Tongues, Confusion Of

VIEW:17 DATA:01-04-2020

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF.—The belief that the world, after the Flood, was re-populated by the progeny of a single family, speaking one language, is reconciled in the Bible with the existing diversity of tongues by a story which relates how the descendants of Noah, in the course of their wanderings, settled in the plain of Shinar, or Babylonia, and there built of brick a city, and a tower high enough to reach heaven, as a monument to preserve their fame, and as a centre of social cohesion and union. But the Lord discerned their ambitious purposes, and, after consulting with the Divine beings who constituted His council and court (cf. Gen_1:26; Gen_3:22), frustrated their design by confounding their speech, so that concerted action was no longer possible for them. In consequence, the name of the city was called Babel (see below), and its builders were compelled to disperse over the face of the earth (Gen_11:1-9).
The story belongs to a class of narratives (of which there are several in the Bible) intended to explain the origin of various institutions, or usages, the existence of which excited the curiosity of a primitive race. Among these was the prevalence in the world of different languages, which contributed so greatly to produce between the various peoples, who were thus unintelligible to one another, feelings of mutual suspicion and fear (cf. Deu_28:49, Isa_28:11; Isa_33:19, Jer_5:15). The particular explanation furnished was doubtless suggested partly by the name of the city of Babel, or Babylon (which, though really meaning ‘gate of God,’ was by a popular etymology connected with the Heb. word bâlal, ‘to confuse’), and partly by the presence, at or near Babylon, of the ruins of some great tower, which looked as though it had originally been designed as a means to scale heaven. Two such towers, or ziqqurats, were the temple of Merodach (or Marduk) in Babylon (supposed to be beneath the mound of Babil), and the temple of Nebo in Borsippa (the ruins of which form the mound of Birs Nimroud); and knowledge of one or other of these may have helped to shape the narrative. The character of the narrative makes it impossible to consider it as real history: it bears on its surface manifest evidence that it is a creation of primitive fancy. The question whether the various languages of mankind have really been derived from one common tongue cannot be separated from the question (into which it is unnecessary to enter here) whether the various races of men have sprung from a single stock, i.e. ‘whether man appeared originally on the globe at one centre or at many centres.’ It may be said, however, that philological research has proved that the numerous existing languages are members of a comparatively small number of families of speech (such as the Indo-European, the Semitic, etc.); but that between these families of speech there is so great a difference of structure, that their descent from one original tongue seems highly improbable. At the same time, all languages must have arisen from certain faculties and instincts common to human nature; and the presence, in languages belonging to distinct families, of onomatopoetic, or imitative, words serves to illustrate the essential similarity of human tendencies in the sphere of speech all the world over.
G. W. Wade.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

(See BABEL.) Genesis 10 accords with the modern scientific principle of ethnic subdivision; as races increase they subdivide; thus as mankind spread there was a continual breaking up into a larger and larger number of nations. These were distinct linguistically, and also ethnically "by these (i.e. from the Japhethites just before named the tribes sprang by whom) were the isles (the maritime coasts) of the Gentiles divided in their lands, every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations" (Gen_10:5). The sacred writer at once states the fact of the great multiplicity of languages, and also the resemblance and connection between what at first sight seem distinct tongues. Ethnology speaks of "mother," "sister," and "daughter" dialects, just as Genesis 10 mentions mother, sister, and daughter races. It is the only theory of ethnology which harmonizes with and accounts for the facts of language, as comparative philology reveals them to us.
The general teaching of Genesis 10 is that the nations N. and W. of Mesopotamia and Syria were Japhetic and, within the geographic limits alluded to, comprise seven chief races; ethnology does not contradict this. Moses does not contemplate a scientific scheme embracing all the tribes and nations existing in the world at the time, but a genealogical arrangement of those best known to Moses and his readers. Ethnologists divide the Shemites into five main branches, Aramaean, Hebrew, Phoenician, Assyrian or Babylonian, and Arabian; Moses recognizes four of these, Asshur or Assyria, Aram or Syria, Eber or the Hebrew, Joktan the pure Arabs. Moses adds Elam and Lud, of which ethnology says nothing. He omits the Phoenicians who in his time had not yet acquired importance or moved from the shore of the Persian gulf to the Mediterranean. The Japhetic races spread over all the northern regions known to Moses: Greece, Thrace, Scythia, Asia Minor, Armenia. and Media.
The Hamitic races over the S. and S.W.: N. Africa. Egypt, Nubia., Ethiopia, S. and S.E. Arabia, and Babylonia. The Semitic races in the region intermediate between the Japhetic and Hamitic: Syria, Palestine, northern and central Arabia, Assyria, Elymais, from the Mediterranean to the mountains of Luristan. Thus by their intermediate position the Shemites were in contact with Japhetic races in Cappadocia, and with Hamites in Palestine, the Yemen, Babylonia, and Elymais. The ethnological character of the genealogy (Genesis 10) appears in such gentilie forms as Ludim, Jebusite, and geographical and local names as Mizraim, Sidon; as also from the formula "after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations" (Gen_10:5; Gen_10:20; Gen_10:31). (See GENERATION; on the connection of Canaan with HEBREW.)
This is a trace of the original unity of races so distinct, subsequently, as the Hamitic Canaanites and the Semitic Hebrew. The Hamites and Shemites again meet in Babylon, which Scripture assigns to a Cushite founder, Nimrod, in accordance with recent discoveries of Hamitic inscriptions in the oldest Babylonian remains at Ur. (See BABYLON.) The unity of mankind Paul (Act_17:26) asserts, "God hath made of one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth." Moreover Christ is the Head of all mankind in redemption, as Adam in the fall of all (Rom_5:15-19; 1Co_15:22; 1Co_15:45-49). Again Genesis (Gen_9:19) traces the whole postdiluvian population to Noah, "of the three sons of Noah was the whole earth overspread." Speech is inherent in man as being the outcome of reflection, the Greeks therefore rightly express by the same "word" reason and speech, logos, for reason is inward speech and speech is outward reason.
This is his superiority to brutes; hence to mature Adam's intellectual powers and to teach him the use of language God brought the animals to him to name (Gen_2:19-20). Nouns are the simplest and earliest elements of language; and animals by their appearance, movements, and cries, suggest names for themselves. Whatever differences of tongue arose before the flood, the original unity of speech was restored in Noah. This continued until the confusion of tongues at Babel. God defeated the attempt to counteract His will, that men should disperse systematically, by confounding the tongues of the builders of the intended central metropolis of the world. Oppert identifies Babel with the basement of the great mound of Birs Nimrud, the ancient Borsippa. The confusion consisted in a miraculous forestalment of the wide dialectical differences which ordinarily require time and difference of place and habits to mature; the one common substratum remained. Genesis 10 states summarily the dispersion according to race and tongue, the origin of which Genesis 11 proceeds to detail; in chronological order of events Genesis 11 was before Genesis 10.
Ethnology and philology tend more and more rewards recognizing the unity of mankind; unity amidst variety is the general law. A substratum of significant monosyllabic roots is at the base of all languages. Three classes of tongues exist: the isolating, the agglutinative, and the inflecting. In the isolating there are no inflections, no ease or person terminations, no distinction of form between verb, noun, adjective, preposition, and conjunction; the bare root is the sole substance. In the other two the formal elements represent roots; both these and the radical elements are monosyllabic. There are two kinds of roots, predicable and pronominal; the predicable constituting the material element of verbs, nouns, and adjectives; the pronominal that of conjunctions, prepositions, and particles; the pronominal especially supplies the formal element, i.e. the terminations of verbs, substantives, and adjectives.
Monosyllabic roots are the common feature of all of the Indo European family. Bisyllabism prevails in the Semitic family, especially in the verbs, but these also are reducible to monosyllabics, consisting of consonants at the beginning and at the end; the stem thus enclosed at both ends was precluded from external increment, but by internal modification of vowels produces economy of material, simplicity, and dignity. In the agglutinative family the relational elements are attached to the predicable theme by mechanical junction, the individuality of each remaining still. The inflecting languages must have been once agglutinative, and the agglutinative once isolating. If the relational and the predicable elements of the isolating be linked together, it becomes agglutinative. If the material and the formal parts are pronounced as one word, eliminating the sounds that resist incorporation, the tongue becomes inflecting.
Moreover, no sharp line of demarcation separates the three: the isolating are not wholly so, the agglutinative as the Finnish and Turkish are sometimes inflecting, the inflecting as Hebrew is often agglutinative and has separate particles to express relations; the Indo European (inflecting) appends to its substantival stems suffixes of case and number; the Ural Altaian (agglutinative) adds governing particles, rendering them post positional instead of prepositional; the Semitic expresses grammatical variations by vowel changes within the root, the Indo European by affixes without. The steppes of central Asia have always been the home of the agglutinative, the nomadic life expressing itself naturally in giving prominent distinctness to the leading idea in each word, thereby giving ready communication between families which associate only at intervals; the inflecting tongues on the other hand express higher social cultivation. Outward circumstances, position, and disposition, all combined, have modified language.
