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, Genesis ch. 11: Come, let us make us a city and a tower, and let us make our name famous before we be scattered into all lands.}

LatineEnglish

{Upon those words of Moses, Genesis ch. 11: Come, let us make us a city and a tower, and let us make our name famous before we be scattered into all lands.}1

Super illis verbis Mosis, Genes. cap. 11: Venite, faciamus nobis civitatem et turrim, et celebremus nomen nostrum antequam dividamur in universas terras.

CAUSAS quibus homines illi ad tantum opus moliendum adducti fuerint, sex equidem a variis auctoribus expositas reperio: quas hic breviter commemorabo simul et examinabo, inanes quidem nec verisimiles refellens, idoneas vero ac probabiles confirmans. Prima causa est (quam plerique tradunt, est enim pervulgata haec opinio) finem illis hominibus aedificandi eam turrim fuisse, quo sibi securitatem pararent tutumque perfugium adversus generale diluvium, si quando iterum accideret. Huius sententiae sequendae et approbandae auctor multis fuisse videtur Iosephus, qui libro 1 Antiquitatum, ubi hanc historiam enarrat, Nemrod gigantem inducit gloriose vires suas iactantem, et sese hominibus illis ducem praebentem atque opem suam offerentem contra novum aliud diluvium, si Deus id vellet intentare. Turrim enim se exaedificaturum pollicitus est altiorem quam quo aqua posset ascendere; et insuper maiorum suorum qui diluvio interierant necem ulturum. Atque haec quidem oratio fuit Nemrod, ut refert Iosephus.
The causes by which those men were led to undertake so great a work I find expounded by various authors as six: which I shall here briefly recount and at the same time examine, refuting the empty and unlikely ones, but confirming the suitable and probable. The first cause is (which most hand down, for this is a widespread opinion) that the end for those men in building that tower was to procure for themselves security and a safe refuge against a general flood, if ever it should happen again. The author for following and approving this opinion seems to many to have been Josephus, who in the first book of the Antiquities, where he narrates this history, brings in the giant Nemrod gloriously vaunting his strength, and offering himself to those men as a leader and offering his aid against another new flood, if God should wish to threaten it. For he promised that he would build a tower higher than the water could ascend; and moreover that he would avenge the death of his ancestors who had perished in the flood. And this indeed was the speech of Nemrod, as Josephus reports.2
SED illos homines non esse metu diluvii adductos ad construendum illud aedificium, multis argumentis probari et facile cuivis minime contumaci persuaderi potest. Principio, duces atque principes illorum hominum erant Noë et tres filii eius: hi vero certissimi et securissimi erant nunquam iterum venturum diluvium, ob Dei promissionem ipsis datam divinoque pacto et symbolo iridis firmatam. Hi autem posteros suos hanc ipsam promissionem Dei docuerunt, omnemque illis venturi diluvii metum ademerunt. Deinde, plane stulta fuisset eorum cogitatio, inanis labor atque irritus conatus. Etenim diluvium ad quinque milliaria supra terras elatum est: facere autem turrim altiorem quinque milliaribus non artis, non opis, non virium humanarum est. Praeterea diluvium generale nec fuerat factum ex causis naturalibus, nec fieri potest, sed est opus divinae omnipotentiae: cum igitur Deus infinita vi ac potestate polleat, potest quantacunque altitudine maius facere diluvium; in tutum igitur atque invalidum fuisset quantaecunque altitudinis aedificium ad vim et exitium diluvii propulsandum.
But that those men were not led by fear of a flood to construct that building can be proved by many arguments, and easily persuaded to anyone not at all obstinate. First, the leaders and chiefs of those men were Noah and his three sons: but these were most certain and most secure that a flood would never come again, on account of the promise of God given to them and confirmed by the divine covenant and the symbol of the rainbow. And these taught their descendants this very promise of God, and took away from them all fear of a coming flood. Next, plainly foolish would their thought have been, vain the labor, and idle the endeavor. For the flood was raised five miles above the lands: but to make a tower higher than five miles is not within art, nor resources, nor human strength. Moreover, a general flood neither had been made from natural causes, nor can be, but is a work of divine omnipotence: since therefore God prevails with infinite force and power, He can make a greater flood, of whatever height; in vain, therefore, and weak would a building of whatever height have been, for repelling the force and destruction of a flood.3
ADHAEC, cum id temporis numerosissime multiplicatum esset genus humanum, et in dies magis ac magis multiplicandum esset, stolidum erat atque stultum sperare perfugium unius aut alterius turris tutum esse posse contra diluvium, cum pauci tantum homines in eam turrim possent recipi, aliis prope innumerabilibus exclusis et exitio diluvii expositis. Postremo, si ea fuisset hominibus illis praecipua aedificandae turris causa, eam sane non tacuisset hoc loco Moses: sed nec ipse nec alibi divina scriptura ullam eius causae dat significationem. Non igitur metus venturi diluvii homines illos ad aedificandam turrim impulit.
Besides, since at that time the human race was multiplied most numerously, and was to be multiplied more and more day by day, it was stolid and foolish to hope that the refuge of one or another tower could be safe against a flood, since only a few men could be received into that tower, the others, almost innumerable, being excluded and exposed to the destruction of the flood. Finally, if that had been the chief cause for those men of building the tower, Moses surely would not have kept silent about it in this place: but neither here nor elsewhere does the divine Scripture give any indication of that cause. Therefore the fear of a coming flood did not drive those men to build the tower.4
ALTERAM causam aedificandi turrim fuisse hominibus illis putant quidam, quod maiorum suorum commemoratione cognitum et persuasum habebant futurum aliquando generale exitium orbis per ignem, sicut antea fuerat per aquam. Itaque contra eam calamitatem et exitium comparare sibi perfugium et praesidium in illo aedificio civitatis et turris voluerunt. Sed futilis videtur, nec aliqua ex parte probabilis causa. Nam aedificium illud, si remedio esse poterat contra illud malum, paucissimis certe remedio esse potuisset; paucos enim turris illa capere poterat, ceteros autem fere innumerabiles cladi obiectos atque obnoxios esse necesse erat. Adiice quod incendium illud orbis ex terra erupturum non erat, sed superne et e caelo casurum: nihil igitur ad id mali vitandum quantalibet aedificii cuiuscunque altitudo mortalibus auxilio esse poterat. Quin potius, quemadmodum adversus fulmina, ita quoque contra incendium illud, profunda et abdita terrae conquirenda fuissent.
