Augustine and the Primeval Language in Early Modern Exegesis and Philology

Abstract

In his influential work City of God — De civitate Dei — Augustine identifies Hebrew as the original, or primeval, language of mankind, and more accurately as the language that survived the confusion of languages at Babel in the house or family of Heber, a descendant of Noah in the fifth generation. This article surveys (1) how this claim is related to ideas about this topic in ancient Jewish and Christian sources before and after Augustine, (2) demonstrates how Augustine’s interpretation of biblical primeval history and his concept of history is interconnected with his view on the primordial language, and (3) explores how early modern exegesis and philology adopted this specific Augustinian model with regard to the topic in question. This study is both descriptive and analytical. It is based on primary sources which modern scholarship of the history of linguistic thought hitherto to a great extent has either failed to pay attention to or misrepresented.

Keywords:

• Augustine
• the City of God
• Hebrew
• primeval language
• Bible exegesis
• early modern philology

Introduction

The identity of the original language of humankind was the subject of an extensive discussion in the Republic of Letters in early modern Europe.1 This debate formed a distinctive part of the Western exploration of the linguistic past of the world. The Bible served as a source of guidance in the attempts to identify the primeval language and to trace its diversifications in various languages of the ancient world. This fact accorded a key role in this discourse to the discipline of biblical philology, philologia sacra. As a consequence, the debate primarily took place at the intersection and in the field of tension between philology and exegesis. Importantly, the exegetes and philologists developed their arguments in an ongoing interaction with texts and traditions from antiquity. In this communication with antiquity, Augustine enjoyed an exceptional position. Since the early Middle Ages, Augustine’s De civitate Dei had served as the foundation of the Western understanding of universal and ecclesiastical history.

For more than a millennium, from late antiquity to the post-Reformation era, Augustine (354–430) enjoyed an incomparable authority in Western Christianity as the Church Father above all others. The survival of his oeuvre ensured his continuous, and indeed foundational, influence on Western theology as well as on secular disciplines such as political theory, ethics, epistemology, semiotics, anthropology, and historiography.2 This essay considers an aspect of Augustine’s legacy that has been neglected hitherto: his reception in early modern historico-comparative language study, and, more precisely, his contribution to the debate on the original language, and, therefore, to Western understanding of the primeval history of mankind as recounted in the Bible.

Next to his autobiography, the Confessions (397–401), Augustine’s most influential work is the City of God (412–26), which is the culmination of all his theological thinking. In the latter part of his work, he treats sacred and profane universal history in the guise of two cities — the heavenly and the earthly. In outlining the vicissitudes of these cities from the Flood until Babel, Augustine identifies Hebrew as the primordial language spoken before the Confusion of tongues (xvi. 11). Augustine was not the first person in antiquity to argue for the linguistic primacy of Hebrew — the idea goes back to Hellenistic Judaism and developed as an integral part of a new national identity under the Hasmonean reign — but he incorporated this idea in a new context, in which it fulfilled an ecclesiological function.

The purpose of this essay is twofold: (1) to explain how Augustine justified and substantiated his claim that Hebrew was the primordial language, and thus to pinpoint the independent features of Augustine’s exegesis, and (2) to explore how his arguments were integrated into the exegesis and philology of the Latin West in the period 1500–1750. In order to explore whether or how Augustine differs from his Jewish and Christian antecedents in his reasons for asserting that Hebrew was the primordial language, post-biblical Judaic and patristic sources must be surveyed and compared as well.

This article surveys sources that have, to a great extent, been neglected in previous modern research. The criterion of selection is difficult to summarize in a specific formula. I have also used the method of following the bibliographical references in pertinent writings in the early modern period, and I have made use of the works where Augustine is cited as an authority in the topic under consideration. I have in particular used Johannes Buxtorf the Younger’s set of treatises on the origin, confusion and preservation of the Hebrew language written in 1644, re-edited in 1662 (see the bibliography), in which he traces the various ideas concerning this subject matter both in Jewish and Christian authors through history.

All English translations of Latin texts in this article are my own.

Previous research

A neglected topic in linguistic historiography

The reception of Augustine in general in the Middle Ages and in the Reformation has been the subject of several studies, but few have paid attention to his glottogonic linguistic theories.3 In his pioneering historical study of language science, Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft (1869), Theodor Benfey wrote that the view on Hebrew as the original language contributed to the distortion of the linguistic theorizing and rendered it narrow-minded. Benfey retraces ‘this prejudice’ to the Jews and Jerome, but he neglects to point out Augustine.4 Similarly, in modern times, general histories of linguistics such as Robins (1997: 113 and 191–92), Lepschy (1994–98) and Seuren (1998) wholly fail to recognize Augustine’s importance for the concept of a primeval Hebrew language in Western thinking until c. 1750.

Some surveys do indeed touch on our topic. They describe ancient and early modern theory about language origin and they do refer to Augustine, but none explores the Augustinian position and its afterlife in depth. The most important of these is the monumental study by Arno Borst (1957–63). Others are those of Daniel Droixhe (1978),5 Umberto Eco (1995),6 Wolf Peter Klein (1999)7 and Gerda Haßler and Cordula Neis (2009).8 Outside the field of linguistic historiography, two articles deserve particular attention. Gabriele Hille-Coates (2000) examines the theme of ‘die Urmuttersprache der Menschheit’ in Latin literature during the Middle Ages. She underlines that in the medieval Latin West the idea of the anteriority, or supremacy, of the Hebrew language depended on Augustine and Jerome rather than on scattered comments in post-biblical Jewish literature.9 Milka Rubin (1998) explores the claims of linguistic primordiality, or superiority, in its relation to cultural and religious identities in antiquity.10

Arno Borst’s misunderstanding of Augustine City of God XVI. 11

The German medieval historian Arno Borst (1925–2007) undertook in his Habilitationsschrift to trace and interpret the investigations of the identity of the original language and the number of languages and nations of the world from antiquity to modern times. His work was published as the six-volume Der Turmbau von Babel (1957–63) and it is still widely respected in linguistic historiography.11

Borst discusses Augustine’s views on language in a chapter on Latin Church Fathers. He gives a picture of Augustine’s attitudes to linguistic questions in his survey of Augustine’s philosophical and exegetical writings. He points out that Augustine perceived language as an exclusively human phenomenon; he defined words as sounds with a meaning (soni significantes) established by convention and agreement (placito et consensione significandi). Thus, language had no importance to theology. For these reasons, Borst argues that Augustine did not take any interest in the pastness of languages, nor in the question of the identity of the original language.12

