Noahs Flood & the Tower of
120 years of Grace
Neither Jerome(1) nor Augustine(2) held that Genesis 6:3 meant that the human life span was
reduced to 120 years, because men lived for 200 or 300 years after the flood.
Instead they saw it as the length of time that God had allotted for them to
repent before He sent his judgement upon them. Jerome mentions that there were
some who disagreed with him on this point, one of them being Lactantius.(3)
The Extent of the Flood
Extent of Flood
c.20 BC-c.AD 50
AD 37/38 - 100
Antiquities, 1.3.4 (1.89)
c.100 - c.165
Theophilus of Antioch
c.160 - c.225
Pallium, 2; Women, 3
Gregory of Nazianzus
2nd Theol. Orat. 18
Augustine of Hippo
The evidence from the early church summarised in
Table 6.1 is fairly conclusive. It was the unanimous
opinion of the Jewish and early Christian writers who wrote on the subject that
Noahs Flood was a global event. In this the fathers cannot be said to be
simply parroting the commonly held views of contemporary culture, because many
used it to counter the local flood view which was held by all the Greek
philosophers (except Xenophanes(4) c.560 - c. 478 BC). The
Hellenistic Jew Philo of Alexandria understood Noahs Flood to be
universal, covering all the mountains, islands and continents, destroying all
animals and men outside of the ark.(5) However, some of the
phrases he uses are regarding the extent of the Flood are ambiguous. He writes,
for example, that the flood ...extended almost beyond the pillars of
Hercules and the great Mediterranean Sea, since the whole earth and all the
spaces of the mountains were covered with water...(6)
Even Davis Young, who believes that the Flood was local, concedes that the
phrase used meant that the flood was tantamount to being
universal.(7) This tells us more about Philos
limited understanding of the size of the earth than anything else.(8) Philo was emphatic that the Flood was anthropologically
universal,(9) and destroyed all plants, animals and buildings
(except for one house).(10) The roots and seeds of the plants
were not destroyed because they were below the surface of the earth and the
Lord promised only to destroy what was on the face of the earth.(11)
Theophilus of Antioch (for example) rejected Platos
argument that Noahs Flood was local and restricted to the plains, leaving
the mountains uncovered. He maintained that it was universal and that only
eight people were saved in an Ark, built at Gods command.(12) The Flood would never be repeated. Theophilus accounts for
the name Deucalion (the equivalent of Noah in the Greek account of the Flood)
by means of a word study:
...Noah, when he announced to the
men then alive that there was a flood coming, prophesied to them, saying, Come
thither, God calls you to repentance. On this account he was fitly called
Deucalion.(13) [Deucalion, from Deute,
come andkaleo, I call](14)
The Shape of the Ark
Origen of Alexandria wrote fairly extensively on the Flood
and so it is worth considering his views in some detail. In his second
Homily on Genesis Origen told his congregation that he intended first to
relate to them the literal sense of the account of Noahs Ark, and then
...ascend from the historical account to the mystical and allegorical
understanding of the spiritual meaning...(15) Even in
his literal account there are elements not found in the original Hebrew (such
as the reference to the construction of nests for the animals)(16) which are drawn from Philo of Alexandria.(17) He described the dimensions of the Ark (giving it 5 decks
instead of 3) and (again apparently following Philo) thought that the Ark was
shaped like a pyramid.(18) The reason for this being that
they misunderstood the meaning of the phrase in Genesis 6:16 finished to
a cubit above, which is better translated finish the ark within a
cubit of the top. The result of this mistake is bizarre:
In the first place, therefore, we
ask what sort of shape and form we should understand the appearance of the ark.
