The "Non-Sensibility" of the Tower of Babble

@Jonathan_Burke,

Before I tackle your questions, I thought it would be a worthy exercise to itemize exactly what the Walton article actually says!

  1. On page 14: “Unlike the modern interpretations, which suggest that there was no offense and that YHWH,
    acting in grace, prevented offense from occurring, we would suggest that the offense was not
    prevented, but rather delayed and isolated by YHWH’s action. By confusing the languages,
    God made cooperation impossible; therefore, scattering could no longer be prevented. Thus
    the urbanization process was delayed.”

ANALYSIS: As you can see, we do not find any proposal that the workers on the tower have been reduced to GIBBERISH. In fact, the implication is that these workers have produced a disaspora … where populations have scattered ACCORDING TO THEIR NEW LANGUAGE…

  1. On page 16 we read: “We would
    expect here a narrowing of focus to Shem’s line. In this scenario, a large group of Semites
    migrated southeast and settled in Sumer. The text would not demand that even all the Semites
    were there. The span of time that the text covers is not mentioned. It is possible that the
    migration should be understood as having taken place in the Ubaid period, during which
    southern Mesopotamia began to be settled.”

"Then the decision to undertake the project may have come toward the end of the fourth
millennium, perhaps during the Late Uruk period, or perhaps as late as the Jamdet Nasr
period, when we actually have the beginning of baked brick technology.

The project would then result in different (Semitic?) languages being
created, or perhaps would represent the differentiation of the Semitic languages from
Sumerian. Whatever the case may be, it resulted in the people being scattered throughout
the fertile crescent. This scenario would not require that all language groups were formed
at this time or that all the languages were represented there. "

ANALYSIS: Again, the implication is clear… the author does not see the story of the
Tower as producing linguistic dead-ends… with pockets of workers speaking utter gibberish.
He sees it as an historical event … explaining a certain measure of linguistic diversity.

  1. On pages 17-18: "Some have suggested that such a reference does exist in the Sumerian epic entitled “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta.” There, in a speech of Enmerkar, an incantation is pronounced . . .

‘(Then) Enki, the lord of abundance (whose) commands are trustworthy,
The lord of wisdom, who understands the land,
The leader of the gods,
Endowed with wisdom, the lord of Eridu
Changed the speech in their mouths, [brought (?)] contention into it,
Into the speech of man that (until then) had been one.’

It is of interest that Enki, the god of Eridu, is related to this myth, which may well represent
the memory of an actual event from the late fourth millennium BC."

ANALYSIS: Again, … no gibberish… but the historical origin of diverse languages!

Jon, weren’t you intending to produce an academic treatment for how the Hebrew and
Sumerian versions of the “confusion of tongues” were intended to describe workers coming
to speak nothing but GIBBERISH?

As for your quibbling regarding the term “confusion” … or your interpretations of the limitations of the Sumerian, Babylonian and Hebrew legends…

Just take a step back, @Jonathan_Burke… in your fixation on the term confusion you seem to be investing quite too much on the word play the Bible scribe was hoping to accomplish between “babble” and the name of the
“Babylon”.

I can see how one could gather up a frenzy on such an idea with the Biblical text … but you seem wildly off-base when attempting to apply such a notion to the Sumerian and post-Sumerian versions.

I still AWAIT what academic treatment seems to have inspired you in this direction …

Or, is this an idea you have developed pretty much on your own?

I know. I wasn’t representing Walton as saying anything of the kind. He takes the traditional Christian view that confusing language actually means “creating lots of new intelligible languages”.

No, because as I have explained you yourself quoted a scholar who cited other scholars with this view. He even made the point that this view is preserved in the commonly cited translation of the Sumerian text, which identifies Enki as confusing language, not creating new languages.

How?

No. As you helpfully demonstrated, it’s a view which is already in scholarship. Victor Hamilton argues specifically against this view in his commentary.

“It is unlikely that Gen. 11:1–9 can contribute much, if anything, to the origin of languages. I have already suggested that the diversification of languages is a slow process, not something catastrophic as Gen. 11 might indicate. I have stated above my reasons for not interpreting the movement from v. 1 to v. 9 as that from a monoglot world to a polyglot world. Such an interpretation, common among commentators, leads to the conclusion that Gen. 11 provides a most incredible and naive explanation of language diversification. If, however, the narrative refers to the dissolution of a Babylonian lingua franca, or something like that, the need to see Gen. 11:1–9 as a highly imaginative explanation of language diffusion becomes unnecessary.”

Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17 (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 358.

AHHHH!… .@Jonathan_Burke, can you provide a link to Sarna’s paper? That would be exceedingly helpful to establish an academic foundation to your position…

Sorry I said Nahum Sarna when it fact it was Victor Hamilton; see the footnote I provided, the quotation is from his volume “The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17” in the New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. It’s not a stand alone paper, it’s an actual book in a commentary series. I just happen to own the entire series.

This is Sarna’s view.

“The word play babel-balal, approximating “Babel-babble,” in English, hides a subtle satirizing of Mesopotamian notions. Not the “gate of god” as the inhabitants of Babylon interpreted the name, not the navel of the earth, as they conceived their city to be, but a site of meaningless gibberish, the center from which human divisiveness radiated, and the cause of disastrous alienation from God.”

Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 84.

@Jonathan_Burke

Yes… of course. The word play is that Babylon is not a place of wisdom … but of GIBBERISH.

But this was certainly not the word play being invoked in the Sumerian and Babylonian versions. These forms of the story were trying to EXPLAIN or PREDICT something …

So then comes the Hebrew scribes … they take the existing theme, and they turn it around against the Babylonians…

They did not intend to say there was a labor force that literally lost their ability to communicate with ANYONE.

Wouldn’t you agree with this, Jon ?

Yeah… no.

1 Like

@Jonathan_Burke

No, of course not. However, like I said previously, I believe the account has a symbolic meaning that was intended for a future generation—our generation. From the symbolic perspective it becomes clear that the meaning of the account is specifically about man’s ambition for the truth about God. However, man was deprived of this truth through the fabrication of religious superstition by the Babylonian (Sumerian) priesthood. The only way to render a correct interpretation of the symbolic meaning of the Tower of Babel account in Genesis 11:1-9 is by integrating the distinctive characteristics regarding the essential nature of Babylon as described in the books of Daniel and Revelation and critically analyzing the contributing elements. This overall analysis will provide the symbolic meaning for the Tower of Babel account and by extension, the significance of—“Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth[Revelation 17:5 KJV]. To focus on the original meaning for the original audience provides only the details of the dispersal of the people and the diversification of languages.

The original meaning for the original audience was no doubt the literal interpretation of the Genesis 11:1-9 account. It describes the diversification of languages from a single original language in that particular area of Mesopotamia. This does not necessarily suggest that other languages were not in use in other areas of Mesopotamia and beyond. Nevertheless, the dispersal of these people (who shared this original language) to other lands created the conditions for new languages to emerge—naturally this process occurred over time. This assessment of the literal interpretation is shared by Walton;

“The project would then result in different (Semitic?) languages being created, or perhaps would represent the differentiation of the Semitic languages from Sumerian. Whatever the case may be, it resulted in the people being scattered throughout the fertile crescent. This scenario would not require that all language groups were formed at this time or that all the languages were represented there” [The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its Implications].

The literal meaning of the account also becomes the means by which the fabrication of religious myth and superstition is created. This view is also shared by Walton;

“But from that beginning, urbanization in southern Mesopotamia was initiated, including the development of ziggurat architecture and the full development of the Mesopotamian religious system that it represented” [The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its Implications].

This becomes apparent through the symbolic interpretation of the account;

5And 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 [Genesis 11:5-7 KJV].

The symbolic meaning of the account here should be interpreted as the point in Mesopotamian history where the emergence of different forms of knowledge have their debut;

The town attained independence as part of a small city state with the rise of the First Amorite Babylonian Dynasty in 1894 BC. Claiming to be the successor of the more ancient Sumero-Akkadian city of Eridu, Babylon eclipsed Nippur as the “holy city” of Mesopotamia around the time Amorite king Hammurabi created the first short lived Babylonian Empire in the 18th century BC. Babylon grew and South Mesopotamia came to be known as Babylonia. Babylon - Wikipedia

And of course as we read in the book of Daniel during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II [604–561 BC] different forms of knowledge become well established.

“Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king” [Daniel 2:2 KJV].

