New American Bible : Footnoted to Apostasy

Case study, Genesis 11.

The whole world spoke the same language, using the same words.

Footnote one:

[1-9] This story, based on traditions about the temple towers or ziggurats of Babylonia, is used by the sacred writer primarily to illustrate man's increasing wickedness, shown here in his presumptuous effort to create an urban culture apart from God. The secondary motive in the story is to present an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth, as well as an artificial explanation of the name "Babylon."

So, the origin of diversity of languages is "imaginative" ... it seems the footnoter was imagining, the process called by linguists "language evolution" or "language development" or - rarely but more correctly - language change (diverse in diverse populations) is responsible for the diversity of languages in Abraham's time.

Let's go to the Roman Martyrology, shall we, Christmas Day. Oh, not the modernist version from the nineties, the traditional one, still used, as I presume intactly, when Pope Michael and Father Francis Dominic last celebrated Christmas, so, we see traditional Catholic liturgy, reflecting traditional Catholic doctrine.

a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo; a nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo;

So, Deluge happened 2957 BC, Abraham was born 2015 BC. This means, the time lapse from Flood to Abraham's birth is 942 years.

Abraham visited a pharao who was presumably speaking Old Egyptian of some sort. He had to do with an Amraphel from Mesopotamia who had probably Sumerian or Akkadian or Aramaic as mother language. He had left a city called Ur of the Chaldees which could in certain views have been speaking Sumerian (if it was Woolley's Ur) and on another view (which I prefer, so far) could have been speaking Akkadian or Aramaic, namely if it is Urfa.

This means, in Abraham's day, we have languages as diverse as Egyptian, Sumerian, Akkadian.

Now, in the Ark there was presumably one language, precisely as in the beginning of this account. Noah, his wife, their three sons, their three daughters in law, very arguably shared one language. But even supposing they had five, it is not probable the five would have developed separately for the following 942 years. And obviously, the ancestors of certain Indo-European languages, and of Chinese and so on, even if not mentioned in the text, would have been spoken in Abraham's day too. So, five mutually influenced languages are very inadequate as a purely natural explanation for the language diversity in Abraham's time.

Precisely as linguist - and no, I don't have to be able to decipher Cyrillic, even if I can* do so, to be a linguist. Precisely as a linguist, pretending Sumerian and Akkadian could have developed from the same language on the Ark or even Akkadian and Egyptian (closer, since both are Afro-Asiatic) is like stating my 75 year old mother could run the marathon in ten seconds.

In c. 1000 years, you get a difference like between Danish and Icelandic, which 1000 years ago were one and the same language. That's far less than between even Egyptian and Akkadian, let alone between either and Sumerian. Neither Sumerian nor Afro-Asiatic are by Evolution believing linguists (and yes, many in the field do believe Evolution) counted as even Nostratic, narrower sense. But Afro-Asiatic could count as at least pre-Nostratic, or mega-Nostratic, and Sumerian doesn't. It is mainly thought to be an isolate, those who disagree would group it with:

• Basque
• Sino-Tibetan
• some languages in North Kaukasia (not same group as Georgic!)
• Na-Dene in First Nations in some parts of North America
• Yeniseian - which is somewhat more commonly grouped with Na-Dene.

This mega-group is referred to as Dene-Kaukasian by those who believe it. Now, Dene-Kaukasian is kind of parallel to Nostratic.

And usual view of Nostratic, by those believing in it, is:

• Indo-European
• Uralic and Altaic (Finnish to Japanese over Turkic)
• Greenlandic.

The common ancestor for these would be 20 000 years ago. Afro-Asiatic falls just outside, perhaps on their view separated from Nostratic 25 000 years ago. Dene-Kaukasian is very different, so would have separated even earlier.

No, the explanation here given of language diversity given is not imaginative. It is on linguistic grounds necessary, unless you want to have in Abraham's time diverse populations that diverged with no common majority ancestry in the last 40 000 years. And once you state even the Flood, let alone Adam, was 40 000 years before Abraham, you have ruined the faith. You have also - for those believing Vatican II was a valid council - contradicted §3 of Dei Verbum.

But what are the alternatives to natural, normal, language change?

Miracle.
Con-Lang.

The small family groups after the Flood were so bored in hours after killing big game and roasting them before their caves, that they invented lots of new languages, like Tolkien invented Quenya or David Peterson invented High Vallyrian. And most of them forgot the language their ancestors had spoken on the Ark, despite there being evidence for far distance trade in the Upper Palaeolithic.

Doesn't sound realistic to you? Me neither. Leaves us with the miracle, right? So, the explanation in Genesis 11:1 - 9 is not imaginative, but strictly realistic. At least the main thing in it is proven fact, unless you want to place Adam as not the first mortal man (contradicting St. Paul) or as too far back to allow a faithful historic transmission of Genesis 3 (contradicting all Marian dogmas based on Genesis 3:15 and St. Paul on mortality too).

