Episode 16: The Tower
God told people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth, but most people had a different design in mind.
All the quotes from the Bible for the main story were were taken from the English Standard Version (see ESV copyright here) or the New King James Version. For the other sources, including commentaries, websites, or articles, you can find links and references in the show notes below in the order they appeared. If you have any questions, there’s a link to contact me at the bottom of the page.
Show notes:
For the background of Leonard Woolley, see the document found here.
Regarding the timeline for things in this part of the Bible, there is some debate about whether it makes sense to use Septuagint chronology in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 or the dates collected from those chapters in the Masoretic text. If you use the Masoretic text the Flood occurred in 2348 BC (see Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pgs. 278) Master Books). If you use the Septuagint, you get another 780 years between the Flood and the modern day. For the difference, see the translations of Genesis 11:10-26 in the ESV (which uses the Masoretic text timeline as mentioned here), here and a translation of those verses in the Septuagint here. Historically, the Masoretic text dates have been considered more reliable. You can read a concise discussion of the options and reasoning here which explains and defends the Masoretic text position. I use the Masoretic text chronology in WiderBible.
Supporting the idea of two factions developing after the Flood, note that Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association suggests that only those who disobeyed God took part in the rebellion, suggesting that there were others who didn’t take part.
For the suggestion that Noah and his sons (perhaps excepting Ham) would’ve tried to persuade people to follow God rather than rebel, see note on Genesis 11:11, here.
For the suggestion that most of the people who no longer followed God took part in the migration and subsequent building project, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
If you look into the chronologies and timelines of ancient kingdoms, whether Babylonian or Egyptian, they quickly add up to more than the number of years Genesis says have elapsed since the Flood. These dates do present a challenge for literal belief in the Bible’s timeline, but not as large a challenge as might be initially suspected due to the multitude of assumptions that go into creating those timelines (see, for instance, here). Remember, archeologists are reconstructing the past from artifacts, from forgotten languages that have been discovered and deciphered, and using deduction and assumptions to fill in the gaps. This is not to say they aren’t diligently trying to find out the truth, only that the chronologies they develop are theories, not facts. For an example of an alternative Egyptian timeline that is more in accordance with the details found in the Bible, see here. Babylonian history represents a similar challenge, and there is a lot of history to fit into the years after the Flood in 2348 BC (see show note above), but, while this challenge is noted in the article here, until something provides strong support to discredit the timeline recorded in the Masoretic text (see show note above) I maintain that the best choice is to follow the clearest understanding of the Biblical text and have archeology bend it’s assumptions to fit the Bible rather than the other way around.
The timeline of when people migrated to Shinar and the subsequent events that occurred there is ambiguous in Genesis. The best estimate is based on the date for the birth of Peleg 101 years after the Flood (see Genesis 11:10-16), but assuming Peleg and the events on the plain of Shinar are linked, it could also have happened any time during Peleg’s life (see suggestion to that effect in the note on Genesis 10:25, here as well as note on Genesis 11:8, here) pushing the date out to 340 years after the Flood based on numbers in Genesis 11:10-19. Given a reference from Manetho, Ussher suggests 5 years after Peleg was born (see Ussher, James (2006-11-01). The Annals of the World (Kindle Locations 576-579). Master Books. Kindle Edition.). Elsewhere, 130 years (see note on Genesis 11:1, here) and 166 years after the Flood are suggested (see Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pgs. 41-42). Master Books). Overall, given the history that occurred in the area after the events of this story, I would assume this story happened sooner rather than later in the. For more, see a show note later in the episode explaining details about Peleg and the reason for his connection to this story.
For the number of people involved in the events of this story, I’ve see estimates five hundred families (see note on Genesis 11:2 here) and 1,000 people (see comment on pg. 186 as well as footnote 427 in Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 186). Pacific Press Publishing Association.) at the low end to the high end from Jewish tradition of 600,000 thousand men working for 43 years (see here, though take it with a grain of salt, as there’s some clearly legendary material in that story a little later on). This is a large range. People after the Flood did have children at younger ages (down from an average of 117 years before the Flood to 30-35 years afterward, from the data we have, according Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.) which suggests the population growth may have happened more quickly. The best population growth model and analysis I’ve found is here which suggests that by 101 years after the Flood, it’s quite possible to have 1,000 people or even 10,000 - 40,000 under extreme cases. If the timeline is extended out to 340 years, it is possible to have a population orders of magnitude larger. Elsewhere (Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pgs. 41-42). Master Books) ancient records suggest the 166 years after the Flood date, which fits in the span of Peleg’s life, and yields the 30,000 person possibility.