Moreover, the influence of Babylonian (Tower of Babel) mythology and superstition spreads its tentacles into the traditions and ideologies of Hebraic and Christian thought;

BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN RELIGION

The influence exerted by the Babylonian-Assyrian religion was particularly profound on the Semites, while the astral theology affected the ancient world in general, including the Greeks and Romans. The impetus to the purification of the old Semite religion to which the Hebrews for a long time clung in common with their fellows—the various branches of nomadic Arabs—was largely furnished by the remarkable civilization unfolded in the Euphrates valley and in many of the traditions, myths and legends embodied in the Old Testament; traces of direct borrowing from Babylonia may be discerned, while the indirect influences in the domain of the prophetical books, as also in the Psalms and in the so-called “Wisdom Literature,” are even more noteworthy. Even when we reach the New Testament period, we have not passed entirely beyond the sphere of Babylonian-Assyrian influences. In such a movement as early Christian gnosticism, Babylonian elements—modified, to be sure, and transformed—are largely present, while the growth of an apocalyptic literature is ascribed with apparent justice by many scholars to the recrudescence of views the ultimate source of which is to be found in the astral-theology of the Babylonian and Assyrian priests [1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, “Austria, Lower” to “Bacon” (v.03 p.0115)]. The Encyclopædia Britannica, Volume III Part 1 Slice 1 - Austria, Lower to Bacon

And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth [Revelation 17:5 KJV].

But my argument is based on evidence, I just hadn’t as yet discovered the scholarly articles in support of the facts. Therefore, I’m grateful to you for Walton’s article, and to @gbrooks9 for presenting the Sumerian version of the Biblical account in the first place—it has brought different parts of the puzzle into context. Since my teenage years I was already knowledgeable of who the Sumerian people were (it’s those people with that funny writing called cuneiform)—I just hadn’t brought them into the picture and made this connection yet. Fascinating!

Sumer (/ˈsuːmər/)[note 1] was the first ancient urban civilization in the historical region of southern Mesopotamia, modern-day southern Iraq, during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze ages, and arguably the first civilization in the world.[1] Sumer - Wikipedia

Furthermore, I never said the account (literally or symbolically) didn’t make sense to me. All along the intended meaning was to say that God and His Heavenly Host coming down from heaven didn’t make any sense, since these entities don’t exist—as demons don’t exist.

Perhaps this explains my statement here;

In this sense by literal I meant that part about God and His Heavenly Host coming down from heaven.

I’m all for truth, accuracy, and controls too, Jon. And my intentions are strictly to present an accurate interpretation of scripture.

“Persia, Ethiopia [Cush], and Libya [Put] with them; all of them with shield and helmet” [Ezekiel 38:5 KJV] [Emphasis Mine].

Jon, you must have erred here, right? Last time I looked Libya and Ethiopia were part of Africa. Concerning Russia however, many until now, still consider Gog, of the land of Magog to be a leader from Russia, but I’m aware that others contend that that leader, and the ancient names of those lands, to originate in Turkey. It’s difficult to know what the truth of the matter is especially when translations like the NKJV use the term Prince of Rosh;

“2Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him, 3 and say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I am against you, O Gog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal [Ezekiel 38:2-3 NKJV].

Anyway, full stop: since this is another discussion in itself.

Then how do we explain the following?

“And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech” [Genesis 11:1].

“lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth[Genesis 11:4].

“So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city” [Genesis 11:8].

Strong’s Number: 0776 'Erets, defines Earth as (1) land, earth: a. earth, (1) whole earth (as opposed to a part), (2) earth (as opposed to heaven).

According to the Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon the Hebrew people DID have A CONCEPT of the WHOLE PLANET EARTH.

And if we go a little further with that idea, then how do we explain Genesis 1:1-2 and Job 26:7?

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters [Genesis 1:1-2 KJV].

7He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing [Job 26:7 KJV].*.

Did God create the whole 'erets, or did He only create a part of the 'erets? Similarly, was the whole 'erets without form, or was only a part of the 'erets without form? What about the earth hanging upon nothing? Is the whole 'erets hanging upon nothing, or is only a part of the 'erets hanging upon nothing?

Although, (perhaps?), the Hebrews had no word for the whole earth shouldn’t these considerations establish as fact that they indeed did have a concept for the whole planet earth?

Yes, it makes sense that different languages from the language of the people who built the tower already existed. But we’re specifically talking about the language of the people who built the tower and how their language developed into different tongues because of their scattering into different lands. However, where in Genesis 11 does it say that different languages already existed? There seems to exist a difference of accounts between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Sumerian text.