Some think the second cause for those men of building the tower was that, by the remembrance of their elders, they had known and were persuaded that there would one day be a general destruction of the world by fire, as before there had been by water. And so against that calamity and destruction they willed to procure for themselves a refuge and protection in that building of the city and tower. But it seems a futile cause, nor in any part probable. For that building, if it could be a remedy against that evil, could certainly have been a remedy for very few; for that tower could hold few, but the others, almost innumerable, had necessarily to be exposed and liable to the calamity. Add that that conflagration of the world was not going to burst forth from the earth, but to fall from above and from heaven: nothing, therefore, for avoiding that evil could any height of any building be of help to mortals. Nay rather, as against thunderbolts, so also against that conflagration, the deep and hidden places of the earth would have had to be sought out.5
TERTIAM causam fuisse arbitratur Hugo vesanam dominandi cupiditatem, qua gigas ille Nemrod incredibiliter flagrabat. Sic autem scribit Hugo: „Potest etiam dici a Nemrod factam esse turrim illam cupiditate regnandi. Unde, divisis linguis, ipse cum familia sua ibi remansit, ceteris recedentibus, et Assur expulso, cui paterno iure contingebat illa mansio, quia erat de stirpe Sem maioris filii Noë. Assur autem recedens in terram quae ab ipso dicta est Assyria, multiplicatus est usque ad regem Ninum, qui ab eius progenie ortus est.“ Sic Hugo. Ergo Nemrod tyrannicae dominationi, quam affectabat, civitatem et turrim quasi metropolim imperii et arcem comparare voluit, firmissimumque habere munimentum quo et ipse securus esset simulque alios facile coercere posset.
Hugo judges the third cause to have been the insane lust of domination, with which that giant Nemrod was incredibly inflamed. Hugo writes thus: „It can also be said that the tower was made by Nemrod out of a desire of reigning. Whence, the tongues being divided, he himself with his family remained there, the others departing, and Assur being expelled, to whom by paternal right that dwelling pertained, because he was of the stock of Shem the elder son of Noah. But Assur, departing into the land which from him was called Assyria, was multiplied up to king Ninus, who sprang from his progeny.“ So Hugo. Therefore Nemrod, for the tyrannical domination which he aimed at, willed to procure a city and tower as the metropolis and citadel of his empire, and to have a most firm fortification by which both he himself might be secure and at the same time easily coerce the others.6
QUARTA causa numerari potest ea quam exposuit Beatus Augustinus, scribens Nemrod, nimia quadam animi elatione et superbia et adversus Deum impietate, adductum esse ad illud aedificium extruendum, quasi eo aedificio vel seipsum contra Deum tueri ac defendere, vel etiam Deum ipsum infestare atque offendere posset. Verba B. Augustini sic habent: „Gigas ille Nemrod civitatem (quae postea dicta est Babylon) aedificare aggressus est, ut ea ceterarum civitatum gereret principatum, ubi esset tanquam in metropoli habitaculum regni; quamvis perfecta non fuerit usque in tantum modum quantum superba cogitabat impietas: nimia quippe disponebatur eius altitudo, quae idcirco dicta est usque ad caelum pertingere. Sed quid noceret Deo quantacunque vel spiritalis vel corporalis altitudo? Tutam veramque in caelum viam molitur humilitas, sursum levans cor ad Dominum, non contra Dominum: sicut gigas ille Nemrod dictus est venator contra Dominum. Quid autem significatur hoc nomine, quod est venator, nisi animalium terrigenarum deceptor, oppressor, extinctor? Erigebat ergo ille cum suis popularibus turrim contra Dominum, qua est impia significata superbia.“ Sic Augustinus.
The fourth cause may be reckoned that which Blessed Augustine expounded, writing that Nemrod, by a certain excessive elation of mind and pride and impiety against God, was led to construct that building, as if by that building he could either guard and defend himself against God, or even assail and offend God Himself. The words of Blessed Augustine are these: „That giant Nemrod set about to build the city (which afterward was called Babylon), that it might hold the chief place over the other cities, where it might be, as in a metropolis, the dwelling of the kingdom; although it was not completed to such a degree as proud impiety conceived: for its height was being planned excessive, which on that account is said to reach up to heaven. But what would any height, whether spiritual or bodily, harm God? Humility builds the safe and true way to heaven, lifting the heart upward to the Lord, not against the Lord: as that giant Nemrod was called a hunter against the Lord. And what is signified by this name, ‘hunter,’ but a deceiver, oppressor, destroyer of earth-born animals? He, therefore, with his fellows, was raising a tower against the Lord, by which impious pride is signified.“ So Augustine.7
QUINTA causa eruitur ex Hebraica lectione (eadem autem est et Chaldaica). Hebraice autem sic ad verbum est: „Aedificemus nobis civitatem et turrim, et caput eius in caelum, et faciamus nobis nomen, ne forte dispergamur super faciem universae terrae.“ His verbis, inquit Caietanus, duplex finis tangitur illius aedificii: alter est communis fama ex civitate munita et tam excelsa turri tanquam ex facto singulari; alter est continere seipsos simul: facile enim accidere potuisset ut, quemadmodum ipsi se segregaverant ab aliis, ita inter sese ipsi segregarentur, si non esset eis communis civitas. Habitantibus enim hominibus absque septis civitatis, facilis est aliquorum dilapsus et discessus ab aliis. Unde apparet merito eos haesitando dixisse „ne forte dispergamur,“ quoniam facile evenire poterat ut invicem distraherentur et varie dispergerentur. Ita Caietanus.