For the oft remembered Age of Discovery from the 15th century, see here.
In Genesis 11:2 the ESV suggests that people traveled “from the east” to get to the plain of Shinar. There’s the suggestion that this should be “eastward” according to Andrews Study Bible (2010) Genesis 11:1-2, note. Andrews University Press. The lexicon on this verse (see here supports that idea suggesting they went east rather ‘from the east.’ Even if that is the case, however, there is a challenge still. If Ararat is in Armenia and Shinar is what we know as Mesopotamia, going from Ararat to Mesopotamia would be south. not either “east” or “from the east.” Two or three possibilities arise. First, perhaps the people traveled south first into the land of what became Assyria (as suggested by the note on Genesis 11:2, here) and came to the Euphrates valley, and then went east. The latter part of this idea is in the note on Genesis 11:2 here. Second, some commentators (see note on Genesis 11:2, here) suggest that Moses is talking about things happening “in the east” as everything in this story is to the east of where Moses lived during his life. And third, it is noted that the word “from the east” has a time connotation, as in, “from ancient times” perhaps giving the perspective of people traveling from the past into toward the present day as mentioned by Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 187). Pacific Press Publishing Association. This idea is supported by the lexicon reference mentioned earlier where “east” can also mean “formerly.”
For the idea that Shinar probably refers to all of Babylonia or southern Mesopotamia, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 175). Pacific Press Publishing Association. For an alternate, but apparently minor viewpoint that suggests northern Mesopotamia, see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 1029). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For further discussion see here. This encyclopedia suggests that both northern and southern Babylonia might be included. For Mesopotamia being the land “between rivers” see here. For identifying it as southern Iraq according to modern-day maps, see later show notes.
For other examples of how the climate has changed over time, see the article here. The article here assumes a longer timeline than is represented in the Bible, but the trend is presumably true of a wetter past than the weather today. Furthermore, salt from the river used in irrigation builds up in the soil over time making it less able to grow crops as outlined here.
For the length and geography of the Tigris and Euphrates, see here.
For the meaning of “Euphrates” see Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.
For a clay tablet showing a map of part of the area with canals that were used for trade and irrigation, see here.
For “one language” meaning both the words and vocabulary were identical, see note on Genesis 11:1, here.
For the suggestion that common language fits with the idea of a totalitarian mindset, that they all thought the same things and said the same things with the same words, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 187). Pacific Press Publishing Association.
For the conclusion that more than one person was involved in the decision to build the tower, see note on Genesis 11:2, here.
There are differing opinions about the motives people had for building the Tower of Babel. The most direct reasoning is given in Genesis 11:4 where people want to build a tower to “make a name” for themselves and to avoid being dispersed into smaller groups around the world, ideas singled out, among other places, in the note on Genesis 11:4, here.
One commentary, in the note on Genesis 11:4 note here mentions Nimrod by name and argues that the desire to “make a name” and leave a legacy probably stemmed from a leader, presumably as it is the leaders of great accomplishments who are remembered more often than the multitude of individuals working at lower levels of responsibility. Another source references the belief by some that Nimrod persuaded people to build the tower, but notes that other rabbinical sources claim that Nimrod went somewhere else. Again, as mentioned in an earlier show note, these are assumptions and speculation, plausible, but uncertain.
For “making a name” being a reference to reputation, see note on Genesis 11:4 here, note on Genesis 11:1, here, and note on Genesis 11:3-4 here.
For the concept and references in the Bible to the fact that it is God who “makes a name” see Genesis 12:2, Isaiah 63:12-14, and Jeremiah 32:20 as referenced by Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 187). Pacific Press Publishing Association.
Josephus (see chapter 4.1, here suggests that that God told people to send out colonies to populate the world after the Flood to decrease the likelihood of rebellion, but instead they disobeyed, staying together as one group. This theory fits with God’s command in Genesis 9:1 that people “fill the earth.” The idea also can be found in the note on Genesis 11:3 here (which references Josephus) the note on Genesis 11:2 here the comment on Genesis 11:4, here, and the note on Genesis 11:9, here.
For the suggestion that Noah, Shem, and / or Eber might’ve been reminding people of God’s command to disperse and populate the world, see note on Genesis 11:4, here.
For the timing of when Josephus wrote his record of the events at Babel in The Antiquities of the Jews see here.
