EIGHTH DISPUTATION. Whether the Hebrew tongue, before the confusion of tongues, was in use among all men — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

EIGHTH DISPUTATION. Whether the Hebrew tongue, before the confusion of tongues, was in use among all men.¹

OCTAVA DISPUTATIO. Utrum lingua Hebraea, ante confusionem linguarum, fuerit in usu omnium hominum.

CETERUM ex Mosaica narratione confusionis ac divisionis linguarum non sane ignobilis quaestio exsistit: utrum lingua quae dicitur a principio fuisse communis omnium mortalium fuerit lingua Hebraea necne. Theodoretus, in iis quaestionibus quas edidit in librum Genesis, hac de re disputans, tria reliquit in scriptis quae ad id quod nunc quaeritur directo spectant. Censet primo antiquissimam primamque omnium linguarum fuisse Syriacam, quod nomina illa, Adam, Cain, Abel, Noë, quae in prima mundi aetate imposita esse legimus, propria sint linguae Syriacae. Sic autem scribit Theodoretus: „Quaenam sit lingua omnium antiquissima nomina ipsa indicant. Adam enim et Cain, Abel et Noë propria sunt nomina linguae Syriacae: Syrorum enim mos est terram rubram appellare adam. Interpretatur ergo Adam terrenus aut pulverosus; et Cain possessio (hoc enim Adam laudans Deum dixit, Possedi hominem per Deum); et Abel idem est quod luctus (primus enim ille mortalium visus est mortuus, primusque parentibus luctum attulit); Noë vero idem est quod requies.“

But from the Mosaic narrative of the confusion and division of tongues there arises a question by no means ignoble: whether the tongue which is said to have been from the beginning common to all mortals was the Hebrew tongue or not. Theodoret, in those questions which he published on the book of Genesis, disputing on this matter, left in his writings three things which look directly to what is now asked. He judges, first, that the most ancient and first of all tongues was the Syriac, because those names — Adam, Cain, Abel, Noë — which we read to have been imposed in the first age of the world, are proper to the Syriac tongue. Theodoret writes thus: „What is the most ancient tongue of all, the names themselves indicate. For Adam and Cain, Abel and Noë are proper names of the Syriac tongue: for it is the custom of the Syrians to call red earth ‘adam.’ Adam, therefore, is interpreted ‘earthy’ or ‘dusty’; and Cain ‘possession’ (for this Adam said, praising God, ‘I have possessed a man through God’); and Abel is the same as ‘mourning’ (for he first of mortals was seen to die, and first brought mourning to his parents); but Noë is the same as ‘rest.’“²

HAEC Theodoretus; cuius non solum opinio non est vera (ut infra ostendemus) sed etiam ratio eius infirma est. Nomina enim illa, Adam, Eva, Cain, Seth, Noë, et eorum nominum interpretationes propria sunt Hebraeae linguae, ut manifestum est ex libro Genesis quem Moses Hebraice scripsit. Quod eas autem voces habeat etiam lingua Syriaca, nequaquam mirum est. Etenim ex Hebraea lingua tanquam ex fonte complures aliae linguae, ut Syriaca sive Chaldaica et Arabica, quasi rivuli quidam derivatae sunt. Cum igitur Syriaca perquam affinis sit Hebraicae, quid mirum si eadem in utraque lingua quaedam reperiantur vocabula?

So Theodoret; whose opinion is not only not true (as we shall show below), but his reason too is weak. For those names — Adam, Eve, Cain, Seth, Noë — and the interpretations of their names, are proper to the Hebrew tongue, as is manifest from the book of Genesis which Moses wrote in Hebrew. But that the Syriac tongue also has those words is by no means wonderful. For from the Hebrew tongue, as from a fountain, several other tongues — such as the Syriac or Chaldaic and the Arabic — are derived, as it were certain rivulets. Since, therefore, the Syriac is exceedingly akin to the Hebrew, what wonder if certain words be found the same in both tongues?³

DEINDE arbitratur Theodoretus Hebraeam linguam primum traditam Mosi a Deo fuisse, ideoque non fuisse eam ante Mosem. Quo fieret eam linguam plus sexcentis annis post confusionem et divisionem linguarum esse natam. Theodoreti verba sic habent: „Linguam Hebraeam equidem arbitror esse sacram. Quemadmodum enim in templis Graecorum quidam sunt literarum characteres peculiares quos sacros appellarunt, sic Deus per Mosem donavit hanc linguam, non quidem naturalem, sed ad docendum tamen aptam. Siquidem cum omnes loquantur lingua eius gentis in qua nati sunt, ut qui in Italia Italice, qui in Graecia Graece, qui in Aegypto Aegyptiace loquuntur, pueri tamen Hebraeorum non statim Hebraica utuntur lingua, sed eorum apud quos nati sunt; at vero cum adoleverint docentur literarum Hebraicarum characteres, et sacros libros Hebraicis et verbis et literis scriptos addiscunt. Quod puto indicasse beatum Davidem, cum de Ioseph loquens dixit, Linguam quam non noverat audivit.“ Sic Theodoretus.

Next, Theodoret thinks that the Hebrew tongue was first delivered to Moses by God, and therefore that it did not exist before Moses. Whereby it would come about that that tongue was born more than six hundred years after the confusion and division of tongues. Theodoret's words are these: „The Hebrew tongue I for my part judge to be sacred. For just as in the temples of the Greeks there are certain peculiar characters of letters which they called sacred, so God through Moses bestowed this tongue — not indeed natural, but yet apt for teaching. For since all speak the tongue of the nation in which they are born — as those in Italy speak Italian, those in Greece Greek, those in Egypt Egyptian — yet the children of the Hebrews do not at once use the Hebrew tongue, but that of those among whom they are born; but when they have grown up they are taught the characters of the Hebrew letters, and learn the sacred books written in Hebrew both words and letters. Which I think blessed David indicated, when, speaking of Joseph, he said, He heard a tongue which he knew not.“ So Theodoret.⁴

