What is a Nation? part I

Summa Theologica > Supplement of the III Part
Question 41. The sacrament of Matrimony as directed to an office of nature
Article 1. Whether matrimony is of natural law?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5041.htm#article1

Objection 2. Further, that which is of natural law is found in all men with regard to their every state. But matrimony was not in every state of man, for as Tully says (De Inv. Rhet.), "at the beginning men were savages and then no man knew his own children, nor was he bound by any marriage tie," wherein matrimony consists. Therefore it is not natural.

...

Reply to Objection 2. The assertion of Tully may be true of some particular nation, provided we understand it as referring to the proximate beginning of that nation when it became a nation distinct from others; for that to which natural reason inclines is not realized in all things, and this statement is not universally true, since Holy Writ states that there has been matrimony from the beginning of the human race.

So, some nations were living as savages at the start of their existence. But not mankind as a whole. Herein St Thomas Aquinas is totally in agreement with Creation Ministries International. Evolutionists however agree with Tully - Marcus Tullius Cicero. Let us look at one particular word of St Thomas:

referring to the proximate beginning of that nation when it became a nation distinct from others

This notion is very broad. In 1776 the Thirteen Colonies asked (weapons in hand) to be thenceforth considered another nation than the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland. The third of the population that disagreed were often treated badly and had, for instance, to flee to Québec. Much as non-revolutionary French could be fleeing to Belgium about a decade or two later.

But the point is, St Thomas is not saying every nation and language we see today came into existence immediately after Babel. Nor is he denying that nations did come into existence in the days of Peleg. Neither for that matter is the Bible doing so. Hebrews are named after the father of Peleg and Ioctan, but not only do the Jemenites branch off as early as Ioctan, also later you get nations diversifying around Abraham and Lot and their sons. Meanwhile, same thing is happening to Pagan Nations.

Here is one older contemporary of St Thomas writing, Petrus Comestor meaning something like Peter the Eater, and he has quite a lt to say about the main Pagan nations, often incidentally to the Old Testament story:

De dispersione filiorum Noe, et Nemrod.		On the Dispersion of the Sons of Noah, and Nemrod
Redit Moyses ad principium genealogiae Noe dicens: Hae sunt generationes filiorum Noe (Gen. X), et incipit a Japhet minori, ut ultimo loco ponatur Sem, cujus successionem texere intendit. Texuntur autem ex eis septuaginta duae generationes, quindecim de Japhet, triginta de Cham, viginti septem de Sem. Hi tres disseminati sunt in tribus partibus orbis secundum Alcuinum. Sem Asiam, Cham Africam, Japheth Europam sortitus est. Vel expressius dicitur secundum Josephum: Filii Japhet tenuerunt septentrionalem regionem, a Tauro et Amano montibus Ciliciae et Syriae, usque ad fluvium Tanaim, in Europa vero, usque ad Gadira. Filii vero Cham a provincia Syria, et Amano et Libano montibus cunctas terras obtinuerunt, quaecunque ad mare sunt positae, apprehendentes etiam eas, quae usque ad Oceanum sunt, et proprias facientes appellationes. Filii vero Sem usque ad Oceanum seorsum habitant Asiam, ab Euphrate facientes initium.		Moses goes back to the beginning of the Genealogy of Noah, saying: These are the generations of the Sons of Noah (Genesis X), and starts from Japheth, the youngest, so that he can put Shem last, the succession of which he intends to braid. But out of them are braided [or woven] 72 generations, 15 of Japheth, 30 of Cham, 27 of Shem. These three have been disseminated into the three parts of the world, according to Alcuin. Shem got Asia, Cham Africa and Japheth Europe. Or it is more clearly expressed according to Josephus: the sons of Japheth held the Northern region, from mounts Taurs and Amanusin Cilicia and Syria, all the way to the River Don, but in Europe all the way to Gadira [Cadiz?]. But the sons of Cham from the province Syria, and mounts Amanus and Lebanus, got all the lands that are towards the Sea [The Mediterranean], taking also the ones that are towards the [Atlantic] Ocean, and making their own appelations. But the sons of Shem inhabit Asia seperately all the way to the [Indian] Ocean, starting out at the Euphrates.
