Skip to main content
search

THE BIBLE AND BABYLON IV — THE CONFUSION OF THE HUMAN LANGUAGES

By 14. August 2024August 16th, 2024Bible study

THE TOWER OF BABEL[1] 

Noah and his wife, his sons and their wives who survived the Flood spoke the same language. But because of a rebellion against God by their descendants, the languages of the humans were confused. We find the account in Genesis 11:1-9:

1 Now all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words. 2 And it came about that in their journeying eastward they eventually discovered a valley plain in the land of Shiʹnar, and they took up dwelling there. 3 And they began to say, each one to the other: “Come on! Let us make bricks and bake them with a burning process.” So brick served as stone for them, but bitumen served as mortar for them. 4 They now said: “Come on! Let us build ourselves a city and also a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a celebrated name for ourselves, for fear we may be scattered over all the surface of the earth.”

5 And Jehovah proceeded to go down to see the city and the tower that the sons of men had built. 6  After that Jehovah said: “Look! They are one people and there is one language for them all, and this is what they start to do. Why, now there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that will be unattainable for them. 7 Come now! Let us go down and there confuse their language that they may not listen to one another’s language.”8 Accordingly Jehovah scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth, and they gradually left off building the city. 9 That is why its name was called Baʹbel, because there Jehovah had confused the language of all the earth, and Jehovah had scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth.

Many people who read the Bible would say that this account is a fairy tale that we cannot believe. However, if we believe that God created the humans, we must accept that he has the power to confuse the languages of the world. Let us look at some data.

[1]. We will see the name “Babel” several times in this article. This is the way the name of the city is written throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. The form Babylon is a Greek form that is sued in several Bible translations instead of “Babel.”

THE LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD

In 195 countries of the world, around 7,000 different languages are spoken. Most of these languages are a result of dialects of languages that have been separated and evolved into new languages. An example is the contact between the Vikings of Norway and people living in England in the 9th century CE. There is much evidence suggesting that those speaking Old English could communicate with the Vikings who spoke Old Norwegian (Old Norse) without using an interpreter.[1]

Today, persons who speak English and persons who speak Norwegian cannot understand each other’s languages, and those speaking modern Norwegian cannot understand Old Norwegian and those who speak English cannot understand Old English. This illustrates that if the account in Genesis chapter 11 is true, there need not have been more than a handful of languages that were the result of the confusion, and the 7,000 present languages have evolved from these few languages.

What was the original language that was confused? The clear answer according to the text of the Bible is that the language that Adam of Eve spoke was Hebrew, though not the form of Hebrew that we call “Classical Hebrew,” and that we find in the Hebrew Bible. This conclusion is based on the names that are connected with the first two humans. We see this in Genesis 3:20:

20 After this Adam called his wife’s name Eve (hawwā), because she had to become the mother of everyone living (hāyā).

In Hebrew, the verb hāyā, means “to live,” the adjective hay means “living,” and hawwā means “the living one.” Akkadian is the oldest Semitic language of which we have evidence (cuneiform tablets). If the name of Adam’s wife with the meaning “the living one” had been Akkadian, it would have been balat or balit from the verb balatum (“to live).

The books of the Hebrew Bible were written down over a period of one thousand years. Normally, a language will change much during such a long period, as we see in the case of Old Norwegian to modern Norwegian and Old English to Modern English. But the Hebrew of all the books of the Bible is remarkably uniform both regarding grammar, syntax, and word meaning.

However, there are some vestiges indicating that the Hebrew language before the Hebrew Bible was written may have been somewhat different from Classical Hebrew. For example, Classical Hebrew does not have cases of the nouns. But the long vowels at the end of nouns and participles suggest that Hebrew at one time had cases, perhaps endings of nouns as am, im, and um, signaling nominative, genitive and dative, as is the case with Akkadian. The vowels waw and yod may alternate in the same word with yod being the oldest alternative. In Classical Hebrew, “the living one” is  written as hawwā. But the older form could hav been hayyā.

There is strong evidence in favor of the original language spoken by the two first humans were Hebrew, though a form of the language that was somewhat different from Classical Hebrew in which the Hebrew Bible is written.