Borst puts special emphasis on one of Augustine’s commentaries on Genesis, De Genesi ad literam (401–15), where he denies the search for the primordial language any value by stating: ‘Whatever this language of Adam might have been, what does it concern us to inquire into?’ (ix. 12, § 20). Apparently, Borst assumed that Augustine did not change this position, despite counter-evidence: in his exposition of the original language in the City of God xvi. 11 (written 420), Augustine claims that Hebrew was the primeval language spoken before the confusion of languages. Nonetheless, Borst reverses the purport and the importance of Augustine’s final standpoint, dismissing it as a half-hearted compliance with Jerome’s belief in Hebrew as the mother of all languages.13 It is difficult to explain why Borst resolved to take this view, but some implicit hypothesis underlies his reasoning. Before addressing the City of God, Borst argues on the basis of circumstantial evidence ex silentio that Augustine took no real interest in the issue, observing that it is not treated in his other theological works written between 419 and 430. This is not, however, surprising. Of the three works adduced by Borst, Quaestiones in Genesin (419) is a commentary on biblical Hebrew grammar and phraseology;14 De doctrina Christiana at the end of book 3 (iii. 35, § 127; written about 426) provides a literary analysis of how Genesis 10 and 11 are interconnected from a narratological point of view; the anti-Pelagian Opus imperfectum contra Julianum, in the passage cited (v. 1) deals with Adam’s name-giving in Genesis 2 as a proof of his excellent wisdom.

Claims that Hebrew was the original language in ancient exegesis

No identification of the primeval language in the Bible

The Bible does not identify the pre-Babelic language with any specific language, but merely reports (Gen. 11:1–9) that an original linguistic unity was split up by a confusion inflicted by God himself after all humankind had joined together to build a city and a tower to glorify themselves and to prevent themselves from being dispersed. The narrative begins by telling that ‘the whole earth had one language and one speech’, and it ends by saying that ‘the Lord confused the language of all the earth’. In between there is an account of the events that led to this outcome — the migration of mankind into the plain of Shinar in Mesopotamia, their decision to build a city and a tower, God’s reaction to these actions, and his decision to confuse their common language. This account provided the point of departure and the frame of reference in all ancient, medieval, and early modern discussions.

Jewish exegesis

Hellenistic Judaism

The question of what was the language spoken before its confusion at Babel is first addressed in Hellenistic Jewish writings. The Book of Jubilees (c. 150 bc) identifies Hebrew with the language of creation and describes how the knowledge of this language was restored to Abraham a long time after it had ceased to be a living spoken language by its disintegration at the Tower of Babel, which was computed to have been destroyed in the year 1688 after the Creation of the world (Anno Mundi).15 After migrating from Ur of the Chaldaeans (1936 am) and while staying in the land of Haran (1951 am), Abraham was taught the language of revelation by an angel sent to him in order to enable him to read the books of his ancestors written in Hebrew.16 The motive of this claim about Hebrew is to be sought in its ideological function. The author of the Book of Jubilees wished to construe a Jewish identity in the knowledge of Hebrew, since knowledge of it was only returned to Abraham. His descendants therefore have the unique ability to read the holy Scriptures in the original.17 The claim was also meant to enhance Jewish national identity when the Maccabees or Hasmoneans, that is, the dynasty ruling Judea 160–63 bc, was confronted with a predominant Hellenistic culture.18 The tension between an encroaching Hellenistic civilization and national Jewish independence in the second century bc was the soil in which the idea of the linguistic superiority of Hebrew grew up and Hebrew began to be ideologized as the language of creation.

Another Hellenistic Judaic text is the medieval Hebrew version of the Testament of Naphtali, part of the pseudepigraphic Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the original of which can be dated to the last decade of the second century bc.19 This identifies the language preceding Babel with Hebrew. In the context, the children of Naphtali are commanded to hold on to the worship of the Lord whom their ancestor Abraham chose in the days of division, when the seventy families descending from Noah were divided into seventy languages. These are, in turn, correlated with the teaching of seventy angels, of which every nation chose its own except Abraham, who chose to worship the Creator and accordingly continued to use the holy language — Hebrew. Although the text also states that it remained in the house of Shem and Heber, Abraham plays by his choice the decisive role in obtaining the language of God on his share.20 The dating of the division or confusion to the time of Abraham differs from the Book of Jubilees, but is consistent with the Jewish world chronology Seder Olam Rabbah (160 ad), which dates the division to the end of Peleg’s lifetime (see Gen. 10:25 and 11:18), 340 years after the Flood, when Noah was 940 years and Abraham 48 years.

The conception that the language was confused at Babel and restored to or remained with Abraham is most likely expressed in a fragment from Qumran of a work called An Exposition on the Patriarchs. The same fragment also testifies to the idea of an eschatological restoration of all peoples into the chosen language (Zeph. 3·9) which is equated with the holy language, lashon ha-qodesh (lit. ‘the language of the holy’), a term here recorded for the first time.21

Other Hellenistic Jewish sources, such as Flavius Josephus’ (37–100 ad) Antiquitates Judaicae, Philo of Alexandria’s (20 bc– ad 50), De confusione linguarum, and Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical antiquities (between 100 bc and ad 100), do not discuss the issue of the language spoken by the Babelites, but rewrite the narrative in Genesis 9 as an aetiology of colonization and politics of dispersion, as an allegory of the soul and the inner tower, or as a remainder of the birth of Israel as a nation.22 Most important for subsequent exegesis by the Church Fathers was that Josephus recognizes Nimrod as the prime mover behind the tower-building.

Rabbinic Midrash

Rabbinic interpretation passed on the tradition originating from Hellenistic Judaism about the primeval status of Hebrew. The first complete Rabbinic commentary on Genesis, Bereshit Rabba from the fourth century ad, makes clear that ‘just as the Torah was given in the holy language, so the world was created by the holy language’ (Genesis Rabba 18) Another rabbinic commentary on Genesis, Midrash Tanchuma Yelammedenu, with traditions going back to the fourth century ad, equates the primal language, ha-lashon ha-rishona, with the holy language, lashon ha-qodesh, that is, Hebrew; it assumes as well that the human race will be reunified by the same tongue in the world-to-come with reference to Zephaniah 3,9. The Talmud Yerushalmi from the fourth century reports a dispute between rabbi Elieser and rabbi Yochanan over Genesis 11·1, where the former held that it implied the world’s seventy languages, while the latter thought it to be the language of God, which is specified as the holy language (lashon ha-qodesh). Finally, an Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch called Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, or Targum Yerushalmi, from about the seventh century, explains Genesis 11·1: ‘They spoke the holy language by which the world was created from the beginning’.

