Augustine of Hippo

Undoubtedly the ark is a symbol of the city of God on its pilgrimage in history. It is a figure of the church that was saved by the wood on which there hung the “Mediator between God and men, himself man, Jesus Christ.” Even the very measurements of length, height and breadth of the ark are meant to point to the reality of the human body into which he came as it was foretold that he would come. It will be recalled that the length of a normal body from head to foot is six times the breadth from one side to the other and ten times the thickness from back to front. Measure a man who is lying on the ground, either prone or supine. He is six times as long from head to foot as he is wide from left to right or right to left, and he is ten times as long as he is high from the ground up. That is why the ark was made three hundred cubits in length, fifty in breadth and thirty in height. As for the door in the side, that surely, symbolizes the open wound made by the lance in the side of the Crucified—the door by which those who come to him enter in, in the sense that believers enter the church by means of the sacraments that issued from that wound. It was ordered that the ark be made out of squared timbers—a symbol of the foursquare stability of a holy life, which, like a cube, stands firm however it is turned. So it is with every other detail of the ark’s construction. They are all symbols of something in the church.

It is now time to examine the evidence that proves convincingly that the biblical years, so far from being only one-tenth as long as ours, were precisely as long as the present solar years. This is true of the years used in giving those extremely long life spans. It is said, for example, that the flood occurred in the six hundredth year of Noah's life. But notice the full text: "The waters of the flood overflowed the earth in the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the second month, in the twenty-seventh day of the month." Now those words are inexplicable if a year was so short that it took ten of them to make one of ours. That would mean that a year had only thirty-six days. For so short a year (if it was actually called a year in ancient usage) either had no months at all, or if it had twelve months, then each month could have had but three days. How, then, [can we] explain the words of the text, "in the six hundredth year … in the second month, in the twenty-seventh day of the month," unless the months then were the same as they are now? There is no other way of explaining how the flood could be said to have had a beginning on the twenty-seventh day of the second month.

In the same book [of Genesis], when the generations of the sons of Noah are recalled to our minds, we read, “These are the children of Ham in their tribes according to their tongues, in their lands and nations.” Also, in enumerating the sons of Shem, it is said, “These are the children of Shem in their tribes according to their tongues, in their lands and nations.” And this is added in reference to all of them: “These are the tribes of the sons of Noah, according to their generations and according to their nations. From these were the islands of the nations scattered over the earth after the flood. And the whole earth was one tongue, and there was one speech for all.” And so, because this sentence was added: “And the earth was one tongue and there was one speech for all” (that is, one language for them all), it could be inferred that at that time, when human beings had been scattered according to the islands of the nations over the earth, there was one language common to all of them. Without a doubt, this contradicts the words used above, “according to their tribes and tongues.” For, each single tribe that had formed individual nations would not be said to have had its own tongue when there was a common one for all. So it is by way of recapitulation that there is added: “And the earth was one tongue, and there was one speech for all.” The narrative, without mentioning it, goes back to tell how it came about that the one language common to all men was broken up into many tongues. And immediately we are told about the building of the tower, when this punishment for their pride was inflicted upon them by the divine judgment. After this event they were scattered over the earth according to their languages.

