Genesis-Commentary-1-to-9-Synopsis-Matthew-Poole-Trans-Steven-Dilday

299

Tremellius). In this way, a transposition is determined upon. I would prefer
this, Whatever arises (or, comes forth [Ainsworth]) from the soil, which God
cursed (Piscator, Ainsworth). Before hmfdF)hj -f Nmi, from the earth, I supply
r#$)e /j which, which was omitted for the sake of euphony, for hr@ Fr)J ' r#e$)j,
which He cursed, was soon to be expressed there (Piscator). Or, because of
the earth, which He cursed. For the cursed earth would not bear fruits without
great labor, Genesis 3:17, 18 (Ainsworth). h@rFr)J ,' he cursed it. A pleonasm
in the suffix.1

And he called his name Noah, which signifies rest, saying, by the Spirit
of prophecy: This same shall comfort us, concerning the hard labour and
manifold troubles to which we are sentenced, Genesis 3:19. And this he did
either, 1. By the invention of instruments of husbandry, whereby tillage was
made more easy. Or, 2. By removing in some part the curse inflicted upon
the earth, and reconciling God unto mankind. Possibly he might suppose that
this was the Messias, or promised Seed, and the Saviour of the undone world;
as it was frequent with the ancient fathers, through their earnest desire of the
Messias, to expect him long before he came, and to mistake other persons for
him. Or, 3. By preserving a remnant of mankind from that deluge which he
by the Spirit foresaw would come, and re-peopling the emptied earth with a
new generation of men, and by restoring and improving the art of husbandry:
see Genesis 9:20.

Verse 30: And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety
and five years, and begat sons and daughters.

Verse 31: And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and
seven years: and he died.

[2448 BC] Verse 32: And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah
begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Gen. 6:10; 10:1).

[He was a son of five hundred years] Question: Why was he so much
delayed in generating? Response: God so appointed it, because He had
decided to save him, with his posterity: but if in the hundredth year he had
begun to beget (like others), there would have been so many children of him,
that they would not have been able to be kept suitably with necessities in the
ark; and many of those would have been wicked,whom it would not have been

1 There is a redundancy in the expression, hwhFO y: hr@ FrJ)' r#$e)j hmdf F)jhf-Nmi, on
account of the relative pronoun, r#)e$ j, functioning as the object of the verb, and the
object suffix, h@ ,f attached to the verb itself. Literally it reads, from the earth which
Jehovah cursed it.

300

fitting that they be saved (Lyra). Or, he begat other sons previously, who died
before the flood. After the five hundredth year, he begat, that is, he began to
beget Shem, Ham, and Japheth successively (Menochius). Or, by the singular
providence of God he was sterile (although married) until this time (Rivet).
Question: Noah, about to build the ark, was five hundred years old. To
mankind were granted one hundred and twenty years of repentance, Genesis
6:3. Yet Noah enters the ark in his six hundredth year, Genesis 7:11. How do
these things harmonize? Response: 1. Some say that God cut off twenty years
because of their impenitence (Jerome on Daniel 9, Chrysostom On Genesis
25). 2. Others better respond that Noah was not exactly five hundred, but
only four hundred and eighty years old, when the oracle was advanced, Genesis
5:32. Question 47 on Exodus of Augustine’s Seven Books of Questions on the
Heptateuch1 is to be noted: The divine Scripture is accustomed to express
times in such a way that what exceeds the sum of the perfection of the number,
or is less than the perfection of the number, is not reckoned (Walther). These
things (namely, Noah was a son of five hundred years, etc.) were said by way of
a hysteron proteron; for they happen after the sentence concerning the flood
was spoken (Vatablus, Rivet).

[He begat Shem] That is, he began to beget (Piscator, Ainsworth), as
in Genesis 11:26. The firstborn of these was, 1. not Shem; for he was one
hundred years old two years after the flood2 (which began in the six hundredth
year of Noah, Genesis 7:11), and, therefore, he was begotten in the five
hundred and second year of Noah (Piscator, Hebrews in Lyra, Ainsworth). 2.
Not Ham, for he is called the least, Genesis 9:24. Therefore, Japheth was the
eldest (Piscator). There is a threefold order of reckoning the heads. 1.
Natural, in accordance with the birth order. 2. Personal, in accordance with
dignity, as it is here and in Genesis 48:20. 3. Historical, when he is placed last
of all from whom the history next is to begin (Junius).

i.e. He began to beget; God in mercy denying him children till that
time, that he might not beget them to the destroyer, that he might have no
more than should be saved in the ark; or, having before that time begotten
others who were now dead, and having the approaching flood in his view, he
began again to beget a seminary for the world. Of these three sons here
following, the eldest seems to be Japheth, Genesis 10:21. The second was
Shem, as appears because he was but an hundred years old two years after the
flood, Genesis 11:10. The youngest Ham, Genesis 9:24. But Shem is first
named in order of dignity, as being the progenitor of the church, and of Jesus
Christ; and because he and his progeny is the principal subject of this whole
history.

1 Quæstionum in Heptateuchum Libri Septem.
2 Genesis 11:10.

301

[Here, the enemies of the Scripture tie knots, and, so that they might
take away faith, they set the calculations of the Hebrews and of the Greeks
concerning the reckoning of the years of the ancient fathers against each other.
Over which question even the most learned Chonographers and Theologians
fight. It belongs not to me to bring such a quarrel to an end; but only briefly,
and, as it were, on a small tablet, to set forth the state of the question and the
weight of the arguments from this place and from that place, so that, by
whatever method it might be concluded, the certitude and truth of the Sacred
Scripture might stand firm, and the mouths of the impious be stopped.] It is
inquired concerning the years of our first fathers. The computation of the
Hebrews is well-known, according to which there are one thousand, six
hundred and fifty-six years from the dawn of things to the flood. However, the
Septuagint, in relation to six antediluvian Patriarchs, in Genesis 5 (that is,
Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, and Enoch), before paidogoni/an, the
generation of children, adds one hundred years to each, which they also
withdraw from them after paidogoni/an. In like manner, also in Genesis 11,
in relation to six others, postdiluvian Patriarchs (namely, Arphaxad, Salah,
Eber, Peleg, Reu, and Serug), they add one hundred years to each. Thus, with
respect to the years of the entire life of the antediluvian Patriarchs, we have the
Greeks harmonizing with the Hebrews; however, there is a question
concerning the years preceding begetting. The reason for the distinction is that
Josephus, Antiquities 1:4, points out that the reckoning of the years, not of the
entire life, but of the begetting, of the Fathers is here to be had. No one is
seeking the death of them, but the births only. Therefore, the Septuagint adds
here six hundred years to the calculation of the Hebrews, and they number
from the dawn of the world to the flood two thousand, two hundred, and
forty-two years. And from the flood to Abraham the Hebrews number only
two hundred and ninety-two years; but the Greeks number one thousand, one
hundred and seventy-one, according to the Prolegomenon in the Bible
Polyglot, or one thousand and seventy-two, according to Ussher’s
Chronology.1 For, besides the six hundred years mentioned, they interpose
Cainan [concerning whom in another place it is to be inquired] and add other
years with respect to others. [And these things should suffice concerning the
state of the controversy, out of Ussher’s Chronology and the Prolegomenon of
the Bible Polyglot 9, concerning the Septuagint.] On behalf of the calculation
of the Hebrews, and against the Greeks, they set forth these reasons. 1. There
is the highest consensus of the Hebrew codices, neither do the Massoretes
acknowledge any variety of reading (Prolegomenon in the Bible Polyglot 58).
2. It is apparent from Genesis 7:7, 23 and 8:16, 18, and also from 1 Peter
3:20, that only eight souls were saved, namely, Noah, Shem, Ham, and

1 Chronologia Sacra.

302

Japheth, with their wives: but, according to the Greeks, Methuselah survived
the flood either fourteen, or at least eight, years (Bonfrerius’ Prolegomenon in
The Pentateuch of Moses 16:1, Ussher’s Concerning the Greek Septuagint1
2:15): who, nevertheless, according to the Hebrew calculation died in the very
year of the flood (Bonfrerius’ Prolegomenon in The Pentateuch of Moses 16:1,
Cappel’s Sacred Chronology2 in the Prolegomenon of the Bible Polyglot). 3.
We do not doubt that this addition and subtraction of years was not accidental,
but of industry (Ussher’s Concerning the Greek Septuagint). It was composed
purposely and with dedicated labor, and that, not by the Seventy themselves,
but by a distinguished copyist. A twofold rationale of the alteration can be
rendered from an unbiased view of the true. 1. It was possible to suppose that
the Patriarchs were not of such great age, and that their years were lunar, not
solar. With this posited, since he was seeing that those six Patriarchs, who
according to that computation had begotten in the fifth, sixth, seventh, etc.,
year of age, could be objected against him, he added another hundred years, so
that they might be found to beget in the fourteenth, seventeenth, twentieth,
etc., year of age. 2. Or if those were solar years, it was possible to suppose
that at that time the proportion of the years of virility to the entire course of
life was the same as it is today. Now, however, the fourteenth year (which is
reckoned the first year of virility, in which males are first thought to be ready
for begetting) is a fifth or a sixth part of the course of the longest life of men,
that is of seventy or eighty years. Therefore, he added another hundred years
to those four, who are said to beget before the hundredth year, and also to
Adam and to Seth, so that the same proportion might be preserved, and so that
they might be said to beget around the fourth, fifth, or sixth part of life
(Cappel’s Sacred Chronology in the Prolegomenon of the Bible Polyglot).
Now, it is plain enough that this Hellenist, under the name of the Septuagint
interpreters, with pains taken, had departed from the Original text, with every
consideration of the correctness additionally considered, in the matter of the
years allotted to Methuselah and Lamech (Ussher’s Concerning the Greek
Septuagint): In these he changed somewhat, lest the artifice should appear
(Bonfrerius on Gen. 5:3). For as previously he added one hundred years to the
age of the Fathers before paidogoni/an, the generation of children, he
subtracts as many after paidogoni/an from the age of the same: thus now,
with the relation reversed, he subtracted twenty years from the age of
Methuselah before the birth of Lamech, and he added the same amount to him
after the birth of that one (Ussher’s Concerning the Greek Septuagint, in which
he is to consider more things; and also Cappel’s Sacred Chronology in the
Prolegomenon of the Bible Polyglot; Ussher’s Sacred Chronology). Relying

1 De Græca Septuaginta Interpretum Versione.
2 Chronologia Sacra.

303

upon these and other arguments, they reject the Greek calculation, and they
embrace the Hebrew calculation (Augustine, Jerome, and Bede in Ussher’s
Concerning the Greek Septuagint 2; the most part of his Annals of the World;
Prolegomenon of the Bible Polyglot). Nevertheless, the calculation of the
Greeks does satisfy others; namely, Josephus, Antiquities 1:4; 2:7; Greek
historians before Josephus, who imbibed the knowledge of these matters from
the Jews (see Clement’s Stromata 1, Eusebius); and all of the ancient Fathers,
with Jeromes and Augustine excepted (Prolegomenon of the Bible Polyglot).
Their reasons are: 1. There is the highest consensus among the Greek codices.
2. And what scribe would dare to corrupt a)po/grafon, a copy, for his own
pleasure, when from the other codices, which were in the hands of many, he
could be convicted of falsifying the sacred text? 3. While the Hebrews count
only two hundred and ninety-two years from the flood to the birth of Abraham,
that so many and such great things were done in so small a space, it would
appear clearly incredible. For, within that space of time, Ninus1 ruled all the
way to India, with all consenting. The earth was divided in the year of the
nativity of Peleg, which was approximately one hundred years from the flood,
and at that time was made that confusion and dispersion of Genesis 11; and
mankind did not greatly thrive before that time, since all lived together. In the
time of Abraham, there were many and powerful kings; and at that time, Noah
and his sons were among the living, yet concerning whom there is a deep
silence both in the Scriptures and among all external historians. What? Was
the authority of Noah nothing, that he was not able to reconcile his fighting
children? Then it was not amazing that the Israelites multiplied to such a
degree in Egypt, since in a much smaller interval innumberable multitudes of
men replenished the earth. Neither was there a reason why Sarah, being ninety
years old, should despair that she was going to have children, since, with her
own eyes, at that time she had seen grandfathers and great-grandfathers of two,
three, or four hundred years begetting children. These things, unless the
calculation of the Septuagint be conceded, appear ap! ora/insuperable to the
more prudent (Walton’s Prolegomenon in the Bible Polyglot, Morinus’2
Biblical Disciplines3 7:2). [To which, let us hear what Ussher responds in his
Sacred Chronology, recently published.] 1. The Scripture says that, not at the
birth, but in the days of PELEG, the earth was divided; and the settling of
colonies at the birth of Peleg was only begun, but it was not carried through
unto completion except by degrees and successively. 2. Not all of the

1 Ninus was reputed to be the ancient founder of Nineveh.
2 John Morinus (1591-1659) was born into a French Protestant family, but converted
to Roman Catholicism. He was a great Oriental scholar, and he was a proponent of
the priority of the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint over the Hebrew text.
3 Exercitationes Biblicæ.

304

posterity of Noah undertook the Babylonian work, but only the sons of men,
Genesis 6:2. See Genesis 10:5, 32; Wisdom of Solomon 10:5.1 3. By the
singular providence of God it was such, that, for the increase of human progeny
and the restoration of the desolation of the earth, a certain special fecundity was
in them, as Petavius2 correctly teaches, Concerning the Teaching of the Times3
9:14. Twice it is spoken by God, Be fruitful, etc., Genesis 9:1, 7. And if it be
granted that they, immediately at puberty (which was the fourteenth year to
the Romans), had applied themselves to get children, and had often received
twins and triplets, there is no reason that we should be greatly disturbed about
the number of men settling into the colonies. 4. Unequally with the Israelites
in Egypt are these first fathers compared, who lived and begat for a much
longer time than those. 5. From the birth of Peleg unto Abraham, that, from
such myriads of men who had applied themselves to the building of the
Babylonian city and tower, a vast multitude was able to be produce, no one
who has any use for logistics would be able to doubt. 6. The kings of that time
were mostly petty kings of cities, not of countries. And at the time of Abraham
or before, that Ninus, by the reckoning of all, had ruled all the way unto India
is a reckless assertion, since it is well-known that Herodotus assigned the reign
of Ninus to much later times. Concerning which, see our Annals on the year
2737 BC, Thomas Lydiat’s4 In His Own Defense against Scaliger5 1, and
Nicholas Abram6 in Lighthouse of the Old Testament7 6. 7. Also unequally is
the comparison set up between Abraham and Sarah and their ancestors, etc.,
since after the birth of Peleg the completed lives of the Fathers were shorter by
half than previously. And it certainly was extraordinary that they would have
offspring during that period of life, since he, a sixty year old man, was not able
to beget by the same sixty year old woman. 8. Those Babylonian men had
revolted from Noah, Shem, etc., and they conspired against God, and they
were dispersed into the whole earth. However, the absence and distance of
parents (for Noah, Shem, etc. were more remote, not immediate, parents)
greatly diminished and weakened the storgh\n/love and natural affection in

1 Wisdom of Solomon 10:5: “Moreover, the nations in their wicked conspiracy being
confounded, she found out the righteous, and preserved him blameless unto God, and
kept him strong against his tender compassion toward his son.”
2 Dionysius Petavius (1583-1652) was a Jesuit scholar and theologian. He served as
Professor of Theology at Paris (1621-1643).
3 De Doctrina Temporum.
4 Thomas Lydiat (1572-1646) was a scholar at Oxford. He was committed to
advancing scientific research grounded in Biblical exegesis, rather than in the
philosophy of Aristotle.
5 In Defensione Sua adversus Scaligerum.
6 Nicholas Abram (1589-1655) was a Jesuit theologian who taught rhetoric and
theology at Pont-à-Mousson.
7 Pharus Veteris Testamenti, sive Sacrarum Quæstionum Libri Quindecim.

