Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

Book Sixteen — the tower of Babel and the division of tongues

{Upon those words of Moses, chapter 11: And the earth was of one language and of the same speech. And when they removed from the East, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.}

LatineEnglish

{Upon those words of Moses, chapter 11: And the earth was of one language and of the same speech. And when they removed from the East, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.}1

Super illis verbis Mosis, cap. XI: Erat autem terra labii unius et sermonum eorundem. Cumque proficiscerentur de Oriente, invenerunt campum in terra Sennaar et habitaverunt in eo.

CAIETANUS negat fuisse omnes homines qui convenerunt ad aedificandam turrim. Nam supradicta verba Mosis exponens ad hunc modum scribit: „Non intelligas universum genus humanum profectum fuisse ab Oriente et iisse in regionem Sennaar: quia nec litera hoc sonat, nec rationi hoc consentaneum est: sed sensus literae est quod, perseverante una lingua in universa terra, illi qui moverunt se ab Oriente venerunt in vallem Sennaar.“ Haec Caietanus. Verum contraria opinio longe probabilior est, quam nos ex supradictis verbis Mosis confirmabimus: quare necesse est ea verba per partes diligenter interpretari.
Cajetan denies that it was all men who came together to build the tower. For, expounding the aforesaid words of Moses, he writes in this manner: „Do not understand that the whole human race set out from the East and went into the region of Sennaar: because neither does the letter sound this, nor is this consonant with reason; but the sense of the letter is that, one tongue continuing in the whole earth, those who moved themselves from the East came into the valley of Sennaar.“ So Cajetan. But the contrary opinion is far more probable, which we shall confirm from the aforesaid words of Moses: wherefore it is necessary to interpret those words carefully, part by part.2
IN illis igitur verbis „Erat omnis terra labii unius“ est oratio dupliciter figurata: nam et „omnis terra“ dictum est pro „omnes homines qui erant in terris,“ et „labium“ est positum pro „sermone“ et oratione. Nam quia lingua et labiis sermo fingitur et formatur, idcirco lingua frequentissime ponitur, non solum apud Hebraeos sed apud Graecos etiam et Latinos, pro sermone. Vocabulum autem „labium“ sive „labia“ etiam creberrime usurpat Scriptura pro sermone: unde est illud, „Favus distillans labia tua,“ quasi diceret, ex ore tuo melle dulcior fluit oratio; et de Iob scriptum est non peccasse eum labiis suis, id est in sermone, vel in iis quae locutus fuerat; Moses quoque dixit se esse labiis incircumcisum, hoc est in dicendo inelegantem ac rudem. Illud vero quod subditur „Et sermonum eorundem“ expositio est eius quod…
In those words, then, ‘And the whole earth was of one lip,’ the speech is doubly figurative: for both ‘the whole earth’ is said for ‘all the men who were on the earth,’ and ‘lip’ is put for ‘speech’ and discourse. For because speech is fashioned and formed by the tongue and the lips, therefore ‘tongue’ is most frequently put — not only among the Hebrews but among the Greeks too and the Latins — for ‘speech.’ And the word ‘lip’ or ‘lips’ Scripture also very often uses for ‘speech’: whence is that, ‘Thy lips are a dropping honeycomb,’ as if it said, from thy mouth flows discourse sweeter than honey; and of Job it is written that he did not sin with his lips, that is, in speech, or in those things he had spoken; Moses too said that he was uncircumcised in lips, that is, inelegant and rude in speaking. But that which is subjoined, ‘And of the same speech,’ is an explanation of that which…3
…praecesserat, „Labii unius“: nam fuisse unum labium omnium hominum significat omnes homines eadem lingua atque sermone esse usos. QUAMQUAM inter ista discrimen aliquod esse nonnulli volunt. „Non solum,“ inquit Caietanus, „omnes homines conveniebant in unitate verborum, sed etiam in unitate labii, hoc est, modo proferendi. Contingit enim Italos communicantes in verbis differre in labiis, id est, modo pronuntiandi. Et simile est in Germanis, Hispanis aliisque. Ad tollendam itaque omnem diversitatem, utraque unitas explicatur.“ Sic Caietanus. Sed Aven-Ezra putat significari non tantum unam et eandem fuisse omnibus linguam, sed quod in ea de omnibus rebus non diversis sed eisdem vocibus omnes inter se locuti fuerint: quod hodie non fit; aliter enim docti, hoc est significantius, quam indocti loquuntur; tunc autem eadem phrasis, idem stylus, eademque verborum conformatio erat. Quaenam vero fuerit illa una lingua, utrum Hebraea necne, infra disputabitur. Septuaginta Interpretes locum hunc ita converterunt: „Erat omnis terra labium unum, et vox una omnibus.“
…preceded, ‘of one lip’: for that there was one lip of all men signifies that all men used the same tongue and speech. Although some will have there to be some distinction between these. „Not only,“ says Cajetan, „did all men agree in unity of words, but also in unity of lip — that is, of manner of utterance. For it happens that Italians, sharing in words, differ in lips, that is, in manner of pronouncing. And it is similar among the Germans, Spaniards, and others. To remove, therefore, all diversity, both unities are expressed.“ So Cajetan. But Aben-Ezra thinks it is signified not only that there was one and the same tongue to all, but that in it all men spoke to one another about all things with the same words, not different ones: which does not happen today; for the learned speak otherwise — that is, more expressively — than the unlearned; but then there was the same phrasing, the same style, and the same conformation of words. But what that one tongue was, whether Hebrew or not, will be disputed below. The Septuagint translators rendered this place thus: „The whole earth was one lip, and one voice to all.“4
EX his verbis Mosis elicitur prima ratio qua probatur eos qui convenerunt et conspirarunt in aedificationem turris fuisse omnes homines, ex omni videlicet gente quaecunque tunc in terris erat. Etenim Moses his verbis aperte declarat qui convenerunt in campum Sennaar fuisse eos qui erant unius labii et eorundem sermonum, et quorum, propter illam aedificationem turris, confusa sit lingua et varie multiplicata: sed omnes homines erant unius linguae; ergo omnes convenerunt ad aedificationem illius turris. Nam si non omnes convenissent, sed aliqui in aliis terrae locis remansissent, ergo, cum in illis qui aedificarunt turrim confusa et divisa est lingua, in iis qui non aderant sed alibi remanserant eadem quae prius erat remansisset lingua. At eam linguam quae prius una fuerat omnium, post confusionem linguarum in una tantum familia Heber mansisse (unde etiam nomen accepit, nam Hebraea quasi Heberea dicta est), certa est Hebraeorum sententia, etiam B. Augustino aliisque quamplurimis Christianis doctoribus probata. Sed pergamus ad alia.