We must therefore introduce into this work an explanation of the generations of the three sons of Noah, insofar as that may illustrate the progress in time of the two cities. Scripture first mentions the youngest son, who is called Japheth, who had eight sons, and by two of these sons seven grandchildren, three by one son, four by the other; in all, fifteen descendants. Ham, Noah’s middle son, had four sons, and by one of them five grandsons, and by one of these two great-grandsons; in all, eleven. After enumerating these, Scripture returns to the first of the sons and says, “Cush begat Nimrod; he began to be a giant on the earth.” He was a giant hunter against the Lord God; hence they say, “Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord.” And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, Erech, Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Assur, and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah: this was a great city.” Now this Cush, father of the giant Nimrod, is the first-named among the sons of Ham, to whom five sons and two grandsons are ascribed. But he either begat this giant after his grandsons were born or, which is more credible, Scripture speaks of him separately on account of his eminence, for mention is also made of his kingdom, which began with that magnificent city Babylon, and the other places, whether cities or districts, mentioned along with it. But what is recorded of the land of Shinar, which belonged to Nimrod’s kingdom—that Assur went forth from it and built Nineveh and the other cities mentioned with it—happened long after. But he takes occasion to speak of it here on account of the grandeur of the Assyrian kingdom, which was wonderfully extended by Ninus son of Belus, and founder of the great city Nineveh, which was named after him, Nineveh, from Ninus. But Assur, father of the Assyrians, was not one of the sons of Ham, Noah’s son, but is found among the sons of Shem, his eldest son. Whence it appears that among Shem’s offspring there arose men who afterwards took possession of that giant’s kingdom, and advancing from it, founded other cities, the first of which was called Nineveh, from Ninus. From him Scripture returns to Ham’s other son, Mizraim. His sons are enumerated, not as seven individuals but as seven nations. And from the sixth, as if from the sixth son, the race called the Philistines are said to have sprung, so that there are in all eight. Then it returns again to Canaan, in whose person Ham was cursed, and his eleven sons are named. Then the territories they occupied, and some of the cities, are named. And thus, if we count sons and grandsons, there are thirty-one of Ham’s descendants registered.It remains to mention the sons of Shem, Noah’s eldest son, for to him this genealogical narrative gradually ascends from the youngest. But in the commencement of the record of Shem’s sons there is an obscurity that calls for explanation, since it is closely connected with the object of our investigation. For we read, “Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, were children born.” This is the order of the words: And to Shem was born Eber, even to himself, that is, to Shem himself was born Eber, and Shem is the father of all his children. We are intended to understand that Shem is the patriarch of all his posterity who were to be mentioned, whether sons, grandsons, great-grandsons or descendants at any distance. For Shem did not beget Eber, who was indeed in the fifth generation from him. For Shem begat, among other sons, Arpachshad; Arpachshad begat Cainan, Cainan begat Salah, Salah begat Eber. And it was with good reason that he was named first among Shem’s offspring, taking precedence even of his sons, though only a grandchild of the fifth generation. For from him, as tradition says, the Hebrews derived their name, though the other etymology that derives the name from Abraham (as if Abrahews) may possibly be correct. But there can be little doubt that the former is the right etymology and that they were called after Eber, Heberews, and then, dropping a letter, Hebrews; and so was their language called Hebrew, which was spoken by none but the people of Israel among whom was the city of God mysteriously prefigured in all the people and truly present in the saints. Six of Shem’s sons then are first named, then four grandsons born to one of these sons; then it mentions another son of Shem, who begat a grandson; and his son, again, or Shem’s great-grandson, was Eber. And Eber begat two sons and called the one Peleg, which means “dividing.” Scripture subjoins the reason of this name, saying, “for in his days was the earth divided.” What this means will afterwards appear. Eber’s other son gave birth to twelve sons; consequently all Shem’s descendants are twenty-seven. The total number of the progeny of the three sons of Noah is seventy-three, fifteen by Japheth, thirty-one by Ham, twenty-seven by Shem. Then Scripture adds, “These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.” And so of the whole number “These are the families of the sons of Noah after their generations, in their nations; and by these were the isles of the nations dispersed through the earth after the flood.” From which we gather that the seventy-three (or rather, as I shall presently show, seventy-two) were not individuals but nations. For in a former passage, when the sons of Japheth were enumerated, it is said in conclusion, “By these were the isles of the nations divided in their lands, every one after his language, in their tribes and in their nations.”
But nations are expressly mentioned among the sons of Ham, as I showed above. “Mizraim begat those who are called Ludim; and so also of the other seven nations.” And after enumerating all of them it concludes, “These are the sons of Ham, in their families, according to their languages, in their territories, and in their nations.” The reason, then, why the children of several of them are not mentioned is that they belonged by birth to other nations and did not themselves become nations. Why else is it that though eight sons are reckoned to Japheth, the sons of only two of these are mentioned; and though four are reckoned to Ham, only three are spoken of as having sons; and though six are reckoned to Shem, the descendants of only two of these are traced? Did the rest remain childless? We cannot suppose so; but they did not produce nations so great as to warrant their being mentioned but were absorbed in the nations to which they belonged by birth.