305

the hearts of their posterity. Ussher presents these things in Sacred Chronology
5. [Whichever opinion the reader might follow, he shall easily discern that the
truth and air-tight au0topisti/an/self-authentication of the Sacred Scripture is
protected, and that every opportunity for caviling is taken away from the
atheists. For if he should follow the Hebrew calculation, from the words and
matters exhibited (which historians do record), the trustworthiness and truth of
Scripture will be sufficiently established: If he should prefer the Greek
calculation, and charge the Hebrew codices with corruptions, our confidence
and the certitude of Scripture in matters of greater importance will not totter
on that account (over which things worthy of protection the divine providence
has watched more carefully), for, in matters of lesser weight, chronological, for
example, and historical, for the exercise of our faith, God would suffer some
sfa&lmata/errors to creep in, which, with our souls being blind and woefully
ignorant of the events of the first age of the world, appear hitherto insoluable.]
Concerning these discrepancies between the Greeks and Hebrews, I have
nothing better to say than what the most learned Cappel said in Sacred
Criticism (Grotius on Genesis 5:18). [Under these things it is agreeable to
place what things Isaac Vossius in the recent Concerning the Age of the World.]
(He says that) the Greek translation displayed, as in innumerable other places,
so also in the computation of years, is to be much preferred over the calculation
of the Hebrew books. [His arguments are these.] 1. It is no slight argument
that the numbers in the Hebrew codices are vitiated, that in them there is no
just proportion between the years of life and of virility, but to the extent that
they lived longer, to the same extent they would have applied themselves to the
begetting of children later, neither did they beget except with a fourth or fifth
part of life completed. Although the lifespan of man was diminishing, the same
proportion remained, and an ever younger age obtained an ever more speedy
puberty. Now, the Greek version distributed the years of the Patriarchs far
more evenly and agreeably to the order of nature, as it will be evident from the
following table.1

1 Translation key: Genuit, begat; anno ætatis, in the year of his age; supervixerunt,
they survived; vixerunt, they lived.

306

Thus the years and times are received in the better books: For thus reads that
most ancient codex, which they call Alexandrinus; thus Africanus1 finds it in his
exemplars, since he reckons two thousand, two hundred and sixty-two years
unto the flood. Nevertheless, there is an error here concerning the birth of
Noah. For he was not born in the hundred and eighty-eighth year of Lamech,
but in the hundred and eighty-second. So it is in the Hebrew and Samaritan
codices; so also Josephus. Therefore, undoubtedly it was thus formerly in the
Septuagint. If, consequently, you subtract those six years from the total, you
will have the true time of the flood, namely, the two thousand, two hundred
and fifty-sixth year of the world, as Josephus rightly concluded. Moreover, the
same defect is in the postdiluvian Patriarchs. For the Hebrews think that
childhood in these was exceedingly brief, according to the rule of the age, since
a long childhood necessarily precedes a long life. The time of usually is usually
the third or fourth part of human life, rarely the fifth or sixth part. According
to the Hebrews, however, Arphaxad begat in his thirty-fifth year, Salah in his
thirtieth year, Eber in his thirty-fourth year, Peleg in his thirtieth year, Reu in
his thirty-second year, Serug in his thirtieth year, Nahor in his twenty-ninth
year, Terah in his seventieth year. Thus Arphaxad, Salah, and Eber would have
been able to see fifteen, indeed twenty, generations; which is absurd.
Moreover, it is amazing that those begat in the thirtieth year, when in the age of
Isaac the fortieth year was reckoned to be youthful. In the next place, thus
Noah would have lived unto the fifty-eighth year of Abraham, before whom
there were various kingdoms established in the world. If this was true, both
Moses and other writers of annals had overlooked it. But the Greeks designate

1 Sextus Julius Africanus (c. 160-c. 240) was a chronographer and the first Christian
to attempt a history from the creation.

307

the intervals much more uniformly. For, according to the Greeks, Arphaxad
begat in his hundred and thirty-fifth year, Cainan in his hundred and thirtieth
year, Salah in his hundred and thirtieth year, Eber in his hundred and thirty-
fourth year, Peleg in his hundred and thirtieth year, Reu in his hundred and
thirty-second year, Serug in his hundred and thirtieth year, Nahor in his
seventy-ninth year, Terah in his seventieth year. Here, learned men expunge
Cainan without reason [but concerning this, there will be a more suitable place
elsewhere for speaking, God granting] (Vossius’ Concerning the Age of the
World 3-6). 2. Vossius argues from the authority of Josephus, who agrees
with the Greeks concerning the years elapsed before the flood [as before noted]
(Vossius’ Concerning the Age of the World 3). Concerning the years after the
flood, Josephus appears inconsistent: on the one hand, he says that Abraham
was born in the two hundred and ninety-second year after the flood (which
agrees with the Hebrews); but on the other hand, drawing up the calculations
of the individuals, he extends this space to nine hundred and eighty-three years.
In this computation, it is certain that Cainan is to be expunged; if you add him,
you will have the true and manifest measure of the times, also agreeing with
itself. For thus he writes in the preface to his Antiquities, that a history of five
thousand years is comprehended in the Sacred Volumes. Thus it is to gather
those years enumerated in his work: From the beginning of the world unto the
flood, there are two thousand, two hundred and fifty-six years; from that time
unto the begetting of Abraham, one thousand, one hundred and seventy-three
years (for, that Terah begat him, not in the seventy-fifth, but in the hundred
and thirtieth year, it can be gathered out of Josephus); from that time unto the
death of Moses, five hundred and forty-five years; from that time unto Cyrus,
one thousand and ninty-two years; from that time unto Alexander, less than
two hundred years. Thus from the creation of the world unto Alexander, there
are five thousand, two hundred and sixty-six years. Furthermore, from this
computation of Josephus, I gather that the Hebrew codices once agreed with
the Greek translation. For it is most absurd to believe that Josephus, a priest
and interpreter of the laws among the Jews, followed the Greek version, with
the Hebrew codices neglected (Vossius’ Concerning the Age of the World 8).
3. The Samaritan codex agrees with the Greeks, except that in it Cainan was
expunged, in which, nevertheless, the fault of the copyists is apparent; for, not
Arphaxad (as the Samaritan codex now has it), but Cainan, began to beget in his
hundred and thirtieth year. 4. Vossius strengthens his position from the
ancestors of learned nations, the antiquities of which many abuse unto the
overturning of the truth of the Mosaic history (Vossius’ Concerning the Age of
the World 9). With our measure of the time all writers of themselves agree
(Vossius’ Concerning the Age of the World 11). 1. I shall begin from the
Chaldeans, whom the Grecians said had astronomical observations of four

308

hundred and seventy thousand years. But falsely, as it is plain from this, that,
when Aristotle had asked Callisthenes1 to examine thoroughly the antiquities of
the Chaldeans, he responded that he had been able to find no observations more
ancient than one thousand, nine hundred and three years before the city was
captured by Alexander. Simplicius2 relates this out of Porphyry, in his work on
Aristotle’s Concerning the Heavens 2. That one thousand, nine hundred and
third year, according to common computation, was the sixtieth year after the
flood (when there were no Chaldeans, no king, no Babylon); but, according to
our method of reckoning, the year will be almost the one thousandth from the
flood. Moveover, what he aims at in consequence of these immense myriads of
years, this is to be understood, that the Chaldeans had accurately learned those
things which occurred after the dispersion of the nations (inasmuch as they
begin their annals from that time), and also that they had an acquaintance with
the flood by no means slight, as it is evident out of Berosus3 and others; they
also had a knowledge, greater than that of other nations, of those things which
had happened before the flood. They were certainly familiar with the first
Patriarchs, and were most closely conjoined by consanguinity. Consequently,
although they understood something of the longevity of the antediluvians, and
even though they did not know it exactly, they attributed to them a long-lasting
duration. For ten kings from the first, Alorus [this is Adam to them], unto
Xisuthrus (who is Noah, or rather Shem; and they write that, while he was
reigning, the flood came) were fabled to have reigned for one hundred and
twenty Sari, that is, four hundred and thirty-two thousand years. For three
thousand, six hundred years make up a Sarus. Others substitute days for years,
attributing a space of ten years to a Sarus. Thus one hundred and twenty Sari
will make one thousand, two hundred years (Vossius’ Concerning the Age of
the World 9). The Chaldeans, as Berosus testifies, from the beginning of things
unto Abraham, reckon only twenty generations, ten before and ten after the
flood (Vossius’ Concerning the Age of the World 10). 2. Let us go to the
Egyptians, whose affairs are certainly far more recent than those of the
Chaldeans, inasmuch as no memory of the flood appeared. Nevertheless, they
devised many things, lest they should appear to be inferior to the Chaldeans
with respect to antiquity of descent. Manetho,4 Eratosthenes,1 and Diodorus

1 Callisthenes of Olynthus (c. 360-328 BC) was a pupil of Aristotle. He was
employed by Alexander the Great to chronicle his campaign in Asia.
2 Simplicius was a sixth century, Byzantine Neoplatonist. He wrote commentaries on
several of Aristotle’s works, including De Cœlo.
3 Berosus (early third century BC) was a priest of Belus in Babylon, who wrote a
history of Chaldeans, which survives only in the fragmentary citations of other
authors.
4 Manetho (third century BC) was an Egyptian historian. His Ægyptiaca has been of
enduring value in the study of Pharaonic dynasties.

309

Siculus draw their beginnings from King Menes. Manetho makes this Menes
equal to Adam, numbering unto Psammetichus2 (who flourished during the
time of Manasseh and Josiah) above five thousand years. Perhaps Manetho
imbibed this number from the Septuagint translation, which was made in his
generation, and which he undoubtedly saw. He writes that he draws his own
antiquities from monuments erected in the Seriadic region3 by the first
Mercury.4 He, consequently, composed a long sequence of kings. But
Manetho struggled on account of a fallacious foundation. For, after the death of
king Menes, various dynasties arose in Egypt, and diverse petty kings in diverse
districts or prefectures (now, there were about twelve districts) reigned at the
same time; from which it is easily that gathered that, although every one of the
most ancient dynasties was reckoning its own kings, nevertheless, the majority
trace their beginnings to the one Menes: which also from this is apparent, that
on the name of his son, Athotis, who succeeded Menes, Manetho and
Eratosthenes agree. (However, Manetho cuts off the first part of all the
following dynasties, lest they should appear to have one and the same origin.)
Therefore, those petty kings, who are remembered by Manetho, did not
succeed in a single series, each in turn, but several reigned at the same time in
diverse districts. But Manetho separated the time periods of each, and he
changed the overlapping years into consecutive years. Therefore, with the
arguments of priest of Heliopolis disregarded, let us follow other leaders.
Eratosthenes of Cyrene, almost the same generation as Manetho, inserted into
his chronography the series of the kings of Egyptian Thebes, brought forth from
the archives of the Temple, but changed by him into Greek. From him,
Africanus drew, from whom Eusebius and Syncellus5 drew. Therein, there are
one thousand and seventy-five years from King Menes unto Amuthantæus.6
However, in Africanus, the end of the reign of Amuthantæus occurred in the
seventh or eighth year of Judge Ahodus, that is, the four thousandth year of the
world, in which Peleg was passing his one hundred and thirty-eighth year.

1 Eratosthenes (276-194 BC) was one of the great Hellenistic scholars of his age,
serving as the second librarian of the Alexandrian library, and making important
contributions in mathematics, astronomy, and geography.
2 Psammetichus I (664-610 BC) was the first of three pharaohs of the twenty-sixth
dynasty to take the name. He liberated Egypt from Assyrian domination.
3 The Seriad is a region of Egypt.
4 This is a reference to the legendary pillars of Seth. The first Mercury is a reference
to the Egyptian god, Thoth, better known as Hermes or Mercury. Thoth is
linguistically and mythologically related to Seth. The pillars were said to have been
erected by Seth to preserve information concerning the ante-diluvian world.
5 George Syncellus (d. 810) was a monk, syncellus or secretary to the Patriarch of
Constantinople, and a chronographer, chronicling the time from the creation to
Diocletian.
6 Amuthantæus was a Theban king.

310

Diodorus Siculus was indeed a Greek, as was Eratosthenes; but both followed
the standards of the Egyptians. Diodorus writes, in Historical Library 1, that
the descendants of King Menes were fifty-two, and Busiris succeeded them:
however, from King Menes unto Busiris, more than one thousand and forty
years passed, as the more conservative exemplars of Diodorus have it.
However, Busiris, as we gather from Isocrates,1 lived one hundred years after
Joshua. Thus Eratosthenes and Diodorus agree perfectly, and both harmonize
with our calculation (Vossius’ Concerning the Age of the World 10). Let us
come now to the Seres,2 vulgarly called Sinenses, a race by far the most learned
of all men. They keep a continuous history of four thousand, five hundred
years, preserved in their monuments and annals. They have authors more
ancient than Moses himself. Their historical period begins with the two
thousand, eight hundred and forty-seven years before the birth of Christ, at
which time they had seven kings simultaneously, whose posterity endured for
six hundred and forty years. After that, their kingdom devolved unto one and
another families successively. From the beginning of the kingdom of the Seres
unto this year, which is one thousand, six hundred and fifty-eight years after the
birth of Christ, four thousand, five hundred and five years are gathered. If we
follow the Hebrews, already this number will anticipate the flood by several
generations; but if we follow our method of computation, here we have most
exactly the time of the dispersion of the nations, which we said was
accomplished at the time of, and after, the birth of Peleg, five hundred and
thirty-one years after the flood. Of the more ancient times, which preceded
and immediately followed the flood, the Seres are mindful, yet they dare to
affirm nothing certain concerning them, and they willingly acknowledge their
ignorance (Vossius’ Concerning the Age of the World 11). I could add to these
the Persians, Arabs, Ethiopians, and others, who all, from the beginning of the
creation unto the present time number seven thousand years. But I disregard
them because their chronology is uncertain. Who now does not see that, to
strike the shamelessness of those who assail the trustworthiness of the Sacred
Books out of the antiquity of the profane nations, the remedy is most efficacious
and almost one and the same, that the truth of the divine history has been
demonstrated out of the very annals of the nations? And by this vindication
alone, the design of the Preadamite author collapses, for whom that particular
false opinion concerning the antiquity of the nations was the reason for writing
(Vossius’ Concerning the Age of the World 12). If, however, we should
reckon the times in accordance with the accepted Scripture of the Hebrew
codex, we would introduce complete darkness into, not only the histories of
the nations, but even the Sacred Books themselves (Vossius’ Concerning the

1 Isocrates (436-338 BC) was one of the most influential rhetoricians of his day.
2 The Seres were the inhabitants of northwestern China.

