Edition Masquer
De civitate Dei (CCSL)

Caput XI: Quod ea primitus lingua in usu hominum fuerit, quae postea Hebraea ab Heber nomine nuncupata est, et in cuius familia remansit, cum diuersitas esset facta linguarum.

Quamobrem sicut lingua una cum esset omnium, non ideo filii pestilentiae defuerunt - nam et ante diluuium una erat lingua, et tamen omnes praeter unam Noe iusti domum deleri diluuio meruerunt - , ita, quando merito elatioris inpietatis gentes linguarum diuersitate punitae atque diuisae sunt et ciuitas inpiorum confusionis nomen accepit, hoc est, appellata est Babylon, non defuit domus Heber, ubi ea quae antea fuit omnium lingua remaneret. unde, sicut supra memoraui, cum coepissent enumerari filii Sem, qui singuli gentes singulas procrearunt, primus est commendatus Heber, cum sit abnepos ipsius, hoc est ab illo quintus inueniatur exortus. quia ergo in eius familia remansit haec lingua, diuisis per alias linguas ceteris gentibus, quae lingua prius humano generi non inmerito creditur fuisse communis, ideo deinceps Hebraea est nuncupata. tunc enim opus erat eam distingui ab aliis linguis nomine proprio, sicut aliae quoque uocatae sunt nominibus propriis. quando autem erat una, nihil aliud quam humana lingua uel humana locutio uocabatur, qua sola uniuersum genus humanum loquebatur. dixerit aliquis: si in diebus Phalech filii Heber diuisa est terra per linguas, id est homines, qui tunc erant in terra, ex eius nomine potius debuit appellari lingua illa, quae fuit omnibus ante communis. sed intellegendum est ipsum Heber propterea tale nomen inposuisse filio suo, ut uocaretur Phalech, quod interpretatur diuisio, quia tunc ei natus est, quando per linguas terra diuisa est, id est ipso tempore, ut hoc sit quod dictum est: in diebus eius diuisa est terra. nam nisi adhuc Heber uiueret quando linguarum facta est multitudo, non ex eius nomine nomen acciperet lingua, quae apud illum potuit permanere. et ideo credenda est ipsa fuisse prima illa communis, quoniam de poena uenit illa multiplicatio mutatioque linguarum et utique praeter hanc poenam esse debuit populus dei. nec frustra lingua haec est, quam tenuit Abraham, nec in omnes suos filios transmittere potuit, sed in eos tantum, qui propagati per Iacob et insignius atque eminentius in dei populum coalescentes dei testamenta et stirpem Christi habere potuerunt. nec Heber ipse eandem linguam in uniuersam progeniem suam refudit, sed in eam tantum, cuius generationes perducuntur ad Abraham. quapropter etiamsi non euidenter expressum est fuisse aliquod pium genus hominum, quando ab inpiis Babylonia condebatur, non ad hoc ualuit haec obscuritas, ut quaerentis fraudaretur sed potius ut exerceretur intentio. cum enim legitur unam fuisse linguam primitus omnium et ante omnes filios Sem commendatur Heber, quamuis ex illo quintus oriatur, et Hebraea uocatur lingua, quam patriarcharum et prophetarum non solum in sermonibus suis, uerum etiam in litteris sacris custodiuit auctoritas: profecto, cum quaeritur in diuisione linguarum, ubi lingua illa remanere potuerit, quae fuit ante communis - quae sine ulla dubitatione ubi remansit, non ibi fuit illa