For Josephus’ reference to Nimrod, see chapter 4.2, here. Regarding Nimrod’s lineage, it only states in Genesis 10:6-8 that Ham had a son named Cush and that Cush was the father of Nimrod. This could mean that Nimrod was either Cush’s direct son, as we’d think of it today, or a more distant descendant (grandson, great-grandson, etc.) as mentioned in the note on Genesis 10:8, here.
If you read commentaries about the events leading up to the Tower of Babel, more than one refers to a man named Nimrod (see, for instance, here. This is the same person that Josephus says persuaded and convinced people that they should ascribe their happiness to their own bravery rather than to God and who led out in the decision to build the Tower of Babel arguing it would allow them to survive any future Flood (see chapter 4.2 here. In talking about these motivations in the episode, I only briefly referenced Nimrod. There’s a lot more that could be said about Nimrod from one commentary or another, but almost all of it is speculation. This is not to say that Josephus is wrong in recording Nimrod as the leader of the settlers in Shinar. It’s possible, and even plausible, that Nimrod was the leader of the people who migrated to the plain of Shinar and that he inspired the building of a Tower at Babel, but Josephus also says that Nimrod was a tyrant and suggests more control over the population that appears to be in evidence at this point in history. For instance, Genesis 11:4 uses the language of persuasion (”Come, let us”) rather than the words a tyrant might use when giving a directive or an order to command people to build a city or a tower. This idea of persuasion also fits with Josephus’ statement in chapter 4.3 where he says that the people enthusiastically participated in the building project. If, therefore, Nimrod did lead out, he did it from the perspective of an organizer and encourager who could persuade but perhaps not control the populace and the populace went about the project of their own free will. That said, all of these details are speculation based on Josephus’ history. Nimrod is not mentioned anywhere in the story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis. The only clear link in Genesis between Nimrod and the events at the start of Genesis 11 is the name of the city “Babel.” Specifically, Genesis Genesis 10:10 says that Babel was part of the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom. This could mean that Nimrod founded the city (and if so would lend support to the theory that he was the leader and inspired the building of a tower to heaven within his city’s precincts) but it could also simply refer to the fact that Babel, and the three other cities mentioned in that verse, were part of the kingdom Nimrod started with when he began to rule. Given that ambiguity, and the fact that the events of Genesis 10 took place after the events at the start of Genesis 11 (see earlier show note), I moved the detailed discussion about Nimrod and the legends surrounding him into the next episode, where it fits into the events that happened after the Tower of Babel given that we know more of what Nimrod did after the events at Babel while we have to speculate or take Josephus’ word for any of Nimrod’s actions prior to that point. For more about Nimrod, see the Episode 17.
Josephus’ suggestion that they built the tower to avoid a Flood is also mentioned in note on Genesis 11:9, here and referenced as a generally held opinion, perhaps among Christians of the past, in the note on Genesis 11:4, here. Even so, an array of scholars dismiss the idea. See for example notes on Genesis 11:4, here, here, here, here, note on Genesis 11:3-4 here, note on Genesis 11, here, and note on Genesis 11:1, here. Together they all suggest that the builders would have chosen a mountain rather than a plain (and a plain between the Tigris and Euphrates at that) to build a tower taller than the Flood if that was their goal. While this is true, it ignores pragmatism. The plain is where there was room for a populous city and the farmland and freshwater required to support that population. Perhaps building a taller tower to account for the low elevation of the plain was an acceptable trade off to gain those advantages, but that is my speculation.
Suggesting that distrust of God led them to build an artificial mountain to survive a Flood and reach heaven on their own, see comment in Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 187). Pacific Press Publishing Association. Matthew Henry notes that building the tower might’ve been done in part as a purposeful insult to God (see note on Genesis 11, here). For comments about independence from God and self-reliance as motivations, see Andrews Study Bible (2010) Genesis 11:3-4, note. Andrews University Press.
For the belief among the Assyrians and Babylonians who lived in the region of Babel later on that the sky was a solid surface see note on Genesis 11:4, here. Another commentary (see note on Genesis 11:4, here) references Deuteronomy 1:28 and suggests the reference to heaven is intended as exaggeration.
For more on Lucifer and his origin story and link to “satan” see WiderBible Episode 4 and WiderBible Article 7.
For the connection between Eve’s desire to be like God and the actions of the people at Babel, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 185-186). Pacific Press Publishing Association.
For the meaning of words in the travel to Shinar and building of a tower being related to Cain’s actions after killing Abel, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 187). Pacific Press Publishing Association.
For the suggestion that people at Babel were trying to take God’s place, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 187). Pacific Press Publishing Association.
