Chapter 3.—Of the Generations of the Three Sons of Noah.

We must therefore introduce into this work an explanation of the generations of the three sons of Noah, in so far as that may illustrate the progress in time of the two cities.  Scripture first mentions that of the youngest son, who is called Japheth:  he had eight sons,⁸⁷¹⁸⁷¹    Augustin here follows the Greek version, which introduces the name Elisa among the sons of Japheth, though not found in the Hebrew.  It is not found in the Complutensian Greek translation, nor in the Mss. used by Jerome. 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:  wherefore they say, As Nimrod the giant hunter against 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, and the city Rehoboth, 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, to wit, 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 Assyrian, 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; and 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 which 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 Heber, the brother of Japheth the elder, were children born.”⁸⁷²⁸⁷²    Gen. x. 21.  This is the order of the words:  And to Shem was born Heber, even to himself, that is, to Shem himself was born Heber, 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 remove.  For Shem did not beget Heber, who was indeed in the fifth generation from him.  For Shem begat, among other sons, Arphaxad; Arphaxad begat Cainan, Cainan begat Salah, Salah begat Heber.  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 which derives the name from Abraham (as if Abrahews) may possibly be correct. 312 But there can be little doubt that the former is the right etymology, and that they were called after Heber, 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 Heber.  And Heber begat two sons, and called the one Peleg, which means “dividing;” and Scripture subjoins the reason of this name, saying, “for in his days was the earth divided.”  What this means will afterwards appear.  Heber’s other son begat 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.