[Note that Petrus Comestor is identifying the author of Genesis with "Moyses" - in English Moses. Scholastics were as Philosophic as the Enlightenment, but whereas Enlightenment was a Philosophy of scoffing at traditional history, Scholasticism was one of certainty about it. Note also that all of this is in the Old World and even not all of it, so that East Asiatics, Americans, Oceanics, excepting perhaps Papua to Australia are NEWER nations. I consider it possible that "Emperor Jimmu" of the Japanese was none other than Aeneas. At least the Japanese are far newer. But here we are talking of the Old World and of the division of its three parts. And of the oldest parts inhabited by man after the Flood.]
Generationi Sem insistemus, alias transeuntes, hoc tamen addentes, quod Chus dicitur filius Cham, et filius Chus Nemrod, qui coepit primus potens esse in terra, et robustus venator hominum coram Domino, id est exstinctor, et oppressor amore dominandi, et cogebat homines ignem adorare; ab hoc exiit proverbium, ad dicendum de aliquo, quod fortis sit et malus: Quasi Nemrod robustus venator coram Domino. Hoc ideo diximus, quia Methodius dicit hunc fuisse de filiis Hirom filii Sem.		We insist on the "generation" of Shem, passing by the others, but we add this, that Chush is the name of the son of Cham, and the son of Chush is called Nemrod, who first started out to be mighty on earth and a stout hunter of men before the Lord, that is an extinguisher, and an oppressor by love of domination, and he forced men to adore fire; from him stems the byword, to say of someone he is strong and evil: "like Nemrod, a stout hunter before the Lord". We have said this because of this that Methodius says he was of the sons of Hirom the son of Shem.
[Not sure which one is meant by "Hirom." The Latin Vulgate has - now, in the Clementine edition: Filii Sem: Aelam, et Assur, et Arphaxad, et Lud, et Aram. It could be either Aelam or Aram, I think. In the following Petrus Comestor is probably still referring to Methodius, with less distance, but perhaps still some scepticism:]
Quare vero primus coeperit dominari ostendit, agens de quodam filio Noe, de quo non egit Moyses, sic dicens: Centesimo anno tertiae chiliadis natus est Noe filius in similitudinem ejus, et dixit eum Jonithum . Trecentesimo anno dedit Noe donationes filio suo Jonitho, et dimisit eum in terram Ethan, et intravit eam Jonithus usque ad mare orientis, quod dicitur Elioschora, id est solis regio, hic accepit a Domino donum sapientiae, et invenit astronomiam.		But he shows why at first he started to dominate, speaking of a certain son of Noah not mentioned by Moses, saying so: in the hundredth year of the third millennium [after the Flood?] a son was born to Noah in similitude of himself, and he called him Jonithus [Jonathan?] In the threehundredth year Noah gave gifts to his son Jonithus, and sent him into the land Ethann and Jonithus entered into it all the way unto the sea of the East, which is called Helioschora, which is Region of the Sun, he received of the Lord the gift of wisdom and invented astronomy.
Ad quem veniens Nemrod, Gigas decem cubitorum, eruditus est ab eo, et accepit ab eo consilium, in quibus locis regnare coepisset. Jonithus iste futuros quosdam eventus praevidit, et maxime de ortu quatuor regnorum, et occasu eorum per successionem. Quam etiam plane prophetavit Daniel. Et praedixit discipulo suo Nemrod, quod primi regnarent de Cham, de quo Belus descendit, post de Sem Medi, et Persae, et Graeci, post, de Japheth Romani. A quo rediens Nemrod accensus amore dominandi, sollicitavit genus suum de Sem, ut imperaret aliis, quasi primogenitus, sed noluerunt; et ideo transivit ad Cham, qui acquievit, et regnavit inter eos in Babylone, et exinde dictus est de filiis Cham.		To him came Nemrod, a Ten Cubit Giant, was taught by him, and received from him Counsil in which locations he was to start reigning. This Jonithus foresaw some future events, and most of all of the beginning of the four kingdoms and the fall of them in succession. Which succession also Daniel clearly prophesied? And he foretold to his student Nemrod, that the first were to rule of Cham, of whom descends Belus, then of Shem, Medes, Persians, Greeks, then, of Japheth, Romans. From whom Nemrod came back inflamed with love of lording over others, asked for the help of his own of Shem, in order to command others, as he was firstborn, but they would not; and therefore he went over to Cham, who acquiesced, and ruled among them in Babylon, and therefore he is said to be of the sons of Cham.