The reference to brick being used to build the tower of Babel fits with archeology as several ancient authors (see in note on Genesis 11:3, here) reference that the walls of Babylon used brick. Based on this specificity, people suggest the author of Genesis came from a time and country in which buildings with stone would’ve been expected instead. See also note on Genesis 11:3-4 here as well as note on Genesis 11:3, here.
For the lack of stone in Mesopotamia but the presence of soil with sand and clay that served as good brick-making material, see note on Genesis 11:3, here.
According to tradition, they spent three years making and fire-baking the bricks and each brick was over 20 feet long, about 10 wide, and about 7.5 thick (assuming 18” to a cubit) and that they then spent 40 years building the tower. This information all comes from tradition, and I don’t see any support for those values beyond speculation or inventiveness. For the reference, see note on Genesis 11:3, here.
For sun-dried bricks being good enough for common houses, with the implication that they wouldn’t be good enough for the tower project itself, see note on Genesis 11:3, here and here.
For some details on sun dried mud bricks, see here and here.
For the durability of kiln-dried bricks over their sun-dried counterpart see note on Genesis 11:3, here and here.
The article here describes the chemistry of clay pottery being fired in a kiln, but the same chemistry probably applies to clay bricks.
For the current 2,500 PSI requirement of modern bricks, see here and the article, here. The reference to the weight of a polar bear supplied here.
For the chemistry lesson on mortar, I pieced together a series of sources. For a general overview of mortar, see here. The most helpful explanation of the history and composition of cement came from here. To get calcium oxide from limestone’s calcium carbonate, the rock is heated to release carbon dioxide as shown in the reaction equation here. That earlier source noted also the history of cement that hardens under water (hydraulic cement) and the Roman’s use of volcanic ash and the later English use of a high clay content limestone with some description of how silicates are involved in the reaction. It also made reference to the requirement that magnesium oxide content be kept low in the mixture. Based on the paper here this appears to be due to the fact that the hydration of magnesium oxide causes an expansion which, taking place after the rest of the mortar has already hardened, causes cracking. For a further description of cement chemistry that describes how Portland cement differs from Roman concrete, see also here.
In this episode, I use tar, bitumen, and asphalt interchangeably. Today, “tar” refers to something that came from the breakdown of organic materials (see here), “bitumen” comes from petroleum products and is known for its use as a cement (see here), and “asphalt” is similar and also noted for its waterproof quality (see here). One commentary suggests the word translated “slime” in some versions of Genesis 11:4 should be “asphalt” or “bitumen” (see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association). The lexicons for the verse use “tar,” “bitumen,” and “asphalt” synonymously.
For “tar” referring to cement or glue to hold the bricks together, see note on Genesis 11:3, here and note on Genesis 11:3-4 here.
For a definition and brief overview of modern bitumen and asphalt (and the interchangeability of those terms in common use) see here. The word used in the Hebrew can also mean either bitumen or asphalt according to the lexicon.
For an overview of oil seeps and the evaporation of more volatile components leaving only the thicker asphalt behind, see here. For tar boiling up out of the ground in the region around Babylon, modern Iraq (see here) as well as note on Genesis 11:3, here. For the record of tar floating down river from a tributary of the Euphrates toward Babylon and people sealing their boats with it, see note on Genesis 11:3, here.
For tar (or asphalt) softening when it is heated, along with various references as well as examples of its use as a waterproofing agent, see here.
For the record of tar floating down river from a tributary of the Euphrates toward Babylon and people sealing their boats with it, see note on Genesis 11:3, here.
For the kiln temperatures in modern brick production, see here.
For the low firing temperature of kiln-dried brick in ancient construction, and the subsequent ability of the tar to seep into the resulting porosity for a better mechanical grip and seal, see comment in the section on “Building Materials” here.
There’s a list of ancient authors who stated that the brick walls of Babylon were secured with bitumen in the note on Genesis 11:3, here and here and note on Genesis 11:4, here. They also comment on the difficulty of removing a brick from one of those buildings so constructed. See also Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
For a description of the ziggurats found in the ruins and writings of Mesopotamia, see For more, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 8007-8033). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. Further support that the tower might’ve been pyramid-like comes from a reference to Strabo in the note on Genesis 11:4, here.
