Introduction
Many of the stories in Genesis are taught to children in Sunday school classes in a simplified, and often edited or censored form. For most kids, the story Genesis 11:1-9, commonly known as “the Tower of Babel,” is a story about people trying to build a tower to heaven where God lives. As a result of their actions, God then mixes up their languages. While that understanding does bear some resemblance to the Biblical account, it is not only simplistic but overlooks many key points of the story. Through exegetical research this paper will highlight significant points about the text’s structure, language, literary context, historical and cultural background, genre and hermeneutics. By doing so, the goal of this paper is to restore a fuller understanding and interpretation of Genesis 11:1-9.
Structure
Kathleen Farmer notes that for such a seemingly simple story it is apparent that Genesis 11 has been skillfully crafted and is in fact a “tightly woven work of art.” The structure of the Babel narrative in its most simplified form can be divided into two overarching sections. The first section (v. 1-4) details the actions of humanity and the second section (v. 5-9) details the actions/response of YHVH. Diving the passage into two sections (an a section and b section) lends itself to talking about sin (man’s actions) and judgment (God’s response). When dividing the passage into two sections there are parallels that occur through the repletion of certain words and phrases. First there is the uniformity of people and language as highlighted in section a (v. 1) and section b (v. 6). Five other parallels exist in linear succession.
Still thinking in linear terms, the narrative’s structure can be outlined as follows: (v. 1) introduction, (v. 2) humankind’s travels, (v. 3-4) humankind’s plans for development, (v. 5) God’s visit, (v. 6-7) God’s plan for humankind, (v. 8) humankind scattered and development stopped, (v. 9) conclusion. This outline provides a more detailed structuring of the text from beginning to end than a basic twofold structure. But more significant are the parallels that exist in the story symmetrically which move inward from the end (v. 9) and beginning (v. 1) of the story simultaneously to its center (v. 5). The literary structure referred to here is known as chiastic structure. Wenham shows the parallelism in his commentary here:
A "The whole earth had one language" (v 1)
B "there" (v 2)
C "each other" (v 3)
D "Come let us make bricks" (v 3)
E "let us build for ourselves" (v 4)
F "a city and a tower"
G "the LORD came down ... " (v 5)
F "the city and the tower"
E "which mankind had built"
D "come .... let us mix up" (v 7)
C "each other's language"
B "from there" (v 8)
A "the language of the whole earth" (v 9)
Ross says that, “in the antithetical parallelism of the narrative, ideas are balanced against their counterpart.” This structure also seems to highlight the significance of verse five. Notice that the fifth verse has no direct parallel or counterpart and occurs at the center of the narrative. It is significant then to note the importance in the story of God’s coming down. Farmer describes it as the “point of intersection between the two realms of action.” God’s descent marks both a narrative transition and forms the most primary plot device in the story. Brueggemann notes “the structure of the narrative shows that the resolve of humankind is in conflict with the resolve of God.” Humankind’s desires are repeatedly shown in scripture as being far from God’s. Despite this vast dichotomy, the centrality of the story revolves on God’s action to reconcile this difference.
Language
The ability of humankind in this story to work together in all their efforts hinges on their ability to communicate. The people are of one language (v. 1) and God’s creative act of intervention comes by confusing their language (v. 7). The setting of the story also derives its name from God’s action, being called bābel, which is conveniently similar to “babble” in the English language. In Hebrew bālal means to confuse. There is a phonetic similarity that is correlated in the story between bābel and bālal. With language being a central theme in the story, it is no surprise that the author of the story uses many literary devices throughout the text which play on words that either rhyme or sound similar. The use of language, and more specifically literary devices, is closely tied to the overall structure of the story where many of the verses and their counterparts share similar or the same words.
The author of the story also makes frequent use words with the letters b, l and n such as the phrase hābâ nibneh-lānû (v. 4). Similar uses of b, l and n occur in verses 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9. The word “scatter” and the phrase “across the face of the earth” also work together to form an alliteration, since both begin with p and end in s. Other alliterations are similarly skillfully scattered throughout the story. One of the most profound literary devices is found when comparing “let us make bricks” with “let us confuse.” If the first phrase is examined in reverse it sounds similar to the second phrase. Ross comments that, “the construction on earth is answered by the deconstruction from heaven.” There is also a progression in the story that “builds towards the explanation of the name of Babylon [as] Babel.” Other stories in scripture similarly foreshadow the final version of a name such as the use of Avram before his name is changed to the similar name Avraham.
