CONFUSION, in a general sense, is opposed to order, in the disturbance of which confusion consists; as when things prior in nature do not precede, or posterior do not follow.

Confusion of Tongues, in the history of mankind, is a memorable event, which, according to the Hebrew chronology, happened in the one hundred and first year, and according to the Samaritan, in the four hundred and first year after the flood, at the overthrow of Babel; and which was providentially brought about in order to facilitate the dispersion of mankind and the population of the earth. Until this period there had been but one common language, which formed a bond of union that prevented the separation of mankind into distinct nations; and some have supposed that the tower of Babel was erected as a kind of fortress, by which the people intended to defend themselves against that separation which Noah had projected.

There has been considerable difference of opinion as to the nature of this confusion, and the manner in which it was effected. Some learned men, prepossessed with the notion that all the different idioms now in the world at first arose from one original language to which they may be reduced, and that the variety which exists among them is no more than must naturally have happened in a long course of time by the mere separation of the builders of Babel, have maintained that there were no new languages formed at the confusion, but that this event was accomplished by creating a misunderstanding and variance among the builders, without any immediate influence on their languages. But this opinion, which was advanced by Le Clerc, seems to be directly contrary to the obvious meaning of the word γct, shctpha, “lip,” used by the sacred historian. Others have imagined that the separation was brought about by a temporary confusion of their speech, or rather of their apprehensions, which caused them, whilst they continued together and spoke the same language, to understand the words differently. Scaliger is of the same opinion. Others, again, account for this event by the privation of all language, and by supposing that mankind were under a necessity of associating together, and of imposing new names on things by common consent. Another opinion ascribes the confusion to such an indistinct remembrance of the original language which they spoke before, as made them speak it differently; so that, by the various inflexions, terminations, and pronunciations of different dialects, they could no more understand one another than they who understand Latin can understand those who speak French, Italian, or Spanish, though all these languages arise out of it. This opinion is adopted by Casaubon, and by Bishop Patrick in his Commentary, and is certainly much more probable than either of the former. Mr Shuckford, however, maintains that the confusion arose from small beginnings, by the invention of new words in any of the three families of Shem, Ham, and Japhet, which might contribute to separate them from one another; and that in each family new differences of speech might gradually arise, so that they went on to divide and subdivide among themselves. Others, again, as Mr Mede and Dr Wotton, not satisfied with either of the foregoing methods of accounting for the diversity of languages among mankind, have recourse to an extraordinary interposition of divine power, by which new languages were framed and communicated to different families, through a supernatural infusion or inspiration; which languages have been the roots and originals from which the several dialects that are, or have been, or will be spoken as long as this earth shall last, have arisen or will arise, and to which they may with ease be reduced. As to the number of languages thus introduced, many opinions have been adopted. If there were no more than there were nations or heads of nations, then the number would be seven for Japhet, four for Ham, and five for Shem; but if there were as many as there were families, which is the more probable opinion, their number cannot be certainly assigned. However, the Hebrews fancy they were seventy, because the descendants from the sons of Noah, enumerated in Genesis, were just so many. Allowing, then, the languages of the chief families to have been fundamentally different from each other, the sub-languages and dialects within each branch would probably have had a mutual affinity, greater or less as these families settled nearer or farther from each other. But whichsoever of these hypotheses is adopted, the primary object of the confusion at Babel was the separation and dispersion of mankind.

Dr Bryant, in the third volume of his Analysis of Ancient Mythology, has advanced a singular hypothesis, both with respect to the confusion of tongues and the dispersion of mankind. He supposes that the confusion of language was local and partial, and limited to Babel only. By jπκn⅛□ (Gen. xi. 1 and 8), which our translators render the whole earth, he understands every region ; and by the same words (in verse 9), the whole region or province. This confusion was occasioned, as he supposes, by a labial failure; so that the people could not articulate. Thus their speech was confounded, but not altered; for as soon as they separated, they recovered the true tenor of pronunciation, and the language of the earth continued for some ages nearly the same. The interviews between the Hebrews and other nations recorded in Scripture were conducted without an interpreter; and he further observes, that the various languages which subsist at this day retain sufficient relation to show that they were once dialects from the same matrix, and that their variety was the effect of time.