311

Age of the World 5). And this has certainly given particular occasion of
doubting to the wicked concerning the veracity of the Sacred Books (Vossius’
Concerning the Age of the World 9); and it opens to them a most wide door to
assail the trustworthiness of them, and also of triumphing over the good and
pious, even among just judges. I would add this one thing, that we are not
making a new chronology in this place, but restoring the old, rashly taken away
(Vossius’ Concerning the Age of the World 12). But over against our opinion
they place the integrity of the Hebrew codex, the reputation of which has thus
reasonably preoccupied the minds of all, so that they are held for impious,
however many dare to depart from it even minimally (Vossius’ Concerning the
Age of the World 5). They clamor that the Hebrew codex is to be preferred
above all. Quite certainly, if we possessed the autograph of Moses. Could it be
that God always assisted the Jewish copyists and guided their hands and pens?
They see and admit the diversity in the Gospels and Apostolic writings, and
that, without violating the rule of faith, they acknowledge to be able to be:
Why do they deny that this very things has happened in the Mosaic and
prophetic books? The very rabbis acknowledge the greatest variety of readings
in the exemplars before the time and zeal of the Massoretes: And in this the
Massoretes are greatly to be blamed, that in this difficult work they did not
consult other versions, especially the Septuagint, which is of all the best and
most ancient (Vossius’ Concerning the Age of the World 2). [How certainly
Vossius establishes these things, the judgment is not mine to bear. Let him see,
whom it pleases, what Hulsius,1 Hornius,2 and others answer to these
arguments, and what Vossius responds; among whom this saw moves back and
forth with sufficient prolixity. It seemed good to me to exhibit here only
briefly and wj( en0 tu/pw,| as in an outline, the opinion of that learned man
upon its supports. Which I did so much the more cheerfully, so that today’s
atheists, who dream that the earth has existed from eternity, might learn from
the compiled testimonies of the first nations, that that most foolish opinion
clearly is in disagreement not only with qeopneu/stoij, God-inspired men,
but also (whom they will believe more easily) with foreign authors, and with

1 Antonius Hulsius (1615-1685) served as pastor of the French church in Breda
(1644-1668). Later he was made Professor of Hebrew at Leiden (1676).
2 Georgius Hornius (c. 1620-1670) was a historian from the Palatinate. He wrote an
Ecclesiastical History, an History of Philosophy, and Noah’s Ark, or a History of
Monarchies.

312

the common sense of all nations and of the first generations.]

Chapter 6

Unlawful matches of the sons of God with the daughters of men, 1, 2;
grieve the Spirit of God, who threatens their destruction, 3. Giants and mighty
men born; a general degeneracy of mankind, 4, 5. God repents that he had
made man, and resolves to destroy that world, 6, 7. Noah is excepted, and
finds favour with God, 8. His character, 9. The earth corrupt, and filled with
violence, 11, 12. God declares to Noah his purpose to destroy it, 13. Directs
him to make an ark, 14-16. Mentions a deluge, 17. His covenant with Noah to
preserve a seed, 18-21. Noah’s obedience, 22.

Verse 1: And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face
of the earth, and daughters were born unto them (Gen. 1:28; 2 Esdr. 3:71) . . .

[When men began, Md)F hf f] Man. It is put collectively, to denote the
entire race. Moreover, by men in this place is understood either, 1. the
human race indistinctly considered (thus Mercerus, others interpreters); or, 2.
the posterity of Cain (Piscator, Ainsworth) (strangers from God and His
Church [Junius]), as it is learned from the contrast in the following verse. They
are called men kat 0 e0coxh\n, par excellence, for there was nothing in them
except the human nature, and that corrupted; for they were not regenerated by
the Holy Spirit (Piscator).

Men, i.e. wicked men, the posterity of Cain, as appears from Genesis
6:2; who are here called men, and the sons of men, by way of contempt, and of
distinction; mere men, such as had only the natures and qualities of corrupt
men, without the image of God.

[When they began to be multiplied] That is, to a measureless extent,
with which wickedness was increasing at an equal pace (Menochius).

Began to multiply, to wit, more than ordinarily; or more than the sons
of God, because they practised polygamy, after the example of their
predecessor, the ungodly Lamech, Genesis 4:19.

[And they begat daughters] That is, more than the males: either
because procreative force was weakened by lust; or because they were
procuring it by means of medicines, so that every man might enjoy several
women; or by divine resolution alone, for the more plentiful harvest of men
(Menochius). [Or he speaks in this way, so that he might prepare the way for
the following narrative.]

1 2 Esdras 3:7: “And unto him thou gavest commandment to love thy way: which he
transgressed, and immediately thou appointedst death in him and in his generations,
of whom came nations, tribes, people, and kindreds, out of number.”

314

Daughters were born unto them; so doubtless were sons also; but their
daughters are here mentioned as one principal occasion of the sin noted in
Genesis 6:2, and of the following deluge.

Verse 2: That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they
were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose (Deut. 7:3, 4).

[Seeing, w)@ r:yw%I ]A They considered closely, they gazed upon (Vatablus).
Saw, i.e. gazed upon and observed curiously and lustfully, as the sequel
showeth, the daughters of men, of that ungodly and accursed race of Cain.
[The sons of God (Syriac, Munster, Pagnine, Junius and Tremellius,
Tigurinus), Myhli$ )vhf-yn"b]; They explain it variously. 1. Angels: either
good, appointed unto the protection of men, so Lactantius (Estius); or evil, or
demonic, incubi (Lyra, Estius). However, 1. Good Angels do not take wives,
Matthew 22:30 (Estius, Drusius’ A Miscellany of Sacred Expressions 1:25), and
evil Angels are never called the sons of God (Estius). 2. Angels are
incorporeal, neither are they able to enjoy sexual union (Drusius’ A Miscellany
of Sacred Expressions 1:25). 3. This is portrayed as the cause of the flood:
But the flood was for the punishment of men, not of demons (Lyra, Drusius).
2. The sons of judges or of the mighty (Chaldean, Samaritan Version, Arabic,
Oleaster, Rabbi Salomon in Lyra, Targum Jerusalem, Symmachus in Drusius).
For judges are called Elohim/gods (Fagius’ Comparison of the Principal
Translations). So that the sense might be that wickedness had increased to such
an extent that even honor among judges, whose it was to punish the shameful
acts of men, perished, who had themselves become fornicators, robbers, etc.
(Fagius’ Comparison of the Principal Translations). And the daughters of men,
that is, of commoners they were taking wives (Estius). The most powerful of
men. Sons is the same as men: like the sons of Israel, that is, Israelite men; and
sons of men, that is, men; and ia0 trw~n pai=dej, sons of physicians, for
physicians. In Hebrew, they are the sons of God, that is, godlike men, that is,
most excellent; as in Job 41:251 and Psalm 82:1,2 63 (Castalio), to whom there
was more opportunity for perpetrating evil (Clario). This does not satisfy, for
thus the cause of the flood would have been particular, which cause was
universal, for all flesh had corrupted their way (Lyra). 3. Giants: For they
often call by the name of God things great, mighty, illustrious; like the cedars

1 Job 41:25: “When he raiseth up himself, the mighty (Myli)') are afraid.”
2 Psalm 82:1: “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty (l)'); he judgeth
among the gods (Myhi$l)v).”
3 Psalm 82:6: “I have said, Ye are gods (Myhil$ )v); and all of you are children of the
most High (NwyO l(e yn"bw; )@ .”

315

of God,1 etc. (Oleaster, Fagius’ Comparison of the Principal Translations).
Sons of God, that is, men grown to a great height, they were choosing for
themselves similar wives, so that great men might be begotten of them, who
might be able to subjugate others. You might say that they chose the fair, not
the large. Response: bwO+2 also signifies large, as it is evident out of 1 Samuel
9:2,3 for Saul was not fairer than other, but taller (Oleaster). 4. The sons of
the pious, or those professing true religion (Junius and Tremellius, Rivet), who
are often called the sons of God in the Old and New Testaments (Lyra). See
Deuteronomy 14:1 and 1 John 3:1 (Ainsworth). Such were the sons of the
holy Patriarchs, especially those who were born of Seth and Enos (Piscator,
similarly Lyra, Estius, Menochius, Tirinus, Ainsworth, Lapide, Bonfrerius,
Vatablus, Estius, Kimchi in Fagius’ Comparison of the Principal Translations),
who were calling themselves by the name of Jehovah; as it is taken at the end of
the fourth chapter, to which place Moses obviously looks here (Piscator). [See
what things we gathered concerning that passage.] The sons of Seth were called
the sons of God, 1. by reason of the external covenant and profession of true
religion (Rivet); 2. on account of holiness and other virtues (Menochius,
Tirinus); 3. because they were extraordinary with respect to form, strength,
and stature: such things are said to be of God (Tirinus) [as already noted]. On
the other hand, the sons of Cain are called the sons of men, 1. because they had
not surrendered their name to God (Rivet), and thus far they were outside the
Church of God; 2. because they were not born again of God, but they yet
remained the sons of the old Adam, and merely natural men (Ainsworth); 3.
because they understood only earthly things (Menochius, Tirinus, Rivet); 4.
because they weakened the strength of the body through lust and luxury. The
daughters of these, against the prohibition of Seth, they were taking (Tirinus).

The sons of God; either, 1. Persons of greatest eminency for place and
power, for such are called gods, and children of the Most High, Psalm 82:6;
where also they are opposed to men, Genesis 6:7, i.e. to meaner men. And
the most eminent things in their kinds are attributed to God, as cedars of God,
all of God, etc. But it is not probable that the princes and nobles should
generally take wives or women of the meaner rank, nor would the marriages of
such persons be simply condemned, or at least it would not be mentioned as a

1 Psalm 80:10b: “And the boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars (l)-' yzr" ): ,a
cedars of God).”
2 Genesis 6:2a: “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair
(tb+o )o . . .”
3 1 Samuel 9:2: “And he had a son, whose name was Saul, a choice young man, and a
goodly (bwO+): and there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier (bw+O )
person than he: from his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the
people.”

316

crying sin, and a great cause of the deluge. Or rather, 2. The children of Seth
and Enos, the professors of the true religion. For, 1. Such, and only such, in
the common use of Scripture, are called the sons and children of God, as
Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:19; Isaiah 1:2; 45:11; Hosea 11:1; Luke 17:27, etc. 2.
This title manifestly relates to Genesis 4:26, where the same persons are said to
be called by the name of the Lord, i.e. to be the sons and servants of God. 3.
They are opposed to the daughters of men, the word men being here taken in
an ill sense, for such as had nothing in them but the nature of men, which is
corrupt and abominable, and were not sons of God, but foreigners and
strangers to him, and apostates from him. 4. These unequal matches with
persons of a false religion are every where condemned in Scripture as sinful and
pernicious, as Genesis 26:35; Exodus 34:16; 1 Kings 11:2, 3; Ezra 9:12;
Nehemiah 13:23, etc.; Malachi 2:11; 1 Corinthians 7:39; 2 Corinthians 6:14,
and therefore are fitly spoken of here as one of the sins which brought the flood
upon the ungodly world.

[That they were fair (thus most interpreters), tb+o o] Pleasant
(Septuagint, Samaritan Text, Piscator), that is, of a pleasant form: A
synecdoche of kind. Or h)'r:m/a appearance is understood, which is expressed
in Genesis 24:16. Rebekah was h)r' :ma tbaw+O , beautiful with respect to
appearance. Compare Genesis 12:111 (Piscator).

[They took, w@xq;ywI% ]A With the eyes more than with the ears judging of
a wife (Grotius), they were taking wives from the progeny of Cain and other
profane families, against the precept of God (Vatablus); likewise concubines,
however many and whomever they were desiring (Munster). But to take a wife
of a commoner, or of a different religion, appears to be a slight offense,
especially since marriages of this sort were not yet prohibited. Could it be,
therefore, that it ought to be translated, they seized them by force? It signifies
this in Genesis 34:2 and Job 5:5, perhaps also 1 Samuel 8:11 and Job 40:24.
This was a most grievous offense, and afterwards is call smfxf/violence,
because of which the flood was sent. The Hebrews relate that the Gentiles are
not punished except on account of so great an offense (Drusius).

[Whom they chose] That is, they loved and approved of them. Thus
to choose is used in Psalm 25:12; 119:173; Isaiah 1:29; 42:1, compared with
Matthew 12:28 (Ainsworth). I translate lkmo@ ,i from whomever, whether pious
or impious (Piscator). Horace, Songs 3:6:

Generations abounding in blame
From the beginning debased marriage, family, and the home.

1 Genesis 12:11b: “Behold now, I know that thou art a woman fair to look upon
(h)re :m-a tpay,: beautiful of appearance).”

317

From this fountain derived, ruin
Overspread the fatherland and people (Gataker).
They were fair, i.e. beautiful, and set off their beauty with all the
allurements of ornaments and carriage; herein using greater liberty than the
sons and daughters of God did or durst take, 1 Peter 3:3; and therefore were
more enticing and prevalent with fleshly-minded men. Either, 1. By force and
violence, as the word sometimes signifies. Or rather, 2. By consent; for the
sons of God were so few, in comparison of the wicked world, that they durst
not take away their daughters by force; which also proves that they did not take
them for harlots, but for wives.
They took them wives, possibly more than one for each of them, after
the example of those wicked families into which they were matched; of all
which they chose, i.e. loved and liked, as the word choosing is taken, Psalm
25:12; 119:173; Isaiah 1:29; 42:1, compared with Matthew 12:28. This is
noted as the first error, that they did promiscuously choose wives, without any
regard to their sobriety and religion, minding only the pleasing of their own
fancies and lusts, not the pleasing and serving of their Lord and Maker, nor the
obtaining of a godly seed, which was God’s end in the institution of marriage,
Malachi 2:15, and therefore should have been theirs too.