poena, quae facta est mutatione linguarum - , quid aliud occurrit, nisi quod in huius gente remanserit, a cuius nomine nomen accepit, et hoc iustitiae gentis huius non paruum apparuisse uestigium, quod, cum aliae gentes plecterentur mutatione linguarum, ad istam non peruenit tale supplicium? sed adhuc illud mouet, quomodo potuerunt singulas gentes facere Heber et filius eius Phalech, si una lingua permansit ambobus. et certe una est Hebraea gens ex Heber propagata usque ad Abraham et per eum deinceps, donec magnus fieret populus Israel. quomodo igitur omnes filii, qui commemorati sunt, trium filiorum Noe fecerunt singulas gentes, si Heber et Phalech singulas non fecerunt? nimirum illud est probabilius, quod gigans ille Nebroth fecerit etiam ipse gentem suam, sed propter excellentiam dominationis et corporis seorsum eminentius nominatus est, ut maneat numerus septuaginta duarum gentium atque linguarum. Phalech autem propterea commemoratus est, non quod gentem fecerit - nam eadem ipsa est eius gens Hebraea eademque lingua - , sed propter tempus insigne, quod in diebus eius terra diuisa sit. nec mouere nos debet, quomodo potuerit gigans Nebroth ad illud aetatis occurrere, quo Babylon condita est et confusio facta linguarum atque ex hoc diuisio gentium. non enim quia Heber sextus est a Noe, ille autem quartus, ideo non potuerunt ad idem tempus conuenire uiuendo. hoc enim contigit, cum plus uiuerent ubi pauciores sunt generationes, minus ubi plures; aut serius nati essent ubi pauciores, maturius ubi plures. sane intellegendum est, quando terra diuisa est, non solum iam natos ceteros filios filiorum Noe, qui commemorantur patres gentium, sed etiam eius aetatis fuisse, ut numerosas familias haberent, quae dignae fuissent nominibus gentium. unde nequaquam putandum, quod eo fuerint ordine geniti, quo commemorati leguntur. alioquin duodecim filii Iectan, qui erat alius filius Heber, frater Phalech, quomodo potuerunt iam gentes facere, si post Phalech fratrem suum Iectan natus est, sicut post eum commemoratus est, quandoquidem tempore, quo natus est Phalech, diuisa est terra? proinde intellegendum est priorem quidem nominatum, sed longe post fratrem suum Iectan fuisse natum, cuius Iectan duodecim filii tam grandes iam familias haberent, ut in linguas proprias diuidi possent. sic enim potuit prior commemorari, qui erat aetate posterior, quemadmodum prius commemorati sunt ex tribus filiis Noe procreati filii Iapheth, qui erat minimus eorum; deinde filii Cham, qui erat medius; postremo filii Sem, qui erat primus et maximus, illarum autem gentium uocabula partim manserunt, ita ut hodieque appareat unde fuerint deriuata, sicut ex Assur Assyrii et ex Heber Hebraei; partim temporis uetustate mutata sunt, ita ut uix homines doctissimi antiquissimas historias perscrutantes, nec omnium, sed aliquarum ex istis origines gentium potuerint reperire. nam quod ex filio Cham, qui uocabatur Mesraim, Aegyptii perhibentur exorti, nulla hic resonat origo uocabuli; sicut nec Aethiopum, qui dicuntur ad eum filium Cham pertinere, qui Chus appellatus est. et si omnia considerentur, plura mutata quam manentia nomina apparent.

Traduction Masquer
The City of God

Chapter 11.--That the Original Language in Use Among Men Was that Which Was Afterwards Called Hebrew, from Heber, in Whose Family It Was Preserved When the Confusion of Tongues Occurred.

Wherefore, as the fact of all using one language did not secure the absence of sin-infected men from the race,--for even before the deluge there was one language, and yet all but the single family of just Noah were found worthy of destruction by the flood,--so when the nations, by a prouder godlessness, earned the punishment of the dispersion and the confusion of tongues, and the city of the godless was called Confusion or Babylon, there was still the house of Heber in which the primitive language of the race survived. And therefore, as I have already mentioned, when an enumeration is made of the sons of Shem, who each founded a nation, Heber is first mentioned, although he was of the fifth generation from Shem. And because, when the other races were divided by their own peculiar languages, his family preserved that language which is not unreasonably believed to have been the common language of the race, it was on this account thenceforth named Hebrew. For it then became necessary to distinguish this language from the rest by a proper name; though, while there was only one, it had no other name than the language of man, or human speech, it alone being spoken by the whole human race. Some one will say: If the earth was divided by languages in the days of Peleg, Heber's son, that language, which was formerly common to all, should rather have been called after Peleg. But we are to understand that Heber himself gave to his son this name Peleg, which means Division; because he was born when the earth was divided, that is, at the very time of the division, and that this is the meaning of the words, "In his days the earth was divided." ¹ For unless Heber had been still alive when the languages were multiplied, the language which was preserved in his house would not have been called after him. We are induced to believe that this was the primitive and common language, because the multiplication and change of languages was introduced as a punishment, and it is fit to ascribe to the people of God an immunity from this punishment. Nor is it without significance that this is the language which Abraham retained, and that he could not transmit it to all his descendants, but only to those of Jacob's line, who distinctively and eminently constituted God's people, and received His covenants, and were Christ's progenitors according to the flesh. In the same way, Heber himself did not transmit that language to all his posterity, but only to the line from which Abraham sprang. And thus, although it is not expressly stated, that when the wicked were building Babylon there was a godly seed remaining, this indistinctness is intended to stimulate research rather than to elude it. For when we see that originally there was one common language, and that Heber is mentioned before all Shem's sons, though he belonged to the fifth generation from him, and that the language which the patriarchs and prophets used, not only in their conversation, but in the authoritative language of Scripture, is called Hebrew, when we are asked where that primitive and common language was preserved after the confusion of tongues, certainly, as there can be no doubt that those among whom it was preserved were exempt from the punishment it embodied, what other suggestion can we make, than that it survived in the family of him whose name it took, and that this is no small proof of the righteousness of this family, that the punishment with which the other families were visited did not fall upon it?

But yet another question is mooted: How did Heber and his son Peleg each found a nation, if they had but one language? For no doubt the Hebrew nation propagated from Heber through Abraham, and becoming through him a great people, is one nation. How, then, are all the sons of the three branches of Noah's family enumerated as founding a nation each, if Heber and Peleg did not so? It is very probable that the giant Nimrod founded also his nation, and that Scripture has named him separately on account of the extraordinary dimensions of his empire and of his body, so that the number of seventy-two nations remains. But Peleg was mentioned, not because he founded a nation (for his race and language are Hebrew), but on account of the critical time at which he was born, all the earth being then divided. Nor ought we to be surprised that the giant Nimrod lived to the time in which Babylon was founded and the confusion of tongues occurred, and the consequent division of the earth. For though Heber was in the sixth generation from Noah, and Nimrod in the fourth, it does not follow that they could not be alive at the same time. For when the generations are few, they live longer and are born later; but when they are many, they live a shorter time, and come into the world earlier. We are to understand that, when the earth was divided, the descendants of Noah who are registered as founders of nations were not only already born, but were of an age to have immense families, worthy to be called tribes or nations. And therefore we must by no means suppose that they were born in the order in which they were set down; otherwise, how could the twelve sons of Joktan, another son of Heber's, and brother of Peleg, have already founded nations, if Joktan was born, as he is registered, after his brother Peleg, since the earth was divided at Peleg's birth? We are therefore to understand that, though Peleg is named first, he was born long after Joktan, whose twelve sons had already families so large as to admit of their being divided by different languages. There is nothing extraordinary in the last born being first named: of the sons of Noah, the descendants of Japheth are first named; then the sons of Ham, who was the second son; and last the sons of Shem, who was the first and oldest. Of these nations the names have partly survived, so that at this day we can see from whom they have sprung, as the Assyrians from Assur, the Hebrews from Heber, but partly have been altered in the lapse of time, so that the most learned men, by profound research in ancient records, have scarcely been able to discover the origin, I do not say of all, but of some of these nations. There is, for example, nothing in the name Egyptians to show that they are descended from Misraim, Ham's son, nor in the name Ethiopians to show a connection with Cush, though such is said to be the origin of these nations. And if we take a general survey of the names, we shall find that more have been changed than have remained the same.