VERUM in hac Theodoreti sententia quaedam non sunt approbanda, ut est illud, ante Mosem non fuisse linguam Hebraeam, cum id sit contra sententiam omnium tam Hebraeorum quam Christianorum Doctorum; et in exordio Mundi fuisse usum linguae Hebraeae satis declarant vocabula illa quae dudum posui, Adam, Eva, Cain, Abel, Noë, eorumque nominum interpretationes, quae in primis quinque libri Genesis capitibus exponuntur, quae vim et locum non habent in ulla lingua praeter Hebraeam. Illud porro quod ait Theodoretus de pueris Hebraeis non statim Hebraice loquentibus, ad id quod vult ipse probandum nihil habet momenti. Dum enim stetit Respublica Hebraeorum omnes Hebraice loquebantur, eamque linguam a nutricibus una cum lacte pueri sugebant; at vero postquam ea gens in captivitatem abducta omnibus fere terris dispersa est, amissa libertate et politia, et ubique serviens aliis gentibus, usum naturalem propriae linguae perdidit, et alienis linguis (earum scilicet gentium quibus servit) ab initio eam imbui necesse est. Iam vero quod Ioseph Hebraeus et Hebraice loquens Aegyptiacam linguam ab Hebraea diversam, ut ignotam sibi, addisceret, nec mirum est nec ad firmandam Theodoreti sententiam vim affert ullam.

But in this opinion of Theodoret certain things are not to be approved — such as that the Hebrew tongue did not exist before Moses, since this is against the opinion of all the Doctors, both Hebrew and Christian; and that the use of the Hebrew tongue existed at the beginning of the world those words sufficiently declare which I set down a while ago — Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Noë, and the interpretations of their names, which are expounded in the first five chapters of the book of Genesis, which have no force and place in any tongue except Hebrew. Moreover, what Theodoret says about Hebrew children not at once speaking Hebrew has no weight for proving what he himself wishes. For while the Hebrew Republic stood, all spoke Hebrew, and the children sucked that tongue from their nurses together with the milk; but after that nation, led into captivity, was dispersed through almost all lands, having lost its freedom and polity, and everywhere serving other nations, it lost the natural use of its own tongue, and must from the beginning be imbued with the foreign tongues of those nations whom it serves. Now, that Joseph, a Hebrew and speaking Hebrew, learned the Egyptian tongue (diverse from the Hebrew) as unknown to himself, is neither wonderful nor brings any force to confirm Theodoret's opinion.⁵

QUOD autem Theodoretus non altius Mose repetit originem linguae et literarum Hebraicarum, videtur in eo secutus Eupolemum, qui (ut refert Eusebius) Mosem sapientissimum fuisse virum prodidit, et literas Iudaeis primum tradidisse, et a Iudaeis Phoenices, Graecos autem a Phoenicibus accepisse. Sed enim usum tam linguae quam literarum Hebraicarum fuisse antiquiorem Mose, mox docentem firmantemque beatum Augustinum inducemus.

But that Theodoret does not fetch the origin of the Hebrew tongue and letters higher than Moses, in this he seems to have followed Eupolemus, who (as Eusebius reports) handed down that Moses was a most wise man, and first delivered letters to the Jews, and that the Phoenicians received them from the Jews, but the Greeks from the Phoenicians. But that the use both of the Hebrew tongue and of the Hebrew letters was older than Moses, we shall presently bring in Blessed Augustine teaching and confirming.⁶

EXTREMO loco ait Theodoretus sibi opinionem eorum minime probari, qui arbitrantur tam Hebraeos ipsos quam eorum linguam Hebraicam nomen traxisse ab Heber, quia penes eum, cum facta est confusio et divisio linguarum, in eius tantum familia mansit ea lingua quae fuerat antea communis omnium, et idcirco ab Heber appellatam esse Hebraeam. At ob eam causam oportebat, inquit Theodoretus, omnes posteros Heber appellatos esse Hebraeos et usos lingua Hebraea: quod secus evenit. Posteri enim Heber fuerunt Syri, Moabitae, Ammonitae, Ismaelitae, Idumaei, Madianitae, Amalechitae, et qui ex filio eius Iectan progeniti varias in regiones Indiae gentes, variis differentes linguis, condiderunt…

In the last place, Theodoret says that the opinion of those is by no means approved by him who judge that both the Hebrews themselves and their Hebrew tongue drew their name from Heber, because, with him, when the confusion and division of tongues was made, in his family alone there remained that tongue which had before been common to all, and therefore it was called Hebrew from Heber. But for that cause, says Theodoret, it would have been necessary that all the descendants of Heber be called Hebrews and use the Hebrew tongue: which fell out otherwise. For the descendants of Heber were Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Ishmaelites, Idumaeans, Madianites, Amalekites, and those who, begotten of his son Iectan, founded in various regions of India nations differing in various tongues…⁷

Censet denique Theodoretus appellatos esse Hebraeos ex eo quod Abraham, e regione Chaldaeorum veniens in Palaestinam, transivit fluvium Euphratem: „Hebra“ enim Syrorum lingua (ut ipse ait) idem dicitur quod Euphrates. Concludit Theodoretus disputationem suam huiusmodi verbis: „Verum de hoc contendere,“ inquit, „supervacaneum est: nullum enim ex verbo pietati detrimentum accedit, sive hoc sive illud recipiamus.“ Et haec quidem Theodoreti est sententia.

Finally, Theodoret judges that they were called Hebrews from this, that Abraham, coming from the region of the Chaldeans into Palestine, crossed the river Euphrates: for „Hebra“ in the Syrian tongue (as he says) is said the same as ‘Euphrates.’ Theodoret concludes his disputation with words of this kind: „But to contend about this,“ he says, „is superfluous: for no detriment accrues to piety from the word, whether we accept this or that.“ And this indeed is Theodoret's opinion.⁸

VERUM enimvero quod putat Theodoretus Hebraeos dictos esse ab Hebra (qua voce significari ait Euphratem), quod magnus ille Patriarcha et Hebraeorum parens Abraham ex Chaldaea, transito Euphrate, venit in terram Chanaan: id sane a vero longe remotum est. Verum ea de re disputabimus, favente Deo, in tertio Tomo super illa verba capitis decimi quarti, „Ecce unus qui evaserat nuntiavit Abram Hebraeo.“ Sed ratio qua concludi existimavit Theodoretus nec Hebraeos nec eorum linguam nomen cepisse ab Heber perimbecilla est, eaque bene solvitur a B. Augustino, ut mox dicemus. Namque illi tantum posteri Heber dicti ab eo sunt Hebraei et usi lingua Hebraea, quos recta serie generationis ab Heber usque ad Iacob pertinentes recensuit Moses: in quibus scilicet veri Dei cognitio et cultus mansit ac viguit.

