Genesis 11:1-9 is the Tower or City of Babel. In the canonical context, the story conflicts with 10:5, which stresses that the table of nations consisted with the nations having their unique languages. However, consistent with the story J is developing, this story attributes the variety of languages emerging out of the Promethean pride of humanity still unwilling to accept subordination to their creator. I note again that the exilic editors of the Torah would rather allow the differing traditions to be preserved than to harmonize in other ways. Noah and his sons continue the sinful ways of humanity. Their descendants build a tower of Babel that is expression of their arrogance. The story relates the pride of humanity in building a city with a tower that reaches into the heavens. However, traditional Jewish interpretation of this story has held that the sin of the builders, seeking to establish fame for themselves in one place, was not as much pride as refusing to obey the divine command to “fill the earth” after the flood (9:1). The story occurs between lengthy genealogies tracing the primordial roots of various nationalities known to the author. It forms a bridge between the history of the world and the history of the people of Israel. It reveals the brokenness of the relation between the Lord and humanity. In this case, humanity seeks to go up to the Lord. We learn, however, that the Lord will come down in judgment and grace.
1 Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. The statement contradicts what Genesis reports more than once in the preceding genealogy: “. . . in their lands, with their own language, by their families, in their nations” (10:5; see also 10:20, 31). The contradiction is the result of differing sources: The genealogies are from the Priestly source (6th century B.C.) while the Babel story is from the Yahwist (10th century B.C.). Such contradictions and inconsistencies are common throughout the Pentateuch, and their presence was a major impetus for the rise and development of the documentary hypothesis. The preservation of these differences within the canonical tradition shows its conservative nature. Rather than try to smooth out the tradition to make the canonical text consistent, it allowed the differences to stand. 2 And as they migrated (“to pull up or tear out,” as in gateposts (Judges 16:3) or tent pegs, whence the derived meaning “to journey” or “to set out” or “to advance.”) from the east, they came upon a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. Migration here is not aimless wandering. Rather, it has the notion of deliberate movement from one place to another. Babylon is a city of immense importance in the ancient near east. The city of Babylon was immensely important for centuries not only in Mesopotamia but also throughout the ancient Near East. Babylon was also the dominant force in the region from which Israel’s ancestors migrated, so one cannot separate the negative attitude taken toward the activity of tower and city building from where the action took place. 3 And they said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly." The story is noteworthy for its apparent knowledge of Babylonian building techniques. This text refers to kiln-fired bricks as opposed to sun-dried bricks, which were much more common and less costly and were the building material of choice among ordinary Mesopotamians. Kiln-baked bricks, to which one could apply decorative glazes (much like modern-day ceramics), were used to face the monumental architecture for which Babylon became renowned. Both the monumental buildings and their costly adornments reflected and required the concentration of wealth in urban centers like Babylon of which many biblical writers disapproved (but to which most of Israel’s kings, beginning with David, aspired). Kiln-fired bricks were also the manufactured building materials of the alluvial plain of Mesopotamia (where the reliable supply of water from the Tigris and Euphrates made brick-making practical), whereas most structures in hill-country Israel (including the temple) were made of worked stone, which was scavenged (in the case of houses) or quarried (for the temple) rather than manufactured. And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. The subtle distinction suggests the author’s prejudice against such extravagance shown by Babylon. One senses both astonishment at the advanced technological level of the culture and a sense that technology poses grave dangers when it is not accompanied by reverence for God. 4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves. Could the phrase be an example of hendiadys in biblical Hebrew? If so, it juxtaposes two nouns to signify one idea, in this case, a city with a tower or simply a towering city. In the Bible, Babylon is the embodiment of sinful arrogance. The city said in its heart that it will ascend to heaven and raise its throne above the stars of God and sit on the mount of the assembly on the heights of Zaphon (Isaiah 14:13). Jeremiah urges people to flee from the midst of Babylon and save your lives, do not perish because of her