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

TENTH DISPUTATION. On the number of tongues, into which that first and common tongue of all is said to have been divided or multiplied

LatineEnglish

TENTH DISPUTATION. On the number of tongues, into which that first and common tongue of all is said to have been divided or multiplied.1

DECIMA DISPUTATIO. De numero linguarum, in quas prima illa et communis omnium lingua vel divisa vel multiplicata esse dicitur.

PERVETUS opinio est, tam Hebraeorum quam Christianorum doctorum suffragiis approbata, praeter Hebraeam linguam (quae sola ab orbe condito usque id temporis in usu apud omnes fuerat) unam et septuaginta alias linguas tunc esse invectas, ita ut omnes linguae fuerint duae et septuaginta. Hoc autem ita probatur. Moses ait, cum est confusum labium universae terrae, tantam repente varietatem linguarum esse inductam ut unusquisque non intelligeret linguam proximi sui. Aut igitur cuilibet illorum hominum propria contigit lingua, aut tantum cuilibet genti et familiae. Non contigisse singulis hominibus singulas linguas supra ostendimus, docentes id futurum fuisse contra Dei consilium et propositum, id est contra id quod per talem confusionem linguarum et dispersionem hominum efficere Deus constituerat. Relinquitur igitur diversitatem linguarum fuisse pro di[versitate]…
It is a very ancient opinion, approved by the suffrages both of Hebrew and of Christian doctors, that besides the Hebrew tongue (which alone, from the founding of the world down to that time, had been in use among all) seventy-one other tongues were then introduced, so that all the tongues were seventy-two. And this is proved thus. Moses says that, when the lip of the whole earth was confounded, so great a variety of tongues was suddenly introduced that each one did not understand the tongue of his neighbor. Either, then, to each of those men a proper tongue befell, or only to each nation and family. That single tongues did not befall single men we have shown above, teaching that this would have been against God's counsel and purpose — that is, against that which God had determined to effect by such a confusion of tongues and dispersion of men. It remains, therefore, that the diversity of tongues was according to the di[versity]…2
…pro diversitate illarum gentium et familiarum. Sed Moses capite decimo recensuit septuaginta duas familias ac gentes ortas ex tribus filiis Noë; ergo totidem quoque linguas fuisse credendum est.
…according to the diversity of those nations and families. But Moses in the tenth chapter reviewed seventy-two families and nations sprung from the three sons of Noah; therefore it is to be believed that there were just as many tongues.3
MAGNAM huic opinioni fidem astruit auctoritas gravissimorum Patrum qui eam secuti sunt. Epiphanius in ipso paene initio Panarii ad hunc modum scribit, loquens de aedificatoribus civitatis et turris Babel: „Non habuit Deus,“ inquit, „complacentiam in opere dementiae ipsorum: dispersit enim et divisit ipsorum linguas, et ex una in septuaginta duas distribuit, iuxta numerum virorum tunc repertum; unde et Meropes vocati sunt propter divisam vocem; et turrim quoque ventorum impetu evertit Deus.“ Haec Epiphanius. Sed extremum hoc, de turri a ventis eversa, haud dubie sumptum ex Iosepho et Eusebio, falsum esse supra indicavimus. Eadem quoque fuit B. Hieronymi de septuaginta duabus linguis sententia: explanans enim illa verba Domini, „An putas quia non possum rogare Patrem meum, et exhibebit mihi modo plusquam duodecim legiones Angelorum?“ sic ait: „Duodecim legiones Angelorum continent septuaginta duo millia Angelorum: in quot scilicet gentes hominum lingua divisa est.“ Non quod Hieronymus velit linguas esse divisas in gentes septuaginta duo millia (id enim falsum esset), sed indicare voluit sacramentum illius numeri septuaginta duo etiam Gentium linguarum pari multitudine nobilitatum.