While men were migrating in the east, they came upon a valley in the land of Shinar and settled there.

Translation issue : all old translations translate miqqedem as from the east.

But there is a footnote 2.

[2] Shinar: see note on ⇒ Genesis 10:10.

I turn back a page, see:

The chief cities of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, and Accad, all of them in the land of Shinar.

Footnote 7 says:

[10] Shinar: ancient Sumer in southern Mesopotamia, mentioned also in ⇒ Genesis 11:2; ⇒ 14:1.

There is a problem here. In Southern Mesopotamia, the valley stretches outside Mesopotamia proper (namely the two rivers) and also outside Sumer (even where Sumer itself stretches outside the two rivers). You would not be finding a valley in Shinar either way you take it, you would find Shinar in a valley.

I take Shinar simply means Mesopotamia, and if you object LXX translating "land of Babylon" this translation is from a time where all of Mesopotamia, even the North West in what is now Turkey, was Babylon. Alexander ruled the area of Edessa and Seleucus who refounded it ruled the actual new-old city in both cases as kings of Babylon. Edessa being Urfa, not far from the Göbekli Tepe I identify with Babel in this chapter.

I mentioned Amraphel - and I am not aware of any Sumerian etymology for his name. I look up the word in Strong, from Hebrews interlinear of Genesis 14, and find:

569. Amraphel
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/569.htm

Strong's Concordance Amraphel: king of Shinar Original Word: אַמְרָפֶל Part of Speech: Proper Name Masculine Transliteration: Amraphel Phonetic Spelling: (am-raw-fel') Definition: king of Shinar

NAS Exhaustive Concordance Word Origin of uncertain derivation Definition king of Shinar NASB Translation Amraphel (2).

To me it doesn't really sound Sumerian. This is one clue Shinar was more of Mesopotamia, arguably all of it, than just Sumer.

Back to footnotes on chapter 11. Verse 3 has no footnote.

Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the sky, and so make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered all over the earth."

When you translate "with its top in the sky" you are basically tying the meaning down to the top statically being there, that is to it being a skyscraper project.

Hebrew has "and the top [is] in the heavens" according to the interlinear, but of the words (ū·miḡ·dāl) wə·rō·šōw ḇaš·šā·ma·yim contains no word with as static a meaning as "is" - in psalm 73:9 (presumably 72:9) ḇaš·šā·ma·yim is translated as against the heavens.

This leaves room for a dynamic meaning of it, which is the translation of the old versions in Greek and Latin :

turrim, cujus culmen pertingat ad caelum
πύργον, οὗ ἔσται ἡ κεφαλὴ ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

ἔσται Third-person singular future middle indicative of εἰμί (eimí).
Latin pertingat is subjunctive.

Pertingere is a dynamic verb, and even "to be" becomes dynamic like "to become" by being in the futur. Even on the skyscraper theory, we would not in the sentence be contemplating the completed and stable state of the top staying in heaven, we would be contemplating the moment it comes up there.

But the dynamic meaning leaves room for rocketry - and no, I do not the least imagine Nimrod could have pulled things off like at Cape Canaveral, I just think that is what he wanted to do, with inadequate grapsz on pre-Flood technologies he hadn't seen and which themselves would have been inadequate for the purpose - and God put the project on hold for 4500 years. Not to prevent man from doing the tower, but to allow us to finally do so in recent years (so we could see relative points and pointlessnesses of doing so).

Verses 5 to 8 have no footnote. Here is verse 9:

That is why it was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the speech of all the world. It was from that place that he scattered them all over the earth.

Here is footnote 4:

[9] Babel: the Hebrew form of the name "Babylon"; the native name, Bab-ili, means "gate of the gods." The Hebrew word balil, "he confused," has a similar sound. Apparently the name referred originally only to a certain part of the city, the district near the gate that led to the temple area.

With Nimrod planning to reach angels and the God they adore by rocketry, he would also have reason to call it "gate of the gods" or "of God" (bab-El?) and the punster would also have had reason to restate it as Babil from confusion being the "real name" (as in real essence) of the project. If you know what Graham Hancock states about Göbekli Tepe, he thinks it looks like a rocket ramp take off area. I think so too. He thinks it served aliens coming as astronauts. I think it was meant to serve a man alienating himself from God who was aspiring to be an astronaut. Nimrod.

He would not yet have been a believer in Babylonian mythology or in polytheism since idolatry arose after his time.

Verse 10.

This is the record of the descendants of Shem. When Shem was one hundred years old, he became the father of Arpachshad, two years after the flood.