Patristic exegesis

The idea of the linguistic primacy of Hebrew was asserted by several ecclesiastical writers in antiquity, most of whom wrote after the latter part of the fourth century ad. Among the Greek are Origen, John Chrysostom, Diodorus of Tarsus, and Procopius of Gaza. Among the Latin are Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and Isidore of Seville. The idea was rejected by two distinguished theologians, Gregory of Nyssa and Thedoret of Cyrus. The topic was discussed in both exegetical and apologetical contexts.

To begin, Origen (185–254), in one of his homilies on the book of Numbers (xi. 4. 4), states that the language given to Adam in the beginning (lingua per Adam primitus data), in his opinion Hebrew (ut putamus Hebraea), remained in the nation that was not assigned to the dominion of angels at the confusion of tongues at Babel, since it remained the portion of the Lord (Deut. 32·9). Origen construes the verse ‘come, let us descend and confuse their language’ (Gen. 11·7) to mean that God exhorted the angels to produce different languages. Origen thinks that one angel thrust the Babylonian language upon one man, while another angel impressed the Egyptian tongue on another, and a third angel caused still another to speak Greek, and so on. The angels were thus intermediary authors of new languages among all nations, except for that part of mankind which did not come under the power of any angel, that is, the people of God. All this originates from common Jewish interpretations. In the work Contra Celsum, responding to the denial of the antiquity of the Hebrew nation by the pagan philosopher Celsus, Origen asserts that Hebrew was the Hebrew nation’s ancestral language, dialektos patrios, before their descent into Egypt.23

Jerome made two famous statements on the primacy of the Hebrew language. Commenting on his own rendering of the Hebrew word nuge into Latin as nugae in Zephaniah 3·18, he declares that this is justifiable since Hebrew is the mother of all languages, omnium linguarum matrix. Furthermore, in a letter to Pope Damasus (Epist. 18·6), he claims that Hebrew was the primitive language, initium oris et communis eloquii, arguing that all antiquity had believed this to be the case.

John Chrysostom (347–404) remarks in his homily on Genesis 11·1–9 that Heber kept the language he had had before the confusion, in order that this would be an enduring proof of the division of languages.24 A catena-comment often ascribed to his teacher, Diodorus of Tarsus, likewise asserts that Hebrew is named after Heber because he did not assent to the tower-building.25 The same is repeated in similar wordings by Procopius of Gaza.26

Ambrosiaster (fl. 366–84)27 deals with the issue of the original language in his two major writings, his Commentaries on Paul and his Quaestiones. He argues that the term Hebrew, Hebraeus, derives from Abraham rather than from Heber, since the faith of Abraham marks a new epoch of mankind: the worship and the language of God — Hebrew or Habraea, which had been transformed into many different idioms at the Confusion — was restored to Abraham. This agrees with the Book of Jubilees, which Ambrosiaster may have relied on directly or indirectly. He thinks that God gave Abraham the primeval language back in order to carry out a reformation of humankind. He draws attention to the fact that Abraham was an Aramaean, Syrus, and, as a result, he and his descendants — the Hebrews — would have spoken Aramaic unless God had restored the primeval tongue to him. That language was named Habraea after Habraham and changed to Hebraea for the sake of euphony. Furthermore, Ambrosiaster advances a kind of linguistic argument for his view that Hebrew is the original language. If we were to assume that the language before Babel was not Hebrew, it would be hard to explain the points of agreement (similia) between Hebrew and several other languages — which, he does not specify — provided that Abraham had not recovered a mixed language (ex multis linguis sermo compositus).28

Isidore of Seville (560–636) transmitted the Augustinian exegesis of Genesis 10–11 to the Middle Ages in his Etymologies and his Old Testament commentary.29 Bede relied on Augustine,30 and the most prominent Carolingian Bible commentators, such as Alcuin, Hrabanus Maurus, and Claudius of Turin depended on both Augustine and Isidore.31

The claim that Hebrew was the original language did encounter some opposition in antiquity. Gregory of Nyssa (335–94) degrades Hebrew to the status of a comparatively young language that lacks archaic features.32 Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–457), bishop of Cyrus in Syria, argues in favour of Syriac rather than Hebrew as the most ancient language. He dismisses the usual derivation of the term Hebrew from Heber, arguing that it stems from the appellative noun ‘ebra in Syriac: that is, ‘one who passes or crosses over’.33

Augustine’s positions concerning the original language

Augustine’s understanding of the primeval language in the City of God

Augustine stands out as having given the most detailed and systematic early exposition of the question at hand. Augustine looked upon world history as guided by two opposing entities defined as civitas Dei the ‘City of God’ and civitas terrena the ‘Earthly City’ or the ‘City of Man’. In the second part of this work, Augustine traces the vicissitudes of these two societies or communities, their origins, courses, and ends.

Augustine interprets the narrative of the confusion of tongues in the light of the antithesis between the two cities. Everywhere in his biblical interpretation, he looks upon Babel as a manifestation of the presumptuous City of Man, the society of the ungodly who do not obey the will of God.34 This is because the Bible, more precisely Vetus Latina or Itala (Gen. 11·5), states that Babel was built by filii hominum ‘the sons of men’ (De civitate Dei xvi. 5: and xvi. 10). The worshippers of God, whom the Bible in other contexts calls filii Dei ‘the sons of God’, escaped the confusion and retained the primeval language. The people of God were particularly to be found in the family of Heber, which Augustine identifies with the City of God in its pilgrimage on the earth at that time. The confusion of languages took place at the time of the birth of Peleg, son of Heber, as his name means division. In order to distinguish the preserved primitive language from new languages, it was called Hebrew after Heber. Augustine goes on to state that Heber did not transmit his language to all his descendants, but only to those in the line whose generations led to Abraham, while the rest of Heber’s offspring gradually developed into other nations using other languages. Similarly, Abraham did not hand down the Hebrew language to all his sons, but only to those who were descended from him through Jacob, that is, to those who made up the people of Israel in the Old Covenant (DeCD xvi. 11 and xviii. 39).

Augustine’s understanding of primeval history and ecclesiology

Augustine viewed the progress of human history as the temporal unfolding of two (antithetical) cities. As a model for the explanation of the course of history this is Augustine’s innovation,35 and this guides his exegesis. His interpretations of some key verses pave the way for the conclusions drawn above. Augustine raises the question: did the City of God survive in the time between Noah and Abraham in view of the fact that the Bible does not commemorate the godliness of anyone in this period? Augustine answers the question in the affirmative. I will try to explain Augustine’s way of reasoning.