Sed si vere fuit de filiis Cham, tunc nulla est quaestio quare inter eos regnaverit; hujus exemplo coepit regnare Jectam, vel Jetram, vel Uram super filios Sem, Suphene, vel Sustene super filios Japheth. Narrat autem Philo Judaeus, vel ut alii volunt Gentilis philosophus, in libro Quaestionum super Genesim, quod ex tribus filiis Noe adhuc ipso vivente sunt nati viginti quatuor millia virorum et centum, extra mulieres et parvulos, habentes tres super se duces, quos praediximus.		But if he really was of the sons of Cham, then there is no question at all why it would be among them that he ruled; following his example Jectam, or Jetram, or Uram started to rule over the Sons of Shem, Suphene or Sustene over the Sons if Japheth. But Philo Judaeus tells us, or according to others it is a Pagan Philosopher, in the Book of Questions over Genesis, that of the three sons of Noah, while he was still alive, were born 24100 men, not counting women and as yet small ones, having the three dukes or leaders which we mentioned.
De turre Babylon.		On the Tower of Babel
Post obitum vero Noe, moventes pedes suos ab Oriente, convenerunt duces in unum, in campum Sennaar, et timentes diluvium, consilio Nemrod volentis regnare, coeperunt aedificare turrim, quae pertingeret usque ad coelos, habentes lateres pro saxis, et bitumen pro caemento. Descendit autem Dominus, ut videret turrim (Gen. XI), animadvertit, ut puniret, et ait ad angelos: Venite, et confundamus linguam eorum, ut non intelligat quisque vocem proximi sui. In hac divisione nihil non fecit Deus, quia voces eaedem sunt apud omnes gentes, sed dicendi modos, et formas diversis generibus divisit.		After the Death of Noah, moving their feet from the East, the leaders convened in one place, in the field of Shinear, and fearing [another] Deluge, on the counsel of Nemrod who wanted to rule, started making a Tower, which would reach into the skies, having brick instead of stones and "slime" - asphalt - instead of mortar. But the Lord want down to see the Tower (Genesis XI), took heed to punish and told the angels: come let us confound their tongue, so that each one may not understand the speach of his neighbour. In this divison all was done by God, since the speach is the same in all nations, but the ways of saying things and the forms He divided in diverse kinds.
[Petrus Comestor seems to agree with the book called now Book of Jasher - which is of disputed genuinity even among Jews and not Canonic among Christians - that God was speaking to angels, BUT, unlike that book, he thinks, as is proper that God alone took power over the linguistic faculties of the brains so as to change grammar. He also notes that the Bible uses the words "voces" as speach as in concretely the speach in the language it is put, but when he says "speach is the same in all nations" he uses speach as meaning the faculty common to all men. And the specific language he identifies, like Chomsky, as grammatic system, more precisely as "forms and ways of saying [things]" or morphology and vocabulary - or morphology with vocabulary and syntax. Or, perhaps even, morphology and the broadest range of phraseology, from vocabulary to syntax. A note on the beginning - where had the chiefs of men been living before they came to Sumer? It is said here they came from the East, and that is in the Bible too!]
De hac turri dicit Josephus, quia latitudo erat ita fortissima, ut prope eam aspicientibus longitudo videretur in minus. Dii vero ventos immittentes everterunt turrim, et vocem propriam unicuique partiti sunt. Propterea Babyloniam contigit vocari civitatem. Babel enim Hebraei confusionem appellant. De hac turri meminit sibylla dicens: Cum omnes homines existerent unius vocis, quidam turrim aedificaverunt excelsam, tanquam per eam ascensuri in coelum.		Of this Tower Josephus says, that its breadth was so overly great, that to those looking beside it the length [tallness] was seen into the lesser [as lesser than the breadth?]. But the Gods (!) by sending in winds overthrew the tower, and dealt out to each his own speach. For this sake it happened for the "City" to be called Babylonia. For the Hebrews call confusion Babel. This Tower the Sibyl recalled saying "When all men were of one speach, some erected a high Tower, as if going to ascend into Heaven."
