Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 3 part 48/87

For so long was the life of those men that the one of those mentioned there whose years are not passed over in silence, who lived the least before the flood, reached to seven hundred and fifty-three years. Indeed several even passed nine hundred years, though none reached a thousand. Who therefore would doubt that during the lifetime of one man the human race could be multiplied so greatly that there might be wherewith to found not one but very many cities? This can be most easily conjectured from the fact that from the one Abraham, in not much more than four hundred years, so great a number of the Hebrew nation was begotten that at the going forth of that same people out of Egypt six hundred thousand men of military youth are reported to have been:

this is to say nothing of the nation of the Edomites, which does not belong to the people of Israel, whom his brother Esau, the grandson of Abraham, begot, and of others born from the seed of Abraham himself, not begotten through his wife Sarah. CHAPTER IX. On the long life of men, which there was before the flood, and on the larger form of human bodies. Wherefore no prudent appraiser of things would doubt that Cain could found not only some city, but even a great one, when the life of mortals extended over so long a time — unless perhaps some unbeliever, from the very great number of the years through which men are written to have then lived, should press a question upon us, and deny that this is to be believed.

For in the same way they do not believe that the sizes of bodies too were then far greater than they are now. Whence also their most noble poet Virgil, speaking of a huge stone fixed as a boundary-mark in the fields, which a strong man of those times, fighting, both snatched up and ran and whirled and hurled, says: 'Scarcely could twice six chosen men lift it upon their neck, such bodies of men as the earth now produces' — signifying that the earth was then wont to produce greater bodies. How much more, then, in the times nearer the beginning of the world, before that noble and notorious flood!

But concerning the magnitude of bodies, sepulchres, laid bare by age or by the force of rivers and various chances, generally convince the unbelieving, where bones of the dead of incredible size have appeared, or whence they have fallen out. I myself saw — and not I alone, but several with me — on the shore of Utica, a man's molar tooth so huge that, if it were cut up little by little into the measures of our own teeth, it seemed to us that it could have made a hundred. But that one I would believe to have belonged to some giant. For besides that all bodies then were much greater than ours, the giants far surpassed the rest; just as afterward in other times, and in our own, such have been rare indeed, but have scarcely ever been wholly lacking, who exceeded the measure of others by very much. Pliny the Second,

a most learned man, testifies that the more and more the course of the ages passes by, nature brings forth smaller bodies; and he records that Homer too often complained of this in his song, not deriding these things as poetic fancies, but, as a writer of natural marvels, taking them up into historical credence. But, as I said, the bones, often found, of the magnitudes of the bodies of the ancients, since they are long-lasting, betray these things even to much later ages. The number of the years of each man, however, which there was in those times, cannot now come into proof by any such documents.

Nor yet is the faith of this sacred history on that account to be impaired, whose things, when narrated, we believe the less impudently, the more surely we behold its predictions fulfilled. Yet the same Pliny says there is still a nation where men live two hundred years. If therefore long durations of human lives, which we have not experienced, are believed to be possessed today by places unknown to us, why should they not be believed to have been possessed also by times? Or is it indeed credible that there is somewhere what is not here, and incredible that there once was what is not now? CHAPTER X. On the difference whereby the numbers of years seem to disagree between the Hebrew and our codices.

Wherefore, although between the Hebrew and our codices there seems to be some discrepancy concerning the very number of the years — by what cause this came about I do not know — yet it is not so great that they disagree as to those men having been so long-lived. For the first man himself, Adam, before he begat the son who was called Seth, is found in our codices to have lived two hundred and thirty years, but in the Hebrew he is reported a hundred and thirty; but after he begot him, he is read to have lived seven hundred in ours, but eight hundred in those; and thus in both the sum total agrees. And then through the following generations, before he is begotten who is recorded to be begotten, the father of him is found among the Hebrews to have lived a hundred years less;

but after the same one is begotten, a hundred are found in ours fewer than in the Hebrews; and thus on both sides the totality of the numbers agrees. In the sixth generation, however, nowhere do the two codices disagree. But in the seventh, where the one who was born, Enoch, is narrated not to have died but to have been translated because he pleased God, there is the same discrepancy as in the preceding five, concerning the hundred years before he begot the son who is recorded there, and in the sum a similar agreement. For he lived, before he was translated, according to both codices, three hundred and sixty-five years. The eighth generation has indeed some difference, but smaller and unlike the rest.