First, Augustine has recourse to Noah’s blessing of his two eldest sons, Shem and Japhet, as well as his cursing of his youngest son Ham (Gen. 10·25–27), both of which are understood as prophecies about the future. Augustine expresses the opinion that the City of God continued through Noah’s prophetic blessing, especially among the descendants of Shem. He is not sure whether or not there was true piety except in the generations leading from Shem through Arphaxad to Abraham. In any event, he declares that the world has never been without men of two different kinds, namely those who hold God in contempt and those who worship him, independent of whose offspring they might be (DeCD xvi. 3, 9, and 10).

Secondly, Augustine infers that Heber is accorded prominence among the sons of Shem. Before those are mentioned in the genealogy, it is stated that Shem became the father of all the sons of Heber (Gen. 10·21), even though Heber is several generations distant in the line of descent from him. Augustine thinks that this implies that Shem became the patriarch of all Hebrews, among whose nation the City of God was to have its most significant continuity (DeCD xvi. 3).

Thirdly, Augustine represents Nimrod among the progeny of Ham as the instigator of the impious move to build the city of Babel, citing as evidence that the capital city of his kingdom was Babylon as it took precedence over all others (cf. Gen. 10·10) and that he was ‘a mighty hunter against the Lord’ (Gen. 10·9), an expression Augustine construes to imply that Nimrod was an oppressor of the earth-born creatures, that is, a tyrant in the earthly city (DeCD xvi. 4).

Finally, the genealogy of Shem (Gen. 11·10–26) plays an important part by being placed after the narrative of the Confusion. After having demonstrated the existence of the earthly city, Scripture returns to the patriarch Shem in order to show us the continuance of the City of God after the Flood and the Tower of Babel, Augustine concludes (DeCD xvi. 10).

To summarize, in the ancient patristic literature the idea that the primeval language was preserved in the house of Heber is encountered in Diodorus of Tarsus and Chrysostom as well as in Augustine, but only Augustine proves his assertion with a historical-theological theory. In his view, the statement in Genesis 11·5 that Babel was built by ‘the sons of men’ is evidence of a distinction between the godly and the ungodly. Augustine was apparently unique in interpreting this verse so in antiquity. It followed from his argument that the confusion only struck the ungodly builders of Babel, while the pious family of Heber, who embodied the City of God, was exempted from such a punishment. Thus, he integrated the justification of the Hellenistic Judaic idea of the supreme antiquity of Hebrew with his ecclesiological vision of the continuity and unity of the Church through all ages. In the exploration below, I have designated this complex of ideas as the Augustinian model, a term that is intended only to serve as an analytical label.

The Augustinian model from the Middle Ages until the Reformation

Introduction: The arguments for the primacy of Hebrew

Besides the Augustinian model, early modern Christian scholars advanced a number of arguments for the doctrine of the primordiality of the Hebrew language: primarily, that the proper names attested in the Bible before the Flood, such as Adam, Eve, Seth, Japheth, Eden, and Nod, can only be derived from Hebrew roots and only make proper sense in this language; secondly, that Hebrew provides ontological connections between the designations of things (the signifiers) and the things themselves (the signified) and that this relation of agreement resulted from Adam’s namegiving (Gen. 2:19–20); thirdly, that there were traces of Hebrew words in all other languages in proportion to the distance of each people from the Near East.36 Furthermore, the simplicity and purity of Hebrew was regarded as a reason.

Indications of these arguments already occur among some Christian exegetes in the Middle Ages, but not systematically. The reasons also occur among the Jews in the Middle Ages or the Renaissance. Yehuda ha-Levi in the twelfth century makes use of the first and second argument.37 Isaac Abravanel gives a detailed account of the first argument in his commentary on Genesis 11:1.38 Azariah de’ Rossi touches on all the arguments in his Me’or Enayim, chapter 57.39

The Augustinian historical-theological model of interpretation was linked with linguistic arguments that were found in Jewish scholarship in the Middle Ages. The outcome was a conspicuous synthesis, or merger, of Augustinian and medieval Jewish lines of thought. This fusion of traditions reinforced the concept of the antiquity of Hebrew in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Medieval and Renaissance exponents of the Augustinian tradition

The Augustinian model gained ground in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, both in Jewish and Christian circles. Among the Jews, Yehuda ha-Levi (1079–1140) was apparently the first to claim that the original language remained in the family of Heber. He says: ‘The language inherited from Adam and Noah was Heber’s language, and due to him it was called Hebrew and he retained it at the time of the division and confusion of languages’. Yehuda ha-Levi formulates the same idea otherwise in an earlier passage: ‘Abraham, our father, lived in the time of the generation of dispersal; he and his family remained in the language of Heber, his ancestor, and therefore he was called a Hebrew’.40 In the Renaissance, the Portuguese rabbi Isaac Abravanel (1437–1509) took the same position in his commentary on Genesis. The German-born rabbi Elias Levita (1469–1549) in the preface to his influential Aramaic dictionary Methurgeman (1541) takes the uninterrupted preservation of the language of Adam until Abraham for granted. The Italian humanist Rabbi Azariah de Rossi (1513–1578) in his work Me’or ‘Enayim, that is, ‘The light of the eyes’ (1573–75), cites Augustine as an authority, summarizing City of God xvi. 11.41

Among Christian scholars in the Middle Ages, the idea under discussion was asserted by no lesser authorities than Dante Alighieri (1265–1321) and Denis the Carthusian (1402–71). Dante, in De vulgari eloquentia (1302–05), states that the language of Adam was inherited by the sons of Heber — the Hebrews — who alone continued to use it after the confusion and retained the most ancient language until their dispersal.42 Denis the Carthusian shows himself intimately acquainted with Augustine throughout his commentary on Genesis. It is no surprise that he transmits the Augustinian exegesis: ‘Heber and the good men, who stayed with him and did not consent to the enterprise, retained the previous language that before was common to all and was called the human language. Thenceforward, it remained among them and their descendants as their own language and was called Hebrew’.43 He sides with Augustine in perceiving the sons of man in Genesis 11:5 as a manifestation of the City of the ungodly as opposed to the City of God (see section 3·1 above).44

Martin Luther

In his lectures on Genesis 1535–45,45 Martin Luther adopts the same line of exegesis as Augustine on the narrative of confusion of languages,46 but replaces the Augustinian antithesis between civitas Dei and civitas terrena by that between ecclesia vera or ecclesia Dei, the true Church or the Church of God, and ecclesia falsa, the false church.47 Luther conceives the building of Babel and the confusion of languages as the origin of heresies. He explains filii hominum, that is, the builders of Babel, as distinct from filii Dei and perceives this as a distinction between the true and the false church. The former consisted of the pious posterity of Shem; the latter was made up of the ungodly posterity of Ham.48 When Nimrod brought about the false church at Babel, Heber retained the true worship and the primeval language.49 Luther concludes that those who followed the faith and doctrine of the patriarch Heber were called Hebrews. Luther explicitly defines the Hebrews as the followers of the true religion and, as such, as the true church.50

The Augustinian model was generally accepted by Lutherans in their exegesis on Genesis 10–11 and in their surveys of Hebrew language history.51 The Lutherans usually linked the preservation of the true religion with the continuation of the primeval language among the orthodox descendants of Heber.