[Proposed emendation:]
De hac turri dicit Josephus, quia latitudo erat ita fortissima, ut prope eam aspicientibus longitudo videretur in minus. Propterea Babyloniam contigit vocari civitatem. Babel enim Hebraei confusionem appellant. De hac turri meminit sibylla dicens: Cum omnes homines existerent unius vocis, quidam turrim aedificaverunt excelsam, tanquam per eam ascensuri in coelum. Dii vero ventos immittentes everterunt turrim, et vocem propriam unicuique partiti sunt.
Of this Tower Josephus says, that its breadth was so overly great, that to those looking beside it the length [tallness] was seen into the lesser [as lesser than the breadth?]. For this sake it happened for the "City" to be called Babylonia. For the Hebrews call confusion Babel. This Tower the Sibyl recalled saying "When all men were of one speach, some erected a high Tower, as if going to ascend into Heaven. But the gods by sending in winds overthrew the tower, and dealt out to each his own speach."
[Explanation: Josephus was no polytheist. He can have spoken of Elohim as if it meant "God and the Angels" or the text here can be corrupt and need an emendation - either due to manuscript (though I suppose there were many such around while the work was used and ought to be many still) or due to bad reading of an abbreviation as if meaning two ii rather than -us, thought that doesn't explain the plural verbform, or even due to a sabotage on wikisource. If someone has the text in print could he please either correct wikisource, or send me a message in the guesbook about why this reading is correct! Of course, Josephus could also be retelling a Pagan story with the proper transition to it being lost. Or the text pieace belongs to the part about the Sibyl's words rather than the part about Josephus' and was misplaced. Thus passage emendable as: This Tower the Sibyl recalled saying "When all men were of one speach, some erected a high Tower, as if going to ascend into Heaven. But the gods by sending in winds overthrew the tower, and dealt out to each his own speach." But in absense of written on paper text, I am not judging. Babylonia for Babylon is quite acceptable if "City" (civitas) is taken as the whole State rather than "intra muros" area. Here is one passage from Josephus himself: ... The place wherein they built the tower is now called Babylon, because of the confusion of that language which they readily understood before; for the Hebrews mean by the word Babel, confusion. The Sibyl also makes mention of this tower, and of the confusion of the language, when she says thus: "When all men were of one language, some of them built a high tower, as if they would thereby ascend up to heaven, but the gods sent storms of wind and overthrew the tower, and gave every one his peculiar language; and for this reason it was that the city was called Babylon." But as to the plan of Shinar, in the country of Babylonia, Hestiaeus mentions it, when he says thus: "Such of the priests as were saved, took the sacred vessels of Jupiter Enyalius, and came to Shinar of Babylonia." Antiquites, Book I, chapter 4 http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-1/chapter-4.html AFTER this they were dispersed abroad, on account of their languages, and went out by colonies every where; and each colony took possession of that land which they light upon, and unto which God led them; so that the whole continent was filled with them, both the inland and the maritime countries ... Ibid. Ch. 5 http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-1/chapter-5.html I wonder if Hesychius in the following is not really a mistake for Hestiaeus, or whether it was Hesychius or someone quoting him who jumbled the story of Hestiaeus, as follows:]
De campo vero Sennaar in regione Babylonis meminit Esicius dicens: Qui de sacerdotibus sunt erepti: Jovis sacra sumentes, in Sennaar Babylonis venerunt, divisique sunt post haec, diversitate linguarum migrationes agentes, apprehendentes mediterranea simul, et maritima. Nec praetereundum puto quod Moyses dicit Regma, filium Chus, duos habuisse filios Saba, et Dodam.		From the field of Shinear in the region of Babylon, Hesychius [of Miletus] makes mention saying: Who of the priests were escaping: taking the holy things of Jove, came to Shinear of Babylonia, were divided after this, undertaking migrations due to diversity of languge, reaching at the same time [or both] midlands and seashores. Nor do I think one should pass by that Moses said that Regma, son of Kush, had two sons, Saba and Dodam.
