-lat3, CC BY-SA 4.0); apparatus omitted. > English: Marcus Dods, The City of God (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, vol. 2, 1887). > Chapters are matched one to one except where the two editions divide them differently; within a chapter the Latin sentences are shared out over the English paragraphs by position. ## 76. Whether We are to Believe in the Antipodes. Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/76/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/76/#p-N [¶0] Chapter 9.—Whether We are to Believe in the Antipodes. > Latin: Caput IX. An inferiorem partem terrae; quae nostrae habitationi contraria est, antipodas habere credendum sit. [¶1] But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part which is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled. For Scripture, which proves the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false information; and it is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man. Wherefore let us seek if we can find the city of God that sojourns on earth among those human races who are catalogued as having been divided into seventy-two nations and as many languages. For it continued down to the deluge and the ark, and is proved to have existed still among the sons of Noah by their blessings, and chiefly in the eldest son Shem; for Japheth received this blessing, that he should dwell in the tents of Shem. > Latin: Quod uero et antipodas esse fabulantur, id est homines a contraria parte terrae, ubi sol oritur, quando occidit nobis, aduersa pedibus nostris calcare uestigia, nulla ratione credendum est. Neque hoc ulla historica cognitione didicisse se adfirmant, sed quasi ratiocinando coniectant, eo quod intra conuexa caeli terra suspensa sit, eundemque locum mundus habeat et infimum et medium; et ex hoc opinantur alteram terrae partem, quae infra est, habitatione hominum carere non posse. Nec adtendunt, etiamsi figura conglobata et rutunda mundus esse credatur siue aliqua ratione monstretur, non tamen esse consequens, ut etiam ex illa parte ab aquarum congerie nuda sit terra; deinde etiamsi nuda sit, neque hoc statim necesse esse, ut homines habeat. Quoniam nullo modo scriptura ista mentitur, quae narratis praeteritis facit fidem eo, quod eius praedicta conplentur, nimisque absurdum est, ut dicatur aliquos homines ex hac in illam partem, Oceani inmensitate traiecta, nauigare ac peruenire potuisse, ut etiam illic ex uno illo primo homine genus institueretur humanum. Quapropter inter illos tunc hominum populos, qui per septuaginta duas gentes et totidem linguas colliguntur fuisse diuisi, quaeramus, si possumus inuenire, illam in terris peregrinantem ciuitatem Dei, quae usque ad diluuium arcamque perducta est adque in filiis Noe per eorum benedictiones perseuerasse monstratur, maxime in maximo, qui est appellatus Sem, quando quidem Iapheth ita benedictus est, ut in eius, fratris sui, domibus habitaret. ### Of the Genealogy of Shem, in Whose Line the City of God is Preserved Till the Time of Abraham. [¶3] Chapter 10.—Of the Genealogy of Shem, in Whose Line the City of God is Preserved Till the Time of Abraham. > Latin: Caput X. De generatione Sem, in cuius progenie tendens ad Abraham ciuitatis Dei ordo dirigitur. [¶4] It is necessary, therefore, to preserve the series of generations descending from Shem, for the sake of exhibiting the city of God after the flood; as before the flood it was exhibited in the series of generations descending from Seth. And therefore does divine Scripture, after exhibiting the earthly city as Babylon or “Confusion,” revert to the patriarch Shem, and recapitulate the generations from him to Abraham, specifying besides, the year in which each father begat the son that belonged to this line, and how long he lived. And unquestionably it is this which fulfills the promise I made, that it should appear why it is said of the sons of Heber, “The name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided.” For what can we understand by the division of the earth, if not the diversity of languages? And, therefore, omitting the other sons of Shem, who are not concerned in this matter, Scripture gives the genealogy of those by whom the line runs on to Abraham, as before the flood those are given who carried on the line to Noah from Seth. Accordingly this series of generations begins thus: “These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood. And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.” In like manner it registers the rest, naming the year of his life in which each begat the son who belonged to that line which extends to Abraham. It specifies, too, how many years he lived thereafter, begetting sons and daughters, that we may not childishly suppose that the men named were the only men, but may understand how the population increased, and how regions and kingdoms so vast could be populated by the descendants of Shem; especially the kingdom of Assyria, from which Ninus subdued the surrounding nations, reigning with brilliant prosperity, and bequeathing to his descendants a vast but thoroughly consolidated empire, which held together for many centuries. > Latin: Tenenda est igitur series generationum ab ipso Sem, ut ipsa ostendat post diluuium ciuitatem Dei. sicut eam series generationum ab illo, qui est appellatus Seth, ostendebat ante diluuium. Propter hoc ergo scriptura diuina cum terrenam ciuitatem in Babylone, hoc est in confusione, monstrasset, ad patriarcham Sem recapitulando reuertitur et orditur inde generationes usque ad Abraham, commemorato etiam numero annorum, quanto quisque ad hanc seriem pertinentem filium genuisset quantoque uixisset. Ubi certe agnoscendum est, quod ante promiseram, ut appareat quare sit dictum de filiis Heber: Nomen unius Phalech, quia in diebus eius diuisa est terra. Quid enim aliud intellegendum est terram esse diuisam nisi diuersitate linguarum? Omissis