Genesis 11:9

Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Therefore is the name of it called Babel. Rationalist writers regard this Mosaic narrative as the embodiment of a traditionary legend, and therefore, in accordance with this view, reject the derivation assigned in the text, ascribing its origin to the tower having been, in later times at least, rebuilt and used as the temple of Belus, whose image was placed in it, according to Herodotus. [Their explanation of the name is, that it means baarel, the gate of Baal or Bel, or Bab-il, the gate of the god Il-the word 'gate' being used in the extensive sense we give to the 'Porte.' But, as declared by Moses, Babel comes from the root-verb baalal (H1101), to confound, as if it were baal-beel, and it is a name so very special that it is impossible to account for its being made the designation of any place, unless some remarkable transaction had occurred to furnish a historical basis on which it rested] - Some writers, like Herder, look upon this narrative as a poetical fragment in the Oriental style, to account for the origin of diverse languages. But it is a fact as real as any other related in the inspired history, and no one who believes in a personal God as the providential Ruler of the world can doubt the possibility of a miracle, or that the confusion, or rather the multiplication of tongues, originated in the way described.

`Nec Deus intersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus,'

is a statement of a pagan poet, which embodies a sound principle; and every intelligent man must feel and acknowledge that the sacred historian gives a more rational account of the phenomena of different languages than the writers who ascribe it to the operation of natural causes.

Besides, the Mosaic record of this memorable occurrence is confirmed by a variety of independent testimonies. The account of Berosus, the Chaldean historian, is substantially the same as that of Moses, as also is the Hindu tradition, according to Sir William Jones. The Egyptian monuments attest the fact of the dispersion at Shinar (Osburn's 'Egypt and her Testimony'), and the cuneiform inscriptions speak of Chaldea or Babylonia as 'the land of tongues' (Fox Talbot). The most eminent ethnologists also have come to this conclusion. 'There is the greatest probability that the human race, no less than their language, go back to one common stock-to a first man-and not to several, dispersed in different parts of the world. And it is asserted, with the greatest confidence, that from an extensive examination of languages, the separation among mankind is shown to have been violent; not, indeed, that they voluntarily changed their language, but that they were rudely and suddenly (brusquement) divided from one another' (Wiseman's 'Lectures'). And Sir H. Rawlinson ('Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,' 15:, p. 232) says, that 'if we were guided by the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the Scriptural record, we should be led to fix on the plains of Shinar as the focus from which the various lines had radiated.'

What was the primeval language that was broken into fragments at Shinar, and in what relations it stood to the languages that proceeded from it in later times, has been a fruitful subject of discussion and controversy. Various claimants have been brought forward for the honour of being the original tongue-the Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, Chaldee, Phoenician, Egyptian, Ethiopic, Sanskrit, Chinese, Abyssinian, Celtic; and to these must now be added the Accad, the language which, like the Latin in the Mediaeval ages, was used for all the oldest state documents found in Babylonia (Rawlinson). The Hebrew had numerous and zealous advocates in earlier times, as it still has a few, among whom may be mentioned Baumgarten and Havernick. But modern scholars are, for the most part, inclined to regard the present Hebrew as the early offspring of a more aboriginal tongue.

Sir William Jones gave it as his opinion that the primitive language has been irretrievably lost. But immense progress in linguistic researches has been made since the days of that accomplished scholar. Students of comparative philology, who have scientifically examined the languages of the various nations, ancient and modern, have traced certain affinities between them, which nothing but such a mode of investigation could have discovered, and on the ground of such a connection have ranked languages, which to outward appearance are remotely related, in three large families or groups, called the Semitic, Indo-European, and Allophyllian or Turanian tongues. Nay, closer observation seems to show that, even in these large collective masses, affinities exist in the essential constitution of each language-elements of resemblance which run through them all-suggesting the belief, on purely philological principles, that the languages themselves were once united, and that some extraordinary agency had severed them. The advancement made in all the various lines of investigation has been so great, that not only doubt is being constantly removed in regard to points that once presented apparently insuperable difficulties, but the time seems not far distant when, in the opinion of the most competent judges, the narrative contained in the first nine verses of this chapter will be fully corroborated by the testimony of science.

'Fragments,' says Herder, 'of an original form yet exist through all the dialects of the old and new worlds.' 'Over the languages of the primitive Asiatic continent of Asia and Europe,' says Professor Max Muller, 'a new light begins to dawn, which, in spite of perplexing appearances, reveals more and more clearly the possibility of their common origin.' 'It is now incontrovertibly established,' observes Donaldson ('New Cratylus'), 'that most of the inhabitants of Europe and a great number of the most ancient and civilized tribes of Asia speak, with greater or smaller variations, the same language; and the time may perhaps come when it will appear as probable, philologically, since it is certain historically, that every language in the world has sprung from one original speech.'

It is from the Scriptures alone we learn the true origin of the different languages, as well as nations of the world; and the most advanced philology will only render the humble, though welcome and important, service of verifying the statement of the sacred historian, when she proves all the various languages to be only emanations of one great primordial tongue, whose integrity was broken, and itself lost in the catastrophe at Shinar.

It is in accordance with the whole scheme of the sacred volume to represent dispersion as well as death to have been a necessary consequence of the fall. By one miracle of tongues men were 'scattered abroad on the face of all the earth,' and gradually fell from true religion. By another, national barriers were broken down, that all men might be brought back to the family of God.