From these words of Moses is drawn the first reason by which it is proved that those who came together and conspired in the building of the tower were all men — that is, of every nation whatsoever that then was on the earth. For Moses by these words plainly declares that those who came together into the plain of Sennaar were those who were of one lip and of the same speech, and whose tongue, on account of that building of the tower, was confounded and variously multiplied: but all men were of one tongue; therefore all came together to the building of that tower. For if not all had come together, but some had remained in other places of the earth, then, when the tongue was confounded and divided in those who built the tower, in those who were not present but had remained elsewhere the same tongue which was before would have remained. But that the tongue which before had been the one tongue of all, after the confusion of tongues remained in only the one family of Heber (whence it also got its name, for ‘Hebrew’ is, as it were, ‘Heberew’), is the certain opinion of the Hebrews, approved also by Blessed Augustine and very many other Christian doctors. But let us proceed to other matters.5
SEQUITUR illud in hac historia Mosis: „Cumque proficiscerentur de Oriente,“ etc. Orientem appellare hic videtur Moses Armeniam, quae magis Orientalis est quam Babylonia ubi erat campus Sennaar. Cumque Arca Noë, finito diluvio, resederit in montibus Armeniae (ut supra capite octavo dixit Moses), verisimile admodum sit in illis Armeniae locis habitasse Noë ac filios eius et posteros eorum per illos centum annos qui post diluvium fluxerunt ante aedificationem turris. Ex hac igitur Armeniae regione, quae Orientalis dicitur ratione ipsius Babyloniae, homines illi profecti sunt.
There follows in this history of Moses: „And when they removed from the East,“ etc. By ‘the East’ Moses here seems to call Armenia, which is more eastern than Babylonia, where the plain of Sennaar was. And since the Ark of Noah, the flood being ended, settled on the mountains of Armenia (as Moses said above in the eighth chapter), it is quite likely that in those places of Armenia Noah and his sons and their descendants dwelt during those hundred years which passed after the flood before the building of the tower. From this region of Armenia, then, which is called ‘eastern’ by reason of Babylonia itself, those men set out.6
SED cur inde profecti sunt? An pertaesi loca Armeniae, quae sunt montosa, aspera et sterilia, quaerentesque alias sedes commodiores, fertiliores atque amoeniores? An nimis iam per illos centum annos aucti numero et multiplicati, laxiorem et commodiorem desiderabant habitatio[nem]…
But why did they set out thence? Was it because they were weary of the places of Armenia, which are mountainous, rough, and barren, and were seeking other seats more convenient, more fertile, and more pleasant? Or because, now too much increased and multiplied in number through those hundred years, they desired a roomier and more convenient habitation…7
…habitationem? An potius affectantes maiorem potentiam, amplioremque ditionem atque opulentiam concupiscentes? Vix enim unquam homines sua sorte contenti sunt, nec rebus iam partis et praesentibus satiantur, sed alia semper et maiora cupiunt et consequi student; et, ut concupiscendi, ita quaerendi et habendi nullus est finis.
…habitation? Or rather, aspiring to greater power, and coveting an ampler dominion and opulence? For scarcely ever are men content with their lot, nor are they sated with things already gotten and present, but always desire other and greater things and strive to obtain them; and, as of coveting, so of seeking and having there is no end.8
AUDI morale documentum hoc loco traditum a Chrysostomo, nam exponens quod hic dicitur, homines non contentos regione Orientis quaesisse alias sedes: „Vide,“ inquit, „quoniam humanum genus non potest intra suos limites consistere, sed amplius semper concupiscens maiora subinde appetit. Atque hoc est quod maxime hominem perdit, quia non vult naturae suae mensuram agnoscere, semper maiora desiderans et quae supra conditionem suam et facultatem sunt votis concipiens. Hinc qui ad mundana respiciunt opera, si quando multis abundaverint divitiis et praepotentes fuerint, quasi obliti naturae suae, in tantum se fastigium efferri volunt ut non raro usque in profundum deiiciantur. Et quanquam hoc vident quotidie contingere, ne hac tamen ratione emendatiores fiunt: aut, si fiunt quidem aliqui eorum, tamen diuturna non est emendatio, sed eandem capessunt viam et in eadem praecipitia deferuntur.“ Hoc nobis ante oculos ponit historia haec Mosis: namque homines ab initio, non contenti locis quae circa Orientem perdiu inhabitaverant, alias sedes quaerere et maiora in dies moliri conati sunt, quamobrem gravissimis illi malis et calamitatibus afflictati sunt.