I think, to the extent that it is manifest from these things which are
described, rising with four angles from the bottom, and the same having been
drawn together gradually all the way to the top, it has been brought together
into the space of one cubit. For thus it is related that at its bases three
hundred cubits are laid down in length, fifty in breadth, and thirty are raised
in height, but they are brought together in a narrow peak so that its breadth
and length are a cubit.(19)
It did not occur to either Philo or Origen that such an ark
would only float upside down! On the contrary, he considered that the pointed
top would allow the rain water to flow off more easily and the four corners act
like a foundation!(20) Origen refuted the accusation of
Apelles, a disciple of the Gnostic Marcion, that the ark was not large enough
to hold all the animals. Rather than resorting to allegory he defended the
literal meaning by arguing that Moses meant geometrical cubits - equal to 6
ordinary cubits.(21) This argument was later taken up at a
later date by Augustine to answer the same challenge.(22)
Celsus likewise pours scorn upon the account of the Flood, especially on the
dimensions of the Ark. Origens answer is that the dimensions stated and
the time given to build the Ark were all reasonable and can be taken
literally.(23)He makes no reference to 2 Peter 3:3-10 in his
discussion of the Flood, possibly because that passage contradicted his
eschatology. He believed that the fire of the second great conflagration was to
be taken figuratively for the judgement of God consuming the works of men (cf.
1 Cor. 3:13-15).(24) Such an interpretation, however, was not
typical of the rest of the church of his day.(25)
The Church fathers on the Flood
Extrabiblical evidence was often referred to by the fathers.
Eusebius cites Josephus references to Berossus the Chaldee, Hieronymus
the Egyptian and Nicolaus of Damascus in support of the biblical account of the
Flood.(26) In line with his negative view of pagan culture
and learning Lactantius rejected the view that the account of Noahs flood
was borrowed from the Greeks. This could not be the case because the Greek
account of the Flood was fatally flawed.
If, therefore, the flood took place
for the purpose of the destroying wickedness, which had increased through the
excessive multitude of men, how was Prometheus the maker of man, when his son
Deucalion is said by the same writers to have been the only one who was
preserved on account of his righteousness? How could a single descent and a
single generation have so quickly filled the world with men?(27)
This led him to conclude that it was the Greeks who had
borrowed and subsequently corrupted the older Genesis record. Augustine held
that the account of the Flood was historical, but added that it should also be
interpreted allegorically, as referring to Christ and to the Church.(28) He then went on to defend the historicity of the ark and
the world-wide extent of the Flood. He concludes:
...no one, however stubborn, will
venture to imagine that this narrative was written without an ulterior purpose;
and it could not plausibly be said that the events, though historical, have no
symbolic meaning, or that the account is not factual, but merely symbolical, or
that the symbolism has nothing to do with the Church. No; we must believe that
the writing of this historical record had a wise purpose, that the events are
historical, that they have a symbolic meaning, and that this meaning gives a
prophetic picture of the Church.(29)
Likewise the account of Noahs family is referred to as
a historical narrative which can be interpreted spiritually.(30)
The account of the Flood caused Chrysostom some problems in
his sermons. He explained that the references to the floodgates of
heaven do not mean that there are actually physical sluices in the sky. Rather
it was a way of expressing in human terms the promptness with which the waters
responded to the divine command ...and inundated the whole world.(31) Likewise it is pointless trying to work out how God made
the flood waters subside. He believed that all such things must simply be taken
Life in the Ark
A few of the church fathers felt that they had to explain
the logistical difficulties raised by a year spent in the Ark. Ephrem the
Syrian solved the problem of the storage of water by arguing that the water on
the earth was not salty until the seas were gathered together.(33) For John Chrysostom the main question raised was how all
those animals managed to survive for so long in such an enclosed space. Imagine
the smell! That their survival was achieved by a miracle was the only
explanation that he could come up with.(34)
By the third century AD Christian piety demanded certain
standards, even from the Old Testament saints. While for Jewish writers like
Philo Noah was the archetypal drunk and a warning of the perils of imbibing to
excess,(35) the church fathers went to great lengths to
excuse or explain his actions. Rabbinic writers even go so far as to claim that
Noah fell from grace by planting a vineyard and becoming drunk.(36)
A number of ingenious solutions were proposed. Epiphanius of
Salamis excused Noah by suggesting that he was overcome by grief and infirmity
caused by old age.(37) Ephrem the Syrian held that Noah did
not drink to excess - it had been so long since he had had a drink that he was
intoxicated very quickly.(38) John Chrysostom sought to
exonerate Noah by claiming that as he had never made or drunk wine before he
did not know of its effects!(39) By way of contrast
Lactantius was not concerned about vindicating Noah, but rather on
demonstrating that he was the inventor of wine, rather than Bacchus.(40)
The Location of The Ark
Jubilees 5. 28
And the ark went and rested on the top of Lubar, one
of the mountains of Ararat.