Literary Context
The story of Babel follows Genesis 10:1-32 wherein we find the table of nations. The list is essentially a family tree extending from the sons of Noah out towards the development of all the other nations. Both chapters ten and eleven concern themselves with the origin of different people groups. The table of nations follows the Noah narrative and thus serves to transition from Noah to the other nations. Chapter ten explains the existence of the various people groups and chapter eleven then provides an explanation for the diversity of their languages. To reconcile the two accounts it seems that the confusing of the languages in chapter eleven must have corresponded to each clan mentioned in chapter ten. In other words, it seems logical that following the account of Babel that all the Egyptians would have spoken the same language. This idea is supported in chapter ten by phrases like, “by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations” (v. 20).
Interestingly it seems impossible to know if the two chapters are meant to be understood in chronological succession or if Babel would have happened first. Chapter ten seems unspecific about a timeline by using words like, “later” (v. 18). Based on this fact, it is possible that the nations multiplied but did not scatter until after the incident Babel. It is also quite possible that some of them scattered before the construction at Babel. If the latter is the case, God could still have decided to confuse the languages of those who were already scatter abroad. Brueggemann seems to think that the use of the term “scattering” is different in chapter ten from its use in chapter eleven. The scattering in chapter ten seems to be a fulfillment of God’s purpose to multiply across the earth. Their building at Babel and fear of scattering (v. 4) seems then to be resistance to the scattering that God intended.
According to Ross, it is not a matter of determining which chapter happened first, but rather where the Babel narrative fits into the table of nations. For Ross the key lies in the use of the name Peleg, which means division. This reasoning for this is that the text states that during his time the earth was divided. This may in fact have been the moment when God scattered the people and their languages. According to this view, the table of nations would function in a way similar to other toledot sections, where a broad overview of history is offered, followed by a more detailed account of one person, but in this case the following passage deals with a specific event rather than a specific person. In this context the story is meant to “explain how the nations speak different languages in spite of their common origin and how they found their way to the furthest corners of the earth.”
The existence of all the various nations by the end of these two accounts also highlights the significance of Avram’s choseness in the following narrative. God would build a nation through Avram’s descendants who would exist in stark contrast to the other nations. At Babel humankind wanted to make a name for themselves (v. 4) and it stands in contrast to God’s promise that he would make Avram’s name great (Genesis 12:2). Genesis 12:3 also uses the phrase “all people on the earth” in reference to Avram being a blessing to all people. This parallels the use of the Babel narrative in referring to all the people of the earth (vs.1, 9). Since the people could not use their unity to glorify God and thus become recipients of his blessing, God diversified them and would use Avram bring his blessing to them. González writes, “the real undoing of Babel is the covenant with Abraham. What the city and tower builders at Babel sought to accomplish for their own sake God granted to Abraham for the sake of the world.”
Historical and Cultural Background
Where are the remains of the tower of Babel and what might it have looked like? Many have theorized about these questions, and Brueggemann contends that tower was probably referring to a Babylonian ziggurat, a “temple-tower presented as an imperial embodiment of pride and self sufficiency.” These step towers were present in every important city within Babylonia, and there is evidence that many of the ziggurats were patterned off of older ones from a more ancient Babylon. This may point further to the historicity of the tower in Genesis 11.
There also similar accounts of Babylonian architecture, which appear to corroborate the Biblical account. Tablet 6 of the Akkadian Enuma Elish references the Babylonians building as high as the heavens and a spending a year making the bricks required. While that story is more specifically referring to the founding of a tower in the later Babylon, the parallels are still striking. There are also references to a universal language in the Sumerian epic, “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta.” As with other ancient myths, like those about a great flood and various creation stories, the Bible seeks to bring about the truth of God in comparison to the beliefs of other cultures. In terms of the diversity of languages, the Biblical account is due to the judgment of God as opposed to the rivalry of gods in the Sumerian story. Wenham says, “Genesis explains things in terms of a moral monotheism, whereas Mesopotamia saw things in terms of polytheistic competitiveness.”