[1]. Richard Hogg Cambridge History of the English Language, volume 1 (2001), and Matthew Townsend, Language and History in Viking Age England (2002)

MESOPOTAMIAN EVIDENCE FOR THE CONFUSION OF THE LANGUAGES

Cuneiform tablets are resistant to decay, and because the Sumerians and the Babylonians wrote on such clay tablets and many such have been found, we know that both groups have a long history. Some of the values of the Babylonian cuneiform signs are taken from the Sumerian language. This suggests that the Sumerians have an older history than the Babylonians. However, the dates that have been given to both peoples are to a great extent based on guesswork and cannot be trusted. The oldest physical evidence of Hebrew writings is from around 1 000 BCE. But because the Hebrews probably wrote on animal skin, which is not resistant to decay, this does not prove that the Hebrews and younger than the Sumerians or the Akkadians.

The Sumerian and Akkadian cuneiform tablets have accounts that are similar to a part of the account in Genesis about the great Flood in the days of Noah. And interestingly, there is one Sumerian and one Assyrian tablet that speak about the confusion of the human languages as well.

A SUMERIAN TABLET TELLING ABOUT THE CONFUSION OF THE LANGUAGES

Samuel Noah Kramer was an expert of the Sumerian language and history. He published an article entitled “The ‘Babel of Tongues’: A Sumerian Version,” in Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol 88, No. 1 (Jan. March 1968), pages 108-111. The Sumerian tablet first describes the golden age when man lived in a world of peace and prosperity. But then the god Enki “changed the speech of their mouths”:

  1. Once upon a time there was no snake, there was no scorpion,
  2. There was no hyena, there was no lion,
  3. There was no wild (?) dog, no wolf,
  4. There was no fear, no terror,
  5. Man had no rival.
  6. In those days, the lands Shubur (and) Hamzi,
  7. Harmony-togued (?) Sumer, the great land of the decrees of princeship,
  8. Uri, the land having all that is appropriate (?),
  9. The land Martu, resting in security,
  10. The whole universe, the people in unison (?),
  11. To Enlil in one tongue…
  12. Then a-da the lord, a-da the prince, a-da the king,
  13. Enki a-da the lord, a-da the prince, a-da the king,
  14. a-da the lord, a-da the prince, a-da the king,
  15. Enki, the lord of abundance (whose) commands are trustworthy,
  16. The lord of wisdom, who understands the land,
  17. The leader of the gods,
  18. Endowed with wisdom, the l[ord] of Eridu,
  19. Changed the speech in their mouths,
  20. [brought (?)] contention into it,
  21. Into the speech of man that (until then) had been one.

Kramer has the following comments:

Our new piece, therefore, puts it beyond all doubt that the Sumerians believed that there was a time when all mankind spoke one and the same language, and that it was Enki, the Sumerian god of wisdom, who confused their speech.[1]

AN ASSYRIAN TABLET TELLING ABOUT THE CONFUSION OF THE LANGUAGES

The Assyrian tablet telling about the confusion of the languages has the number K3657. It was discovered in 1876. However, two scholars in the 19th century translated column II, line 14, differently. Boscawen has the following rendering: “he gave a command, he made strange their speech.”[2] Smith has the rendering: “he gave this? command, their counsel was confused.”[3] Because of the difference of opinion, I have made a detailed linguistic analysis of the tablet, and below is my translation of the text. Please note that the tablet is fragmentary, so whole sentences sometimes may not occur. Scholars may want to check my translation, and therefore, I also have listed my analysis of the text. Readers who are not interested in linguistic details can skip this analysis.

MY TRANSLATION OF K3657

Column I

2. The thoughts of his heart were evil

3. the father of all the gods

5. Babel, corruptly to he went and,

6. small and great he confused (their) work

7. corruptly to sin they went and

Column II

2. in front they lifted up, Anu

9–11. all day they raised up to their desire

in the night entirely an end he made….

12.  In his anger and cunning to me he continued to act badly

13. his to scatter

14. he became angry, and he caused their minds to speak unintelligible (or, strange) words….

15. The progress he impeded….

16. make an altar

Column IV

11. against the gods they revolted….13. they wept for Babel very much they grieved.