Great credence to this opinion is built up by the authority of the weightiest Fathers who followed it. Epiphanius, at the very beginning of the Panarion, writes in this manner, speaking of the builders of the city and tower of Babel: „God,“ he says, „had no pleasure in the work of their madness: for He dispersed and divided their tongues, and from one distributed them into seventy-two, according to the number of men then found; whence also they were called ‘Meropes,’ on account of the divided speech; and the tower too God overthrew by the force of the winds.“ So Epiphanius. But this last, about the tower overthrown by the winds — doubtless taken from Josephus and Eusebius — we have indicated above to be false. The same too was Blessed Jerome's opinion about the seventy-two tongues: for, explaining those words of the Lord, „Do you think that I cannot ask my Father, and He will presently give me more than twelve legions of Angels?“ he says thus: „Twelve legions of Angels contain seventy-two thousand Angels: into how many nations, namely, the tongue of men was divided.“ Not that Jerome means the tongues were divided into seventy-two thousand nations (for that would be false), but he wished to indicate the mystery of that number seventy-two, ennobled also by an equal multitude of the tongues of the Nations.4
IDEM sensit B. Augustinus in libris de Civitate Dei, ad hunc modum scribens: „In summa igitur omnes progeniti de tribus filiis Noë, id est quindecim de Iaphet et triginta unus de Cham et viginti septem de Sem, fiunt septuaginta tres. Sed quia Heber et Phaleg, qui in hoc numero distincte ponuntur, nec duas diversas gentes fecerunt nec duas diversas linguas habuerunt, propterea numerus illarum gentium et linguarum recte dicitur fuisse septuaginta duo.“
The same Blessed Augustine held, in the books of the City of God, writing in this manner: „In sum, then, all those begotten of the three sons of Noah — that is, fifteen of Japheth, and thirty-one of Cham, and twenty-seven of Sem — make seventy-three. But because Heber and Phaleg, who are put distinctly in this number, neither made two diverse nations nor had two diverse tongues, therefore the number of those nations and tongues is rightly said to have been seventy-two.“5
PROSPER libro 2 de Vocatione Gentium capite 4: „Iam vero,“ inquit, „procurrente humanae propagationis augmento, cum ipsa mortalium numerositas de suis multiplicationibus superbiret, et secundum elationis suae altitudinem caelo cuperet molem immodicae constructionis inferre, quam mirabilis ad cohibendam hanc insolentiam fuit divina censura iustitiae? Quae omnem illorum populorum loquelam, notis sibi invicem significationibus consonantem, septuaginta et duarum linguarum varietate confudit; ut et inter dissonas voces operantium, pereunte concordia, insana molitionis machina solveretur, et habitando orbi terrarum daret incolas mala congregationis opportuna dispersio.“
Prosper, in book 2 On the Calling of the Nations, chapter 4: „Now indeed,“ he says, „as the increase of human propagation ran on, when the very numerousness of mortals grew proud over its own multiplications, and, according to the height of its elation, desired to bring up to heaven the mass of an immoderate construction, how wonderful was the divine censure of justice for restraining this insolence! Which confounded all the speech of those peoples — consonant by significations mutually known — with the variety of seventy-two tongues; that both, amid the dissonant voices of the workers, concord perishing, the insane engine of the undertaking might be dissolved, and a dispersion, opportune for the evil of their gathering, might give inhabitants to the world to be dwelt in.“6
ARNOBIUS porro (non ille Lactantii magister, sed alius longe posterior) prodidit in illis trium filiorum Noë posteris, post unius linguae confusionem, fuisse septuaginta duas linguas quae per totum deinde orbem disseminatae sunt; fuisse item ex illis natas mille generationes, vel ut ipse vocat, patrias gentium. Audiat lector eius verba, quae sunt in Commentariis eius in Psalmos, ubi exponit illum versiculum Psalmi centesimi quarti, „Memor fuit in seculum testamenti sui, verbi quod mandavit in mille generationes“: „Has,“ inquit, „mille generationes gentium breviter edoceamus. Noë tres filios habuit, Sem, Cham, Iaphet. Sem primogenito pars facta est a Perside et Bactris usque in Indiam longe, et usque Rhinocoruras; quae spatia terrarum habent linguas sermone Barbarico viginti septem, in quibus linguis gentes sunt diversarum patriarum sex et quadringentae. Siquidem multo numerosius gentes multiplicatae sunt quam linguae: exempli gratia, cum una sit lingua Latina, sub ea tamen una lingua diversae sunt patriae, ut Brutiorum, Lucanorum, Apulorum, Calabrorum, Picentum, Tuscorum…“