The fifth cause is drawn from the Hebrew reading (and the Chaldaic is the same). In Hebrew it is thus, word for word: „Let us build us a city and a tower, and its top in heaven, and let us make us a name, lest perchance we be scattered over the face of the whole earth.“ By these words, says Cajetan, a double end of that building is touched: one is the common fame from a fortified city and so lofty a tower, as from a singular deed; the other is to keep themselves together: for it could easily have happened that, just as they had segregated themselves from others, so they themselves might be segregated among themselves, if they had not a common city. For when men dwell without the enclosures of a city, an easy slipping-away and departure of some from others occurs. Whence it appears that they rightly said, hesitating, „lest perchance we be scattered,“ since it could easily come about that they should be drawn apart from one another and variously scattered. So Cajetan.8
VEL illud, „ne forte dispergamur,“ hanc reddit sententiam: ut, si contingat nos dispergi per varias terras, possimus huc, quando voluerimus, redire. Timebant igitur iam tunc ipsi quod illis paulo post evenit; et quodammodo impendentem sibi casum his verbis vaticinati sunt: quemadmodum Scribae et Pharisaei, quasi vaticinantes quod futurum erat, dixerunt: „Ne forte veniant Romani et tollant locum nostrum et gentem.“ Cupiebant igitur illi simul esse omnes, unamque velut rempublicam et societatem constituere. Est enim homo, ut inquit Aristoteles, animal politicum et societate gaudens; talis enim vita et securior est et iucundior, et iis rebus quae ad usum vivendi pertinent abundantior. Ad huiusmodi autem societatem et congregationem hominum instituendam atque tuendam, multum valebat magnarum et munitarum civitatum aedificatio.
Or that „lest perchance we be scattered“ renders this sense: that, if it should befall us to be scattered through various lands, we may be able to return hither when we will. They feared, then, even at that time, what befell them a little after; and in a manner they prophesied the disaster impending over them by these words: just as the Scribes and Pharisees, as if prophesying what was to come, said: „Lest perchance the Romans come and take away our place and nation.“ They desired, therefore, all to be together, and to establish as it were one commonwealth and society. For man, as Aristotle says, is a political animal and rejoicing in society; for such a life is both safer and more pleasant, and more abundant in those things which pertain to the use of living. And for instituting and maintaining such a society and congregation of men, the building of great and fortified cities availed much.9
IOSEPHUS ait mandatum fuisse illis hominibus a Deo, ut in varia terrae loca (quo facilius humanum genus multiplicari et terra ipsa habitatoribus compleri et coli posset) colonias diducerent; sed eos tamen optimis et utilissimis Dei iussis obtemperare recusasse, quin potius omnem movisse lapidem quo simul omnes uno in loco essent, et ne invicem separarentur obnixe contendisse. Audi Iosephum: „Deo iubente ut, propagandi multiplicandique humani generis gratia, colonias diducerent, homines illi rudes minime paruerunt; quamobrem calamitatibus implicati, offensum Deum errore suo damnoque sunt experti. Cum enim florerent iuventutis multitudine, subinde illos Deus de coloniis deducendis admonebat; illi vero, obliti se ipsius benignitate praesentibus commodis perfrui totamque illam felicitatem suis viribus acceptam ferentes, dicto eius non fuerunt obedientes. Et quod peius erat, consilium et mandatum divinum de coloniis ducendis non favorem Dei sed insidias interpretabantur, videlicet quo facilius dispersi possent opprimi. Hanc autem superbiam Deique contemptum excitavit in illis Nemrod, nepos Cham filii Noë.“ Haec Iosephus.
Josephus says that it had been commanded to those men by God that they should lead out colonies into various places of the earth (that the human race might more easily be multiplied, and the earth itself filled with inhabitants and cultivated); but that they nevertheless refused to obey God's best and most useful commands, nay rather moved every stone that they might all be together in one place, and strove obstinately not to be separated from one another. Hear Josephus: „God commanding that, for the sake of propagating and multiplying the human race, they should lead out colonies, those rude men by no means obeyed; wherefore, entangled in calamities, they experienced God offended by their error and to their loss. For when they flourished in a multitude of youth, God from time to time admonished them about leading out colonies; but they, forgetting that they enjoyed present advantages by His kindness, and ascribing all that felicity to their own strength, were not obedient to His word. And, what was worse, they interpreted the divine counsel and command about leading out colonies not as God's favor but as a snare — namely, that, being dispersed, they might more easily be oppressed. And this pride and contempt of God Nemrod, the grandson of Cham the son of Noah, stirred up in them.“ So Josephus.10
ILLUD autem mandatum Dei de coloniis deducendis (quod narrat Iosephus) per Noë hominibus illis denuntiatum est. Atque hoc secutus Berosus Annianus, in exordio libri quarti ad hunc modum scripsit: „Multiplicatum,“ inquit, „fuerat prope in immensum genus humanum; quapropter ad comparandas novas sedes necessitas compellebat. Tum Ianus Pater (sic ille appellat Noë) adhortatus est principes familiarum ad conquirendas novas sedes et communem coetum inter homines agendum urbesque aedificandas. Designavit itaque tres illas partes orbis, Asiam, Africam et Europam, ut ante diluvium viderat. Singulis autem principibus familiarum diversas certasque orbis partes, ad quas irent, partitus est; ipse vero per totum orbem colonias se traducturum pollicitus est.“ Haec Berosus Annianus.
But that command of God about leading out colonies (which Josephus narrates) was announced to those men through Noah. And following this, Berosus Annianus, at the opening of the fourth book, wrote in this manner: „The human race,“ he says, „had been multiplied almost to an immense degree; wherefore necessity compelled them to procure new seats. Then Janus the Father (so he calls Noah) exhorted the chiefs of the families to seek out new seats, and to carry on a common gathering among men, and to build cities. And so he designated those three parts of the world, Asia, Africa, and Europe, as he had seen before the flood. And to the several chiefs of families he apportioned diverse and fixed parts of the world, to which they should go; but he himself promised that he would lead colonies through the whole world.“ So Berosus Annianus.11
SEXTAM causam aperte indicant Graeca et Latina lectio, cuius haec sententia est: „Venite, faciamus nobis civitatem et turrim, et celebremus nomen nostrum antequam dividamur in universas terras.“ Namque his verbis…
The sixth cause the Greek and Latin reading plainly indicate, whose meaning is this: „Come, let us make us a city and a tower, and let us make our name famous before we be scattered into all lands.“ For by these words…12
…significatur mentem et consilium eorum hominum in aedificanda turri non fuisse ut venturi diluvii vel incendii exitium evaderent, sed ut aliquo mirabili facinore et memorabili monimento celebritatem nominis et famae apud posteros acquirerent. Itaque primum exemplo illorum apparuit quam sit naturalis, quam vehemens, quam in animis omnium mortalium infixus amor et cura posteritatis, ut sui memoriam et nomen cum laude posteritati commendent. Verum in eo plerique decipimur graviterque peccamus, quod, cum avidissimi simus laudis et gloriae, eas res fere adamamus et consectamur quibus insigne dedecus atque infamia est adiuncta, vel certe non solida et expressa semperque mansura, sed fucata tantum et adumbrata et fragilis gloria comparatur.