But indeed, that Theodoret thinks the Hebrews are called from ‘Hebra’ (by which word he says the Euphrates is signified), because that great Patriarch and parent of the Hebrews Abraham, from Chaldea, having crossed the Euphrates, came into the land of Chanaan — that is assuredly far removed from the truth. But about that we shall dispute, God favoring, in the third volume, upon those words of the fourteenth chapter, „Behold one who had escaped told Abram the Hebrew.“ But the reason by which Theodoret thought it concluded that neither the Hebrews nor their tongue took their name from Heber is very feeble, and is well solved by Blessed Augustine, as we shall presently say. For those descendants of Heber alone were called Hebrews by him, and used the Hebrew tongue, whom Moses reviewed as belonging by a direct series of generation from Heber down to Jacob: in whom, namely, the knowledge and worship of the true God remained and flourished.⁹

BEATUS Augustinus in libris de Civitate Dei quatuor tradit quae hanc disputationem proprie attingunt et ad confirmationem sententiae faciunt quam nos sequemur. Primo ait linguam illam quae fuerat omnium hominum communis fuisse Hebraeam, sic nominatam ab Heber, quod in eius solius familia post divisionem linguarum manserit. „Quoniam in familia Heber,“ inquit Augustinus, „communis antea omnium lingua remansit, divisis per alias linguas ceteris gentibus, ideo deinceps Hebraea est nuncupata: tunc enim opus erat distingui eam ab aliis linguis nomine proprio, sicut aliae quoque linguae vocatae sunt nominibus propriis. Quando autem erat una omnium, nihil aliud quam humana lingua vel humana locutio vocabatur, quod ea sola universum genus hominum loquebatur.“

Blessed Augustine, in the books of the City of God, hands down four things which properly touch this disputation and make for the confirmation of the opinion which we shall follow. First, he says that that tongue which had been common to all men was the Hebrew, so named from Heber, because in his family alone it remained after the division of tongues. „Since in the family of Heber,“ says Augustine, „the formerly common tongue of all remained, the other nations being divided through other tongues, therefore thereafter it was called Hebrew: for then there was need that it be distinguished from the other tongues by a proper name, just as the other tongues too were called by proper names. But when it was the one tongue of all, it was called nothing else than the human tongue or human speech, because that alone the whole race of men spoke.“¹⁰

DEINDE ex hoc Augustinus argumentatur in solo Heber et familia eius rectam veri Dei fidem, religionem ac pietatem remansisse. Nam confusio linguarum poena fuit impietatis illorum hominum; quibus igitur illa poena non contigit, eos par est credere impietatis illorum hominum non fuisse participes. „Quemadmodum (ait Augustinus) etiam cum erat una omnium lingua, non ideo tamen filii pestilentiae defuerunt (nam et ante diluvium una erat lingua, et tamen omnes deleri praeter unam Noë iusti domum diluvio meruerunt): ita quando elatioris impietatis…“

Next, from this Augustine argues that in Heber alone and his family the right faith of the true God, religion, and piety remained. For the confusion of tongues was the punishment of those men's impiety; to whom, therefore, that punishment did not befall, it is fitting to believe that they were not partakers of those men's impiety. „Just as (says Augustine), even when there was one tongue of all, yet for that reason the sons of pestilence were not lacking (for before the flood too there was one tongue, and yet all deserved to be destroyed by the flood except the one house of Noah the just): so when, of a more lofty impiety…“¹¹

…[ita, quando elatioris impietatis] merito gentes linguarum diversitate punitae sunt, et civitas impiorum confusionis nomen accepit, ut appellaretur Babylon, non defuit domus Heber ubi et prior lingua et pietas conservaretur. Nam quia de poena venit multiplicatio mutatioque linguarum, utique praeter hanc poenam esse debuit populus Dei. Ergo ubi eadem lingua remansit, ibi non fuit illa poena quae facta est mutatione linguarum; et hoc sane non parvum iustitiae eius gentis apparuit vestigium, quod, cum aliae gentes plecterentur mutatione linguarum, ad istam non pervenit tale supplicium. Nec frustra lingua ista, quam Patriarcharum et Prophetarum non solum in sermonibus suis verum etiam in literis sacris custodivit auctoritas, non in omnes Abrahae vel Heber posteros transmissa est, sed in eos tantum quorum generationes recta serie perducuntur ad Abraham; et hinc praeterea in eos tantum qui, propagati per Iacob et insignius atque eminentius in Dei populum cohaerentes, Dei testamenta et stirpem Christi habere potuerint.“

…[so, when, of a more lofty impiety,] the nations were deservedly punished by the diversity of tongues, and the city of the impious received the name of confusion, so as to be called Babylon, there was not lacking the house of Heber, where both the former tongue and piety were preserved. For since the multiplication and change of tongues came from a punishment, the people of God ought certainly to be exempt from this punishment. Therefore, where the same tongue remained, there was not that punishment which was wrought by the change of tongues; and this surely appeared no small trace of the justice of that nation: that, while other nations were chastised by the change of tongues, to this one no such penalty came. Nor in vain was that tongue — which the authority of the Patriarchs and Prophets preserved not only in their speech but also in the sacred letters — transmitted not to all the descendants of Abraham or Heber, but only to those whose generations are led in a direct line down to Abraham; and from this, besides, only to those who, propagated through Jacob and more notably and eminently cohering in the people of God, could have the testaments of God and the stock of Christ.“¹²