In grammar too correspondences occur between the three great classes. The isolating, in the absence of grammatical forms, collocate the words in a somewhat logical order. Herein our inflecting, highly cultivated, English tongue exhibits a resemblance; the subject preceding the verb, and the verb preceding the object; also subject, copula, and predicate. In the agglutinative the principal word comes last, every qualifying clause or word that precedes being sustained by it. Thus, the syntactical arrangement is the opposite of the verbal, the principal idea taking precedence in the latter. In the Semitic tongues the reverse of this usage of the classical holds good; the verb stands first, and the adjective comes after its noun.
In the agglutinative adjectives qualifying nouns remain undeclined, answering to compound words in the Indo European, where the final member alone is inflected; so the absence of the plural ending of nouns following a numeral answers to our usage of "pound" or "head" (not pounds, heads) after a plural numeral. The governing noun is altered in termination before the governed noun, in Hebrew, instead of the governed noun being put in the genitive. The genitive in Hebrew is also expressed by a relative and a preposition before the noun; really the prefixes or affixes in other tongues marking the genitive are more connected with the governing than with the governed word, and are resolvable into relative or personal pronouns which connect the two words. Rapid utterance of the first accounts for the excision of the final consonant of the Hebrew plural noun governing another.
"The song which (belongs) to Solomon" corresponds to "Solomon's Song," the "s" combining the demonstrative "sa" and the relative "ya". The isolating tongues, as the Chinese, instead of the Indo-European verbal composition, employ manifold combinations of radical sounds with an elaborate method of accenting and intoning. The agglutinative, though deficient in compounds, build up words, suffix on suffix, to which their law of vowel harmony gives uniformity. Amidst the varieties, traces of unity appear in the original material, in the stages of formation, and in the general grammatical expression. Every word is reducible to two elements, the predicable and the formal, i.e. the root and the grammatical termination. Both consist of independent roots.
The formal, mostly pronominal, elements are more tenacious of life; therefore agreement in inflections, which consist of these, affords a strong presumption for radical identity also. Grimm discovered a regular system of changes undergone in the transition from Greek and Latin to Gothic and low German: aspirates for tenues, h for k or c, th for t, f for p; tenues for medials, t for d, p for b, k for g; medials for aspirates, g for ch or h, d for th, b for f or ph: as "heart" from kardia, cor; thou from tu; "five" from pempe (pente); "father" from pateer, "two" from duo; "knee" from gonu; "goose" from cheen; "dare" from tharseoo; "bear" from feroo. Max Muller calls the agglutinative tongues of Europe and Asia by the common name "Turanian." This class includes the Ural Altaian, the Chinese, Burmese, and Thibetan. Some refer the American tongues to the Turanian.
The essential identity of many words in Semitic and Indo-European gives a strong presumption of their original unity; thus, qeren, cornu, "horn"; masak, misgo, misceo, "mix"; karak, circa, "circle"; 'erets, terra, "earth" (German erde); chalaq, glaber, glisco, "glide" (glatt); qum, "gum", 'am, cum, "sun", koinos, "common"; malee', pleos, plenus, "full" (voll); bor, purus, "pure"; barah, vorare, bora, "voracious"; parah, ferop, barus, feroo, "bear"; 'apha, epso, "epula"; mar, "amarus"; carath, "curtus"; zarah, "serere"; muth, math (Sanskrit), mor(t)s, "mortal"; 'attah, tu, su), "thou"; "n" in Hebrew stands for "m" in the Indo-European, as representing the first personal pronoun; shesh, sex, hex, "six"; the other numerals in Hebrew and Indo-European, one to five, are probably identical. Indo-European or Aryan is the term which science now employs, answering to the Scripture Japhetic.
The N. African languages were sub-Semitic; the inelastic Semitic remained within the limits assigned in the Bible, owing to being hemmed in by the superior expansiveness of the Aryans and Turanians. Latham alleges traces of resemblance between the sub-Semitic of northern Africa, Negro in the center, and Kaffir and Hottentot in the S.; the latter are more Turanian than the northern. Indo European comprises nine classes, Indian, Iranian, Celtic, Italian, Albanian, Greek, Teutonic, Lithuanian, and Slavonian. "The Slavonians and Teutons were the first to leave the common home of the Indo European race, and Slavo Teutonic was the earliest deviation from the common language. Then the Graeco-Italo-Celtic. The Celts then separated" (Schleicher). But the Celts being found most westerly, in the extremities of Europe, Ireland, the Scotch highlands, Wales, and Brittany, were probably the earliest emigrants from the primeval seat. Once they occupied Gaul, northern Italy, large Darts of Spain, Germany, Switzerland. and poured along Greece into Asia Minor, giving their name to Galatia; but now they have been forced into the remote corners of Europe by successive races. (See GALATIA.)
The plateau of central Asia was the original seat of the Indo European race. The Indian offshoot is traceable to the Himalaya slopes, from the geographic allusions in the Vedic hymns (Max Muller, Lectures). The Sanskrit names of articles imported by Solomon prove the advance of the Indian Aryans into Hindustan at least before 1000 B.C. (1Ki_10:22). Aryans appear on the Semitic border as early as the composition of Genesis 10 and 14. The Aryan Medes appear in the Assyrian annals 900 B.C. The Greeks were settled in their laud, and the Italians in theirs, at least as early as 1000 B.C. The latest of the Celtic migrations had reached western Europe before the time of Hecataeus, 500 B.C. The Teutonic migration was much later; they were by the Baltic in the age of Alexander the Great (Pliny 37:11); glesum, the term for amber in that region, is Teutonic. Tentones accompanied the Cimbri in their southern expedition, 113-102 B.C.; Caesar and Tacitus more explicitly mention them.
The Slavonians migrated contemporaneously with the Teutones. They may be traced to the Veneti or Venedae of northern Germany, from whence comes "Wend"; Tacitus (Germ. 46) first mentions them. The languages of the aboriginal races who preceded the Aryans in India were Turanian. The Finns, who have been since Tacitus' time (Germ. 46) E. of the Baltic, originally were spread southward, but were thrust back by the Teutons and Slavonians. The Basque in Spain has a grammatical, though not a verbal, affinity to the Finnish. Thus the Finns in the N. and the Basques in the S. may be remnants of a Turanian migration preceding the Indo European. In Asia there are two great classes of tongues:
(1) the monosyllabic, represented by the Chinese in the E. and the S.E., probably the earliest migration from the common cradle of mankind;
(2) the agglutinative, the Ural Altaian in the N. including the five, Tungusian, Mongolian, Turkish, Samoiedic on the Arctic ocean coast, and Finnish of the Finns and Lapps, the Esthonians, Livonians, and the Hungarian Magyars: in the S. four classes, Tamul in S. Hindustan, Bhotiya of Thibet, the Tai of Siam and Pegu, the Malay originally in the isles, from whence subsequently it passed to the mainland.
The lake Baikal is the center from which seemingly the Turanians passed in various directions. The languages of Oceania are thought to be Malay. The polysynthetic languages of N. America are related to Mongolian; and there is an affinity of tongues between the Americans and the Asiatics on either side of the straits of Corea. Probably the population passed into N. America mainly by the Behring straits. Thus the tendency of science is to discover unity amidst the manifold varieties of mankind. (See R. Ellis' "Numerals as Signs of Primeval Unity among Mankind".)
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

tungz:

1. The Narrative:
According to Gen_11:1-9, at some time not very long after the Flood, ?the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed east? (the ?they? is left vague) that they settled in the land of Shinar (Babylonia). There they undertook to build ?a city, and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven,? using the Bah burned brick and ?slime? as building materials. The motive was to ?make us a name; lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.? This seems to mean that the buildings would give them a reputation for impregnability that would secure them against devastating invasions. ?And Yahweh came down to see.? And He said, ?Nothing will be withholden from them, which they purpose to do. Come, let us go down, and there confound their language.? The persons spoken to are not named (compare Gen_1:26; Gen_3:22), nor is it explained how Yahweh, who in Gen_11:5 was on earth, is now in heaven. ?So Yahweh scattered them abroad from thence,? and the name of the city was ?called Babel (bābhel); because Yahweh did there confound (bālal) the language of all the earth: and from thence did Yahweh scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.?
The purpose of this narrative is the explanation of the diversity of human languages. They originated through an act of Yahweh, in order to destroy the presumptuous designs of the first builders of Babylon.

2. Context:
The section admittedly belongs to J and it has no connection with the matter (mostly P) in Gen 10. For Genesis 10 explains the origin of the nations ?every one after his tongue, after their families? (Gen_10:5, Gen_10:20, Gen_10:31) as due to the orderly migration and gradual spreading of the sons and descendants of Noah, and names Nimrod (Gen_10:10) as the sole founder of Babylon. Nor does Gen_11:1-9 logically continue the J matter in Genesis 9, as too many persons are involved for the time immediately following the Flood. Still, it is quite possible that some J matter was dropped when the J and P sources were united at this point. Another possibility is to see in Gen_11:1-9 the continuation of Gen_4:16-24, which it carries on smoothly, with the same distrust of human culture. The murderer Cain went to the East of Eden (Gen_4:16), and his descendants brought in the knowledge of the various arts (Gen_4:20-22). These descendants journeyed still farther to the East (Gen_11:2), attempted to use their skill in building the tower and were punished by the bālal catastrophe. No account of the Deluge could have followed, for all the diversities of languages would have been wiped away by that event.