Reformed scholars: Mercier, Bibliander, Junius the Elder

The Augustinian exegesis of Genesis 10–11 was also adopted in the Reformed Churches. Jean Mercier (1525–70), professor of Hebrew in Paris, reveals himself to be an exponent of this tradition, although he does not refer to Augustine. In his commentary on Genesis, we learn that the primitive Hebrew language remained pure and intact in a certain family, namely that of Heber, who was descended from Shem, and also that the purity of the primeval language later on was only preserved in the family of Abraham.52

Another Reformed scholar, Theodore Bibliander (1506–64), professor of theology in Zürich and a theoretician of language relationships, adopts and adapts the Augustinian position: the primeval Hebrew language did not disappear, but was confused through certain changes, namely through the addition, removal, transposition, and permutation of sounds — that is, through the four categories of change in classical rhetoric — and might therefore to a greater or lesser extent be traced in all other languages. The family of Heber kept the primitive tongue in familiar use and in the best condition of preservation.53

Franciscus Junius the Elder (1545–1602), a prominent Reformed philologist and professor of theology in Heidelberg and Leiden, emerges as an explicit advocate of the Augustinian exegetical tradition. In his renowned and widespread Latin translation of the Old Testament (in the note on ‘one language’ in Genesis 11), he writes that this was Hebrew according to the consensus of the scholars, adding that Augustine proves this in the City of God xvi. 11.54 In his commentary on Genesis, Junius makes this point clearer: the previous language, handed down by his ancestors, was preserved intact in the family of Heber, as is clearly pointed out by Augustine in the City of God.55 Junius deals with the same question still more precisely in a speech on the great antiquity and excellence of the Hebrew tongue. After having advanced his views yet again, Junius refers to two ‘very adequate’ arguments of Augustine: that precedence is given to Heber in the account of the sons and descendants of Shem, and that the confusion came about to punish the nations for their presumptuous actions, while the Hebrew nation, by virtue of its righteousness, must have been exempted from such a consequence.56

Catholic scholars: Pagninus, Steuchus, Pereira, Genebrard

Catholic Bible scholarship of the sixteenth century does not show itself to be an exception to the broad reception of the Augustinian model by other confessions across Europe. Santes Pagninus (1470–1541), a Dominican from Lucca in Italy and a prominent scholar of Hebrew philology in his day, provides the first evidence of the significance of Augustine’s statement concerning the primeval language. At the outset of his treatise for the study of the Holy Scripture, Isagoge ad sanctas literas (1511), he argues by Augustine’s authority, against different opinions, that Hebrew was the primordial language, named after Heber. Pagninus quotes everything Augustine says on this in book 16, chapter 11 and in book 18, chapter 39.

Another instance of the Catholic reception is the Italian scholar Agustino Steuchus (1497–1548). In his comment on Genesis 14:13 ‘Abraham, the Hebrew’, he proposes the two traditional explanations of the word ha-‘ibri: either as an appellative, ‘the passenger (trajector)’, as in the Septuagint, or as a nomen gentile ‘the Heber-descendant’, as Jerome preferred. In defence of the latter view, he declares that the ancient language remained in the family of Heber at the time of the confusion of tongues and the language and the nation were named after him. Since this language remained in pure and undamaged condition in the family of Abraham, only his descendants were worthy of being called Hebrews and their language Hebrew. On that account, all the posterity of Heber were called Hebrews.57

The Spanish Jesuit Benito Pereira (1535–1610), in his commentary on Genesis, refers to Augustine for his position that ‘after the confusion the language that previously had been common to all, became particular to one family, that of Heber, after whom it was named’.58 The French orientalist Gilbert Genebrard (1535/37–97) states in his renowned world chronicle (Chronographia) that the common language before Babel remained with Heber, because he did not participate in the decision or the work of those who took pride in building a tower so high as to reach heaven.59

The Augustinian model and post-Reformation exegesis and philology

Anglican scholars: Fuller and Hayne

In one section of his Miscellanea theologica (1616), a collection of various essays on biblical philology, the English Hebraist Nicholas Fuller (1557–1626) deals with the question of whether Abraham learned Hebrew from the Canaanites after migrating there from Mesopotamia. This new idea was proposed by the polymath Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540–1609) a few years earlier,60 and was attractive to many orientalists61 who were discovering the close kinship between Hebrew and Phoenician, but it also undermined the traditional idea of Hebrew as the original language belonging to the Hebrews alone. For this reason, the leading orientalist of around 1650, Samuel Bochart, adopted an auxiliary hypothesis that presupposes divine providence even in language history: at the confusion of languages God granted the Canaanites the mission to preserve the primeval language in order to facilitate the future peregrination of the patriarchs in Canaan around 300 years later (!). Nonetheless, Fuller knew how to counter this threat in another way. He resorts to the Augustinian argumentation and adds some new elements to it. The Hebrew language, described as a treasure highly esteemed, survived only among the members of the Church of God, for example, Noah, Shem, and Heber, none of whom assented to the conspiracy on the plain of Shinar. Fuller excludes the possibility of its having been entrusted to the accursed posterity of Ham, viz. the Canaanites. He goes on to show that his view is firmly rooted in Augustine, whose certain judgement is said to carry more weight than a new conjecture. Having quoted from City of God xvi. 11, Fuller analyses: ‘Shrewdly and safely this most eminent teacher concludes that the primitive language continued unchanged and uncorrupted by the perpetual succession of the Church’. He adds: ‘If the Church of God did not consent to the common apostasy, it is right to acknowledge its immunity from the punishment of the confusion’. He considers Augustine to be right to deduce from the praise of Heber that the primitive language drew its name from Heber.62

In a treatise concerned with the topics of the origin, change, and relationships of languages, the English philologist Thomas Hayne (1582–1645) addresses inter alia the question of the identity of the primeval language. In settling the question he carries on a dialogue with the Augustinian model of explanation, the components of which are present everywhere. Heber enjoyed fame for his piety and therefore Shem, whose tents (Gen. 9·27) must be considered the domiciles of the true religion (verae religionis sedes), was called the father of all the sons of Heber. This means that Shem was in a spiritual sense the father of all who adhered to the true religion. The people that kept to the faith of Heber and preserved the primeval purity of the commonly shared language (primaevam linguae communis illius integritatem) were called Hebrews. In every point, Hayne is eager to show that his opinion is consistent with Augustine. He quotes illustrative passages from the City of God xvi. 11.63