Hear the moral lesson taught in this place by Chrysostom — for, expounding what is here said, that men, not content with the region of the East, sought other seats: „See,“ he says, „that the human race cannot stay within its own limits, but, always coveting more, ever after seeks greater things. And this is what most destroys man: that he is unwilling to acknowledge the measure of his nature, always desiring greater things, and conceiving by his wishes things that are above his condition and ability. Hence those who look to worldly works, if ever they abound in much riches and become very powerful, as if forgetful of their nature, wish to be raised to such a height that not rarely they are cast down to the depths. And although they see this happen daily, yet they are not by this reckoning made more amended; or, if some of them are, yet the amendment is not lasting, but they take the same road and are carried into the same precipices.“ This history of Moses sets before our eyes: for men from the beginning, not content with the places about the East which they had long inhabited, endeavored to seek other seats and to attempt greater things day by day; wherefore they were afflicted with the gravest evils and calamities.9
TOSTATUS hoc loco citat Aven-Ezram aientem, inter illos homines qui profecti dicuntur esse ab Oriente, fuisse Noë et Abraham. Ac de Noë quidem, quantum ad rationem temporis, verum id quidem esse potest. Siquidem quod hic narratur centum annis post diluvium contigit: Noë autem trecentos quinquaginta annos vixit post diluvium; potuit igitur Noë unus esse ex iis qui profecti sunt ex Oriente, quanquam ipse alio animo alioque consilio profectionem illam susceperit quam plerique alii. Illud certe nullo modo credendum est, fuisse Noë in iis qui aedificarunt turrim Babel; quippe cum tale illorum hominum studium, inceptum et conatum non obscure improbet Scriptura, et a Deo minime levi poena punitum esse doceat.
Tostatus in this place cites Aben-Ezra, saying that among those men who are said to have set out from the East were Noah and Abraham. And concerning Noah indeed, as to the reckoning of time, that can be true. For what is here narrated happened a hundred years after the flood; but Noah lived three hundred and fifty years after the flood; Noah could therefore be one of those who set out from the East — although he undertook that journey with another mind and another purpose than most of the others. But this certainly is by no means to be believed: that Noah was among those who built the tower of Babel; since Scripture not obscurely disapproves such zeal, undertaking, and endeavor of those men, and teaches that it was punished by God with no light penalty.10
ABRAHAM porro, ait Tostatus, nullo modo inter illos homines esse potuisse; quippe qui natus sit centum et nonaginta annis post confusionem linguarum: haec enim centum annis post diluvium accidisse creditur, cum Abraham natus sit anno post diluvium ducentesimo nonagesimo secundo. Verum Tostatus non animadvertit Aven-Ezram locutum esse illud ex sententia Hebraeorum, qui divisionem linguarum referunt in ultimum annum Phaleg, qui fuit trecentesimus quadragesimus post diluvium et quadragesimus octavus aetatis Abrahae. FUISSE autem Noë ac filios eius principes et duces eorum qui, profecti ex Oriente, venerunt in campum Sennaar, firmare possum ab Iosephi testimonio, qui hoc modo scribit: „Tres Noe filii, Sem, Cham et [Iaphet]…“
Abraham, moreover, says Tostatus, could in no way have been among those men; since he was born a hundred and ninety years after the confusion of tongues — for this is believed to have happened a hundred years after the flood, while Abraham was born in the 292nd year after the flood. But Tostatus does not observe that Aben-Ezra said this according to the opinion of the Hebrews, who refer the division of tongues to the last year of Phaleg, which was the 340th after the flood and the 48th of Abraham's age. But that Noah and his sons were the chiefs and leaders of those who, setting out from the East, came into the plain of Sennaar, I can confirm from the testimony of Josephus, who writes in this manner: „The three sons of Noah, Sem, Cham, and [Japheth]…“11
…[Sem, Cham et Iaphet], centum annos ante diluvium nati, primi omnium, relictis montibus, planitiem habitare coeperunt; et aliis, recenti etiam tum cladis memoria pavidis nec audentibus a celsiore loco descendere, idem faciendi auctores et exemplum fuere. Campus autem quem primum colere sunt aggressi, nomen est Sennaar.“ Sic ille.