Verse 3: And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with
man (Gal. 5:16, 17; 1 Pet. 3:19, 20), for that he also is flesh (Ps. 78:39): yet
his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

[And He said] Within Himself; that is, He decided and decreed
(Vatablus). He said, supply, in His heart, as it is said in full in Psalm 14:1
(Piscator).

[It shall not continue, NwdO yF )l$ ] They translate and explain this in a
variety of ways. 1. Concerning the spirit of man. This wickedest generation
will not continue before Me forever (Chaldean). The spirit given by me to man
shall not continue (Septuagint, Chaldean, Arabic, Drusius, Menochius,
Tirinus), shall not remain for a long time enclosed, as in a sheath, obviously for
no good purpose, no better than a covered sword (Grotius); he shall not live
longer (Vatablus); they shall not live as long as their ancestors lived
(Menochius). And the spirit is the soul breathed into man by God, Genesis 2:7
and Ecclesiastes 12:7 (Fagius’ Comparison of the Principal Translations). NdEnE
is a sheath, 1 Chronicles 21:27,1 and thus the body is called in the Chaldean of
Daniel 7:15.2 (Hence the expression, spirits in prison, 1 Peter 3:19, is

1 1 Chronicles 21:27: “And the Lord commanded the angel; and he put up his sword
again into the sheath (hn@ dF nF :) thereof.”
2 Daniel 7:15a: “I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body (hnEdn: )I .”

318

permitted to be interpreted [Grotius].) Thus Rabbi Joseph Kimhi:1 My Spirit,
that is, which I breathed into man, shall not be for a long time in that dispute
which it has with the flesh, since it does not delight in those pleasures which the
body seeks (Munster). Kimhi infers that the Chaldean had translated it, it shall
not be established, that is, it shall not remain firm; which is plainly it shall not
continue. For he thought NwOdyF to be derived from Ndn, to give. But in this he
was mistaken, for then it would have been NwOd@yI, when it is NwOdyF.2 It is rather
borrowed from the Syriac )nd, which is to endure (Fuller’s Sacred Miscellany
5:5). Others think that they read NwlO yF, to lodge, in the place of NwOdyF
(Lapide). This exposition is distored (Vatablus), neither does it satisfy Fuller.
1. Because the soul of man is nowhere in the Scriptures called the Spirit of
God. 2. The sense of it shall not remain forever appears empty, for
immediately after the first sin it was decreed that it would not endure (Fuller’s
Sacred Miscellany 5:5). 2. Concerning the Spirit of God. But here they vary.
1. My Spirit shall not strive (Munster) (contend [Tigurinus, Montanus,
Kimchi, Oleaster, Fuller], dispute [Samaritan Text, Pagnine]); My Spirit shall
not dwell (Syriac, Arabic) (or continue [Septuagint]); My Spirit within Me shall
not be in upheaval, or shall not be agitated, etc. (Fuller), forever on account of
man, whether I shall destroy or save him (Fagius’ Comparison of the Principal
Translations, Fuller). That is, Not always with a disquieted soul shall I proceed
to dispute with myself, neither is it agreeable to proceed for a longer time, as I
have been accustomed, Lamentations 3:33, to delay punishment: finally I shall
decide what I am about to do. Thus nearly all of the more learned (Fuller). As
if wearied by the obstinacy of the world and moved by the tedium, He says this,
It shall not contend forever, that is, for a long time; I am not able to bear it for
much longer, I shall not quarrel longer; I shall execute the vengeance at hand.
For, to the length of time that God suspended the punishment, to that same
degree He disputes with men; especially if, with threats and examples of light
reprimand, He stirs men to come to their senses again (Vatablus). My Spirit,
by teaching and admonishing, shall not fight perpetually; I shall at some time
utterly destroy, and that shortly (Fagius’ Comparison of the Principal
Translations, Hebrews in Fagius’ Comparison of the Principal Translations).
Since they are instructed in vain, they shall not be judged nor accused by the
spirit of my doctrine: I shall send a famine of the Word (Munster). The word

1 Rabbi Joseph Kimhi (1105-1170), father of Moses and David Kimchi, was a French
rabbi. He commented on the entire Hebrew Bible, emphasizing the literal meaning
arising from the grammar of the text. Only framents of his work survive.
2 NwOd@yI is in the Niphal conjugation, it shall not be given. The Niphal form would have
fully justified the Chaldean rendering; however, the Hebrew verb is in the Qal
conjugation.

319

Nw@d signifies, not only to judge, but to litigate (Vatablus), or to examine by
trial; as in Proverbs 15:181 and Ecclesiastes 6:102 (Drusius). 2. Others thus:
My Spirit shall not judge men forever (Symmachus in Nobilius). Not severity,
but mercy, Jerome wishes to be observed in this place. Because he is flesh, that
is, frail; therefore, I, grieved, shall not preserve them forever, but now I shall
punish. For Nwd@ often is to execute judgment; and b signifies upon, or against,
someone,3 Psalm 110:6.4 This does not satisfy Fuller. If (says he) a single sin
cannot be expiated by temporal punishments, as just deserts, how much less so
many, most heinous sins (Fuller). 3. My Spirit shall not judge, that is, I shall
not judge: thus, whom my heart believed, that is, whom I believe (Drusius).
4. My Spirit shall not judge, or shall not execute judgment among those men
forever (that is to say, immediately, or suddenly, as they deserved), although
they are flesh, but the space of one hundred and twenty years shall be given for
coming to their senses again; if they will not come to their senses again
thereupon, I shall punish them forever. And thus finally it happened, 2 Peter
2:5 (Fuller, Sacred Miscellany).

[In the case of man (Septuagint, Munster), Md)F fbf] With man
(Pagnine, Tigurinus). In these, or those, men (Syriac, Arabic, the Greeks in
Grotius). He shall not contend in them, internally, through His Spirit; neither
with them, externally, by the prophesying of the prophets (Ainsworth). For
the sake of those men. I would prefer, because of those men, so that the b
might signify rwb@ (bj ,a on account of. Furthermore, Md)F fbf is put in the place
of MdF)fhfb;, that man or those men: a trace of the article h is in the Qames
under the b (Piscator).

[Forever] That is, for a long time (Vatablus, Grotius), as they might
imagine or promise themselves (Tirinus); that is, as long as their ancestors had
lived (Menochius).

The Lord said; either, 1. To the men of that age by the mouth of
Noah; or, 2. Within himself; (see Psalm 14:1); he determined. Strive with
man, or, contend, or, debate in or against men, as it hath hitherto done, by
inward motions and suggestions in the minds and consciences of wicked men,
or by the mouths and ministry of that small remnant of holy men, and
particularly of Noah, who protested against and contended with the world of

1 Proverbs 15:18a: “A wrathful man stirreth up strife (NwOdmf) . . .”
2 Ecclesiastes 6:10b: “Neither may he contend (NydIl)f with him that is mightier than
he.”
3 Genesis 6:3a: “And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man
(MdF)fb)f .”
4 Psalm 110:6a: “He shall judge (NydyI F, execute judgment) among the heathen (MyIwOgb@ a,@
against the nations).”

320

the ungodly, and by their doctrines, admonitions, threatenings, and examples,
endeavoured to bring them to repentance, 1 Peter 3:19; or dispute with, or
concerning, or because of men, i.e. whether I should destroy or save him, as
God disputes with or about Ephraim, Hosea 11:8.

[Because he is flesh (thus the Septuagint, Chaldean, Syriac, Arabic); the

Chaldean adds, and their works are most wicked, r#ofbf )wh@ Mg#A@ $ab;]@ In this,
that (or, because he is [Munster, Pagnine, Oleaster], or, in that [Oleaster,
Malvenda, Junius and Tremellius]) he also is flesh (Montanus, Junius and
Tremellius, Munster, Pagnine, Oleaster). They also are flesh (Junius and

Tremellius). )w@h/he refers to Md)F f/man, which here denotes many
(Piscator). There is a tacit antithesis; that is to say, not only the Cainites, but
also the sons of God (Ainsworth, Piscator). Flesh, not with respect to nature,
but with respect to fault and habit of life. They live just as if reason had been
given to them, not as a rule, but for salt, lest they should putrefy (Menochius).
He calls flesh that which is not capable of reason, Psalm 78:39 (Vatablus). He
is eager for the feeding and pleasing of the flesh, without the fear of God. It is
spoken concerning the human race of that age, with very few excepted. See
Matthew 24:38 (Grotius). He was exceedingly entangled with fleshly sins
(Lyra). He is fleshly, not having the Spirit, Jude 19. Flesh and Spirit are
opposed, Romans 7, 8; Galatians 5 (Ainsworth). They follow the lead of
fleshly reason and of carnal affections, not the lead of the Word and Spirit of
God (Piscator).

[And his days shall be an hundred and twenty years] They are
commonly construed of diminished length of human life: And hence the
tradition was advanced even among the Gentiles, that it was revealed by God to
Moses, that no one was going to live beyond this space of time. See Josephus’
Antiquities 7:1 and his Life of Claudius Cæsar, who reigned after the one of
Gaul (Grotius). So it is in Josephus, Lactantius, and Procopius (Tirinus, thus
Castalio). Castalio explains the entire verse in this way: He judged it
unbecoming that He, who was the Spirit and God, should dispute for so long a
time with men, who are corporeal and mortal: Therefore, He decided to cut
short their life. Now, it is said that God contends and disputes with men, when
He is provoked by their sins. Long life (with strength, etc.) had made men
worse. Therefore, God acts like states which are wont to impede the tyranny
of their magistrates by the brevity and weakness of their power (Castalio). This
sense does not satisfy others, for a great many after the flood live far longer
(Menochius, Tirinus). Response: He speaks after the common manner, just as
in Psalm 90:10: Eighty years of human life He established as a limit, although
many at that time surpassed it (Castalio). The Egyptians and Chaldeans
inserted a month into the calendar after one hundred and twenty years, which
the Persians called the great month. To the Hebrews it was the span and space

321

of human life (Scaliger’s Concerning the Emendation of the Times 3).
Therefore, the Jews had their own great period, and they were defining an age
by an hundred and twenty years, like a human life. The Hebrews call this
space, dlex,e that is, the duration of human life. This was to the Hebrews as
seculum, the age, to the Romans (Scaliger’s Concerning the Emendation of the
Times 4, Gataker). 2. Others understand this of the interval granted to that
age for repentance, for, for so many years He was delaying panwleqri/an/
destruction through the flood. Thus the Greeks (in Grotius, thus Grotius,
Vatablus, Lyra, Menochius, Tirinus, Bonfrerius, Lapide, Piscator, Ainsworth,
Rivet).

For that he also, i.e. even the seed of Seth, or the sons of God also, no
less than the offspring of Cain; the pronoun being here put for the foregoing
noun, and the singular number put for the plural, he, i.e. they, to wit, the sons
of God. Both which figures are frequent in the use of Scripture. Or, he, i.e.
man, all mankind, the sons of God not excepted, is flesh; not only fleshly in
part, or in some actions, but altogether, in regard of soul as well as body,
minding nothing but making provision for the flesh to fulfil its lusts, Romans
13:14. Not having the Spirit, Jude 19, nor heeding its good motions, but
suppressing and resisting them. Flesh not only in the condition of their nature,
but in the baseness and corruption of their hearts and lives; as the word flesh is
commonly used when it is opposed to the Spirit, as John 3:6; Romans 7:18;
8:5, 7; Galatians 5:17. Yet, though he deserve a speedy destruction, his days,
i.e. the time allowed him for repentance, and the prevention of his ruin, shall
be an hundred and twenty years. During which time Noah was preaching; and,
to assure them of the truth of his doctrine, preparing the ark. See 1 Peter 3:20;
2 Peter 2:5. Question. How did God perform this promise, when there were
but a hundred years between this time and the flood, by comparing Genesis
5:32, with Genesis 7:11? Answer 1. The increasing wickedness of mankind
might justly hasten their ruin, and forfeit the benefit of this indulgence. 2.
This promise, though mentioned after that, Genesis 5:32, yet seems to have
been made twenty years before it; for that verse is added there out of its proper
place only to complete the genealogy; and therefore, after this narration, it is
repeated here in its due order, Genesis 6:10. And such hysteron proterons are
frequently noted in Scripture.

[2469 BC] Verse 4: There were giants in the earth in those days; and
also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and
they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old,
men of renown.

[Giants, Mylpi in@;ha] Of such a kind were the Giants or Titans of the
Greeks (Grotius); who exceeded the rest with respect to stature, strength

322

(Lyra, Menochius), and wickedness (Lyra, Vatablus). I know that height is
denoted by this word elsewhere; but here Moses distinguishes them from the
rest, not so much by the mass of the body, as by their lust for advancement
(Vatablus). Thus they are called, either because other men would fall1 on
account of fear of their great size (Munster, Vatablus, Piscator, Ainsworth); or
because the rest, because of their height, seemed, as it were, to lie in their
presence (the more learned Hebrews, Fagius); or from tyranny and oppression
(Munster), that is to say, causing others to fall (Estius); or rather because, as a
landslide or storm, violently falling, devastates and destroys fields, so also these
inflicted devastation upon the world by their assaults (Vatablus); or rebels, as it
were, for thus lpanF is taken in Jeremiah 37:132 and 38:19,3 and Mylpi in@h; /a
rebels in 2 Kings 25:114 (certain interpreters in Drusius, Ainsworth, Piscator),
but this is too general, for all before Noah rebelled (Drusius); or from falling
upon, as Aquila (who follows the originals slavishly [Grotius]) translates it,
ep0 ipi/ptontej, those falling upon, as in Psalm 10:10, he falls upon, that is,
he rushes upon, by his strong ones.5 Symmachus renders it not incorrectly,
Bi/aioi, the violent (Drusius); concerning these Lucian6 writes thus in
Concerning the Syrian Goddess,7 ub( ristai\ ka&rta e1ontej, etc., they were
especially violent (Grotius).

[Indeed after, r#$e)j Nk-' yr"xj)a Mgwa :] They translate it, And also
after (Chaldean, Munster, Tigurinus, Oleaster, Ainsworth), or, afterwards thus
(Oleaster, Malvenda). In those days, and after those (Arabic), or, and also into
the future (Syriac). And also after these things (Samaritan Text). And also
following which (Pagnine). And also they were afterwards (Junius and
Tremellius, Piscator), that is, just as previously. That is to say, The threats of
God had not made them better (Ainsworth, Rabbi Salomon nearly thus in
Munster). Indeed all the more; that is to say, There were Giants previously,
some also of the common stock (Vatablus); after those marriages, there were
far more (Lapide). But Moses acknowledges well enough in this verse that

1 It is here suggested that Mylpi ni h;@ a is derived from the verbal root, lpna ,F to fall, lie.
2 Jeremiah 37:13b: “And he took Jeremiah the prophet, saying, Thou fallest away
(lpn' ,O art rebelling) to the Chaldeans.”
3 Jeremiah 38:19a: “And Zedekiah the king said unto Jeremiah, I am afraid of the
Jews that are fallen (w@lpn; ,F have rebelled) to the Chaldeans . . .”
4 2 Kings 25:11a: “Now the rest of the people that were left in the city, and the
fugitives (Mylipn; Oh@ ,a rebels) that fell away (wl@ p;nF, rebelled) to the king of Babylon . . .”
5 Psalm 10:10: “He croucheth, and humbleth himself, that he might fall (lpna Fw:) upon
the poor by his strong ones.”
6 Lucian of Samosata (c. 120-c. 180) was a trained rhetorician, particularly skilled in
satire.
7 De Dea Syria.

323

formerly they were not, for he explains their origin as a new event (Malvenda).
Thus God punished the human race, that oppressors were brought forth
(Estius). The reason why the Giants were begotten: The sons of Seth were of a
completely undiminished potency, and, by reason of the heat of lust toward
women, nature uncovered all its force; thereupon the children are men most
monstrous and powerful (Lapide, Menochius).

[After they came in, w)@ boyF r#$e)j] They translate it, ever since
(Pagnine) (or because [Arabic], or since [Septuagint, Samaritan Text], or when
[Ainsworth]: r#)e$ j in the place of r#e$)kj a,@ when or since [Piscator]) they came
in (Samaritan Text, Septuagint, Arabic), namely, into the marriage bed, as in
Judges 15:1. This ellipsis is modest; that is to say, they were keeping company
with them (Ainsworth, Piscator). During which days they were coming
together (Junius and Tremellius). Mymyi ,F during the days, is repeated from the
preceding section1 (Piscator).

[And the women begat, Mhelf wd@ ly; wF ]: The interpreters vary. They
bore to them (Samaritan Text, Syriac, Arabic, Montanus, Pagnine), or by them
(Chaldean). They begat to them (Munster, Tigurinus, Ainsworth). They, that
is, the women, were bearing to them, namely, to the Giants (Vatablus); or,
they, that is, the men, begat children for themselves2 (Ainsworth, Piscator),
that is, at that time, all things were full of the rapine of the Giants (Vatablus).

Giants; men so called, partly from their high stature, but principally
for their great strength and force, whereby they oppressed and tyrannized over
others: for this is mentioned as another sin, and cause of the flood; and
therefore they seem to be here noted, not for the height of their stature, which
is no crime, but for their violence, which also is expressed beneath, Genesis
6:11, 13. After that time there arose a new generation or succession of that
sort of men, when the sons of God came in, were united and incorporated with
them. A modest expression of the conjugal state and act, as Genesis 16:2;
30:3; Judges 15:1.

[Mighty men (thus most interpreters)] Giants (Septuagint, Syriac,
Arabic), heroes (Vatablus, Malvenda), these or those were mighty (Munster,
Vatablus).

[MyrbI og@ I@h]a By a slight mutation, MyryI bikh;@ a, mighty ones, oi9
Ka/beiroi, great gods, in Virgil, as Servius notes; qeoi\ dunatoi\ to the Greeks
(that is, mighty gods), inventors of navigation, and honored on account of it;

1 Genesis 6:4: “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,
during the days (repeated from the first clause) when the sons of God came in unto
the daughters of men . . .”
2 w@dl;ywF : is a third person, plural, perfect, which can have either a masculine or
feminine subject.

324

pirates, not at all doubtfully (Grotius).
[Of old (thus most interpreters)] [Certain interpreters refer it to what

precedes:] The mighty, strong men, or Giants of old (Septuagint, Pagnine,
Munster), or, who were of old (Chaldean, Samaritan Text), eternal Giants
(Syriac, Arabic).

[Mlwf O(m]' That is, ancients; that is to say, these were the first to
exercise tyranny (Vatablus): from the beginning of the world (Lyra), from
olden days, that is to say, whom the ancient age bore (Malvenda). It is a
proverb, because the latter age did not produce such (certain interpreters in
Vatablus). Although after the flood we see men of monstrous body, they were
saying: In the former age, they were even more robust (Gerundensis in
Munster). Others translate it, openly before the world, which is called Mlwf O(
(certain interpreters in Vatablus). Others: of the world, or of the age, that is,
who in the age or world were greatly capable (certain interpreters in
Malvenda). [Others conjoin the expression with what follows:] Who of old
were men of renown (Montanus, Oleaster). Who were already from olden
times men most famous (Junius and Tremellius), that is, famous from the
beginning of the world (Oleaster).

[Famous men (Pagnine)] Made famous (Munster, Septuagint), made
most famous (Syriac, Arabic), men of excellence (Samaritan Version).

[M#'h%$ a y#'n$ ): ]a Men of name (Ainsworth, Malvenda, Oleaster,
Montanus, Chaldean, Piscator), that is to say, made famous, most famous
(Piscator). The antithesis to these is men without name, Job 30:81
(Ainsworth). #$wOn)v is used on account of toil and misery2 (Malvenda).

Which were of old, which were proper to the first ages of the world;
for the succeeding generations were generally less in stature and strength of
body, and therefore not so famous for personal exploits. Or these words may
be thus joined with the following, which were of old, i.e. among the men of
that first and wicked world, men of renown, i.e. famous in their generations;
when indeed they should have been infamous for the abuse of their stature and
strength to tyranny and cruelty.

Verse 5: And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the
earth, and that every imagination (or, the whole imagination: the Hebrew
word signifieth not only the imagination, but also the purposes and desires) of
the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (Heb. every day; Gen. 8:21;

1 Job 30:8: “They were children of fools, yea, children of base men (M#$'-ylib,;
without a name): they were viler than the earth.”
2 #$wOn)v/man is derived from the verbal root #$nA),f to be weak, sick.

325

Deut. 29:19; Prov. 6:18; 2 Esd. 3:8;1 Matt. 15:19).
[That the wickedness was great] Continuous, diverse, vehement

(Menochius).
[The whole intention, tb#o $x; ;ma rcye ' lkfw:] And every formation2

(or imagination [Montanus, Oleaster, Pagnine], or feeling [Chaldean], or
disposition [Syriac], or purpose [Arabic], or invention [Tigurinus, Fagius,
Oleaster, Procopius], or desire, longing [Vatablus]) of the thoughts, etc.
(Malvenda, Montanus); every secret activity (Samaritan Version); invention and
intentions (Junius and Tremellius). It most aptly signifies the wickedness of the
heart, which is an extraordinary artisan and potter, fashioning vessels of various
kinds and every one most vain. Note that rcye /' imagination is taken both in a
good way and in a bad way. bwO+h% a rcye ", an intention of good; (rFhf rcye ",
an intention of evil.

[Intent on evil] Hebrew: only evil (Malvenda). Some take this of
actual wickedness. It is true of the worst men of the age; or it is actually
hyperbole, as when we say, This man knows nothing, except what concerns his
belly (Menochius). Others take this of original sin, or the kindling of sin
(Hebrews in Malvenda, Quistorpius3); for this was the cause of the flood, by
which they were destroyed, even infants, upon whom actual wickedness has
not come, yet they are punished not without fault (Quistorpius).

To the heart the Scripture commonly ascribes all men’s actual
wickedness, as Psalm 41:6; Proverbs 4:23; 6:14, 18; Jeremiah 17:9; Matthew
15:19; Romans 3:10, etc.; thereby leading us from acts of sin to the original
corruption of nature, as the cause and source of them.

Evil continually, i.e. that man was perpetually either doing or
contriving wickedness; that not only his actions were vile, but his principles
also; his very soul, yea, the noblest part of it, which might seem most free from
the contagion; his mind and thoughts were corrupt and abominable, and so
there was no hope of amendment.

[2448 BC] Verse 6: And it repented the LORD (see Num. 23:19; 1
Sam. 15:11, 29; 2 Sam. 24:16; Mal. 3:6; Jam. 1:17) that he had made man on
the earth, and it grieved him at his heart (Is. 63:10; Eph. 4:30).

[It repented Him (most interpreters), Mxne @yF IwA] It displeased the Lord
(Syriac), He turned in disgust (Symmachus). God detested the creation of the

1 2 Esdras 3:8: “And every people walked after their own will, and did wonderful
things before thee, and despised thy commandments.”
2 rcye " is derived from the verbal root rcay,F to form.
3 Johannes Quistorpius was a Lutheran minister and Professor of Divinity at Rostock.
He attended Hugo Grotius at his deathbed.

326

sons of Adam (Arabic). This is spoken after the manner of men (Lyra,
Munster, Malvenda), for after the likeness of repentance He willed to destroy
what He had made (Lyra). Onkelos and Jonathan: hy@ rm" y; mb' ; btfw:, which
Grotius translates, He returned unto His Word, that is, unto Himself. But
Drusius translates it, It repented Him (for btf also signifies to repent) with His
son, who is Word of the Father. I offer this; I do not establish it (Drusius).
The Septuagint: He considered and reconsidered; for He, who repents of a
deed, often turns that over and over in his mind, saying, Behold, why have I
done this? if only I had not done it (Lapide). Others thus: To repent is not
used of God properly, but of the Holy Spirit arousing groaning in the hearts of
the pious; and this is the sense of it repented him, that is, Noah, who had the
Spirit of God, by whom he is roused to grief. Thus Ephesians 4:30: The Holy
Spirit in the pious is grieved on account of the wickedness of men. Thus Noah
is sorry and desires rather that man not be, than be thus evil (Munster).

[And He was stricken by anguish, etc., wbO @li-l)e bc@(' ta ;y%wI A] He
grieved (He bond Himself [Samaritan Version]) in His own heart, or soul
(Montanus, Junius and Tremellius, Samaritan Version). He grieved in His own
heart (Samaritan Text). The Syriac: He said in His word that He would
exhaust their strength according to His own pleasure. The Chaldean: And He
wounded Himself with grief. The Hithpael intensifies the significance
(Malvenda).

Properly God cannot repent, Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:11, 29,
because he is unchangeable in his nature and counsels, Malachi 3:6; James 1:17,
and perfectly wise, and constantly happy, and therefore not liable to any grief
or disappointment. But this is spoken of God after the manner of man, by a
common figure called anthropopathia, whereby also eyes, ears, hands, nose,
etc. are ascribed to God; and it signifies an alienation of God’s heart and
affections from men for their wickedness, whereby God carries himself towards
them like one that is truly penitent and grieved, destroying the work of his own
hands. It grieved him at his heart, or, at his very soul, i.e. exceedingly.

Verse 7: And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created
from the face of the earth; both man, and beast (Heb. from man unto beast),
and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have
made them.

[Unto animals] Which dwell upon the earth, and which are destroyed
in hatred of sin (Lyra). Because they were made for the sake of man, they
ought to perish with him, when he is destroyed (Oleaster); and by his sins they
were made liable to vanity, Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20 (Ainsworth). The fish
were not destroyed, because the sins of man were not committed in the waters
(Lyra).

327

Both man and beast; for as the beasts were made for man’s use and
service, so they are destroyed for man’s punishment, and to discover the
malignity of sin, and God’s deep abhorrency thereof, by destroying those
innocent creatures that had been made instrumental to it.

Verse 8: But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD (Gen. 19:19;
Ex. 33:12, 13, 16, 17; Luke 1:30; Acts 7:46).

[He found grace] It is a Hebraism, that is, he had God propitious and
favoring (Vatablus, Piscator, Ainsworth, Menochius). These letters p p p
signify a Parascha, or a great Section of the Law, such as they were reading on
Sabbaths, Acts 15:21, to which they added another Section from the Prophets,
Acts 13:15. There are fifty-four Sections in the Law, which they read through
on fifty-two Sabbaths, twice conjoining two of the briefer sections. The first
section is from the beginning to this place (Ainsworth). And to this Section of
the Law the Hebrews give a name from the first or most unusual word of the
first verse.1 The second Section of this book they call xwa On/Noah (Vatablus).

Found grace, i.e. obtained mercy and favour; which is noted to show
that Noah was so far guilty of the common corruption of human nature, that he
needed God’s grace and mercy to pardon and preserve him from the common
destruction.

Verse 9: These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and
perfect (or, upright) in his generations (Gen. 7:1; Ezek. 14:14, 20; Ecclus.
44:17;2 Rom. 1:17; Heb. 11:7; 2 Pet. 2:5), and Noah walked with God (Gen.
5:22).

[These are the generations, twdO lw; Ot@ hl)@e '] They vary. 1. These
things were done, or which things happened to Noah (Hebrews in Vatablus,
Ainsworth). Thus Genesis 37:2,3 the generations of Jacob, and Proverbs 27:1,
thou knowest not what a day dlya F, might bring forth,that is, what might be
about to happen in a day (Vatablus). 2. These are the families, etc. (Targum
Jerusalem), or generations (certain Hebrews in Vatablus, thus nearly all
interpreters): These are whom he begat (Oleaster), that is, the sons of Noah,

1 ty#i)$ rb" ;@, in the beginning.
2 Ecclesiasticus 44:17: “Noah was found perfect and righteous; in the time of wrath
he was taken in exchange [for the world]; therefore was he left as a remnant unto the
earth, when the flood came.”
3 Genesis 37:2: “These are the generations (twdO l;wtO @ hl@e)') of Jacob. Joseph, being
seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren; and the lad was with the
sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives: and Joseph brought
unto his father their evil report.”

328

as it is explained in the following verse (Piscator). Thus twOdl;wOt/@ generations
is taken in Genesis 10:1 and 25:12. And this clause, Noah was a just man, etc.,
is placed by way of parenthesis (Vatablus).

The generations of Noah; either, 1. Properly the posterity of Noah, as
the word is commonly used, and as it is explained Genesis 6:10. So the rest of
this verse comes in by way of parenthesis, which is frequent. Or, 2. The
events or occurrences which befell Noah and his family, as the word is taken,
Genesis 37:2; Proverbs 27:1.