The next important aspect of the historical context for this passage is in identifying the geographical locations identified by the text. Geography in this passage is almost as important as the theme of language. As the people had one language they also appear to have been gathered together in one place. With the diversifying of their language came the diversifying of their property. Hiebert writes, “over time, communities living in different geographical regions develop different languages.” If the people had scattered on their own as God intended the end result would have been the diversification of language, but because the people came together for their own purposes God diversified their languages thus forcing them to scatter. The similarities already noted with the Akkadian text seem to help point to Babel being clearly linked to Babylon and thus its location can be understood to be about 100 kilometers south of modern day Baghdād, Iraq. Genesis 10:10, while describing the kingdoms of Nimrod, places Babylon in the valley/plain of Shinar, so it makes sense to link them together in chapter 11. Shinar simply seems to refer to the larger area.
Genre
To begin with is the question of the historicity of this account. As the last narrative in Genesis labeled as “prehistory,” many scholars hold that this story (along with the rest of Genesis 1-10) is not a historical factual account. The primary reason for grouping this story in prehistory is that it is the last story in a succession of stories that depict the rebellion of man and the judgment of God. The stories of prehistory are also attributed to all humanity. The Avram narrative breaks away from this pattern and begins telling the more specific history of Israel.
The issue of historicity has several different features that are important to consider. First is the matter of interpretation. From a hermeneutical standpoint, these passages, and this one in particular, still arrive at the same interpretation despite their historicity. Thus there is no harm in reading the text as historical truth. Second is the issue of inspiration. Whether or not it happened at all or exactly as it is recorded, God still inspired the process and authorship by which we have the text in its final form. As such, it is the inspired Word of God. As it relates to authorship this text is most commonly attributed to the Yahwist (J) source based on certain key features: “an anthropomorphic deity, descending from heaven, referred to consistently by the divine name [YHVH]; a concise, colorful style; [and] an unscientific folk etymology.” Third is the issue of literary style. Any historical event can be interpreted through any number of literary styles. The various structures and genres of Genesis 1-11 do not take away from the historicity of the events even if they are not recorded in a literal or linear fashion. The view taken by this paper is based on the belief that the events of Genesis 1-11 actually happened. This belief is admittedly based entirely on faith and tradition. While not the primary intent of this paper, hopefully this paper reflects the same level of scholarship as papers reflecting a contrary view.
Historicity aside, there still remains the issue of genre. The purpose of the passage does not appear to be simply to give a historical record of a specific event at Babel. The primary purpose will be discussed more in the section on hermeneutics, but the task at hand is to determine the genre chosen by the author to communicate that purpose. Wenham argues that this story was intended, like the other early Genesis narratives, as a polemic against ancient Mesopotamian mythic theologies. While this may be the case, a polemic is merely the hermeneutic understanding of a text in a given culture and time. Therefore, as a polemic, the passage can only be understood based on its meaning. As is the case with the epistles, we can apply the meaning of the text to our lives today, but unlike the epistles, the meaning of the text is not understood as obviously.
Hermeneutics
Babel is largely a story about cultural pride and misplaced unity. Most commentators and pastors use this passage to deal with pride of some kind on a personal level. But one of the easily overlooked points in this passage has to do with its corporate nature. There are no specific names given in the passage, but instead it refers to people in general. Many sermons are directed towards people as individuals, but very few are directed towards people as a group. The people of Babel were blinded by their pride and banded together corporately in an attempt to thwart God’s plan for humanity. Psalm 2:2 says, “The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord.” It’s not hard to look at decisions made by governments and powers and see this scripture coming to life right before us. It’s sometimes far easier to be critical of other countries for being against God than our own, but we must always be critical of ourselves. Many American and even capitalist values have to do with building ourselves up and making our name great. We try too often to do this in our own might and then ask God to bless us in the end rather than allowing God to make us great and offering up thanks in the end. The difficulty in identifying corporate sin is that it is often disguised and distributed throughout many people whose individual rolls may seem insignificant.
Even churches try to become bigger and better. Churches seek to become great in the sight of their city offering the biggest programs, newest buildings and loudest music. The philosophy of some churches is also to speak one language like the people at Babel. They speak one language in the way that they avoid controversial topics, teach shallow doctrine and water down the gospel. In efforts to become seeker sensitive they avoid talking about subjects that highlight the diversity of the Body of Christ. As a result many denominations have no tolerance for Christians who hold different views and have different values. God’s intent for people to be fruitful and multiply seems like it would have produced much diversity. The resistance of the people to diversify forced God to scatter them by divine intervention. For many Christians the reality of heaven is that it will be a place where God forces people to acknowledge the diversity of others. The ironic image of a body is that it is both unified and diversified. As Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 12 we are one body (unified) but consisting of different parts (diversified).
