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