Josephus dicit Saba, et Judam, quorum Judas Aegyptiacam gentem Hesperiorum inhabitans, Judaeis cognomen suum reliquit. Quod autem dicitur, de terra Sennaar egressus est Assur, intelligendum est, quia Nemrod expulit eum vi a terra illa, et turre, quae ejus erat jure haereditario. Vel intelligendum non est Assur filius Sem, qui invenit purpuram, et unguenta crinium, vel corporum a quo Chaldaea , et Assyria dicta est, sed Assur, id est regnum Assyriorum, inde egressum est, quod tempore Sarug, proavi Abrahae, factum est. Regnum quidem Babylonii habuerunt, qui de semine Nemrod fuerunt, usque ad quartam chiliadem, et ultimum cusmidem.		Josephus says Saba and "Judas", of whom "Judas" left the "Jews" his surname, inhabiting an Egyptian people of the West. As to what is said that Assur went for from the land of Shinear, it is to be understood, since Nimrod expelled him with violence from that land, and from the tower, which was his by right of inheritance. Or it is to be understood that Assur is not the Son of Shem, who invented purple and hair ointments and body ointmens of whom Chaldea is also called Assyria, but Assur, that is the reign of Assyrians, went out from there [seceeded?], which happened in the time of Sarug, the greatgrandfather of Abraham. But the reign of Babylon was held by those of the seed of Nemrod, until the fourth Millennium [of the world] and the last ?? [cusmis?].
[Here one can add that some have identified Assur here mentioned with precisely Nimrod. They have even gone so far as to identifiy Ninus with Nimrod. However, it seems they have followed the chronology of rabbis rather than of Septuagint in doing so. Rob Skiba II is one of them, I do not know the first of them, so I do not know whom else to metion than the one I read first. Actual quote from Josephus does not quite support his son Ragmus having as two sons Saba and Judas: The children of these [four] were these: Sabas, who founded the Sabeans; Evilas, who founded the Evileans, who are called Getuli; Sabathes founded the Sabathens, they are now called by the Greeks Astaborans; Sabactas settled the Sabactens; and Ragmus the Ragmeans; and he had two sons, the one of whom, Judadas, settled the Judadeans, a nation of the western Ethiopians, and left them his name; as did Sabas to the Sabeans: Someone thought that Saba who left his name to Sabeans was brother of Judadas who left his to Judadeans, but Josephus does not say that Judadas' brother left his name to anyone, he is comparing Judadas and Judadeans to his uncle Sabas and the Sabeans, as far as both being eponyms. And of course, Judadeans were Western Ethippians, not Western Egyptians.]
Primum incidens.		Incidental to the Biblical Storyline, First Item
Interim vero obtinuerunt Aegyptios et Assyrios ita: In diebus Sarug Belus Nerothides rex Babylonis, quia fuit alter Belus rex Graeciae, intravit Assyriam, sed parum obtinuit in ea. Quo mortuo filius ejus Ninus totam obtinuit Assyriam, et civitatem, in qua caput regni erat, itinere trium dierum ampliavit, et a suo nomine Ninivem dixit.		Meanwhile they obtained Egyptians and Assyrians this: In the days of Sarug, Belus the Nerothid [=?=Nemrothid, with a missed nasal stroke?] the king of Babylon, because there was another Belus, king of Greece, entered Assyria, but obtained too little therein. When he died, his son Ninus obtained all Assyria, and amplified the city in which the head of the kingdom was by the day's march of three days, and called it Ninive after his name.
[Note that it is not said that Ninus, who is not a Biblical character, founded Ninive, only that he amplified it and renamed it. Holy Writ says - if Assur is a person and perhaps identic to the son of Shem - that Assur did, Genesis 10:11. The scenario here is that Assur if so gave it another name, then Belus - probably Son of Nemroth/Nimrod - tried to conquer Assyria and failed, then his son Ninus succeeded, and celebrated the victory by dooming the earlier name and size of Ninive to oblivion, by enlarging and renaming it.]
