Talk:Tower of Babel

Template:Vital article

Confusion of Tongues Section

The current wording of the first paragraph of the "Confusion of tongues" section seems to indicate that there is no scholarly consensus on the resolution of the apparent contradiction in Genesis 10:5 and Genesis 11:1-8. However, the cited reference, as far as I can tell from the previous sections of this talk page (not having access to the reference myself), just mentions a church father who explained this apparent contradiction as that the story in Genesis 11 jumps back in time after the genealogy in chapter 10 which encompasses several generations, similar to how a history textbook might give a summary of a certain era in history before sharing specific stories from within that era.

Moreover, citing from some sources I do own:

"Most commentators agree that the difficulty occurs because the two episodes are not arranged in chronological order (see Mathews 1996, 428). From a chronological perspective, Gen 10:1–32 should come after Gen 11:1–9. There is general agreement that the Table of Nations was placed before the Tower of Babel account for literary or thematic reasons." (Mangum, D., Custis, M., & Widder, W. (2012). Genesis 1–11 (Ge 10:1–32). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.)

Furthermore, "The different languages of verse 5 probably look forward to the time after the tower of Babel (11:1–9)." (MacDonald, W. (1995). Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments. (A. Farstad, Ed.) (p. 45). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.)

And, "The dispersion of the nations “according to . . . language” (v. 5) took place after Babel (ch. 11) all along these coasts as well as elsewhere." (Constable, T. (2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Ge 10:1). Galaxie Software.)

I suggest replacing the last sentence of that first paragraph with, "However, most scholars agree that the two chapters are not arranged in chronological order." (unless counter examples of reputable sources mentioning this as a contradiction can be found, in which case the two positions should be explained). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhanGressman (talk • contribs) 23:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

In response to ScottishFinnishRadish comment on my edit request, here's what consensus on this topic has been so far. On 16 December 2019, A D Monroe III wrote in response to someone else's objections to this contradiction, "If WP:Reliable sources are presented here that support this, then the article will (indeed must) be changed accordingly. Lacking that, no change can be expected." Following that, a semi-protected edit request was made to change the wording of this section, and it was rejected on account of a lack of consensus (25 February 2020 by Eggishorn). That was followed by an attempt to reach consensus concerning this section. The conclusion was "I'm going to read the above as a positive talk page consensus for the change I proposed [which is the current reading]. The only objection I see is to the 'for centuries' formulation and Akrasia25 has verified my source." (A D Monroe III on 16 December 2019)

The disagreement about the "for centuries" part was that someone doubted whether the cited source actually mentioned the contradiction having been debated for centuries. Akrasia25 verified that Augustine of Hippo did indeed call it a "contradiction," and no further objections were made in that particular discussion.

However, I have two objections with the current reading. The first is that to say, "Scholars have been debating or explaining this apparent contradiction for centuries" is indeed unsourced. While the cited resource does indeed quote Augustine saying, "And so, because this sentence was added: 'And the earth was one tongue and there was one speech for all'... Without a doubt, this contradicts the words used above, 'according to their tribes and tongues.'", it goes on to say, "So it is by way of recapitulation that there is added: 'And the earth was one tongue, and there was one speech for all.' The narrative, without mentioning it, goes back to tell how it came about that the one language common to all men was broken up into many tongues.... After this event they were scattered over the earth according to their languages." Therefore, the cited source does not mention that there was any debate over the matter. In fact, it demonstrates that the explanation was clear to Augustine -- that chapter 10 is a summary of multiple generations after which chapter 11 explains further details of the narrative. Furthermore, as I have already pointed out, this explanation is the same explanation agreed upon by scholars today.

Therefore, scholars have not been debating about this apparent contradiction for centuries (unless counter examples can be found). Rather, scholars have been agreeing about this apparent contradiction for centuries. The current reading states that there has been debate about this issue for centuries. That claim is unsourced, and I have furthermore found other reputable sources to the contrary of that claim. Unless opposing reputable sources can be found, this should be changed. --KhanGressman (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Alternate location - Lebanon (Byblos/Tartus)

There is an alternate location for Shinar as Shenir instead. That would move the Tower from Iraq to Lebanon (Mount Hermon). It would therefore be more likely the "Tower of Byblos", rather than "Tower of Babel".

Isaiah 10:9 - "Have I not taken the country above Babylon and Chalanes, where the tower was built?". Chalanes compares to Calneh (in the kingdom of Nimrod). Calneh looks like the Phoenecian Karne, or modern day Tartus. The other cities of Nimrod also look like Phonecian cities (Erech=Arqa).

On Nimrod's Akkad, this city seems to be Achar instead: https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/kbe/a/accad.html Ac´cad, one of the five cities in 'the land of Shinar,' or Babylonia, which are said to have been built by Nimrod, or rather, to have been 'the beginning of his kingdom' (Genesis 10:10). It seems that several of the ancient translators found in their Hebrew MSS. Achar instead of Achad, and it is probable that this was really the name of the city.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:C300:290:B8D1:9CC0:288:D9C9 (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Origin Myth

Why not just tell the truth and say it is a story from the Bible instead of making something up by calling it a myth. Calling it a myth is a myth because you don't know. It's a story from the Bible. Let people decide for themselves if it is a myth. 2600:1004:B0D6:A983:493E:1753:AD06:CFA2 (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@2600:1004:B0D6:A983:493E:1753:AD06:CFA2 It'd be worth your while to study the meaning of myth. -- Jmc (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Historical Context: Some biblical scholars do not say Genesis is purely mythillogical

I disagree with the blanket statement that biblical scholars do not believe that the Genesis account is historical, but merely a poetic or mythological story. Some biblical scholars say it's a historical account. 2603:6011:8B00:8570:F0B0:2FFC:306E:A5A8 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Examples? Dimadick (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Similarly. Consider the Institute for Creation Research's commentary on Genesis, which is backed by some substantial evidence. 0bav (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

Some scholars believe Genesis is a historical account. Change "biblical scholars" to "some biblical scholars" 2601:18C:8500:B340:F1DA:450C:772F:39FA (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done That would make the article considerably less neutral – see Wikipedia:False balance. --bonadea contributions talk 15:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Etemenanki and Wajdenbaum

Does the sentence on Herodotus really warrant inclusion in this article? Philippe Wajdenbaum is, as far as I've been able to find, a little-known scholar and the cited book he wrote has received poor reviews for failing to properly support its controversial thesis that is very far removed from consensus.Swaggernagger (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)