…it is signified that the mind and design of those men in building the tower was not to escape the destruction of a coming flood or fire, but to acquire by some wonderful deed and memorable monument the celebrity of their name and fame among posterity. And so first by their example it appeared how natural, how vehement, how fixed in the minds of all mortals is the love and care of posterity, that they may commend their memory and name with praise to posterity. But in this most of us are deceived and grievously sin: that, since we are most greedy of praise and glory, we generally love and pursue those things to which signal disgrace and infamy is joined, or at least by which is gained not a solid and distinct and ever-lasting glory, but only a painted and shadowed and fragile glory.13
AUDIAMUS Chrysostomum, ut alia, sic etiam hoc diserte tractantem. Nam cum exponeret illa verba, „Et faciamus nobis nomen“: „Vide,“ inquit, „radicem mali: ut perpetuam, inquiunt, memoriam consequamur, ut nostri semper memores sint posteri, tale opus, dum adhuc congregati sumus, faciamus, ut nunquam oblivioni tradatur. Sunt multi etiam hodie qui illos imitantur et talibus operibus celebrari volunt. Alii splendidas domos aedificant, balnea, porticus, ambulationes; quorum si quem rogaveris quare tantopere laboret tantosque sumptus faciat, non aliud respondebit quam ut immortalem sui memoriam celebritatemque nominis relinquat. At enim illis rebus non tam laudem quam probrum et crimen sibi parant: nam illa opera spectantes, contumeliose eos nominant. Aedificium hoc, inquiunt, est illius avari, illius raptoris, illius viduarum et orphanorum spoliatoris. Igitur hoc non est memoriam assequi, sed perpetuis obici criminibus, et infamari etiam post mortem, et spectatorum linguas in sui accusationem et blasphemiam acuere. Quid quod huiusmodi opera nomen et memoriam eius qui fecit aut possedit non diu custodiunt? Etenim sic res habet: subinde ab hoc ad alium transeunt, et ab illo item in alium; et hodie quidem domus dicitur huius, cras dicetur alterius. Itaque nos ipsi vehementer decipimus, dum putamus nos dominium quasi perpetuum habere, cum usu tantum fruamur; et, sive velimus sive nolimus, aliis (et nonnunquam iis quos minime amamus aut etiam odimus) relinquere cogamur.“
Let us hear Chrysostom, treating this too eloquently, as other things. For when he expounded those words, „And let us make us a name“: „See,“ he says, „the root of the evil: that we may obtain, they say, a perpetual memory, that posterity may always be mindful of us, let us make such a work, while we are still gathered together, that it may never be given over to oblivion. There are many even today who imitate them and wish to be celebrated by such works. Others build splendid houses, baths, porticoes, walks; of whom, if you ask any one why he toils so greatly and makes such expenses, he will answer nothing else than that he may leave behind an immortal memory of himself and celebrity of his name. But indeed by those things they procure for themselves not so much praise as reproach and accusation: for those beholding those works name them contemptuously. This building, they say, is that miser's, that robber's, that despoiler of widows and orphans'. Therefore this is not to attain memory, but to be exposed to perpetual accusations, and to be defamed even after death, and to sharpen the tongues of beholders to one's own accusation and blasphemy. What of the fact that works of this kind do not long preserve the name and memory of him who made or possessed them? For so the matter stands: they pass continually from this one to another, and from him again to another; and today indeed the house is said to be this man's, tomorrow it will be said to be another's. And so we ourselves are vehemently deceived, while we think we have ownership as it were perpetual, when we enjoy only the use; and, whether we will or not, we are compelled to leave them to others — and sometimes to those whom we least love or even hate.“14
„Si aeternam igitur memoriam amas, ego tibi viam monstrabo quae te celebrem omni saeculo faciet, quin etiam tibi fiduciam in futuro saeculo dabit: liberalitatem tuam et pecuniarum largitionem in pauperes confer, relictis villis, balneis aliisque aedificiis, rebus nempe mutis atque inanimatis. Larga eleemosyna immortalem viri memoriam reddit, sicut scriptum est: Dispersit, dedit pauperibus, iustitia eius manet in saeculum saeculi. Uno die dispersit divitias, sed iustitiae eius (id est, liberalitatis et misericordiae) aeternum mansura est memoria. Et rursus scriptum est: In memoria aeterna erit iustus; ab auditione mala non timebit. Recte: Ab auditione mala non timebit. Nam, sicut improbi male audiunt apud homines omniumque vituperatione et detestatione lacerantur, sic contra boni omnium praedicatione celebrantur. O hominem, inquiunt, misericordem! O benignum, mansuetum, suavem, o dignum immortalitate! Cuius dispersae divitiae non eum deseruerunt, sed perpetuo comitantur, ornant et tuentur, ac demum in aeterna deducunt tabernacula.“ Hactenus ex Chrysostomo.
„If, therefore, you love eternal memory, I will show you the way that will make you renowned in every age, nay, will even give you confidence in the age to come: confer your liberality and bestowal of money upon the poor, leaving aside villas, baths, and other buildings — things mute and inanimate. Large almsgiving renders a man's memory immortal, as it is written: He has dispersed, he has given to the poor, his justice remains forever and ever. In one day he dispersed his riches, but of his justice (that is, of his liberality and mercy) the memory shall remain eternal. And again it is written: The just shall be in eternal memory; he shall not fear the evil hearing. Rightly: He shall not fear the evil hearing. For, just as the wicked are ill spoken of among men and torn by the censure and detestation of all, so on the contrary the good are celebrated by the praise of all. O merciful man! they say; O kind, gentle, sweet, O worthy of immortality! Whose dispersed riches did not desert him, but perpetually accompany, adorn, and protect him, and at last lead him into the eternal tabernacles.“ Thus far from Chrysostom.15
CETERUM obiiciet fortasse aliquis: cum fama non sit ad seipsum sed ad alium, in illo autem campo Sennaar aderant omnes homines quotquot id temporis in terris erant, apud quos igitur vel a quibus illi nomen suum celebrari volebant? Sed facilis et brevis responsio est: eos voluisse celebrari non ab iis qui tunc erant, sed ab iis qui postea futuri erant; captabant igitur famam non apud praesentes sed apud posteros.
