CHAPTER 11

11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one word.

AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO. AND IN ALL THE EARTH THERE WAS A SINGLE LANGUAGE. — How can this be understood, when it was soon said that the sons of Noah or the sons of his sons were scattered abroad by the land according to their tribes and according to their nations and according to their tongues? (Cf. Gen 10:5,20,31) It may be necessary to understand that the author then mentions, as a recapitulation, what existed previously. But there is a certain obscurity in the fact that the author has used this kind of expression, as if continuing the account of what happened next. [Question on Genesis, 20]

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM OF CONSTANTINOPLE. For after making a list of those born afterwards, she said: All the earth had one language and one word. (Gen. 11:1) It is not from the earth that she speaks, but from the human race, to teach us that the human race spoke at first only one language. And all the earth had one language and one word. Here language means idiom, and the word word means the same thing: that is what it means by the use of the same language and the same word. To see that the word language means language, listen to this other (204) passage of Scripture: The venom of serpents is under their tongues (Ps. CXXXIX, 4): thus, by the word language, Scripture means language. [Homilies on Genesis]

11:2-4 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. 4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

ALCUIN OF YORK. IS IT CREDIBLE THAT PEOPLE WERE OF SUCH FOOLISHNESS AS TO THINK THEY COULD RAISE ANY BUILDING SO HIGH AS TO REACH HEAVEN? — Answer. Pride is usually followed by foolishness, and humility by wisdom. Therefore the tower here symbolizes pride. So pride caused the diversity of tongues[, Christ’s humility assembled the diversity of tongues], and those whom the tower had disunited, the Church brought together. [Question 147]

WHO WAS THE FIRST OF ALL TO STRIVE TO RULE OVER MEN AND ENLARGE HIS KINGDOM? — Answer. Nemrod the giant, as is read in the sacred history, who had initiated the building of the tower and the foundation of Babylon. [Question 148]

ARE THE TOWER AND THE CITY ONE WORK OR TWO? — Answer. The more general opinion is that the tower was the citadel of the city of Babylon. The city is called Babylon, which means “confusion”, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded, and the speech of men divided into various tongues. The wonderful construction of this city, that is, Babylon, is mentioned in the history of the Gentiles. Its height was said to be tremendous, whether this was in reference to that one tower which they endeavoured to raise to heaven as the principal one among all others, or to all the towers, thus signified with the singular, as when one says in Latin miles (“the soldier”) and we understand thereby thousands of soldiers (“the soldiery, the army”). [Questions and Answers on Genesis, 149]

AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO. TOWER OF BABEL. — Come, let us build to ourselves a city and tower, whose top shall be to heaven. If these men thought that they could do this, they showed a stupid audacity and impiety. And since God took vengeance on them for this cause, confusion of their languages, it is not absurd to believe that they actually thought it. [Questions on Genesis, 21]

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM OF CONSTANTINOPLE. And it came to pass, as they departed from the east, that they found a land in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt there. (Gen. 11:2) See how human nature can not remain within its own limits, but as always ambitious, it seeks new benefits. What loses it is not to know the limits imposed on it, to seek always better than it has and more than it is called to have. Also those who sigh after the goods of the world, if they are surrounded by riches and power, manage to forget their nature, and wish to rise to the summit of grandeur, until they are precipitated to the bottom of the abyss. This is what we see happen to a few every day without making others wiser: the example retains a moment, but soon we forget everything, we follow the same road and we fall into the same precipice. Here we see an example. And it came to pass, as they departed from the east, that they found a land in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt there. See how we gradually recognize the instability of their thought. When they saw this campaign, they emigrated, gave up their first establishment and lived there. The Scripture then says: Everyone says to his neighbor: Come, let's make bricks and cook them in the fire. So they made the bricks like stone and the bitumen served them as cement. And they said Come, let us build a city and a tower whose head goes up to heaven, to make us a name before being scattered all over the earth. (Gen. 11:3-4) You see how they are abusing their common idiom, and how this proud proposal engenders all their ills. Come, make bricks, and cook them with fire: So they made the bricks like stone, and the bitumen served them as cement. See with what security they think of building without thinking of this truth: If the Lord does not help to raise the house, those who build it work in vain. (Ps. CXXVI, 1.) Let us build, they say, a city: not for God, but for us. See how far perversity is going! in spite of the memory, so still present of universal destruction, they nevertheless fall into such a madness. And let us build, they say, a city and a tower whose head goes up to heaven. By this word of heaven, the Scripture wanted to show us the excess of their audacity. And let us make a name. Notice here the germ of evil. It is so, they say, to leave an eternal memory, so that our memory always lives. This work, this building will be such that oblivion can not erase it. Let's do this before being scattered on the surface of the whole earth. While we are still together, they say, let us accomplish this project, to leave an indelible memory for future generations.

There are still many people who imitate them and who want to perpetuate their name by similar works, by building palaces, baths, porticoes or walks. If you ask one of these men why he works and gets so tired, why he spends so much money and so needlessly, he will also answer that it is to save his memory from oblivion and why say it's his house or his field. But this is not to glorify his memory, it is rather to accuse him. For this name will be followed immediately by a thousand insulting qualifications; it will be said that such is avaricious, greedy, spoiler of the widow and the orphan. This is not to make a name for oneself, but to put up with eternal accusations that even continue after death and sharpen tongues to curse and condemn the possession of all these goods. If you are anxious to leave an indelible memory, I will show you the way to achieve it, while giving you praise and blessings even in the future. How will you be able to talk about yourself every day and deserve praise even after leaving this life? It is by distributing these riches to the poor, without taking care of stones, palaces, campaigns and baths. Here is an immortal memory, here is a memory that gives you a thousand treasures, which helps you to carry the weight of your. sins and reconciles you to God. Consider, I pray you, the names that everyone will give you, calling you compassionate, human, gentle, generous, inexhaustible in his charities. He gave, shared his good with the poor. His justice remains forever. (Ps. Iii. 9.) This is what happens with the riches thus spread, they subsist, but accumulated and shut up, they lose their master with them. He gave, shared his good to the poor. But notice the rest. His (205) justice remains forever. He has distributed his riches in a day, but his justice remains in eternity and makes his glory immortal.