TERTIO loco confirmat Augustinus non tantum linguam Hebraeam, sed etiam literas et characteres Hebraicos diu ante Mosem in usu fuisse, scilicet contra quam putavit Theodoretus. „Non est credendum quod nonnulli arbitrantur,“ inquit Augustinus, „Hebraeam tantum linguam per illum qui vocabatur Heber (unde Hebraeorum vocabulum est) fuisse servatam, atque inde pervenisse ad Abraham, Hebraeas autem literas a lege coepisse quae data est per Mosen; sed potius per illam successionem fratrum memoratam linguam cum suis literis custoditam. Denique Moyses in populo Dei constituit qui docendis literis praeessent, priusquam divinae legis ullas literas nossent. Hos appellat scriptura grammaton isagogos, qui Latine dici possunt literarum inductores vel introductores, eo quod eas inducant quodammodo in corda discentium, vel in eas potius ipsos quos docet.“ Sic Augustinus. Qui extremis hisce verbis spectare videtur ad id quod scriptum est Deuteronomii capite 31, ubi Latina lectio sic habet: „Congregate ad me omnes maiores natu per tribus vestras atque doctores, et loquar audientibus eis sermones istos, et invocabo contra eos caelum et terram.“ Pro illo vocabulo „doctores“ Graece est γραμμάτων εἰσαγωγεῖς, quam vocem interpretatus est Augustinus „literarum inductores“ vel „introductores,“ vel potius „introductores ad literas.“

In the third place Augustine confirms that not only the Hebrew tongue, but also the Hebrew letters and characters, were in use long before Moses — namely, against what Theodoret thought. „It is not to be believed, as some judge,“ says Augustine, „that the Hebrew tongue alone was preserved through him who was called Heber (whence the word ‘Hebrews’), and thence came down to Abraham, but that the Hebrew letters began from the law which was given through Moses; but rather, that through that succession of [Heber's] line the said tongue was kept together with its letters. Finally, Moses appointed in the people of God those who should preside over the teaching of letters, before they knew any letters of the divine law. These Scripture calls grammaton isagogos, who in Latin may be called ‘bringers-in’ or ‘introducers of letters,’ because they in a manner bring them into the hearts of learners, or rather [bring] into them those whom they teach.“ So Augustine. Who, by these last words, seems to look to what is written in Deuteronomy, chapter 31, where the Latin reading has thus: „Gather to me all the elders of your tribes, and your teachers, and I will speak these words in their hearing, and will call against them heaven and earth.“ For that word ‘teachers,’ in Greek it is γραμμάτων εἰσαγωγεῖς, which word Augustine rendered ‘bringers-in of letters’ or ‘introducers,’ or rather ‘introducers to letters.’¹³

QUARTO loco dubitationem hanc movet Augustinus: si in ortu Phaleg (ut superiori libro decimoquinto conclusum est) facta est divisio linguarum, fuit autem Phaleg primogenitus ipsius Heber, et post illum natus est frater eius Iectan; ergo tempore divisionis linguarum non erat Iectan, ac multo minus eius posteri quos supra capite decimo percensuit Moses. At, detractis posteris Iectan, non constat numerus duarum et septuaginta familiarum et gentium quae fuisse dicuntur cum aedificabatur turris Babel, nec numerus septuaginta duarum linguarum illis familiis pariter respondentium. Hanc dubitationem solvens Augustinus, negat Phaleg fuisse primogenitum ipsius Heber, sed Iectan multis annis ipso Phaleg priorem natu fuisse; priorem tamen esse nominatum Phaleg, vel propter notabilem casum confusionis et divisionis linguarum in quem ortus…

In the fourth place Augustine raises this doubt: if at the birth of Phaleg (as was concluded in the foregoing fifteenth book) the division of tongues was made, and Phaleg was the firstborn of Heber, and after him was born his brother Iectan; therefore at the time of the division of tongues Iectan did not exist, and much less his descendants, whom Moses reviewed above in the tenth chapter. But, the descendants of Iectan being subtracted, the number of seventy-two families and nations which are said to have been when the tower of Babel was being built does not hold, nor the number of seventy-two tongues corresponding equally to those families. Solving this doubt, Augustine denies that Phaleg was the firstborn of Heber, but that Iectan was born many years earlier than Phaleg himself; yet that Phaleg was named first, either on account of the notable event of the confusion and division of tongues, into which his birth…¹⁴

…ortus eius incurrit, vel propter eius posteritatis dignitatem, vel aliam quampiam ob causam. „Nequaquam putandum est,“ inquit Augustinus, „quod eo fuerint ordine geniti quos recenset Moses, quo ordine commemoratos ab eo legimus. Alioqui duodecim filii Iectan (qui erat alter filius Heber et frater Phaleg) quomodo potuissent iam tunc gentes facere, si Iectan post Phaleg natus esset, sicut post eum a Mose commemoratus est, quandoquidem tempore quo natus est Phaleg divisa est terra? Proinde intelligendum est priorem quidem Phaleg esse nominatum, sed natum esse longe post fratrem suum Iectan; cuius Iectan duodecim filii tam grandes iam tunc familias habuerunt ut in linguas proprias dividi potuerint. Sic igitur potuit prior commemorari qui erat aetate posterior, quemadmodum inter posteros trium filiorum Noë prius commemorati sunt filii Iaphet, qui erat minimus eorum; deinde filii Cham, qui erat medius; postremo filii Sem, qui erat primus et maximus.“ Hactenus ex Augustino: cuius opinionis summa est, Hebraeam linguam fuisse primam omnium, eaque usum esse omne genus hominum ante aedificationem turris Babel, et ab ipso Heber Hebraeam esse appellatam. Ex solutione autem huius dubitationis apparet quam infirma et futilis sit ratio qua Hebraei probant divisionem linguarum non in ortu sed prope obitum Phaleg esse factam: quod Iectan post Phaleg natus sit, cuius tredecim posteri fuerint cum sunt divisae linguae.

