Abydenus, the Grecian historian of Assj'ria, is known to us only by citations in Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Syncellus, but they contirm his respectability as a writer.
On the event under discussion, see the Latin mono- graphs by Linck (Vitemb. 165G), Zobell (ibid. 1664), .Schroeder (Groning. 1752), Kanne (Norimb. 1819), and in, English by Wetton (Lond. 1732) ; also the literature cited by Darling, Cyclop. Bihliog. col. 179, 180.
II. Philological and Ethnolofjical Considei-atinns, — The unity of the human race is most clearly implied, if not positively asserted, in tlie Mosaic writings. The general declaration •' So God created man in his own image, . . . male and female created he them" (Gen. i, 27) is limited as to the mode in which the act was car- ried out by the subsequent narrative of the creation of the protoplast Adam, who stood alone on the earth amid the beasts of the Held until it pleased Jehovah to create "an help meet for him" out of the ver\' sub- stance of his bod}' (ii, 22). From this original pair sprang the whole antediluvian popidation 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 incon- sistent with a plurality of original centres), but a spe- cific based upon a numerical unity, the species being nothing else than the enlargement of tiie 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 reflected 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 inen to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts xvii, 26) — but the same is evidently implied in the numerous passages which represent Je- sus 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 jMosaic writings; but there is a wide distinc- tion between a view not inconsistent with, and a view drawn from, the words of the author: the latter is founded upon the facts he 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
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 4C6 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
sustained in reference to the narrative of the original creation of man, it must inevitably fail in reference to the history of the repopiilation nf I lie world in the post- diluvian age; for, whatever ol>J('otions 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 ex- ception of Noah and his family, and consequently that the unity of tlie human race was once more reduced to one of a numerical character. To Noah the historian traces up the whole postdiluvian ]iopulation of the world : '• Tliesc are the three sons of Noah : and of them was the whole earth overspread" (Gen. ix. 19).
Unity of language is assumed by the sacred histori- an apparently as a corollary of the unity of race. No explanation is given of the origin of speech, but its ex- ercise is evidently regarded as coeval with the creation of man. No support can be obtained in behalf of an\' 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 lielp meet for him" (Gen. ii, 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 oth- er animals to him, and the conse(iiient necessity for the creation of woman. The proof of that inferiority is, indeed, most appropriately made to consist in the au- thoritative 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 (ill in the economy of the world. The exercise of speech is thus most happily connected with the exer- cise of reflection, and the relationship between the in- ner act of the mind (\oyoc ivoid^troc;) and the out- ward expression (Xtiyoc TTfjocpopiKo^) is fully recognised. Speech, being thus inherent in man as a reflecting be- ing, 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 uni- versal catastrophe of the Flood. The original unity of speech w-as restored in Noah, and would naturally be retained by his descendants as long as they were held together by social and local bonds.