The Tower of Babel

Hiebert (2007: 43) states *NO* to the pride motif. "God's straightforward statement about humanity's cultural uniformity has been subtly transformed by some translators into a suspicion about human pride. Their tactic is rendering this main clause as a subordinate clause, thus making it dependent on the remainder of v. 6, where they see ominous implications of pride (a point we will take up in a moment). They achieve this by translating God's opening word, ["jn"], with its less common meaning, "if": "If now, while they are all one people, speaking the same language, they have started to do this, nothing will later stop them from doing whatever they presume to do" (NAB, cf. NJPs, NIV).

"This biblical conception of the role of Babylon and Mesopotamia in the origins of ancient Near Eastern culture is reflected also in the reference to Babel and the land of Shinar in the genealogical traditions in Gen 10:8-12, though these verses have been used historically to support the vilification of Babel and its pride in ch. 11. Genesis 10:8-12 concerns Nimrod, a "mighty hunter before Yahweh" (v. 9), whose kingdom began at Babel, Erech, and Akkad in the land of Shinar (v. 10). These traditions, like those in ch. 11, contain no censure of Babel. Nimrod is portrayed as a Yahwistic hero, "a mighty hunter before Yahweh" (niiT ^sb T? Tim). And Babel is presented as the first great city at the origins of human culture in Mesopotamia. As early as Josephus (Ant. 1.113-14), however, interpreters have read these traditions as a condemnation of Nimrod and his imperial exploits, and they have imported him into Genesis 11, making him the tyrant who led the Babylonians in the construction of their tower and their empire. Neither the negative reading of Gen 10:8-12 nor its use to interpret 11:1-9 is warranted." p52

 Hiebert, Theodore. 2007. The tower of Babel and the origin of the world’s cultures. Journal of Biblical Literature 126(1). 29–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/27638419.

As grist for the discussion, see also S. Watters and Z. Watters in the same God and Language volume (chapter 23). The title of their paper is "Language diversity: a 'happy fault' for the church". Although the paper does not use the story of Babel, it does speak to the multiplicity of languages. Rather than take a side -- diversity is a blessing, or diversity is a curse -- it argues that the doctrine of 'felix culpa' (happy fault) is a helpful way of looking at language diversity. The doctrine of felix culpa asserts a paradox in how we understand the Fall of Man -- the redemption of Christ not only brings humanity to the glory of its unfallen state, but also raises humanity to an even higher glory than if it had never fallen. That paradox is evident also in how the Scriptures set up an understanding of the multiplicity of languages. The authors intend to suggest that language diversity, like the Fall, is an unhappy situation in which perfect communication among the human race is thwarted, but that through events like the Tower of Babel and Pentecost (like Christ's redemption), language is redeemed, and language diversity brings about an even greater good.

https://aaronandsusanshryock.com/tower-of-babel-part-2/

Here's a third blog post in the series on Babel:

https://aaronandsusanshryock.com/the-tower-of-babel-part-3-noah/