Arnobius, moreover (not that teacher of Lactantius, but another far later), set forth that in those descendants of the three sons of Noah, after the confusion of the one tongue, there were seventy-two tongues which were then disseminated through the whole world; and likewise that from them were born a thousand ‘generations,’ or, as he calls them, ‘fatherlands of nations.’ Let the reader hear his words, which are in his Commentaries on the Psalms, where he expounds that verse of the hundred-and-fourth Psalm, „He has been mindful forever of His covenant, of the word which He commanded for a thousand generations“: „These thousand generations of nations,“ he says, „let us briefly set forth. Noah had three sons, Sem, Cham, Japheth. To Sem the firstborn a portion was made from Persia and Bactria as far as India afar, and as far as Rhinocorura; which spaces of lands have twenty-seven tongues of Barbarian speech, in which tongues are nations of four hundred and six diverse fatherlands. For nations have been multiplied much more numerously than tongues: for example, although the Latin tongue is one, yet under it, the one tongue, are diverse fatherlands — as of the Bruttii, the Lucanians, the Apulians, the Calabrians, the Picentes, the Tuscans…“7
„CHAM vero secundus filius Noë a Rhinocoruris tendit usque Gadira, habens linguas diversas, partim sermone Punico a parte Garamantum, partim Latina a parte Borea, partim Barbarico a parte Meridiani et Aegyptiorum aliorumque interiorum Barbarorum vario sermone utentium; habens, inquam, linguas viginti duas, patrias vero gentium trecentas nonaginta quatuor. Iaphet denique ultimus filius Noë habuit fluvium Tigridem, qui dividit Mediam a Babylonia, sicut Sem habuit Euphratem et Cham Geon qui vocatur Nilus. Posteritas autem Iaphet diffusa est in patrias ducentas, sermone vario utentes, id est in linguis viginti tribus. Fiunt ergo omnes simul linguae septuaginta duae, patriae vero generationum sive gentium mille, quibus universum genus hominum orbem terrarum inhabitantium continetur.“ Sic Arnobius.
„But Cham, the second son of Noah, extends from Rhinocorura as far as Gadira, having diverse tongues: partly in the Punic speech on the side of the Garamantes, partly Latin on the northern side, partly Barbarian on the side of the South and of the Egyptians and the other inner Barbarians using various speech; having, I say, twenty-two tongues, but three hundred and ninety-four fatherlands of nations. Japheth, finally, the last son of Noah, had the river Tigris, which divides Media from Babylonia — just as Sem had the Euphrates and Cham the Geon, which is called the Nile. And the posterity of Japheth was spread into two hundred fatherlands, using various speech, that is, into twenty-three tongues. There come to be, therefore, all together, seventy-two tongues, but a thousand fatherlands of generations or of nations, by which the whole race of men inhabiting the world is contained.“ So Arnobius.8
ORIGENEM hoc loco tacitum a nobis praeteriri minime convenit. Nam etsi certum ille numerum linguarum non praefinit, censet tamen multas et varias, pro multitudine et varietate illarum gentium, fuisse linguas. Putat etiam fuisse eas linguas ab Angelis (qui earum gentium tutores ac rectores erant) effectas, ita ut quisque Angelus ei genti cuius gerebat curam propriam linguam assignaverit et indiderit. Quot igitur erant gentes, tot fuisse earum rectores ac praesides Angelos, totidemque ab illis invectas esse linguas, secundum Origenis sententiam existimandum est. Ponam hic Origenis verba ex Homilia eius undecima in librum Numerorum: „Illud quoque,“ inquit, „quod in Genesi scriptum legimus, Deum (ad Angelos sine dubio loquentem) dicere, Venite, confundamus linguas eorum: quid aliud significare putandum est nisi quod diversi Angeli diversas in hominibus linguas ac loquelas operati sint? Ut, verbi gratia, unus aliquis Angelus fuerit qui Babylonicam tunc uni earum gentium impresserit linguam; alius qui alii Aegyptiam, et alius qui Graecam; et sic diversarum gentium ipsi illi fortasse principes fuerunt, qui linguarum et loquelae videbantur auctores. Mansit autem lingua per Adam primitus data (quam nos fuisse putamus Hebraeam) in ea parte hominum quae non pars alicuius Angeli vel principis facta est, sed quae Dei portio permansit. Excolit igitur unusquisque Angelus gentem sibi creditam, et ab erroribus ad Deum convertere studet. Et ab initio quidem seculi huius, cum dispergeret Deus filios Adam, statuit fines gentium iuxta numerum Angelorum Dei, et suo quaeque gens Angelo assignata est. Una autem fuit et electa gens Israël, quae portio Domini fuit, et funiculus haereditatis eius.“ Sic Origenes.