After a description of the design and function of ziggurats in later Mesopotamian history, and statement that we don’t have any literature suggesting common people used the tower, one source argues that the ziggurat was really built to make life easy for the god, so they could come down to receive offerings from people at the temple at the base of the ziggurat. It then suggests that the tower of Babel was not built so that people could go up to heaven, but so God could come down. This conclusion does not fit with an apparent reading of the story in Genesis nor other scholars who reference the building of the tower as both an attempt to insult God, to displace Him, or to ascend above the waters of any future Flood (see earlier show notes for references). This traditional conclusion, that the actions at Babel were in rebellion against God rather than a means to serve Him, is supported by God’s negative reaction to the project in Genesis 11:6-9. In addition, one of the stated purposes of the tower was the people’s efforts to make a name for themselves. No service for a god appears in evidence in their reasoning or elsewhere in the story. Perhaps the conclusion that a ziggurat was built in the service of a god is correct for the use of later ziggurats, but not the tower built in Genesis 11 as it doesn’t fit with the data we have in that story, but that is my conclusion. For the source in question, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 8007-8033). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.).
For the meaning of the word “ziggurat” see “ziggurat” entry here.
For a description of a ziggurat’s overall shape as well as the fact that it had a solid interior, see pg. 136 here.
For the number and references to ziggurats found by archeologists, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 8007-8033). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
For details on the ziggurat at Ur, see here. Slightly different dimensions are given here.
For a connection to the idea of building the tower as a mountain, see reference in note on Genesis 11:4, here.
For the construction materials used in building ziggurats and the description of ramps that led up to a room on the top, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 8007-8033). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. Whether the room for the god was a later addition is unknown. The story in Genesis makes no suggestion of service to God, rather it supports the idea that the purpose of the tower was for men elevating themselves.
For the translations of the names of ziggurats found by archeologists, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 8007-8033). Zondervan. Kindle Edition as well as Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 108). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
For details on the Monadnock building in Chicago, see here; here and pg. 130 here. The word “monadnock” refers to and isolated mountain according to this article.
For Josephus’ comments on the tower being tall, but seeming shorter than it was due to its width, see chapter 4.3 here.
For the angle or repose of sand dunes, see here. See also further descriptions of the angle of repose here,
Josephus’ references to people’s willingness to go about building the tower are found in chapter 4.3 here.
John Calvin suggests that the fact that the bricks had to be made, rather than, presumably, using rocks that would be loose and scattered in the mountains, suggests a great degree of dedication in their rebellion against God. For more, see note on Genesis 11:2, here.
For more on the history of bricks and brick making, see the article here.
For different brick sizes, see details on the ziggurat at Ur, see here. Slightly different dimensions are given here. For another example see note on Genesis 11:4, here.
Whether they sun-dried any of the brick depends on if, as in the case of ziggurats, the inner layers of the building were constructed of sun-dried brick and only the outer layer was fired in a kiln or if they first sun-dried all the bricks until they were stable for transport and then took them to the kiln, but this is all my speculation.
It’s hard to know what transportation was available for bricks and tar but the invention of the wheel is quite old (though the timeline depends on your assumptions).
If the people building the tower in Genesis 11 thought that the only reason people died in the Flood is because they weren’t prepared, they couldn’t argue it was through lack of warning given the 120 years Noah likely spent building the ark. For more, see WiderBible Episode 12.
For Philo Judaeus, see here. For the engraving of names upon bricks, see note on Genesis 11:1, here. We know that Nebuchadnezzar, a later ruler of Babylon, engraved his own names on the bricks he used to remodel the city (see here) and its possible Philo Judaeus was confusing the story, but it’s also possible that Nebuchadnezzar was either reviving the old tradition, and doing with the bricks what the original builders of the tower did, or that he was simply doing similar things as he built monuments in order to make sure his legacy was assured.
For Josephus’ comment regarding the speed of construction see here . For other references see for the comment from the Book Jubiliees of 43 years (along with other unreliable legends) see here as well as note on Genesis 11:4, here.
While we don’t know how tall the tower got, it is safe to say they didn’t achieve their goal according to note on Genesis 11:6, here.
According to Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 108). Review and Herald Publishing Association., Herodotus describes the tower as 300 feet on a side at its base and 300 feet tall. The note on Genesis 11:4, here says it might’ve been around an eighth of a mile high one furlong, though that source also notes that Herodotus could be understood to claim that each of the 8 sections was an eighth of a mile tall, making the whole structure a full mile in height. Other references (see note on Genesis 11:4, here) suggest that it was only a quarter of a mile in width on the bottom, though, which would seem too tall and steep for brick and bitumen construction. For other legends claiming it was 6 to 12 miles high, though dismissed by the source as too tall, see note on Genesis 11:4, here referenced earlier. It is worth noting that it is unclear whether some of these heights refer to the original tower described in Genesis or to towers built later.