...Noah planted vines on the mountain on which the
ark had rested, named Lubar, one of the Ararat Mountains...
37 - 100
Antiquities 3.6 (1.93-95)
...Berosus the Chaldean... goes on thus:- It
is said that there is still some part of this shipin Armenia, at the mountain
of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which
they take away... .... Nicolaus of Damascus... speaks thus:- This
is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is
reported that many who fled at the time of the deluge were saved; and that one
who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the
remains of the timber were a great while preserved...
Antiquities 20.1.2 (20.24-25)
Monobazus... bestowed on him [his son] the country
called Carrae; ...there are also in it the remains of the ark, wherein it is
related that Noah escaped the deluge, and where they are still shown to such as
are desirous to see them.
c. 160 - 240
Fragments of the Five Books of the Chronography,
And when the water abated, the ark settled on the
mountains of Ararat, which we know to be in Parthia; but some say that they are
at Celaenae of Phrygia, and I have seen both places.
Theophilus of Antioch
And of the ark, the remains are to this day to be
seen in the Arabian mountains.
Hippolytus of Rome
[Noah] owed his preservation to an ark; and both the
dimensions and relics of this ark are, as we have explained, shown to this day
in the mountains called Ararat, which are situated in the direction of the
country of the Adiabeni.
1 Genesis, 8:1 (ANF, Vol. 5, 198).
And there is a town of the name Kardu, and that hill
is called after it, which is indeed very lofty and inaccessible, whose summit
no one has ever been able to reach, on account of the violence of the winds and
the storms which always prevail there. And if any one attempts to ascend it,
there are demons that rush upon him, and cast him down headlong from the ridge
of the mountain into the plain, so that he dies. No one, moreover knows what
there is on top of the mountain, except that certain relics of the wood of the
ark still lie there on the surface of the top of the mountain.
Ephraem the Syrian
Commentary on Genesis 6.12.1
But after one hundred fifty days the waters began
top subside and the ark came to rest on Mt. Qardu.
Epiphanius of Salamis
After the Flood Noahs Ark came to rest in the
highlands of Ararat between Armenia and Cardyaei, on the mountain called
...even today the remains of Noahs ark are
still pointed out in Cardyaei. And if one were to make a search and discover
them - this stands to reason - he would surely also find the ruins of the altar
at the foot of the mountain.
Homilies on Thessalonians, 8
Do you then believe that the deluge took place? Or
does it seem to you a fable? And yet even the mountains where the ark rested,
bear witness; I speak of those in Armenia.
Other Physical Evidence of the Flood
Modern young-earth creationist thought centres around the
Flood of Noah as the source of the majority of geological formations and
especially fossils. It is therefore of some interest to investigate what the
ancients made of these structures. In antiquity the term fossil meant
anything dug from the ground, and the distinction between organic fossils and
minerals was not clearly made until the modern period.(41) Among the Greeks it appears to have become common knowledge
that fossils were the result of the periodic flooding by the sea.(42) Xenophanes (c. 560- c. 478) is the first writer we know of
to suggest this explanation. He believed that several of these floods occurred
in the past, each wiping out all of mankind and so implying that they were
universal in extent.(43) Later writers referred only to
localised instances of flooding. The presence of salt lakes and springs were
also noted as evidence cited as evidence of marine transgressions. Herodotus
(484 - 430-420 BC) wrote:
Thus I give credit to those from
whom I received this account of Egypt, and am myself, moreover, strongly of the
same opinion, since I remarked that the country projects into the sea further
than the neighbouring shores, and I observed that there were shells upon the
hills, and that salt exuded from the soil to such an extent as even to injure
Strabo (b. 64/63 BC - d. after AD 23?), records in his
famous Geography (written between 27 BC and AD 14) many of the
statements of earlier historians regarding fossils. Erastosthenes (c. 276 - c.