@gbrooks9
Looking at this issue from a completely different angle, the '” sons of the gods” mentioned in the Bible. I believe that those “sons” were descendants from a previous human civilization. They settled in space and survived there when Earth was hit by a previous Flood, and their descendants visited Earth for fresh food, a few days off duty, sightseeing and whatever.
Those spacers were rich in the eyes of the Earth people and the Earth people wanted to take some of their richness. So, ignorant of the impossibility of their plan, they started to build a tower to go to the place where the spacers lived. Their building material was loam and long before they were 100 m high, the walls started to crumble under their own weight. Today we have a nice set of mathematics, known as “the Circle of More” to calculate the required wall thickness. But they a no idea why the walls crumbled and could not agree about the problem and its solution.
“Not speaking each others language” is even today used for being unable to reach an agreement. The failure of building the tower caused a local economic crisis that destroyed the local kingdom. And the people left and went to places where they could find work and make a living.
And leave it to a local priest to invent why God was angry and punished the people who had made him angry.

Ok well I see no evidence for this.

But neither the Sumerian or Hebrew accounts describe a diversification; “confusion” is not a description of comprehensible languages.

Walton does not actually say “The literal meaning of the account also becomes the means by which the fabrication of religious myth and superstition is created”. What he says is that this was a period of urbanization in Mesopotamia, and the full development of the Mesopotamian religious system.

How is that a “symbolic meaning”, and why is it the text doesn’t actually refer to “the emergence of different forms of knowledge”?

How is that the spiritual lesson of Genesis 11?

But you haven’t quoted any scholarly literature saying the same thing as you. Walton in particular interprets the text literally, and doesn’t try to turn it into something which is incomprehensible and which therefore must be reduced to a “spiritual” interpretation involving Revelation.

Well that’s just from your point of view. To me, God does exist and so does His heavenly host.

You’re quoting the KJV and making assumptions about what those words mean. As you can see, the word translated “Ethiopia” in the KJV is the word “Cush”, and there was a “Cush” in Mesopotami; likewise, the word translated “Lybia” is “Put”, which is often identified as Lydia (not Libya). I strongly suggest using a modern translation instead of the KJV, and checking a few commentaries and Bible dictionaries.

But modern translations typically do not. The translation “prince of Rosh” has no support in the text.

The same way it has been explained on this forum a dozen or more times by plenty of Biologos writers and forum members. Remember, the Sumerians used phrases like “the whole earth” just to describe the kingdom of Sumeria. These are not global descriptions.

If you’re going to use Strong’s, you’re going to make mistakes.

Ok, so what was the Hebrew word for “planet”?

Easy. The Hebrews had a concept of heaven and earth. They did not have a concept of the cosmos and planets. They had a concept of all that they could see and experience, as “heaven and earth”. They did not think of God as having created only a part of the earth, they conceived of Him creating it all. But they didn’t think of it as a planet. They didn’t even know its full extent.

But that is not what the text says. It never says anything about one language developing into different languages.

It doesn’t; it says that a few verses before in Genesis 10.

@Jonathan_Burke

I understand your point (and I admit rightfully so) that I haven’t provided any substantial evidence for the existence of a symbolic message in Genesis 11—it was only a rough sketch of the connection I believe exists between the Tower of Babel account in Genesis 11, Babylon in the book Daniel, and Mystery Babylon in the book of Revelation. However, does this mean you personally don’t believe scripture has any symbolic message for us today in context with prophecy?

I don’t think Walton’s focus in his work (The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its Implications) is on interpreting any symbolic message found in scripture. He is simply making a connection between the Hebrew story and Mesopotamian historical records since his work’s primary focus is in areas of comparison between the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East. Therefore, although Walton interprets the text literally the scholarly literature is still necessary in corroborating the literal aspect of the Biblical account involving Babylon. In other words, that Walton says, “this was a period of urbanization in Mesopotamia, and the full development of the Mesopotamian religious system,” confirms what the Bible tells us about Ancient Babylon and its mystery religion. Of course, since I believe the prophets of Ancient Israel provided actual details for the future these details were given in symbolic form. The Tower of Babel account is an example of this symbolism which requires an accurate interpretation to grasp the full extent of its meaning. Therefore, scholarly literature dealing in prophetic symbolism is what has been neglected here. Who do you suggest are the respected sources for this aspect of prophetic exegesis? Is it even possible to have scholarly literature for this work? Naturally, this question is valid only if you believe scripture has any symbolic message for us today.

This is the first time I’ve seen so much discussion fixated on “word play” as LITERAL history.

Babel of Babylon … it’s folk etymology … it’s funny … it’s interesting … but it is not history. It is co-opting a pagan legend … not an important sociological discovery by the scribes of Genesis.