…[Sem, Cham, and Japheth], born a hundred years before the flood, were the first of all, the mountains being left, to begin to inhabit the plain; and to others — still then fearful from the recent memory of the calamity, and not daring to descend from the higher ground — they were the authors and example of doing the same. And the plain which they first set about to cultivate is named Sennaar.“ So he [Josephus].12
Ex hoc autem etiam loco argumentari possumus eos qui convenerunt in campum Sennaar ad aedificandam turrim fuisse omnes homines qui id temporis in terris erant. Etenim Moses non ait hos vel illos homines esse profectos ex Oriente, sed praecise ac simpliciter ait profectos esse homines ex Oriente, non obscure significans omnes qui tunc erant: illos nempe intelligi volens ex Oriente profectos, quos proxime commemoraverat fuisse labii unius eiusdemque sermonis; tales autem erant omnes homines, dixerat enim omnem terram fuisse tunc unius labii et eorundem sermonum.
From this place too we can argue that those who came together into the plain of Sennaar to build the tower were all the men who at that time were on the earth. For Moses does not say that these or those men set out from the East, but precisely and simply says that men set out from the East — not obscurely signifying all who then were: wishing, namely, those to be understood as having set out from the East whom he had just before mentioned to be of one lip and the same speech; but all men were such, for he had said that the whole earth was then of one lip and of the same speech.13
PHILO hunc locum Mosis allegorice tractat in eo libro quem De confusione linguarum edidit. Cuius ego allegoricam simul et moralem, nec sane inelegantem, orationem tacitam praeterire nolui. Sic ille scribit: „Narrat Moses homines illos ab Oriente profectos esse: id iuxta naturam dictum est. Sunt enim in anima duae species Orientis, altera melior, altera deterior: melior, quando, Solarium modo radiorum, in ea splendor virtutum exoritur; deterior, quando, his obscuratis, lucent alia. Prioris exemplum est hoc: Et plantavit Deus Paradisum in Eden contra Orientem — non quidem stirpium tantummodo terrestrium, sed caelestium maxime virtutum, quas a suo incorporeo lumine nunquam exstinguendas plantator ille accendit. Quid? etiam alius dixit: Ecce homo cui nomen Oriens. Nova appellatio, si intelligatur de homine qui constat ex animo et corpore: si autem de illa incorporea Deum referente imagine intelligatur, fateberis nomen hoc inditum aptissime. Hunc enim omnium antiquissimum Filium Deus Pater exoriri voluit, quem alibi primogenitum nominat. Hic, Patrem suum imitatus, qualia vidit apud eum exemplaria, tales et ipse formavit species.“
Philo treats this place of Moses allegorically in the book which he published On the Confusion of Tongues. His discourse — allegorical and at the same time moral, and indeed not inelegant — I was unwilling to pass over in silence. Thus he writes: „Moses relates that those men set out from the East: this is said according to nature. For there are in the soul two species of East, one better, the other worse: the better, when, in the manner of the Sun's rays, the splendor of the virtues rises in it; the worse, when, these being darkened, other things shine. An example of the former is this: And God planted a Paradise in Eden toward the East — not, indeed, only of earthly plants, but most of all of the heavenly virtues, which that planter kindled from his own incorporeal light, never to be extinguished. What? Another too said: Behold a man whose name is the East. A new appellation, if it be understood of a man who consists of soul and body; but if it be understood of that incorporeal image representing God, you will confess this name was most aptly given. For this most ancient Son of all God the Father willed to rise, whom elsewhere he names the firstborn. He, imitating his Father, formed the like species as the exemplars he saw with Him.“14
Deterioris autem Orientis exemplum exstat de illo qui volebat benedictum a Deo populum execrari. Nam et ille ad Orientem habitasse dicitur. Sed hic Oriens, quamvis commune cum priore nomen habeat, re tamen ipsa diversissimus est. „De Mesopotamia,“ inquit, „accivit me Balac, e montibus Orientis, dicens: Veni, ut execreris quem Deus non execratur.“ Interpretatur autem Balac „amens“: nec immerito, qui sperabat se posse decipere illum qui est, et certam eius sententiam humanis argutiis eludere atque irritam facere. Ideo Mesopotamiam habitat, mentem scilicet habens quasi submersam in medio duorum, erroris et improbitatis fluminum, nec enatare denique emergereque valentem. Talis autem affectus, ut exortus insipientiae est, sic est bonae mentis occasus. Proinde homines illi quorum narratur consona dissonantia, profecti ab Oriente dicuntur. Sed utrum ab Oriente vitiorum? Nimirum eos qui a virtutis Oriente proficiscuntur disiungi legimus; at vitiis pariter obnoxiorum unus motus est: quemadmodum manus, non seorsum suis artubus sed quae cum toto corpore cohaerent, una moventur. Nam insipientia malis dux est ad opera non naturalia, quae regio vitiorum est. Hactenus ex Philone.