guilt, for this is the time of the vengeance of the Lord, repaying it for what it is due, for Babylon was a golden cup in the hand of the Lord, making the earth drunk as the nations drank of its wine, and so the nations went mad (Jeremiah 51:6-7). The history of interpretation has emphasized the tower “with its top in the heavens,” usually taken as a statement of overweening pride, but the phrase is more likely simply an echo of contemporary Mesopotamian royal inscriptions used for monumental building projects; it is the city rather than the tower that the people abandon when the project falls into confusion. Naming the story the “Tower of Babel” therefore might be something of a misnomer, and one would more accurately entitle the story as the story of Babel (or Babylon). Otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." Again, humanity seeks its own way. Eve thought of gaining wisdom in her way. Cain chose the path of jealousy, anger, and violence. Those who lived before the flood chose wickedness. Arrogant and insecure, they have become self-important.[1] They undertook great architecture. The city is a sign of their self-reliance and desire for fame. They combined their energy with naïve desire to be great. Behind culture is a rebellion against God. Babylon exists in opposition to the Lord. The story shows how people, in stretching for fame and political development, rebel against the Lord. The story of this early part of Genesis, its Primeval History, is one of a widening chasm between the Lord and humanity. On the human side, sin spreads to avalanche proposition. 5 The LORD came down to see, a nice touch in that to see the work of humanity the Lord must descend, the city and the tower, which mortals had built. The anthropomorphism characteristic of the primeval history (see, e.g., Genesis 3:8) returns in the note that the deity “came down” to see the towering city, the first reference in the Bible to the notion of the deity living “up” above the earth. In the literature of Israel’s closest northwest Semitic neighbors (Ugarit), the abode of the deity was mountainous, and this idea of the deity living on a mountain persisted in biblical literature, most famously in the encounter at Mount Sinai. In Mesopotamian religions, the deities resided in heaven, and that may be the reference here. 6 And the LORD said, "Look, they are one people, and they have all one language. This is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down, implying a pantheon or council of the heavenly beings, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another's speech." The response of the deity to the building project is one of defensiveness, not dissimilar to the divine response to the human acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil (3:22). The deity’s action in both cases is to protect divine prerogative by denying the humans access to the tree of life in the first instance (3:23), and to confuse their language in the second (11:7). The author plays on the name Babel, which means “Gate of God/El” with the verb balal, meaning “to confuse.” The theological jab is that Babel/Babylon, with its concentrated wealth, opulence and forced labor for royal building projects, far from being the gate of God, is confusion. 8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. 9 Therefore it was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth. The judgment of the Lord upon their settling in Babylon leads to humanity fulfilling the command of the Lord to multiply and full the earth. This time, the judgment of the Lord upon their sin is to scatter them through different languages. Yet, human disunity and exile are not the final wish of the Lord. The builders wanted to make a name for themselves, but in Abram the Lord promises to make his name great. When here, the Lord scatters humanity over the earth, the Lord calls Abram out of Mesopotamia and promises him a land of his own. Whereas the builders of Babel are cursed with an inability to understand each other, the Lord promises kto to bless all those who bless Abram.
The anthropomorphism characteristic of this portion of the J narrative as it relates stories designed to help us see the depth of the human predicament (see, e.g., Genesis 3:8) returns in the note that the deity “came down” to see the towering city, the first reference in the Bible to the notion of the deity living “up” above the earth. In the literature of Israel’s closest northwest Semitic neighbors (Ugarit), the abode of the deity was mountainous, and this idea of the deity living on a mountain persisted in biblical literature, most famously in the encounter at Mount Sinai. In Mesopotamian religions, the deities resided in heaven, and that may be the reference here. The response of the deity to the building project is one of defensiveness, not dissimilar to the divine response to the human acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil (3:22). The deity’s action in both cases is to protect divine prerogative by denying the humans access to the tree of life in the first instance (3:23), and to confuse their language in the second (11:7).
