Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI
Biblical Authority Ministries, May 29, 2025 (Donate)
All the Hebrew languages (Aramaic, Arabic, Hebrew, and so on) have varied from each other. Hebrew today vs. biblical Hebrew vs. Job’s Hebrew all show that Hebrew is not immune to changes down the ages. But to answer this question, let’s consider what the original language could possibly have been.
All modern languages developed from the root
languages at the Tower of Babel. There has been linguistic variation within the
distinct kinds of languages since Babel. In other words, all languages today
are not descended from one ancestral language by natural processes but
due to God’s intervention. The Bible has not given us a clear indication of what
the original language (before Babel) may have been. Here are some relevant passages:
The LORD came
down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. The LORD
said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language.
And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do
will be impossible for them. "Come, let Us go down and there confuse their
language, so that they will not understand one another’s speech." So the
LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and
they stopped building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because
there the LORD confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the
LORD scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth. (Genesis 11:5–9,
NASB)
There are other passages directly related to
language and these events:
Now the whole
earth used the same language and the same words. (Genesis 11:1, NASB)
From these the
coastlands of the nations were separated into their lands, every one according
to his language, according to their families, into their nations. (Genesis
10:5, NASB)
So the likely possibilities are:
- The
original language could have been one of the languages that survived
through the Tower of Babel.
- The
original language was preserved through Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth; but
not the others’ descendants.
- The
original language could have been completely lost at the Tower of Babel
with new languages taking its place.
- All
the languages that came out of Babel could have been combined into one big
original language, and it was divided into the sub-languages at Babel (or
some of the sub languages). Basically, everyone knew all the languages and
then they were subdivided after Babel.
Since we do not have any writings from that
time (pre-Babel), the original language may be difficult to ascertain. Let’s
take a closer look at each of these and see their respective plausibility.
If
1 is correct, was the original language a Semitic language?
· The original language could have been one of the languages that survived through the Tower of Babel.
If one language survived, the most likely
scenario would be that it was a Semitic language, since the Hebrews, who were
Semites, were blessed by God. Of course, Abraham (who was blessed in Genesis
18:18)—who was but one of the Hebrew speakers—was not called until long after
the events at Babel.
If this were the case, there is a possibility
that Noah’s descendants could easily have read previous documents passed down
from patriarchs back to Adam. The presence of the eleven toledoths in
Genesis, and the fact that Genesis 5:1
says, “This is the book [cepher, the normal
Hebrew word for “book”] of the genealogy [toledoth] of Adam” (brackets
mine) is strong evidence that when Moses compiled Genesis into its present form,
he was working with existing written documents passed on from the patriarchs.[1] This is
different from the JEDP hypothesis, which is largely discredited.[2]
Given the Genesis testimony to the great
intelligence of pre-Flood man (e.g., Adam naming animals; Cain building a city;
six generations later, man is mining, has discovered metallurgy, and invented
musical instruments; Noah’s ability to build the Ark), there is no reason to
think that pre-Flood man could not write (Adam was created with the ability to
speak, why not to write also?), but there is good reason to think that man
would write (to preserve history for posterity).
The word Semitic
is literally derived from Shem, one of Noah’s three sons. Semitic languages are
basically languages that came out of Babel that were given to Shem’s
descendants. In Genesis 10:22,
the Bible records the different sons of Shem as Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud,
and Aram.
Aramaic, a Semitic language (due to it being
mixed with descendants of Abraham who dominated the Middle East), may seem
familiar to the astute Bible reader as, Jesus spoke it in some instances. Parts
of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel in the Old Testament were also written in
Aramaic. Aramaic is a Semitic language, and Semitic languages were post-Babel.
So it may not be wise to assume the original language was Semitic. It would be
more like “Adamic” or possibly “Noahic,” but the terminology “Semitic” would
imply a post-Babel introduction of the language, although this author would not
discount the possibility entirely.