For Methuselah, whom Enoch begat, before he begot the one who follows next in that order, lived, according to the Hebrews, not a hundred years less, but twenty more; which again in ours, after he begat him, are found to be added, and in both the sum of the whole number coincides with itself. In the ninth generation alone, that is, in the years of Lamech, the son of Methuselah and father of Noah, the sum of the totality differs, but not by very much. For he is found to have lived twenty-four years more in the Hebrews than in our codices. For before he begot the son who was called Noah, he has six fewer in the Hebrews than in ours; but after he begot him, thirty more in those than in ours.

Whence, those six being subtracted, twenty-four remain, as has been said. CHAPTER XI. On the years of Methuselah, whose age seems to exceed the flood by fourteen years. Now through this discrepancy of the Hebrew codices and ours arises that most famous question, where Methuselah is reckoned to have lived fourteen years after the flood, though Scripture records that of all who were then upon the earth, only eight men escaped the destruction of the flood in the ark, among whom Methuselah was not. For according to our codices Methuselah, before he begot the one whom he called Lamech, lived a hundred and sixty-seven years;

then Lamech himself, before Noah was born of him, lived a hundred and eighty-eight years, which together make three hundred and fifty-five; to these are added the six hundred years of Noah, in which year of his the flood took place: these make nine hundred and fifty-five from the time Methuselah was born up to the year of the flood. For all the years of Methuselah's life are reckoned nine hundred and sixty-nine, because, when he had lived a hundred and sixty-seven years and had begotten the son who was called Lamech, after begetting him he lived eight hundred and two years; all of which, as we have said, make nine hundred and sixty-nine.

Whence, nine hundred and fifty-five being subtracted from the birth of Methuselah up to the flood, there remain fourteen, during which he is believed to have lived after the flood. On account of this, some suppose that he, though not on the earth — where it is agreed that all flesh which nature does not allow to live in the waters was destroyed — was for some time with his father, who had been translated, and lived there until the flood passed by; being unwilling to detract from the faith of the codices which the Church has received into more celebrated authority, and believing the Jews rather than these to have what is not true.

For they do not admit that this could rather have been an error of the translators, than that there should be a falsehood in that language from which the Scripture itself was translated into ours through the Greek; but they say it is not credible that the Seventy translators, who at one and the same time and with one mind translated, could have erred, or, where nothing of theirs was at stake, could have wished to lie; whereas the Jews, while they envy us that the Law and the Prophets have passed over to us by translation, have changed certain things in their codices, that the authority of ours might be diminished. Let each one accept this opinion or suspicion as he shall think fit;

yet it is certain that Methuselah did not live after the flood, but died in that same year, if what is found concerning the number of years in the Hebrew codices is true. But what I think concerning those Seventy translators must be inserted more carefully in its own place, when, with the Lord's help, we shall have come to those very times that must be recorded, so far as the necessity of this work demands. For the present question it suffices that, according to both codices, the men of that age had lives so long that, by the age of one man — who, of the two whom the earth then alone had as parents, was the first to be born — the human race could be multiplied even to the founding of a city. CHAPTER XII. On the opinion of those

who do not believe that the men of the earliest times were as long-lived as is written. For by no means are those to be listened to who think that the years were reckoned otherwise in those times — that is, of such brevity that one year of ours is believed to have contained ten of theirs. Wherefore, they say, when anyone hears or reads that someone lived nine hundred years, he ought to understand ninety; for ten of those years are one of ours, and ten of ours were a hundred of theirs. And by this, as they think, Adam was twenty-three years old when he begot Seth, and Seth himself was twenty years and six months when Enos was born of him, whom Scripture calls two hundred and five years;

since, as these men suspect, whose opinion we are setting forth, they divided one year, such as we now have, into ten parts, and called those same parts years; of which parts one has the square of six, because in six days God perfected His works, so that on the seventh He might rest (concerning which matter I have disputed, as I could, in the eleventh book); and six times six, which number makes the square of six, are thirty-six days; which, multiplied tenfold, reach to three hundred and sixty, that is, twelve lunar months.