igitur ceteris filiis Sem ad hanc rem non pertinentibus illi conectuntur in ordine generationum, per quos possit ad Abraham perueniri; sicut illi conectebantur ante diluuium, per quos ueniretur ad Noe generationibus, quae propagatae sunt ex illo Adam filio, qui est appellatus Seth. Sic ergo incipit generationum ista contextio: Et hae generationes Sem. Sem filius centum annorum, cum genuit Arphaxat, secundo anno post diluuium. Et uixit Sem, postquam genuit Arphaxat, quingentos annos et genuit filios et filias et mortuus est. Sic exsequitur ceteros dicens, quoto quisque anno uitae suae filium genuerit ad istum generationum ordinem pertinentem, qui pertendit ad Abraham, et quot annos postmodum uixerit, intimans eum filios filiasque genuisse; ut intellegamus unde potuerint populi adcrescere, ne in paucis qui commemorantur hominibus occupati pueriliter haesitemus, unde tanta spatia terrarum adque regnorum repleri potuerint de genere Sem, maxime propter Assyriorum regnum; unde Ninus ille Orientalium domitor usquequaque populorum ingenti prosperitate regnauit et latissimum ac fundatissimum regnum, quod diuturno tempore duceretur, suis posteris propagauit. [¶5] But to avoid needless prolixity, we shall mention not the number of years each member of this series lived, but only the year of his life in which he begat his heir, that we may thus reckon the number of years from the flood to Abraham, and may at the same time leave room to touch briefly and cursorily upon some other matters necessary to our argument. In the second year, then, after the flood, Shem when he was a hundred years old begat Arphaxad; Arphaxad when he was 135 years old begat Cainan; Cainan when he was 130 years begat Salah. Salah himself, too, was the same age when he begat Eber. Eber lived 134 years, and begat Peleg, in whose days the earth was divided. Peleg himself lived 130 years, and begat Reu; and Reu lived 132 years, and begat Serug; Serug 130, and begat Nahor; and Nahor 79, and begat Terah; and Terah 70, and begat Abram, whose name God afterwards changed into Abraham. There are thus from the flood to Abraham 1072 years, according to the Vulgate or Septuagint versions. In the Hebrew copies far fewer years are given; and for this either no reason or a not very credible one is given. > Latin: Sed nos, ne diutius quam opus est inmoremur, non quot annos quisque in ista generationum serie uixerit, sed quoto anno uitae suae genuerit filium, hoc ordine memorandum tantummodo ponimus, ut et numerum annorum a transacto diluuio usque ad Abraham colligamus et propter illa, in quibus nos cogit necessitas inmorari, breuiter alia cursimque >’ tangamus. Secundo igitur anno post diluuium Sem genuit Arphaxat; Arphaxat autem, cum esset centum triginta quinque ⟨annorum⟩, genuit Cainan; qui cum esset centum triginta. genuit Sala; porro etiam ipse Sala totidem annorum erat. quando genuit Heber; centum uero et triginta et quattuor agebat annos Heber, cum genuit Phalech, in cuius diebus diuisa est terra; ipse autem Phalech uixit centum triginta, et genuit Ragau; et Ragau centum triginta duo, et genuit Seruch; et Seruch centum triginta, et genuit Nachor; et Nachor septuaginta nouem, et genuit Thara; Thara autem septuaginta, et genuit Abram; quem postea Deus mutato uocabulo nominauit Abraham. Fiunt itaque anni a diluuio usque ad Abraham mille septuaginta et duo secundum uulgatam editionem, hoc est interpretum septuaginta. [¶6] When, therefore, we look for the city of God in these seventy-two nations, we cannot affirm that while they had but one lip, that is, one language, the human race had departed from the worship of the true God, and that genuine godliness had survived only in those generations which descend from Shem through Arphaxad and reach to Abraham; but from the time when they proudly built a tower to heaven, a symbol of godless exaltation, the city or society of the wicked becomes apparent. Whether it was only disguised before, or non-existent; whether both cities remained after the flood,—the godly in the two sons of Noah who were blessed, and in their posterity, and the ungodly in the cursed son and his descendants, from whom sprang that mighty hunter against the Lord,—is not easily determined. For possibly—and certainly this is more credible—there were despisers of God among the descendants of the two sons, even before Babylon was founded, and worshippers of God among the descendants of Ham. Certainly neither race was ever obliterated from earth. For in both the Psalms in which it is said, “They are all gone aside, they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one,” we read further, “Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord.” There was then a people of God even at that time. And therefore the words, “There is none that doeth good, no, not one,” were said of the sons of men, not of the sons of God. For it had been previously said, “God looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if any understood and sought after God;” and then follow the words which demonstrate that all the sons of men, that is, all who belong to the city which lives according to man, not according to God, are reprobate. > Latin: Iu Hebraeis autem codicibus longe pauciores annos perhibent inueniri, de quibus rationem aut nullam aut difficillimam reddunt. Cum ergo quaerimus in illis septuaginta duabus gentibus ciuitatem Dei, non possumus adfirmare illo tempore, quo erat eis labium unum, id est loquella una, tunc iam genus humanum alienatum fuisse a cultu ueri Dei, ita ut in solis istis generationibus pietas uera remaneret, quae descendunt de semine Sem per Arphaxat et tendunt ad Abraham; sed ab illa superbia aedificandae turris usque in caelum, qua inpia significatur elatio, apparuit ciuitas, hoc est societas, inpiorum. Utrum itaque ante non fuerit an latuerit, an potius utraque permanserit, pia scilicet in duobus filiis Noe, qui benedicti sunt, eorumque