Inde est quod quaedam historiae dicunt regnum Assyriorum coepisse ab antiquo Belo: quod verum est quantum ad initium. Alii dicunt coepisse a Nino, quod verum est etiam, quantum ad regni ampliationem. Ninus vicit Cham, qui adhuc vivebat, et regnabat in Thracia, et dicebatur Zoroastres inventor magicae artis, qui et septem liberales artes, in quatuordecim columnis scripsit, septem aeneis, et septem lateritiis, contra utrumque judicium. Ninus vero libros ejus combussit. Ab eisdem orta sunt idola sic.		This is why some histories say that the kingdom of Assyrians started with old Belus: which is true as far as the beginning is concerned. Others say it started with Ninus, which is also true, as far as the enlargement of the kingdom. Ninus defeated Cham [!] who was still alive and ruled in Thracia, and was called Zoroaster, inventor of magic arts, who also inscirbed the seven liberal arts in fourteen columns, seven of bronze and seven of tiles, against either doom (?). But Ninus burned his books. From these the same, idols were thus begun:
[Note that magic arts and seven liberal arts are distinct accomplishments of Zoroaster, alias Cham. And how awful if Ninus defeated his own ancestor!]
De morte Beli, et ortu idolorum.		On the Death os Belus and the Beginning of Idols
Mortuo Belo, Ninus in solatium doloris, imaginem patris sibi fecit, cui tantam exhibebat reverentiam, ut quibuslibet reis qui ad eam confugissent parceret. Proinde homines de regno ejus divinos honores imagini ejus coeperunt impendere; hujus exemplo plurimi claris suis mortuis imagines dedicarunt, et sicut ab idolo Beli caetera traxerunt originem, sic ab ejus nomine generale nomen idolorum traxerunt. Sicut enim dictus est Belus ab Assyriis, sic et aliae nationes secundum idiomata linguae suae dixerunt, aliae Bel, aliae Beel, aliae Baal, aliae Baalim. Imo, et nomina specificaverunt, aliae Beelphegor, aliae Beelzebub dicentes. Sed tandem seriem genealogiae Sem prosequamur.		When Belus was dead, Ninus, in consolation of the grief, made himself an image of the father, to which he showed such reverence, that he spared all criminals who took refuge to it. Accordingly people of his reign started to impend divine honours in the image; by example hereof many dedicated images to their celebrated dead ones, and as from the idol of Belus the others took their origin, so of his name they took the general name of idols. As he was called Belus by Assyrians, so also other nations according to the idiom of their tongues, named some of the Bel, some Beel, some Baal, some Baalim. Even more, they specified names, some saying Beelphegor, some saying Beelzebub. But at last let us pursue the genealogical series of Shem.
[Belus was not the real Assyrian name, but Bel was. Belos in Greek and Belus in Latin just add the -os/-us ending which is necessitated by the case grammar of these languages. And Baalim is not another language for Baal, it is plural and singular of same language - Chanaanean and Biblical Hebrew being two very close dialects of it. Beelphegor and Beelzebub were two different Baalim among the Chanaaneans.]
...
De ortu regnorum.		On the Beginning of Kingdoms
Anno undecimo Abrahae mortuus est Ninus, cujus uxor Semiramis, ut post eum regnare posset, proprio filio, quem susceperat ex Nino, nupsit, et ex eo filium genuit, qui et Babyloniam ampliavit. Anno Abrahae septuagesimo quinto facta est ei repromissio. Anno ejus octogesimo sexto natus est ei Hismael. Anno ejus centesimo natus est ei Isaac: Anno ejus centesimo trigesimo septimo mortua est Sara.		In the eleventh year of Abraham, Ninus died, the wife of which Semiramis, in order to rule after him, wedded her own son, whom she had received from Ninus, and bore of him a son, who also amplified Babylonia. In the seventyfifth year of Abraham, he received the promise. In his eightysixth year, Hismael [Ishmael] was born to him. In his hundredth year Isaac was born to him. In his hundred thirtieth year, Sarah died.
Aliud incidens.		Incidental to the Biblical Storyline, other item
Exortum est regnum Assyriorum anno vicesimo quinto Saruch, proavi Abrahae sub Belo, et cucurrit, ad annum septimum Oziae regis Judae, per annos mille et trecentos; alii quadringentos et duos: per reges triginta septem usque ad Sardanapalum, qui primus pulvinaria adinvenit. Post quem translatum est regnum ad Medos. Regnum autem Sicyoniorum ab anno vigesimo quarto Nachor, avi Abrahae, exortum est, sub Eugialo, alias Egialo, et cucurrit, usque ad annum decimum septimum Heli sacerdotis, et judicis Israel, per annos [Col.1109B] noningentos septuaginta et unum et per reges triginta et unum usque ad Zeusippum post quem judicaverunt Sicyoniam Sacerdotes Charmi. Sicyonia autem est regio, quae prius Apia, post Peloponensis dicta est.		The Kingdom of Assyrians began in the twentyfifth year of Saruch, the greatgrandfather of Abraham, under Bel, and ran on, into the seventh year of Ozias King of Judah, for one thousand and thirty years: through thirtyseven kings onto Sardanapalus, who first invented pillows. After whom the rule was transferred to the Medes. But the Kingdom of the Sicyonians [the Kingdom Sicyon] began from the twentyfourth year of Nachor, the grandfather of Abraham, under Eugialus, also known as Egialus [Aegialeus], and ran on, into the seventeenth year of the Priest Heli, Judge of Israel, for ninehundred and seventyone years up to Zeusippus [Zeuxippus] after whom priests of Charmus judged Sicyonia. But Sicyonia is the region which earlier was called/said to be Apia(n) and later Peloponesus(Pelopponesian).
[Aegialeus was by the Pagans thought to be autochthonous, i e to have sprung up from the ground in Sicyon. He was supposed to be so to speak the Adam of Sicyon. This is of course not accepted by Christians, including Petrus Comestor. Aegialeus descends from Adam as much as any other man. And from Noah as much as any other post-Flood man. Pagans were wrong about him being autochthonous. Another Pagan tradition was he was son of the rivergod (!) Inachus (or Inachus the founder of Argos) and the Seanymph (!) Melia. This does not mean he did not exist or was not the first king of Sicyon. No need whatsoever to say Pagans were wrong on that too. Even if some got him and some possibly his mother wrong. Greek wiki has 32 sovereigns of Sicyon, and Zeuxippus was only 28. The priests which afterwards - perhaps after him rather than the last Regnidas - judged Sicyonia were not "sacerdotes Charmi" but "sacerdotes Charnii" - Charnian Priests.]
Usque ad Abraham vero jam fuerant in Aegypto quindecim dynastiae. Dynastiam summam potestatem Aegyptii dicunt ; a nativitate Abrahae, dynastiam sexdecim obtinuerunt Thebaei, septemdecim Pastores, Reges sic vocati, octodecim Thebaei, vel Thiopolitani, qui et Pharaones, per Reges septemdecim. Variatae quoque sunt dynastiae de generibus quorumdam regum ad alia saepe transeuntes, usque ad Cambysem filium Cyri, sub quo primo per se imperaverunt Aegypto.		Up to the time of Abraham there had been fifteen dynasties in Egypt. The Egyptians call the highest [political] power "dynasty"; from the birth of Abraham sixteen Thebans obtained the dynasty, seventeen Shepherd Kings, eighteen Thebans or Thiopolitans, also known as Pharaos, through a sequence of seventeen kings. Also dynasties were changed from the kinsmen of certain kings often getting on to others, up to Cambyses son of Cyrus, under whom first they ruled Egypt by themselves.
[Kingship getting from kinsmen of one king to those of another - not related - is what dynasty means, each set of relatives all ruling being such a one. Petrus Comestor thinks "dynasty" is name of the title and "Pharao" only a name during one of these. Does not mean he was wrong about Egyptian dynasties predating Abraham or Shepherd Kings coming after his time.]

In order not to make this post too long, and also in order to provide what I already translated about Pagan History up to the time of Rebecca's giving birth (where next part will start), I here cut this message and pronounce it part I, with part II or perhaps even further ones, II and III or even more, upcoming, depending on how long I find the remainder./HGL