But perhaps someone will object: since fame is not toward oneself but toward another, and in that plain of Sennaar were present all the men, as many as at that time were on the earth, among whom then, or by whom, did they wish their name to be celebrated? But the answer is easy and brief: that they wished to be celebrated not by those who then were, but by those who would be afterward; they were therefore catching at fame not among the present but among posterity.16
PHILO autem putat homines illos, qui aedificando turrim celebrari se apud posteros cupiebant, typum et imaginem gessisse eorum qui sua ipsi vitia publicant et flagitiis nobilitari volunt: ut, quemadmodum probi homines virtutibus et benefactis, sic ipsi (non quibuslibet, sed inusitatis sceleribus ac maleficiis) claritatem nominis famaeque celebritatem assequantur. Tractans igitur Philo verba illa, „Faciamus nobis nomen priusquam dispergamur,“ ad hunc modum scribit: „O insignem impudentiam! Cum enim deberetis vestras iniquitates tenebris abdere, et praetextum aliquem vestris maleficiis (si non verum, certe verisimilem) quaerere, ne vel in bonorum et prudentium virorum offensionem incurratis, vel ut effugiatis poenas confessorum criminum: audetis vos in clarissima luce ostentare, contemptis hominum minis et suppliciis divinitus infligendis? Quin etiam innumerabiles omni aevo nuntios ac testes flagitiorum vestrorum habere vultis, ut nemo nesciat vestrum nomen. At quale tandem nomen cupitis? Certe quale factis vestris convenit: id vero innumeras continet vitiorum species, quas vobis posteri exprobrabunt. Inest enim vobis petulantia cum impudentia, contemptus cum violentia, caedes cum saevitia, cum immoderatis voluptatibus immensa concupiscentia, cum temeritate insolentia, cum calliditate malitia, cum mendaciis periuria, denique cum iniquitate erga homines etiam adversus Deum impietas. Egregia vero gloriatio, captare celebritatem nominis ex iis quae celari et sempiterno (si fieri posset) silentio obrui deberent.“
But Philo thinks that those men, who by building the tower desired to be celebrated among posterity, bore the type and image of those who publish their own vices and wish to be ennobled by disgraceful deeds: so that, as good men by virtues and benefactions, so these (not by any deeds whatever, but by unusual crimes and misdeeds) attain the brightness of their name and the celebrity of fame. Treating, therefore, those words, „Let us make us a name before we be scattered,“ Philo writes in this manner: „O signal shamelessness! For whereas you ought to hide your iniquities in darkness, and to seek some pretext for your misdeeds (if not a true, at least a plausible one), lest you either incur the offense of good and prudent men, or that you may escape the penalties of confessed crimes: you dare to show yourselves in the clearest light, despising the threats of men and the punishments to be inflicted from heaven? Nay, you even wish to have innumerable heralds and witnesses of your disgraceful deeds in every age, that no one may not know your name. But what kind of name at last do you desire? Surely such as befits your deeds: and that contains innumerable species of vices, which posterity will cast in your teeth. For there is in you wantonness with shamelessness, contempt with violence, slaughter with savagery, with immoderate pleasures immense concupiscence, with rashness insolence, with craft malice, with lies perjury, and finally, with iniquity toward men, impiety also against God. A fine boasting indeed, to catch at the celebrity of a name from those things which ought to be hidden and buried in everlasting silence, if it could be!“17
SUNT tamen etiam hodie qui valde sibi talibus rebus placeant, putantes inde se praeclaram apud homines existimationem acquirere. Sed his (quamvis improbissimi) ultricem tamen scelerum suorum Dei iustitiam praesagientes ac praevidentes dicunt, „priusquam dissipemur.“ Cur igitur peccatis, si vestra consilia et conatus dissipatum iri scitis? Sed profecto exemplo horum hominum exposuit nobis Moses morem insipientium, qui, etiam maximis poenis non obscure sed manifeste impendentibus, nihilo magis ab iniuriis et maleficiis sibi temperant. Omnino notissimae sunt artes malae quas ferire solet divina ultio; et vero pessimi quoque cogitant Deum non ignorare ipsorum maleficia, nec se illius posse animadversionem effugere. Alioquin unde sciebant illi se dissipandos esse? Attamen dixerunt, „Priusquam dispergamur.“ Profecto conscientia eos qui male agunt intra pectus ipsum redarguit; et vel ipsos Dei contemptores stimulat, ut etiam inviti cogantur intelligere humanas res divino consilio et ratione administrari, et esse iustitiam quandam quae, implacabiliter infensa malis hominibus, nullum eorum scelus impunitum atque inultum praeteritura sit. Sic Philo.
There are, however, even today those who greatly please themselves in such things, thinking thereby to acquire an excellent reputation among men. But these (although most wicked), foreseeing and presaging God's justice as the avenger of their crimes, say, „before we be dissipated.“ Why then do you sin, if you know that your designs and endeavors will be dissipated? But truly, by the example of these men, Moses has set forth to us the manner of the foolish, who, even when the greatest punishments hang over them not obscurely but manifestly, no more refrain from injuries and misdeeds. The evil arts which divine vengeance is wont to strike are entirely most well-known; and indeed even the worst men think that God is not ignorant of their misdeeds, and that they cannot escape His notice. Otherwise, whence did they know that they were to be dissipated? Yet they said, „Before we be scattered.“ Truly conscience convicts those who do evil within the very breast; and it goads even the despisers of God themselves, so that even unwilling they are compelled to understand that human affairs are administered by divine counsel and reason, and that there is a certain justice which, implacably hostile to evil men, will let pass no crime of theirs unpunished and unavenged. So Philo.18
AT enimvero potest hoc loco disputari, utrum homines illi, aedificando civitatem et turrim, graviter peccaverint necne. Negat Tostatus; et non peccasse eos id agendo ad hunc modum argumentatur: si peccarunt illi, vel igitur quia actio illa erat mala, vel quia malus erat finis ad quem actio referebatur; sed neutrum erat malum: ergo non peccarunt. Non fuisse autem per se malam eorum actionem non eget probatione: nempe civitatem vel turrim aedificare per se malum non est, sed actio est indifferens ad bonum et malum. Nec vero finis eorum (quantum ex historia quam narrat Moses hoc loco licet intelligere) malus fuit: sive enim aedificare voluerunt illam civitatem ne dispergerentur, ut indicat lectio Hebraica, sive ut nomen suum celebre facerent, ut significat lectio Graeca et Latina, neuter sane finis malus fuit. Nam dispergi et invicem separari nolle, sed velle congregatos simul vitam civilem degere, est naturale hominis desiderium. Siquidem homo, ut ait Aristoteles, est animal politicum, societate gaudens et civilem vitam amans: explere autem naturale desiderium cum debito modo et ordine non est peccatum, ut si quis, cum naturaliter sitit aut esurit, velit bibere et comedere.