[10-26] This section is a continuation of the genealogical record given in ⇒ Genesis 5:1-32; see note there. Although the ages of the patriarchs in this list are much lower than those of the antediluvian patriarchs, they are still artificial and devoid of historical value. The ages given here are from the current Hebrew text; the Samaritan and Greek texts have divergent sets of numbers in most cases.

The last sentence is correct. The Vulgate agrees with the current Hebrew or Masoretic text. The Roman martyrology agrees with a version of the Greek text (LXX, Septuagint) that lacks the second Kenan. This in turn agrees with the Samaritan text. For the Genesis 5, the Roman martyrology agrees with LXX and not with Masoretic text, nor with Samaritan text since posing 2242 years from Creation to Flood.

Now, devoid of historic value is absolutely NOT what the Catholic Church hath held and holds since 2000 years. The fact that The New American Bible can be found on the site of the Vatican, in and of itself shows that these guys are not promoting the faith of previous centuries.

But let's go to Genesis 5 ... verse 1 is:

This is the record of the descendants of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God;

Footnote 1 reads:

[1-32] Although this chapter, with its highly schematic form, belongs to the relatively late "Priestly document," it is based on very ancient traditions. Together with ⇒ Genesis 11:10-26, its primary purpose is to bridge the genealogical gap between Adam and Abraham. Adam's line is traced through Seth, but several names in the series are the same as, or similar to, certain names in Cain's line (⇒ Genesis 4:17-19). The long lifespans attributed to these ten antediluvian patriarchs have a symbolic rather than a historical value. Babylonian tradition also recorded ten kings with fantastically high ages who reigned successively before the flood.

So, a) there was a genealogical gap between Adam and Abraham - contrary to § 3 of Dei Verbum! - and b) the passages were invented to fill it. Or to bridge it. Total denial of even the possibility of historic accuracy - which is contrary to "qui locutus est per prophetas" and to Trent Session IV.

"The long lifespans attributed to these ten antediluvian patriarchs have a symbolic rather than a historical value."

That is definitely not what either St. Augustine or the Roman Martyrology consider, as we have City of God book 15 chapter 9 stating, yes, the lifespans were longer, and since we have before the part quoted above:

Anno a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram, quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono; a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo;

Or, the world was created in 5199 BC and the Deluge was in 2957 BC = a distance of 2242 years, what the ages add up to if you use age of father at birth of son according to LXX text.

It can be added that the lifespans are so irregular that symbolic value seems very far fetched, except the one who lived 777 years.

Babylonian tradition also recorded ten kings with fantastically high ages who reigned successively before the flood.

And eight of them have lifespans which, if divided by 60, are very close to the sequence given in Genesis 5 - as if the thing happened, and Babylonians mixed up the numbers by misusing a position system without a zero. With 60 rather than 10 as the base.

Interestingly, at verse 24 we have:

Then Enoch walked with God, and he was no longer here, for God took him.

With footnote 2 saying:

[24] In place of the usual formula, Then he died, the change to Enoch walked with God clearly implies that he did not die, but like Elijah (⇒ 2 Kings 2:11, ⇒ 12) was taken alive to God's abode.

Oh, suddenly the thing is historic, after all? Let's check 2 Kings ...

As they walked on conversing, a flaming chariot and flaming horses came between them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

When Elisha saw it happen he cried out, "My father! my father! Israel's chariots and drivers!" But when he could no longer see him, Elisha gripped his own garment and tore it in two.

It can be noted, Elisha is contradicting the extreme Protestant exegesis of Matthew 23:9. But what does footnote 3 say?

[12] My father: a religious title accorded prophetic leaders; cf ⇒ 2 Kings 6:21; ⇒ 8:9. Israel's chariots and drivers: Elijah was worth more than a whole army in defending Israel and the true religion. King Joash of Israel uses the same phrase of Elisha himself (⇒ 2 Kings 13:14).

Nothing in relation to historicity. However, footnote 4:

[23-24] This story, like the one about Elijah and the captains (2 Kings 1), is preserved for us in Scripture to convey a popular understanding of the dignity of the prophet. Told in popular vein, it becomes a caricature, in which neither Elisha nor the bears behave in character. See note on ⇒ 2 Kings 1:12 and the contrasting narrative in 2 Kings 4.

In other words, the footnote authors do not rely on the full historicity of the Bible even as late as just after Elijah left Elisha. In 2 Kings.

So, back to footnotes in Genesis 11. Verse 12:

When Arpachshad was thirty-five years old, he became the father of Shelah.

[12] The Greek text has a certain Kenan (cf ⇒ Genesis 5:9-10) between Arpachshad and Shelah. This text is followed in ⇒ Luke 3:36.

A minority of manuscripts of Luke as well as of the LXX do not have this second Kenan here. Verse 16:

When Eber was thirty-four years old, he became the father of Peleg.