posteris; inpia uero in eo, qui maledictus est, adque eius progenie, ubi etiam exortus est gigans uenator contra Dominum, non est diiudicatio facilis. Fortassis enim, quod profecto est credibilius, et in filiis duorum illorum iam tunc, antequam Babylonia coepisset institui, fuerunt contemtores Dei, et in filiis Cham cultores Dei; utrumque tamen hominum genus terris numquam defuisse credendum est. Si quidem et quando dictum est: Omnes declinauerunt, simul inutiles facti sunt; non est quifaciatbonum, non est usque ad unum, in utroque psalmo, ubi haec uerba sunt, et hoc legitur: Nonne cognoscent omnes, qui operantur iniquitatem, qui deuorant populum meum in cibo panis? Erat ergo etiam tunc populus Dei. Unde illud, quod dictum est: Non est qui faciat bonum, non est usque ad unum, de filiis hominum dictum est, non de filiis Dei. Nam praemissum est: Deus de caelo prospexit super filios hominum, ut uideret si est intellegens aut requirens Deum, ac deinde illa subiuncta, quae omnes filios hominum, id est, ad ciuitatem pertinentes, quae uiuit secundum hominem, non secundum Deum, reprobos esse demonstrant. ### That the Original Language in Use Among Men Was that Which Was Afterwards Called Hebrew, from Heber, in Whose Family It Was Preserved When the Confusion of Tongues Occurred. [¶8] Chapter 11.—That the Original Language in Use Among Men Was that Which Was Afterwards Called Hebrew, from Heber, in Whose Family It Was Preserved When the Confusion of Tongues Occurred. > Latin: Caput XI. Quod ea primitus lingua in usu hominum fuerit, quae postea Hebraea ab Heber nomine nuncupata est, et in cuius familia remansit, cum diuersitas esset facta linguarum. [¶9] Wherefore, as the fact of all using one language did not secure the absence of sin-infected men from the race,—for even before the deluge there was one language, and yet all but the single family of just Noah were found worthy of destruction by the flood,—so when the nations, by a prouder godlessness, earned the punishment of the dispersion and the confusion of tongues, and the city of the godless was called Confusion or Babylon, there was still the house of Heber in which the primitive language of the race survived. And therefore, as I have already mentioned, when an enumeration is made of the sons of Shem, who each founded a nation, Heber is first mentioned, although he was of the fifth generation from Shem. And because, when the other races were divided by their own peculiar languages, his family preserved that language which is not unreasonably believed to have been the common language of the race, it was on this account thenceforth named Hebrew. For it then became necessary to distinguish this language from the rest by a proper name; though, while there was only one, it had no other name than the language of man, or human speech, it alone being spoken by the whole human race. Some one will say: If the earth was divided by languages in the days of Peleg, Heber’s son, that language, which was formerly common to all, should rather have been called after Peleg. But we are to understand that Heber himself gave to his son this name Peleg, which means Division; because he was born when the earth was divided, that is, at the very time of the division, and that this is the meaning of the words, “In his days the earth was divided.” For unless Heber had been still alive when the languages were multiplied, the language which was preserved in his house would not have been called after him. We are induced to believe that this was the primitive and common language, because the multiplication and change of languages was introduced as a punishment, and it is fit to ascribe to the people of God an immunity from this punishment. Nor is it without significance that this is the language which Abraham retained, and that he could not transmit it to all his descendants, but only to those of Jacob’s line, who distinctively and eminently constituted God’s people, and received His covenants, and were Christ’s progenitors according to the flesh. In the same way, Heber himself did not transmit that language to all his posterity, but only to the line from which Abraham sprang. And thus, although it is not expressly stated, that when the wicked were building Babylon there was a godly seed remaining, this indistinctness is intended to stimulate research rather than to elude it. For when we see that originally there was one common language, and that Heber is mentioned before all Shem’s sons, though he belonged to the fifth generation from him, and that the language which the patriarchs and prophets used, not only in their conversation, but in the authoritative language of Scripture, is called Hebrew, when we are asked where that primitive and common language was preserved after the confusion of tongues, certainly, as there can be no doubt that those among whom it was preserved were exempt from the punishment it embodied, what other suggestion can we make, than that it survived in the family of him whose name it took, and that this is no small proof of the righteousness of this family, that the punishment with which the other families were visited did not fall upon it? > Latin: Quam ob rem sicut lingua una cum esset omnium, non ideo filii pestilentiae defuerunt (nam et ante diluuium una erat lingua, et tamen omnes praeter unam Noe iusti domum deleri diluuio meruerunt): ita, quando merito elatioris inpietatis gentes linguarum diuersitate punitae adque diuisae sunt et ciuitas inpiorum confusionis nomen accepit, hoc est, appellata est Babylon, non defuit domus Heber, ubi ea quae antea fuit omnium lingua remaneret. Unde, sicut supra memoraui, cum coepissent enumerari filii Sem, qui singuli gentes singulas procrearunt, primus est commendatus Heber, cum sit abnepos ipsius, hoc est ab illo quintus inueniatur exortus. Quia ergo in eius familia remansit haec lingua, diuisis per alias linguas ceteris gentibus, quae