The church in America faces another problem as well. For better or worse many Christians hold that America is a Christian nation founded entirely on Christian principals. There are ways in which this is true but also misleading. Unfortunately there is not sufficient space to elaborate on that topic in this paper. As it relates to Babel, many Churches in America try to merge two opposing worldviews together. The American worldview claims that people are free to make religious and moral decisions based on their own personal preferences and ideals. A Biblical worldview is founded on the exclusivity of Christ and the reality that God alone sets moral standards. There is nothing inherently wrong with America maintaining its ideals of freedom in certain areas, but it is impossible to merge all American ideals with Biblical truth. To follow the American ideal to its logical conclusion is to end up with a postmodern worldview in which all truth is local, relative and equally valuable. It such a worldview each person has total freedom to believe anything they want to believe and act anyway they want based on those beliefs. How does this relate to Babel? American Christians in many ways have tried to merge these two opposing worldviews into their theology. In doing so they have tried to create a theology that unifies the nation and is acceptable to all. In doing this they have turned away from God in order to build themselves up, speak one language, and preach one message of inclusivity and universalism. The issue of homosexuality is one example where this is seen very clearly. American culture and media is largely turning towards a view of acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. Many churches and denominations have split in half because some of the members and leaders of the churches have wanted to adopt this new American value. They do this to avoid being different, isolated or even persecuted.
The church’s efforts to adopt the ideals of the nation and speak the same language are creating a church that is unified around the wrong thing. Many have traded freedom in Christ for freedom of speech. If the church continues to build itself up and secularize itself in a way that is appealing to everyone in the nation it will certainly fail. Many people comment on the parallels between Babel and the day of Pentecost saying that Acts 2 is a reversal of Babel. They then use that argument as a platform to talk about unity between the church and the world. But as Gonzalez points out, “it is not a simple, straightforward unity.” The people did not go back to speaking one language after Pentecost. In fact, what followed was even more diverse and divided as Jews all through the region had to decide between the new and old covenants. While both stories do deal with language, it seems that more relevant passages on unity should be used to speak about unity in contrast to Babel.
The most important truth about Babel is not just that it happened in Genesis 11, but that it continues to happen throughout history. The story always ends the same though. Where God is not honored, nations will fall. But hope lies in the fact that through it all there is always a faithful remnant. Out of the dispersion of Babel rises the faithful Abraham.
On a personal level I have been deeply moved by the corporate nature of this passage. There are no names given in the story. No one seemed to object to the activities of the people and no one seemed to be aware of their sin. Each person allowed the culture to be the primary shaper of his or her worldview. As a Christian living in America I never want the world to inform me about what I should believe or think. I always want to turn back to scripture as my source of wisdom. I always want my allegiance to be place in God and his kingdom first. While we are fortunate to live in America, we cannot allow American values to trump Christian doctrine. I take great pride in being an American, but I hope that my pride in America never supersedes my pride in Christ.
May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
Galatians 6:14
Bibliography
Brueggemann, Walter (Theologe). 1982. Genesis: a Bible comm. for teaching and preaching. Atlanta: John Knox Press.
González, Catherine Gunsalus, and Justo L. González. "Babel and Empire : Pentecost and Empire: Preaching on Genesis 11:1-9 and Acts 2:1-12." Journal For Preachers 16, no. 4 (January 1, 1993): 22-26. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 7, 2013).
Hiebert, Theodore. "The tower of Babel and the origin of the world's cultures." Journal Of Biblical Literature 126, no. 1 (March 1, 2007): 29-58. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 7, 2013).
Holmgren, Fredrick Carlson, and Herman E. Schaalman. 1995. Preaching biblical texts: expositions by Jewish and Christian scholars. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans.
Ross, Allen P. 1998. Creation and blessing: a guide to the study and exposition of the book of Genesis. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books.
Wenham, Gordon J. 1987. Genesis. 1-15. Waco, Tex: Word Books.