Footnote 7:

[16] Eber: the eponymous ancestor of the Hebrews, "descendants of Eber" (⇒ Genesis 10:21, ⇒ 24-30); see note on ⇒ Genesis 14:13.

No problem. Wait ... let's check Genesis 14 ... verse 13.

A fugitive came and brought the news to Abram the Hebrew, who was camping at the terebinth of Mamre the Amorite, a kinsman of Eshcol and Aner; these were in league with Abram.

Footnote 4

[13] Abram the Hebrew: elsewhere in the Old Testament, until the last pre-Christian centuries, the term "Hebrew" is used only by non-Israelites, or by Israelites in speaking to foreigners, since it evidently had a disparaging connotation - something like "immigrant." The account in this chapter may, therefore, have been taken originally from a non-Israelite source, in which Abraham, a warlike sheik of Palestine, appears as a truly historical figure of profane history.

Oh, it is only profane history that has truly historical figures? Again ... no, the footnoters are not Catholics. The responsible for the Libreria Editrice Vaticana and the Vatican website are not Catholics. But let's get on to verse 28:

Haran died before his father Terah, in his native land, in Ur of the Chaldeans.

Footnote 8:

[28] Ur of the Chaldeans: Ur was an extremely ancient city of the Sumerians (later, of the Babylonians) in southern Mesopotamia. The Greek text has "the land of the Chaldeans." In either case, the term Chaldeans is an anachronism, because the Chaldeans were not known to history until approximately a thousand years after Abraham's time.

Nevertheless, let's recall what it means - it means speakers of Aramaic, possibly also of Akkadian. This is a definitely different language to Sumerian, either of them. This means, Abraham is more likely to have come from Edessa, North-West Mesopotamia, than from Woolley's Ur in Sumeria, South-East Mesopotamia. In the time of the Chaldaeans, approx a thousand years after Abraham's time (approx in King David's time) ... Woolley's Ur was there (abandoned after 500 AD) ...

Wikipedia : Ur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur

... and as for Urfa or its part Balıklıgöl, "it appears to have been a venerated site long before the time of Abraham, as a statue was found there which dates to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period (roughly 8000 B.C.).[1] Like the city of Urfa itself, the subsequent history of the site is uncertain until the Hellenistic period, when the city was conquered by Macedonian forces under Alexander the Great, and it was renamed Edessa by the general Seleucus I."

Wikipedia : Balıklıgöl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal%C4%B1kl%C4%B1g%C3%B6l

... so, presumably Urfa was also there in the time of the Chaldees.

I don't think either city was mentioned all that much by Babylonians in the time of the captivity ...

Verses 31 and 32, with a footnote to each:

Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot, son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and brought them out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to go to the land of Canaan. But when they reached Haran, they settled there.

The lifetime of Terah was two hundred and five years; then Terah died in Haran.

Footnotes 9 and 10:

[31] The Samaritan and Greek texts include Nahor and his wife in Terah's migration to Haran. Although this is probably due to scribal harmonization, Nahor's family actually did migrate to Haran; cf ⇒ Genesis 24:10; ⇒ 27:43.

[32] Since Terah was seventy years old when his son Abraham was born (⇒ Genesis 11:26), and Abraham was seventy-five when he left Haran (⇒ Genesis 12:4), Terah lived in Haran for sixty years after Abraham's departure. According to the tradition in the Samaritan text, Terah died when he was one hundred and forty-five years old, therefore, in the same year in which Abraham left Haran. This is the tradition followed in St. Stephen's speech: Abraham left Haran "after his father's death" (⇒ Acts 7:4).

None of these two contradict historicity of the text, but neither do they strongly affirm it in face of footnote 5 to verse 10. They don't add to apostatic nature of certain other footnotes, but neither do they nullify it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Silvia of Rome
3.XI.2022

Romae sanctae Silviae, matris sancti Gregorii Papae.

PS - if there had been no miracle, but first conlanging and then forgetting of the common language, the most realistic moment for forgetting would be a decision to use conlangs instead of old mother tongue in precisely an attempt to shirk from global collaboration - the most probable provocation for that being in its turn precisely the kind of hairbrained project decided by an élite that Genesis 11:1 to 9 is describing./HGL

* Check my signature and see if it matches this spelling in Ukrainean Cyrillic : ГАНС ҐEOPҐ ЛУHДAЛ (the "h" in Lundahl is silent and only means the preceding "a" is long - the "H" in Hans is pronounced). German pronunciation however ГАНС ҐEOPK ЛУHДAЛ and Swedish pronunciation ГАНС ЙEOPЙ ЛУHДAЛ / ЛЮHДAЛ, with Swedish "u" between [u] and [ü], so either spelling could work.