Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>]

I don't quite follow your logic here. If verse 9 is indeed a later 
addition to an earlier etiological story (and I take Jonathan's point 
that according to Gunkel it is not), then there is nothing to link 
this story to the ziggurat of Babylon rather than to any one of the 
other ziggurats of southern Mesopotamia. There is indeed "no reason to 
rule out the etenemanki ziggurat", but also no reason to choose this 
one rather than any other. And as many other ziggurats were around at 
a much earlier time, we have nothing left to date verses 1-8, and no 
reason to date them to the 7th century BCE rather than the 15th or 
25th.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Tower of Babel, dating of primeval history
Author:  <nor AT iol.ie> at Internet
Date:    19/01/2000 23:08


In identifying the 'tower of Babel story with the Ziggurat of Etemenanki, I 
offe
r the following comments

Verse 11:9 itself appears to me as being a secondary addition to the 'Babel' 
per
icope, its sole function seems to be an attempt to unambiguously link the 
etiolo
gical story of verses 1-8 to a known place.  The verse repeats what has gone 
bef
ore in verse 7 and 8. taking a leaf from the synchronic school, I would 
consider
 the verse to be a literary repetition to enhance the understanding of the 
text.

The tower is certainly identified with Babylon, the traditional association 
of t
he noun Babel with the verb balal is merely a convenient word play, we are 
told 
that it was already called Babel and then given the 'confuse' explanation, if 
th
e Babel was inspired by balal I would expect the sentence to have reversed 
itsel
f i.e. and so it was called Babel also the verb balal is not used in verse 7. 
Th
e author is unambiguous about its designation (he even tells us that it is on 
th
e plain of Shinar) , the 'confuse' part appears secondary.

There is no agreed etiological focus of the story, it could be merely to 
describ
e where languages come from, or the development of different races, or a 
story o
f the Hubris of mankind or as is obvious an amalgamation of all.

The etiological focus of the story can support an identification with Babylon 
wi
thin the pre-post exilic period.  More probably the pre, as the Hubris aspect 
ca
n be seen as a sneering attack on Babylon with its famed ziggurat. Which in 
its 
very name suggests the reason for gods destruction of it (house of the 
frontier 
between heaven and earth) and the biblical motivation for its destruction The 
id
entification of many different cultures although not as important an aspect, 
may
 represent the cosmopolitan nature of Babylon, which would have been at its 
stro
ngest in the time since Nebuchadnezzer until after the restoration from exile.

However, even if verses 1-8 are an originally independent pericope, and I 
know t
hat even its unity has been open to question , the identification with 
Babylon s
tands.  Most probably an identification with its time of greatest wealth and 
pre
stige, i.e. from Nebuchadnezzer on.  I can see no reason to rule out the 
etenema
nki ziggurat unless you assume an early dating. for all of verses 1-9.

Of note is verse 11:7 'let us go down and confuse their language'   this 
dovetai
ls with gen. 3:22 'the man has become like one of us' and bears comparison 
with 
the story of the Nephilim in 6:1-4.  Interestingly all these sections are 
linked
 with the idea of Hubris, and all these sections can be placed within a 
pre-post 
 exilic context. e.g.. the deuteronomistic like treatment of crime and 
punishmen
t.

As for the notion that for one reason or another the author would not 
criticize 
Babylon, consider Isa 46:1-2 which is very derogatory towards Babylon.


Best regards

Noel O Riordan