194 BC), Xanthus of Lydia (mid 5th century BC) and Strato (3rd century BC) are
all said to have explained fossils as evidence that large areas of land were
formerly covered by the sea.(45) Xenophanes, however, appears
to have been unique amongst the Greek historians and philosophers in as much as
he believed in a universal flood.
Writing over 300 years after Strabo Tertullian was in no
doubt that this presence of fossils on the peaks of mountains was evidence that
the flood was a world-wide event.
There was a time when her [the
earths] whole orb, withal underwent mutation, overrun by all waters. To
this day marine conchs and tritons horns sojourn as foreigners on the
mountains, eager to prove to Plato that even the heights have inundated. But
withal, by ebbing out, her orb again underwent a formal mutation; another, but
the same. Even now her shape undergoes mutations...(46)
The writings of the early church on fossils give no hint of
the part they would later play in calling Mosaic history into question during
the eighteenth century.(47)
b) Changed Geography
In his Lectures on Genesis Martin Luther recognised
that the flood forever changed the geography of the world. Concerning the four
rivers described in Genesis he says:
Therefore one must not imagine that
the source of these rivers is the same today as it was at that time; but the
situation is the same today as in the case of the earth, which now exists and
brings forth trees, herbs, etc. If you compare these with the uncorrupted
creation, they are like wretched remnants of that wealth which the earth had
when it was created. Thus these rivers remain like ruins, but, to be sure, not
in the same place; much less do they have the same sources.(48)
When we read the writings of the early church we find little
evidence that the church fathers had any idea that the flood would bring about
such dramatic changes. The Jewish historian Josephus wrongly attributed the
pillar in the land of Siriad built at the command of Seth (Sesostris) King of
Egypt to Seth, the son of Adam.(49) Clearly Josephus assumed
that a pillar of stone would have survived the flood. Later Jerome, whilst
discussing Origens allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1, asserts that
the four rivers of Genesis are also meant literally because he himself has
drunk from both the Gihon and the Euphrates.(50) Clearly he
assumed that the rivers he visited were the same ones that existed before the
Flood. One of the few writers who appears to have considered the possibility of
a changed geography was Augustine. He rhetorically asks what has now become of
the spring of water that waters the whole earth (Gen. 2:6)(51) and in his answer he says that the world has changed since
the time of creation.
c) The Credibility of the Evidence
Despite the prominence that ancient accounts of the survival
of Noahs ark on a mountain top somewhere in the Near East there are good
reasons for doubting the value of the evidence. It should be noted that none of
the church fathers cited actually claimed to have seen the ark for himself.
Julius Africanus claims to have seen the two mountains claimed as resting
places of the ark, but not the ark itself. Hippolytus seems to actively
discourage any search for proof of its survival or, at the very least,
attempting to explain why such proof is not forthcoming. Table 6.2illustrates clearly the diversity of opinion in
the early church concerning the location of the ark. The locations cited are
not only not consistent, but are separated by many hundreds of miles which
again undermines the credibility of the sightings.