Let us look at the context. The place is Babel (I, 5, IV,13), and the people were building something (I, 6; II, 10). The people revolted against the gods (IV, 11), and those who revolted, had evil hearts and sinned (I, 2, 7). This revolt was probably connected with the building of their “desire” (most likely, the structure) because what was built in the day, the god(s) broke down during the night (II, 9–11). Anu, the god of heaven, and the father of the gods, is mentioned (I, 3; II, 2). He, or another god, became angry (II, 12, 14) and acted in a bad way towards the revolters (II, 12). Therefore the people wept for Babel (IV, 13).

There are several parallels between the tablet and Genesis chapter 11:

  • Lines I, 4 and IV, 13 tell that what the tablet speaks about happened in Babel, and Genesis 1:9 shows that God called the place where the tower was built for Babel.
  • Lines I, 6 and II, 9–11 speak about a building work that represented a revolt against the gods. And Genesis 11:3-5 speaks about the building of the tower of Babel that was a revolt against Jehovah.
  • Lines I, 5 and II, 9–11 say that the gods confused their work; what was built during the day, the gods broke down during the night. Genesis 11:8 says that the humans stopped their work because God intervened, and they were scattered over the surface of the earth.
  • Line II, 14 says that the gods caused the humans to speak unintelligible words, and Genesis 11:7 shows that God went down and confused their language.

There can be no doubt that the tablet and the account in Genesis chapter 11 refer to the same event, namely, to the confusion of the human languages.

Genesis 11:9 says that the name Babel was given because Jehovah confused the language of the whole earth. In Akkadian bāb-ili means “the gate of god,” but from the point of view of Jehovah, who confused the language, Babel means “confusion.” Commentators have objected to this explanation because they say it represents a tale.[4] However, Hebrew grammar may confirm the meaning “confusion.” The Hebrew verb bālal (mix, confuse) in its infinitice construct pilpel form would be balbel, and the l in such words may be elided. Thus, the result would be babel. So, the Hebrew word bābel (Babel) can have the meaning “a situation of confusion.”[5] My conclusion is that the Sumerian tablet clearly speaks of the confusion of languages, and the Assyrian tablet most likely speaks about the same situation.

MY LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF K3657

Column I

2. The thoughts of his heart were evil

3. the father of all the gods

5. Babylon [Babel], corruptly to sin went and [he went],

6. small and great he mingled (on) the mound [he confused (their) work]

7. corruptly to sin [he/they] went and

Column II

2. in front [they] lifted up, Anu

9–11. all day he [he or they], founded (or raised up) to their stronghold [his/thir desire]

in the night entirely and end he [he or they] made….12. In his anger also the secret counsel he poured out [in his anger and cunning to me (nemequ-am)he continued to act badly] 13. his to scatter (balālu)….14. he made a command he made strange their speech [he became angry, and he caused their minds to speak unintelligible/strange words]….15. The progress he impeded….16. make an altar

Column IV

11. against the gods they revolted….13. they wept for Babylon [Babel] very much they grieved

 

Notes to my reading of the signs and my translation:

I, 6. Boscawen: “he mingled (on) the mound.” RJF: “he confused [their]work,” I read the signs as dul-la, and not as tul-la, as does Boscawen. The word dullu (here with accusative a can refer to works that are finished. The verb balālu means “to mix,” and the D-stem can mean “mix up; confuse.” Therefore, I use the word “confused.” The line tells how the one referred to as “he,” probably “the father of the gods” who is mentioned in line 3, confused the things they had made.

II, 9–11. Boscawen: “he founded (or raised up) to their stronghold.” RJF: “all day he/they raised up to his/their desire (tazzimtu).” The word tazzimtu means “complaint; desire” and not “stronghold.” In The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of Chicago, 18 T, 303, 304, we find the clause: “until I have finished this (temple) and achieved my desire (tazzimtu).” Thus, “desire” in this line may refer to the temple structure they built.

II, 12. Boscawen: “In his anger also the secret counsel he poured out.” RJF: “In his anger and cunning to me he continued to act badly.” Boscawen read the word as i-tsa-pa-ah, and translated it as “he poured out.” The first sign is i, but the second is not tsa but ma (L. 122). The next sign can be read pa(L. 295), but there is no verb with the syllables ma-pa at the beginning. The second sign (L. 122) can also be read sàk, and there is a verb with the syllables ma-sak at the beginning; the verb masāku means “to be or become bad.” The vowel a after the first m suggests that the verb is in the iparrasconjugation (imassaku), and therefore I render it as a continuing action.
III, 14. Boscawen: “He gave a command he made strange their speech.” RF: he became angry, and he caused their minds to continue to speak unintelligible/strange words.”