lingua prius humano generi non inmerito creditur fuisse communis, ideo deinceps Hebraea est nuncupata. Tunc enim opus erat eam distingui ab aliis linguis nomine proprio, sicut aliae quoque uocatae sunt nominibus propriis. Quando autem erat una, nihil aliud quam humana lingua uel humana locutio uocabatur, qua sola uniuersum genus humanum loquebatur. Dixerit aliquis: Si in diebus Phalech filii Heber diuisa est terra per linguas, id est homines, qui tunc erant in terra, ex eius nomine potius debuit appellari lingua illa, quae fuit omnibus ante communis. Sed intellegendum est ipsum Heber propterea tale nomen inposuisse filio suo, ut uocaretur Phalech, quod interpretatur diuisio, quia tunc ei natus est, quando per linguas terra diuisa est, id est ipso tempore, ut hoc sit quod dictum est: In diebus eius diuisa est terra. Nam nisi adhuc Heber uiueret quando linguarum facta est multitudo, non ex eius nomine nomen acciperet lingua, quae aput illum potuit permanere. Et ideo credenda est ipsa fuisse prima illa communis, quoniam de poena uenit illa multiplicatio mutatioque linguarum et utique praeter hanc poenam esse debuit populus Dei. Nec frustra lingua haec est, quam tenuit Abraham, nec in omnes suos filios transmittere potuit, sed in eos tantum, qui propagati per Tacob et insignius adque eminentius in Dei populum coalescentes Dei testamenta et stirpem Christi habere potuerunt. Nec Heber ipse eandem linguam in uniuersam progeniem suam refudit, sed in eam tantum, cuius generationes perducuntur ad Abraham. Quapropter etiamsi non euidenter expressum est fuisse aliquod pium genus hominum, quando ab inpiis Babylonia condebatur, non ad hoc ualuit haec obscuritas, ut quaerentis fraudaretur, sed potius ut exerceretur intentio. Cum enim legitur unam fuisse linguam primitus omnium et ante omnes filios Sem commendatur Heber, quamuis ex illo quintus oriatur, et Hebraea uocatur lingua, quam patriarcharum et prophetarum non solum in sermonibus suis, uerum etiam in litteris sacris custodiuit auctoritas: profecto, cum quaeritur in diuisione linguarum, ubi lingua illa remanere potuerit, quae fuit ante communis (quae sine ulla dubitatione ubi remansit, non ibi fuit illa poena, quae facta est mutatione linguarum), quid aliud occurrit, nisi quod in huius gente remanserit, a cuius nomine nomen accepit, et hoc iustitiae gentis huius non paruum apparuisse uestigium, quod, cum aliae gentes plecterentur mutatione linguarum, ad istam non peruenit tale supplicium ? [¶10] But yet another question is mooted: How did Heber and his son Peleg each found a nation, if they had but one language? For no doubt the Hebrew nation propagated from Heber through Abraham, and becoming through him a great people, is one nation. How, then, are all the sons of the three branches of Noah’s family enumerated as founding a nation each, if Heber and Peleg did not so? It is very probable that the giant Nimrod founded also his nation, and that Scripture has named him separately on account of the extraordinary dimensions of his empire and of his body, so that the number of seventy-two nations remains. But Peleg was mentioned, not because he founded a nation (for his race and language are Hebrew), but on account of the critical time at which he was born, all the earth being then divided. Nor ought we to be surprised that the giant Nimrod lived to the time in which Babylon was founded and the confusion of tongues occurred, and the consequent division of the earth. For though Heber was in the sixth generation from Noah, and Nimrod in the fourth, it does not follow that they could not be alive at the same time. For when the generations are few, they live longer and are born later; but when they are many, they live a shorter time, and come into the world earlier. We are to understand that, when the earth was divided, the descendants of Noah who are registered as founders of nations were not only already born, but were of an age to have immense families, worthy to be called tribes or nations. And therefore we must by no means suppose that they were born in the order in which they were set down; otherwise, how could the twelve sons of Joktan, another son of Heber’s, and brother of Peleg, have already founded nations, if Joktan was born, as he is registered, after his brother Peleg, since the earth was divided at Peleg’s birth? We are therefore to understand that, though Peleg is named first, he was born long after Joktan, whose twelve sons had already families so large as to admit of their being divided by different languages. There is nothing extraordinary in the last born being first named: of the sons of Noah, the descendants of Japheth are first named; then the sons of Ham, who was the second son; and last the sons of Shem, who was the first and oldest. Of these nations the names have partly survived, so that at this day we can see from whom they have sprung, as the Assyrians from Assur, the Hebrews from Heber, but partly have been altered in the lapse of time, so that the most learned men, by profound research in ancient records, have scarcely been able to discover the origin, I do not say of all, but of some of these nations. There is, for example, nothing in the name Egyptians to show that they are descended from Misraim, Ham’s son, nor in the name Ethiopians to show a connection with Cush, though such is said to be the origin of these nations. And if we take a general survey of the names, we shall find that more have been changed than have remained the same. > Latin: Sed adhuc illud mouet, quo modo potuerunt singulas gentes facere Heber et filius eius Phalech, si una lingua permansit ambobus. Et certe una est Hebraea gens ex Heber propagata usque ad Abraham et per eum deinceps, donec magnus fieret populus Israel. Quo modo igitur omnes filii, qui commemorati sunt, trium filiorum Noe fecerunt singulas gentes, si Heber et Phalech singulas non fecerunt? Nimirum illud est