The stock phrase to this day used in several of
the accounts is often used etiologically in the Bible to explain to the origin
of a present day object or custom. For example, the reason why the town of
Beersheba got its name (Genesis 26:33), the origin of Joshuas pillar
(Joshua 4:9) and Absoloms Monument (2 Samuel 18:18). Josephus and the
early church fathers often used the phrase in the same way. Josephus claims,
for example, that the pillar of salt that had been Lots wife was still
visible to this day and that he himself had seen it.(52) Clement of Rome(53) and later Irenaeus of
Lyons(54) both believed that the pillar still exists (but not
that they have seen it themselves), no doubt using him as their source. Other
writers have also had reason to question Josephus claims supporting his
statements. Alberto R. Green, for example, points to Josephus statements
regarding the building of Solomons temple. In this instance Josephus
cites a record that he insists exists in the achives of Tyre, but does not say
that he has examined it personally.(55)
In the fourth century Cyril of Jerusalem wrote that the
stone that sealed Christs tomb still stands by the empty tomb in
Jerusalem.(56) Dubious as these claims appear they pale in to
insignificance next to Augustines assertion concerning the survival of
Jobs ash-heap (Job 2:8):
The discourse concerning the three
young men, and the Babylonian furnace, did, as it would seem, yesterday give no
small comfort to your Charity; and still more the example in the case of Job,
and that dunghill more to be venerated than any kingly throne. For from seeing
a royal throne no advantage results to the spectators, but only a temporary
pleasure, which has no profit; but from the sight of Jobs dunghill, one
may derive every kind of benefit, yea, much divine wisdom and consolation, in
order to patience. Therefore to this day many undertake a long pilgrimage, even
across the sea, hastening from the extremities of the earth, as far as Arabia,
that they may see that dunghill; and having beheld it, may kiss the land, which
contained the wrestling-ground of such a victor, and received the blood that
was more precious than all gold!(57)
Such claims would seem to further undermine the credibility
of the early church fathers as unbiased witnesses to physical evidence used in
support of their faith. Finally, it should be noted that nowhere in Scripture
does it say that any of the above objects, the Ark of Noah included, have
survived. The fact that the cannot be found today therefore does not disprove
The Repopulation of the Earth
Among the modern challenges to the idea of a global flood is
that of how certain species of plants and animals spread out from one location
into the habitats in which we find them today. As far as I am aware only one
Christian writer in antiquity attempted to answer a similar problem. When it
came to filling that Ark with animals Augustine saw no problem because he
believed that Noah did not need to catch them, because they came to him at
Gods command.(58) The redistribution of the animals in
the ark to the remote islands did cause him some difficulty. He made several
suggestions: some arrived by swimming, some were taken by men in ships, others
could have been transported by angels. His final solution involves the animals
being spontaneously generated from the earth in their new locations - as they
were in the beginning (he says). Therefore, Augustine wrote
...all species were in the ark not
so much for the purpose of restoring the animal population as with a view of
typifying the various nations, thus presenting a symbol of the Church. This
must be the explanation, if the earth produced many animals on islands to which
they could not cross.(59)
The Tower of Babel
As far as we can tell from their surviving comments the
early church fathers accepted the account of Babel as a historical event,
although for the most part they simply quoted the text without commenting on it
in any detail. One of the churchs opponents, Celsus, claimed in the
second century that the account of the Tower of Babel was a corrupted version
of the Greek story of the sons of Aloeus, Otus and Ephialtes, recorded by Homer
(c. 8th century BC).
And after her I saw Iphimedeia,
wife of Aloeus, who declared that she had lain with Poseidon. She bore two
sons, but short of life were they, godlike Otus, and far-famed Ephialtes - men
whom the earth, the giver of grain, reared as the tallest, and far the
comliest, after the famous Orion. For at nine years they were nine cubit in
breadth and in height nine fathoms. Yea, and they threatened to raise the din
of furious war against the mortals in Olympus. They were fain to pile Ossa on
Olympus, and Pelion, with its waving forests, on Ossa, that so heaven might be
scaled. And this they would have accomplished, if they had reached the measure
of manhood; but the son of Zeus, whom fair-haired Leto bore, slew them both
before the down blossomed beneath their temples and covered their chins with a
growth of beard.(60)
Origen countered Celsus argument with the (now
familiar) claim that as Moses antedated Homer then Moses account of the
confusion of tongues must be the original one.(61) Eusebius
called upon extrabiblical evidence in support of the account of the confusion
of languages, citing Josephus, Abydenus and the Sibylline Oracles.(62)
It appears to have been generally accepted that Babel
resulted in the division of mankind into 72 language groups, being the number
of post-flood chieftains.(63) Augustine referred to Genesis
11 on numerous occasions and clearly held the majority view that all the
languages of the world are explained by the events at Babel:
We now see that from these three
men, Noahs sons, seventy-three nations - or rather seventy-two, as a
calculation will show - and as many languages came into being on the earth, and
by their increase they filled even the islands. However, the number of nations
increased at a greater rate than the languages. For even in Africa we know of
many barbarous nations using only one language.(64)
If there was only one language before Babel, what was it.