You have seen what is this memory that extends to eternity, a memory that procures immense and inexhaustible goods. Let us try to eternalize ourselves by works of this nature; for the work of piled stones not only can not profit us, but will raise our voice against us like a monument of infamy. We leave taking away all the sins of which all these buildings were the occasion for us; but as for the buildings themselves, we leave them, and we have not even the frivolous and useless consolation of leaving our name there, we only remove accusations, and soon we will call them by the name of a other. Indeed, this happens: a property passes from one master to another, then from a second to a third. Today the house has a name, tomorrow she wears another one, the next day another one. We are deliberately mistaken believing to have a property while it is only a usufruct and that, willy nilly, it will be necessary to leave it to others. It will not always be to those we would have chosen, but I do not insist on that. But if you have such a passion for celebrity, if you attach so much value to remembering, see the one that widows had kept Tabitha, how they surrounded Peter crying and showing the tunics and dresses that this Dorcas had made them when she lived among them. After they had surrounded Peter weeping bitterly, remembering the food and help they received, Peter brought them all out, knelt down and prayed; After raising him up, he called back the saints and widows and presented them alive. (Act IX, 39, 41.) So if you want your memory to remain; if you love true glory, imitate this woman. Leave similar monuments, not built with materials purchased at great expense, but with all your charity towards your fellows. This is a memory worthy of praise and truly profitable.

But let us return to our subject and see all the audacity of the men of this time. If we want to look at it, their passions will be a lesson for you. We shall build, they say, a city and a tower whose head goes up to in heaven, to make us a name before being scattered on the earth, do you see how they show all the corruption of their souls, let us build a city and make a name for ourselves, but see that after an extermination As terrible men have none the less vices. What will happen, how will they be punished for their extravagance? God has promised that, faithful to his goodness, he would not make more deluge, but men have not been corrected by punishments, nor made better by the good deeds. [Homilies on Genesis]

11:5-7 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

ALCUIN OF YORK. TO WHOM DID GOD SAY, “LET US GO DOWN AND CONFOUND THEIR TONGUES”? — Answer. For God, going down means looking at human actions or coming closer to men’s senses. By saying “let us go down” in the plural and then “God confounded the language of the whole earth” [in the singular], he wanted to show the holy Trinity with the distinction of persons, and the unity of work in the divine majesty, just as it was said in the beginning of man’s creation, “Let us make man to our image and likeness” and then “God made man to his own likeness” (Gen. 1:26-27), so that it might be believed that there is Trinity in persons and unity in power. [Questions and Answers on Genesis, 146]

AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO. TRINITY OF PERSONS IN THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE NATURE. — Come, and let us go down there and confound their tongue, that they may not understand each the voice of his neighbor. Is this to be understood in the sense that God told the angels? Or should we understand it rather according to what is read at the beginning of Genesis: Let us make man in our own image and likeness? (Gen 1:26) As the text continues in the singular: And the Lord scattered them thence over the face of all the earth, (Gen 11:9) when it was said: Let us make man in our image (Gen 1:27), he did not continue in the plural: “they did”, but in the singular: God did “. [Questions on Genesis, 22]

GREGORY I OF ROME. It is fatal if the just ones are not in unity, so it is more fatal when the evil ones are unified. For the unity of the reprobate obstructs more firmly the path of the good, the more firmly it opposes itself to it by being collected together. Paul had beheld this unity of the reprobate destructive to himself, when being seized in the midst of the Sadducees and Pharisees he was saying; Of the hope and resurrection of the dead, I am judged. (Acts 23:6) And struck by this voice, the crowd of his hearers immediately mutually started asunder against itself. And when the riotous multitude is divided into two parts, a way of rescue is opened to Paul, because the crowd of persecutors when divided released him whom it had held fast when united together. The righteous are therefore rescued, when the unrighteous are divided, and the wishes of the Elect arrive at completion, when the hosts of the reprobate are confounded by discord… If the unity of the wicked had not been hurtful, Divine Providence would never have divided the tongues of the proud with such great diversity. [Mor. Job, 41:8-9 MORALIA]

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM OF CONSTANTINOPLE. (Gen. 11:5-7) Listen to the following to know the ineffable mercy of God. The Lord God came down to see the city and the tower that the sons of men were building. (Gen. 11:5) See how Scripture expresses itself from the human point of view. The Lord God came down. Do not understand this in a purely human way, but as a lesson, to show us that one should never lightly condemn one's brethren and that one should not judge only on vague remarks, but to ascertain by evidence some. Such is always the intention of God, and it is to instruct the human race that it descends to our language. And the Lord God came down to see the city and the tower. You see that he does not repress their madness at first, he shows great patience and expects that all their evilness has shown themselves in their work before opposing their efforts. In order not to be able to say that everything had remained in their minds, but that they had undertaken nothing, God expects that they have indeed begun their work, to show how insane their attempt was. And the Lord God came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men were building. See the excess of his mercy! if he let them work and get tired, it was so that the experience would be enough for them. But when he saw that their malice was increasing and that evil was still gaining, he still showed his goodness by preventing them from continuing, as a good doctor, when he sees the evil increase and the wound become incurable resort to amputation to remove the cause of the disease. And the Lord God says, This race has one language, the same for all. (ie the same language, the same idiom.) (Gen. 11:6) They started this work and will not stop working at their company.

Notice the goodness of God willing to stop their efforts, he begins by explaining his conduct; he shows the finger, so to speak, the greatness of their fault and the excess of their folly; he shows that they have abused this community of language. This race, he says, has only one language. They started this work and will not stop working on their business. It is, indeed, the use of God, when he is about to punish, to bring out. first, the greatness of sins, in order to explain his conduct, before correcting the guilty. At the time of the flood, while he was making this terrible threat, the Scripture says: The Lord God seeing that the vices of men have multiplied and that everyone since his youth; nourishes only perverse ideas in his heart. (Gen. VI, 5.) Do you see how he begins by showing the excess of their vices? And he said, I will destroy the man; and now: This race has only one language, the same for all, and they started this work. Since this agreement, which stems from the unity of their language, has led them to such a madness, would it not lead them later to even more guilty actions? They will not stop working at their company; nothing can stop their enthusiasm and ardor, but they will hasten to do all that they have solved, if punishment does not stop them at once. We can see that God did the same with the first man; for at the moment of driving him out of paradise, he said: Who told you that you were naked? (Gen. III, 2); and further he adds: Adam has become like one of us, to know good and evil. And now he must not extend his hand, let him take the fruit of the tree of life and eat it to live perpetually. And the Lord God sent him away from heaven. (Gen.III, 22,23 :) Now he says: This race has only one language, even there for all: they started this cover and will not stop working on their business. Come, come down, and confuse their language, so that nobody understands his neighbor. (Gen. 11:6-7)

See again in these words the condescension of God for our nature. Come and go down. What do these words mean? Does God need help to correct or help to punish? No, certainly! But just as the Scripture has already said, "The Lord has come down," indicating to us that he has thoroughly examined the excess of their evil, she now says to us, "Come and go down, words quite like to equals: Come, he says, and go down to confuse their language, so that no one understands his neighbor. I inflict on them, he says, a punishment which, eternal monument of their madness, will last forever, so that no century can forget it. Because, since they have abused the unity of language, they will be punished by the diversity of languages. This is how the Lord acts constantly. He did it from the beginning with regard to the woman, she abused the gifts she had received; he submitted it to her husband. It was the same for Adam; how he had not benefited from his perfect happiness and the stay in paradise, but that he deserved to be punished. for his disobedience, God drove him out of paradise, and inflicted on him a perpetual punishment, saying to him, "The earth will produce you thorns and thistles." (Gen. III, 18.) Likewise those men who enjoyed the unity of language having misused this gift they had received, God punishes their wickedness by the diversity of idioms. Let us confuse, he says, their language, so that no one will understand his neighbor, so that these men, together, that their language is the same, be separated when he is different. Because those who do not have the same idiom and the same dialect, how could they live together? [Homilies on Genesis]

11:8-9 And the Lord scattered them thence over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city and the tower. 9 On this account its name was called Confusion, because there the Lord confounded the languages of all the earth, and thence the Lord scattered them upon the face of all the earth.

ALCUIN OF YORK. IF GOD RESTED FROM ALL HIS WORKS ON THE SEVENTH DAY, HOW DID SUCH A DIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES SUDDENLY APPEAR? — Answer. It is not thought that the Creator made anything new with this division of the languages, but he divided the manners and forms of speech into various kinds of languages. Hence we will find the same syllables and letters of identical force, albeit put together differently, in the various languages of the nations, and often even the same nouns or verbs with one meaning in one language, and another meaning in another. Where we say in the Psalm in virga ferrea (“with a rod of iron”) (Ps. 2:9), the Greek has ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ (en rhabdo sidera), but in Latin “sidera” does not mean “of iron” like in Greek, but “stars”. [Questions and Answers on Genesis, 151]

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM OF CONSTANTINOPLE. The Lord God scattered them from this place all over the face of the earth and they stopped building the city and the tower. (Gen. 11:8) You see that God, in his goodness, confined himself to rendering them incapable of persevering; they res. then seemed to fools. One asked one thing to his neighbor, who gave him another, and all their efforts did not succeed. So they stopped building the city and the tower; that is why it was called confusion, because it was there that God had confused the languages ​​of the earth. (Gen. 11:9) From there the Lord God scattered them on all the earth. See how everything has been done so that the memory is eternal. In the first place, the division of languages ​​had been predicted in advance by a name, that of Phalec, which Haus had given to his son, which signifies separation. Then the very location was called confusion, which corresponds to Babylon. Finally, Eber himself preserved the old language so that it was still an obvious proof of the division. You see how many ways God has provided that the memory (207) is preserved and that never such an event could be forgotten. Besides, the father was then obliged to tell his son the cause of this diversity, and the son asked the father where the name of this place came from. Because it was called Babylon, that is to say, confusion, because that was where the Lord God had confused the languages ​​of all the earth, and it was from there that he had scattered the inhabitants; indeed, the name of this place seems to me to apply to both things, to the confusion of languages ​​and to the dispersion of men.

You have learned, my beloved, what has caused the scattering of men, as well as the confusion of tongues. Let us avoid, I conjure you, to imitate these men and never abuse the benefits of God; meditate on the weakness of human nature, to moderate our desires as it suits mortals; let's think about the fragility of the present existence, the brevity of our life, and put our trust in our good works. During these days, let us not only show the rigor of our fasting, but the abundance of our alms, and the diligence of our prayers. Indeed, prayers must always accompany fasting. To make sure of this, listen to Christ: This kind of demons are driven out only by prayer and fasting. (Matt XVII, 20). And it is still said about the Apostles: After praying and fasting, they commended them to the God to whom they had believed. (Acts xiv., 22.) And the Apostle again says: Do not deprive yourself of one another except during prayer and fasting. (I Corinthians 7: 5) You see how fasting and prayers are sustained. It is then that one can pray with more attention, that our mind is more unobstructed, is not appeased by the fatal burden of sensuality. Prayer is a powerful weapon, a solid support, an inexhaustible treasure, a port without thunderstorms, an inviolable asylum, provided that we presented ourselves before the Lord with attention and vigilance, the soul fully gathered not to leave any place where can penetrate the enemy of our salvation. He knows, indeed, that during this time we can have edifying conversations, confess our sins, show our wounds to the doctor and obtain the complete cure; it is then especially that he besieges us, that he deploys all his strength and his skill to defeat us or seduce us. Let us watch, then, I implore you, and knowing the pitfalls that it sets us up, let us strive, especially at this time, to fight it as if we could see it present before our eyes and to repulse all the thoughts of which it would like us trouble. Let us do our utmost to speak to God as we should, not only so as to sound our voices, but so that our thoughts follow our discourse. For if language utters words, but the spirit travels outside looking at what is happening at home, thinking of public affairs, it serves us nothing, or even contributes to our condemnation. In presenting ourselves before a man, we often attach so much importance to it, that we do not see the assistants, but we collect our minds, to think only of the one we approach: all the more must we do as much with God, and constantly thinking about the prayers we say. [Homilies on Genesis]

11:10-13 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: 11 And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. 12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah: 13 And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.

Arphaxad begot Canaan. For the Hebrew and Vulgate text, both here and in 1 Chronicles 1, says Arphaxad begat Sala; the Septuagint and the Gospel of Luke 3:36 place Canaan between them, as son of Arphaxad, and father of Sala. Eusebius also in his Chronicle, with most Greek Fathers, and St. Augustine, count Canaan in this genealogy of Sem. The Venerable Bede writes, “St. Luke uses rather the Greek testimonies than the Hebrew: whereof happens that I much marvel at, and for dullness of wit, being stricken with great admiration, I cannot thoroughly scan, seeing in the original Hebrew are found only ten generations from the flood unto Abraham, by what means St. Luke, who (the Holy Spirit governing his pen) could in no sort write false, would rather set down eleven generations in the Gospel, Canaan adjoined according to the Septuagint.” [Bede the Venerable, Pref. com. in Act Apost.]

AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO. LIFE SPAN OF MEN BEFORE THE FLOOD. — In relation to what the Scripture says: And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Canaan. Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Canaan, four hundred years, or, as the Greek says: three hundred years, the question arises as to how God said to Noah: And the years of life of them a hundred and twenty years (Gen 6:3), for Arphaxad was not yet born when God said that, nor was he in the ark with his fathers. How, then, are we to understand the aforementioned one hundred and twenty years of human life, since there is a man who lived more than four hundred? The passage must be interpreted as meaning that twenty years before the beginning of the construction of the ark, a building that lasted for a hundred years, God said this to Noah, pre-announcing to him already that he would send the flood and that he did not predict the time of human life of men that were to be born after the flood, but the time of the human life of men that he would annihilate with the flood. [Question on Genesis, 23]

AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO. (Gen. 11:10) Where some Latin versions present Sem filius Noë erat annorum centum, cum genuit Arphaxad (Noah's sons were a hundred years old when he fathered Arphaxad), we read in Greek: Sem filius centum annorum cum genuit Arphaxat; (Shem the son a hundred years old when he begot Arpachshad.) there is therefore an ellispe, since the verb erat (was) is not expressed. Then, as one does not read filius Noe (son of Noah) but simply son, one must recognize a new phrase. [Locutions]

11:14-21 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber: 15 And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. 16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg: 17 And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters. 18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu: 19 And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters. 20 And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug: 21 And Reu lived after he begat Serug two hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters.

ALCUIN OF YORK. IN WHICH FAMILY DID THE LANGUAGE ORIGINALLY GIVEN [BY GOD] TO ADAM REMAIN? — Answer. In the family of Heber, it is believed, after whom the Hebrews were named, in that part of humanity which remained God’s portion, in which Christ was to be born. For it was right that salvation should be first preached to the world in the language by which death had first entered the world. The title written on the Saviour’s cross also shows that this is the first of all languages. [Questions and Answers on Genesis, 150]

AMBROSIASTER. OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, WHERE DOES ITS NAME COME FROM. — Everything that comes from God is reasonable, and everything has its source in a cause which is the principle of its origin, which justifies its name and its existence in the eyes of reason, and presents a designation which is the origin of the name that it is clothed. The reason for existence of man is therefore the cause by which it exists. Now it is composed of four elements, the earth, the air, the water and the fire; the fifth element is the soul, which is like the conductor and as the king destined to direct the body after its formation and organization. We derive our origin from the earth, and we bear its name. In fact, the name of men given to us comes from humus, earth, of which the body of our first father was formed. There is, therefore, here a cause, a reason for all those who derive their origin from the same father, to be called by the same name, and seem to reproduce it in themselves. Let us now see whether it is right to say as some, that the Hebrews are thus called from Heber from he is who they descend from. To consider only the name, this opinion would have some probability, for Heber lived prior to Abraham. If, however, it were true, all those of the tribe of Heber should have borne this same name to him, for seven generations separate Hebron from Abraham. (Gen. 11:16, 26) If, then, this name is prior to Abraham, or Abraham himself was called by that name, then the Hebrews derive their name from Heber. If, on the contrary, this name was not used until after Abraham, then it is not from Heber, but from Abraham that the Hebrews derive their name, since the children of Abraham are the first whom we see called of that name. Thus, in Genesis, Joseph and his brothers are referred to as the Hebrews. As it was known that Abraham had come from Syria in the land of Canaan (Gen. 17:4), that his house had grown there, that in reward of his law he had been filled with all sorts of goods, that he had been called king, prophet and father of many nations (Gen. 17:4), that with three hundred and eighteen men of his servants he had defeated five kings (Gen. 17:4), and that these events had not taken place in an ignored corner of the earth to remain forever unknown, the name of Hebrews was given to those who descended from that race. For all these reasons, Abraham was therefore worthy to become the leader of those who drew from him their origin. It was by a providential judgment of God that the chief and stump of the people of God was established in the land of Canaan, so that all who were born of him in their religion as well as in their way of life would be quite different then he had not been himself before coming into the land of Chanaan. God had renewed it entirely, and he himself had to found a new people in the religion of the true God. This is why the Apostle St. Paul is glorified to be born a Hebrew of Hebrew fathers (Phil. 3:5); it was for him a title of dignity, a recommendation, and a mark of nobility, to bear the name of him whom so many virtues had made pleasing to God, and who was the chief and the stock of his people. Reject this opinion if it is not conformable to reason, if it is despised if it appears unworthy, if it is entirely rejected if Abraham is not worthy of this prerogative, as guilty of flatteries towards him. What is this hostility against Abraham, what is this rivalry which makes him dispute this glory by his enemies? And who are they, if not his own children? What have they then to do in Abraham to dispute this honor? And what have they so much to praise in Heber to judge him worthy of this prerogative? If we could examine his life, we might find that he worshiped idols, like Thare and Nachor, and the father of Nahor, who have not lived in a time far removed from him, and who, according to the testimony of Joshua, have served the foreign gods. (Josh. 24:2) Let those who support the contrary opinion tell us the reasons which militate here in favor of Heber, and what are the merits on which we keep silence; but these merits are void, for the Scriptures are common to us, and we see clearly what is due to each. If they think they can defend their opinion by the name alone, it is weak and improbable. The name of Héber could decide the question here if other testimonies supported this presumption, for others with the same name could claim this privilege without any right. The feeling in conformity with the truth is that which is supported not by name alone, but by solid reasons. Indeed, God having deigned to choose Abraham to vivify the human race in his person and to propose it to men as an example to God. follow to reach salvation, he had to repair in him what human frailty had made them lose. Now it has been proposed as a model in the resemblance of which the human race was to return to God, and which was to place men in possession of the true worship of God and of the language which had been given them in the first place. Adam was at first the image of God, and it was through him that the knowledge of God was to spread on earth; but after the ruin of mankind and the forgetting of the true God in which men had fallen, God made up his image in Abraham so that his faith in the true God would be fruitful again in abundance. It is not, then, contrary to reason, that the people who came forth from Abraham owed to him both his origin and his name. Would the name of Heaven be difficult for them, because it seems to have more analogy with the word Hebrew, and that the word Hebrews is said, and not Abraham! Let them observe that the Hebrew language, and not the Hebrews, are spoken of. If they wish to attack us on this point, they are beaten by their own weapons, and victory remains undecided between the two parties; it is reserved for him who will prove the truth of his assertions by good reasons, for although one is in a position on one point, one loses one’s cause if one is in default on another. We say, therefore, that a letter has been suppressed for being pleasing to the ear, and that the Hebrews are said to be Hebrew, because the pronunciation is softer. Thus we do not call the Jews who come from Judah ‘Judah’, but Jews. Everywhere, in fact, where reason requires it, one or more letters are suppressed or modified to make the pronunciation more agreeable. Thus, for the middle of the day, we say noon, and likewise in a multitude of similar cases. It is therefore proper, as we have shown, that the Hebrew people owe to Abraham his name as well as his language. It is therefore this tongue which was first given to Adam and to other men, and which to punish it. the presumption which inspired the construction of the tower of Babel was confounded and divided into several languages, so that it ceased to exist, giving birth by the change of certain phrases to a multitude of other idioms, which nevertheless had the same expression. As to this primitive language, it was not entirely lost, but it was confused in the other languages. God then confounded the language of men to prevent them from understanding each other and to engage in more reckless excesses (Gen. 11:8). There were, then, as many tongues as there were divisions among men; each division established a different language in the country it inhabited. If we do not wish to admit that it is this language which, according to Scripture, was the only one spoken among men, it remains for us only that is, it was formed in detail of the other languages ​​and reduced to a single idiom used by Abraham. As he was to be the father of a great number of nations, he spoke a language composed of many languages, and thus was the object of a general renewal. When those who are represented in the book of Genesis as having only one language, and the same manner of speaking from the East to scatter all over the face of the earth, who preserve the use of the primitive language. (Gen. 10:31; 11:1) Indeed, this language given to the first man in paradise is spoken in no other country as any other language except by the Jews. And after the confusion of languages, we no longer find the trace of the language we call Hebrew. If, therefore, this language is not found in any country, or in any people, and Abraham was a native of Syria, whence came this language that he spoke, he or his descendants, if it were not the first, at least it was formed of several languages? Some languages, indeed, have similar expressions. But this hypothesis does not satisfy reason as that which holds that this language is the first, for reason shows the providential design of this fact. In this way, Abraham had to speak the language spoken by the first man so that Moses, in his history of the creation of the world and of man, used the same language that God used when he gave the first man the name of Adam and the first woman the name of Eve. It was fitting that the account of Moses should be written in the language of those whose origin he tells us to teach as God had resumed his first designs and renewed the effects of his mercy in the person of Abraham. [Questions on the Old and New Testaments, 108]

AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO. ORIGIN OF THE NAME OF THE HEBREWS. — Why is it said that Shem was the father of all the sons of Heber, since Heber appears in the fifth generation from Shem, the son of Noah? (Cf. Gen 10:22-24) Is it because the Hebrews are said to have received his name from him? Through him, indeed, the line of generations passes to Abraham. But we can rightly ask what is more likely: that the Hebrews were named for Heber as a variant of Hebrews, or that they were for Abraham’s sake, as a variant of Abrahews. [Questions on Genesis, 24]

JEROME OF STRIDON. 11:14 ARPHAXAD BEGAT SELA, AND SELA BEGAT HEBER. — Of Heber was born two sons: Phaleg was the name of one of them, because it was in his time that the earth was divided, and his brother was called Jectan. Heber, from whom the Hebrews got their name, gave by name a divination, to his son, the name of Phaleg, which signifies division; it was in fact under Phaleg that the division of tongues in Babylon took place. [Hebrew Questions on Genesis]

11:22-28 And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor: 23 And Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. 24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah: 25 And Nahor lived after he begat Terah an hundred and nineteen years, and begat sons and daughters. 26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. 27 Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot. 28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.28 And Arrhan died in the presence of Tharrha his father, in the land in which he was born, in the country of the Chaldees.

ALCUIN OF YORK. WHAT IS MEANT BY WHAT WE READ ABOUT ARAN, ABRAHAM’S BROTHER, “ARAN DIED BEFORE THARE HIS FATHER IN UR OF THE CHALDEES”? — Answer. “Ur” means “fire”, and the Chaldees worship fire as a god. Thare, according to the Hebrews, was thrown into a fire with his sons by the Chaldees because he refused to adore fire, and Aran was killed in that fire. This is what is meant now: “He died in the sight of Thare his father”, as Jerome relates in his book of Hebrew Questions (Patr. tom. XXIII, col. 957), saying, “The Hebrews’ tradition is true which says that Thare and his sons went forth from the fire of the Chaldees and that Abraham, surrounded with Babylonian fire, because he refused to adore it, was saved by God’s help. And the days of his life and the time of his age are counted from that moment from which he confessed God, rejecting the idols of the Chaldees.” Thus a very obscure problem concerning Abraham is solved. For we read that Thare begot Abraham when he was seventy [variant: 75] years old and lived a hundred and thirty-five years after begetting Abraham, and that all the days of Thare were two hundred and five years. We also read in Genesis, “Abraham was seventy-five years old when he went forth from Haran” (Gen. 12:4), that is, after the death of his father Thare. Therefore, from the year of Abraham’s birth to the year that he went forth from Haran, there are a hundred and thirty-five years, but those years are not counted which passed before he went out of the fire of the Chaldees, saved by God’s protection. This is what Jerome says. [Questions and Answers on Genesis, 152]

11:29 And Abram and Nachor took to themselves wives, the name of the wife of Abram was Sara, and the name of the wife of Nachor, Malcha, daughter of Arrhan, and he was the father of Malcha, the father of Jescha.

ALCUIN OF YORK. HOW SHOULD WE UNDERSTAND, “MELCHA’S FATHER IS JESCHA’S FATHER”? AND WHO WAS JESCHA? — Answer. Thare begot Abraham, Nachor, and Aran. Aran begot Lot, Melcha, and Sarai, nicknamed Jescha. Abraham took Sarai as a wife, and Nachor took Melcha. Marriages between uncles and brothers’ children had not yet been prohibited by the law. [Questions and Answers on Genesis, 153]

JEROME OF STRIDON. 11:29 AND ABRAHAM AND NAHOR TOOK WIVES. THAT OF ABRAHAM WAS CALLED SARAH; AND THAT OF NACHOR, MELCHA, DAUGHTER OF ARAN. MELCHA'S FATHER WAS ALSO JESCA'S FATHER. — Aran, the son of Thare, and brother of Abraham and Nachor, had two sons, Melcha and Sara, surnamed Jesca. The first was for Nachor, and the other for Abraham. The law had not yet prohibited marriage between uncle and niece; among the first men, it had even taken place between brother and sister. [Hebrew Questions on Genesis]

11:30-32 But Sarai was barren; she had no child. 31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there. 32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.

AMBROSIASTER. ON ABRAHAM. — The faith of this patriarch was so perfect and so admirable that all the righteous by a wise judgment of God proclaim him the father of their faith, and that no one is worthy of God and of his affection if he bears the name of Abraham’s sons. What makes his greatest glory in the eyes of God is that he did not hesitate to believe in things that seemed incredible, which deserves him among other rewards to see the Savior, in the hope of God, as our Lord Himself declared to the Jews: Abraham your father rejoiced in the hope of seeing my day; he saw it and rejoiced in it (Jn. 8:56). It was right that he who became a father by the merit of his faith should live the hope of his children in the distant past, a hope which God in his providential goodness should transmit as the Father, inheritance from a deeply religious father to his imitating sons of his obedience. Let us now see what was the object of this faith, that God might have judged it worthy of so great an honor, and of such a glorious reward. We praised Abraham’s faith, but we have not yet told the object of his faith: God brought him out of his tent, and showing him the stars of heaven said to him: “Can you count these stars So shall your offspring be. Abraham believed God, and this was imputed to him as righteousness (Gen. 15:5; Rom. 4:3). He would have no great merit in believing in God, had he not believed an incredible and insane thing in the judgment of the world, because one could not naturally hope for what God promised him. Therefore, Abraham was the only one in the world having believed this promise, was separated from the world and justified. The incredulity of human wisdom serves to raise the greatness of this faith, and that heroic hope which believed against hope. The hopelessness of the worldly is the merit of the hope of the Christians. The defiance of the wicked here makes the reward of the faith of the good, for faith is stronger and more complete when its object is naturally incredible. This almost desolate man believed that his wife, of a very advanced age, would give him a posterity so numerous that it could not be counted, because he considered the act itself promised to him less than he who promised it, and that he knew he could not lie. So his faith was imputed to him for righteousness. There would be stupidity in believing an absurd thing, the impossibility of which is known, if we had no guarantor for the authority of the person who proposes this thing to our belief. Abraham, therefore, demonstrates with admirable faith and great prudence, believing what is naturally incredible, and. by confiding himself fully to him to whom one cannot refuse to believe without folly and without danger. What proves that our faith is reasonable is that it recognizes only God alone the power to do all that he promises. This is the strength and triumph of faith. Certain sages of the world, considering only the natural impossibility of these things, declare that it is a madness to believe them. They forget this maxim of the Apostle: and what appears in God as folly is wiser than men (I Cor. 1:25). They would have the right to treat us as fools, if we knew here what nature evidently does not have in nature. Now, what is impossible to nature, we believe that God can do it if he promises it. What can be found unreasonable in this conduct? If the fact to the fulfillment of which we believe is indignant with God, it would be right to accuse our faith of stupidity, but if it is worthy of God, by the very fact that it is impossible for the creature, how can it not fill with praise the faith which gives as much to the Creator as it refuses to the feebleness of the creature! Abraham is therefore truly great and worthy of admiration for not having hesitated to believe in God’s promise against the judgment of the world, because God can do what He promises. Although he was a native of Chaldea, he showed himself to be the teacher of the faith, and though he was competent in astrology, he preferred God’s thoughts to the thoughts of man, considering that he was worthy to believe that God could do a thing whose fulfillment would escape the investigations of the human mind. He gave to his weakness the power of God, who, in order to bring forth the unique and incomparable grandeur of his majesty, had resolved to do things unbearable and impossible to the world. He thus wished to show that he was the master of creation, and that every creature must submit to his empire. The promise he made seemed impossible to all other men, but their unbelief is all the more the lively faith of Abraham. His faith is the chastisement of unbelievers, just as the iniquity of unbelievers makes his glory. He is at the same time the Father of the faithful and the judge of the infidels. By his example, the good will receive as reward eternal life, Abraham is not troubled by this strange order, and he does not argue about whether he should obey God, who commands him to kill his son, while he defends homicide under the most severe penalties. The will of God inspires him with firmness, and he does not hesitate to believe in the providential wisdom of what God commands him. And yet it was this child who was the child of their old age and a divine promise, the reward of their faith, the testimony of their virtue, and on which rested all the hope of the posterity which God had given them promised. In order to accomplish this commandment more religiously, he did not inform the mother of the child, lest she should put obstacles to this sacrifice. He knew all the tenderness of the love of mothers for their children, and that is why he hides from him the sacrifice which is asked of him, because he does not want to put any delay in doing what God commands him, to teach us by his example that care and eagerness we must fulfill the commandments of God. For if Abraham, this faithful servant, has obeyed such a harsh and severe command, what obedience to much easier commandments ought not be? O faith full of devotion to God! 0 unwavering hope in the Lord, which is so dear and sweet, that it prevails over the tenderness of the fathers for their children according to these words of Scripture: “Glorify and see that the Lord is full of sweetness (Ps. 33:8)!” The holy patriarch was a prophet, and knew what the future had in store for him. He therefore did not hesitate to practice what our Lord recommends us in his Gospel, and to prefer the love of God to the affection he had for this beloved son, obeying the words of the Savior : “Whoever loves his father, or his mother, or his children more than me, is not worthy of me (Mt. 10:33).” It is thus that this patriarch, to be preferred of God above all others, did not hesitate to sacrifice his son to him. [Questions On The Old And New Testaments, 117]

AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO. WHEN WAS ABRAHAM ESTABLISHED IN THE LAND OF CANAAN? — How is it that the Scripture says that Terah, the father of Abram, fathered Abram at the age of seventy and then remained with all his people in Harran and lived two hundred and five years in Harran and died, and that the Lord commanded Abram to come out of Harran, (Cf. Gen. 12:1-4) and he went out, Abraham being seventy-five years old? The answer would be that the Scripture says as a recapitulation that the Lord spoke while Terah was still alive, Abram left Harran, according to the command of the Lord, at the age of seventy-five years, when his father was one hundred and forty-five, if the years of his father’s life were two hundred and five, so it is written that the years of Terah’s life were two hundred and five in Harran, because he lived all his years there. The question, therefore, is solved by way of recapitulation; for it would remain unresolved if we consider that after the death of Terah the Lord commanded Abram to leave Harran because he could not be only seventy-five years old when his father died, who begat him at seventy, so Abram would be a hundred and thirty years old, after the death of his father, if all that he lived were two hundred and five. In summary, if one takes into account this type of recapitulation that Scripture uses, many problems that otherwise appear mysterious are solved, as we have said above with respect to other questions that we have also solved by appealing to it (recapitulation). However, there are others who solve the problem differently, saying that Abram’s years of life are calculated from the moment he was released from the fire of the Chaldeans, in which he was cast out for not worshiping it (the fire) according to their superstition. And although the Scripture does not say that he was freed from that fire, we recall it from Jewish tradition. The problem may be solved as follows: The text that says: When Terah was seventy-five years old he begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran, (Gen. 11:26) it does not mean, of course, that he begat all three at the age of seventy; the Scripture recalls the year from which he began to have children. But it may be that Abram was later begotten, and because of his excellency, which is frequently advanced in Scripture, he was mentioned earlier, just as the prophet first mentioned the younger one: I loved Jacob and hated Esau (Mal. 1:2-3). And in the book of Chronicles, Juda is mentioned first, in spite of occupying the fourth place in the order of birth, because it is he who gives the name to the Jewish stock because his tribe was the royal tribe (Cf. 1 Chron. 4:1). In short, to solve the difficult questions there are certainly different solutions. It is necessary to take into account, of course, Stephen’s account (Cf. Acts 7:2-3) on this subject, to see which of these expositions agrees more. And this, of course, compels us not to think, as Genesis (Cf. Gen. 12:1) seems to indicate, that God commanded Abram to leave his family and his father’s house after the death of Terah, but to understand that, being in Mesopotamia before living in Harran, God spoke to him during that journey, once he had obviously left the land of the Chaldeans. But what Stephen says: Then Abram, coming out of the land of the Chaldeans, dwelt in Harran, and then after his father was dead, he removed him into this land (Acts 7:4); he presents no small difficulties to this explanation, which is based in a kind of recapitulation. For it seems that he received the commandment of the Lord, who had spoken to him on the journey from Mesopotamia, after he had come out of the land of the Chaldeans and when he went to Harran, and that after his father’s death he truly obeyed this command, when it is said: And he dwelt in Harran. And then, when his father died, he removed him into this land. Therefore, it continues the problem of how it may be true that he was seventy-five when he left Harran, as is clearly stated in the text of Genesis. Perhaps the words of Stephen: Then Abram came out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Harran, not to be understood thus: He went forth, after the Lord had spoken to him, for he was already in Mesopotamia, as was said before, when he heard that from the Lord. But Stephen, with that rule of recapitulation, wanted to unite both things and say at the same time where he had come from and where he dwelt, when he added: Then Abram left the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Harran. God spoke to him at the middle, that is, between the departure from the land of the Chaldeans and their settlement in Harran. Afterwards, however, Stephen adds: And from thence, after his father was dead, he removed him into this land; it is to be noted that he did not say: And after his father’s death he left Harran, but: Then God set him in this land, so that he was put in the land of Canaan after dwelling in Harran. He did not leave after the death of his father, but was placed in the land of Canaan after the death of his father, so that the order of the words are: Dwell in Harran, and then put him in this land after the death of his father. So it must be understood that Abram was put or placed in the land of Canaan when he received that offspring, whose whole descendants would reign there, according to the promise that God made, to give to him the land as an inheritance. For there was born of Abram himself, Ishmael, the son of Hagar. There also were born the children of Ketura, to whom the inheritance of that land would not belong. Esau was also born of Isaac, (Cf. Gen. 25:25; 29:32-35; 30:5) who was also deprived of that inheritance. But all the sons who were born to Jacob, son of Isaac, that is, all his offspring belonged to that inheritance. Therefore, if one correctly understands the fact that Abram was put and placed in that land because he lived until Jacob’s birth, the problem is solved through a recapitulation, although other solutions cannot be rejected either. [Questions on Genesis, 25]

AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO. (Gen. 11:30) "Sara was sterile, and had no children”; It was enough to say, "Sara was sterile." [Locutions]

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM OF CONSTANTINOPLE. And Tharra took Abram and Nahor his sons, and Lot their son, and Sarah his daughter-in-law Abram's wife, his son, and brought them out of the land of the Chaldeans to the land of the Canaanites. to Charran, and settles there. And the days of Tharra in Charran were two hundred and five years, and he died in Charran. Let us study carefully, I beg you, this reading; to understand the meaning of these words. First, there seems to be a question. While the blessed prophet (Moses) tells us, Tharra took Abram and Nahor, and brought them out of the land of the Chaldeans to the land of the Chananeans. He came to Charran and settled there; St. Stephen, praising the Jews, says on his side: The God of glory showed himself to our father Abraham, in Mesopotamia, before he lived (212) Charran, whence he sent him away after his father's death. (Act VII, 2, 4.) What then! Are the Holy Scriptures in contradiction with themselves? No, certainly. But we must conclude that the son being a believer, God appeared to him to order this departure, and that, by being instructed; his father Tharra, though unfaithful, wished to make this journey with his beloved son; he came to Charmai, settled there, and it was there that he left this life. Then the patriarch came by God's order to the land of Chanaan. [Homilies on Genesis]