In light of the criticisms observed in the previous post of this series, some interpreters of the Tower of Babel passage (Gen. 9:1–9) contend that not all humanity spoke a single language at the time of the building of the tower. Accordingly, when the biblical author refers to “all the earth” (Gen. 11:1), he refers only to Mesopotamia or southern Mesopotamia, not the entire world (DeWitt 1979; Reimer 1996). I will refer to this as the “local” or “localized” hypothesis, which is the opposite of a universal interpretation that the Genesis author intended to convey that the entire world of human beings spoke a single language at the time of the Tower of Babel.

Part 1: Introduction to the Tower of Babel
Part 3: Locating and Dating the Tower of Babel
Part 5: The Tower of Babel–Human Pride and Disobedience

Those advocating the local interpretation realize the archaeological, scientific, and historical issues challenging the view that present-day language diversity traces its origin to God’s confusing of human language during the construction of the Tower of Babel. Instead, rather than rendering universal statements, according to one hypothesis, the biblical author describes a cultural upheaval, perhaps the fall of the Uruk culture around or just after 3000 BCE (Payne 1979, as referenced by Seely 2001, 21). Here, God’s confusing a single language of a unified humanity is interpreted as a metaphor for this upheaval and subsequent diminishment of Uruk culture due to the influx of Akkadians.

Another view is that the upheaval was due to the invading Elamites and Subarians in 1960 BCE (DeWitt 1979). In the wake of this decline, various ethnic groups took root, which produced diverse languages. In one interpreter’s view, “the author of this story [of the Tower of Babel] was concerned with just his own immediate surroundings, southern Mesopotamia” (Payne 1979, quoted by Seely 2001, 21).

An argument for the local interpretation is that the author would not so obviously contradict himself by putting two contradictory passages (Gen. 10 and 11) side by side or one after the other. After all, how could the author so obviously introduce a contradiction, going from Genesis 10’s diversity of languages (e.g., the references to each clan having “its own language” (v. 4), and the sons of Ham (v. 20) and Shem (v. 31) speaking different languages) to the whole world speaking a single language at Babel in Genesis 11? It is argued that the author must have only had a localized scenario in mind, referring specifically to southern Mesopotamia. The “narrator would surely have caught so obvious a contradiction to the immediate context” (DeWitt 1979, 41).

In response to this argument, contextual reasons for why Genesis 11:1-9 should not be seen as a contradiction of Genesis 10 are possible. If the alleged contradiction is resolved, it removes the wind from the sails of those advocating the localized hypothesis.

One explanation is that the latter (ch. 10) provides an overview, whereas the former (ch. 11, vs. 1-9) fills in the details.

The flood narrative of Genesis 6–9 indicates that no human being was left alive on the earth after the deluge, except for Noah and his sons and their wives. Everyone living on the earth after the flood would have therefore been the descendants of this one family (Gen. 9:19; 10:32), whom it may be reasonably assumed spoke a single language. Based on this assumption, everyone on earth would have been speaking the same language for some time after the flood. So, how did humanity go from this unity of language to the offspring of the sons of Noah speaking many? The answer is provided in chapter 11, namely the confusion episode at the Tower of Babel. Further, it is believed by some that the “Table of Nations” of Genesis 10 follows the events of the Tower of Babel (11:1-9) chronologically (Seely 2001, 22), thereby resolving the difficulty. These would explain why the biblical author(s) had no issues putting these two chapters one after the other without perceiving a conflict.

Moreover, arguments for the universal interpretation are offered (see Seely 2001, 23–24). First, the statement that the “whole world had one language and a common speech” is emphatic, which does not fit a reference to one location or country out of many.

Second, the “all the earth” of Genesis 11:1 occurs right after a statement mentioning the universal flood, thereby establishing the worldwide flood as providing the contextual backdrop that defines the meaning of 11:1.

Thirdly, the terminology in 11:5 appears to fit a universal interpretation. It calls the builders the “sons of men,” literally “sons of the man.” One might suspect that if the account had been local, it more likely would have spoken of particular sons like the “sons of Heth” (Hittites, Gen. 23:3) or the “sons of Midian” (Gen. 25:4). The phrase “the sons of the man” refers to mankind in general (c.f. Gen. 1:27; 6:1; 8:21; 9:6).

Fourth, the climax of the story in verse 9 is informative. If one interprets it locally, it technically concludes that “there the Lord confused the language of the whole land of Shinar.” But if humans all over the world had already been speaking different languages, this conclusion to the story seems rather insignificant and anti-climactic. Yet, if all of humanity was speaking one language until this event, verse 9 makes a fitting and resounding climax not only to the story but also to the universal history begun in Genesis 1.

Finally, given that only in modern times has “all the earth” in Genesis 11:1-9 been interpreted in a local way, it indicates that this interpretation does not arise naturally from Scripture. The advocates of the local hypothesis therefore take 11:1-9 out of context in order to make it harmonize with modern geography and anthropology, which is similarly done by many when it comes to Genesis 1 being forced to fit contemporary geology and astronomy (Seely 1997).

Part 5: The Tower of Babel–Human Pride and Disobedience

References

DeWitt, Dale S. 1979. “The Historical Background of Genesis 11:1-9: Babel or Ur?” JETS 22:17-18.

Reimer, Steve. 1996. “The Tower of Babel: An Archaeologically Informed Reinterpretation.” Direction 25:64-72.

Seely, Paul H. 1997. “The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context.” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49:85-95.

Seely, Paul H. 2001. “The Date of the Tower of Babel And Some Theological Implications.” Westminster Theological Journal 63(2001):15-38.