Augustine view seems to change one this subject. In his Literal Commentary
on Genesis he wrote:
We know, of course, that there was
originally just one language before man in his pride built the tower after the
flood and caused human society to be divided according to different languages.
And whatever the original language was, what point is there in trying to
discover it? (65)
By the time he wrote the City of God he had changed
his mind and become convinced that Hebrew was the original language of man,(66) the position held by the majority.(67)
There were those who stood against this position. Gregory of Nyssa, for
example, argued that Hebrew was a recent language and rejected any notion that
it might be the language of God Himself.(68) Finally, it is
worth noting that Augustine understood the dividing of the earth (Genesis
10:25) as being caused by the diversity of languages arising after Babel.(69)
1998, 1999 Robert I. Bradshaw
(1) Jerome, Hebrew,
6.3 (Hayward, 37). Italics in original.
(2) Augustine, City,
15.24 (Bettenson, 642).
Institutes, 2.14 (ANF, Vol. 7, 63).
(4) Adrian J. Desmond,
The Discovery of Marine Transgressions and the Explanation of Fossils in
Antiquity, American Journal of Science, Vol. 275 (June 1975):
(5) Philo, Abraham,
41-44 (Yonge, 414).
(6) Philo, Q & A
Gen., 2.28 (Yonge, 823-824).
(7) Davis A. Young, The
Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Churchs Response to Extrabiblical
Evidence. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, 1995),
(8) Jack P. Lewis, A
Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian
Literature. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968), 48.
(9) Philo, Moses 2.60
(10) Philo, Abraham,
45-46 (Yonge, 414-415).
(11) Philo, Q & A
Gen. 2.15 (Yonge, 820).
Autolycus, 3.18-19 (ANF, Vol. 2, 116-117).
Autolycus, 3.19 (ANF, Vol. 2, 116-117).
(14)ANF, Vol. 2,
116, n. 8.
Genesis, 2.1 (Heine, 72).
Genesis, 2.1 (Heine, 72-73); cf. Philo, Q & A Gen. 2.3 (C.D.
Yonge, The Works of Philo [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993],
(17) Like Origin, Philo
relied on a Greek translation and did not refer to the Hebrew Text.
(18) Cf. Philo, Q &
A Gen. 2.5 (Yonge, 815).
Genesis, 2.1 (Heine, 72-73).
Genesis, 2.1 (Heine, 75).
Genesis, 2.2 (Heine, 76-77).
City, 15.27; St. Augustine, Concerning the City of God Against the
Pagans, trans. Henry Bettenson, 1972. (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984),
(23) Origen, Celsus,
4.41 (ANF, Vol. 4, 516).
(24) Origen, Celsus,
4.13 (ANF, Vol. 4, 502).
(25) Lewis, 171-172.
Preparation, 9.10-11 (Gifford, Part 1, 445-446).
Institutes, 2.11 (ANF, Vol. 7, 59).
City, 15.27 (Bettenson, 645).
City, 15.27 (Bettenson, 648).
City, 16.2 (Bettenson, 652).
(31) John Chrysostom,
Genesis, 25.10 (Hill, 131-132).
(32) John Chrysostom,
Genesis, 26.11 (Hill, 152).
(33) Ephrem the Syrian,
Genesis, 1.10.2; 11.2 St. Ephrem The Syrian, Selected Prose Works:
Commentary on Genesis, Commentary on Exodus, Homily on Our Lord, Letter to
Publius, trans. Edward G. Mathews, Jr. & Joseph P. Amar. Kathleen
McVey, ed. (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1994),
(34) John Chrysostom,
Genesis, 25.14 (Hill, 134-135).