But an example of the worse East exists in him who wished to curse the people blessed by God. For he too is said to have dwelt toward the East. But this East, although it has a name common with the former, is yet in the thing itself most different. „From Mesopotamia,“ it says, „Balac sent for me, from the mountains of the East, saying: Come, that thou mayest curse him whom God does not curse.“ Now Balac is interpreted „mad“: and not undeservedly, who hoped that he could deceive Him who is, and elude His sure sentence by human subtleties and make it void. Therefore he dwells in Mesopotamia — that is, having a mind, as it were, submerged in the midst of two rivers, of error and of wickedness, and not able at last to swim out and emerge. But such a disposition, as it is the rising of folly, so is it the setting of a good mind. Accordingly those men, of whom a harmonious discord is narrated, are said to have set out from the East. But whether from the East of vices? Doubtless we read that those who set out from the East of virtue are separated; but of those alike liable to vices there is one motion: just as the hands are moved together — not apart by their own joints, but as cohering with the whole body. For folly is the leader to evils, to works not natural, which is the region of vices. Thus far from Philo.15
SED perpendamus verba illa quae sequuntur: „Invenerunt campum in terra Sennaar et habitaverunt in eo.“ Scilicet eo loco valde illi quidem delectati sunt, quod esset planus, apertus, atque amplissime quoquoversus patens, necnon et irriguus interfluo Euphrate, et ob eam causam fertilis ac peramoenus. De hoc campo Sennaar ita scribit Iosephus: „De loco qui Sennaar in Babylonia nominatur meminit Hestiaeus hoc modo: Aiunt Sacerdotes cladis eius (Diluvii) superstites, Enyalii Iovis (Hieronymus Gemelium Iovem vocat) sacra ferentes, in Sennaar Babyloniae pervenisse.“ Epiphanius, sub initium eius operis quod scripsit adversus haereses, historiam huius loci attingens ita ait: „Cum homines se extenderent et ultra procederent a monte Lubar ac finibus Armeniae, hoc est a regione Ararat, consistunt in campo Sennaar quem sibi delegerant. Situs est autem campus Sennaar nunc in regione Persica quae olim erat Assyria.“ Sic Epiphanius: qui non aliud significat his verbis quam terram Sennaar, quae olim fuerat in ditione et sub dominatione Assyriorum, fuisse aetate sua sub ditione Persarum.
But let us weigh those words which follow: „They found a plain in the land of Sennaar and dwelt in it.“ That is, they were greatly delighted with that place, because it was level, open, and most amply extending in every direction, and also watered by the Euphrates flowing through it, and for that cause fertile and very pleasant. Of this plain of Sennaar Josephus writes thus: „Of the place which is named Sennaar in Babylonia, Hestiaeus makes mention in this manner: They say that the survivors of that calamity (the Flood), the priests, bearing the sacred things of Enyalian Jove (Jerome calls him Gemelian Jove), came to Sennaar of Babylonia.“ Epiphanius, near the beginning of the work he wrote against heresies, touching on the history of this place, says thus: „When men extended themselves and proceeded further from Mount Lubar and the borders of Armenia — that is, from the region of Ararat — they halt in the plain of Sennaar, which they had chosen for themselves. And the plain of Sennaar is situated now in the Persian region which once was Assyria.“ So Epiphanius: who by these words signifies nothing other than that the land of Sennaar, which once had been in the dominion and under the lordship of the Assyrians, was in his own age under the dominion of the Persians.16
NEC vero putandum est campum illum fuisse antea nominatum Sennaar; namque id temporis nullus hominum venerat in eum locum, ut eiusmodi nomen imponere ei potuerit; sed postea eo vocabulo campus ille appellatus est. Videlicet ab eventu campus ille congruo nomine (ut ait Rupertus) significatus est. Interpretatur enim Sennaar „excussio dentium,“ id est sermonum sive verborum, quae sine dentibus non fiunt: plurimum namque dentes iuvant ad loquendum; qui tunc illis quodam modo excussi sunt, quando solitam loquendi facultatem dentati, id est superbi vel fortes illi, perdiderunt. Interpretatur quoque hoc nomen, et recte dicitur, „fator eorum“; quia videlicet faetorem superbiae tali ausu et conatu usque ad nares Dei emiserunt. Cui, sicut humilitas vel spiritus contribulatus sacrificium est in odorem suavitatis, sic e contrario superbia faetor horribilis est.
Nor indeed is it to be thought that that plain was previously named Sennaar; for at that time no one of men had come to that place, so that he could impose such a name on it; but afterward that plain was called by that word. That is, the plain was signified by a fitting name from the event (as Rupert says). For Sennaar is interpreted „the shaking-out of teeth,“ that is, of speeches or words, which are not made without teeth: for the teeth greatly help in speaking; which were then in a manner shaken out for them, when those toothed ones — that is, the proud or strong — lost their accustomed faculty of speaking. This name is also interpreted, and rightly said, „their stench-maker“; because, namely, they sent forth the stench of pride, by such daring and endeavor, even to the nostrils of God. To whom, as humility, or a contrite spirit, is a sacrifice in an odor of sweetness, so on the contrary pride is a horrible stench.17
EX illis porro verbis quae sequuntur, „Invenerunt campum Sennaar, habitaverunt in eo,“ licet coniicere eos homines tunc primum invenisse loca campestria et ad habitandum commoda propter fertilitatem et amoenitatem et aquarum copiam: quocirca ibi substitisse, et constructis multifariam sparsis domiciliis aliquandiu habitasse; postea vero cogitasse ac deliberasse, scilicet maioris commoditatis et securitatis necnon et celebrioris famae causa, magnam et munitam civitatem turrimque mirandae celsitudinis aedificare. Non igitur statim ut in campum illum venerunt, turrim et civitatem aedificare aggressi sunt, sed postquam aliquandiu in eo campo habitassent.
