According to some counts, more than 6,800 languages exist, and they each have their own unique grammatical features. However, for at least 17 centuries, people spoke just one language. So what happened? And is it possible for any language to unite humankind?
Read Genesis 11:1-4
The popular cause to be advanced by the tower and city construction was, not the exaltation of God’s name, but that the builders might “make a celebrated name” for themselves. The ziggurat towers uncovered not only in the ruins of ancient Babylon but elsewhere in Mesopotamia would seem to confirm the essentially religious nature of the original tower, whatever its form or style.
Whereas the Hebrew name given the city, Babel, means “Confusion,” the Sumerian name (Ka-dingir-ra) and the Akkadian name (Bab-ilu) both mean “Gate of God.” Thus the remaining inhabitants of the city altered the form of its name to avoid the original condemnatory sense, but the new or substitute form still identified the city with religion.
The Genesis account describes the uniting of some part of the post-Flood human family in a project that opposed God’s will as stated to Noah and his sons. (Ge 9:1) Instead of spreading out and ‘filling the earth,’ they decided to centralize human society, concentrating their residence on a site in what became known as the Plains of Shinar in Mesopotamia. Evidently this was also to become a religious center, with a religious tower.
Notice Jehovah God's response to this presumptuous project:
Read Gen. 11:6-9
The confusion of their language would also hinder or slow down future progress in a wrong direction, a God-defying direction, since it would limit mankind’s ability to combine its intellectual and physical powers in ambitious schemes and also make it difficult to draw upon the accumulated knowledge of the different language groups formed—knowledge, not from God, but gained through human experience and research. (Compare Ec 7:29; De 32:5.) So, while the confusion of Babel introduced a major divisive factor into human society, the confusion of human speech actually benefited human society by slowing down the attainment of dangerous and hurtful goals. (Ge 11:5-9; compare Isa 8:9, 10.) One only has to consider certain developments in our own times, resulting from accumulated secular knowledge and man’s misuse thereof, to realize that what God foresaw long ago would develop if the effort at Babel were allowed to go unhindered.
Discuss picture, and Zeph. 3:9; Rom. 12:2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation
ReplyDelete"Of the 6,259 different Hebrew words in the Hebrew Bible, 3,827 of them are nouns, and if we assume four meanings for each noun, we have a total of 15,308 nouns."
"If we want to talk about how many words there are in English, there are three key numbers to remember: more than a million total words, about 170,000 words in current use, and 20,000-30,000 words used by each individual person."
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040615/what-are-economic-impacts-specialization.asp
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/key-components-civilization/
ReplyDelete6800 languages worldwide was just an approximate figure. The total number of languages grow so fast that it hard to keep up, but this page was helpful in my studies: https://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/how-many-languages-are-there-world
ReplyDelete11 Things You Didn't know about Hebrew: https://theculturetrip.com/middle-east/israel/articles/11-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-hebrew-language/
How many lexical forms does the New Testament (Christian Greek Scriptures) contain? See https://bibleandtech.blogspot.com/2014/09/greek-new-testament-vocabulary-lists.html
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/balal_1101.htm
ReplyDeleteWhat does it mean?
There is more than one option for bab.el.
See also https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/454/jbq_454_dyckbabel.pdf
ReplyDeleteSumerian - "Babilla, of unknown meaning and probably non-Semitic origin."
ReplyDeleteIMO this makes for a serious problem on the interpretation of
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%9C
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/1101.htm
"Mix" & "confuse" are quite different propositions.
Rev 14:3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songline (the female method of navigation is remarkable https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01ckklh - men seem unable to do this anywhere near as well here and in Australia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Serpent
These entries are incorrect as aboriginals all over the world seem to know of this type of "song" & rainbow snake.
I surely don't want to be dogmatic about the etymology of Babel, but almost everything I've checked--and there's plenty more to check--suggests the meaning "confusion" or "confounding." Mix could be an interchangeable term depending on the context, but words can also have their differing denotations in varied contexts too. I don't see the possible Sumerian usage ruling out the meaning "confusion."
