The following is from:
Duane A. Garrett, Rethinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch (Ross-shire: Christian Focus Publications, 2000) 62-63
The Tower of Babel
Dale S. DeWitt has examined the
issue of the historical background of the episode of the tower of Babel. [62]
He observes that scholars have generally either regarded the story as pure myth
[63] or as an example of literary dependence on the Enuma elish. [64]
But he builds a strong case for setting the story of the tower in the context
of Sumerian history. He observes that ‘land of Shinar’ (v. 2) is properly Sumer,
and that the language of the text can be read in a local rather than universal
sense. [65]
He further notes that there are
many parallels between Genesis 11:1-9 and what is known of Sumerian civilization.
First, a Sumerian text from late in the Third Dynasty at Ur states that they
once had been a people of one language but that Enki had confounded their
speech. [66] The historical background of this is the invasion of Sumeria by
Semitic and other peoples, who both introduced new languages. DeWitt comments
that in both the Sumerian text and Genesis the multiplication of languages is
attributed to the actions of deity. Nevertheless, he continues, this breakup had
historical causes, specifically invasions by Amorites and Elamites. He notes
that elsewhere in the Bible historical actions are attributed to divine
causality. [67]
Also, DeWitt states that the
ideology surrounding the Sumerian ziggurat accords well with what Genesis 11:4 states
of the builders’ purpose. They believed the ziggurat established a link between
heaven and earth (‘a tower that reaches to heaven’) and was the greatest visible
sign of their own glory and power (‘make a name for ourselves’). Furthermore,
the use of oven-fired bricks in the making of ziggurats is confirmed at least
as early as the Third Dynasty of Ur, as it the use of bitumen mortar (Genesis
11:3 records the use of ‘tar’ instead of mortar). [68]
Finally, DeWitt observes that the
fall of the Third Dynasty of Ur resulted in a scattering of the Sumerian
peoples (‘And the Lord scattered them all over the earth’ [v. 8]). [69] The
collapse of Sumerian civilization is thus emblematic of divine condemnation of
all human hubris.
Notes for the Above
[62] Dale S. DeWitt, ‘The
Historical Background of Genesis 11:1-9: Babel or Ur,’ JETS 22 (1979):
15-26.
[63] ‘Myth’ in the sense of being
outside the realm of history. Thus Robert Davidson, Genesis 1-11
(Cambridge: University Press, 1973), 6, 10-11, cited in DeWitt, ‘Babel or Ur,’
15.
[64] Thus E. A. Speiser, Genesis,
AB (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 75-76.
[65] He treats the reference to
Babel in verse 9 as an editorial comment meant either as a satire on paganism
or a means of linking Ur to the subsequent city of Babylon (17-18).
[66] See S. N. Kramer, ‘The Babel
of Tongues: A Sumerian Version,’” JAOS 88 (1968) 108-11, cited in DeWitt,
‘Babel or Ur,’ 19.
[67] DeWitt, ‘Babel or Ur,’ 20.
[68] Ibid., 15, 20-24.
[69] Ibid., 24-25. DeWitt is
somewhat perplexed about relating the biblical account to the date of the fall
of the Third Dynasty of Ur (pp. 25-26), but in my view needlessly so. As this
work will demonstrate, the story of the tower of Babel and the genealogical
material that follows it are from different sources, and it is not necessary to
suppose that the tower episode chronologically antedates the lifetimes of the
individuals in the genealogy.
Against an exilic setting for Gen 11:1-9, the author notes that, while
there is a reference to Babel in the pericope
it is difficult to read this as
polemic against the neo-Babylonian empire. It cannot be regarded as a veiled
assault on sixth-century Babylon because the reference to Babel is explicit
rather than veiled (as in apocalyptic). On the other hand, there is no explicit
attack on anything that can be identified as sixth-century Babylon. Certainly
there is no hint that the original readers were themselves in Babylon. (Ibid.,
298 n. 1)
