Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis

[Beautiful Bones]

Which languages can be traced back to Babel?

Are any of the languages we currently use derived from these Babel languages? If they're all gone, are they written down anywhere?

[jimwalton]

Generally speaking, the Tower of Babel incident can be traced back to the era of 2500-2000 BC in Sumer (Northern Shinar). Many of the features and details of the narrative point to that time and setting. Geologists and hydrologists tell us the water of the region was receding, allowing settlement of the Tigris-Euphrates river basin. It was also a time of people migration and urbanization. This period is known to historians as the Uruk phase. The people of the region would have spoken the same language. Such a fact is also preserved in Sumerian in the epic entitled "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta." It says, "It speaks of a time when there were no wild beasts and only harmony among people: 'The whole universe in unison spoke to Enlil in one tongue.' "

But that's not to say there was only one language on the planet. Genesis 10.5 mentions other languages. The mention of one language in Genesis 11 refers to the era and region.

One religious expression at the time was the building of ziggurats. The descriptions in the Genesis text of their building materials, public buildings, and religious mentality fit what we know from history. The people engaged in building an administrative center with a tower (ziggurat) to make a name for themselves, in other words, declare themselves as the center of order, just as Adam and Eve had done in chapter 3, instead of God.

Anyway, without going through the whole story, you want to talk about the languages. What historians tell us is that the united culture of the Sumerians were invaded by the Babylonians, who spoke a Semitic language rather than Sumerian). The Sumerians were dispersed into a clash of foreign language groups surrounding them, and bringing the collapse of the Sumerian civilization. That's what the text is talking about.

Are any of these languages around today? No. Akkadian and Sumerian are both dead languages.

Are any of the languages we currently use derived from these Babel languages? Aramaic came from Akkadian, and there is still a small population of the world that speaks Aramaic.

If they're all gone, are they written down anywhere? Yes, we have some inscriptions of Akkadian and Sumerian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian_language

[Beautiful Bones]

Thank you. I appreciate the background information. There's a lot here...

> Genesis 10.5 mentions other languages. The mention of one language in Genesis 11 refers to the era and region.

This is just some housekeeping, but I've heard apologetic arguments that the chapters are simply out of order, and the stuff written in chapter 10 happens after Babel. I'm not sophisticated enough to comment on that, but Genesis 11:1 literally says "Now the whole world had one language and a common speech." (NIV) But I know better than to take everything I read in the Bible at face value, so for the purposes of our conservation I'll assume what you said is true.

> the Sumerians were invaded by the Babylonians... The Sumerians were dispersed into a clash of foreign language groups... That's what the text is talking about.

When you say "the text" you're talking about the Bible, right? Not the Sumerian writings from the first paragraph? Assuming you're talking about the Bible, is it right to say the story of Babel is entirely allegorical? Sorry if I'm misinterpreting.

[jimwalton]

> I've heard apologetic arguments that the chapters are simply out of order, and the stuff written in chapter 10 happens after Babel.

I've heard a similar theory. It's not "apologetics," but people trying to figure everything out. It's frankly very difficult to know such things (like if chapter 10 happens after Babel). Scholars do linguistics studies of the terms and word forms used.

We can at least see that the author put chapter 11 where he did because it sets up chapter 12. And since 11 segues into 12 both thematically and chronologically, and on examination of the names, tribes, and regions mentioned in chapter 10 fit well in the pre-Abrahamic era, I have no particular reason to question the textual order.

Biblical scholar Victor Hamilton says it's probably a case of dischronologization (you know you're a real scholar when you can use words like that), as does John Walton in his commentary. So I'm aware of the argument. Walton also adds that we have seen the narrator moving back in time previously, for instance, when we get the genealogy of Cain in Gn. 4.17-24, then the author backs up to tell us the story of Seth in Gn. 4.25ff., and then backs up again at the beginning of 5. It happens other times in Genesis also. I don't see where it's a big deal if chapters 10 and 11 cover some of the same chronological territory between Noah and pre-Abraham.

> but Genesis 11:1 literally says "Now the whole world had one language and a common speech."

The Hebrew term for "world" is eretz, a term that can mean the Earth, but also refers to "land," as in a limited geographic region (such as in our national anthem: "the land of the free and the home of the brave.") While the mention of "all the earth" 5 times in 9 verses gives us in 2020 a universal feel, eretz can be translated variously and so that takes us out of the pocket of "but it LITERALLY says..."

And I've already mentioned that the common language could easily, then, refer to the common Sumerian language of the region. I don't see this as a problem.

> When you say "the text" you're talking about the Bible, right?

Correct. I was referring to Genesis 11.

> Assuming you're talking about the Bible, is it right to say the story of Babel is entirely allegorical?

No, I don't think it's allegorical at all. It's speaking of the Uruk period of Sumerian history when the Sumerians settled the region of Babylonia, speaking a common language, and building an administrative center on the plain of Shinar. There was an eastern migration as lands opened up as farmable. The Sumerians are an identifiable entity from approximately 3000-2000 BC, when they were conquered by the Babylonians (of a Semitic language group). Archaeologists have found evidence of urbanization during that era, along with monumental structures as those described in Gn. 11. It's a historical account, not an allegorical one at all.

The point of it is, very similar to Gn. 3. Adam and Eve lost access to the presence of god by presuming to make themselves the center of order and wisdom. In Gn. 4, the sacrifices didn't reestablish the divine presence; for that matter, Cain murdered his brother. Here the builders make an initiative to rebuild sacred space to motivate the presence of God in their midst, but they go about it all wrongly: (1) they take for themselves divine prerogatives (to make a name for themselves), (2) they violate boundaries between divine and human identities (to make themselves like God, as Eve is said to have been doing), and (3) to create their own sense of order, disregarding God.

The tower was all about themselves and their own reputations and identities. They were trying to rebuild sacred space so they could occupy it. When the Babylonians invade and disperse these Sumerians as a people group, the biblical writer interprets that as an act of God, "confusing their language" and scattering them to the winds, destroying their group and cultural identity. This is then followed by Genesis 12 where God takes the initiative to reestablish His presence via Abraham and his descendants, and the covenant is the form it takes (a form that lasts throughout history). The covenant takes us all the way from Babel to Jesus's death (his blood is the mark of the new covenant).

So in Genesis 11 we see humans trying to abrogate the place of God for themselves. In Genesis 12 we see God showing us how it's supposed to be done instead.

Therefore Genesis 11 is portrayed as totally historical, which it was, and the writer interprets the event theologically as the act of God to teach us about Himself: that if we're going to worship God, we have to worship Him as He is, not as we make Him to be. We don't get to choose what God is like. He's real, and He is what He is, and we have to learn what He is like, not make up what we want.