(35) Philo, On
Drunkeness, 4. C.D. Yonge, The Works of Philo (Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 1993), 207.
(36) Louis Ginzberg, The
Legends of the Jews, Vol. 1. (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society
of America, 1925), 167-168.
(37) Epiphanius, Panarion,
43.3.8; Frank Williams, Translator, The Panarion of Epiphanius of
Salamis, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, Vol. 36. (Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1994), 130.
(38) Ephrem the Syrian,
Genesis, 7.1-2. (Mathew, Amar & McVey, 144).
(39) John Chrysostom,
Genesis, 29.9 (Hill, 204-205); Chase, 53.
Institutes, 2.14 (ANF, Vol. 7, 63).
(41) Francis C. Haber,
The Age of the World: Moses to Darwin. (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood
Press, 1959), 41.
(42) W.K.C. Guthrie, A
History of Greek Philosophy, Vol. 1. (Cambridge: CUP, 1962), 387, n.
(43) Adrian J. Desmond,
The Discovery of Marine Transgressions and the Explanation of Fossils in
Antiquity, American Journal of Science, Vol. 275 (June 1975):
Geography, 1.3.4 (translated by Horace Leonard Jones, The
Geography of Strabo, LCL, Vol. 1. (London: William Heinemann,
Pallium, 2 (ANF, Vol. 4, 6)
(48) Martin Luther,
Lectures on Genesis, Chapters 1-5, Jaroslav Pelikan, ed.
Luthers Works, Vol. 1. (St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing
House, 1958), 99.
Antiquities, 1.2.3 (1.71).
(50) Jerome, Letter,
51.5 (NPNF, 2nd series, Vol. 6, 86).
(51) Augustine, Literal
5.7.20 (Taylor, No. 41, 158).
Antiquities, 1.11.4 (1.203). Josephus likewise claims that a tower built
by Daniel in Ecbebana, Media still exists "to thios day". See 10.11.7
(53) Clement of Rome,
First Epistle 11 (ANF, Vol. 1, 8).
Heresies 4.31 (ANF, Vol. 1, 504).
(55) Josephus, Against
Apion 1.107-108; Alberto R. Green, Davids Relations with Hiram:
Biblical and Josephan Evidence for Tyrian Chronology. Carol.L. Myers & M.
OConnor (eds.), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor
of DavidNoel Freedman on his Sixtieth Birthday. (Winona Lake, Indiana:
Eisenbrauns, 1983), 381.
(56) Cyril of Jerusalem,
Catechetical, 13.39; 14.32 (NPNF, 2nd series, Vol. 7, 93,
Homily 5.1 (NFNF, 1st Series, Vol. 9, 371).
City, 15.27 (Bettenson, 647).
City, 16.7 (Bettenson, 661).
Odyssey, 11.305-320; Trans. A.T. Murray, LCL, Vol. 1. (London:
William Heinemann, 1969), 409.
(61) Origen, Celsus,
4.21 (ANF, Vol. 4, 505); cf. Origen, Celsus, 5.29 (ANF,
Vol. 4., 555-556).
Preparation, 9.11 (Gifford, Part 1, 447-448).
Panarion, 2.2.8-11; Frank Williams, Translator, The Panarion of
Epiphanius of Salamis, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, Vol.
35. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), 16; Hippolytus, On the Psalms, 9 (ANF,
Vol. 5, 202). One source argued that there were only 70 languages - the number
of Israelites who entered Egpyt. Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 18.4
(ANF, Vol. 8, 325).
City, 16.6 (Bettenson, 660).
(65) Augustine, Literal
9.12.20 (Taylor, No. 42, 84).
City, 16.11 (Bettenson, 667-670).
(67) Origen, Celsus,
5.30 (ANF, Vol. 4, 556); Jerome, Letter 18 (NPNF, 2nd series,
Vol. 6, 22); Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.30; 4.28 (ANF, Vol. 8, 85,
(68) Gregory of Nyssa,
Answer of Eunomius Second Book (NFNF, 2nd series, Vol. 5,
(69) Augustine, City
16.9 (Bettenson, 664).