This tower and its height are noted by various ancient authors in the note on Genesis 11:4, here, but it’s not clear whether they reference this tower or a later construction in the city of Babylon. For more, see show notes on those towers later in the episode.
The phrase “let us” denotes that more than one member of the Trinity was involved in the investigation of the city and tower according to Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
The irony of God coming down to see a tower that was supposed to reach Him in heaven is mentioned by Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 189). Pacific Press Publishing Association.
Scholars suggest that God coming down to see the tower is a human description. God knew what was going on. See notes on Genesis 11:5 here and here as well as Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 188-189). Pacific Press Publishing Association.
For God showing Himself as a God who is methodical rather than hasty in judgment, see references in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
For a reference to God’s investigations as a lesson for modern judges, see notes on Genesis 11:5, here and here.
For the idea that “nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them” means that the people building the tower would attempt anything, rather than that they would be capable of anything, see note on Genesis 11:6 here. For the suggestion that this means a godless kingdom would block the kingdom of God if God didn’t intervene, see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 11:6, note. Zondervan. For reference to God restraining evil in the world through history see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
For the idea that the builders of the city and the tower wanted to control the world, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
For cooperation being only an asset if the right goals are set, and division is better than rebellion, see note on Genesis 11 in Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 108–123). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
For the tower functioning as a rallying point, if it had succeeded, for further plans against God, see For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
God is speaking to Himself when he says “us” as stated by the note on Genesis 11:7, here.
For the idea that it wasn’t different words but different pronunciations and meanings to the same words, see note on Genesis 11:9, here, note on Genesis 11:7 here, and note on Genesis 11:9, here. Elsewhere it is suggested that God only introduced a few languages and natural processes toward diversification took over from there according to the note on Genesis 11:7 here and supported by the statement on Genesis 11:9, here.
For a description of cognate words, see here. For the meaning of “burro” in Italian and Spanish, see here for a comparison originally mentioned here).
From what I could find, there’s not good consensus on language family trees. There are some big families, like Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan, but there are also many small language families that don’t appear related to the major languages and others besides that are isolated languages (like Basque) that don’t clearly fit a larger family (see pg. 1 here). As best scientists can tell right now, if you trace all the languages back, you don’t end up with a single family tree of languages, but a small forest, one that, I would guess, would eventually be reduced to a forest with about the same number of trees as there were languages when God confused the builders of the tower of Babel. For more, see pg. 12 and chapter 11 here which notes the struggle to even group families into macro families suggesting that unifying all into a single original family does not appear likely. See also here and here for a discussion of language diversity from a Biblical perspective.
For the suggestion that it was only different languages by nation or tribe, and not for each individual, see note on Genesis 11:7, here. The note on Genesis 10:25 here suggests that it was only 9 or 10 languages.
Evidently, if you are in England, the name for the city is “bay-bel” while the proper Hebrew would be pronounced “baw-bel” according to the article here.
For the city being named “Babel” and its connection with the confusion of the languages, see Genesis 11:9 and the footnote to that verse. See also note on Genesis 11:9, here, Andrews Study Bible (2010) Genesis 11:6-7, note. Andrews University Press., Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.,
For the builders of Babel creating their own legacy, but not the legacy they had planned, see note on Genesis 11:9, here.
As an interesting parallel, the note on Genesis 11:9, here emphasizes the attempt of the builders of Babel to rely on their own works rather than Christ, even to the extent that they build upon the sand of the river valley rather than upon rock, a reference to Jesus’ admonition to build upon the rock of His teachings in Matthew 7:24-27.
For the suggestion that Genesis 10 is listing the people involved in rebelling against God at Babel and then leaves off and tells the story of Babel in Genesis 11 before continuing with the rest of the family tree, thus Babel the dividing line between one part of the family and the other and making it possible that this last branch of the family wasn’t involved in building the city or tower of Babel, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 184, 186-187). Pacific Press Publishing Association. That said, the names Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth also occur in Genesis 10 as part of the genealogical lists, and others in the lineage from Shem to Abram appear as well, so I would guess that if the list is a record of people involved in the events on the plain of Shinar, it likely isn’t a list of only those people but includes others who were part of the genealogy as well in order to describe the family tree clearly. See also note on Genesis 11:5 here where the author speculates that some followers of God might’ve gone to Shinar but then didn’t participate when they realized motives of the project.
For the name “Peleg” meaning “division” see footnote on Genesis 10:25.