probabilius, quod gigans ille Nebroth fecerit etiam ipse gentem suam, sed propter excellentiam dominationis et corporis seorsum eminentius nominatus est, ut maneat numerus septuaginta duarum gentium adque linguarum. Phalech autem propterea commemoratus est, non quod gentem fecerit (nam eadem ipsa est eius gens Hebraea eademque lingua), sed propter tempus insigne, quod in diebus eius terra diuisa sit. Nec mouere nos debet, quo modo potuerit gigans Nebroth ad illud aetatis occurrere, quo Babylon condita est et confusio facta linguarum adque ex hoc diuisio gentium. Non enim quia Heber sextus est a Noe, ille autem quartus, ideo non potuerunt ad idem tempus conuenire uiuendo. Hoc enim contigit, cum plus uiuerent ubi pauciores sunt generationes, minus ubi plures; aut serius nati essent ubi pauciores, maturius ubi plures. Sane intellegendum est, quando terra diuisa est, non solum iam natos ceteros filios filiorum Noe, qui commemorantur patres gentium. sed etiam eius aetatis fuisse, ut numerosas familias haberent, quae dignae fuissent nominibus gentium. Unde nequaquam putandum, quod eo fuerint ordine geniti, quo commemorati leguntur. Alioquin duodecim filii Iectan, qui erat alius filius Heber, frater Phalech, quo modo potuerunt iam gentes facere, si post Phalech fratrem suum Iectan natus est, sicut post eum commemoratus est; quando quidem tempore, quo natus est Phalech, diuisa est terra. Proinde intellegendum est priorem quidem nominatum, sed longe post fratrem suum Iectan fuisse natum, cuius Iectan duodecim filii tam grandes iam familias haberent, ut in linguas proprias diuidi possent. Sic enim potuit prior commemorari, qui erat aetate posterior, quem ad modum prius commemorati sunt ex tribus filiis Noe procreati filii Iapheth, qui erat minimus eorum; deinde filii Cham, qui erat medius; postremo filii Sem, qui erat primus et maximus. Illarum autem gentium uocabula partim manserunt, ita ut hodieque appareat unde fuerint deriuata, sicut ex Assur Assyrii et ex Heber Hebraei; partim temporis uetustate mutata sunt. ita ut uix homines doctissimi antiquissimas historias perscrutantes, nec omnium, sed aliquarum ex istis origines gentium potuerint reperire. Nam quod ex filio Cham, qui uocabatur Mesraim, Aegyptii perhibentur exorti, nulla hic resonat origo uocabuli; sicut nec Aethiopum, qui dicuntur ad eum filium Cham pertinere, qui Chus appellatus est. Et si omnia considerentur, plura mutata quam manentia nomina apparent. ### Of the Era in Abraham’s Life from Which a New Period in the Holy Succession Begins. [¶12] Chapter 12.—Of the Era in Abraham’s Life from Which a New Period in the Holy Succession Begins. > Latin: Caput XII. De articulo temporis in Abraham, a quo sanctae successionis nouus ordo contexitur. [¶13] Let us now survey the progress of the city of God from the era of the patriarch Abraham, from whose time it begins to be more conspicuous, and the divine promises which are now fulfilled in Christ are more fully revealed. We learn, then, from the intimations of holy Scripture, that Abraham was born in the country of the Chaldeans, a land belonging to the Assyrian empire. Now, even at that time impious superstitions were rife with the Chaldeans, as with other nations. The family of Terah, to which Abraham belonged, was the only one in which the worship of the true God survived, and the only one, we may suppose, in which the Hebrew language was preserved; although Joshua the son of Nun tells us that even this family served other gods in Mesopotamia. The other descendants of Heber gradually became absorbed in other races and other languages. And thus, as the single family of Noah was preserved through the deluge of water to renew the human race, so, in the deluge of superstition that flooded the whole world, there remained but the one family of Terah in which the seed of God’s city was preserved. And as, when Scripture has enumerated the generations prior to Noah, with their ages, and explained the cause of the flood before God began to speak to Noah about the building of the ark, it is said, “These are the generations of Noah;” so also now, after enumerating the generations from Shem, Noah’s son, down to Abraham, it then signalizes an era by saying, “These are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot. And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor’s wife Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.” This Iscah is supposed to be the same as Sarah, Abraham’s wife. > Latin: Nunc iam uideamus procursum ciuitatis Dei etiam ab illo articulo temporis, qui factus est in patre Abraham, unde incipit esse notitia eius euidentior, et ubi clariora leguntur promissa diuina, quae nunc in Christo uidemus inpleri. Sicut ergo scriptura sancta indicante didicimus, in regione Chaldaeorum natus est Abraham, quae terra ad regnum Assyrium pertinebat. Aput Chaldaeos autem iam etiam tunc superstitiones inpiae praeualebant, quem ad modum per ceteras gentes. Una igitur Tharae domus erat, de quo natus est Abraham, in qua unius ueri Dei cultus et, quantum credibile est, in qua iam sola etiam Hebraea lingua remanserat (quamuis et ipse. sicut iam manifestior Dei populus in Aegypto, ita in Mesopotamia seruisse dis alienis Iesu Naue narrante referatur) ceteris ex progenie illius Heber in linguas paulatim alias et in nationes alias defluentibus. Proinde sicut per aquarum diluuium una domus Noe remanserat ad reparandum genus humanum, sic in diluuio multarum superstitionum per uniuersum mundum una remanserat domus Tharae, in qua custodita est plantatio ciuitatis Dei. Denique sicut illic enumeratis supra generationibus usque ad Noe simul cum annorum numeris et exposita diluuii causa, priusquam Deus inciperet de arca fabricanda loqui ad Noe, dicitur: Hae autem generationes Noe: ita et hic enumeratis generationibus ab illo, qui est appellatus Sem, filio Noe, usque ad Abraham, deinde insignis articulus similiter ponitur ut dicatur: Hae sunt generationes Tharae. Tharagenuit Abram et Nachor et Arran, et Arran genuit Loth. Et mortuus est Arran coram Thara patre suo in terra in qua natus est, in regione Chaldaeorum. Et sumsit Abram et Nachor sibi uxores; nomen mulieris Abram Sara et nomen mulieris Nachor Melcha, filia Arran. Iste Arran pater Melchae fuit et pater Iescae, quae Iesca creditur ipsa esse etiam Sarra uxor Abrahae. ### Why, in the Account of Terah’s Emigration, on His Forsaking the Chaldeans and Passing Over into Mesopotamia, No Mention is Made of His Son Nahor. [¶15] Chapter 13.