Another popular view is Edenics. Edenics is the proposition
that Hebrew is the original language prior to the Tower of Babel—perhaps as far
back as the Garden of Eden. This view has been proposed in the past (e.g, Henry
Morris suspects this but
is hesitant to fully espouse it),[3] but the
leading proponent of the view is Isaac Mozeson. He wrote a book called The
Word: The Dictionary That Reveals the Hebrew Source of English, published
in 1989.[4]
The book draws relationships to English words
(as well as Arabic and other Indo-European languages) that have a Hebrew root
in sound. Then Mozeson uses this as evidence for his claim that the original
language prior to Babel was Hebrew. Yet he is comparing this to today’s Hebrew,
which goes back to about the time of Nehemiah and Ezra. The Hebrew that is
currently spoken was more-or-less finalized by Ezra the priest and scribe
around 400–500 BC and used in the Masoretic text that was passed along for many
years. From a big picture standpoint, the argument is that some word
similarities in various languages resemble Hebrew, so that means the original
language was a form of Hebrew or proto-Semitic. But this is fallacious.
However, it is unlikely that anyone would deny
the influence of many words from other language roots, whether Semitic or
otherwise. English, by and large, has been influenced by various languages and
root languages. But it is a major leap to make the claim that, since some words
have a relationship, Hebrew was the original language. One can find words in
English from a host of other languages too (Greek, Latin, and so on), but does
that mean those languages were the original, pre-Babel language? Not at all.
A theological problem also arises if the Babel
confusion did not change the sounds of words but only the spelling. God said He
“confused” the language (literally “lip” or “speech”) of the whole world (Genesis 11:9). This indicates that the
sounds changed; however, there may very well have been many words that were
still the same, since Genesis 11:1
makes the point that language and words were distinct. Yet what was confused
was the language, or the way it was spoken, not necessarily all of the words.
Many of these words could have been carried over to many different languages,
hence the similarities between some words.
Mozeson takes as a presupposition that Hebrew
was the root language to all other languages and proceeds to try to defend that
view. He says, “Yes, I began from the Biblical given that Hebrew is the Mother
tongue (Genesis, Chapter 11).”[5]
However, nowhere in Genesis 11 is Hebrew
stated to be the “mother tongue,” so Mozeson’s presupposition is lacking at a
foundational level. In fact, the first mention of Hebrew in the Bible is with
Abram (Genesis 14:13). But it
does not refer to language—instead, it says that Abram was a Hebrew (descendant
of Eber). In fact, every mention of Hebrew in the Old Testament refers to a
person being a Hebrew, rather than to Hebrew as a language.
The first mention of Hebrew as a language is
in John 5:2, which was
originally written in Greek, and some translators say this reference should be
to Aramaic. However, the root word is Eber,
signifying it probably is Hebrew. In the Old Testament, though, 2 Kings says:
Then Eliakim the
son of Hilkiah, and Shebnah and Joah, said to Rabshakeh, “Speak now to your
servants in Aramaic, for we understand it; and do not speak with us in Judean
in the hearing of the people who are on the wall.” (2 Kings 18:26, NASB)
The language of the Jews was not called Hebrew
but instead what is translated as “Judean.” It was also used in 2 Kings 18:28, 2 Chronicles 32:18, Nehemiah 13:24, Isaiah 36:11 and Isaiah 36:13. In all fairness, however, what is known as
“Hebrew” today is likely this Judean language.
But to make claim that Hebrew is the original
language would mean that Hebrew essentially has not changed since Babel.
Languages obviously change. English, 1000 years ago until today, has undergone significant
changes. These languages that came out of Babel have gone through immense changes
as well.
Biblically, too, it is reasonable to expect
Hebrew to have undergone changes. Abraham, as a descendant of Eber, actually
left his family. Recall that family groups were divided by their language in Genesis 10:5. He settled among the Canaanites, who were
obviously speaking Canaanite languages (Canaan was a descendant of Ham).
Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob’s sons lived in Canaan for centuries.