From those words which follow, „They found the plain of Sennaar, they dwelt in it,“ it may be conjectured that those men then first found level places, convenient for dwelling on account of their fertility and pleasantness and abundance of waters: wherefore they halted there, and, dwelling-places being built scattered here and there, dwelt for a while; but afterward considered and deliberated — namely, for the sake of greater convenience and security, and also of more renowned fame — to build a great and fortified city and a tower of wondrous height. Not, therefore, immediately when they came into that plain did they set about building the tower and the city, but after they had dwelt for a while in that plain.18
PHILO, perpendens supradicta verba et ad allegoricam expositionem (ut pleraque solet) accommodans, ita scribit: „Hic observa quod non ait eos venisse in campum in quo manserunt, sed invenisse campum — scilicet cupide et curiose ab eis quaesitum, utique postquam dispexerunt ubi esset locus ad suam insaniam commodissimus. Ita est profecto. Insipiens non aliunde accipit, sed ipse sibi quaerendo mala invenit, non contentus iis per quae misera natura ultro incedit, sed cumulans ea malis artibus et exercitiis. Atque utinam paulum ibi commoratus migraret alio: at ipse habitare ibi gaudet. Dicit enim scriptura quod, invento campo, habitarunt in eo — scilicet tanquam in patria, non autem tanquam inquilini regionis externae…“
Philo, weighing the aforesaid words and accommodating them to an allegorical exposition (as he is wont to do with most things), writes thus: „Here observe that he does not say that they came into the plain in which they remained, but that they found the plain — namely, eagerly and curiously sought out by them, after they had looked about where there was a place most convenient for their madness. So it is indeed. The fool does not receive evils from elsewhere, but himself, by seeking, finds them for himself, not content with those through which wretched nature proceeds of itself, but heaping them up with evil arts and exercises. And would that, having tarried there a little, he migrated elsewhere: but he himself rejoices to dwell there. For Scripture says that, the plain being found, they dwelt in it — namely, as in a fatherland, and not as sojourners of a foreign region…“19
„…Levius enim malum fuisset, si, postquam in peccata inciderant, pro alienis ea peregrinisque habuissent, non pro cognatis et domesticis. Peregrini enim potuissent discedere; sedibus autem semel electis, immorandum fuit postea. Quapropter apud Mosen sapientes homines inducuntur peregrini: namque horum anima e caelo quasi in coloniam missa est, vivendi ac discendi gratia velut peregrinationem in terrenam naturam suscipientes. Ubi autem, hospitio corporis usae, sensibilia et mortalia omnia contemplatae sunt, retro unde venerant redeunt, memores caelum sibi civitatem esse ac patriam, in his vero terrae finitimis ut sese tantum hospitio. Ceteris enim colonis nova sedes veteris patriae desiderium adimunt: sed haec caelestis patria reditum suorum exspectat, et ipsi quamprimum redire eo gestiunt. Itaque merito Abraham, qui mortuam vitam sepulcrumque reliquit, mortuorum custodes et mortalium rerum dispensatores sic alloquitur: Advena ego sum et peregrinus inter vivos; quasi diceret: Vos indigenae estis, qui cinerem et pulverem pluris facitis quam animam, quippe qui principem vobis praefecistis Ephron, quod nomen pulverem significat. Iacob etiam se peregrinum appellavit dicens: Dies annorum meorum, quibus peregrinatus sum in terra, pauci et mali, nec pervenerunt ad dies patrum meorum quibus peregrinati sunt in terra.“ Hactenus ex Philone.
„…For the evil would have been lighter, if, after they had fallen into sins, they had held them as foreign and a stranger's, not as kindred and domestic. For sojourners could have departed; but, the seats being once chosen, they had afterward to remain. Wherefore in Moses wise men are brought in as sojourners: for their soul is sent from heaven, as it were into a colony, undertaking, for the sake of living and learning, a sort of pilgrimage into the earthly nature. But when, having used the hospitality of the body, they have contemplated all sensible and mortal things, they return back whence they had come, mindful that heaven is their city and fatherland, but in these things bordering on earth, they are as if only in a lodging. For to other colonists a new seat takes away the longing for the old fatherland; but this heavenly fatherland awaits the return of its own, and they themselves yearn to return thither as soon as possible. And so rightly Abraham, who left a dead life and a sepulchre, thus addresses the keepers of the dead and the dispensers of mortal things: I am a stranger and a sojourner among the living; as if he said: You are natives, who make more of ash and dust than of the soul, since you have set over you a prince, Ephron — which name signifies dust. Jacob too called himself a sojourner, saying: The days of the years of my pilgrimage are few and evil, and they have not come up to the days of my fathers wherein they were pilgrims on the earth.“ Thus far from Philo.20