But indeed it can here be disputed whether those men, by building the city and tower, grievously sinned or not. Tostatus denies it; and argues that they did not sin in doing it, in this way: if they sinned, then either because that action was evil, or because the end to which the action was referred was evil; but neither was evil: therefore they did not sin. Now, that their action was not in itself evil needs no proof: namely, to build a city or tower is not in itself evil, but is an action indifferent to good and evil. Nor indeed was their end (as far as can be understood from the history Moses narrates here) evil: for whether they wished to build that city lest they be scattered, as the Hebrew reading indicates, or to make their name famous, as the Greek and Latin reading signifies, neither end was evil. For to be unwilling to be scattered and separated from one another, but to wish, gathered together, to lead a civil life, is the natural desire of man. For man, as Aristotle says, is a political animal, rejoicing in society and loving the civil life: and to fulfill a natural desire with due manner and order is not a sin — as if one, when he naturally thirsts or hungers, wishes to drink and eat.19
CUPERE porro et quaerere claritatem et celebritatem nominis, si non fiat per malas artes, neque id contra Dei voluntatem et honorem sit, aut contra utilitatem et aedificationem proximi, culpari non debet tanquam peccatum. Aedificatio autem illius civitatis et turris nec per se mala erat, nec a Deo prohibita: fama vero et gloria quam illi concupiscebant nec divino honori, nec hominum cuiuspiam utilitatibus adversabatur. His adde quod Noë inter aedificatores illius civitatis et turris erat: quorum omnium cum esset ille parens et princeps, et ob eam ipsam causam summae apud eos homines auctoritatis et potestatis, non esset profecto passus perverso consilio pravoque animo aedificium illud construi.
Moreover, to desire and seek the brightness and celebrity of a name, if it be not done through evil arts, nor be against God's will and honor, or against the advantage and edification of one's neighbor, ought not to be blamed as a sin. And the building of that city and tower was neither in itself evil, nor forbidden by God: and the fame and glory which they coveted was opposed neither to the divine honor, nor to the advantages of any man. To these add that Noah was among the builders of that city and tower: of all of whom, since he was the parent and chief, and for that very cause of the highest authority and power among those men, he would assuredly not have allowed that building to be constructed with a perverse design and a depraved mind.20
NEC vero, quia Deus noluit consilium et conatum eorum hominum pervenire ad exitum, sed consilium eorum dissipavit opusque absolvi prohibuit, eo potest concludi malum fuisse consilium pravamque mentem eorum hominum. Etenim Deus, altissima et mortalibus incomprehensibili providentia, saepenumero aliud in rebus ipsis fieri vult et facit quam quod est ab hominibus etiam recte cogitatum et honeste optatum. Non igitur quia illud malum est impeditur vel dissipatur a Deo, sed quia hoc melius est; neque hoc effici posset nisi illud, ne fieret, impeditum esset. Ergo aedificatio illius civitatis et turris bona erat; bonum item erat simul eos homines uno in loco et intra unam civitatem degere; nec malum erat magnificis operibus faciendis famosos se posteris esse cupere. Verum, si hoc factum esset, homines illi aut nunquam, aut sero admodum, inde profecti essent ad varias terrae partes habitandas et colendas. Atqui longe maius erat bonum omnes orbis terrae partes habitatoribus et cultoribus compleri, quam erat aedificari civitatem vel turrim, aut in ea civitate homines illos simul vivere.
Nor indeed, because God was unwilling that the design and endeavor of those men should come to its end, but dissipated their design and forbade the work to be completed, can it be concluded thereby that the design and mind of those men was evil. For God, by His most high providence, incomprehensible to mortals, very often wills and does another thing in the affairs themselves than what is even rightly thought and honorably wished by men. Therefore [a thing] is not hindered or dissipated by God because it is evil, but because this [other] is better; nor could this be effected unless that were hindered, that it should not be done. Therefore the building of that city and tower was good; it was likewise good that those men should dwell together in one place and within one city; nor was it evil to wish to be famous to posterity by doing magnificent works. But, if this had been done, those men would either never, or very late, have set out thence to inhabit and cultivate the various parts of the earth. And yet it was a far greater good that all the parts of the world should be filled with inhabitants and cultivators, than it was that a city or tower should be built, or that those men should live together in that city.21
Ob hanc igitur causam Deus absolutionem et perfectionem huius aedificii impedivit, et dispersionis eorum hominum in varias mundi plagas auctor fuit. Atque haec est summa disputationis et opinionis Tostati.
For this cause, therefore, God hindered the completion and perfection of this building, and was the author of the dispersion of those men into the various regions of the world. And this is the sum of the disputation and opinion of Tostatus.22
VERUM Tostatus adversarios opinionis suae habet omnes fere Doctores, maxime vero Chrysostomum et Augustinum, quos secuti sunt quotquot fere hunc locum interpretati sunt, vel in Commentariis quos in librum Genesis ediderunt, vel in aliis scriptis suis. Chrysostomus certe ex maxima superbia opus illud profectum esse ait, et singula eorum hominum facta quae hic narrantur insignis alicuius vitii accusat et condemnat. Beatus autem Augustinus importunissimae superbiae etiam intolerandam illorum hominum impietatem coniunctam fuisse scribit. Quid quod auctorem et principem illius aedificationis fuisse Nemrod, hominem superbissimum atque impiissimum, constat auctoritate Iosephi et B. Augustini multorumque aliorum concessu? Iosephus sane non dubitanter ait homines illos, contemptis Dei iussis, perversissimo consilio pessimoque animo ad illud opus faciendum esse aggressos. His accedit Philonis testimonium, qui gravissimis ac disertissimis verbis (quae paulo supra exposuimus) multiplicem illorum hominum improbitatem descripsit atque confutavit.