@Jonathan_Burke

After a considerable rethink on this issue I only come up with one possible interpretation for the meaning of “confusion” in this context (my original conclusion)—the creation of new systems or forms of knowledge. A perfect example of this "confusion is the religious view of the world (with all its superstitions) as opposed to the scientific view of the world (with its natural explications). We can see how “confusing” discussion can become because of this very problem right here in the discussion boards of BioLogos. The discourse on demonic possession is a prime example of how “confusion” can impair advancement to new levels of understanding (the Tower of Babel) because of alternative ways of explaining the same phenomenon (demonic possession — mental illness).

"Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city" [Genesis 11:7-8].

If my interpretation of the account is correct, and I strongly believe it is, it wasn’t God and His Heavenly Host who “came down” and “confounded their language.” It was a conspiracy on the part of the religious leaders of the land. This makes full sense with scripture’s depiction of Babylon the Great and her final demise.

Because by correctly interpreting the symbolic meaning of Genesis 11 (confounding their language —religious superstition — sorcery) we can appreciate what is written in Revelation.

And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth [Revelation 17:5 KJV].

“…for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived” [Revelation 18:23 KJV].

However, it is only through an understanding of the Neo-Babylonian political, secular, and religious system as described in the book of Daniel during the captivity that an accurate exegesis can be conducted connecting the dots of religion dogma to superstition and to sorcery.

The “confounding of language” described in Genesis 11 was performed by skilled magicians (occultists).

Deities

Sumerians believed in an anthropomorphic polytheism, or the belief in many gods in human form. There was no common set of gods; each city-state had its own patrons, temples, and priest-kings, however they were not exclusive. The gods of one city were often acknowledged elsewhere. Sumerian speakers were among the earliest people to record their beliefs in writing, and were a major inspiration in later Mesopotamian mythology, religion, and astrology.

Enlil, god of the north wind, in Nippur, husband of Ninlil, the south wind. King of the Sumerian gods, [he gave mankind the [spells and incantations] that the spirits of good or evil must obey], [Emphasis Mine]. Sumer - Wikipedia

This is the pantheon of the Sumero-Akkadian gods.

Let us not forget, the Biblical account tells us that Abram left Ur of the Chaldees, and followed the inner-voice of God to get away from the spiritual sickness of Babylon.

Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed [Genesis 12:1-3].

To me, God [Yahuwah] also exists. He is the inner-voice who spoke to Abraham, the one who gave Moses the Law, the giver of dreams and visions who provided Daniel and John with the outline for the future, and the God whom Jesus prayed to in the garden of Gethsemane. I also believe in God [Elohim] (the eternal animating force) the creator of heaven and earth. To me, the heavenly host are the stars in the night sky.

So Jon, you don’t believe in the existence of Satan and demons—but you believe in the existence of God and angels? We recently had a topic dedicated specifically to the white bearded man in the sky. Is this what you meant here, “To me, God does exist and so does His heavenly host.” White bearded man in the sky

@gbrooks9

Well, George, I know it’s not literal history (there’s that word literal again), but it’s not pagan nor simply a legend with no meaning either. It’s become obviously apparent that practically nobody, except for myself, ever mentions the book of Daniel and Revelation and their prophetic significance. I wonder why that is?

Doesn’t this say anything to anyone? Is it not obvious? What about you George, don’t you see there is something here that needs to be solved.

And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth [Revelation 17:5 KJV].

“…for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived” [Revelation 18:23 KJV].

After all, “sorcery” implies deception, no? And doesn’t “Mystery” imply something to be solved? I just don’t get it.

Does anyone think something MYSTICAL was happening when the Catholic armies would invade a neighboring land… and then convert the holy places and holy buildings of some nature religion or Roman paganism… and made them into Catholic shrines and buildings?

No. Of course now.

The Confusion of Tongues is a perfectly good example in the literary sense.

The Sumerians told a story about confused tongues. And then the Babylonians.

The Hebrew priests told the same story, naturally with some changes, and with what some might say is a unique moral twist. With Genesis… that story became JEWISH … and enshrined in the minds of their people for generations.

It’s a story. It’s not real. Just like Hercules/Herakles did NOT found all those cities in the pre Roman world.

Neither the Sumerians… nor the Babylonians … nor the Jewish scribes were trying to tell a story of purely garbled language of workers… .spending the rest of their lives not understanding anyone.

If the scribes had wanted that kind of story … they would have TOLD that kind of story with much more specifics… and the horror of it all.

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.