—Why, in the Account of Terah’s Emigration, on His Forsaking the Chaldeans and Passing Over into Mesopotamia, No Mention is Made of His Son Nahor. > Latin: Caput XIII. Quae ratio fecisse uideatur, ut in transmigratione Tharae, qua Chaldaeos deserens in Mesopotamiam transiit. nulla filii eius Nachor facta sit mentio. [¶16] Next it is related how Terah with his family left the region of the Chaldeans and came into Mesopotamia, and dwelt in Haran. But nothing is said about one of his sons called Nahor, as if he had not taken him along with him. For the narrative runs thus: “And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran, his son’s son, and Sarah his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife, and led them forth out of the region of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan; and he came into Haran, and dwelt there.” Nahor and Milcah his wife are nowhere named here. But afterwards, when Abraham sent his servant to take a wife for his son Isaac, we find it thus written: “And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his lord, and of all the goods of his lord, with him; and arose, and went into Mesopotamia, into the city of Nahor.” This and other testimonies of this sacred history show that Nahor, Abraham’s brother, had also left the region of the Chaldeans, and fixed his abode in Mesopotamia, where Abraham dwelt with his father. Why, then, did the Scripture not mention him, when Terah with his family went forth out of the Chaldean nation and dwelt in Haran, since it mentions that he took with him not only Abraham his son, but also Sarah his daughter-in-law, and Lot his grandson? The only reason we can think of is, that perhaps he had lapsed from the piety of his father and brother, and adhered to the superstition of the Chaldeans, and had afterwards emigrated thence, either through penitence, or because he was persecuted as a suspected person. For in the book called Judith, when Holofernes, the enemy of the Israelites, inquired what kind of nation that might be, and whether war should be made against them, Achior, the leader of the Ammonites, answered him thus: “Let our lord now hear a word from the mouth of thy servant, and I will declare unto thee the truth concerning the people which dwelleth near thee in this hill country, and there shall no lie come out of the mouth of thy servant. For this people is descended from the Chaldeans, and they dwelt heretofore in Mesopotamia, because they would not follow the gods of their fathers, which were glorious in the land of the Chaldeans, but went out of the way of their ancestors, and adored the God of heaven, whom they knew; and they cast them out from the face of their gods, and they fled into Mesopotamia, and dwelt there many days. And their God said to them, that they should depart from their habitation, and go into the land of Canaan; and they dwelt,” etc., as Achior the Ammonite narrates. Whence it is manifest that the house of Terah had suffered persecution from the Chaldeans for the true piety with which they worshipped the one and true God. > Latin: Deinde narratur quem ad modum Thara cum suis regionem reliquerit Chaldaeorum et uenerit in Mesopotamiam et habitauerit in Charra. Tacetur autem de uno eius filio, qui uocabatur Nachor, tamquam eum non duxerit secum. Nam ita narratur: Et sumsit Thara Abram filium suum et Loth filium Arran, filium filii sui, et Saram nurum suam uxorem Abram filii sui, et eduxit illos de regione Chaldaeorum ire in terram Chanaan; et uenit in Charran et habitauit ibi. Nusquam hic nominatus est Nachor et uxor eius Melcha. Sed inuenimus postea, cum seruum suum mitteret Abraham ad accipiendam uxorem filio suo Isaac, ita scriptum: Et accepit puer decem camelos de camelis domini sui et de omnibus bonis domini sui secum, et exsurgens profectus est in Mesopotamiam in ciuitatem Nachor. Isto et aliis sacrae huius historiae testimoniis ostenditur etiam Nachor frater Abrahae exisse de regione Chaldaeorum sedesque constituisse in Mesopotamia, ubi cum patre suo habitauerat Abraham. Quur ergo eum scriptura non commemorauit, quando ex gente Chaldaea cum suis profectus est Thara et habitauit in Mesopotamia; ubi non solum Abraham filius eius, uerum etiam Sarra nurus et Loth nepos eius commemorantur, quod eos duxerit secum? Quur, putamus, nisi forte quod a paterna et fraterna pietate desciuerat et superstitioni adhaeserat Chaldaeorum et postea inde siue paenitendo siue persecutionem passus, quod suspectus haberetur, et ipse emigrauit? In libro enim qui inscribitur Iudith, cum quaereret Holofernes, hostis Israelitarum, quaenam illa gens esset, utrum aduersus eam bellandum fuisset, sic ei respondit Achior dux Ammanitarum: Audiat dominus noster uerbum de ore pueri sui, et referam tibi ueritatem de populo, qui habitat iuxta te montanam hanc, et non exibit mendacium de ore serui tui. Haec enim progenies populi est Chaldaeorum, et antea habitauerunt Mesopotamiam, quia noluerunt sequi deos patrum suorum, qui fuerunt in terra Chaldaeorum gloriosi, sed declinauerunt de uia parentum suorum et adorauerunt Deum caeli, quem cognouerunt, et proiecerunt eos a facie deorum suorum et fugerunt Mesopotamiam et habitauerunt ibi dies multos. Dixitque illis Deus eorum, ut exirent de habitatione sua et irent in terram Chanaan, et illic habitauerunt, et cetera, quae narrat Achior Ammanites. Unde manifestum est domum Tharae persecutionem passam fuisse a Chaldaeis pro uera pietate, qua unus et uerus ab eis colebatur Deus. ### Of the Years of Terah, Who Completed His Lifetime in Haran. [¶18] Chapter 14.