ReplyDeleteSee also https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/zatw.2017.129.issue-3/zaw-2017-0020/zaw-2017-0020.xml
ReplyDeleteThe paper you linked recognises the correct understanding of the term which is to bring together and not to confuse. They then propose an "antithetical sense to its usual meaning", but maybe they are missing something and the story line is not that simple?
ReplyDeleteMy sharing a link does not mean that I agree. But within the context of Genesis 11:1-9, confusion is likely the intended meaning. How is being together even fitting for the Babel narrative?
ReplyDeleteSee Alter's translation of Genesis 11 and the NET Bible notes for Genesis 11.
ReplyDeleteCan't people come into a city as well as leave?
ReplyDeleteYes, of course. 😐
ReplyDeleteHowever, Genesis 11 gives the explanation for the city's name by saying God confused the languages or he made people babble
Gen 11:1 has two related but slightly different points in it. MT one language and one speech. LXX one lip and one language.
ReplyDeleteLXX 9 On this account its name was called Confusion, because there the Lord confounded the languages of all the earth, and thence the Lord scattered them upon the face of all the earth.
ReplyDeleteNote languages plural and no mention of lip.
MT has language singular and no mention of tongue.
There is definitely more to this.
Tongue or lip is just metonomy for language. Compare Zephaniah 3:9.
ReplyDeleteAnd actually, the Hebrew does have lip in Gen. 11:1. See Ellicott's commentary and Keil-Delitzsch. Compare Gen. 11:1 in the Vulgate.
More later.
In Hebrew the metonomy is irrelevant and the vulgate is a poor translation. This is Hebrew poetry. It tells us two related things not one thing. Are you implyings that it is saying "one spoken language"?
ReplyDeleteOne still has to account for the LXX plural.
An interesting translation from the MT is - Now the whole earth had one language and the same words.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that the metonymy is irrelevant in Hebrew or that the Vulgate is a poor translation in this respect. Nor am I denying that two related things are mentioned: a language and a set of words (i.e., a vocabulary or content of the language). The verse is not equating these two even if they are related.
ReplyDeleteThe translation you quote/propose is not saying the same thing, but two different things: one language and the same words.
Apologies for initially spelling metonymy wrong, but I still think it's quite relevant in this case.
I wanted to comment on the LXX plural later, but it still does not change how we should understand the Hebrew text.
Here's why I say the use of "tongue" is present in Gen. 11:1: that is what I mean by the use of a metonym:
Ellicott's Commentary: "Of one language, and of one speech.—Literally, of one lip, and of words one: that is, both the pronunciation and the vocabulary were identical."
Albert Barnes: Of one lip, and one stock: of words. - In the table of nations the term "tongue" was used to signify what is here expressed by two terms. This is not undesigned. The two terms are not synonymous or parallel, as they form the parts of one compound predicate. "One stock of words," then, we conceive, naturally indicates the matter, the substance, or material of language. This was one and the same to the whole race. The term "lip," which is properly one of the organs of articulation, is, on the other hand, used to denote the form, that is, the manner, of speaking; the mode of using and connecting the matter of speech; the system of laws by which the inflections and derivations of a language are conducted. This also was one throughout the human family. Thus, the sacred writer has expressed the unity of language among mankind, not by a single term as before, but, with a view to his present purpose, by a combination of terms expressing the two elements which go to constitute every organic reality.
K-D: "And the whole earth (i.e., the population of the earth, vid., Genesis 2:19) was one lip and one kind of words:" unius labii eorundemque verborum. The unity of language of the whole human race follows from the unity of its descent from one human pair (vid., Genesis 2:22).
The Vulgate captures the metonym used by the Hebrew writer.
NET Bible note for Gen. 11:1:
ReplyDeletetn Heb “one lip and one [set of] words.” The term “lip” is a metonymy of cause, putting the instrument for the intended effect. They had one language. The term “words” refers to the content of their speech. They had the same vocabulary.
Can you demonstrate other examples of metonymy in genesis?
ReplyDeleteAny other examples of the vulgate removing the conjunction?
ReplyDeleteWhy devar and not amar?
ReplyDeleteActs 21:27
ReplyDeleteGenesis 9:27; 25:28; 45:21.
ReplyDeleteNo examples of the Vulgate removint the conjunction immediately come to mind, but that would take searching to verify.