But Tostatus has as adversaries of his opinion nearly all the Doctors, but especially Chrysostom and Augustine, whom nearly all who have interpreted this place have followed, whether in the Commentaries they published on the book of Genesis or in their other writings. Chrysostom certainly says that that work proceeded from the greatest pride, and accuses and condemns each of those men's deeds which are here narrated of some signal vice. And Blessed Augustine writes that to their most troublesome pride was joined also the intolerable impiety of those men. What of the fact that the author and chief of that building was Nemrod, a most proud and most impious man, as is established by the authority of Josephus and Blessed Augustine, and by the concession of many others? Josephus indeed says, not doubtfully, that those men, the commands of God being despised, with a most perverse design and a most evil mind set about doing that work. To these is added the testimony of Philo, who, in the gravest and most eloquent words (which we expounded a little above), described and refuted the manifold wickedness of those men.23
NARRATIO praeterea Mosis vehementer Tostati sententiae refragatur. Inducit enim Moses Deum descendentem ad videndam aedificationem illius civitatis et turris: „Descendit,“ inquit, „Deus ut videret civitatem et turrim“; et paulo post, „Venite, descendamus et confundamus linguam eorum.“ Solet autem scriptura, ad exaggerandam gravitatem alicuius peccati et vim divini supplicii quo peccatum illud puniendum est, inducere Deum descendentem ad videndum illud peccatum et ad sumendum de eo supplicium. Exempli causa, in hoc ipso libro cap. 18 scriptum est Deum descendisse ad videndum peccatum Sodomorum; et in libro Exodi capite tertio ait Deus se vidisse afflictionem populi sui in Aegypto et descendere ad excutiendum iugum servitutis Aegyptiorum a cervicibus populi sui. Quod si aedificatio illius civitatis et turris bona fuisset, et bono consilio ac mente suscepta, non dixisset Moses Deum descendisse ad videndum et impediendum illud aedificium.
Moreover, the narration of Moses vehemently opposes the opinion of Tostatus. For Moses brings in God descending to see the building of that city and tower: „God came down,“ he says, „to see the city and the tower“; and a little after, „Come, let us go down and confound their tongue.“ Now Scripture is wont, to magnify the gravity of some sin and the force of the divine punishment by which that sin is to be punished, to bring in God descending to see that sin and to take punishment of it. For example, in this very book, chapter 18, it is written that God came down to see the sin of the Sodomites; and in the book of Exodus, chapter three, God says that He had seen the affliction of His people in Egypt and was coming down to shake off the yoke of the servitude of the Egyptians from the necks of His people. But if the building of that city and tower had been good, and undertaken with a good design and mind, Moses would not have said that God came down to see and hinder that building.24

Translator’s notes

  1. Gen 11:4 (verse lemma, for Disputation 4). ↩
  2. §44. Disp. 4. Six causes are alleged (to be sifted). (1) The common view: a safe refuge against another general flood. Josephus (Antiquities bk. 1) seems its author — Nemrod the giant vaunting his strength, offering himself as leader and aid against a new flood (building a tower higher than the water could rise) and to avenge his flood-drowned ancestors. Margins: six causes of building Babel; Scholastic History; Lyra; the first cause; Josephus. ↩
  3. §45. Against cause 1: fear of a flood was not the motive. (a) The leaders were Noah and his sons, certain by God's covenant (the rainbow, Gen 9) that no flood would return, and they taught this to their descendants. (b) The thought would be foolish: the flood rose ~5 miles, and no human art can build a tower higher. (c) A universal flood is not natural but God's omnipotent work, so He could make one of any height — no building could repel it. Margins: fear of another flood was not the cause of building Babel; Gen 9. ↩
  4. §46. More against cause 1: mankind was too numerous (and growing) for one or two towers to shelter — most would be excluded and drowned. And had this been the chief motive, Moses would not have passed over it in silence (Scripture gives no hint of it). So fear of a flood did not drive them. ↩
  5. §47. (2) The second alleged cause: a refuge against a future destruction of the world by fire (as once by water). Futile and improbable: the tower could shelter only a few (the rest exposed); and the fire will fall from heaven, not rise from earth — so no height of building helps; rather (as against thunderbolts) one would seek the deep places of the earth. Margins: the second cause; that the tower was not built from fear of a general fire. ↩
  6. §48. (3) Hugo of St. Victor: the third cause was Nemrod's insane lust of domination — he built the tower out of a desire to reign; when the tongues divided, he kept Babel (the others leaving), expelling Assur (whose by Shem's elder right it was), who withdrew to ‘Assyria,’ his line leading to king Ninus. So Nemrod wanted the city and tower as the metropolis and citadel of his tyranny. Margins: Hugo of St. Victor, Annotations on Genesis; the third cause. ↩
  7. §49. (4) Augustine (City of God 16.4): Nemrod's excessive pride and impiety against God — as if by the building he could defend himself against God or even assail Him. Augustine: Nemrod began the city (later Babylon) as the metropolis/seat of his kingdom (unfinished as proud impiety wished, its planned height ‘reaching heaven’); but no height harms God — humility builds the true road to heaven, not the ‘hunter against the Lord’ (deceiver/oppressor) raising a tower of impious pride. Margins: the fourth cause; Augustine, City of God bk. 16 ch. 4; Gen 10. ↩
  8. §50. (5) From the Hebrew (and Chaldaic) reading: ‘…and its top in heaven, and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered over the whole earth.’ Cajetan: a double end — fame (from a fortified city and lofty tower) and keeping themselves together (without a common walled city they might drift apart, as they had separated from others); hence ‘lest we be scattered.’ Margin: the fifth cause; Cajetan. ↩
  9. §51. Or ‘lest we be scattered’ = so that, if scattered, they could return there. They feared then what soon befell them — in a way prophesying it, like the Scribes/Pharisees ‘lest the Romans take our place and nation’ (Jn 11). They wished all to be together as one commonwealth — for man is a ‘political animal’ rejoicing in society (Aristotle, Politics bk. 1), a life safer, pleasanter, better supplied; great fortified cities serve such union. Margins: Jn 11; Aristotle, Politics bk. 1. ↩