—Of the Years of Terah, Who Completed His Lifetime in Haran. > Latin: Caput XIV. De annis Tharae, qui in Charra uitae suae tempus inpleuit. [¶19] On Terah’s death in Mesopotamia, where he is said to have lived 205 years, the promises of God made to Abraham now begin to be pointed out; for thus it is written: “And the days of Terah in Haran were two hundred and five years, and he died in Haran.” This is not to be taken as if he had spent all his days there, but that he there completed the days of his life, which were two hundred and five years: otherwise it would not be known how many years Terah lived, since it is not said in what year of his life he came into Haran; and it is absurd to suppose that, in this series of generations, where it is carefully recorded how many years each one lived, his age was the only one not put on record. For although some whom the same Scripture mentions have not their age recorded, they are not in this series, in which the reckoning of time is continuously indicated by the death of the parents and the succession of the children. For this series, which is given in order from Adam to Noah, and from him down to Abraham, contains no one without the number of the years of his life. > Latin: Defuncto autem Thara in Mesopotamia, ubi uixisse perhibetur ducentos et quinque annos, iam incipiunt indicari factae ad Abraham promissiones Dei, quod ita scriptum est: Et fuerunt dies Tharae in Charra quinque et ducenti anni, et mortuus est Thara in Charra. Non sic autem accipiendum est, quasi omnes hos dies ibi egerit, sed quia omnes dies uitae suae, qui fuerunt anni ducenti quinque, ibi conpleuerit; alioquin nescietur quot annos uixerit Thara, quoniam non legitur quoto anno uitae suae in Charran uenent; et absurdum est existimare in ista serie generationum, ubi diligenter commemoratur quot annos quisque uixerit, huius solius numerum annorum uitae non commendatum esse memoriae. Quod enim quorundam, quos eadem scriptura commemorat, tacentur anni, non sunt in hoc ordine, in quo temporum dinumeratio decessione gignentium et genitorum successione contexitur. iste autem ordo, qui dirigitur ab Adam usque ad Noe et inde usque ad Abraham, sine numero annorum uitae suae neminem continet. ### Of the Time of the Migration of Abraham, When, According to the Commandment of God, He Went Out from Haran. [¶21] Chapter 15.—Of the Time of the Migration of Abraham, When, According to the Commandment of God, He Went Out from Haran. > Latin: Caput XV. De tempore profectionis Abrahae, qua secundum praeceptum Dei exiit de Charra. [¶22] When, after the record of the death of Terah, the father of Abraham, we next read, “And the Lord said to Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house,” etc., it is not to be supposed, because this follows in the order of the narrative, that it also followed in the chronological order of events. For if it were so, there would be an insoluble difficulty. For after these words of God which were spoken to Abraham, the Scripture says: “And Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him. Now Abraham was seventy-five years old when he departed out of Haran.” How can this be true if he departed from Haran after his father’s death? For when Terah was seventy years old, as is intimated above, he begat Abraham; and if to this number we add the seventy-five years which Abraham reckoned when he went out of Haran, we get 145 years. Therefore that was the number of the years of Terah, when Abraham departed out of that city of Mesopotamia; for he had reached the seventy-fifth year of his life, and thus his father, who begat him in the seventieth year of his life, had reached, as was said, his 145th. Therefore he did not depart thence after his father’s death, that is, after the 205 years his father lived; but the year of his departure from that place, seeing it was his seventy-fifth, is inferred beyond a doubt to have been the 145th of his father, who begat him in his seventieth year. And thus it is to be understood that the Scripture, according to its custom, has gone back to the time which had already been passed by the narrative; just as above, when it had mentioned the grandsons of Noah, it said that they were in their nations and tongues; and yet afterwards, as if this also had followed in order of time, it says, “And the whole earth was of one lip, and one speech for all.” How, then, could they be said to be in their own nations and according to their own tongues, if there was one for all; except because the narrative goes back to gather up what it had passed over? Here, too, in the same way, after saying, “And the days of Terah in Haran were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran,” the Scripture, going back to what had been passed over in order to complete what had been begun about Terah, says, “And the Lord said to Abram, Get thee out of thy country,” etc. After which words of God it is added, “And Abram departed, as the Lord spake unto him; and Lot went with him. But Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed out of Haran.” Therefore it was done when his father was in the 145th year of his age; for it was then the seventy-fifth of his own. But this question is also solved in another way, that the seventy-five years of Abraham when he departed out of Haran are reckoned from the year in which he was delivered from the fire of the Chaldeans, not from that of his birth, as if he was rather to be held as having been born then. > Latin: Quod uero commemorata morte Tharae, patris Abraham. deinde legitur: Et dixit Dominus ad Abram: Exi de terra tua et de cognatione tua et de domo patris tui et cetera, non, quia hoc sequitur in sermone