This assumption of a special, early source within J probably best explains the facts. It is indicated by the very primitive, naive theology, which is much less developed than that of J as a whole. And the obscure relation of Gen_11:1-9 to the Flood narrative is accounted for, for two narratives were combined here, one of which contained an account of the Deluge, while the other did not.

3. Homogeneity:
By using the repeated ?going down? of Gen_11:5, Gen_11:7 as a clue, the section can be resolved fairly easily into two narratives, e.g. (1) The men build a tower, ?whose top may reach unto heaven,? in order to make a name for themselves as marvelous builders. Yahweh, seeing the work beginning and ?lest nothing be withholden from them,? etc., goes down and confounds their language. (2) The men build a city, as a defensive measure, ?lest we be scattered abroad on the face of the whole earth.? Yahweh goes down to see and scatters them abroad. For other analyses see the commentaries. But they are hardly imperative. For (2) gives no motive for Yahweh's action, while ?city? and ?tower,? ?confusion of tongues? and ?scattering,? are complementary rather than parallel terms. The supposition that a few words describing Yahweh's return to heaven have disappeared somewhere from Gen_11:6 relieves the awkwardness.

4. Historicity:
The ?historicity? of the narrative will be upheld by very few persons of the present day. Human languages began to diverge (if, indeed there ever was such a thing as a primitive language) tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years before the building of Babylon and long before human beings had attained enough skill to erect the most rudimentary structures, let alone such an elaborate affair as the brick-built city and tower of Babel. And what is true of languages as a whole is equally true of the languages spoken in the vicinity of Palestine. If Egyptian Hittite, and the Semitic group have any common point of origin, it lies vastly back of the time and cultural conditions presupposed in Gen_11:1-9. It is needless to enlarge on this, but for the harm done by a persistent clinging to the letter of the narrative, White's History of the Warfare of Science with Theology may be consulted. It belonged to the genius of the Hebrews to seek religious explanations of the things around them. And such an explanation of the origin of languages is the content of Gen_11:1-9.

5. Sources:
This explanation seems, as yet, to be without parallel, for the translation of the fragmentary British Museum Inscription K 3657 is entirely uncertain. Indeed, legends as to how the differences of human speech began seem to be extremely scanty everywhere, as if the question were not one that occupied the minds of primitive people. Comparative folklore still has much work to do as regards this special topic (for a few references see Encyclopedia Brit, 11th edition, article ?Babel? and Gunkel Genesis3 in the place cited.). The other features of the narrative, however, are without great significance. Buildings that were unfinished because the builders offended the gods are fairly abundant, and it is quite possible that the writer of Gen_11:1-9 had some particular Bah structure in mind (see BABEL, TOWER OF). Nor are attempts of men to climb into heaven difficult to conceive, when the sky is thought of (as it nearly always was until comparatively modern times) as a material dome. So Greek Baruch (3:6 f) specifies that they ?built the tower to the height of 463 cubits. And they took a gimlet, and sought to pierce the heaven, saying, Let us see whether the heaven is made of clay, or of brass, or of iron.? Closely parallel to the Babel story is the Greek legend of the giants, who piled Pelion on Ossa in their attempt to storm the dwelling of the gods, and, as a matter of fact, the two accounts seem to be combined in Sib Or 3:97-104.
Whether aided by a tradition about some particular Babylonian tower or not, the localization of the story in Babylonia was inevitable. The Babylonians, above all nations in the world, relied on their wisdom and their skill, and so nowhere but in Babylon would this supreme presumption have been possible. Babylon, the embodiment of pride, at the very beginning of her existence was guilty of an act of pride so overwhelming as to call out God's vengeance. The ?folk-etymology? bābhel-bālal (in Aramaic bābhel-balbēl) may have been suggested by this story or (perhaps more probably) it may have originated separately, perhaps at first as a piece of deliberate irony. Certainly the many languages that could be heard in Babylon were not without significance for the story.

6. Religious Value:
The religious value of the story is dimmed for the modern reader because of the very primitive concepts that it contains. The men are able to build up into heaven. In order to see what they are doing Yahweh is obliged to ?come down.? He is obliged to take action lest His dwelling-place be invaded (compare Gen_3:22). And the ?let us go down? of Gen_11:7, while certainly not polytheistic, is equally certainly a polytheistic ?remnant.? On the other hand, it is to be noted that God's power is never in question and that there is no desperate and uncertain battle as in the Greek legend. Important, also (and often overlooked), is the realization that God's power is just as active in Babylon as it is in Palestine. The primal meaning to the Israelite, however, was this: In Babylon was seen the greatest enemy of the people of God, possessing immeasurable resources. Humanly speaking, there were no limits to this power, and if it had been uncontrolled at the beginning, all the world would have been overwhelmed with the rule of evil. This God had prevented.

Literature.
Driver in HDB; Cheyne (art. ?Babel, Tower of?) in EB; the commentaries. on Gen, especially those of Skinner, Driver, Procksch, and Gunkel.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

The part of the primeval history which relates this fact, so remarkable and influential upon the subsequent fortunes of mankind, is contained in Gen_11:1-10. This narrative, which is given in the style best adapted to the comprehension of mankind in the infantile state of our race, may, we conceive, be resolved into a statement to this effect:?
1. An orderly and peaceful distribution and migration of the families descended from Noah had been directed by divine authority, and carried into general effect. But there was a part of mankind who would not conform themselves to this wise and benevolent arrangement. This rebellious party, having discovered a region to their taste, determined to remain in it. They proceeded to erect a lofty edifice, which was to be a signal house, a rallying point, and probably to erect around it groups of habitations, not mere tents, but houses with brick walls, so that the adventurers had both a city and a tower. This was an act of rebellion against the divine government. The omniscient and righteous God therefore frustrated it, by inflicting upon them a remarkable affection of the organs of speech, which produced discord and separation.
II. The date of this event we cannot satisfactorily place so early as at 100 years after the flood, as it is in the commonly received chronology. Every view that we can take of the previous history inclines us to one of the larger systems, that of the Septuagint, which gives 530 years, or that of Josephus, adopted with a little emendation by Dr. Hales, which gives 600 years; and thus we have at least five centuries for the intervening period.
III. Upon the question, Whether all of mankind were engaged in this act of concerted disobedience, or only a part? we confess ourselves unable to adduce irrefragable evidence on either side, but we think that there is a great preponderance of argument on the part of the latter supposition.
IV. Admitting, however, our inability to determine, with absolute certainty, on which side of this alternative the truth lies, no difference accrues to the subject of this article, What were the phenomena of the case? In what did the Confusion of Tongues actually consist? For the answer a considerable variety of opinions has been promulgated.
But the hypothesis of a change in the pronunciation, leading to diversified results, some of which might be of permanent influence, appears to us to have the most of probability and reason on its side.




The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.


The Biblical account of this is given in the usual anthropomorphic style of Scripture in Gen_11:1-9, and has been the occasion of much discussion and speculation. To inquire into the date of this part of Genesis would lead us into a long discussion it may be sufficient to express an opinion that the indications of 10:12 perhaps (strangely ignored by most writers), and Gen_11:18 certainly, seem to point to an age mulch before that of Moses. See below. We propose under the present head to treat the subject under two aspects, the historical and the linguistic, referring the reader to other and kindred articles for further details on this disputed question.
I. The Event. —The part of the narrative relating to the present subject thus commences: “And the whole earth [or land, אֶרֵוֹ] was of one language [or lip, שָׂפָה] and of one speech [or words, דְּבָרַים].” The journey and the building of the tower are then related and the divine determination to “confound their language that they may not understand one another's speech.” The scattering of the builders and the discontinuance of the building of the city having been narrated, it is added, “Therefore is the name of it called Babel, because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth, and [or for] from: thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth” (Gen_11:1-9).
1. Character of the Infliction. — An orderly and peaceful distribution and migration of the families descended from Noah had been directed by divine authority and carried into general effect. But there was a part of mankind who would not conform themselves to this wise and benevolent arrangement. This rebellious party, having discovered a region to their taste, determined to remain in it. They built their houses in contiguity, and proceeded to the other method described for guarding against any further division of their company. This was an act of rebellion against the divine government. The omniscient and righteous God therefore frustrated it by inflicting upon them a remarkable affection of the organs of speech, which produced discord and separation.
At the same time, we cannot dogmatically affirm that this infliction was absolutely and visibly miraculous. It is an undeniable character of the scriptural idiom, especially in the Old Test., that verbs denoting direct efficiency are used when only mediate action is to be understood, or permission, or declaration. Instances are numerous, e.g.:” God caused me to wander” (Gen_20:13); “I have made-given-sustained” (Gen_27:37); the “hardening of wicked men's hearts” (Exodus 7; - Isaiah 6 :etc.); ‘I will come up into the midst of them” (Exo_33:5). All such declarations are perfectly true. The Infinitely Wise and Holy and Powerful worketh all things according to the counsel: of his own will, as much when his operation is through the instrumentality of rational creatures and the free exercise of their own faculties as when there is a miraculous intervention. Shuckford inclines at least to the opinion that the whole was the result of natural and moral second causes, fulfilling the purposes of the Most High (Connect. of Hist. 1, 133-135). This view, however, does not seem to meet adequately the judicial character of the passage.
Still it is unnecessary to assume that the judgment inflicted on the builders of Babel amounted to a loss, or even a suspension, of articulate speech. The desired object would be equally attained by a miraculous forestallment of those dialectical differences of language which are constantly in process of production, but which, under ordinary circumstances, require time and variations of place and habits to reach such a point of maturity that people are unable to understand one another's speech. The elements ‘of the one original language may have remained, but so disguised by variations of pronunciation, and by the introduction of new combinations, as to be practically obliterated. Each section of the, human family may have spoken a tongue unintelligible to the remainder, and yet containing a substratum which was common to all. Our own experience suffices to show how completely even dialectical differences render strangers unintelligible to one another; and if we further take into consideration the differences of habits and associations, of which dialectical differences are the exponents, we shall have no difficulty in accounting for the result described by the sacred historian.
2. Date of the Incident. —This is not definitely given in the sacred narratives. By many interpreters it is thought that we cannot satisfactorily place it so early as at one hundred years after the Flood, as it is in the commonly received chronology, and hence they are inclined to one of the larger systems-that of the Septuagint, which gives five hundred and thirty years, or that of Josephus, adopted, with a little emendation, by Dr. Hales, which gives six hundred years; and thus we have at least five centuries for the intervening period. Prof Wallace, in his elaborate work, makes ‘it more than eight centuries (Dissertation on the True Age of the World and the Chronology to the Christian Era [1844], p. 29.8). We see no reason to depart from the usual view, countenanced by the position of the incident in the context and the express indication in Gen_11:2 (“as they journeyed from the east” ), that it took place not very long after the Deluge.
3. Extent of the Catastrophe. —Upon the question whether all of mankind were engaged in this act of concerted disobedience, or only a part, we confess ourselves unable to adduce irrefragable evidence on either side, but we think that there is a great preponderance of argument on the part of the latter supposition. The simple phraseology of the text wears an appearance of favoring the former; but the extreme brevity and insulated character of these primeval fragments forbid our arguing from the mere juxtaposition of the first and the second sentence. It is a common idiom in Hebrew that a pronoun, whether separate or suffixed, stands at the introduction of a new subject, even when that subject may be different and remote from the nearest preceding, and requires to be supplied by the intelligence of the reader (see. e.g., Psa_9:13 [12]; Psa_18:15 [14]; Psa_44:3 [2]; Psa_65:10 [9]; Psa_105:37). So far as the grammatical structure is concerned, we may regard the two sentences as mutually independent, and that, therefore, the question is open to considerations of reason and probability. It is difficult to suppose that Noah and Shem, and all others of the descendants of Noah, were confederates in this proceeding. Hence the opinion has been maintained, more or less definitely, by many critics and expositors that it was perpetrated by only a part of mankind, chiefly, if not solely, the posterity of Ham, and upon the instigation and under the guidance of Nimrod, who (Gen_10:10) is declared to have had Babel for the head place of his empire. The latter part of this position is asserted by Josephus, and the whole by Augustine and other ancients. Of modern writers who have maintained this opinion, we may specify Luther, Calvin (by apparent implication), Cornelius Lapide, Bonfrere, Poole (in his English Annotations), Patrick, Wells, Samuel Clarke (the annotator), Henry (by implication); narratives derived from Arabian and Hindu sources, in Charles Taylor's Illustrations of Calmet, frag. 528; and the late Jacob Bryant, who, though too imaginative and sanguine a theorist, and defective in his knowledge of the Oriental tongues, often gives us valuable collections of facts, and sound reasonings from them. A considerable part of his celebrated work, the Analysis of Ancient Mythology, is occupied with tracing the historical vestiges of the builders of Babel, whom, on grounds of high probability at least, he regards as Cuthites (assumed to be a dialectic variety for Cushites), the descendants of Cush, the son of Ham, but with whom were united many dissatisfied and apostate individuals of the branches of Japheth. Dr. Doig, in the article “Philology,” in the Encyclop. Britannica (7th ed. 1842), has entered at some length into this question, and arrives at the following conclusion” From these circumstances, we hope it appears that the whole mass of mankind was not engaged in building the tower of Babel; that the language of all the human race was not confounded upon that occasion, and that the dispersion reached only to a combination of Hamites, and of the most profligate part of the two other families who had joined their wicked confederacy.” Nevertheless, as this was the first occurrence of any dialectical variety, it is properly given by the sacred writer as the initial point of that wide ethnic diversity of tongues which has since gradually spread over the earth.
4. Traces of the Event. —
(1.) Monumental. —The history of the confusion of languages was preserved at Babylon, as we learn by the testimonies of classical and Babbylonian authorities (Abydenus, Fragm. Hist. Graec. [ed. Didot], vol. 4). Only the Chaldaeans themselves did not admit the Hebrew etymology of the name of their metropolis; they derived it from Babel, the door of El (Kronos, or Saturnus), whom Diodorus Siculus states to have been the planet most adored by the Babylonians.
The Talmudists say that the true site of the tower of Babel was at Borsif, the Greek Borsippa, the Birs Nimrfid, seven miles and a half from Hillah, S.W., and nearly eleven miles from the northern ruins of Babylon. Several passages state that the air of Borsippa makes forgetful (אויר משכח, avir mashkach); and one rabbi says that Borsif is Bulsif, the confusion of tongues (Bereshith Rabba, fol. 42, p. 1). The Babylonian name of this locality is Barsip, or Barzipa, which we explain by “Tower of Tongues.” The French expedition to Mesopotamia found at the Birs Nimruid a clay cake, dated from Barsip the 30th day of the 6th month of the 16th year of Nabonid, and the discovery confirmed the hypothesis of several travellers, who had supposed the Birs Nimrtid to contain the remains of Borsippa.
Borsippa (the Tongue Tower) was formerly a suburb of Babylon, when the old'Babel was merely restricted to the northern ruins, before the great extension of the city, which, according to ancient writers, was the greatest that the sun ever warmed with its beams. ‘Nebuchadnezzar included it in the great circumvallation of 480 stades, but left it out of the second wall of 360 stades; and when the exterior wall was destroyed by Darius, Borsippa became independent of Babylon. The historical writers respecting Alexander state that Borsippa had a great sanctuary dedicated to Apollo and Artemis (Strabo, 16:739; Stephanus Byz. s.v. (Βόρσιππα), and the former is the building elevated in modern times on the very basement of the old tower of Babel.
This building, erected by Nebuchadnezzar, is the same that Herodotus describes as the tower of Jupiter Belus. In the Expedition en Messopotamie, 1, 208, there is given a description of this ruin, proving the identity. This tower of Herodotus has nothing to do with the pyramid described by Strabo, which is certainly to be seen in the remains called now Babil (the Mujellibeh of Rich). The temple of Borsippa is written with an ideogram (bit-zi-da), composed of the signs for house and spirit (anima), the real pronunciation of which was probably sarakh, tower. The temple consisted of a large substructure, a stade (six hundred Babylonian feet) in breadth and seventy-five feet in height, over which were built seven other stages of twenty-five feet each. Nebuchadnezzar gives notice of this building in the Borsippa inscription. He named it the temple of the Seven Lights of the Earth, i.e. the planets. The top was the temple of Nebo, and in the substructure (igar) was a temple consecrated to the god Sin, god of the month. This building, mentioned in the East India House inscription (Colossians 4 :l. 61), is spoken of by Herodotus (1, 181, etc.).
Here follows the Borsippa inscription: “Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, shepherd of peoples, who attests the immutable affection of Merodach, the mighty ruler-exalting Nebo; the savior, the wise man who lends his ears to the orders of the highest god; the lieutenant without reproach, the repairer of the Pyramid and the Tower, eldest son of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.
“We say Merodach, the great master, has created me: he has imposed on me to reconstruct his building. Nebo, the guardian over the legions of the heaven and the earth, has charged my hands with the scepter of justice.
“The Pyramid is the temple of the heaven and the earth, the seat of Merodach, the chief of the gods; the place of the oracles, the spot of his rest, I have adorned in the form of a cupola, with shining gold.
“The Tower, the eternal house, which I founded and built; I have completed its magnificence with silver, gold, other metals, stone, enameled bricks, fir, and pine.
“The first, which is the house of the earth's base, the most ancient monument of Babylon, I built and finished it; I have highly exalted its head with bricks covered with copper.
“We say for the other, that is, this edifice, the house of the Seven Lights of the Earth, the most ancient monument of Borsippa: A former king built it (they reckon forty-two ages), but he did not complete its head. Since a remote time people had abandoned it, without order expressing their words. Since that time, the earthquake and the thunder had dispersed its sun-dried clay; the bricks of the casing had been split, and the earth of the interior had been scattered in heaps.'' Merodach, the great lord, excited my mind to repair this building. ‘I did not change the site, nor did I take away the foundation-stone. In a fortunate month, an auspicious day, I undertook to build porticos around the crude brick Inasses, and the casing of burnt bricks. I adapted the circuits. I put the inscription of my name in the Kitir of the porticos.
“I set my hand to finish it, and to exalt its head. As it had been in former times, so I founded, I made it; as it had been in ancient days, so I exalted its summit.
“Nebo, son of himself, ruler who exaltest Merobach, be propitious to my works to maintain my authority. Grant me a life until the remotest time, a sevenfold progeny, the stability of my throne, the victory of my sword, the pacification of foes, the triumph over the lands! In the columns of thy eternal table, that fixes the destinies of the heaven and of the earth, bless the course of my days, inscribe the fecundity of my race.
“Imitate, O Merodach, king of heaven and earth, the father who begot thee; bless my buildings, strengthen my authority. May Nebuchadnezzar, the king-repairer, remain before thy face!”
This allusion to the Tower of the Tongues is the only one that has as yet been discovered in the cuneiform inscriptions (see Expedition en Mesopotamie, 1, 208). The story is a Shemitic and not merely a Hebrew one, and we have no reason whatever to doubt of the existence of the same story at Babylon. The ruins of the building elevated on the spot ‘where the story placed the tower of the dispersion of tongues have therefore a more modern origin, but interest, nevertheless, by their stupendous appearance. SEE BABEL.
(2.) Historical. —The following are the principal passages of ancient authors, resciued from the wreck of time by the quotations of Josephus and Eusebius. It scarcely need be said that we do not adduce these fragments as authorities in any other sense than that they repeat the traditional narratives which had descended from the remotest antiquity among the people to whom they relate. The “Sibyl” cited by-Josephus is the fictitious appellation of some unknown author, probably about the 2nd century B.C. Alexander Cornelius Polyblistor flourished about one hundred years before Christ. Eupolemus was probably an Asiatic Greek, two or three centuries earlier. Abydenus (if he was Palaephatils) lived in the middle of the 4th century B.C. “Concerning this tower, and the discordance of language; among men, the Sibyl also makes mention, saying thus: All men having one language, some of them built a very high tower, as if they proposed by means of it to climb to heaven; but the gods, by sending storms of wind, overthrew the tower, and gave to each person a peculiar language: and on this account the city came to be called Babylon'” (Josephus, Ant. 1, 4, 3).
The Sibyl here quoted may be that very ancient anonymous authority to which we have obscure references (in the discourse of Theophilus to Autolycus) in Plutarch's Morals, in Virgil's Pollio, and 2 the Stromata of Clemens Alexandrinus.
“Alexander Polyhistor a man of the highest celebrity for talents and attainmlents, in the estimation of those Greeks who are the nmost profoundly and accurately learned has the following passage: Eupolems, in his book concerning the Jews of Assyrial, says that the city of Babylon was first) built by those who had been preserved from the Deluge; that they were giants [the Greeks used this word to signify, not so much men of enormous stature as their mythological heroes, of great prowess, and defying the gods]; that they also erected the tower of which history gives account; but that it was overthrown -by the mighty power from God, and consequently the giants were scattered abroad over the whole earth'” (Eusebius, Praepar. Evang . col. 16SS).
“Further, with respect to the narrative of Moses concerning the building of the tower and how, from one tongue, they were confounded so as to be brought into the use of many dialects, the author before mentioned [Abydenus], in his book concerning the Assyrians, gives his confirmation in these words: ‘There are some who say that the first men sprang out of the earth; that they boasted of their strength and size; that they contemptuously maintained themselves ‘to be superior to the gods that they erected a lofty tower where now is Babylon; then, when it had been carried on almost up to heaven, the very winds came to assist the gods, and overthrew the vast structure upon its builders. Its ruins were called Babylon. The men, who before had possessed one tongue, were brought by the gods to a many sounding voice; and afterwards war arose between Kronos [Saturn] and Titan. Moreover, the place in which they built the tower is now called Babylon, on account of the con fusing of the prior clearness with respect to speech; for the Hebrews call confusion Babel'” (Eusebius, Praepar. Evang. 9:14).
Abydenus, the Grecian historian of Assyria, is known to us only by citations in Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Syncellus, but they confirm his respectability as a writer.
On the event under discussion, see. the Latin monographs by Linck (Vitemb. 1656), Zobell (ibid. 1664), Schroeder (Groning. 1752), Kanne (Norimb. 1819), and in English by. Wetton (Lond. 1732); also the literature cited by Darling, Cyclop. Bibliog. col. 179,180.
II. Philological and Ethnological Considerations. The unity of the human race is most clearly implied, if not positively asserted, in the Mosaic writings. The general declaration “So God created man in his own image ... male and female created he them” (Genesis 1, 27) is limited as to the mode in which the act was carried out by the subsequent narrative of the creation of the protoplast Adam, who stood alone on the earth amid the beasts of the field until it pleased Jehovah to create “an help meet for him” out of the very substance of his body (2, 22). From this original pair sprang the whole antediluvian population of the world; and hence the author of the book of Genesis conceived the unity of the human race to be of the most rigid. nature-not simply a generic unity nor, again, simply a specific unity (for unity of species may not be inconsistent with. a plurality of original centers), but a specific based upon a numerical unity, the species being nothing else than the enlargement of the individual. Such appears to be the natural meaning of the first chapters of Genesis when taken by themselves:; much more so when read under the flected light of the New Test.; for not only do we meet with references to the historical fact of such an origin of the human race — e.g. in Paul's declaration that God “hath made of one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Act_17:26)-but the same is evidently implied in the numerous passages which represent Jesus Christ as the counterpart of Adam in regard to the universality of his connection with the human race. Attempts have indeed been made to show that the idea of a plurality of original pairs is not inconsistent with the Mosaic writings; but there is a wide distinction between a view not inconsistent with and a view drawn from, the words of the author the latter is founded upon the facts i.e. relates, as well as his mode of relating them; the former takes advantage of the weaknesses arising out of a concise or unmethodical style of composition. Even if such a view could be sustained in reference to the narrative of the original creation of man, it must inevitably fail in reference to the history of the repopulation of the world in the postcriluvian age; for, whatever objections may be made to the historical accuracy of the history of the Flood it is at all events clear that the historian believed in the universal destruction of the human race, with the exception of Noah and his family, and consequently that the unity of the human race was once more reduced to one of a numerical character. To Noah the historian traces up the whole postdiluvian population of the world: “These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread” (Gen_9:19).
Unity of language is assumed by the sacred historian apparently as a corollary of the unity of, race. No explanation is given of the origin of speech, but its exercise is evidently regarded as coeval with the creation of man. No. support can be obtained in behalf of any theory on, this subject from the first recorded instance of its exercise (“Adam gave names to all cattle”), for the simple reason that this notice is introductory to what follows: “but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him” (Genesis 2, 20). It was not so much the intention of the writer to state the fact of man's power of speech as the fact of the inferiority of all other animals to him, and the consequent necessity for the creation of woman. The proof of that inferiority is, indeed, most appropriately made to consist in the authoritative assignment of names, implying an act of reflection on their several natures and capacities, and a recognition of the offices which they were designed to fill in the economy of the world. The exercise of speech is thus most happily connected with the exercise of reflection, and the relationship between the inner act of the mind (λόγος ἐνδιάθετος) and the outward expression (λόγος προφορικός) is fully recognized. Speech, being thus inherent in man as a reflecting being, was regarded as handed down from father to son by the same process of imitation by which it is still perpetuated. Whatever divergences may have arisen in the antediluvian period, no notice is taken of them, inasmuch as their effects were obliterated by the universal catastrophe of the Flood. The original unity of speech was restored in Noah, and would naturally be retained by his descendants as long as they were held together by social and local bonds.
The confusion of tongues and the dispersion of nations are spoken of in the Bible as contemporaneous events. “So the Lord scattered them abroad” is stated as the execution of the divine counsel “Let us confound their language.” The divergence of the various families into distinct tribes and nations ran parallel with the divergence of speech into-dialects and languages, and thus the tenth chapter of Genesis is posterior in historical sequence to the events recorded in the eleventh chapter. Both passages must be taken into consideration in any disquisition on the early fortunes of the human race. We propose, therefore, to inquire, in the first place, how far modern researches into the phenomena of language favor the idea that- there was once a time when “the whole earth was of one speech and language; and, in the second place, whether the ethnological views exhibited in the Mosaic table accord with the evidence furnished by history and language, both in regard to the special facts recorded in it and in the general scriptural view of a historical, or, more properly, a gentilic unity of the human race. These questions, though independent, yet exercise a reflexive influence on each other's results. Unity of speech does not necessarily involve unity of race, nor yet vice versa; but each enhances the probability of the other, and therefore the arguments derived from language, physiology, and history may ultimately furnish a cumulative amount of probability which will fall but little below demonstration.
(A.) The advocate of the historical unity of language has to encounter two classes of opposing, arguments: one arising out of the differences, the other out of the resemblances, of existing languages. On the one hand, it is urged that the differences are of so decisive and specific a character as to place the possibility of, a common origin wholly out of the question; on the other hand, that the resemblances do not necessitate the theory of a historical unity, but may be satisfactorily accounted for on psychological principles. It will be our object to discuss the amount, the value, and the probable origin of the varieties exhibited by languages, with a view to meet the first-class of objections. But, before proceeding to this, we will make a few remarks on the second class, inasmuch as these, if established, would nullify any conclusion that might be drawn from the other.
A psychological unity is not necessarily opposed to a gentilic unity. It is perfectly open to any theorist to combine the two by assuming that the language of the one protoplast was founded on strictly psychological principles. But, on the other hand, a. psychological unity does not necessitate a gentilic unity. It permits of the theory of a plurality of protoplasts, who, under the influence of the same psychological laws, arrived at similar independent results. Whether the phenomena of language are consistent with such a theory, we think extremely doubtful; certainly they cannot furnish the basis of it. The whole question of the origin of language lies beyond the pale of historical proof, and any theory connected with it admits neither of being proved nor disproved. We know, as a matter of fact, that language is communicated from one generation to another solely by force of imitation, and that there is no play whatever for the inventive faculty in reference to it. But in what manner the substance of language was originally produced we do not know. No argument can be derived against the common origin from analogies drawn from the animal world; and when Prof. Agassiz compares similarities of language with those of the cries of animals (Voan Bohlen, Introd. to Genesis 2, 278), he leaves out of consideration the important fact that language is not identical with sound, and that the words of a rational being, however originally produced, are perpetuated in a manner wholly distinct from that whereby animals learn to utter their cries. Nor does the internal evidence of language itself reveal the mystery of its origin; for, though a very large number of words may be referred either directly or mediately to the principle of onomatopoeia, there are others as, for instance, the first and second personal pronouns which do not admit of such an explanation. In short, this and other similar theories cannot be reconciled with the intimate connection evidently existing between reason and speech, which is so well expressed in the Greek language by the application of the term λόγος to each, reason being nothing else than inward speech, and speech nothing else than outward reason, neither of them possessing an independent existence without the other. As we conceive that the psychological as opposed to the gentilic unity involves questions connected with the origin of language, we can only say that in this respect it falls outside the range of our inquiry.
Reverting to the other class of objections, we proceed to review the extent of the differences observable in the languages of the world in order to ascertain whether they are such as to preclude the possibility of a common origin. Such a review must necessarily be imperfect, both from the magnitude of the subject and also from the position of the linguistic science itself, which as yet has hardly advanced beyond the stage of infancy. On the latter point we would observe that the most important links between the ‘various language families may yet be discovered in languages that are either unexplored or, at all events, unplaced. Meanwhile, no one can doubt that the tendency of all linguistic research is in the direction of unity. Already it has brought within the bonds of a well-established relationship languages so remote from each other in external guise, in age, and in geographical position as Sanskrit and English, Celtic and Greek. It has done the same for other groups of languages equally widely extended, but presenting less opportunities of investigation. It has recognized affinities between languages which the ancient Greek ethnologist would have classed under the head of “barbarian” in reference to each other, and even in many instances where the modern philologist has anticipated no relationship. The lines of discovery, therefore, point in one direction, and favor the expectation that the various; families may be combined by the discovery of connecting links into a single family, comprehending in its capacious bosom all the languages of-the world. But should such a result never be attained, the probability of a common origin would still remain unshaken; for the failure would probably be due to the absence, in many classes and families, of that chain of historical evidence which in the case of the Indo- European and Shemitic families enables us to trace their progress for above three thousand years. In many languages no literature at all, in many others no ancient literature, exists to supply the philologist with materials for comparative study: in these cases it can only be by laborious research into existing dialects that the original forms of words can be detected amid the incrustations and transmutations with which time has obscured them.
In dealing with the phenomena of language, we should duly consider the plastic nature of the material out of which it is formed, and the numerous influences to which it is subject. Variety in unity is a general law of nature, to which even the most stubborn physical substances yield a ready obedience. In the case of language it would be difficult to set any bounds to the variety which we might a priori expect it to assume. For, in the first place, it is brought into close contact with the spirit of man, and reflects with amazing fidelity its endless variations, adapting itself to the expression of each feeling, the designation of each object, the working of each cast of thought or stage of reasoning power. Secondly, its sounds are subject to external influences, such as peculiarities of the organ of speech, the result either of natural conformation, of geographical position, or of habits of life and associations of an accidental character. In the third place, it is generally affected by the state of intellectual and social culture of a people, as manifested more especially in the presence or absence of a standard literary dialect, and in the processes of verbal and syntactical structure, which again react on the very core of the word and produce a variety of sound mutations. Lastly, it is subjected to the wear and tear of time and use, obliterating, as in an old coin, the original impress of the word, reducing it in bulk, producing new combinations, and occasionally leading to singular interchanges of sound and idea. The varieties resulting from the modifying influences above enumerated may be reduced to two classes, according as they affect the formal or the radical elements of language.
(I.) Widely as languages now differ from each other in external form, the raw material (if we may use the expression) out of which they have sprung appears to have been in all cases the same. A substratum of significant monosyllabic roots underlies the whole structure, supplying the materials necessary, not only for ordinary predication, but also for what is usually termed the “growth” of language out of its primary into its more complicated forms. It is necessary to point this out clearly in order that we may not be led to suppose that the elements of one language are in themselves endued with any greater vitality than those of another. Such a distinction, if it existed, would go far to prove a specific difference between languages, which could hardly be reconciled with the idea of their common origin. The appearance of vitality arises out of the manipulation of the roots by the human mind, and is not inherent in the roots themselves.
1. The proofs of this original equality are furnished by the languages themselves. Adopting for the present the threefold morphological classification into isolating, agglutinative, and inflecting languages, we shall find that no original element exists in the one, which does not also exist in the other. With regard to the isolating class, the terms “monosyllabic” and “radical,” by which it is otherwise described, are decisive as to its character. Languages of this class are wholly unsusceptible of grammatical mutations; there is no formal distinction between verb and noun, substantive and adjective, preposition and conjunction; there are no inflections, no case or person terminations of any kind; the bare root forms the sole and whole substance of the language. In regard to the other two classes, it is necessary to establish the two distinct points (l).that the formal elements represent roots, and (2) that the roots both of the formal and the radical elements of the word are monosyllabic. Now it may be satisfactorily proved by analysis that all the component parts of both inflecting and agglutinative languages are reducible to two kinds of roots, predicable and pronominal-the former supplying the material element of verbs, substantives, and adjectives; the latter that of conjunctions, prepositions, and particles; while each kind, but more particularly the pronominal, supplies the formal element, or, in other words, the terminations of verbs, substantives, and adjectives. Whether the two classes of roots, predicable and pronominal, are further reducible to one class is a point that has been discussed, but has not as yet been established (Bopp, Compar. Gram. § 105; Müller, Lectures, p. 269). We have further to show that the roots of agglutinative and inflecting languages are monosyllabic. This is an acknowledged characteristic of the Indo-European family; monosyllabism is, indeed, the only feature which its roots have in common; in other respects they exhibit every kind of variation, from a unilateral root, such as i (ire), up to combinations of five letters, such as scand (scandere), the total number of admissible forms of root amounting to no less than eight (Schleicher, § 206). In-the Shemitic family monosyllabism is not a prima facie characteristic of the root; on the contrary, the verbal stems exhibit bisymbalism with such remarkable uniformity that it would lead to the impression that the roots also must have been bisyllabic. The bisymbolism, however, of the Shemitic stem is in reality triconsonantalism, the vowels not forming any part of the essence of the root, but being wholly subordinate to the consonants. It. is at once apparent that a triconsonantal and even a quadriconsonantal root may be in certain combinations unisyllabic. But, further, it is more than probable that the triconsonantal has been evolved out of a biconsonantal root, which must necessarily be unisyllabic if the consonants stand. as they invariably do in Shemitic roots, at the beginning and end of the word. With regard to the agglutinative class, it may be assumed that the same law which we have seen to prevail in the isolating and inflecting classes prevails also in this holding as it does an intermediate place between those opposite poles in the world of language.
2. From the consideration of the crude materials of language, we pass on to the varieties exhibited in its structure, with a view to ascertain whether in these there exists any bar to the idea of an original unity.
(1.) Reverting to the classification already noticed, we have to observe, in the first place, that the principle on which it is based is the nature of the connection existing between the predicable and the relational or inflectional elements of a word. In the isolating class these two are kept wholly distinct; relational ideas are expressed by juxtaposition or by syntactical arrangement, and not by any combination of the roots. In the aggluti, native class the relational elements are attached to the principal or predicable theme by a mechanical kind of junction, the individuality of each being preserved even in the combined state. In the inflecting class the junction is of a more perfect character, and may be compared to a chemical combination, the predicable and relational elements being so fused together as to present the appearance of a single and indivisible word. It is clear that there exists no insuperable barrier to original unity in these differences, from the simple fact that every inflecting language must once have been agglutinative, and every agglutinative language once isolating. If the predicable and relational elements of an isolating language be linked together, either to the eve or the ear, it is rendered agglutinative; if the material and formal parts are pronounced as one word, eliminating, if necessary, the sounds that resist incorporation, the language becomes inflecting.
(2.) In the second place, it should be noted that these three classes are not separated from each other by any sharp line of demarcation. Not only does each possess, in a measure, the quality predominant in each other, but, moreover, each graduates into its neighbor through its bordering members. The isolating languages are not wholly isolating: they avail themselves of certain words as relational particles, though these still retain elsewhere their independent character; they also use composite, though not strictly compound, words. The agglutinative are not wholly agglutinative; the Finnish and Turkish classes of the Ural-Altaian family are in certain instances inflectional, the relational adjunct being fully incorporated with the predicable stem, and having undergone a large amount of attrition for that purpose. Nor, again, are the inflectional languages wholly inflectional; Hebrew, for instance, abounds with agglutinative forms, and also avails itself largely of separate particles for the expression of relational ideas; our own language, though classed as inflectional, retains nothing more than the vestiges of inflection, and is in many respects as isolating and juxtapositional as any language of that class. While, therefore the classification holds good with regard to the predominant characters of the classes, it does not imply differences of a specific nature.
(3.) But, further, the morphological varieties of language are not confined to the exhibition of the single principle hitherto described. A comparison between the westerly branches of the Ural-Altaian, on the one hand, and the Indo-European, on the other, belonging respectively to the agglutinative and inflectional classes, will show that the quantitative amount of synthesis is fully as prominent a point of contrast as the qualitative. The combination of primary and subordinate terms may be more perfect in the Indo-European, but it is more extensively employed in the Ural-Altaian family. The former, for instance, appends to its verbal stems the notions of time, number, person, and occasionally of interrogation; the latter further adds suffixes indicative of negation, hypothesis, causativeness, reflexiveness, and other similar ideas, whereby the word is built up tier on tier to a marvelous extent. The former appends to its substantial stems suffixes of case and number; the latter adds governing particles, rendering them post-positional instead of prepositional, and combining them synthetically with the predicable stem. If, again, we compare the Shemitic with the Indo-European languages, we shall find a morphological distinction of an equally diverse character. In the former the grammatical category is expressed by internal vowel-changes, in the latter by external suffixes. So marked a distinction has not unnaturally been constituted the basis of a classification, wherein the languages that adopt this system of internal flection stand by themselves as a separate class, in contradistinction to those which either use terminational additions for the same purpose, or which dispense wholly with inflectional forms (Bopp, Compar. Gram. 1, 102). The singular use of preformatives in the Coptic language is, again, a morphological peculiarity of a very decided character. Even within the same family, say the Indo-European, each language exhibits an idiosyncrasy in its morphological character whereby it stands out apart from the other members with a decided impress of individuality The inference to be drawn from the number and character of the differences we have noticed is favorable, rather than otherwise, to the theory of an original unity. Starting from the same common ground of monosyllabic roots, each language-family has carried out its own special line of development, following an original impulse, the causes and nature. of which must remain probably forever a matter of conjecture. We can perceive, indeed, in a general way, the adaptation of certain forms of speech to certain states of society. The agglutinative languages, for instance, seem to be specially adapted to the nomadic state by the prominence and distinctness with which they enunciate the leading idea in each word, an arrangement whereby communication would be facilitated between tribes or families that associate only at intervals. We might almost imagine that these languages derived their impress of uniformity and solidity from the monotonous steppes of Central Asia, which have in all ages formed their proper habitat. So, again, the inflectional class reflects cultivated thought and social ‘organization, and its languages have hence been termed “state or political.” Monosyllabism, on the other hand, is pronounced to be suited to the most primitive stage of thought and society, wherein the family or the individual is the standard by which things are regulated (Miller, Philos. of list. 1, 285). We should hesitate, however, to press this theory as furnishing an adequate explanation of the differences observable in language families. The Indo-European languages attained their high organization amid the same scenes and in the same nomad state as those wherein the agglutinative languages were nurtured, and we should rather be disposed to regard both the language and the higher social status of the former as the concurrent results of a higher mental organization.
3. If from words we pass onto the varieties of syntactical arrangement, the same degree of analogy will be found to exist between class and class, or between family and family in the same class; in other words, no peculiarity exists in one which does not admit of explanation by a comparison with others. The absence of all grammatical forms in an isolating language necessitates a rigid collocation of the words in a sentence according to logical principles. The same law prevails to a very great extent in our own language, wherein the subject, verb, and object, or the subject, copula, and predicate, generally hold their relative positions in the order exhibited, the exceptions to such an arrangement being easily brought into harmony with that general law. In the agglutinative languages the law of arrangement is that the principal word should come last in the sentence, every qualifying clause or word preceding it, and being, as it were, sustained by it. The syntactical is thus the reverse of the verbal structure, the principal notion taking the precedence in the latter (Ewald, Sprachw. Abhandl. 2, 29). There is in this nothing peculiar to this class of languages, beyond the greater uniformity with which the arrangement is adhered to; it is the general rule in the classical, and the occasional rule in certain of the Teutonic, languages. In the Shemitic family the reverse arrangement prevails; the qualifying adjectives follow the noun to which they belong, and the verb generally stands first; short sentences are necessitated by such a collocation, and hence more room is allowed for the influence of emphasis in deciding the order of the sentence. In illustration of grammatical peculiarities, we may notice that in the agglutinative class adjectives qualifying substantives, or substantives placed in apposition with substantives, remain undeclined; in this case the process may be compared with the formation of compound words in the Indo-European languages, where the final member alone is inflected. So, again, the omission of a plural termination in nouns following a numeral may “be paralleled with a similar usage in our own language, where the terms “pound” and “head” are used collectively after a numeral. We may again cite the peculiar manner of expressing the genitive in Hebrew. This is effected by one of the two following methods — placing the governing noun in the status constructus, or using the relative pronoun with a preposition before the governed case. The first of these processes appears a strange inversion of the laws of language; but an examination into the origin of the adjuncts, whether prefixes or affixes, used in other languages for the indication of the genitive will show that they have a more intimate connection with the governing than with the governed word, and that they are generally resolvable into either relative or personal pronouns, which serve the simple purpose of connecting the two words together (Garnett, Essays, p. 214- 227). The same end may be gained by connecting the words in pronunciation, which would lead to a rapid utterance of the first, and consequently to the changes which are witnessed in the status constructus. The second or periphrastic process is in accordance with the general method of expressing the genitive; for the expression “the Song which is to Solomon” strictly answers to “Solomon's Song,” the s representing (according to Bopp's explanation) a combination of the demonstrative sa and the relative ya. It is thus that the varieties of construction may be shown to be consistent with unity of law, and that they therefore furnish no argument against a common origin.
4. Lastly, it may be shown that the varieties of language do not arise from any constitutional inequality of vital energy. Nothing is more remarkable than the compensating power apparently inherent in all language, whereby it finds the means of reaching the level of the human spirit through a faithful adherence to its own guiding principle. The isolating languages, being shut out from the manifold advantages of verbal composition, attain their object by multiplied combinations of radical sounds, assisted by an elaborate system of accentuation and intonation. In this manner the Chinese language has framed a vocabulary fully equal to the demands made upon it; and though this mode of development may not commend itself to our notions as the most effective that can be devised yet it plainly evinces a high susceptibility on the part of the linguistic faculty, and a keen perception of the correspondence between sound and sense. Nor does the absence of inflection interfere with the expression even of the most delicate shades of meaning in a sentence; a compensating resource is found partly in a multiplicity of subsidiary terms expressive of plurality, motion, action, etc., and partly in strict attention to syntactical arrangement. The agglutinative languages, again, are deficient in compound words, and in this respect lack the elasticity and expansiveness of the Indo-European family; but they are eminently synthetic, and no one can fail to admire the regularity and solidity with which its words are built up, suffix on suffix, and. when built up, are suffused with a uniformity of tint by the law of vowel harmony. The Shemitic languages have worked out a different principle of growth, evolved, not improbably, in the midst of a conflict between the systems of prefix and suffix, whereby the stem, being, as it were, enclosed at both extremities, was precluded from all external increment, and was forced back into such changes as could be effected by a modification of its vowel sounds. But whatever may be the origin of the system of internal inflection, it must be conceded that the results are very effective, as regards both economy of material and simplicity and dignity of style.
The result of the foregoing observations is to show that the formal varieties of language present no obstacle to the theory of a common origin. Amid these varieties there may be discerned manifest tokens of unity in the original material out of which language was formed, in the stages of formation through which it has passed, in the general principle of grammatical expression, and, lastly, in the spirit and power displayed in the development of these various formations. Such a: result, though it does not prove the unity of language in respect to its radical elements, nevertheless tends to establish the a priori probability of this unity; for if all connected with the forms of language may be referred to certain general laws, if nothing in that department owes its origin to chance or arbitrary appointment, it surely favors the presumption that the same principle would extend to the formation of the roots, which are the very core and kernel of language. Here, too, we might expect to find the operation of fixed laws of some kind or other, producing results of a uniform character; here, too, actual variety may not be inconsistent with original unity.
(II.) Before entering on the subject of the radical identity of languages, we must express our conviction that the time has not yet arrived for a decisive opinion as to the possibility of establishing it by proof. Let us briefly review the difficulties that beset the question. Every word as it appears in an organic language, whether written or spoken, is resolvable into two distinct elements, which we have termed predicable and formal, the first being what is commonly called the root, the second the grammatical termination. In point of fact, both of these elements consist of independent roots; and in order to prove the radical identity of two languages, it must be shown that they agree in both respects, that is, in regard both to the predicable and the formal roots. As a matter of experience, it is found that the formal elements (consisting, for the most part, of pronominal bases) exhibit a greater tenacity of life than the others; and hence agreement of inflectional forms is justly regarded as furnishing a strong presumption of general radical identity. Even foreign elements are forced into the formal mould of the language into which they are adopted, and thus bear testimony to the original character of that language. But though such a formal agreement supplies the philologist with a most valuable instrument of investigation, it cannot be accepted as a substitute for complete radical agreement: this would still remain to be proved by an independent examination of the predicable elements.
The difficulties connected with these latter are many and varied. Assuming that two languages or language-families are under comparison, the phonological laws of each must be investigated in order to arrive, in the first place, at the primary forms of words in the language in which they occur, and, in the second place, at the corresponding forms in the language which constitutes the other member of comparison, as has been done by Grimm for the Teutonic as compared with the Sanskrit and the classical languages. The genealogy of sound, as we may term it, must be followed up by a genealogy of signification, a mere outward accordance of sound and sense in two terms being of no value whatever, unless a radical affinity be proved by an independent examination of the cognate words in each case. It still remains to be inquired how far the ultimate accordance of sense and sound may be the result of onomatopoeia, of mere borrowing, or of a possible mixture of languages on equal terms. The final stage in etymological inquiry is to decide the limit to which comparison may be carried in the primitive strata of language-in other words, how far roots, as ascertained-from groups of words, may be compared with roots, and reduced to yet simpler elementary forms. Any flaw in the processes above described will, of course, invalidate the whole result. Even where the philologist is provided with ample materials for inquiry in stores of literature ranging over long periods of time, much difficulty is experienced in making good each link in the chain of agreement; and yet in such cases the dialectic varieties have been kept within some degree of restraint by the existence of a literary language, which, by impressing its authoritative stamp on certain terms, has secured both their general use and their external integrity. Where no literature exists, as is the case with the general mass of languages in the world, the difficulties are infinitely increased by the combined effects of a prolific growth of dialectic forms, and an absence of all means of tracing out their progress. Whether, under these circumstances, we may reasonably expect to establish a radical unity of language is a question, which each person must decide for himself. Much may yet be done by a larger induction and a scientific analysis of languages that are yet comparatively unknown. The tendency hitherto has been to enlarge the limits of a “family” according as the elements of affinity have been recognized in outlying members. These limits may perchance be still more enlarged by the discovery of connecting-links between the language- families, whereby the criteria of relationship will be modified, and new elements of internal unity be discovered amid the manifold appearances of external diversity.
Meanwhile we must content ourselves with stating the present position of the linguistic science in reference to this important topic. In the first place, the Indo-European languages have been reduced to an acknowledged and well-defined relationship: they form one of the two families included under the head of “inflectional” in the morphological classification. The other family in this class is the (so-called) Shemitic, the limits of which are not equally well defined, inasmuch as it may be extended over what are termed the sub-Shemitic languages, including the Egyptian or Coptic. The criteria: of the proper Shemitic family (i.e. the Aramsean, Hebrew, Arabic, and Ethiopic languages) are distinctive enough; but the connection between the Shemitic and the Egyptian is not definitely established. Some philologists are inclined to claim for the latter an independent position, intermediate between the Indo-European and Shemitic families (Bunsen, Philippians of- Hist. 1, 185 sq.). The agglutinative languages of Europe and Asia are combined by Prof. M. Muller in one family named “Turanian.” It is conceded that the family bond in this case is a loose one, and that the agreement in roots is very partial (Lectures, p. 290-292). Many philologists of high standing, and more particularly Pott (Ungleich. d. mensch. Rassen, p. 232), deny the family relationship altogether, and break up the agglutinative languages into a great number of families. Certain it is that within the Turanian circle there are languages such, for instance, as the Ural-Altaian which show so close an affinity to one another as to be entitled to form a separate division, either as a family, or a subdivision of a family; and, this being the case, we should hesitate to put them on a parity of footing with the remainder of the Turanian languages. The Caucasian group, again, differs so widely from the other members of the family as to make the relationship very dubious. The monosyllabic languages of South- eastern Asia are not included in the Turanian family by Prof M. Muller (Lectures, p. 290, 326), apparently on the ground that they are not agglutinative; -but as the Chinese appears to be connected radically with the Burmese. (Humboldt, Verschied. p. 368), with the Thibetan (Philippians of Hist. 1, 393-395), and with the Ural-Altaian languages (Schott, in Abh. Ab. Berl. 1861, p. 172), it seems to have a good title to be placed in the Turanian family. With regard to the American and the bulk of the African languages, we are unable to say whether they can be brought under any of the heads already mentioned, or whether they stand by themselves as distinct families. The former are referred by writers of high eminence to an Asiatic or Turanian origin (Bunsen, Philippians of Hist. 2, 111; Latham, Man and his Migrat. p. 186); the latter to the Shemitic family (Latham, p. 148).
The problem that awaits solution is whether the several families above specified can be reduced to a single family by demonstrating their radical identity. It would be unreasonable to expect that this identity should be coextensive with the vocabularies of the various languages; it would naturally be confined to such ideas and objects as are common to mankind generally. Even within this circle the difficulty of proving the identity may be infinitely enhanced by the absence of materials. There are, indeed, but two families in which these materials are found in anything like sufficiency, viz. the Indo-European and the Shemitic, and even these furnish us with no historical evidence as to the earlier stages of their growth. We find each, at the most remote literary period, already exhibiting its distinctive character of stem and word-formation, leaving us to infer, as we best may, from these phenomena the processes, by which they had reached that point. Hence there arises abundance of room for difference of opinion, and the extent of the radical identity will depend very much on the view adopted as to these earlier processes. If we could accept in its entirety the system of etymology propounded by the analytical school of Hebrew scholars, it would not be difficult to establish a very large amount of radical identity; but we cannot regard as established the prepositional force of the initial letters, as stated by Delitzsch in his Jeshurun (p. 166,173, note), still less the correspondence between these and the initial letters of Greek and Latin words (p. 170-172). The striking uniformity of bisyllabism in the verbal stems is explicable only on the assumption that a single principle underlies the whole; and the existence of groups of words differing slightly in form, and having the same radical sense, leads to the presumption that this principle was one not of composition, but of euphonisri and practical convenience. This presumption is still further favored by an analysis of the letters forming the stems, showing that the third-letter is in many instances a reduplication, and in others a liquid, a nasal, or a sibilant, introduced either as the initial, the medial, or the final letter. The Hebrew alphabet admits of a classification based on the radical character of the letter according to its position in the stem. The effect of composition would have been to produce, in the first place, a greater inequality in the length of the words, and, in the second place, a greater equality in the use of the various organic sounds.
Many supposed instances of etymological correspondence have been falsely based on the analytical tenets; but there still exists a considerable amount of radical identity, which appears to be above suspicion. Under SEE PHILOLOGY, SEE COMPARATIVE, we have given a list of terms in which that identity is manifested. After deducting whatever may be due to fanciful or accidental agreement, there still remain many instances which cannot possibly be explained on the principle of onomatopoeia and which would therefore seem to be the common inheritance of the Indo-European and Shemitic families. Whether this agreement is, as Renan suggests, the result of a keen susceptibility of the onomatopoetic faculty in the original framers of the words (Hist. Genesis 1, 465) is a point that can neither be proved nor disproved. But even if it were so, it does not follow that the words. were not framed before the separation of the families. Our list of comparative words might have been much enlarged if we had included comparisons based on the reduction of Shemitic roots to a bisyllabic form. A list of such words may be found in Delitzsch, Jeshurun, p. 177-180. In regard to pronouns and numerals, the identity is but partial. We may detect the t sound, which forms the distinctive sound of the second personal pronoun in the Indo-European languages, in the Hebrew attah, and in the personal terminations of the perfect tense; but the m7, which is the prevailing -sound of the first personal pronoun in the former, is supplanted by an n in the latter. The numerals shesh and sheba, for “six” and ‘“seven,” accord with the Indo-European forms: those representing the numbers from “one” to “five” are possibly, though not evidently, identical. With regard to the other language families, it will not be expected, after the observations already made, that we should attempt the proof of their radical identity. The Ural-Altaian languages have been extensively studied, but are hardly ripe for comparison. Occasional resemblances have been detected in grammatical forms and in the vocabularies; but the value of these remains to be proved, and we must await the results of a more extended research into this and other regions of the world of language.
(B.) We pass on to the second, point proposed for consideration, viz. the ethnological views expressed in the Bible, and more particularly in ch. 10 of Genesis, which records the dispersion of nations consequent on the confusion of tongues.
(I.) The Mosaic table does not profess to describe the process of the dispersion; but, assuming that dispersion as a fait accompli, it records the ethnic relations existing between the various nations affected by it. These relations, are expressed under the guise of a genealogy; the ethnological character of the document is, however, clear both from the names, some of which are gentilic in form, as Ludim, Jebusite, etc., others geographical or local, as Mizraim, Sidon, etc., and, again, from the formulary which concludes each section of the subject, “after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations” (ver. 5, 20, 31). Incidentally, the table is geographical as well as ethnological; but this arises out of the practice of designating nations by the countries they occupy. It has, indeed, been frequently surmised that the arrangement of the table is purely geographical, and this idea is, to a certain extent, favored by the possibility of explaining the names Shem, Ham, and Japheth on this principle, the first signifying the “high” lands, the second the “hot” or “low” lands, and the third the “broad,” undefined regions of the north. The three families may have been so located, and such a circumstance could not have been unknown to the writer of the table. But neither internal: nor external evidence satisfactorily proves such to have been the leading idea or principle embodied in it, for the Japhethites are mainly assigned to the “isles” or maritime districts of the west and north-west, while the Shemites press down into the plain of Mesopotamia, and the Hamites, on the other hand, occupy the high lands of Canaan and Lebanon. We hold, therefore, the geographical as subordinate to the ethnographical element, and avail ourselves of the former only as an instrument for the discovery of the latter.
The general arrangement of the table is as follows: The whole human race is referred back to Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The Shemites are described last, apparently that the continuity of the narrative m
CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores