OF ATHANASIUS KIRCHER

Chapter III. ...merited, as Philo Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher relates, as noted above, they have dared to slander the sacred history, claiming that it contains little fables similar to those mentioned before. They have not feared, I say, to call the building of the said Tower and the division of languages "fables," thinking both to be fabulous and false. For the thought of constructing a Tower whose summit would reach to heaven seemed most foolish to them, and no less impossible than the aforementioned piling of mountains A reference to the Greek myth of the Aloadae giants piling Mount Ossa on Pelion to reach Olympus. Furthermore, erroneously believing that a variety of languages had always existed, they take this also as an argument for their error: that it seems incredible (if there had been only one speech among men) that they could so suddenly forget their own idiom and immediately explain their internal concepts with new and unheard-of words. Moreover, they were unable to grasp how that confusion of tongues was introduced as both a punishment and a remedy for sin. Not as a punishment, because they thought it natural for different men to use different idioms; nor as a remedy for iniquities, since they saw that even after the languages were divided, almost infinite crimes continued to exist. They argued that not the unity of language, but the propensity of wicked men toward evil is the cause of evils—since even those deprived of a tongue know how to express the wickedness of their hearts through nods, glances, and other bodily movements no less than through words. And unity of language seems rather to be useful for many good things: namely, for conducting commerce, for teaching the sciences, for establishing societies, and for fostering friendships, and things of this sort.

Response to the objections. But it is not laborious to respond to these things. For who does not see how greatly the things narrated by Moses differ from those which the myth-makers have devised? For to pile mountains upon mountains, and from there to fight with the powers above, is clearly evident to be in no way naturally possible for men; Section I. but to build a very high Tower does not exceed human faculty. And indeed, it is most foolish, I admit, to think that one can ascend to heaven by means of such heights, which the giants are said to have intended.

And yet, the Scripture does not teach that the Tower of Babel was built with that intention; perhaps it deceived the slanderers because it says in Genesis chapter 11, verse 4: whose top may reach unto heaven. But all sacred expositors confess that this was said hyperbolically As a figure of speech meaning "very tall," rather than literally touching the sky. What, then, did they intend by that vast building? What else but human glory and an eternal name, as is touched upon there in those words: And let us make our name famous. Although perhaps some of the more unrefined truly thought a Tower could be raised to heaven, or at least that they could preserve themselves on the summit of that Tower from a flood, if one should happen thereafter—especially since they knew that the waters of the Deluge had exceeded the peaks of the mountains by only fifteen cubits. Solution to the other objection. How much the history of the confusion of human speech differs from that which they fable to have happened among the brutes Referring to myths where animals once spoke a single language can be discerned from this: that speaking is natural to men, but not at all to brutes. Therefore, it is manifest that what they have invented concerning the speech of brutes is fabulous; but what the sacred utterances testify concerning the one idiom of men, later varied by divine power, is most true.

Furthermore, we shall show against Philastrius Saint Philastrius, a 4th-century bishop who wrote on heresies that the division of languages has not always existed. For now, we assert only this: that it is most certain and true according to faith that before the structure of the Tower of Babel, there was only one speech common to all, not many. For who would believe that a single people, who had descended from one man Noah who was even then still living, and who had truly lived together until then, would have had different idioms? But if you should ask: how then could...