On devar and amar, see Synonyms of the OT. There are different schools of thought regarding the denotations of these words.
See:-
ReplyDeletehttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/322512273_METAPHORaS_FORGOTTEN_BROTHER_A_SURVEY_OF_METONYMY_IN_BIBLICAL_HEBREW_POETRY/link/5d5c1455a6fdcc55e81a65d5/download
Your metonymy seems to be based on much later texts:-
Proverbs 12:19
Proverbs 17:4
I would be interested to know the 4 examples that Alter has proposed?
In the chronology, compare Gen 10:5
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190218-are-we-on-the-road-to-civilisation-collapse
ReplyDeleteComplexity
https://archive.org/details/synonymsofoldtes00gird/page/328/mode/2up/search/amar
ReplyDeleteYou asked for metonymy examples from Genesis and that's what I gave, including one from Gen. 9. I don't see how the Genesis examples are based on later texts. For instance, how is Gen. 45:21 based on a later text?
I might have the Alter book somewhere on my hard drive, but I'm in my office now, so it's hard to check.
I did find this for Alter: https://disjectamembra2014.blogspot.com/2014/09/robert-alter-art-of-biblical-poetry.html
But it also does not seem that Alter is saying only 4 instances of metonymy appear in the Hebrew Bible; on the other hand, Bullinger gives numerous instances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Egyptian_hieroglyphs
ReplyDeleteA2 Man with hand to mouth. This is not "lip".
My reference to later examples is regarding "lip".
In the LXX (NETS), the singular "lip" and speech are used in Gen. 11:1; in 11:6, it says "one race and one lip of all," the 11:7 uses "their tongue" (collectively). It is only after their tongues are confused that 11:9 employs the plural in LXX, which could explain how the translator/translators saw the event.
ReplyDeleteSee also https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/4282/Proefschrift.pdf?sequence=1
See page 12, etc.
http://web.ff.cuni.cz/ustavy/egyptologie/pdf/Gardiner_signlist.pdf
ReplyDeletePg 442 mouth = speech.
https://www.pyramidtextsonline.com/documents/DicksonDictionary.pdf
ReplyDeletePg 20
I don't see the Gen. 11:1 use of "lip" being dependent on later texts or necessarily having a connection with the Egyptian hieroglyphs. Genesis also uses "the metonym, "mouth" in Gen. 41:40. I already listed Gen. 45:21 which also uses mouth as a metonym.
ReplyDeleteAnd that is the very point I am trying to make. Semitic languages use mouth for speech and not lip.
ReplyDeleteThere is a glyph for lip.
Gen. 41:40 & 45:21 are both withing a pharaonic context and mean "command". Different to just what is spoken.
ReplyDeleteJob 8:21 should also be translated - command(s).
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_(biblical_figure)#In_the_Greek_Old_Testament_Book_of_Job
Later texts like Judges onward are another matter.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp
ReplyDeleteSee all laws relating to cattle.
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bul/genesis-41.html41?print=yes
ReplyDeleteSee verse 40:-
It is not a HEBREW Metonymy, it is an EGYPTIAN command.
Hebrew (a Semitic language) uses mouth and lip as metonymy for language, not just lip. Genesis 11:1 is clear evidence of employing "lip" for speech/language.
ReplyDeleteSee https://books.google.com/books?id=dMidce6H4WYC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=hebrew+metonymy+for+lip&source=bl&ots=DFUmyfmicC&sig=ACfU3U0tfC5ZvYFaG9_0b_7_0hsgK7FQng&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj17bOm3P7nAhVmRN8KHUjxA9MQ6AEwCXoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=hebrew%20metonymy%20for%20lip&f=false
See Isaiah 19:18 and Zephaniah 3:9.
Regarding Gen. 41:40, you asked for examples of metonmy in Genesis and it is such an example. NET suggests we could also render 41:40 with "instructions." But the point is that it's metonymic and written in Hebrew.
You asked for other examples of metonymy in Genesis without the restriction that they all must refer to language/speech like 11:1. You did not stipulate these conditions.