…his birth fell, or on account of the dignity of his posterity, or for some other cause. „It is by no means to be thought,“ says Augustine, „that those whom Moses reviews were begotten in the order in which we read them mentioned by him. Otherwise, how could the twelve sons of Iectan (who was the other son of Heber and brother of Phaleg) have then made nations, if Iectan was born after Phaleg, as he is mentioned after him by Moses — since at the time when Phaleg was born the earth was divided? Accordingly it must be understood that Phaleg was indeed named first, but was born long after his brother Iectan; whose twelve sons of Iectan had then already such great families that they could be divided into their own tongues. So, then, he could be mentioned first who was later in age, just as among the descendants of the three sons of Noah the sons of Japheth were mentioned first, who was the least of them; then the sons of Cham, who was the middle; lastly the sons of Sem, who was the first and greatest.“ Thus far from Augustine: the sum of whose opinion is that the Hebrew tongue was the first of all, that the whole race of men used it before the building of the tower of Babel, and that from Heber himself it was called Hebrew. And from the solution of this doubt it appears how weak and futile is the reason by which the Hebrews prove that the division of tongues was made not at the birth but near the death of Phaleg — namely, that Iectan was born after Phaleg, and had thirteen descendants when the tongues were divided.¹⁵

EADEM est B. Hieronymi sententia: is enim super tertium caput Sophoniae, explanans illa verba „Nugas qui a lege recesserunt congregabo,“ ad hunc modum scribit: „Id quod diximus ‘nugas,’ sciamus in Hebraeo ipsum Latinum esse sermonem, et propterea a nobis ita ut in Hebraeo erat esse positum, ut nosse possimus linguam Hebraicam omnium linguarum esse matricem; quod non est huius temporis disserere.“ Ad hanc quoque sententiam pertinet quod ait idem auctor, exponens illa verba Isaiae, „Ecce virgo concipiet“ — disputans enim vocabulo Hebraeo „alma“ proprie non solum puellam significari, sed virginem absconditam et secretam quae nunquam virorum patuerit aspectibus magnaque parentum diligentia custodita sit — ita scribit: „Lingua quoque Punica, quae de Hebraeorum fontibus manare dicitur, proprie virgo nominatur ‘alma.’ Et ut risum praebeamus Iudaeis, nostro quoque sermone ‘alma’ dicitur sancta. Omnium enim paene linguarum verbis utuntur Hebraei: ut est illud in Cantico Canticorum de Graeco φορεῖον, id est ferculum, ‘Ferculum sibi fecit Salomon,’ quod et in Hebraeo ita legimus. Verbum quoque ‘nugas’ et ‘mensuram’ Hebraei eodem modo et eisdem appellant sensibus.“ Sic Hieronymus.

The same is the opinion of Blessed Jerome: for on the third chapter of Sophonias, explaining those words, „The triflers who have departed from the law I will gather,“ he writes in this manner: „As for what we said, ‘triflers,’ let us know that in the Hebrew it is the very Latin word, and therefore was put down by us just as it was in the Hebrew, that we may be able to know that the Hebrew tongue is the mother of all tongues — which it is not the time to discuss here.“ To this opinion belongs also what the same author says, expounding those words of Isaiah, „Behold a virgin shall conceive“ — for, disputing that by the Hebrew word ‘alma’ is properly signified not only a girl, but a hidden and secret virgin who has never been open to the gaze of men and has been kept with great diligence by her parents — he writes thus: „The Punic tongue too, which is said to flow from the fountains of the Hebrews, properly names a virgin ‘alma.’ And — to give the Jews something to laugh at — in our own speech too ‘alma’ is called ‘holy.’ For the Hebrews use the words of almost all tongues: as is that in the Canticle of Canticles, from the Greek φορεῖον, that is a litter, ‘Solomon made himself a litter,’ which we read so in the Hebrew too. The words ‘nugas’ (triflers) and ‘mensura’ (measure) too the Hebrews call by the same form and the same senses.“ So Jerome.¹⁶

AD horum patrum sententiam, et gravi eorum auctoritate et optimis fundatam et firmatam coniecturis, posteriores fere omnes accesserunt et adhaeserunt. Non attinet omnium vel nomina vel dicta percensere. Quatuor exemplis contentus ero, uno proxime superioris saeculi, tribus aliis huius nostrae aetatis. Tostatus linguam ab exordio Mundi communem omnium hominum fuisse Hebraicam probat ex impositione nominum quae…

To the opinion of these Fathers — founded and confirmed both by their weighty authority and by excellent conjectures — nearly all later writers have acceded and adhered. It is not worthwhile to review the names or sayings of all. I shall be content with four examples: one of the age just past, three others of this our age. Tostatus proves that the tongue common to all men from the beginning of the world was Hebrew, from the imposition of the names which…¹⁷

…quae Adam imposuit rebus secundum eam linguam quae tunc erat. Talia enim nomina non inveniuntur in alia lingua significare id ad quod significandum imposita sunt ab Adamo, nisi in lingua Hebraea: nomina dico, Adam, Eva, Cain, Abel, Noë. Quod si ea nomina idem quoque aut simile quiddam in aliis quibusdam linguis significant, id propterea accidit quod illae linguae perquam similes sunt Hebraeae, ex ea scilicet derivatae, ut est Chaldaica vel Syriaca, Arabica, et in quibusdam etiam Punica. Divisis autem linguis, prima illa lingua mansit in sola stirpe Heber, unde vocata est Hebraica; nec in omnes posteros Heber transfusa est, sed in eos solos qui erant in recta linea per quam descendit Christus. Mansit igitur in solo Phaleg, et in huius tantum filio Reu, et sic deinceps usque ad Abraham et Isaac et Iacob. Hic autem cum duodecim filios habuerit, omnes ea lingua usi sunt, omnesque eorum posteri, id est duodecim tribus Israel; non autem sola tribus Iuda, licet ex ea tantum originem et genus duxit Messias.