We see a pattern developing in J of human sin, divine judgment, and divine preservation. The event of Adam and Eve in the garden disobeying the Lord led to the judgment of expulsion from garden, which led to preservation through extending life and giving clothing. The event of Cain killing Abel, led to the judgment of him wandering, which led to preservation through the mark of Cain and his protection by the Lord. The event of world sin led to judgment by the flood, which resulted in preservation through the family of Noah. The event of the prideful construction of the Tower of Babel led to the judgment of dispersion and the confusion of languages, which resulted in preservation through the call of Abraham. Thus, the relationship between the Lord and the nations has broken. However, through Abraham, all the families of the earth will be blessed, which is the goal of the divine election and choice of Abraham. The point of the election of Israel is to resolve the breach between the Lord and the nations. We will not appreciate the significance of the theological effort of J if we do not see the account of primeval history in this context.[2] In this context, we can better understand the election and blessing of Abraham. From the multitude of nations, the Lord chooses a man, in the particularity of election. The story has shown how people, in stretching for fame and political development, rebel against the Lord. The story is a brief folk tale explaining the origin of the different languages of the world. The story shows that the divine gift of unity is a temptation to humanity and a danger that may lead to its destruction. In fact, in Chapters 1-11, we cannot be sure that the story of creation is also a story of salvation.[3]
I offer a brief historical note about which I am not sure. It would move against my assumption that his text is from J. The project undertaken by the people is to build “a city, and a tower” (v. 4). The ziggurat was not built until the 600’s and 500’s BC. The scholar Van Seters makes a strong case for this story being about the ziggurat, Etemenanki, in Babylon. This time span of the seventh and sixth centuries BC constitutes the most appropriate setting for the Tower of Babel story. Mesopotamia had its own mythic traditions about how at one time in the beginning all peoples worshipped Enlil with one language. However, Enki, for some undisclosed reason and as a habitual rival to the king of the gods, created confusion of languages, an obvious etiology for foreign speech. As in the case of the flood story, the author has abandoned this motif of the rivalry between gods, and the author has sought a new explanation for the use of the confusion of tongues in the arrogant activity of humanity. In Nebuchadnezzar’s inscriptions referring to his construction of Etemenanki, he claims to have employed peoples from every part of his realm. This labor force undoubtedly consisted of corvee workers from the various exiled groups, including the Jews. Such a cosmopolitan labor force, speaking many tongues, might have encouraged the association of the tradition about the development of languages with the construction of this tower. The author intends the biblical story of the origins of Babylon and its tower to lampoon the efforts of the Babylonian kings to complete it. It is not an etiology of a ruin. The story sets forth the building of the tower as an example of great hubris that can only result in the same kind of response from the deity again. The author intends the etiology of the name Babel as historical evidence that God passed judgment on the city in primeval times and could perhaps happen again. The confusion of tongues in contemporary Babylon could also suggest the same correspondence with the past. The attitudes reflected in J and II Isaiah toward Babylon are the same. Likewise, in Daniel 4, there is the recollection of Nebuchadnezzar’s greatness, both in terms of his empire and his building activity. This led to his hubris, which brought about this humbling by deity. The parallel to the Genesis story is clear and suggests a strong tradition about the hubris of Babylon in its time of greatness.
To return to the theological point, in Chapter 11, is God's relation to the nations broken? Only in this context can we understand God's election and blessing of Abraham. From the multitude of nations, God chooses a man, in the particularity of election.
The theological viewpoint is always in the foreground of Genesis 3-11 and its hamartiology. When humanity did in relation to the Lord and each other and the reaction of the Lord to what humanity did provides the organizing theme. It begins the transgression of the limit on knowledge that the Lord established between the divine and the human. The Lord offered every kindness to humanity, as would a loving father, but human beings reacted like the ungrateful child. By endeavoring to enlarge its being toward the divine, humanity stepped out of the simplicity of obedience, forfeiting the right to the pleasant garden and intimacy with the Lord. The older son killed his younger brother because the Lord took delight in the offering of the younger son, expressing his envy and anger. A still greater catastrophe takes place as the divine beings take delight in the daughters of humanity. The Lord annihilates humanity, except for Noah and his family. We then learn that the regularity of nature is a sign of the patience of the lord with humanity. Due to the arrogance of humanity, the Lord dissolves the unity of humanity into a multitude of languages and nations.[4]
J incorporates a picture of primeval history that incorporates all that is human. J is the product of an enlightened mind, into whose field of vision the enigmatic character of human beings has entered and finds worthy reflection. Temptation is a process of tortuous enticements. Sin reveals itself in the disruption of human relationships. Language, which begins as a means of assisting humanity in ordering the world and understanding it, ends in the confusion and division of humanity.[5]
We are now ready to see how J envisions the possibility of healing the breach between humanity and the Lord, a healing that will begin with the call of Abraham and his family to be a blessing to the nations.
[1] Wright, N.T. Simply Christian. New York: Harper Collins, 2006, 73.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
No comments:
Post a Comment