ERGO filii et nepotes Noë eorumque posteri, ingenti metu diluvii iam defuncti, non statim e montibus in campos descenderunt, sed montana aliquandiu habitantes, postea humiliora et planiora loca petierunt. Sed primo ad radices montium locarunt sedes; tandem decrescente in dies metu, commodiorumque atque amoeniorum locorum cupidine crescente, campestria maxime loca quaesierunt. Scribit Plato paucos homines diluvio superstites fuisse, triaque apud homines post diluvium vitae atque habitationis genera esse instituta. Primo enim habitasse homines putat in ipsis montium cacuminibus, quod aquas adhuc formidarent quae in campis abundare solent, vitamque eos degisse agrestem et simplicem minimeque invicem infestam: huius autem vitae exemplum Plato ait adumbratum esse ab Homero, ubi Cyclopum vitam, mores ac sedes in montium antris ac speluncis describit. Alterum genus vitae fuit illorum qui in montium radicibus sedes locabant, cum iam campi arescere coepissent: huius secundae societatis hominum et habitationis exemplum profert ex Homero Dardanum, qui Dardaniam condidit cum homines in magnis habitarent vallibus Idae. Tertium vitae genus fuit cum, iam relictis montibus atque eorum radicibus et vallibus, in planos et patentes campos venire et ibi secure habitare non dubita[runt]…
Therefore the sons and grandsons of Noah and their descendants, the great fear of the flood being now over, did not at once descend from the mountains into the plains, but, dwelling for a while in the highlands, afterward sought the lower and more level places. But first they placed their seats at the roots of the mountains; at last, the fear decreasing day by day, and the desire of more convenient and pleasant places growing, they sought especially the level places. Plato writes that few men survived the flood, and that three kinds of life and habitation were established among men after the flood. For first he thinks men dwelt on the very summits of the mountains, because they still feared the waters which are wont to abound in the plains, and that they led a rustic and simple life, and least of all hostile to one another: of which life Plato says an image was sketched by Homer, where he describes the life, manners, and seats of the Cyclopes in the caves and dens of the mountains. The second kind of life was that of those who placed their seats at the roots of the mountains, when the plains had now begun to dry: of this second society of men and habitation he brings forward from Homer the example of Dardanus, who founded Dardania when men dwelt in the great valleys of Ida. The third kind of life was when, the mountains and their roots and valleys being now left, they did not hesitate to come into the level and open plains and there dwell securely…21
…tarunt. Huius exemplum ponit Plato Ilum, quem Ilii conditorem tradunt: unde consentaneum fuit illum in medio campo sepultum esse, ut ait Homerus, quoniam primus in campis habitare ausus fuerat.
…Of this Plato sets the example of Ilus, whom they hand down to be the founder of Ilium: whence it was fitting that he was buried in the middle of the plain, as Homer says, since he had first dared to dwell in the plains.22

Translator’s notes

  1. Gen 11:1–2 (verse lemma, for Disputation 1). ↩
  2. §3. Disp. 1 opens. Cajetan denies all men gathered: the text means only that, one tongue continuing everywhere, those who moved from the East came to Sennaar. Pererius holds the contrary (all men) far more probable, to be proved from the text. Margin: Cajetan. ↩
  3. §3 (cont.). ‘The whole earth was of one lip’ is doubly figurative: ‘the whole earth’ = all men on earth; ‘lip’ = speech (so ‘tongue’ and ‘lip’ stand for speech in Hebrew, Greek, Latin — Cant 4 ‘thy lips a dropping honeycomb’; Job ‘sinned not with his lips’; Moses ‘uncircumcised in lips’). ‘And of the same speech’ explains the preceding… (continues p. 476). Margins: Cant 4; Job 1–2; Exod 6. ↩
  4. §3 (concl.)–§4. ‘Of one lip’ = all used the same tongue and speech. The distinction between ‘lip’ and ‘speech’: Cajetan — unity both of words and of ‘lip’ (manner of pronouncing; Italians/Germans/Spaniards share words but differ in pronunciation); Aben-Ezra — not only one tongue, but all spoke with the same words/phrasing/style (unlike today, where the learned speak more expressively than the unlearned). What that tongue was (Hebrew?) is deferred. LXX: ‘one lip, and one voice to all.’ Margins: Cajetan; Aben-Ezra. ↩
  5. §5. First argument that ALL men gathered: Moses says those at Sennaar were of one lip and same speech, and their tongue was confounded; but all men were of one tongue; therefore all gathered. Otherwise, those who remained elsewhere would have kept the original tongue — yet that tongue survived only in Heber's family (whence ‘Hebrew’ = ‘Heberew’), the certain view of the Hebrews, Augustine, and many Christian doctors. ↩
  6. §6. ‘When they removed from the East’: ‘the East’ = Armenia (more eastern than Babylonia/Sennaar). Since the Ark rested on the Armenian mountains (Gen 8), Noah's line likely dwelt there for the ~100 yrs before Babel; thence they set out (Armenia being ‘eastern’ relative to Babylonia). ↩
  7. §7. Why did they set out? Perhaps weary of mountainous, barren Armenia, seeking more fertile, pleasant lands; or, grown too numerous in 100 yrs, wanting a roomier dwelling (continues p. 477). ↩
  8. §7 (concl.). Or rather aiming at greater power and wealth — for men are never content with their lot, always craving more, with no end to coveting, seeking, and having. ↩