For Peleg’s lifespan, given in Genesis 11:10-19, being the assumed range of years for the events at Babel, see earlier show note regarding the timeline of the migration to the plain of Shinar.
For examples of people assuming that the “division” reference to Peleg refers to the division of languages at Babel, see note on Genesis 10:25 note here which mentions that the verb “divide” only occurs three other times in the Hebrew scriptures (one of which is recaps the birth of Peleg) but another includes Psalm 55:9 that specifically refers to dividing “tongues.” (see lexicon entry here). Other examples of scholars who mention Peleg and “division” as possibly referring to the events at Babel include the note on Genesis 10:25 here, the notes in Genesis 11 here, as well as Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 859). Review and Herald Publishing Association and Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association. While the division of languages appears a reasonable conclusion, other theories exist. At least one scholar(see note on Genesis 10:25, here suggests the division refers to a dividing of the new world’s geography while another (See notes on Genesis 10:25, here) suggests the division of Shem’s family (with a similar idea found in Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.) or to the creating of canals between the Tigris and Euphrates.
The notes on Genesis 10:25, here and here and on Genesis 11, here suggest that people left Babel and went to their various inheritances that had been decided and doled out previously by Noah in Genesis 10. I think this unlikely. First, in order for Noah to have divided up the Earth and decided where his descendants would go, there would’ve had to be a general exploration of the post-Flood Earth. This is possible, but far from certain. Second, and more importantly, a people who had so recently engaged in a wholesale rebellion against God would be an unlikely group to now go inhabit the lands assigned to them previously by their God-fearing patriarch. Instead, if forced to disperse, wouldn’t many of them try to disperse to a place other than that which Noah had assigned them? Instead, Genesis 10 is an account of where people decided to go after Babel, not where they were directed to go while Genesis 11 is the back story of why they dispersed.
We can only speculate on who was and was not involved in the rebellion at Babel. Noah would appear to be an obvious choice given his previous willingness to be faithful to God in spite of what the rest of the world did. Shem is also plausible. Beyond that, the note on Genesis 11, here suggests that Eber was faithful to God and that is the reason he lived so long after the Flood (the longest of anyone born after the Flood) but equating age and faithfulness is conjecture.
For “Eber” being the origin of “Hebrew” see various references here as well as Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.
For the natural conclusion that, if the language hadn’t been changed, Peleg and his kids probably spoke the same language as Adam, see note on Genesis 11:1, here.
Beyond the logical argument that the people not at Babel wouldn’t have their language scrambled and would, therefore, retain the language they used previously, it is also worth nothing that the proper names in the history given in Genesis have meanings (i.e. “Peleg” means “division”). If the language was scrambled, you’d expect names to be simply a collection of sounds, not a word with a meaning as mentioned by the note on Genesis 11:1, here as well as Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For other suggestions that the original language could’ve been Hebrew, see note on Genesis 11:1-2 here where it is suggested that everyone spoke Hebrew prior to the confusion of languages and comments in Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 184, 186-187). Pacific Press Publishing Association. In the past, this viewpoint of Hebrew as the original language was the traditional viewpoint, but not all scholars agree as mentioned in the note on Genesis 11:1, here, though it also references a scholar who admits that Hebrew might be closest to the original Semite language.
For people dispersing because they couldn’t understand each other and get along, see note on Genesis 11:8 here and note on Genesis 11:6-9 here.
For the scattering of the families from Babel being a fulfillment of God’s command in Genesis 9:1 see note on Genesis 11:8 here, note on Genesis 11:4, here, and note on Genesis 11:9 here which mentions that they probably scattered faster due to the confusion of languages than they would have otherwise.
As an interesting ending to the story, the languages that God confused when people rebelled against Him, he unified on the day of Pentecost when the disciples preached about Christ to the listening crowds and everyone was able to understand them even though they spoke in different languages. See Acts 2:1-13 and note on Genesis 11:6-9 here.
For the suggestion that the vocabulary used by Moses to refer to the scattering of the tower, see note on Genesis 11:4, here.
For Josephus’ statement that a windstorm blew the tower down, see chapter 4.3 here. For other legends, see here. See also note on Genesis 10:10, here.
For the tower at Birs-Nimrud showing the results of being struck by lightning and its effect on the brick and tar construction, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association., which is careful to note that this tower was only built in the 7th century B.C., so it at best represents the possible damage the original Tower of Babel would’ve received and is not the actual structure in question.