Reformed scholars: Buxtorf, Bochart, Rivet, Morin

In the early modern period, the Swiss orientalist Johannes Buxtorf the Younger (1599–1664) was the author of the most comprehensive study on the question at hand: his set of three dissertations On the origin and age of the Hebrew language, On its confusion and the origin of several other languages, and On its preservation and propagation, all published in 1644 as part of the controversy with Louis Cappel (1585–1658).64 Buxtorf consistently pursues the Augustinian line of thought and therefore emphasizes the connection between the primitive tongue and true religion. To the objection of Theodoret of Cyrus that Hebrew should be the appellation of all Heber’s progeny, given that the term Hebrew derives from the proper name of Heber, Buxtorf answers that Hebrew was not only a patronymic, nomen patronymicum, but also a confessional name, nomen professionis, fidei, doctrinae et dignitatis, thus clarifying that only those who followed the religion, teachings, and faith of Heber were named Hebrews. In developing his views, Buxtorf systematically cites the sources of his standpoints in Jewish as well as Christian traditions. However, since the Augustinian exegetical tradition merged with the Jewish one in the Middle Ages, Buxtorf does not look upon Augustine as the sole source of his own opinion, but finds it firmly rooted in Jewish sources as well. In any case, Augustine (City of God, especially xvi. 11 and xviii. 39) is extensively quoted several times.65

Samuel Bochart (1599–1667), in his renowned work on biblical geography, Geographia sacra (1646), adopts the Augustinian position when discussing the confusion of tongues. He states that Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, Selah, and Heber did not conspire with the ‘sons of men’, that is, the unbelievers (infideles), and received immunity from the punishment inflicted on the others. So, when all the other languages was confused, they kept the most ancient one that was called Hebrew after Heber, since it remained intact and undamaged among his descendants.66

The French Calvinist André Rivet (1572–1651), professor of theology in Leiden from 1620, in his commentary on Genesis, says that Augustine attributes the continuance of the primitive language to Heber and that he aptly and appropriately (apte et apposite) infers a continuation of the primeval language corresponding to the continual succession of the Church.67

The Augustinian tradition still prevailed among Protestant scholars in the decades around 1700. The Dutch philologist Etienne Morin (1624–1700) utilizes the Augustinian thesis in his discussion of the primeval language. Quoting from Augustine (City of God xvi. 5 and 10), he maintains that the world always ought to be divided into two antithetical communities. Of these two, the patriarchs Shem and Heber belonged to the city of God, while the crowd of rebels who conspired at Babel embodied the city of man. Morin concludes that this proves that Shem could not possibly have taken part in the conspiracy at Babel. Augustine could not have put forward a better argument, he says. As the constant companion of true religion, the original language was preserved in the family and among the pious descendants of Heber who transmitted it as a legacy to those practising piety.68

Lutheran scholars: Gerhard, Löscher, Carpzov

Johann Gerhard (1582–1637) was a prominent theologian of Lutheran post-Reformation orthodoxy. As a professor of theology in Jena, he wrote a commentary on Genesis (1637). In terms of influence and number of references, Augustine by far surpasses all other commentators cited. Not surprisingly, his exposition of Genesis 11 is an excellent example of the reception of the Augustinian model: nearly all its constituent elements reappear in Gerhard’s argumentation. On the question of what language was common to all men before Babel, Gerhard declares the position of Origen, Jerome, and Augustine, with reference to City of God xvi. 11 to be the most plausible one. In doing so, although he does cite the etymologies of the prehistoric biblical proper names as evidence, it is nevertheless the Augustinian exegesis that underlies his assertion. Concerning the expression filii hominum, Gerhard judges Augustine to have correctly drawn a distinction between the sons of men and the sons of God, and thus infers that they were not born anew by the Spirit of God, but ‘set their mind on the things on earth’ (Col. 3·2) and hence embodied the community that Augustine identifies as the ‘Earthly City’. Gerhard rejects the claim of the Spanish exegete Alonso Tostado of Ávila (1400–55) that Noah was present at the edifice of Babel. Relying on Josephus and Augustine, he asserts that the posterity of Cham, above all Nimrod, instigated the enterprise; the offspring of Japhet were forced or enticed to participate, while the descendants of Shem were exempted and kept the Hebrew language. Gerhard also accepts the Augustinian equation of the children of Heber (Gen. 10·21) with the Hebrews as the nation of Israel and the people of God. The Hebrews were consequently not denominated from a word with the sense of ‘wanderers’, alleged to be derived from the preposition ‘avar ‘across’, but after Heber, in whose family the primeval language remained together with the true religion.69

Valentin Ernst Löscher (1672–1749) argues that the language by which God since the beginning has revealed himself cannot be lost without endangering the preservation of the revealed divine truth. After the Flood, Noah handed down the primitive language to all people upholding the divine doctrine. Among these people, Shem and Heber were the foremost. Löscher explicitly considers Augustine to be right in contending that Shem and Heber did not join the builders of the Tower of Babel.70

In the same way, Johann Gottlob Carpzov (1679–1767) maintains that Heber, clinging to the ancient religion, language, and customs (vir prisci et cultus et idiomatis et moris tenax), did not agree with the impious and reckless decision of the descendants of Ham to build the Tower. Heber thus escaped the confusion of languages and retained his idiom, which since the creation had been sacred to the divine worship. His descendants, the Hebrews, in consequence preserved the original language along with the true religion.71

Catholic scholars: Tornielli, Kircher, Thomassin

Agustino Tornielli (1543–1622), an Italian monk and Church historian, is an illustrative example of the impact of Augustine’s City of God on the humanist search for the original language. In asking and answering the question of the primal language (prima illa omnibus communis lingua) remained intact anywhere, he builds on the reasons in Augustine’s City of God xvi. 11 and xviii. 39, to which passages he duly refers. Tornielli quotes, rewords, and comments on all the major points in the two passages in Augustine. Thus, his main argument is that the first language remained with Heber and his family in the line of descent from Peleg to Abraham.72

Athanasius Kircher (1601–80), a German polymath, in his treatise called Turris Babel verbatim quotes Tornielli 1611 in a chapter (ii. 3, 17) on the post-Babelic continuation of the Hebrew language: Utrum et quomodo post confusionem linguarum lingua Hebraea in domo Heber permanserit?, that is, ‘Whether and how Hebrew after the confusion of languages remained in the house of Heber?’73 In another chapter (iii. 5, 1), Kircher himself cites Augustine, City of God xvi. 11 to highlight the sanctity of Hebrew as the language of patriarchs and prophets.