…which Adam imposed on things according to that tongue which then was. For such names are not found to signify, in any other tongue, that for the signifying of which they were imposed by Adam, except in the Hebrew tongue: the names, I mean, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Noë. And if those names signify the same, or something similar, in certain other tongues too, that happens because those tongues are exceedingly similar to Hebrew, being derived from it — such as the Chaldaic or Syriac, the Arabic, and in some respects even the Punic. And when the tongues were divided, that first tongue remained in the stock of Heber alone, whence it was called Hebrew; nor was it transfused into all the descendants of Heber, but only into those who were in the direct line through which Christ descended. It remained, therefore, in Phaleg alone, and in his son Reu only, and so on down to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. And he, since he had twelve sons, all used that tongue, and all their descendants, that is the twelve tribes of Israel; not the tribe of Judah alone, although from it alone the Messiah drew His origin and stock.¹⁸

ILLUD igitur permirum est, cum supradicti patres ab Heber usque ad Iacob omnes filios suos docuissent linguam Hebraicam, eos tamen deinde, vel eorum posteros, diversas habuisse linguas, vel ab ipsis adinventas vel ab aliis gentibus acceptas apud quas versabantur. Et lingua quidem Hebraica olim completa et perfecta fuit, cunctis nempe vocibus instructa quae ad omnes res significandas valent, non minus sane quam alia quaevis ex copiosissimis et ditissimis linguis. At nunc, immo vero post captivitatem Babylonicam, imperfecta est, multorum scilicet verborum inops; quippe cum ea sola nomina manserint plane Hebraica quae in libris sacris continentur. Cuius rei illa fuit causa, quod Hebraei, cum aliis gentibus mixti, propriae linguae usum perdiderunt et aliarum gentium linguas usurparunt. Sic Tostatus.

It is therefore very wonderful that, although the aforesaid fathers from Heber down to Jacob had taught all their sons the Hebrew tongue, yet those afterward, or their descendants, had diverse tongues — either invented by themselves or received from the other nations among whom they dwelt. And the Hebrew tongue was once full and perfect, furnished namely with all the words that avail for signifying all things, no less indeed than any other of the most copious and richest tongues. But now — nay rather, after the Babylonian captivity — it is imperfect, destitute namely of many words; since those names alone have remained plainly Hebrew which are contained in the sacred books. The cause of which was that the Hebrews, mingled with other nations, lost the use of their own tongue and took up the tongues of other nations. So Tostatus.¹⁹

CAIETANUS idem quod Tostatus sentit, et ad hunc modum argumentatur: „Etsi divina Scriptura non explicat quae fuerit tunc omnium lingua communis, duas tamen coniecturas habemus eam fuisse Hebraeam. Altera coniectura est, quod lingua Hebraea fuerat ante diluvium, ut nomen Domini Tetragrammaton testatur. Altera est, quod Babylonis nomen, quod iuxta Hebraeam linguam sortita est civitas illa, apud omnes nationes perseverare videtur. Quod si ita esse constaret, efficax profecto haberetur eius rei hinc argumentum: praecipue vero quod civitas illa non fuerit Heber aut filiorum eius, sed Nemrod filii Cus filii Cham.“ Ita Caietanus.

Cajetan thinks the same as Tostatus, and argues in this manner: „Although divine Scripture does not explain what was then the common tongue of all, yet we have two conjectures that it was Hebrew. The one conjecture is that the Hebrew tongue existed before the flood, as the Tetragrammaton name of the Lord testifies. The other is that the name of Babylon, which that city obtained according to the Hebrew tongue, seems to persevere among all nations. And if this were established to be so, an effective argument of the matter would indeed be had from it: especially because that city was not Heber's or his sons', but Nemrod's, the son of Cus, the son of Cham.“ So Cajetan.²⁰

OLEASTER autem, superiorum insistens vestigiis, similia prodidit: „Cum,“ inquit, „textus dicat totam terram fuisse unius linguae, equidem facile crediderim eam fuisse Chaldaicam vel Hebraicam: has enim duas nunc linguas unam et eandem fuisse a principio puto, cum sint admodum vicinae. Nec desunt huic opinioni rationes. Prima, quoniam nomina primis parentibus imposita, ut Adam et Chauach, a verbis Hebraicis originem habent. Sunt etiam aliquot nomina quae ab Hebraeis alias linguas esse mutuatas…“

Oleaster, treading in the footsteps of his predecessors, set forth similar things: „Since,“ he says, „the text says that the whole earth was of one tongue, I for my part would easily believe it to have been Chaldaic or Hebrew: for these two tongues, now [distinct], I think to have been one and the same from the beginning, since they are exceedingly close. Nor are reasons lacking for this opinion. The first, because the names imposed on the first parents — as Adam and Chauach (Eve) — have their origin from Hebrew words. There are also some names which it is not to be doubted that other tongues borrowed from the Hebrews…“²¹

…mutuatas non est dubitandum: ut ‘Sac,’ id est saccus; ‘Babel’; et ‘Tarsis,’ nomen lapidis pretiosi. Secunda ratio, quia credibile est primam linguam et communem omnium esse ibi relictam ubi primum fuit linguarum facta divisio, id est in terra Sennaar quae fuit Chaldaea. Tertia ratio, quia Abraham, qui Chaldaeus fuit, hac lingua loquebatur, a quo didicerunt eam posteri eius qui dicti sunt Hebraei. Quarta ratio, quia textus dicit eos qui unius erant linguae venisse ab Oriente: cum autem lingua Chaldaica et Arabica manserint in Oriente, videntur illae fuisse primae, vel potius Hebraea quae illarum parens fuit.“ Sic Oleaster. Origenes, quem primo loco ponere oportuit, Homilia 11 in librum Numerorum, linguam Hebraeam fuisse ait primam omnium et qua usus est Adam, eamque permansisse etiam post confusionem et divisionem linguarum.

…borrowed [from the Hebrews] is not to be doubted: such as ‘Sac,’ that is, sack; ‘Babel’; and ‘Tarsis,’ the name of a precious stone. The second reason, because it is credible that the first and common tongue of all was left there where the division of tongues was first made — that is, in the land of Sennaar, which was Chaldaea. The third reason, because Abraham, who was a Chaldean, spoke this tongue, from whom his descendants, who were called Hebrews, learned it. The fourth reason, because the text says that those who were of one tongue came from the East: and since the Chaldaic and Arabic tongues have remained in the East, those seem to have been the first — or rather Hebrew, which was their parent.“ So Oleaster. Origen, whom it would have been right to put in the first place, in Homily 11 on the book of Numbers, says that the Hebrew tongue was the first of all and the one Adam used, and that it remained even after the confusion and division of tongues.²²

NEC a tam veteri et probabili sententia recessit Genebrardus (cuius ego viri, quoties mihi occasio incidit, libenter memoriam et nomen usurpo: eum quippe diligo ex animo, nec propter doctrinam tantum, verum multo magis ob singularem fidei Catholicae ac pietatis Christianae ardorem, quem ego cum e scriptis eius tum etiam multorum sermonibus perspectum et cognitum habeo). Genebrardus igitur Hebraeam linguam esse linguarum omnium matricem et mundo coaevam auctoritate firmat B. Hieronymi in Sophoniam, et Origenis Hom. 11 in librum Numerorum, et Hebraeorum (praeter Rabbi Iuda, qui in Tractatu Sanhedrin Adae sermonem Aramaeum, id est Syriacum, fuisse dixit). Non igitur voces vim habent a natura, ut disputat Plato in Cratylo, neque ex hominum instituto, ut visum est Aristoteli; sed Deus ipse linguas confudit, id est ex una multas fecit. Hebraica porro lingua, quae antea communis omnium fuerat, apud Hebrum (a quo linguae et populi nomen) remansit incorrupta, quod ille neque consiliis neque operi interfuisset eorum qui turrim Babel aedificare et in caelum erigere voluerunt. Hos autem aedificatores appellatos esse Meropes, ob divisam vocem, tradit Suidas in vocabulo Seruch.

Nor did Genebrardus depart from so ancient and probable an opinion (of which man, whenever occasion falls to me, I gladly use the memory and name: for I love him from my heart, and not only for his learning, but much more for the singular ardor of Catholic faith and Christian piety, which I have observed and known both from his writings and from the discourse of many). Genebrardus, therefore, confirms by authority that the Hebrew tongue is the mother of all tongues and coeval with the world — [by the authority] of Blessed Jerome on Sophonias, and of Origen in Homily 11 on the book of Numbers, and of the Hebrews (except Rabbi Judah, who in the Tractate Sanhedrin said that Adam's speech was Aramaic, that is Syriac). Therefore words do not have their force from nature, as Plato disputes in the Cratylus, nor from the institution of men, as it seemed to Aristotle; but God Himself confounded the tongues — that is, out of one made many. And the Hebrew tongue, which before had been common to all, remained incorrupt with Heber (from whom the name of the tongue and the people), because he had taken part neither in the counsels nor in the work of those who wished to build the tower of Babel and raise it to heaven. And that these builders were called ‘Meropes,’ on account of the divided speech, Suidas hands down under the word ‘Seruch.’²³

Translator’s notes

Liber XVI, Disputation 8 (title): whether Hebrew was the one tongue common to all before Babel. ↩
§111. Disp. 8: was the first common tongue Hebrew? Theodoret (Questions on Genesis) holds three things; first, that the oldest tongue was Syriac, since the first-age names (Adam, Cain, Abel, Noë) are Syriac: ‘adam’ = red earth (so Adam ‘earthy/dusty’), Cain ‘possession’ (‘I have possessed a man through God’), Abel ‘mourning’ (first to die), Noë ‘rest.’ Margins: Theodoret, Question 59 on Genesis; whether Hebrew was the first tongue of all, used commonly before the confusion. ↩
§112. Theodoret's view is untrue (shown below) and his reason weak: those names (Adam, Eve, Cain, Seth, Noë) and their interpretations are proper to Hebrew (Moses wrote Genesis in Hebrew). That Syriac has them too is no wonder — from Hebrew, as from a fountain, Syriac/Chaldaic and Arabic are derived like rivulets; Syriac being so akin to Hebrew, shared words are unsurprising. Margins: Gen 4; Gen 6. ↩
§113. Theodoret's second view: God first gave Hebrew to Moses, so it did not exist before him (born 600+ yrs after Babel). His words: Hebrew is ‘sacred’ (like Greek temple-letters), given through Moses, not natural — Hebrew children first speak their birthplace's tongue and only learn Hebrew (its letters and sacred books) when grown; ‘He heard a tongue he knew not’ (Ps 81, of Joseph). Margins: Theodoret thinks (wrongly) that Hebrew did not exist before Moses; Ps 80. ↩
§114. But Theodoret's view is partly wrong: that Hebrew did not exist before Moses is against all Doctors, Hebrew and Christian; the world's first names (Adam–Noë) and their interpretations work only in Hebrew. His point about Hebrew children is worthless: while the Hebrew state stood, all spoke Hebrew from the nurse's milk; only in the dispersion/captivity, serving other nations, did they lose their tongue and learn foreign ones. And Joseph (a Hebrew) learning Egyptian as unknown proves nothing for Theodoret. ↩
§115. Theodoret seems here to follow Eupolemus (in Eusebius): that Moses, most wise, first gave letters to the Jews, the Phoenicians got them from the Jews, the Greeks from the Phoenicians. But that both the Hebrew tongue and letters predate Moses, Augustine will be brought in to confirm. Margin: Eupolemus in Eusebius, Preparation bk. 9 ch. 4. ↩
§116. Theodoret's third point: he rejects deriving ‘Hebrews’ and ‘Hebrew’ from Heber (in whose family alone the common tongue survived). His objection: then all Heber's descendants should be ‘Hebrews’ speaking Hebrew — but they were not (Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Ishmaelites, Idumaeans, Madianites, Amalekites, and Iectan's line in India, of various tongues) (continues p. 517). ↩
§116 (concl.). Theodoret's own derivation: ‘Hebrews’ from Abraham's crossing the Euphrates from Chaldea into Palestine — ‘Hebra’ in Syriac = Euphrates. He closes: it is superfluous to contend, since piety suffers no harm either way. Such is Theodoret's opinion. ↩
§117. Pererius rejects Theodoret's ‘Hebrew from Hebra/Euphrates’ (to be discussed in vol. 3, on Gen 14, ‘Abram the Hebrew’). And Theodoret's objection (that not all Heber's line are ‘Hebrews’) is feeble — well solved by Augustine: only those descendants of Heber down to Jacob (in whom the knowledge and worship of the true God remained) were the ‘Hebrews’ who used the Hebrew tongue. ↩
§118. Augustine (City of God 16.11, 18.39) hands down four points supporting Pererius's view. First: the once-common tongue was Hebrew, named from Heber because it survived in his family alone after the division — for then it needed a proper name (like the other tongues); when it was the one tongue of all, it was simply called ‘the human tongue/speech.’ Margins: Augustine, City of God bk. 16 ch. 11, bk. 18 ch. 39. ↩
§119. Augustine's second point: in Heber's family alone the right faith and worship of the true God remained — for the confusion was the punishment of the others' impiety, so those spared it were not partakers of that impiety. ‘Just as, even with one tongue, the sons of pestilence were not lacking (before the flood too there was one tongue, yet all but Noah's house deserved destruction), so when, of a loftier impiety…’ (cut off, continues next batch). Margin: Gen 7. ↩
§119 (concl.). End of the Augustine quotation: when the nations were punished by the diversity of tongues (and the impious city named ‘Babylon’/confusion), the house of Heber kept both the former tongue and piety — since the change of tongues came from a punishment, God's people were exempt; a mark of that nation's justice. And that tongue (kept by the Patriarchs and Prophets in speech and Scripture) passed not to all Abraham's or Heber's line, but only to those in the direct line to Abraham, and thence through Jacob — bearing God's covenants and the stock of Christ. ↩
§120. Augustine's third point: not only the Hebrew tongue but its letters/characters predate Moses (against Theodoret). Augustine: it is wrong to think only the tongue was kept through Heber while the letters began with the Mosaic law — rather, the tongue with its letters was kept through Heber's line; Moses appointed teachers of letters (‘bringers-in of letters,’ Gk grammaton isagogos) — looking to Deut 31's ‘teachers’ (Gk so rendered). Margin: not only the Hebrew tongue but the Hebrew letters/characters were in use before Moses. ↩
§121. Augustine's fourth point — a doubt: if the division was at Phaleg's birth (per Liber XV), and Phaleg was Heber's firstborn with Iectan born after, then Iectan and his sons (Gen 10) did not yet exist — but without them the 72 families/tongues do not add up. Augustine's solution: Phaleg was not Heber's firstborn; Iectan was born many years earlier, though Phaleg is named first (because of the notable event of the division at his birth) (continues p. 519). Margin: a doubt from Augustine — whether Phaleg was Heber's firstborn. ↩
§121 (concl.). Augustine: Moses does not list them in birth-order; else Iectan's twelve sons could not have made nations if Iectan were born after Phaleg (the earth was divided at Phaleg's birth). So Phaleg is named first though younger — as Japheth's sons (the youngest son) are listed before Cham's and Sem's. Augustine's sum: Hebrew was the first tongue, used by all before Babel, named from Heber. This also shows the weakness of the Hebrews' argument that the division was near Phaleg's death (since Iectan, born after, had thirteen descendants by then). ↩
§122. Jerome agrees: on Soph 3 (‘the triflers [nugas] who departed from the law’) he notes the Hebrew uses the very Latin word, ‘that we may know the Hebrew tongue is the mother of all tongues.’ Likewise on Isa 7 (‘a virgin [alma]…’) — ‘alma’ properly a hidden, guarded virgin: the Punic (flowing from Hebrew springs) calls a virgin ‘alma,’ and Latin ‘alma’ = holy; the Hebrews use words of almost all tongues (e.g. the Greek φορεῖον/‘litter’ in Cant 3, ‘nugas,’ ‘mensura’). Margins: Isa 7; Cant 3. ↩
§123. Nearly all later writers followed these Fathers. Four examples (one of the last age, three of the present): Tostatus proves the first common tongue was Hebrew from the imposition of names (continues p. 520). Margin: Tostatus on Gen 11, qq. 1–2. ↩
§123 (concl.). Tostatus: the world's first names (Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Noë) signify, as Adam imposed them, only in Hebrew; if similar in Chaldaic/Syriac/Arabic/Punic, that is because those derive from Hebrew. At the division it remained only in Heber's stock (whence ‘Hebrew’), and not in all his line but only the direct line to Christ — Phaleg, Reu, … to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob; and through Jacob's twelve sons to all twelve tribes (not Judah alone, though the Messiah came from Judah). ↩
§124. Tostatus marvels that, though Heber's line to Jacob taught all their sons Hebrew, their descendants later had diverse tongues (invented or borrowed). Hebrew was once full and perfect (as copious as any tongue), but since the Babylonian captivity it is imperfect, lacking many words — only the names in the sacred books remained plainly Hebrew — because the Hebrews, mingled with other nations, lost their tongue and took up others'. ↩
§125. Cajetan (agreeing with Tostatus): two conjectures that the first tongue was Hebrew — (1) Hebrew existed before the flood (the Tetragrammaton); (2) the name ‘Babylon’ (Hebrew) persists among all nations — strong if established, especially since that city was not Heber's but Nemrod's (son of Cus, son of Cham). Margin: Cajetan on Gen 11. ↩
§126. Oleaster, following them: the one tongue was Chaldaic or Hebrew (which he thinks were originally one and the same, being so close). His reasons: first, the first parents' names (Adam, Chauach/Eve) come from Hebrew words; and other tongues borrowed words from Hebrew (continues p. 521). Margin: Oleaster on this place. ↩
§126 (concl.). Oleaster's reasons (cont.): other tongues borrowed Hebrew words (‘Sac’/sack, ‘Babel,’ ‘Tarsis’); the first tongue was likely left where the division happened (Sennaar/Chaldaea); Abraham the Chaldean spoke it, whence the Hebrews; those of one tongue ‘came from the East,’ where Chaldaic/Arabic remained — so those (or rather Hebrew, their parent) were first. Origen (Hom. 11 on Numbers, who should have been cited first): Hebrew was the first tongue, Adam's, and remained even after the confusion. Margin: Origen. ↩
§127. Genebrardus (whom Pererius warmly praises for faith and learning) confirms, by Jerome (on Soph), Origen (Hom. 11 on Numbers), and the Hebrews (except Rabbi Judah, Sanhedrin, who made Adam's speech Aramaic/Syriac), that Hebrew is the mother of all tongues, coeval with the world. So words have force neither from nature (Plato, Cratylus) nor by human convention (Aristotle), but God confounded them (made many from one); Hebrew remained incorrupt with Heber (whence the name of tongue and people), who shared neither the counsel nor the work of the builders. Suidas (under ‘Seruch’): the builders were called ‘Meropes’ (from the divided speech). Margins: Genebrardus in his Chronology; Plato; Aristotle; Suidas. ↩