There are various theories about the remains of the tower of Babel. They tend to center around either the ruins of a tower in Babylon itself or a tower in Borsippa (also known as Birs-Nimrud), a city a few miles to the south of Babylon. One source claimed that the Babylonian astronomers named the Borsippa structure “the tower of languages” (see note on Genesis 11:9, here, though the source of that translation is unknown). The tower ruins at Borsippa are described as 2,300 feet in circumference and 235 feet high (see Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers), but the note in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association claims the site is only 156 feet high and that the tower there was not built until the 7th century B.C., so it would only represent later construction. That source also suggests that a tower in Babylon itself is most likely, given that Babylonian traditions suggest that the foundations of the tower in Babylon were very old and that the building had been restored several times. They suggest that after Xerxes destroyed the last version of the tower, Alexander the Great cleared the site to rebuild it but died before construction, leaving hardly anything at the site. As a result, traditions tend to associate the ruins at Borsippa, which are still standing to some extent, with the tower described in Genesis. See also Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 108). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For other scholars connecting the Babylonian site in later use with the location of the original tower, see note on Genesis 11:4, here.The note on Genesis 11:4, here suggests that neither location is likely as the remnants of the tower are probably gone.
As emphasis of a failed legacy, if the original site of Babel is the same as what Babylon, then we can’t find out any further information by digging as the ground water has destroyed all layers beneath what we have thus far unearthed, limited how far back the archeologist can go in uncovering the history of the city. For more, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7885-7889). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
There is some debate about whether the Babylon archeologists have found is at the same site as the Biblical city of Babel. Traditionally the two cities are identified as the same (see notes on Genesis 10:10, here, here, and here for examples) but there’s various theories that place it elsewhere. Regardless of the specifics, it’s important to realize that the lesson of the story remains whether or not archeologists have the precise location of Babel, and, in fact, there’s an irony in the fact that the location of the city of “confusion” is perhaps, itself a source of confusion today with the builders having not even managed to preserve the location of their city for the future let alone a memorial of their grandeur. Instead, we forget most everything except the fact that they rebelled against God.
The fact that the people in general left off building the city according to Genesis 11:8 does not prevent some people staying and finishing the city later on according to the note on Genesis 11:8, here, an idea echoed by Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association and the fact that Nimrod had it as part of his kingdom as stated in Genesis 10:10 and referenced in note on Genesis 11:9, here.
For the speculation that the original name of “Babylon” came from “babalu” meaning “to scatter” or “to disappear” and the locals revised the name to mean “gate of god” see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 108). Review and Herald Publishing Association and similarly For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
For Babylon meaning “gate of God” or the “gate of the gods” see note on Genesis 11:9, here as well as Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. One could call this a rationalization for God arriving there to confuse the language, but one scholar (Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 190). Pacific Press Publishing Association.) notes that controlling the gate of a city meant you controlled the city, so the title “gate of God” still reflects their original goal of controlling heaven and taking God’s place.
For the Babylonian legends that thought of the founding of their city as the founding of the world, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
In connecting “Babel” and “Babylon,” it’s worth nothing that throughout the Old Testament, “Babel” is the Hebrew form of the name “Babylon” (see the concordance here as well as Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 108). Review and Herald Publishing Association). See also note on Genesis 11:9 in Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 108–123). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Further support for “Babylon” as synonymous with “Babel” come from Josephus (see chapter 4.3 here), various references in the notes on Genesis 11 here, and the note on Genesis 10:10, here. According to note on Genesis 10:10 here and here, the natives refer to the ruins of Babylon as “Babil.”
For Ion as father of the Ionians, see here and here. For Ion being linked to Javan, Noah’s grandson, see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 553). Review and Herald Publishing Association and Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.
For mythology of Hayk and Armenac, legendary founders of Armenia see pgs. 64-66 here. For Hayk’s relationship to Noah, see tradition from Moses of Chorene in the note on Genesis 10:3 here. For the identity of Moses of Chorene, see pg. 931 here.
For Magog being the founder of the Scythians, see the note on Genesis 10:2 here which includes the belief that he was the father of the Russians. For more on the Scythians themselves, see here. Taking the idea further, the note on Genesis 10:1-2 here suggests that they continued east into Asia and possibly the Americas.
For Javan, Togormah’s descendants (Hayk and Armenac), and Magog being involved at Babel, and therefore part of the dispersion from there, note the description in Genesis 10:2-5 that the people went “each with his own language.” That said, not everyone listed in Genesis 10 was necessarily involved at Babel. Some names, perhaps Japheth, Shem, Eber, and others may be listed for genealogical reasons rather than reasons of participation in the events at Babel as mentioned earlier.