Again, for Genesis 45:21, NET translates: "So the sons of Israel did as he said. Joseph gave them wagons as Pharaoh had instructed, and he gave them provisions for the journey."
I really don't see how the Egyptian context affects the overall point we started discussing, namely, whether there is metonymy in Genesis, how old is such usage, and whether Hebrew uses lip metonymically.
Where does Bullinger deny that we have an example of Hebrew metonymy in Gen. 41:40? To my knowledge, he does not deny that it's Hebrew metonymy. It could be an Egyptian command expressed with Hebrew metonymy. We don't have to take the either/or approach here.
Alter writes:
"The Hebrew says literally 'by your mouth.' The clear meaning is by your commands, by the directives you issue."
See his entire note on 41:40 for more details.
According to BDB, we do have examples of the Hebrew word for "mouth" being used metonymically in association with speech. For example, Exodus 4:16.
Compare the NET note for Exodus 4:10: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+4&version=NET
See Exodus 4:11.
We also have the term "mouth" for the ground swallowing blood but that is not my point or the context of the verses you referenced.
ReplyDeleteBut see above. We have examples where Hebrew "mouth" refers to speech and not just commands/instructions although that distinction was not clear early in this discussion.
ReplyDeleteLook at 4:11,12 in the NASB.
ReplyDeleteExodus 4:11-12 in NASB is similar to the NET Bible rendition, but NET includes the note I mentioned.
ReplyDeleteHere is the note for Exodus 4:10 (NET):
tn The two expressions are כְבַד־פֶּה (khevad peh, “heavy of mouth”), and then כְבַד לָשׁוֹן (khevad lashon, “heavy of tongue”). Both use genitives of specification, the mouth and the tongue being what are heavy—slow. “Mouth” and “tongue” are metonymies of cause. Moses is saying that he has a problem speaking well. Perhaps he had been too long at the other side of the desert, or perhaps he was being a little dishonest. At any rate, he has still not captured the meaning of God’s presence. See among other works, J. H. Tigay, “‘Heavy of Mouth’ and ‘Heavy of Tongue’: On Moses’ Speech Difficulty,” BASOR 231 (1978): 57-67.
11 The Lord said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him mute or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord? 12 Now then go, and I, even I, will be with your mouth, and teach you what you are to say.
ReplyDelete"Be with your mouth, and teach you what to say."? The mouth is not the speech.
Of Exodus 4:11-12 is metonymic, then the mouth would represent speech as it apparently does in 4:10,16. Jehovah could be with the words Moses spoke and inform/instruct his speech. Verse 12 could be read as a figure of speech and it needs to be read contextually, in harmony with 4:16.
ReplyDeleteCompare Exodus 4:15; Deuteronomy 18:18; Jeremiah 1:9.
I still disagree. See exodus 4:9 nasb, this is speech & mouth is about authority.
ReplyDeleteCompare Exo 3:15
ReplyDeletehttps://biblehub.com/hebrew/tomar_559.htm
with Exo 4:15
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/taasun_6213.htm
I don't see ironclad evidence for understanding moth in Exodus 4 to mean authority. I believe the context indicates that mouth is possibly used to represent speech.
ReplyDeleteMouth, not moth
ReplyDeleteSee https://books.google.com/books?id=TcQVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA681&lpg=PA681&dq=hebrew+peh+metonymy&source=bl&ots=k49vBxyw5y&sig=ACfU3U0vuWbTN1EJ_GudLa-0_wj9CIVjkQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwilrdf0n4LoAhXhdd8KHdp5Ay84ChDoATABegQIDBAB#v=onepage&q=hebrew%20peh%20metonymy&f=false
ReplyDeleteThis is talking about Moses inability to sway pharaoh & the analogy I would use is that Jehovah's miraculous "actions speak louder than words."
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is not iron clad but it is certainly in the running as a possibility, especially when we survey the range of usages in Exodus.
I would contend that Exodus 34:27 is saying the authority of those words.
Ex 38:21 is also of note regarding command & authority. Cf Genesis 43:7, Leviticus 24:12.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartouche
ReplyDelete"Later it came to be used for rn, the word 'name'.[9] The word can also be spelled as "r" with "n", the mouth over the horizontal n"