The signs dan-ni are correctly read, and the form is 3rd person masculine stative of nadānu (to give); literally “he gave.” The third sign is Labat 172, which can be read de, but it can also be read as ne, pil, and DU14. The sign DU14 can stand for the word tsaltu, which can refer to “strife discord, quarrel.” A literal rendering is “he gave strife,” and an idiomatic rendering can be “he became angry.” The fourth sign is correctly read as ma, and serves as a conjunction.

The signs ut-tak-ki-ra are correctly read, and represent the Dtn-form of nakāru; the last a of the syllable ra represents ventive and signals an action toward someone/something. The D-form often signals to “change, alter words, names, prices, plans.”[6] The last three signs are correctly read, but I read the fourth last sign as mi and not me; sun (su-un) means “their.” The substantive is milku, can mean “advice; instruction; order; decision; intellectual capacity; mood; spirit; conscious intent, consent.”[7] But it can hardly have the meaning Boscawen ascribes to it, namely, “speech.” Because the god was angry, only two of the meanings are natural, namely “advice” and “intellectual capacity.” Literal renderings can be: “he was angry and he caused their minds to continue to speak unintelligible/strange words.” And “he was angry, and he caused their advice to continue to be unintelligible/strange.” The form probably includes the tan-element, which suggests iterative action. Therefore, it is more likely that the words of the people became unintelligible or strange, and that continued, and not that the advice of the people continued to be unintelligible or strange. This is so, because words are used all the time and corroborate the iterative force, but advice is only given occasionally.

AN EXAMPLE OF CONFUSED LANGUAGES

I have given examples showing that Hebrew was the language that Adam and Eve spoke in the garden of Eden. Sumerian and Akkadian are the oldest languages that we know. So, how do these languages fit into the account of the confusion the languages of the people, so they no longer spoke Hebrew?

Akkadian is a Semitic language like Hebrew. A few of its words are quite similar to Hebrew words, and the frame of is grammar is similar to the grammar of all Semitic languages. But persons who spoke Hebrew and persons who spoke Akkadian could not understand each other, and they needed a translator. Sumerian is a language that does not resemble any other ancient language — it is the lone member of one language family.

While the two languages are very different, there is, as I already have mentioned, a relationship between them in connection with the cuneiform signs. A cuneiform sign can represent a word or it can represent different syllables expressing sounds. For example, the sign ud can represent the word shamash, which is the Akkadian word for the sun. But the sign ud can also be read as the sounds tam, par, lih, and hish. Some of the sounds of different cuneiform signs are borrowed from Sumerian words or sounds. Therefore, there is a relationship between the two languages.

Genesis chapter 10 tells about the descendants of Noah and his family and how they were spread to different countries. The chapter has no chronological setting, but it tells about different descedants of Noah and his sons. Some of these lived before the confusion of the languages and others lived after this confusion. This is seen in verses 31 and 32:

31 These were the sons of Shem according to their families, according to their tongues, in their lands, according to their nations. 32 These were the families of the sons of Noah according to their family descents, by their nations, and from these the nations were spread about in the earth after the deluge.

I will now place Nimrod on the correct place of the timeline of Genesis, and I quote 10:6, 8-11:

6 And the sons of Ham were Cush and Mizʹra·im and Put and Caʹnaan.

8 And Cush became father to Nimʹrod. He made the start in becoming a mighty one in the earth. 9He displayed himself a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah. That is why there is a saying: “Just like Nimʹrod a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah.” 10 And the beginning of his kingdom came to be Baʹbel and Eʹrech and Acʹcad and Calʹneh, in the land of Shiʹnar. 11 Out of that land he went forth into As·syrʹi·a and set himself to building Ninʹe·veh and Re·hoʹboth-Ir and Caʹlah 12 and Reʹsen between Ninʹe·veh and Caʹlah: this is the great city.

Noah was the great grandfather of Nimrod. That his kingdom encompassed different cities, including Babel, shows that Nimrod lived after the confusion of the languages. Which language did Nimrod speak? Genesis does not say. But an analysis of his name may give some clues:

According to the belief expressed in Babylonian cuneiform tablets, the founder and ruler of Babylon was the god Marduk. At first glance, there is little similarity between the name “Marduk” and the name “Nimrod.” However, those who know Sumerian and Akkadian can demonstrate a striking similarity!

The name of Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, can be written in at least seven different ways in Akkadian. A very common way is to write the name with the Sumerian signs AMAR and UD. But how can these two signs be transformed into “Marduk”?

I present the following analysis: The Sumerian genitive marker is .ak, which stands after the noun, was used, and we get AMAR UD.ak. We can imagine the following sound changes: The sound a in .ak in AMAR UD.ak becomes assimilated with the u in UD, and we get AMAR UD.uk. The first A in AMAR is not pronounced because of the distance to the point of stress, and U in UD is elided. Then we get AMAR UD.uk = Marduk. We cannot be certain that it happened this way, but it is a plausible explanation that accords with Sumerian and Akkadian phonology and sounds.

But what is the connection between Marduk and Nimrod? The name of the god Marduk was written with the Sumerian signs AMAR UD. Akkadian has the basic vowels a, i, and u, which means that i can represent the sound e and u can represent the sound o. This means that AMAR UD can be read as AMAR OD, and then we have four of the letters in Nimrod.

The Hebrew verb mārad has the meaning “to revolt,” and the Niphal form of the verb will be nimrod, meaning “one who revolts.” When Moses wrote Genesis, or the one who wrote the document from which Moses quoted (if he used such a document), and the name Marduk written with the Sumerian signs AMAR UD should be transferred, the writer added the element ni at the beginning, which is common in many Hebrew words. Then the Name Nimrod occurred, which in Sumerian and Akkadian refers to Marduk, but in Hebrew refers to one who has revolted.

This linguistic reasoning fits well the fact that the Sumerians and Babylonians believed that the God Marduk was the founder and the first ruler of Babel, while Genesis 10:10 says that it was Nimrod who was the founder and the first ruler of Babel. This explanation also shows that Sumerian and Akkadian were two of the new languages that were a result of God’s confusion of the languages.

[1]. Ibid., 111.

[2]. W. St. Chad Boscawen, “The Legend of the Tower of Babel,” Transactions of the Society of Biblical Literature (1877): 303–312.

[3]. G. Smith, Chaldean Account of Genesis, (1876), pages 160–163. (http://sacred-texts.com/ane/caog/index.htm)

[4]. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, I 382 says: The name Babel has no connection with the Heb baœlal ‘he confused’.” A similar view is expressed by other lexicons and commentaries.

[5] The verb bālal occurs 44 times in the Hebrew Scriptures; in most cases as a qal passive part. fem. with the meaning “mixed.” An infinitive construct pilpel of the verb kūl (“to provide”) occurs in 1 Kings 4:7; the form is kalkēl. A perfect of the verb qārar (to tear) occurs in Numbers 24:17; the form is qarqēr. Both the pilpel forms of kụl and of qārar are parallels to balbēl. Arabic has the verb balbala (“to entangle”). We cannot know if the form balbēl with the elision of l is the basis for the Hebrew meaning of Babel. But this explanation is linguistically possible, and it would fit the words in Genesis 11:9, “That is why he called its name Babel, because there Jehovah confused the language of the whole earth.”

 

[6]. Black, et al., A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, 233.

[7]. The Assyrian Dictionary, Vol. M2, 66.

[8]. “Niphal” is a stem in the Hebrew verbal system that has a passive or reflexive force.

[9]. For example, the Akkadian Nabû-kudurri-utsur became Nebuchadrezzar in Hebrew.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Ancient history cannot be proven. Those who work with it try to reconstruct events using information fragments from different sources. If two different independent sources say the same thing, this is taken as good evidence in favor of what really happened.

In connection with the confusion of the languages, there are three independent sources in the three languages Hebrew, Akkadian, and Sumerian that say the same: the original language of the human population was confused into different languages. This is strong evidence showing that this really happened.

Rolf Furuli

Author Rolf Furuli

More posts by Rolf Furuli

Leave a Reply

Close Menu