  9. §8. Chrysostom's moral lesson (homily 30 on Genesis): mankind cannot stay within its limits, always craving more; man's ruin is refusing to know the measure of his nature, reaching above his condition — the rich and powerful, forgetful of their nature, climb so high they are cast to the depths, and do not lastingly amend though they see it daily. So these men, not content with the East, sought more and were afflicted with grave calamities. Margin: Chrysostom, homily 30. ↩
  10. §9. Tostatus cites Aben-Ezra: Noah and Abraham were among the migrants from the East. Of Noah the timing fits (Babel was ~100 yrs after the flood; Noah lived 350 yrs after), so he could have been among them — but with a different purpose; certainly NOT among the tower-builders, whose enterprise Scripture condemns and God punished heavily. Margins: Tostatus; Aben-Ezra. ↩
  11. §10. Tostatus: Abraham could not have been among them, being born 190 yrs after the confusion (Babel ~yr 100; Abraham born yr 292). But Tostatus misses that Aben-Ezra spoke per the Hebrew view (division at Phaleg's last year = yr 340 = Abraham's 48th). Pererius adds that Noah and his sons led the migrants to Sennaar (Josephus, Antiquities bk. 1 — quote begins, continues next batch). Margin: Josephus, Antiquities bk. 1. ↩
  12. §10 (concl.). End of the Josephus quotation (Antiquities bk. 1): Noah's sons, born 100 yrs before the flood, first left the mountains to settle the plain, leading the others (still afraid to come down) by their example; the plain they first cultivated is named Sennaar. ↩
  13. §11. A further argument that ALL men gathered: Moses says simply ‘men set out from the East,’ not ‘these or those,’ signifying all — those of one lip and speech he had just named; and all men were such (‘the whole earth was of one lip’). ↩
  14. §12. Philo's allegorical/moral reading (On the Confusion of Tongues). ‘From the East’ taken of the soul: two ‘Easts,’ a better (when the splendor of virtues rises like the sun — Eden ‘toward the East,’ Gen 2, = heavenly virtues) and a worse. The ‘man whose name is Orient’ (Zach 6) = the incorporeal image of God, the most ancient firstborn Son, who forms species after the Father's exemplars (continues p. 479). Margins: Philo's allegorical exposition; ‘the East’; a double East; Gen 2; Zach 6; a notable view of Philo on the Son of God. ↩
  15. §12 (concl.). The ‘worse East’: Balac, who sought to curse God's people, dwelt toward the East (Num 23, ‘from the mountains of the East’) — ‘Balac’ = ‘mad,’ his mind submerged between two rivers (error and wickedness) in Mesopotamia. Folly is the rising of a bad mind, the setting of a good; those of one accord in vice move together (like the body's hands). Margin: Num 23. ↩
  16. §13. The plain of Sennaar: level, open, fertile, watered by the Euphrates. Josephus (Antiquities bk. 1): Hestiaeus says the flood-survivor priests of ‘Enyalian Jove’ (Jerome: Gemelian Jove) came to Sennaar of Babylonia. Epiphanius (Against Heresies): men proceeded from Mt. Lubar / Ararat in Armenia and settled in the chosen plain of Sennaar — in what was Assyria, in his day under the Persians. Margins: Josephus, Antiquities bk. 1; Jerome, On Hebrew Places; Epiphanius. ↩
  17. §14. The name Sennaar came from the event, not before (no one had been there to name it). Rupert: ‘Sennaar’ = ‘the shaking-out of teeth’ (i.e. of speech, which needs teeth) — the proud lost their power of speaking; also ‘their stench-maker,’ since they sent the stench of pride to God's nostrils (whereas humility/a contrite spirit is a sweet sacrifice, Ps 50; pride a horrible stench). Margins: Rupert, Commentary on Genesis bk. 4 ch. 41; the origin of the name Sennaar; Ps 50. ↩
  18. §15. They first found the fertile, well-watered plain, settled in scattered dwellings, and only later resolved (for convenience, security, and fame) to build a great fortified city and a lofty tower — not immediately on arrival, but after dwelling there a while. ↩
  19. §16. Philo's allegory: Moses says they ‘found’ (not merely ‘came to’) the plain — eagerly sought as most fit for their madness. The fool seeks out his own evils, heaping them up, and rejoices to dwell in them as in a homeland, not as a passing sojourner (continues p. 480). Margin: Philo's allegorical exposition. ↩
  20. §16 (concl.). Philo: it would be a lighter evil to treat sins as a stranger's, not as one's own home. The wise are ‘sojourners’ — the soul sent from heaven on a pilgrimage into earthly nature, returning home, knowing heaven is its true city. So Abraham: ‘I am a stranger and sojourner among the living’ (Gen 23 — to the dust-loving natives whose prince ‘Ephron’ means ‘dust’); and Jacob: ‘the days of my pilgrimage are few and evil’ (Gen 47). Margins: the wise treat themselves as sojourners in the world, fools as citizens; Gen 23; Gen 47. ↩
  21. §17. Noah's descendants came down gradually — first the highlands, then the foothills, then (fear fading, desire for pleasant places growing) the plains. Plato (Laws bk. 3): three post-flood ways of life — (1) mountaintops (still fearing floods; rustic, peaceable — Homer's cave-dwelling Cyclopes); (2) foothills as the plains dried (Homer's Dardanus founding Dardania in the valleys of Ida); (3) the open plains, dwelling securely (continues p. 481). Margins: Plato, Laws bk. 3, makes three kinds of post-flood habitation; Homer. ↩
  22. §17 (concl.). The third stage's example (Plato): Ilus, founder of Ilium, buried in the middle of the plain (Homer) — fittingly, since he first dared to dwell in the plains. ↩