  10. §52. Josephus (Antiquities bk. 1): God had commanded them to lead out colonies (to multiply mankind and fill the earth), but they refused, striving to stay together in one place. They flourished in youth, yet, ascribing their felicity to their own strength not God's kindness, disobeyed, and — worse — read the command as a snare to scatter and oppress them; Nemrod stirred up this pride and contempt of God. Margin: Josephus, Antiquities bk. 1. ↩
  11. §53. That divine command (per Josephus) was announced through Noah. Berosus Annianus (bk. 4): mankind grown immense, necessity compelled new seats; ‘Janus the Father’ (Noah) urged the family-heads to seek new seats, gather, and build cities, dividing the world's three parts (Asia, Africa, Europe), assigning each chief his region, himself promising to lead colonies through the whole world. Margin: Berosus Annianus. ↩
  12. §54. (6) The sixth cause, plain from the Greek and Latin: ‘…let us make our name famous before we be scattered’ — i.e. fame (continues p. 494). Margin: the sixth cause. ↩
  13. §54 (concl.). The sixth cause: their aim was not to escape a flood or fire, but to win lasting fame by a wondrous deed/monument. Their example shows how natural and vehement is the love of being remembered — but most err and sin gravely here, pursuing fame joined to disgrace, or only a painted, fragile glory rather than a solid, lasting one. Margin: how vehement in man is the love of renown, yet in most it is vicious. ↩
  14. §55. Chrysostom (homily 30 on Genesis) on ‘let us make us a name’ — the root of the evil: men build splendid houses for an immortal name, but earn reproach (‘that miser's, that robber's house’), defamed after death; and such works do not even keep their name long, passing from owner to owner — we are deceived thinking we own what we only use, forced to leave it to others (even those we hate). Margins: Chrysostom homily 30 on Genesis; an excellent oration of Chrysostom on the false glory and fame of vainglorious men. ↩
  15. §56. Chrysostom (cont.): the true way to eternal memory (and confidence in the world to come) is almsgiving, not buildings — ‘He has dispersed, given to the poor; his justice remains forever’ (Ps 112); ‘The just shall be in eternal memory; he shall not fear the evil hearing’ — the good are praised by all, and their dispersed riches lead them ‘into the eternal tabernacles’ (Lk 16). Margins: Ps 112; Lk 16. ↩
  16. Objection (on the sixth cause): fame is toward others, yet all men were present at Sennaar — so before whom did they seek their name? Answer: they sought fame not from the present but from posterity. ↩
  17. §57. Philo: the fame-seeking tower-builders are a type of those who publicize their own vices, seeking renown by unusual crimes as good men by virtues. On ‘let us make a name before we are scattered’ Philo's invective: O shamelessness! you ought to hide your iniquities, yet flaunt them in broad daylight, wanting endless witnesses — but the ‘name’ you'll get befits your deeds, full of vices posterity will reproach (wantonness, violence, slaughter, lust, insolence, malice, perjury, impiety) — a fine glory, from things that should be buried in silence. Margin: Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues. ↩
  18. §58. Philo (cont.): even today some glory in such things for reputation. Yet, foreseeing God's avenging justice, they say ‘before we be scattered’ — so why sin, knowing it will be undone? Moses shows the foolish, who do not desist though punishment plainly looms. Even the worst know God sees their deeds (else how did they know they'd be scattered?) — conscience convicts the wrongdoer within, compelling even God's despisers to admit divine providence and a justice that leaves no crime unpunished. ↩
  19. §59. A question: did they sin gravely in building? Tostatus denies it: a sin requires either an evil act or an evil end; but building a city/tower is in itself indifferent, and the end (whether ‘lest we be scattered’ [Hebrew] or fame [Greek/Latin]) was not evil — wishing to live together in civil society is a natural human desire (man is a ‘political animal,’ Aristotle), and fulfilling a natural desire in due order is no sin (like eating when hungry). Margins: the question whether building Babel was a grave sin; Tostatus, on Gen 11 q. 8; Aristotle, Politics bk. 1. ↩
  20. §60. Tostatus (cont.): seeking renown is no sin if not by evil means, against God's honor, or against a neighbor's good — and the building was neither evil nor forbidden, the fame sought opposed neither God's honor nor any man's good. Moreover Noah was among the builders; as their parent, chief, and highest authority, he would not have allowed it built with a perverse, depraved mind. ↩
  21. §61. Tostatus (cont.): that God dissipated their design and stopped the work does not prove it evil — God's incomprehensible providence often does otherwise than men rightly intend, hindering a good thing not because it is evil but because something else is better. So the building was good, dwelling together good, seeking fame by great works not evil; but had it succeeded they would never (or late) have spread to fill the earth — and filling the whole world was a far greater good (continues p. 497). ↩
  22. §61 (concl.). So God hindered the building's completion and was the author of their dispersion over the world — this being the greater good. This is the sum of Tostatus's opinion. ↩
  23. §62. But against Tostatus stand nearly all the Doctors, especially Chrysostom and Augustine (followed by almost all interpreters): Chrysostom — the work sprang from the greatest pride, each deed a signal vice; Augustine — intolerable impiety joined to their pride; the author Nemrod a most proud, impious man (Josephus, Augustine, and many); Josephus — they set about it, despising God's commands, with a most perverse and evil mind; and Philo's eloquent description of their manifold wickedness. Margins: Tostatus refuted; Chrysostom homily 30 on Genesis; Augustine, City of God bk. 16 ch. 4; Josephus, Antiquities bk. 1. ↩
  24. §63. Moses's narration also opposes Tostatus: he brings in God ‘coming down to see’ the city and tower, and ‘let us go down and confound their tongue.’ Scripture uses ‘God came down to see’ to magnify a grave sin and its punishment — as with Sodom (Gen 18) and Egypt's oppression (Exod 3). Had the building been good, Moses would not have said God came down to see and hinder it. ↩