Geographic Spread Before Babel?

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Does my Interpretation of Mahabharata and Ramayana Offend Hindoos? · If Tower of Babel was a Rocket Project, Why was it Called a Tower? · If Tower of Babel was a Rocket Project - What Else Can We Expect? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Sin of Babel - Two Views · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica again: In case anyone missed this · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Mackey on Haman and on Babel · Creation vs. Evolution : Bricks at Göbekli Tepe or Close? · How My View of Babel Ties in with "Defending Biblical Inerrancy" · Ten Keys to my Idea of Göbekli Tepe as Babel and its Tower as a Rocket · Geographic Spread Before Babel?

Lots of Evangelicals will reject my interpretation of Babel as Göbekli Tepe, because mankind already had a geographic spread over continents.

Key verse for this idea, Genesis 11:8, which says:

And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city.

Now, they will identify this scattering with the dividing of countries into different tribal regions in Genesis 10. Both verses 4—5 and verse 32.

And the sons of Javan: Elisa and Tharsis, Cetthim and Dodanim. By these were divided the islands of the Gentiles in their lands, every one according to his tongue and their families in their nations.

These are the families of Noe, according to their peoples and nations. By these were the nations divided on the earth after the flood.

In other words, up to Genesis 11:1 and the subsequent events prior to verse 8, God scattering the people, mankind was either resting or travelling in one single group, on this view.

This would obviously lead to all human archaeology being post-Babel, or possibly pre-Flood, since all we can see of human skeleta grouped together by similarity of carbon date or technology type (the latter not always a great way to decide dates, the former famously giving very erratic ones) is spread across the continents.

Now, I think I can make a case for scrapping this interpretation.

My key is using the Hebrew verbs in these places.

Chapter 11 verse 8 has way·yā·p̄eṣ, annotated "Conj‑w | V‑Hifil‑ConsecImperf‑3ms" which leads to Strong 6327. puwts. I will not pretend to competence as a Hebraist that I lack, so, using Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:

break dash, shake in to pieces, cast abroad, disperse selves, drive, scatter abroad, spread abroad

A primitive root; to dash in pieces, literally or figuratively (especially to disperse) — break (dash, shake) in (to) pieces, cast (abroad), disperse (selves), drive, retire, scatter (abroad), spread abroad.

This speaks of "disjointing" mankind.

Chapter 10, verses 5 and 32 have nip̄·rə·ḏū, annotated "V‑Nifal‑Perf‑3cp" which leads to Strong 6504. parad. Again Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:

disperse, divide, be out of joint, part, scatter abroad, separate self, sever self, stretch,

A primitive root; to break through, i.e. Spread or separate (oneself) — disperse, divide, be out of joint, part, scatter (abroad), separate (self), sever self, stretch, sunder.

Is it just me, or does the meaning "stretch" not come just a tad bit closer to geographic spread?

But what about the name Peleg? "For in his day" ... Genesis 10:25

And to Heber were born two sons: the name of the one was Phaleg, because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother's name Jectan.

Wouldn't the naming of Peleg clearly refer to the scattering after Babel, and isn't it the same word as in the other two verses of chapter 10? Not in Hebrew. In his days the earth was divided is:

ḇə·yā·māw nip̄·lə·ḡāh hā·’ā·reṣ,

and nip̄·lə·ḡāh, annotated "V‑Nifal‑Perf‑3fs" leads to Strong 6385. palag, which in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance has:

divide

A primitive root; to split (literally or figuratively) — divide.

The splitting then would refer to the disjointing of mankind's political and linguistic unity. So, yes, I think there was a geographic spread before the splitting or scattering after Babel. Here is from Postilla in Libros Geneseos, part time attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas (and I think it's a youth work, while he was dwelling among Benedictines), has this comment on Genesis 11:

Cumque proficiscerentur de oriente, invenerunt.		But when they removed from the east, they found.
An omnes tunc simul recesserunt et in Sennaar insimul venerunt, an solum principaliores ex eis cum aliquibus sibi annexis, non plene claret ex hoc loco.		Whether all at the same time removed and came together into Shinar, or only the more principal of them, with some people tied to them, is not fully clear from this place.
Licet enim infra dicatur, scilicet quod inde de Babylone dispersit eos dominus in universas terras,		For even if it is said below, namely that from there, from Babylon, the Lord dispersed them into all lands,
hoc potest dici, aut quia causa dispersionis omnium fuit ex illo loco,		this can be said, either since the cause of dispersion of all was from this place,
aut quia principaliores ibi erant et inde dispersi sunt, et in eorum divisione et dispersione divisae sunt gentes, quarum ipsi erant duces;		or since the more principal were there and were dispersed from there, and in their division and dispersion all peoples were divided, of which they themselves were the leaders;
quia nec alia potest dari ratio quomodo tunc omnes discesserunt de Babylone.		since no other reason can be given because all then left Babylon.
Non est enim dubium quin plures ibi tunc temporis remanserint.		Because there is no doubt that many were at that time remaining there.

If Babel was Göbekli Tepe, I disagree on the last point. It was covered in sand, and it was left empty. But nevertheless, the idea of a geographic spread and of the Babel gathering as being of representatives of each tribe, rather than of all mankind is there in a non-modern exegesis, which owes nothing to modern archaeology. Tradition and Hebrew verbs keep together in giving this a "could be" ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
V L. D. after Easter
5.V.2024

Sylvester Joseph Hunter on Genesis, Henry Morris on 15 Cubits

I am happy to agree with people, when possible.

Item one, Sylvester Joseph Hunter on Genesis (or how Moses knew about it).

Cases where a Book was written in the light of the information which the writer already possesses from natural sources, without special research, are found in the Epistles, and also apparently in the instance of Genesis. Moses would seem to have put into writing the traditions that had been preserved, perhaps in writing or perhaps in the memory of the people, and it is probable that the young children were taught the story by their parents, in the way in which it was ordered that the remembrance of the deliverance from Egypt should be kept alive. (Exodus xii. 26, 27.) The history of the Creation cannot have been known except by revelation; but there is no reason to suppose that this revelation was made to Moses. More probably it was made to Adam, and became known to Moses through human sources. When we speak thus of history having come down to Moses by tradition, we do not mean to imply that there was any special guarantee that the whole of this traditional history should be preserved free from corruption; the case is not like that of the Tradition by which the knowledge of the Christian Revelation is preserved, free from admixture of error, in the Church ; it is enough that God's providence preserved Moses from being misled by any errors that may have crept into the current account.

pp 192,193, Outlines of dogmatic theology,
Sylvester Joseph Hunter 1895, New York : Benziger Brothers
https://archive.org/details/outlinesofdogmat01hunt/page/192/mode/2up

I totally agree that Moses had the Genesis 3 account from Adam and the Genesis 50 account from some son of Joseph, or other survivor, perhaps Levi or his son Caath. Via appropriate numbers of intermediates.

But I am nonplussed by this phrase:

we do not mean to imply that there was any special guarantee that the whole of this traditional history should be preserved free from corruption

So, was there infallibility in the Patriarchal Church?

The Catholic Church can infallibly claim that St. George was a martyr. But prior to Moses, Abraham could not infallibly claim Shem, Ham and Japheth as the sole male Flood survivors of their generation?

I think infallibility was a prerogative of all successive churches, Angelic, Edenic, Patriarcal, Jewish and finally Catholic. Anything that Moses could find in all his sources, not just some, would have been perfectly preserved, and therefore true, no need to cull it.

Some terms may have meant different things from what the Hebrew people in Moses' time imagined them to be, but not from what the terms strictly imply. Nor were any of them abused, negated when they should have been affirmed or affirmed when they should have been negated.

I have often cited Father George Leo Haydock's last comment on Genesis 3, which does not make this blunder, and I only disagree on the exact number of minimal overlaps of generations. On the other hand I think, Abraham received chapters 1 to 11 or 2 to 11 (if contrary to Hunter's view the creation days were revealed to Moses rather than Adam, or re-revealed to Moses after the tradition had lost them) and no more than that orally, but from chapter 12 on his scribes could write things that were preserved in the Beduin tribe from his day to the settling in Egypt, with appropriate copies whenever the tribe divided. And even with LXX chronology, Abraham is the sixth, which is even better than Moses being the eighth, in minimal overlaps.* Alternatively, Serug could have had access to, and his son and grandson Nahor and Terah have deprived him of, books, he could have resumed them from memory, so that his transmission to Abraham was the only one that happened orally. Either way, the first chapters are made so that they are well suited for oral transmission. Hence, no real reason why the tradition would have been corrupted.

Item two, Henry Morris on 15 Cubits

The phrase “fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail” does not mean that the Flood was only fifteen cubits (22 feet) deep, for the phrase is qualified by the one which immediately follows: “and the mountains were covered.” Nor does it necessarily mean that the mountains were covered to a depth of only fifteen cubits, for this would require that all antediluvian mountains be exactly the same altitude. 3 The true meaning of the phrase is to be found in comparing it with Genesis 6:15, where we are told that the height of the Ark was thirty cubits. Nearly all commentators agree that the phrase “fifteen cubits” in 7:20 must therefore refer to the draught of the Ark. In other words, the Ark sank into the water to a depth of fifteen cubits (just one-half of its total height) when fully-laden.

THE GENESIS FLOOD
The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications
by JOHN C. WHITCOMB, JR., Th.D.** and HENRY M. MORRIS, Ph. D. ***
https://www.truth-defined.com/PDFs/THE%20GENESIS%20FLOOD.pdf

In fact, I'd go one further, and say, the Ark was built on the highest one of the mountains, and after 40 days, Noah knew that the water was that high, because that's when the Ark started floating instead of sitting on a mountain top.

I am somewhat taken aback by how much Whitcomb and Morris was a short essay and a pioneering text. Many of the technical solutions Young Earth Creationists take for granted by now or even consider as already refuted, are totally lacking. It is a very tightly knitted argument on height of water, dimensions of the Ark, pre-Flood human population AND reasons against a limited Flood. Here is a gem in this venue, first he cites Arthur C. Custance:

It would require real energy and faith to follow Noah’s example and build other Arks, but it would have required neither of these to pack up a few things. and migrate. There is nothing that Noah could have done to stop them except by disappearing very secretly. Such a departure could hardly act as the kind of warning that the deliberate 10 construction of the Ark could have done. And the inspiration for this undertaking was given to Noah by leaving him in ignorance of the exact limits of the Flood. He was assured that all mankind would be destroyed, and probably supposed that the Flood would therefore be universal. This supposition may have been quite essential for him.

[Arthur C. Custance, The Extent of the Flood: Doorway Papers #41 (Ottawa: Published by the author, 1958),] p. 18. Custance feels that the Ark was not overly large (see above, p. 10) and that it did not take over a century to build. The 120 years of Gen. 6:3, in his opinion, refers to man’s future life-span. But where is the evidence that man’s life span after the Flood was to be 120 years? Many men lived much longer than this (11:11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25; 25:7; 35:28; 47:9). See [Alexander Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels (2nd Ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949),] p. 230, and [H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Columbus: The Wartburg Press, 1942),] pp. 256-257.

Then he answers (still page 10), here:

But how can one read the Flood account of Genesis 6-9 with close attention and then arrive at the conclusion that the Ark was built merely to warn the ungodly, and not mainly to save the occupants of the Ark from death by drowning? And how can we exonerate God Himself from the charge of deception, if we say that He led Noah to believe that the Flood would be universal, in order to encourage him to work on the Ark, when He knew all the time that it would not be universal?

Meanwhile, when I look at Henry Morris, I see a reference to San Diego. When Karl Keating one day started to make replies, first on the Eucharist, then on other topics, it was in San Diego, so presumably the very same Congregation of Henry Morris. This could partly explain, though not fully excuse, his view in which Fundamentalist exegesis of for instance Genesis is linked to Anti-Catholicism.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
V LD after Easter
5.V.2024

* Minimal overlaps on my view:

1. Adam — Mahalaleel
2. Mahalaleel — Noah
3. Noah — Shem
4. Shem — Eber
5. Eber — Serug
6. Serug — Abraham

Abraham to Moses : writing.

Creation vs. Evolution : LXX without II Cainan
Published by Hans Georg Lundahl 04:36 Mon 16 Dec 2019
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/12/lxx-without-ii-cainan.html

** JOHN C. WHITCOMB, JR., Th.D.
Professor of Old Testament, Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana

*** HENRY M. MORRIS, Ph. D.
Director of the Institute of Creation Research Vice-President of Christian Heritage College, San Diego, California