The French Dominican Louis Thomassin is renowned for his multi-language universal dictionary, Glossarium universale Hebraicum, 1697, where he tried to trace all European languages to Hebrew roots. In the introduction, Thomassin deals with the topic of the antiquity of Hebrew. He disapproves of Gregory of Nyssa and Theodoret of Cyrus. In evidencing the pre-eminence of the Hebrew language, John Chrysostom and Origin are cited, and a special value is attributed to Augustine. Having quoted some passages from City of God xvi. 11, Thomassin infers: ‘Look here, a true and clear demonstration of the primeval antiquity of the Hebrew language, that it was preserved purely in the family of Heber, Peleg and Abraham’.74

Summary

To summarize, it is well known in the historiography of linguistic thought that the conception of the primordiality of the Hebrew language predominated the thinking on language history from antiquity until around 1750. However, historians of linguistics have tended rather to deride this idea than to address the questions of how, that is, by what reasons, it was justified and why it was adopted and held its ground in early modern Europe. This article has sought to answer these questions by examining hitherto overlooked treatises on this topic in the field of Bible philology as the discipline that played the key role in the debate on the original language between 1500 and 1750, and so to demonstrate, with evidence, Augustine’s profound impact on the discourse of this topic, whether in statements explicitly referring to Augustine or in distinctly Augustinian patterns of thought. Augustine was the first among the Church Fathers to develop a historical-theological argument for the inherited idea about the primevity of Hebrew. According to Augustine’s reasoning in his City of God, the people of God, or the City of God, continued to be the carriers of the true religion and the primeval language after Babel. As we have seen, Augustine combined several biblical passages and his novel theory of the course of world history to arrive at this conclusion. His argumentation stands out as unique as compared to other patristic ecclesiastical authors.

In seeking answers to the questions about the origin and diversity of languages, most early modern exegetes and philologists turned to the Church Fathers, among whom the positions of Origen, Jerome, John Chrysostom, and, last but not least, Augustine were frequently cited. However, they also turned to the Jewish tradition, the limited ancient one and the more complete medieval one that crystallized in the High Middle Age, beginning with Yehuda ha-Levi’s Book of Kuzari in 1140. Accordingly, the arguments commonly advanced to support the identification of the original language with Hebrew in the early modern period were based on a twofold tradition: an ancient Christian one, with the focus on theological-historical reasons, and a medieval Jewish one, with the focus on linguistic-philosophical reasons.

Prominent theologians and philologists of all major confessional denominations in early modern Europe (Lutheran, Reformed, Catholic, and Anglican) adopted Augustine’s historical-theological proof in identifying the primeval language with Hebrew. Augustine’s authority ensured its validity. This reinforced the idea of the Hebrew monogenesis of all languages and contributed to the development of an orthodox language theology. In that way, Augustine played a foundational part in early modern theorizing on the identity of the original language.

This article is an expanded revision of an essay that was awarded the Vivien Law Prize in 2010. It has been made financially possible by a postdoctoral scholarship from the Royal Society of Humanities at Uppsala (Kungliga Humanistiska Vetenskaps-Samfundet i Uppsala) 2009–10 and a research position funded by the Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences (Riksbankens Jubileumsfond) 2011–12.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Josef Eskhult

Josef Eskhult received his PhD at Uppsala University in 2008. In his thesis he specialized on Latin as the language of science and scholarship in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and explored Bible philology and Christian Hebraism in the same period. He is currently, since 2009, conducting research in the historiography of linguistic thought with the main emphasis on comparative language studies in Oriental and Germanic philology in the period 1600–1800.

Correspondence to: Josef Eskhult, Uppsala University, Department of Linguistics and Philology, Box 635, SE-751 26 Uppsala, Sweden. Email: [email protected]

Notes

1 E.g. Simone (1998: 165) and Salmon (1996: 5).

2 Pollmann and Lambert (2004: 165). For a brief account of Augustinianism, see Visser (2011: 6–7). For a dictionary on the work, life and, in less extent, the reception of Augustine, see Fitzgerald (1999). The comprehensive standard handbook on the reception of Augustine is forthcoming: Pollmann (2013).

3 One exception is Murdoch (2003: 141, cf. 2 and 132).

4 Benfey (1869: 224 and 244).

5 Droixhe (1978: 35 and 49).

6 Eco (1995: 15 and 74).

7 Klein (1999: 27).

8 Haßler and Neis (2009: 505 and 545): On p. 545: ‘Differenzierter fällt das Urteil des Augustinus aus, der zwar von der Existenz einer Ursprache ausgeht, aber nicht behauptet, dass diese im Hebräischen fortlebe’. This is a mistake taken over from Borst, see footnote 14 below.

9 Hille-Coates (2000: 135).

10 Rubin (1998: 306–09: on the general object, and 320: on Augustine).

11 E.g. van Hal and Considine (2010: 64).

12 Borst (1958: 391–403).

13 Borst (1958: 398): ‘Freilich schloß er sich nur halben Herzens der Meinung des Hieronymus an, das Hebräische sei die älteste Sprache der Welt’.

14 In his comment on Gen. 11:1, Augustine remarks that unum labium means the same as una lingua. Borst (1958: 397) still infers: ‘Noch 419 redete Augustin zwar von der einen Ursprache, vergaß aber hinzuzufügen, daß sie im Hebräischen fortlebe’.

15 In the Book of Jubilees the confusion at Babel is distinguished from the division of nations. The birth of Peleg is calculated to 1567 Anno Mundi (i.e. in the year after the Creation of the world) and two years later, 1569 am, Noah distributes the earth amongst Sem, Ham, and Japheth and their descendants; after that, nearly 120 years pass before the Confusion of tongues in 1688 am.

16 Book of Jubilees, 12·25–27. English translations are available in Van der Kam (2001) and Charles (1913).

17 This analysis is made by Sherman (2008: 145–49 and 423).

18 This is the reasonable hypothesis proposed by (Rubin, 1998: 310 and 312–13).

19 The relationship between the Hebrew and Greek texts of this book is controversial: see Hollander and Jonge (1985: 296); Rubin (1998: 310); and Becker (1970: 105–13).

20 For an English translation of the text, see Hollander and Jonge (1985: 446–50). For the passage referred to, see p. 449. The passage begins: ‘But the holy language, the Hebrew language remained only in the house of Shem and Eber, and in the house of Abraham, our father, who is one of their descendants’. In view of the fact that the text attributes the key role to Abraham, while Heber plays an insignificant role in ancient Jewish exegesis, and considering that Haggadic texts always were the subject of redactional changes, there is reason to suspect that the mention of Shem and Heber is a medieval interpolation.

21 Eshel (1997: 5–7). See also Rubin (1998: 310311).

22 Sherman (2008: 193–247: Josephus; 275–350: Philo; and 150–92: Pseudo-Philo).

23 Origen, Contra Celsum iii. 6–8.

24 Chrysostom, Homily on Genesis, 30, § 4.

25 Catenae Graecae in Genesim et in Exodum, on Gen. 11:17, entry 168, see CCSG, vol. 15: 164–65.

26 Procopius of Gaza, Commentarii in Genesim on Gen. 11:14, see MPG, vol. 87, col. 816.

27 For recent scholarship on Ambrosiaster’s identity and background, see Runn-Rockliff (2007: 34–62).

28 Ambrosiaster, Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti, question 108, and Commentaria in XIII epistulas beati Pauli, on Philippans 3·5.

29 Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae ix. 1; Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum: In Genesim, ch. 9.

30 Bede, Libri quatuor in principium Genesis usque ad nativitatem Isaac et eiectionem Ismahelis adnotationum, see the comments on Gen. 2·19, 10·21, 10·25, and 11·27 (see CCSL, vol. cxviii A, pp. 55, 148, 149 and 165). Borst (1958: 446) and Haßler and Neis (2009: 545) call attention to the fact that Isidore of Seville considers that the house of Heber kept the original language after Babel, but do not observe his dependence on Augustine.

31 Alcuin, Interrogationes et responsiones in Genesim, MPL, vol. 100, col. 533: Interrogatio 150. Rhabanus Maurus, Commentaria in Genesim, MPL, vol. 107, col. 530: comment on Gen. 11·9, and Claudius of Turin, Commentarii in Genesim in tres libros distributi, MPL 50, cols 940– 43: comments on Gen. 11·1–16.

32 Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium ii. § 255, see the edition of Jaeger (1960: 300–01).

33 Theodoretus of Cyrrhus, Quaestiones in Genesin, §§ 60–62.

34 See Augustine, e.g. In Iohannis evangelium tractatus vi. 10 and Ennarationes in Psalmos liv. 11–12.

35 See further O’Daly (1999: 62), and van Oort (1997: 166).

36 See Buxtorf (1662: 25–40) and Carpzov (1728: 178–85).

37 Yehuda ha-Levi, The Kuzari, ii.68 and iv.25, see Korobkin (2009: 236 and 454).

38 See the quotations in Buxtorf (1662: 33 and 35–38).

39 Weinberg (2001: 673–90).

40 See Yehuda ha-Levi, Sefer ha-Kuzari, i. § 49. See the editions of Buxtorf (1660: 24); Cassel (1920: 42), or Korobkin (1998: 77) and ii. § 68. See Buxtorf (1660: 132); Cassel (1920: 168) or Korobkin (1998: 235–36).

41 Me’or Enayim, iii. 57, see Weinberg (2001: 674–75).

42 Dante, De vulgari eloquentia, book 1, chs 6 and 7, see the edition of Botterill (1996: 12 and 14).

43 Dionysius Carthusianus, Enarratio in Genesim, article 43. Literal exposition on Gen. 11. Opera omnia, vol. 1 (1896), 198.

44 Ibidem, article 44: spiritual explanation of Gen. 11. Opera omnia, vol. 1 (1896), 203.

45 Luther’s lectures on Gen. 1–11 were held in 1535–36 and edited in 1544 from the notes by his students. After the text-criticism of Seeberg (1932) and Meinhold (1936), Luther’s Enarrationes in Genesin have since the 1990s been re-evaluated as a trustworthy source for Luther’s theology, see Mattox (2003: 263–73).

46 For a survey of Luther’s use of Augustine in the lectures on Genesis, see Delius (1984: 245–47).

47 Luther’s interpretation of Church history as a struggle between the true and the false church and how it relates to Augustine is touched upon by Headley (1963: 67–68). Pelikan (1959: 89–108) describes this theme in Luther’s lectures on Genesis without calling attention to Augustine as his precedent.

48 See the Weimar edition of Luther (1911 [1544]: 420). See further Maxfield (2008: 168–69).

49 Luther (1911 [1544]: 413): ‘Eber […] sine dubio primam et veram linguam retinuit’ (528): ‘Eber enim, cum reliqui omnes relicta sana doctrina et vero Dei cultu converterentur ad diversas sectas in illo monstro divisionis linguarum, verum cultum retinuit’.

50 Luther (1911 [1544]: 427 and 528).

51 Hunnius (1608: 1521); Gerhard (1637: 266–71); Calovius (1672: 22–24 and 268–72).

52 Mercier (1598: 62 and 225–26).

53 Bibliander (1542: 29 and 51–53), and Bibliander (1548: 38).

54 Tremellius and Junius (1607), see the note on Gen. 11:1.

55 Junius (1590), see the analysis of Genesis 10.

56 Junius (1579: 6).

57 Steuchus (1529: 111).

58 Pereira (1591: 372).

59 Genebrard (1599, book i, p. 33).

60 Scaliger (1610: 437–38), in a letter to Richard Thomson (c.1560/70–1613) on 22 September 1607. All Scaliger’s letters were edited by Daniel Heinsius in 1627. In this collection, the letter to Thomson in question occurs in book 3, letter 242 (Scaliger, 1627: 517–20). Scaliger discusses the same topic in another letter, book 4, letter 362 (Scaliger, 1627: 696–706).

61 E.g. Thomas Erpenius (1584–1624), professor of Arabic and Hebrew at Leiden, see Erpenius (1621: 102).

62 Fuller (1650 [1616], iv. 4: 417–22).

63 Hayne (1648 [1639]: 7–19).

64 Buxtorf the Younger (1662: 1–166).

65 Buxtorf the Younger (1662: 24: the language before Babel; 123: Hebrew as derived from Heber; and 127: that Heber did not hand down his language to all his descendants, but only to those in the line to Abraham).

66 Bochart (1692 [1646], cols 37–38).

67 Rivetus (1632: 318).

68 Morin (1694: 46 and 54).

69 Gerhard (1637: 266–74).

70 Löscher (1706: 16).

71 Carpzov (1728: 165–66 and 175–76).

72 Tornielli (1611: 128–29).

73 Kircher (1679: 122–23).

74 Thomassin (1697: 38).