Then the sons of Jacob (Israel) went and lived among the Egyptians for
centuries. The Egyptians were descendants of Mizraim, who was also a son of
Ham, and had a different language that likely influenced the Israelites, too.
So if the language of Eber, who was at Babel,
came through Abraham down to the Israelites and remained the same, then there
should be plenty of others speaking and writing it (other than the Israelites,
who were repeatedly wiped out with only a remnant to repopulate). Abraham also
had other sons (Ishmael, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah).
They would have originally been speaking Abraham’s language, that of Eber. Many
Arabic speakers claim heritage to Ishmael. Arabic has many similarities to
Hebrew, but it is still a different language. Since the Hebrew from Eber’s day
has not survived in other nations, this helps confirm that Hebrew has indeed
changed since Abraham.
Similarities between languages like Aramaic
and Arabic are expected, since they were in the same vicinity. In fact, it
would not be surprising if Ezra’s Hebrew and Arabic go back to the same root
language (Eber’s actual language that came from Babel) and have both deviated
since Babel.
Influence from Hebrew and vice-versa with
regard to Latin (Roman Empire) and Greek (Alexander the Great) is also
expected, since both had many years of interaction in the Middle East.
Word similarities do nothing to help the
conclusion that Hebrew could be the original pre-Babel language, as these
similarities would be expected whether or not it was the original language.
Languages have in-depth contextual, syntactical, and grammatical workings that
are unique and also have to be accounted for.
If
2 is correct, then previous documents that survived on the Ark could easily
have been translated, right?
· The original language was preserved through Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth; but not the others’ descendants.
Sometimes people fail to realize that Noah and
his sons (and, presumably, their wives) were still alive during and after
Babel. When people were scattered from the Tower of Babel, it was about 100–150
years after the Flood. Archbishop Ussher places Babel at 2242 BC and the Flood
at 2348 BC, allowing about 106 years from the Flood to Babel.
Like possibility #1, possibility #2 assumes
the original language survived through Babel. The Bible does not say the
original language was necessarily lost, but confused. The Hebrew word is
bālal, meaning to mix, mingle, confuse, or confound.
This suggests there may be aspects of
the original language still used in one or various languages created at Babel.
God could just as easily have removed the original language altogether, and
this would indeed confuse the languages of the whole world.
The context of Genesis 10:5 seems to indicate that Noah’s 16 grandsons and other listed descendants in Genesis 10 each had their own language division. Did this apply to Noah and his sons? It is not certain. But since God divided the people according to their families, it seems unlikely that God would have destroyed the ability of Noah and his sons to communicate with each other. It is quite likely that Noah and his sons retained the original language or at the very least inherited the same language between them.[6] This would still cause the confusion God intended.
In time, Noah (and perhaps Shem and others)
could easily have learned another language, if they were staying with one
particular set of relatives with a different language, for example. Then a
translation of previous documents would be preserved to finally arrive at
Moses. With this possibility, however, there is still quite a bit of
speculation.
If
3 is correct, how would any documents be translated?
· The original language could have been completely lost at the Tower of Babel with new languages taking its place.
This has been the most popular view that this
author has seen regarding the languages at Babel. This is usually why people
ask how documents could have been passed to Moses and how he could understand
them. Keep in mind that popularity does not dictate truth. There are a couple
of possibilities for faithful transmission of accounts.
A.
Noah and his sons (and their wives) would still have recollections of the
pre-Flood world. In fact, consider these possibilities:
Adam and Methuselah were both alive for a long
time together. If there are not gaps in the Genesis 5 genealogy, then their
lives overlapped by hundreds of years.[7] They
could easily have had years of direct conversation. Noah and Methuselah had
many years alive together (Methuselah died the year of the Flood, when Noah was
600 years old), and surely the two conversed quite often (with Shem, Ham, and
Japheth, too). So, Noah would have many memories and much knowledge about the
pre-Flood world, and even about Adam’s actions through Methuselah.
After Babel, had Noah’s language changed, he
or his sons could have written what they knew in the new language. These could
have been the documents that Moses received. However, this view is problematic
because it does not mesh well with the toledoth breakdown mentioned
before.