libri, hoc etiam in rerum gestarum tempore sequi existimandum est. Erit quippe, si ita est, insolubilis quaestio. Post haec enim uerba Dei, quae ad Abraham facta sunt, scriptura sic loquitur: Et exiit Abram, quem ad modum locutus est ei Dominus, et abiit cum eo Loth. Abram autem erat quinque et septuaginta annorum. cum exiit ex Charra. Quo modo potest hoc esse uerum, si post mortem patris sui exiit de Charra? Cum enim esset Thara septuaginta annorum, sicut supra intimatum est, genuit Abraham; cui numero additis septuaginta quinque annis, quos agebat Abraham, quando egressus est de Charra, fiunt anni centum quadraginta quinque. Tot igitur annorum erat Thara, quando exiit Abraham de illa Mesopotamiae ciuitate; agebat enim annum aetatis suae septuagensimum quintum, ac per hoc pater eius, qui eum septuagensimo anno suo genuerat, agebat, ut dictum est, centensimum quadragensimum et quintum. Non ergo inde post mortem patris, id est post ducentos quinque annos, quibus pater eius uixit, egressus est; sed annus de illo loco profectionis eius, quoniam ipsius septuagensimus quintus erat, procul dubio patris eius, qui eum septuagensimo suo anno genuerat, centensimus quadragensimus quintus fuisse colligitur. Ac per hoc intellegendum est more suo scripturam redisse ad tempus, quod iam narratio illa transierat; sicut superius, cum filios filiorum Noe commemorasset, dixit illos fuisse in linguis et gentibus suis, et tamen postea, quasi hoc etiam in ordine temporum sequeretur: Et erat, inquit, omnis terra labium unum et uox una omnibus. Quo modo ergo secundum suas gentes et secundum suas linguas erant, si una erat omnibus, nisi quia ad illud quod iam transierat recapitulando est reuersa narratio? Sic ergo et hic cum dictum esset: Et fuerunt dies Tharae in Charra quinque et ducenti anni, et mortuus est Thara in Charra, deinde scriptura redeundo ad id, quod ideo praetermiserat, ut prius de Thara id quod incohatum fuerat conpleretur: Et dixit, inquit, Dominus ad Abram: Exi de terra tua et cetera. Post quae Dei uerba subiungitur: Et exiit Abram, quem ad modum locutus est illi Dominus, et abiit cum eo Loth. Abram autem erat quinque et septuaginta annorum, cum exiit ex Charra. Tunc itaque factum est, quando pater eius centensimum quadragensimum et quintum annum agebat aetatis; tunc enim fuit huius septuagensimus quintus. Soluta est autem ista quaestio et aliter, ut septuaginta quinque anni Abrahae, quando egressus est de Charra, ex illo conputarentur, ex quo de igne Chaldaeorum liberatus, non ex quo natus est, tamquam tunc potius natus habendus sit. [¶23] Now the blessed Stephen, in narrating these things in the Acts of the Apostles, says: “The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, and come into the land which I will show thee.” According to these words of Stephen, God spoke to Abraham, not after the death of his father, who certainly died in Haran, where his son also dwelt with him, but before he dwelt in that city, although he was already in Mesopotamia. Therefore he had already departed from the Chaldeans. So that when Stephen adds, “Then Abraham went out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charran,” this does not point out what took place after God spoke to him (for it was not after these words of God that he went out of the land of the Chaldeans, since he says that God spoke to him in Mesopotamia), but the word “then” which he uses refers to that whole period from his going out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelling in Haran. Likewise in what follows, “And thenceforth, when his father was dead, he settled him in this land, wherein ye now dwell, and your fathers,” he does not say, after his father was dead he went out from Haran; but thenceforth he settled him here, after his father was dead. It is to be understood, therefore, that God had spoken to Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran; but that he came to Haran with his father, keeping in mind the precept of God, and that he went out thence in his own seventy-fifth year, which was his father’s 145th. But he says that his settlement in the land of Canaan, not his going forth from Haran, took place after his father’s death; because his father was already dead when he purchased the land, and personally entered on possession of it. But when, on his having already settled in Mesopotamia, that is, already gone out of the land of the Chaldeans, God says, “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house,” this means, not that he should cast out his body from thence, for he had already done that, but that he should tear away his soul. For he had not gone out from thence in mind, if he was held by the hope and desire of returning,—a hope and desire which was to be cut off by God’s command and help, and by his own obedience. It would indeed be no incredible supposition that afterwards, when Nahor followed his father, Abraham then fulfilled the precept of the Lord, that he should depart out of Haran with Sarah his wife and Lot his brother’s son. > Latin: Sed beatus Stephanus in actibus apostolorum cum ista narraret: Deus, inquit, gloriae apparuit Abrahae patri nostro, cum esset in Mesopotamia, priusquam habitaret in Charra, et ait ad illum: Exi de terra tua et de cognatione tua et de domo patris tui, et ueni in terram, quam tibi demonstrabo. Secundum haec uerba Stephani non post mortem patris eius locutus est Deus Abrahae, qui utique in Charra mortuus est, ubi cum illo et ipse filius habitauit, sed priusquam habitaret in eadem ciuitate, iam tamen cum esset in Mesopotamia. Iam ergo exierat a Chaldaeis. Quod itaque adiungit Stephanus: Tunc Abraham egressus est de terra Chaldaeorum et habitauit in Charra, non quid sit factum, postea quam locutus est illi Deus (neque enim post illa Dei uerba egressus est de terra Chaldaeorum, cum dicat ei locutum Deum cum esset. in Mesopotamia), sed ad totum illud tempus pertinet quod ait: