I. The Event. — The part of the narrative relating to the present subject thus commences: "And the whole earth [or land, '/"1X] was of one language [or lij), nsS] and of one speech [ or ?i'o?YZA', C^TSl]." The journey and the building of the tower are then related, and the divine determination to "confound their lan- guage that they may not understand one another's speech." The scattering of the builders and the dis- continuance of the building of the city having been nar- rated, it is added, "Therefore is the name of it called Babel, because the Lord did there confound the lan- guage of all the earth, and [or/or] from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth" (Gen. xi, 1-9).
1. Character of the Infliction. — An orderly and peace- ful 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, deter- mined to remain in it. They built their houses in con- tiguity, and proceeded to the other method described for guarding against any further division of their com- pany. This was an act of rebellion against the divine government. The omniscient and righteous (iod there- fore frustrated it bj' inflicting upon them a remarkable affection of the organs of speech, which produced dis- cord 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, espe- cially in the Old Test., that verbs denoting direct effi- ciency are used when only mediate action is to be under- stood, or permission, or declaration. Instances are nu- merous, e. g. " God caused me to wander" ((4en. xx, 13) ; "I have made — given — sustained" (xxvii. 37); the " hardening of wicked men's hearts" ( Exod. vii ; Isa. vi, etc.) ; '■ I will come up into the midst of them" (Exod, xxxiii, 5). All such declarations are perfectly true. The Infinitely Wise and Holy and Powerful work- eth all things according to the counsel of his own will, as much when his operation is through the instrumenT tality of rational creatures and the free exercise of their own faculties as when there is a miraculous interven- tion. Shuckford inclines at least to the opinion that the whole was the result of natural and moral second causes, fulfilling the purposes of tiie Most High {Connect, of Hist, i, 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 fore- stalment of those dialectical differences of language which are constantlj' 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 an- other's speech. The elements of the one original lan- guage may have remained, but so disguised by varia- tions of pronunciation, and by the introduction of new
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 464 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
Combinations, as to be practically obliterated. Each section of the liunian family may have spoken a tongue unintelligible to tiie remainder, and yet containing a Substratum which was common to all. Our own expe- rience sulHces to show how completely even dialectical ditferences render strangers unintelligible to one an- other; and if we further take into consideration the dif- ferences of habits and associations, of which dialectical differences are the exponents, we shall have no difficul- tv in accounting for the result described by the sacred historian.
2. D(tte 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 Hood, as it is in the commonly received chronology, and hence they are in- clined to one of the larger systems — that of the Septua- gint, which gives rive hinutred and thirty years, or that of Josepbus, adoi)ted, with a little emendation, by Dr. Hales, which gives six hunttred years; and thus we have at least rive centuries for the intervening period. I'rof. Wallace, in his elaborate work, makes it more than eight centuries {Dis'tertntion on the True Age of the World and the Chronology to the Christian .Era [1814], p. 298). We see no reason to depart from the usual view, countenanced by the position of the inci- dent in the context and the express indication in Gen. xi, 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 our- selves 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 brevitj' and in- sulated 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 sub- ject may be different and remote from the nearest pre- ceding, and re(inires to be supplied by the intelligence of the reader (see, e. g., I'sa. ix, 13 [12] ; xviii, 15 [14] ; xliv, 3 [2] ; Ixv, 10 [9] ; cv, 37). So far as the gram- matical 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 coufv^^derates in tliis proceeding. Hence the opinion lias 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 ((ien. x, 10) is declared to have had liabel for the heail place of his empire. The latter part of this pcisition is asserted by .losephus, and the whole by Augustine and other ancients. Of modern writers who have maintained this opinion, we may specify Lu- ther, Calvin (by apparent implication), Cornelius a La- pide, Bonfrere, Poole (in his English Annotations), Pat- rick, Wells, Samuel Clarke (the annotator), Henry (by implication) ; narratives derived from Arabian and Hin- di! 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 bis celebrated work, the Analysis of A 7icient Mi/lholngg.h occupied with tracing the historical vestiges of the builders of Babel, whom, on grounds of higli probability at least, he regards as Cuthites (assumed to be a dialectic variety for Cush- ites), the descendants of Cush, the son of Ham, but with whom were united many dissatisfied and apostate