B.
If the previous documents were in a language completely foreign to them (the
original language that no one had any longer), linguists could study and learn
it, and over time make a translation of it. Such a document could have been
what Moses received, although this seems like the most unlikely possibility, as
it would be a difficult task to accomplish satisfactorily. Trying to crack a
language has proven a difficult, but not impossible task for modern scholars.
If
4 is correct, how would any documents have been translated?
· All the languages that came out of Babel could have been combined into one big original language, and it was divided into the sub-languages at Babel (or some of the sub languages). Basically, everyone knew all the languages and then they were subdivided after Babel.
The same reasons for 3 being correct would
apply here, although translation would be easier if some of the original
documents may have been in their portion of the language.
Regardless, this would be a near
impossibility. First, the grammar, syntax, vocabulary, and even the vowel and
consonant sounds in certain languages (e.g., English, Hungarian, Russian,
Arabic, Chinese) are so utterly different. Secondly, each of these languages is
a coherent whole, allowing for people in each language to verbally communicate
about every aspect of reality. If all the languages were once combined, the
original language would have had a massive amount of redundancy.
Though this possibility sounds interesting,
and God can do anything, it may not be the best possibility.
Conclusion
Regardless of which may be true, previous
documents arriving in the hands of Moses are not a big problem. Taking time to
learn and translate previous documents or recalling previous conversations
would ensure that some information arrived in an understandable language
post-Babel, whether through Noah and his sons or another means of translation.
It is also important not to forget that Jesus
spoke face to face with Moses (Exodus 33:11). If there were any discrepancies, he would
have had the all-knowing God, who invented the different languages, in his tent
with him. So Moses should not have had any problems with accuracy or
translation. Even if Moses received documents that needed translation, Christ
knew the original language. It is doubtful, though, that this was the way it
was done.
Keep in mind that Moses (as all of the
Scripture writers) was inspired as he wrote. Any word plays, like man/woman (ish/ishshah)
in Hebrew, would have been inspired by God through Moses. It is highly possible
that word plays like this were also in the original language. Interestingly
enough, in English, for example, we have man
and woman—God could easily have
had language similarities survive through different languages. This author would
expect such things even from the original language since God, the author of
language, has such infinite knowledge.
[1]
A toledoth is basically the account
of the generations of someone or a time period, almost as though it were
“signed off.” Many Christians believe these
toledoths are where a particular set of recorded history was derived from
pre-existing texts for Moses to edit together to make the book of Genesis, with
the help of the Holy Spirit. These toledoths
mark distinct divisions in the book of Genesis, and many toledoths give us an idea of who it was that may have had the
first-hand experience with the account of history being recorded.
[2]
Terry Mortenson and Bodie Hodge, “Did Moses Write Genesis?” How Do We Know the Bible Is True? Volume
1, Ken Ham and Bodie Hodge, gen. eds., (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2011),
pp. 85–102.
[3]
Henry Morris, The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1976),
p. 267.
[4]
Isaac Mozeson, The Word: The Dictionary that Reveals the Hebrew Source of
English (New York: S.P.I. Books, 2011).
[5]
Isaac Mozeson, The Word: The Dictionary that Reveals the Hebrew Source of
English (New York: S.P.I. Books, 2011),
p. 1.
[6]
Of course, it is possible that Ham, Shem, or Japheth (and maybe Noah) ended up
with a language of one of their respective children to whom they would
ultimately live, e.g., Japheth could end up with the language of Gomer, and so
on. There is also the possibility that they could know more than one language
to communicate with multiple descendants.
[7] Larry Pierce and Ken Ham, “Are There Gaps in the Genesis Genealogies?” The New Answers Book 2, Ken Ham, gen. ed., (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008). See also Bodie Hodge, “Ancient Patriarchs in Genesis” April 3, 2025, https://www.biblicalauthorityministries.org/2025/04/ancient-patriarchs-in-genesis.html.