For, on account of the remaining five days by which the solar year is completed, and the quarter of a day, on account of which, multiplied four times, in that year which they call bissextile, one day is added — on these accounts days were afterward added by the ancients, that the number of years might come out right, which days the Romans called intercalary. Accordingly Enos too, whom Seth begat, was nineteen years old when his son Cainan was born of him, which years Scripture calls a hundred and ninety. And thereafter, through all the generations in which the years of men are recorded before the flood, scarcely anyone is found in our codices who, being a hundred years old or under, or even a hundred and twenty or not much more, begot a son;

but those who begot at the least age are reported to have been a hundred and sixty, and what runs beyond; because, they say, no man of ten years can beget sons — which number was called a hundred years by those men; but at sixteen years there is mature puberty and one now fit for begetting offspring, which sixteen years those times named a hundred and sixty. And that the year was then reckoned otherwise may not be incredible, they add what is found among very many writers of history: that the Egyptians had a year of four months, the Acarnanians of six months, the Lavinians of thirteen months.

Pliny the Second, when he had recorded that it had been set down in writing that a certain man lived a hundred and fifty-two years, another ten more, others had a life of two hundred years, others of three hundred, some reached five hundred, others six hundred, and some attained even to eight hundred — he judged that all these things had happened through ignorance of the times. 'For some,' he says, 'determined the year by summer and another by winter, others by the fourfold seasons, like the Arcadians,' he says, 'whose years were of three months.' He added also that the Egyptians sometimes — whose small years we said above were of four months — limited the year by the moon's end.

'And so among them,' he says, 'individuals are reported to have lived even a thousand years each.' By these as if plausible arguments certain men, not destroying the faith of this sacred history, but striving to support it, lest it be incredible that the ancients are reported to have lived so many years, have persuaded themselves — nor do they think they persuade themselves impudently — that so small a span of time was then called a year, that ten of those are one of ours, and ten of ours a hundred of theirs. But that this is most utterly false is shown by a most evident proof. Before I produce it, it seems to me that I should not pass over in silence what suspicion may be more credible.

We could certainly refute and convict this assertion from the Hebrew codices, where Adam is found to have been not two hundred and thirty, but a hundred and thirty years old when he begot his third son; which years, if they are thirteen of ours, then without doubt, when he first begot — Cain — he was eleven years old, or not much more. Who can beget at this age by that customary and to us most well-known law of nature? But let us pass over this man, who perhaps even when he was created could have done so; for it is not credible that he was made as small as our infants are. Seth his son was not two hundred and five, as we read, but a hundred and five when he begot Enos;

and by this, according to these men, he did not yet have eleven years of age. What shall I say of Cainan his son, who, though among us he is found a hundred and seventy, is read among the Hebrews to have been seventy when he begot Maleleel? What man of seven years begets, if those years which were seven were then called seventy? CHAPTER XIII. Whether in the numbering of years the authority of the Hebrews rather than of the Seventy translators is to be followed. But when I shall have said this, immediately that 'falsehood of the Jews' will be alleged, concerning which enough has been done above; namely, that the Seventy translators, men laudably celebrated, could not have lied.

Now if I should ask which is more credible — that the Jewish nation, so far and wide diffused, could conspire with one counsel in writing down this falsehood, and, while they envy others authority, have taken away truth from themselves; or that seventy men, who were themselves also Jews, set in one place, since the Egyptian king Ptolemy had summoned them to this work, should have envied the very truth to the foreign nations and have done this by a shared counsel — who would not see which is the more readily and easily believed?

But far be it that any prudent person should believe that the Jews, of whatever perversity and malice, could have done so much in codices so many and so far and wide dispersed, or that those seventy memorable men shared one counsel about envying the truth to the nations. More credibly, therefore, would one say that, when these things first began to be copied out from the library of Ptolemy, then something of this kind could have been done in a single codex, the one first copied out from thence, from which it might already more widely flow forth; where indeed even a copyist's error could have occurred. But this is not absurd to suspect in that question about the life of Methuselah, and in that other, where the sum does not agree, the twenty-four years being in excess.

But in these, in which a likeness of the same faultiness is continued — so that before the begotten son who is inserted into the order, in one place a hundred years are over and above, in another are lacking; but after the begotten son, where they were lacking they are over, where they were over they are lacking, so that the sum may agree; and this is found in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh generation — the error itself seems to have a certain consistency, if it may be so called, and does not smack of chance, but of design.

And so that diversity of the numbers, standing one way in the Greek and Latin codices, another way in the Hebrew — where there is not this parity, continued through so many generations, of a hundred years first added and afterward subtracted — let it be attributed neither to the malice of the Jews nor to the diligence or prudence of the Seventy translators, but to the error of the copyist who first received from the library of the aforesaid king the codex to be copied. For even now, where numbers do not engage the attention toward something that can easily be understood, or that may appear useful to learn, they are both negligently copied and still more negligently corrected. For who would suppose that he must learn how many thousands of men the tribes of Israel could individually have had?

since it is not thought to be of any profit; and how rare is the man to whom the depth of the usefulness of this appears? But here, where through so many interwoven generations a hundred years are in one place present, in another absent, and after the birth of the son who was to be recorded they are absent where they had been present, and present where they had been absent, so that the sum may agree:

doubtless, since he who did this wished to persuade that the ancients lived so very many years for this reason, that they called them very brief, and was trying to show this from the maturity of puberty, at which sons could fitly be begotten — and therefore thought that in those hundred years ten of ours should be insinuated to the unbelieving, lest they should refuse to receive into faith that men lived so long — he added a hundred where he did not find an age fit for begetting sons, and the same, after the sons were begotten, he subtracted, that the sum might fit. For thus he wished to make credible the suitabilities of ages for begetting offspring, yet so as not to defraud in number the total ages of the individuals living.

But that he did not do this in the sixth generation — this very thing is what the more moves one to believe that he did it when the matter we speak of demanded it, because he did not do it where it did not demand it. For he found in that same generation, among the Hebrews, that Jared lived, before he had begotten Enoch, a hundred and sixty-two years, which according to that reckoning of brief years make sixteen years and a little less than two months; which age is now apt for begetting, and therefore it was not necessary to add a hundred brief years, that they might become twenty-six of ours, nor after Enoch was born to subtract those which he had not added before his birth. Thus it came about that here there was no variety between the two codices.

But again it is asked why, in the eighth generation, before Lamech was born of Methuselah, whereas among the Hebrews one hundred and eighty-two years are read, twenty fewer are found in our codices, where rather one hundred are usually added; and after Lamech was begotten they are restored to complete the sum, which in both codices does not disagree. For if it wished one hundred and seventy years to be understood as seventeen, on account of the maturity of puberty, then just as it added nothing, so it ought now to have subtracted nothing, because it had found an age suitable for the begetting of sons—on account of which, in the other cases, it added those hundred years where it did not find such an age.

Now we might with reason suppose that this matter of the twenty years could have happened by chance through error, were it not that, just as it had first subtracted them, it afterward took care to restore them, so that the integrity of the sum might agree. Or perhaps it is to be thought to have been done more cunningly, so that the device whereby a hundred years are wont first to be added and afterward subtracted might be concealed—since even there, where it was not necessary, something of the same kind was done, not indeed with a hundred years, yet with however small a number first subtracted and afterward given back. But however that be taken, whether it be believed to have been done so or not, whether finally it be so or not so:

I would in no way doubt that it is rightly done that, when something different is found in the two codices—since with respect to the truth of the events both cannot be true—rather that language should be trusted from which the translation into the other was made through the interpreters. For in certain Greek codices also—three of them—and one Latin, and even one Syriac, all agreeing among themselves, Methuselah was found to have died six years before the flood. CHAPTER XIV. On the equality of the years, which ran in the same spans as now also in the earlier ages. Now let us see in what way it can be evidently shown

that the years reckoned in the very long life of those men were not so brief that ten of theirs made one of ours, but were years of such length as we now have (years which the circuit of the sun completes). For it is written that the flood took place in the six hundredth year of the life of Noah. Why then is it read there: «And the water of the flood came upon the earth in the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month,» if that year was the smallest kind, of which ten make one of ours, having thirty-six days? For such a tiny year, if it received this name after the ancient fashion, either has no months, or its month is a space of three days, so that it may have twelve months. In what way, then, is it here said:

«In the six hundredth year, in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month,» unless because the months even then were such as they now are? For in what other way could it be said that the flood began on the twenty-seventh day of the second month? Then afterward, at the end of the flood, it is thus read: «And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. But the water kept decreasing until the eleventh month; and in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared.» If, therefore, the months were such, surely the years too were such as we now have. For those three-day months could not have twenty-seven days. Or if a thirtieth part of three days was then called a day, so that everything is diminished in proportion:

then that so great a flood, which is recorded to have taken place in forty days and nights, was not accomplished even in a whole four days of ours. Who could bear such absurdity and emptiness? Therefore let this error be removed, which by a false conjecture so wishes to build up the credit of our Scriptures that elsewhere it destroys it. Assuredly the day even then was as great as it now is, which twenty-four hours mark off in the diurnal and nocturnal course; the month as great as it now is, which the moon, beginning and ending, completes;

the year as great as it now is, which twelve lunar months, with five days and a quarter added on account of the solar course, bring to completion. Of such a year the second month of the six hundredth year of Noah's life was the month, and the twenty-seventh day of that month was the day when the flood began, in which forty days of vast continuous rains are recorded—days which did not have two hours and a little more, but four-and-twenty hours passing in day and night.

And on this account those ancients lived years so great, even more than nine hundred, of the same length as Abraham afterward lived a hundred and seventy, and after him his son Isaac a hundred and eighty, and his son Jacob nearly a hundred and fifty, and of the same length as Moses, after some interval of time, lived a hundred and twenty, and of the same length as even now men live seventy or eighty, or not much more, of whom it was said: «And their further span is labor and sorrow.»

But that variety of numbers which is found between the Hebrew codices and ours neither disagrees concerning this longevity of the ancients; and if it has anything so different that both cannot be true, the credit of the events done is to be sought from that language out of which what we have was translated. And though this resource is at hand everywhere among the nations for those who wish it, nevertheless it is not without significance that, in very many places where the Seventy translators seem to say something different, no one has dared to correct them from the Hebrew codices. For that diversity was not reckoned an error; nor do I in any way consider it should be so reckoned:

but where there is no scribe's error, it is to be believed that, by the divine Spirit, where the sense was consonant with the truth and proclaimed the truth, they willed to say something otherwise—not by the office of translators, but by the liberty of prophets. Hence with reason the apostolic authority is found to use not only the Hebrews but also these very translators, when it adduces testimonies from the Scriptures. But on this matter I have promised, if God help, to speak more diligently in a more fitting place; now let me dispatch what is at hand.

For it is not to be doubted that by a man who was the first to be born of the first man, when men lived so long, a city could have been established—an earthly one, to be sure, not that which is called the City of God, to write about which we have taken upon our hands the labor of this so great work. CHAPTER XV. Whether it is credible that the men of the first age remained continent from intercourse up to that age at which they are reported to have begotten sons. Someone, then, will say:

«Is it then to be believed that a man, destined to beget sons and having no purpose of continence, kept himself free from the work of intercourse for a hundred years and more—or, according to the Hebrews, not much less, that is, eighty, seventy, sixty years—or, if he did not keep free, that he could beget no offspring?» This question is solved in two ways. For either puberty was so much later in proportion as the length of the whole life was greater;