[Just and perfect, Mymit@f qyd@cI a] Just (supply, and [Piscator])
complete (Junius and Tremellius, Piscator). Justice is referred to actions,
integrity to the soul (Piscator). Justice has respect to faith, by which the just
live, Romans 1:17, and which is ascribed to Noah, Hebrews 11:7. Perfection
regards life (Ainsworth). He is called perfect on account of the perfection of
his journey, not of his home, which excludes mortal sin (Lapide, Menochius).
The perfect man is opposed to the perverse and impious man, Job 9:20, 22
(Ainsworth).

[In his generations, wytfrdo bo @]; That is, In those times in which he
lived, or among the men of his own, most corrupt age (Vatablus). Some
maintain that it was spoken for his praise. It is emphatic. He was a wonderful
example of constancy (Vatablus). Martial,1 Concerning Nerva 12:6:

Now, it is lawful and it is right; but thou, under the hard Princeps
And in evil times, darest to be good.
Seneca,2 Concerning Benefits 3:25: Of what sort of man is he, to be found
faithful in the midst of public unfaithfulness! etc. (Gataker). He was perfect in
the midst of evil men, who were pressing by word and example to draw him to
evil (Lyra). How much more just would he have been, if he had been in the
generation of Moses or Samuel? as Rabbi Nehemiah3 rightly said in Bereshith
Rabba 30 (Cartwright). Others explain that this is for the diminution of praise;
that is to say, he was just in comparison with the men of that age (Lyra), in
view of men who were then living (Menochius). Generation is taken here in
the place of the men of the generation, as in Matthew 11:16 compared with
Luke 7:31 (Ainsworth, Piscator, Lapide). Others explain it as in actions; for
actions are, as it were, the children which a man begets during the time of his
whole life (Lyra, Bochart).
A just man, and perfect. These words are to be taken either, 1.

1 Marcus Valerius Martialis was a first century Roman poet.
2 Lucius Annæus Seneca (c. 4 BC-65 AD) was a Roman philosopher and dramatist.
3 Rabbi Nehemiah (c. 135-170) was a fourth generation tanna, a sage living in the
Mishnaic period (c. 20-200), which period was divided into five generations. Rabbi
Nehemiah’s work paved the way for the compilation of the Tosefta, a supplement to
the record of oral law in the Mishnah.

329

Jointly, q.d. he was righteous, not only in appearance, or in part, but perfectly,
in all respects, towards God and men; or sincerely and truly. Or, 2.
Distinctly, q.d. he was for his state and condition just before God, which was
by faith, Hebrews 11:7, by which every just man lives, Romans 1:17, and
perfect, i.e. upright and unblamable in the course of his life among the men of
his age, as it follows; in his generations. This is spoken either, 1.
Diminutively; he was so comparatively to the men that then lived, who were
very bad; though otherwise even Noah had many infirmities, so that he also had
not been saved but for God’s grace and mercy, Genesis 6:8. Or, 2. By way of
amplification and commendation; he was good in bad times, in spite of all evil
counsels or examples. He saith generations, in the plural number, to show that
as he lived in two generations, one before the flood, and another after it, so he
continued uncorrupted in both of them.

[He walked with God] That is, he pleased God, or he discharged the
duty (namely, of a preacher) unto which God had called him, 2 Peter 2:5
(Ainsworth). See the things said on Genesis 5:24.

Noah walked with God. See on Genesis 5:22.

Verse 10: And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Gen.
5:32).

See the note on Gen 5:32.

Verse 11: The earth also was corrupt before God (Gen. 7:1; 10:9;
13:13; 2 Chron. 34:27; Luke 1:6; Rom. 2:13; 3:19), and the earth was filled
with violence (Ezek. 8:17; 28:16; Hab. 2:8, 17).

[The earth was corrupt] That is, the inhabitants of the earth (Vatablus,
Menochius). Corruption has regard to the worship of God, the perversion of
which, and especially idolatry, is called corruption,1 Exodus 32:7;
Deuteronomy 32:5; Judges 2:19; 2 Chronicles 27:2 (Ainsworth).

The earth is here put for its inhabitants, as 1 Kings 10:24; Ezekiel
14:13.

[Before God] That is, truly (Menochius, Malvenda); through
impudence and contempt of God (Malvenda, Piscator), with God seeing and
knowing. Thus he extols the patience of God (Vatablus, Malvenda).

Before God, or, before the face of God; q.d. in despite and contempt
of God, and of his presence and justice. Compare Genesis 10:9, and 13:13:
q.d. They sinned openly and impudently without shame, boldly and resolutely
without any fear of God.

In the latter part of the verse, the earth is put for the place, or the
inhabited parts of it. So the same word is twice used in a differing sense in one

1 Hebrew: txa#f.$

330

and the same verse. See the like Matthew 8:22.
[It was full of iniquity (thus the Syriac, Arabic, Montanus, Pagnine,

Oleaster), smxf f] Injustice (Septuagint); robberies (Chaldean); oppression
(Samaritan Text); violence (Junius and Tremellius, Tigurinus, Targum
Jerusalem, Malvenda); violence, fraud, false accusations (Vatablus, Munster,
Menochius); violent injury (Ainsworth); subversion, by which one was
overthrowing another (Oleaster). This has regard to the duties owed to men.
Thus it relates that corruption had become visible both in the ecclesiastical
situation, and in the political, although it began in the domestic. Or, by injury
are signified unjust men; just as by pride, a proud man, Jeremiah 50:31, 32;1
by poverty, poor men, Proverbs 13:8;2 2 Kings 24:143 (Ainsworth).

Violence, or, injustice, fraud, rapine, oppression; for all these this
word signifies. Some conceive that these two branches note the universal
corruption of mankind, in reference to all their duties. 1. Towards God and
his worship, which they corrupted by horrible superstition, and by idolatry,
which is called corruption, Exodus 32:7; Deuteronomy 32:5; Judges 2:19. 2.
Towards men, in the duties of righteousness.

Verse 12: And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt
(Gen. 18:21; Ps. 14:2; 33:13, 14; 53:2, 3); for all flesh had corrupted his way
upon the earth.

[When God had seen] He contemplated; He considered (Vatablus).
[All flesh] That is, Every man (Lyra, Menochius, Vatablus,
Ainsworth), as in Isaiah 40:5, all flesh shall see (Menochius). Others apply it to
the brutes, which had even themselves mixed themselves with diverse species
(Lapide, Menochius).
[He had corrupted his way] That is, Either, 1. the way of Him, that is,
of God (Ambrose in The Greatest Bible). Or, 2. his own way (Grotius), that
is, his own manner of living (Menochius), by filthy lusts (Grotius); life,
purposes, pursuits, as in Psalm 1 (Piscator), and the faith (which is called the
way, Acts 18:25, 26; 22:4; 2 Peter 2:2), and manners (as it is taken in Jude 11
and 2 Peter 2:15 [Ainsworth]). Or, 3. they corrupted the way, that is, the
natural usage, into a promiscuis coming together (Oleaster). But it is to be
understood more comprehensively (Malvenda).

1 Jeremiah 50:31, 32a: “Behold, I am against thee, O pride (NwOdzF), saith the Lord God
of hosts: for thy day is come, the time that I will visit thee. And pride (NwdO z)F shall
stumble and fall, and none shall raise him up . . .”
2 Proverbs 13:8: “The ransom of a man’s life are his riches: but the poor (#$r,F
poverty) heareth not rebuke.”
3 2 Kings 24:14b: “None remained, save the poor (tlda@ A,@ poverty) the people of the
land.”

331

All men, as the word flesh is taken, Psalm 78:39; Isaiah 40:5, and oft
elsewhere, had corrupted his way; either, 1. God’s way, his precepts
concerning religion and righteousness; or, 2. Their own way or manner of
living.

Verse 13: And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before
me (Jer. 51:13; Ezek. 7:2, 3, 6; Amos 8:2; 1 Pet. 4:7); for the earth is filled
with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth
(or, from the earth; Gen. 6:17).

[The end of all flesh is come] Flesh is taken in this place more broadly
than previously (Piscator). That is to say, The day appointed for destruction
approaches (Lapide, Menochius): I have decreed that I am about to destroy
(Vatablus, Bonfrerius): Already I display before myself how I will finish them
(Oleaster).

The end, i.e. the time of ruin, as this word is used, Ezek 7:2, 3, 6;
Amos 8:2, of all flesh, to all men, as verse 12, though the beasts also were
involved in the same destruction, is come, i.e. is approaching, and at the very
door, and shall as certainly come as if it were actually come.

Before me, i.e. in my purpose and decree, howsoever vain men flatter
themselves with hopes of longer impunity.

[Filled with iniquity in front of them (Munster, Pagnine, Ainsworth),
Mhye n"pm;% i] From their appearance (Syriac, Arabic); in their presence
(Tigurinus); from them (Septuagint, Junius and Tremellius); through them,
that is, by them as originators (Vatablus, Ainsworth, Piscator); because of them
(Samaritan Text), that is, by their effort (Vatablus, Piscator, Ainsworth); by the
character of their most villainous works (Chaldean). They themselves fill the
earth with robberies, etc. (Malvenda).

Through them, i.e. By their means; so that the earth even groans under
them.

[I will destroy] Hebrew: I destroy,1 the present in place of the future;
that is, I am ready to destroy (Vatablus). Corruption is previously spoken of
sin, here of punishment2 (Ainsworth).

[With the earth (Chaldean, Samaritan Text, Munster, Pagnine,
Tigurinus, Oleaster, Malvenda)] That is, With the furnishings of the earth,
trees, plants, etc. (Vatablus, Piscator).

[Cr)E fh-f t)]e And the earth (Septuagint). The very earth (Montanus).

1 Hebrew: Mtfyxi#m$; a.
2 Genesis 6:12, 13: “And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt
(htfx#f ;n$ I); for all flesh had corrupted (tyx#i $h; )i his way upon the earth. And God said
unto Noah . . . behold, I will destroy them (Mtyf x#i m$; ,a corrupt them) with the earth.”

332

[But the Persian version has I will spoil for them the earth.] The earth itself was
made worse by saltiness. The Hebrews say that three spans were shaken loose
from the surface of the earth and turned into water (Lyra). Others translate it,
from the earth (Arabic), so that t)e1 is in the place of Nmi/from (Vatablus), or
in the place of t)me /' from, which signifies motion from a place, as in Genesis
44:4, they went out ry(hi f-t)e, from the city. They confirm it from a
comparision with verse 7, hmdf F)hj f ynp' ;% l(ma ', from the face of the earth
(Piscator). I am about to destroy upon the earth (Syriac). Others: with the
rest of the earth (Junius and Tremellius); they understand, with the posterity of
Cain. But it appears forced, for by them they had already understood all men
(Piscator).

With the earth, i.e. with the fruits and beauty, though not the
substance of the earth. Or, from the earth, as Genesis 6:7; the Hebrew eth
being oft put for min or meeth, as Genesis 44:4; Deuteronomy 34:1;2 1 Kings
8:43, compared with 2 Chronicles 6:33.3

Verse 14: Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms (Heb. nests) shalt
thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

[Make then an ark, tbat]@' This word signifies that the form of the ark
was not that of a ship, but of a chest, broad above and below (Menochius). It is
called Kibwto_j/box in the Septuagint, Matthew 24:38, and Luke 17:27. It is
called la&rnac (that is, ark, chest); which noun is used in the same sense by
Lucian, Simonides,4 Apollodorus,5 and Alexander Polyhistor6 (Grotius). It was
a ship to Berosus, but covered after the likeness of an ark (Hostus). Ark was
the most ancient name for ships, after the similitude of which they were made
(Grotius).

An ark; a little ship made in the form of an ark or chest, but probably
sloping at the bottom for the convenience of navigation, as it was for another

1 t)e usually serves as the direct object marker.
2 Deuteronomy 34:1b: “And the Lord shewed him all the land of (t),e or from)
Gilead, unto Dan . . .”
3 2 Chronicles 6:33a: “Then hear thou from (Nm)i the heavens . . .” The Nmi is lacking
in 1 Kings 8:43, neither is the t)e present. Since the Hebrew word order suggests that
MyIm#a %h$f a/heaven stands in the direct object position, perhaps t)e may be supplied and
understood in the sense of Nmi/from.
4 There were two ancient Greek poets of that name, one of the seventh, and one the
sixth, century BC.
5 Apollodorus was a second century BC Greek poet and historian.
6 Alexander Polyhistor was a first century Greek historian and geographer, who wrote
forty-two volumes on the countries of the ancient world, including Israel.

333

reason sloping at the top.
[Of smooth timbers, rpegO] This word is not used in any other place

(Hebrews in Vatablus). They take it in diverse ways. 1. Generally (Buteo).
For it was not one kind, nor was it, on account of the abundance required, able
to be supplied from one region; nor would one kind be applied with sufficient
suitability to the diverse parts of the ark, the timbers, the ceilings, etc. (Buteo).
Of pitch-covered timbers (Jerome). He confuses rpge /O gopher with rpek/@o
copher/pitch (Drusius). Trees abounding in pitch and resin, such as pine and
cedar, can be understood (Menochius). Others: squared timbers (Scaliger),
namely, for building (Buteo); smooth (Vulgate), that is, hewn and polished for
a more proper and firm conjoining (Menochius). Scholium: e0k cu/lwn
as) h/ptwn, that is, from incorruptible timbers (Drusius). 2. Particularly. It
is a type of extremely light wood, and most suitable for floating, and which
never rots (Vatablus). Either, 1. Cedar (some of the Fathers [in Menochius,
thus the rabbis in Munster and Fuller, Onkelos, Jonathan, Drusius, Vatablus],
Chaldean). For it was extremely sturdy, and, with a scarcity of fir, was used
for ships (Fuller). And in Syria it was abundant; it yields the longest planks and
is incorruptible (Menochius). But at that time the name of the cedar was NrE)e,
both to the Hebrews and to the Chaldeans, not rpegO (Fuller’s Sacred Miscellany
4:5). Or, 2. Pine (certain interpreters in Vatablus, Munster, Oleaster), which
is called nautical by Virgil, as if most suitable for ships. Or, 3. Boxwood
(Arabic). But this is extremely dense and heavy, neither does it float in the
water (Fuller). Or, 4. Fir (Vatablus): one of four species of firs (Munster).
Or, 5. Juniper (Junius and Tremellius): which is more suited to the Hebrew
word than cedar (Fuller). Or, 6. Terebinth. Yet I do not entirely affirm this.
This is of a wood tough and reliable into old age, growing tall in Syria, which
alone prefers to be oiled, and is made better by oil, and its berries are
sulphurous; now, sulphur is called Gophrith1 (Castalio). Or, 7. Cypress
(Fuller, Bochart’s Sacred Geography “Phaleg” 1:4:25), partly on account of its
firmness (neither does it bear worms, inasmuch as it is bitter; hence those
things which must endure are inscribed upon cypress planks), partly on account
of the similitude of the name (Fuller). For how is rpw%e @k@, Cyper or Cypar, also
Kupa/rissoj/Kuparissos to the Greeks, different than rpge O/Gopher (Fuller,
Bochart’s Sacred Geography “Phaleg”)? For I have nothing to say against the
mutation of g/G into k/@ C, p/Ph into p/% P, wO/O into w/@ U. Add that the
Cretans build the roofs of houses and ships out of Cypress, as Peter Martyr
testifies in Babylonian Legation2 2. The material is not dense, says Pliny, and

1 Hebrew: tyrIp;g/F@ brimstone.
2 Legatio Babylonica

334

so it floats in the water. Coinciding with the perpetuity of the most well-tested
Cypress is what Epiphanius, in Against Eighty Heresies1 1, refers to, that visible
remains of the ark had endured until his own time. Hence, that tree is sacred
to Pluto; and they were burying the bodies of the dead in arks of cypress, for in
the flood it was as the common sepulcher of all men (Fuller); and dia_ to_
a!shpton ei]nai, because it is free from rottenness, says the Scholiast on
Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War2 2. Theophrastus,3 History of
Plants4 5:5, and Pliny, Natural History 16:40: Cypress is the most long-lasting
of the trees, fashioned from which the double doors of the Temple of Ephesus
endured uncorrupted through four generations. Vitruvius,5 Concerning
Architecture6 2:9: A work of cypress is of perpetual duration; Martial,
Epigrams 6:73: with everlasting cypress, which will never decay (Bochart’s
Sacred Geography “Phaleg” 1:4). Nevertheless, Fuller hardly proves that this
material was good for building ships, etc., says Bochart: who, therefore, runs
to help him, and proves out of Plutarch’s Symposium of the Seven Ages 1:2:
Neither does a shipwright first gather . . . pine . . . but cypress; and Vegetius’
Military Institutions of the Romans7 4:34: An especially fast-sailing warship is
composed of cypress and pine. Cassiodorus,8 Various Epistles9 5:16: King
Theodoric orders cypress to be acquired for constructing ships. Among the
trees useful to nauphgoij= /shipwrights, Plato, in Laws 4, names cypress, as
does Diodorus, in his Historical Library 19. To these things, add that in Assyria
or Babylon (where it is apparent that the first men had lived based on the
description of Paradise and the mountains of Ararat, where the ark rested)
there is no other material from which ships are built. Arrianus, The Ascension
of Alexanderi 7, and Strabo, Geography 16: Here, a vast fleet, which Alexander
constructed in Babylon, was composed out of cypress alone. What if Gopher is
the name of a place, so called on account of cypress trees, as Elon/terebinth is
named for its terebinth trees, etc.? Perhaps it was the same place which Strabo
calls Cupressetum, and which he locates in Adiabene or Assyria (Bochart’s

1 Adversus LXXX Hæreses.
2 Thucydides (c. 460-c. 400 BC) was a Greek historian, author of the History of the
Peloponnesian War.
3 Theophrastus (372-287 BC) was a disciple of Aristotle and his successor at the
Lyceum.
4 Historia Plantarum.
5 Vitruvius (c. 70 BC-c. 25 AD) was a Roman engineer.
6 De architectura.
7 Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus was a fourth century author. He wrote Military
Institutions of the Romans (De Re Militari).
8 Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus (c. 490- c. 585) served Theodoric, King of the
Ostrogoths, as a member of his cabinet. He retired to a monastery and spent his final
years writing on religious topics and gathering manuscripts.
9 Variæ Epistolæ.

335

Sacred Geography “Phaleg” 1:4).
Gopher wood: this word is but once used in Scripture, and therefore

it is diversely rendered by the learned; by some pine, by many cedar, but by
others cypress, a tree very proper and usual for ships, and of a firm and durable
substance, and much abounding in those parts; all which appears from ancient
authors.

[Little rooms shalt thou make in the ark (Chaldean), h#(eo tj a@ Myn@Iqi
hbft'@h-a t)e] Nests thou shalt make the ark (Montanus, Septuagint, Malvenda);
that is to say, The entire ark thou shalt divide into little rooms (Vatablus). Nest
is in the place of dwelling, Numbers 24:21;1 Obadiah 4 (Ainsworth). Nests
shalt thou make for the ark (Oleaster); or, in the ark (Samaritan Text, Munster,
Ainsworth); or, in this ark (Pagnine). Make that into floors (Arabic). Into
little rooms arrange (or shalt thou build [Tigurinus]) the ark (Syriac). Of many
dwellings shalt thou make the ark (Junius and Tremellius).

[Thou shalt overlay it with pitch] Or thou shalt cover (Chaldean), or
thou shalt smear it with pitch (thus most interpreters).

[t@fr:pakfw:] And thou shalt smear over it (Malvenda, Arabic, Ambrose
in Nobilius); seal it (Syriac); thou shalt smear it with pitch (Junius and
Tremellius, Piscator, Ainsworth, thus Munster). They translated rpeko@ as
bitumen (Scaliger, Lyra, Montanus); which was in that place used instead of tar
(Vatablus, Menochius), and is fragrant; for that reason, it was advantageously
added (even as cedar would be), for it would be foul-smelling in the ark from
the dung of the animals (Menochius). This bitumen is a boiling glue to
Augustine, by which the sealed timbers are kept from being eaten up by
worms, and from being cracked or broken by the sun, wind, or water. See
Pliny’s Natural History 35:5 (Hostus). Perhaps this is the kind of bitumen
which is called Kaphura or Camphora by the Arabs, and the fragrant wood is
most refreshing (de Dieu). Others explain it as rmwe Ox/cement (Munster). See
what things, concerning the ark and the flood, we have brought together in
Concerning the Truth of the Christian Religion 1 (Grotius).

With pitch; or rather, with some kind of bitumen, of the same nature
and use with pitch, to cement the parts of the ark together, and to preserve it
from the injuries of the sun, and water, and worms; but more odoriferous, to
correct the unpleasant scent of some of the creatures.

[Inside, tyIbam@ ]i From the house (Oleaster, Malvenda). It is a
Hebraism, that what things are in the house are from within (Oleaster).

1 Numbers 24:21: “And he looked on the Kenites, and took up his parable, and said,
Strong is thy dwellingplace (K1be#w$f Om), and thou puttest thy nest (K1nq@E )i in a rock.”

336

Verse 15: And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The
length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and
the height of it thirty cubits.

[Thus thou shalt make it (thus the Septuagint, Chaldean, Samaritan
Text), h@tf)o h#(oe jta@ r#$e)j hzwe ]: And this is what (that by which
[Montanus]) thou shalt make it (Malvenda). And by this rule thou shalt make it
(Pagnine, Oleaster, Tigurinus). This is the form by which thou shalt make it
(Munster, Junius and Tremellius, Ainsworth, Piscator). This is the measure
after which thou shalt make it (Arabic, Vatablus out of the Hebrews).

[Three hundred cubits] The cubit was threefold, according to some:
1. Common, defined as a foot and a half; 2. Sacred, which corresponded to
the common cubit and a hand’s breadth, as it is plain from Ezekiel 43:13. 3.
Geometrical, which contains nine ordinary cubits, says Lyra, but mistakenly, or
feet are to be understood; for it was containing nine feet (Buteo, Hostus).
Here the cubit originates from Origen, poorly understood: Concerning which
see Buteo. Some understand here the geometrical cubit. This opinion prevails
in general, with no one, whom I have seen, contradicting, says Buteo. But how
was so great a structure able to be furnished with beams (Lyra)? It would not
have been able to endure sailing and heavy loads. Thus also the ark would have
been more than two hundred times greater than was necessary. Even Sacred
Scripture opposes so great a measure. Thus Goliath would have been fifty-four
feet tall,1 and his head would have been nine feet. How then would David have
held the severed head in his hand? Thus the altar of three cubits in Exodus2
would have been of twenty-seven feet, nothing of which would have been used,
except by ladders brought near; which is completely inconsistent with the rite
of sacrifices (Lyra, Estius, Menochius, Ainsworth, Buteo, Hostus, Scaliger):
Thus hm@f)a/cubit is commonly taken. Moses did not distinguish cubits. And
that such great cubits abundantly sufficed for all contained in the ark, Buteo
relates geometrically; which he exhibits by this order and manner. 1. He
reduces all animals to kinds, with respect had to their size: majora, according
to the size of an ox; minora, according to the size of a sheep; carnivora,
according to the size of a wolf. 2. As the Majora under consideration, he
enumerates all kinds of them, elephants, horses, etc., and, with a comparison
of size established, he reduces them to ninety-one oxen: So that he might carry
on liberally, he supposes that there were one hundred and twenty oxen. 3. As
Minora, he enumerates animals such as she-goats, ibices, monkeys, etc., and,
by reason of their size, he reduces them to eighty sheep. 4. As Carnivora, he
holds forth lions, dragons, tigers, etc., and he reduces them to sixty-four

1 1 Samuel 17:4.
2 Exodus 27:1; 38:1.

337

wolves; or, if you wish, they might be eighty. 5. He allowed to each wolf one
sheep for nourishment every eight days. So, for eighty wolves there were ten
sheep daily: which, multiplying by the three hundred and sixty-five days of the
year, yields three thousand, six hundred and fifty for a year’s worth of food. 6.
Therefore, to these three thousand, six hundred and fifty sheep, and the eighty
others, and the one hundred and twenty oxen, and eighty wolves, he gives a
sufficient place on the bottommost floor, where, with the rest rightly
distributed, a space of two hundred and twenty-eight cubits in length and forty-
four in width is given for the three thousand, six hundred and fifty sheep
mentioned. Thus to each pair of them is given about five and a half square feet.
7. The food which it holds, although provisions of produce, such as vetch,
barley, etc, are stored up in much more cramped quarters than of hay,
nevertheless he demonstrates that even enough hay could be stored in the ark.
8. He supposes that the sheep set aside for food would decrease daily, and
therefore, the three thousand, six hundred and fifty, with this considered,
would extend into the year no more than by the average number, one
thousand, eight hundred and twenty sheep. He adds to these the eighty other
sheep: Thus the sheep come to one thousand, nine hundred. Seven sheep
equal one ox (as the calculation is more freely determined): Thus there are
roughly three hundred and ninety oxen; but let them be four hundred. 9. He
grants a cubed cubit of compressed hay (which he says that he, having carefully
weighed, found to contain more than forty pounds, pounds of twelve ounces,
of hay) to each ox daily; which would more than suffice, especially for the idle.
10. He grants to this hay the second floor, which was containing three hundred
cubits in length, fifty in width, ten in heighth: Thus the sum is made of one
hundred and fifty thousand cubed cubits (although one hundred and forty-six
thousand would have sufficed for the forementioned hay), and the entire
capacity of the ark was of four hundred and fifty thousand cubed cubits. Buteo
presents these things in his exceptional little book Concerning the Ark of Noah,
among the critical short-treatises.

Which things could satisfy the judicious man with sufficient ease. But
for the fuller satisfaction of this feigned difficulty, and for repressing the
boldness of atheists, it seems proper to subjoin the more meticulous discussion
of these things by Wilkins, Bishop and Doctor of Divinity, which he shared
with me on account of his kindness. Briefly, thus he has these things.

I might wish that noted in the first place, as a matter most worthy of
observation, what of worth is no doubt present among those opinions and
positions, which arise out of the more general, vague, and confused
consideration of things, and among those which result from a more distinct and
deliberate consideration of things, although they were already brought into
order. Whoever incidentally and carelessly observes, with a wandering eye,

338

the stars, inasmuch as they are scattered confusedly here and there upon the
face of heaven, he will doubtlessly conclude on the spot that they are
innumerable, and, that their immense sum cannot ever be precisely gathered by
human calculation, he will easily convince himself. However, since these stars
have been distinguished among astronomers, and defined with respect to the
places, sizes, and names of each, it will be plain in the end that not many more
than thousands are visible to the naked eye in the entire firmament of heaven;
and that not above a half part of that sum is visible at one time in any
hemisphere. This also obtains in other matters. If anyone were to enquire
even from the crowd of learned men, how many species there might be of
birds, quadrupeds, etc., in the earth, from those of that sort, I suppose, he
would obtain a response that there are such a great many legions of them, that
all are not able easily to be enumerated: if we should judge the matter
distinctly and apply to calculations, however many are already known and
catalogued by authors worthy of credit, it will appear that they are much fewer
than it is popularly believed, not even a hundred species of quadupeds
observed, nor two hundred of birds. From this prejudice and ill conceived
opinion, some, heretics formerly, atheistic mockers of religion in these recent
times, drew forth objections (inasmuch as they appear to them insoluable)
against the truth and authority of Sacred Scripture, and particularly against the
description of the ark of Noah, Genesis 6:15, as related by Moses; where its
dimensions are marked out, three hundred cubits of length, fifty of width,
thirty of height. If these dimensions are brought together with the things for
the containing of which it was designed, it will appear prima facie (and
consequently they assert with great confidence) that it was utterly impossible
that this ark could have held so vast a multitude of animals, with provisions
which would suffice for each for a whole year. This objection appeared of such
great importance to some, both of the ancient Fathers of the Church, and of
more recent theologians, to men of the highest learning and judgment
otherwise, but in philosophy and mathematical disciplines less conversant, that
they were reduced to some scheme or other, which arguments they employed
to the difficulty to be unloosed. Origen and St. Augustine, and other authors
not at all to be despised, to avoid the force of this difficulty, affirm that Moses,
inasmuch as he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, by the name of a
cubit in this business, inasmuch as it is applied to the ark, wanted the Egyptian
Geometrical cubit to be understood, equal to six (as they say) common cubits,
that is, nine feet. But this appears less agreeable to reason for many reasons.
For it is not sufficiently clear that the geometrical cubit, of the sort mentioned,
was ever in use, either among the Egyptians, or among the Jews. Yet, given
that it was, no reason is assignable as to why in this place this sense is attributed
to the word, cubit, rather than in other places. Concerning Goliath, the Sacred

339

History relates that his height was six cubits and one span: which, if it should
be taken of the geometrical cubit, requires that he would have been fifty-four
feet tall, and, according to the same proportion, the severed head would have
been nine feet in height or diameter; certainly load for the carrying of which,
not the two hands of David, but hardly even the shoulders, would have been
sufficient. Others, therefore, not content with this solution, imagine that they
have found a more suitable one, by asserting this: Human stature in those first
and most ancient ages of the world was far greater, and to such a degree, the
cubit was likewise greater, perhaps even twice the size of today’s cubit; from
which also the area or capacity of the ark will be much increased. But neither
does this untie the knot. For if they should maintain then that the men of that
time were taller or larger, the same proportion is to be supposed concerning
the other animals also. In which case, that response will solve nothing at all.
Others maintain that the sacred cubit is here understood, of which mention is
made in Ezekiel 43:13, longer by the legal width of one palm. However,
necessity does not compel, nor is any reason joined to this opinion. Moreover,
it is generally admitted among almost all the learned that the sacred cubit was
used for measuring only the sacred works of craftmanship, the Temple, of
course, the Tabernacle, etc. This imaginary difficulty is resolved much more
rightly and agreeably by John Buteo, in his small treatise concerning the Ark of
Noah, in which, given that the cubit is not greater than a foot and a half, he
demonstrates mathematically that there was enough room or space in the ark
for all the things which it was designed to hold. On the other hand, because in
the philosophical part of this treatise, some things present themselves, liable to
exception and obnoxious to reprehension, and especially in the enumeration of
the species of animals, of which a few are fabulous, others distinguished by
accidental properties rather than by species, with other true species at the same
time omitted; I suppose that it is neither far removed from the design, nor
completely useless to make public another, and more agreeable, explication of
things. It is evident from the description of the ark set forth by Moses, that it
was divided into three stories, each ten cubits, or fifteen feet, tall, with one
cubit subtracted on account of the slope of the roof in the uppermost dwelling.
It is also agreed among interpreters that the lowest dwelling, as most suitable,
was alloted to the species of quadrupeds; the middle to their food; the
uppermost, partly to the birds and their food, partly to Noah and his family and
provisions. Now it can be clearly demonstrated that each floor was sufficiently
spacious for all the things for the receiving of which they had been designed.
Which, so that it might be the more clearly and distinctly opened, first, I shall
present some tables, encompassing all the species of quadrupeds to be received
into the ark. Second, I shall present the diverse kinds of food with which they
are commonly fed, then the number of the single or individual animals in each

340

species, consisting of two from the unclean and seven of the clean, of course.
Next (so that the calculation might be advanced expeditiously), to what extent
it is permitted to proceed by conjecture, I shall add what ration, or portion,
each of them might have as an ox, or sheep, or wolf. Finally, I shall present
how much space is to be assigned for stalls sufficient for receiving them.1

1 Translation key: Main column headings: Bestiæ quæ Fœno Vescuntur, Beasts
which Feed upon Hay; Bestiæ quæ Fructibus, Radicibus, et Insectis Vescuntur, Beasts
which Feed upon Crops, Roots, and Insects; Carnivora Animalia, Carnivorous
Animals. Sub-column headings: Numerus/Number; Nomen/Name; Proportio ad
Boves, Proportion to Oxen; Proportio ad Oves, Proportion to Sheep; Proportio ad
Lupos, Proportion to Wolves; Latitudo Stabulorum, Breadth of Stables (pedes, in
feet). Animals of the first column: Equus/Horse; Asinus/Ass; Camelus/Camel;
Elephas/Elephant; Bos/Ox; Urus, Wild Ox; Bisons/Bison; Bonasus, European Bison;
Bubalus/Buffalo; Ovis/Sheep; Strepsiceros/Antelope; Ovis Laticauda, Broad-tailed
Sheep; Caper/He-goat; Ibex/Ibex; Rupicapra, Mountain Goat; Gazellus/Gazelle;
Alcis/Moose; Cervus/Deer; Dama, Fallow Deer; Rangifer/Reindeer; Caprea, Roe
Deer; Rhinoceros/Rhinoceros; Camelopardalis/Giraffe; Lepus/Hare; Cuniculus/
Rabbit; Mus Alpin, Marmot. Animals of the second column: Porcus/Pig;
Papio/Baboon; Simia/Ape; Cercopithecus/Monkey; Pigritia/Sloth; Histrix/Porcupine;
Erinaceus/Hedgehog; Sciurus/Squirrel; Porcellus Indicus, Guinea Pig; Tamandua/
Anteater; Tatu/Armadillo; Testudo/Turtle. Animals of the third column: Leo/Lion;
Ursus/Bear; Tigris/Tiger; Pardus/Panther; Lynx/Lynx; Catus/Cat; Zibetta/Civetcat;
Viverra/Ferret; Putorius/Polecat; Martes/Marten; Mus Indicus, Stoat; Mustela/
Weasel; Castor/Beaver; Lutra/Otter; Canis/Dog; Lupus/Wolf; Vulpes/Fox; Taxus/
Badger; Lupus Aureus, Jackal; Caraguya/Caraguya.

341

342

I do not enumerate the mule in this catalogue; it is a spurious breed, not a
distinct species. And, although it is probable that those untamed oxen
previously mentioned, the wild ox, bison, European bison, and buffalo, and the
other different kinds reckoned under the sheep and the goat, are not distinct
species from the ox, the sheep, and the goat (while the diversity among dogs is
greater than among those, and it is well-known by experience that region,
sustenance, and other accidents frequently introduce the conspicuous mutations
in the same species); I admit them as distinct species on account of their
abundance, so that I might take away every opportunity of escape; and, since all
are clean, from each species I receive seven into the ark. Concerning the seal,
crocodile, guana, and sea turtle, since it is the testimony of the most approved
authors that they would have been able to survive for a long time in the water, I
do not admit them into the ark; although, if that had been necessary, enough
unused space was at hand, as it will shortly be made clear. For the snake
family, serpent, viper, blind-worm, lizard, frog, toad, and their nourishment,
convenient space was remaining in the bottom or bilge water of the ark, since it
is probable that that descended to the depth of at least three or four feet below
the floor, upon which the quadrupeds were standing. Smaller animals under
consideration (such as the mouse, shrew-mouse, mole, kinds of insects), could
be stabled in various places of the ark; neither is it needful that particular
dwelling places be assigned to them, since this type of small animal easily
provides for himself a place. Now, although it is plausible that the brutes, like
man, subsisted on plants alone before the flood, as it appears from a collation of
Genesis 1:29, 30, And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing
seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the
fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of
the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon
the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat, with
Genesis 9:3, where, after the flood, since the yields of the earth were of
diminished potency, and hence, less suitable for nourishing the body, God,
consoling Noah, says, Be fruitful and multiply, etc., and moveover afterwards,
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb
have I given you all things: nevertheless, because this argumentation is thus
hardly sufficient for convincing a contentious adversary, so that he would be
unable to call into doubt that rapacious types of wild animals and birds (which
nature itself appears to have armed with claws, teeth, and other instruments of
the body, provided precisely for prey and butchery) subsisted on herbs and
fruit; therefore, for the sake of removing the contention, let me grant for the
moment that the animals which are now rapacious were such even from the
beginning, and then let me ask what type of food would have been suitable for
them, and how much would suffice for each for that entire space of time in

343

which they remained on the ark. Now, it is sufficiently well-known that
animals that chew the cud generally become prey and meat for rapacious
animals. From the preceding tables it is proven that they were equal to only
twenty rapacious carnivorous animals altogether, which were to be introduced
into the ark, which, by just appraisers of things, as far as the proportion of
bodies and food, are able to be reckoned as equal to twenty-seven wolves; of a
truly greater assurance, therefore, let them be equal to as many as thirty
wolves: and let us further suppose six wolves every day devour one whole
sheep; which all will readily concede to be more than enough for them for
necessary nourishment. To which calculation, if we press forward, it follows
that five sheep daily, through the course of one year, were to be allotted for
food, the sum of which would be one thousand, eight hundred and twenty-five.
With these things posited and conceded, the space in the lower floor of the ark
will abundantly suffice for all the aforementioned animals to be received, which
were to be preserved in the ark for the sake of propagating the species; and the
one thousand, eight hundred and twenty-five sheep as well, which were
determined for food for the rapacious animals. And, although nothing could be
objected, if we would prescribe only narrow limits to those quadrupeds, just as
it used to be done on ships destined for distant shores; we shall be more liberal,
and provide for those with respect to stables or cells ample and commodius,
which should be abundantly sufficient for those to be received for a whoe year,
in whatever posture, now standing, now lying, now even turning about, and
also for their waste. That the ark was equal to all these uses, it will be evident
from the following diagram,1 in which there is a section in each end of the ark,
designated by the letters AA, fifteen feet wide: and since the ark extends over
seventy-five feet in width, those sections will necessarily contain five areas of
fifteen square feet; of which thirty-six apiece will occupy (for a squared area of
five feet is sufficient for four sheep): and then, since each extremity extends
over five areas of this sort, each will contain five times the sum of thirty-six.
But, since the space of a spiral staircase or flight of stairs is to be conceded in
each end, I shall allot two areas (one, of course, in each end) to this: now, the
remaining eight areas (four, of course, at each end) will hold two hundred and
eighty-eight sheep. Beyond the former divisions, along the perimeter there are
five spaces marked BB, seven feet wide, through which it would be possible to
enter conveniently the individual stables. There are four areas along the sides,
marked CC, designated for stables, each eighteen feet wide and almost two
hundred feet long. There are two middle areas, marked by the letters DD,
each twenty-five feet wide, and also almost two hundred feet long. Now, let
us assign the two middle areas to sheep: and since a squared area of twenty-five
feet would be sufficient for the reception of one hundred sheep, and there are

1 See the diagram below, pages 348-349.

344

sixteen areas of this size, all of them at once will handle one thousand, six
hundred sheep; to which, if the prior two hundred and eighty-eight are added,
they would make the sum of one thousand, eight hundred and eighty-eight:
which exceeds in some measure the one thousand, eight hundred and twenty-
five, the number of sheep which we a little before this had allotted to the
carnivorous animals for food. The four lateral areas, marked CC, (since each is
eighteen feet wide and two hundred feet long) will easily contain all the rest of
the beasts; for the stables of which, in the preceding tables, only six hundred
and six feet of length were allotted: so that I might pass over the breadth of the
stables allotted to them. Thus, there will be a space, nearly two hundred feet,
yet left over, in which other beasts besides, either not enumerated, or not yet
known, could be placed. The fashion of the hull was straighter than what we
use today in building ships, and than what is done so that they might
expeditiously cleave the sea and bear well the fury of the waves; for this
proposition nothing of advantage has been alleged. For, since the ark had only
to float upon the water, it was designed with respect to the roominess and
flatness of that hull for receiving many animals. And although on the eve of the
end of the flood, with the waters already subsiding, God is said to send the
wind, by which the mass of waters might be diminished; nevertheless it is not at
all likely that, with the water yet remaining, at which time the whole earth was
inundated, that any storm was rising, on account of which the ark might have
been endangered; since tornadoes of this sort come forth from dry land.
Whence it is plainly evident that in the lowest floor of the ark there was more
than enough space for receiving comfortably all the quadrupeds thus far known,
and probably also those unknown. Next, it is to be shown, that the second
floor was sufficient for holding the provision or sustenance of one year. To
which end it is to be observed that the animals which feed upon hay, by an
impartial comparison established, were equal to ninety-two oxen.
Nevertheless, they might be made equal (so that we might take away occasion
of quibbling) to one hundred oxen, beyond the one thousand, eight hundred
and twenty-five sheep designated for food. Now, however, since five sheep are
to be consumed daily, sustenance is to be provided for only half the number of
them, nine hundred and twelve, of course; or, what reduces to the same thing
(since seven sheep equal one ox), one hundred and eighty oxen; to which, if
you add the one hundred previously mentioned, you will have two hundred and
eighty. But let us grant that there are three hundred oxen, for which it would
be right to provide sufficient hay; for this there is yet sufficient space on the
second floor. For, as Columella,1 being much involved in experiments
concerning agriculture and rural business, observes (with Buteo witnessing)

1 Lucius Junius Columella (first century AD), a Spaniard, wrote twelve books on
husbandry.

345

that thirty, or forty at the most, pounds of hay are sufficient for one ox per day;
however, these Roman pounds are only twelve ounces. But let us grant for
each forty English pounds of hay. Now, Buteo asserts that it has been proven,
that a solid cube of compressed hay, as it is wont to be when it has already been
stored for a long time, weighed forty pounds, or Roman pounds of twelve
ounces; to the end that there would be one hundred and nine thousand, five
hundred cubes of hay of this sort stored for the three hundred oxen for the
entire year, the product of multiplying the three hundred and sixty-five day by
the three hundred oxen. Now, the second floor, since its height was ten cubits,
its length three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, will hold one hundred and
fifty thousand cubic cubits, which is forty thousand, five hundred more than the
one hundred and nine thousand, five hundred, which would be sufficient for
the storing of the compressed hay. Whereby, there would be enough space left
over for the logs, rafters, and columns, and whatever might be necessary for
building; as also store-rooms of sufficient fruit, roots, crops or shoots, for
feeding whatever other animals, which do not feed upon hay; likewise also for
the necessities of transfer and openings of the floor, through which the hay
should be dropped into the stables of the bottom floor. Hence it is plain that
the second floor was adequate for all the things to be stored in it. Now, as far
as the third floor, it is clearer than daylight, that the half part of this was
abundantly sufficient for all the species of birds (even if they should be twice as
many as are enumerated in the preceding tables), together with the food
necessary for feeding them; since they are, for the most part, of small mass,
they can be shut up comfortably enough in private cells or cages (with one
placed on top of another). And it is certain that the rest of the space was
sufficient for Noah, together with his family and the useful necessities to be
taken. Finally, with all things duly considered, it will certainly appear more
difficult to discover the number and the size of the things appointed to a
capacity of such size, than the space sufficient for the species of animals thus far
known. But, because it is little to be doubted that other species of quadrupeds
and birds diverse from those mentioned above are found in regions of the world
unknown to us, what will be the remainder of the space can be assigned to
animals not yet discovered. Which things, since thus they are, we confidently
affirm that, if philosophers and the most skilled mathematicians should propose
for any ship, most suitable for the uses related here, just proportions of
measurement and boundaries to be mapped out for themselves before hand,
they would not be able, with all things rightly accounted, to set forth other
boundaries more fitting and exact than those here posited. From what things
are thus far mentioned, it is proven that the measurements of the ark, by which
argument some athiests and profane enemies of religion go on to impugn
Sacred Scripture, very much confirm the truth of Scripture and its divine

346

authority; especially if the condition of those first men and ruder times are
properly assessed, when men were less versed in the arts and philosophy, and
hence more liable to common prejudices than they are now: the area and
dimensions are nonetheless exactly suited to hold the things in it. But if it had
been a merely human invention, it is most probable that it, conformed to those
amorphous ideas, which (as I mentioned previously) naturally arise from a
confused and general consideration of things, would have been made as much
larger than what is right, as it was now made smaller than what these, with
whom we have to do, falsely imagine and contend.

347

348