It by no means befits that Origen be passed over by us in silence in this place. For although he does not fix a certain number of tongues, he yet judges that there were many and various tongues, according to the multitude and variety of those nations. He also thinks that those tongues were effected by the Angels (who were the guardians and rulers of those nations), so that each Angel assigned and gave a proper tongue to the nation of which he bore the care. As many, therefore, as there were nations, so many were their ruling and presiding Angels, and just as many tongues were introduced by them — so, according to Origen's opinion, it must be reckoned. I shall set down here Origen's words from his eleventh Homily on the book of Numbers: „That too,“ he says, „which we read written in Genesis, that God (speaking, without doubt, to the Angels) says, Come, let us confound their tongues: what else is to be thought to signify, than that diverse Angels wrought diverse tongues and speeches in men? As, for example, there was some one Angel who then impressed the Babylonian tongue on one of those nations; another who [impressed] the Egyptian on another, and another the Greek; and so those very ones were perhaps the princes of the diverse nations, who seemed the authors of the tongues and speech. But the tongue first given through Adam (which we think to have been Hebrew) remained in that part of men which was made the part of no Angel or prince, but which remained God's portion. Each Angel, therefore, cultivates the nation entrusted to him, and strives to convert it from errors to God. And from the beginning of this age, when God dispersed the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the Angels of God, and each nation was assigned to its own Angel. But one nation was the chosen, Israel, which was the Lord's portion, and the cord of His inheritance.“ So Origen.9
VERUM hanc commemorationem alienarum opinionum concludat Genebrardus, qui pervulgatam illam de septuaginta duabus linguis sententiam paulo quam superiores enucleatius et distinctius exposuit. „Dum,“ inquit, „septuaginta duas linguas dumtaxat Hebraei constituunt, hoc faciunt quia apud Mosem non plura stirpium capita et principes notantur: nempe ex Iaphet quindecim, ex Cham triginta, ex Sem viginti septem. Item quoniam non plures proferri possunt ceterarum innumerabilium linguarum matrices: tales sunt — Hebraica genitrix, Syriaca, Arabica, etc.; Latina, Italica, Valachica, Gallica et Hispanica; Graeca, Dorica, Ionica, Aeolica, Attica; Sclavonica, Polonica, Bohemica, Moscovitica, etc.; Germanica, Helvetica, Anglica, Flandrica, etc.; Tartarica, Turcica, Samarcanica, etc.; Abissina, Aethiopica, Sabaea, etc. Sic illo numero minime comprehenduntur singularum dialecti: sunt enim tantae diversitatis ut intra centum leucarum discrimen, in hominum labiis, occulta quadam causa versuram faciat tantam ut, vel propter accentum, vel mutationem aliquam literarum, vel additionem, vel detractionem, tam parvulo spatio non se mutuo intelligant, sicut in novo etiam orbe Americus Vesputius observasse se scripsit.“ Ita Genebrardus. Atque haec sunt (memoratu scilicet digna) quae ab aliis de numero illarum linguarum mandata literis reperi.
But let Genebrardus conclude this recital of others' opinions, who set forth that widespread opinion about the seventy-two tongues somewhat more clearly and distinctly than his predecessors. „When,“ he says, „the Hebrews fix only seventy-two tongues, they do this because in Moses no more heads and chiefs of stocks are noted — namely, fifteen from Japheth, thirty from Cham, twenty-seven from Sem. Likewise, because no more mother-tongues of the other innumerable languages can be brought forward: such are — the Hebrew mother; the Syriac, Arabic, etc.; the Latin, Italian, Wallachian, French, and Spanish; the Greek, Doric, Ionic, Aeolic, Attic; the Slavonic, Polish, Bohemian, Muscovite, etc.; the German, Swiss, English, Flemish, etc.; the Tartar, Turkish, Samarkand, etc.; the Abyssinian, Ethiopic, Sabaean, etc. Thus by that number the dialects of the individual tongues are by no means comprehended: for they are of such diversity that within the distance of a hundred leagues, on men's lips, by some hidden cause it makes so great a change that, whether on account of accent, or some change of letters, or addition, or subtraction, in so small a space they do not understand one another — as in the new world too Americus Vespucius wrote that he observed.“ So Genebrardus. And these are the things (worthy of mention, namely) which I have found committed to writing by others about the number of those tongues.10

Translator’s notes

  1. Liber XVI, Disputation 10 (title): the number of tongues into which the one tongue was divided. ↩
  2. §139. Disp. 10. A very ancient view (Hebrew and Christian doctors): besides Hebrew (the one tongue from the world's founding) 71 others were then introduced — 72 tongues in all. Proof: Moses says so great a variety arose that none understood his neighbor; either a tongue per man or per nation/family; not per man (shown above, against God's purpose); so per the diversity (continues p. 526). Margin: whether there were then 72 tongues. ↩
  3. §139 (concl.). …according to the diversity of nations and families. But Moses (Gen 10) reviewed 72 families/nations from Noah's three sons; so there were just as many tongues. ↩
  4. §140. Weighty Fathers support the 72. Epiphanius (start of the Panarion): God, displeased, dispersed and divided their tongues from one into 72 (by the number of men then found), whence ‘Meropes’ (divided speech); and overthrew the tower by winds (this last, from Josephus/Eusebius, is false, as shown above). Jerome (on Mt 26, ‘twelve legions of Angels’): twelve legions = 72,000 angels — i.e. into 72 nations the human tongue was divided (not 72,000 nations, but the mystery of the number 72, matched by the nations' tongues). Margins: Epiphanius; Jerome on Mt 26; legions. ↩
  5. §141. Augustine (City of God) agrees: all begotten of Noah's three sons (15 of Japheth + 31 of Cham + 27 of Sem) = 73; but since Heber and Phaleg (counted distinctly) made no separate nations or tongues, the number of nations and tongues is rightly 72. Margin: Augustine, City of God bk. 16 chs. 3 & 11. ↩
  6. §142. Prosper (On the Calling of the Nations bk. 2 ch. 4): as mankind multiplied and grew proud, desiring to raise an immoderate mass to heaven, God's just censure confounded their mutually-understood speech with the variety of 72 tongues — so that, concord perishing amid the workers' dissonant voices, the mad engine was dissolved, and a dispersion (timely against their evil gathering) peopled the world. Margin: Prosper. ↩
  7. §143. Arnobius (the later, not Lactantius's teacher), in his Commentary on the Psalms (on Ps 104, ‘the word He commanded for a thousand generations’): after the confusion there were 72 tongues, and from them a thousand ‘fatherlands of nations’ (far more nations than tongues — e.g. one Latin tongue covers Bruttii, Lucanians, Apulians, etc.). Sem's portion (Persia/Bactria to India and Rhinocorura): 27 tongues, 406 fatherlands (continues p. 527). Margin: Arnobius. ↩
  8. §143 (concl.). Arnobius (cont.): Cham's portion (Rhinocorura to Gadira): 22 tongues (Punic, Latin, Barbarian), 394 fatherlands; Japheth's (by the Tigris, as Sem by the Euphrates, Cham by the Geon/Nile): 23 tongues, 200 fatherlands. Total: 72 tongues, 1,000 fatherlands of nations — containing the whole human race. ↩
  9. §144. Origen (not to be passed over): he fixes no certain number, but holds many tongues, per the nations' variety, made by the Angels (each nation's guardian-Angel giving it a tongue) — as many nations, so many ruling Angels and tongues. Origen (Hom. 11 on Numbers): God's ‘let us confound their tongues’ (to the Angels) means diverse Angels wrought diverse tongues (one the Babylonian, another the Egyptian, another the Greek), being the nations' princes and ‘authors’ of the tongues; but the tongue first given through Adam (Hebrew, we think) remained in the part that was no Angel's but God's portion. Each Angel cultivates his nation, converting it to God; ‘He set the nations' bounds by the number of God's Angels’ (Deut 32), each nation assigned its Angel — but Israel was the chosen, ‘the Lord's portion and the cord of His inheritance.’ Margins: Deut 32; Origen. ↩
  10. §145. Genebrardus concludes the survey: the Hebrews fix 72 because Moses notes no more stock-heads (15 Japheth, 30 Cham, 27 Sem) and no more ‘mother-tongues’ of the innumerable others (he lists the Hebrew mother and its families — Syriac/Arabic, Latin/Italian/French/Spanish, Greek dialects, Slavonic/Polish, Germanic, Tartar/Turkish, Ethiopic, etc.); the number does not include the dialects, which vary so within 100 leagues that men cannot understand one another (as Americus Vespucius observed in the New World). Margin: Americus Vespucius. ↩