Andreas Hock, «From Babel to the New Jerusalem (Gen 11,1-9 and Rev 21,1–22,5)», Vol. 89 (2008) 109-118
There are some salient points of contact between the narrative of Babel, Gen 11:1-9, and the vision of the New Jerusalem, Rev 21:1–22:5. These parallels are starkly contrastive. Among the most stunning parallels are the way man’s initiative is
underscored in Gen, while God’s initiative is emphasized in Rev. Human accomplishment appears to be at the heart of the narrative in Genesis, whereas God’s accomplishment is presented in Rev. Moreover, worldly reputation is set in
opposition to heavenly fame, as well as a worldwide dispersion in Gen as it is being contrasted with a worldwide unification in Rev. The essay’s conclusion is that the protological text is brought to fulfillment in the eschatological one in an inverse archetypal sense.
From Babel to the New Jerusalem 115
6. From sugcevwmen dievspeiren (Gen 11,7.8) to peripathvsousin ta; e[qnh (Rev
21,24)
We finally arrive at the last point of comparison between the story of
Babel and the New Jerusalem. Gen 11,7-8 describes the eventual cessation of
all work due to an insurmountable language confusion: “Come, let us go
down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one
another’s speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face
of all the earth, and they left off building the city.â€
Gen 11,7, then, reverses the dynamic of 11,4: God descends to disperse
the builders and the population, deu'te kai; katabavnte" sugcevwmen. There is a
vestige here of the ancient Near Eastern literary motif of divine jealousy of
humans, “there will be no preventing whatever they propose to doâ€. There is
also a trace of the divine assembly in the plural wording “Come (deu'te, cf.
11,3.4!), let Us go downâ€, later on interpreted in the light of Christian
revelation as referring the Trinity of Persons in one God.
Regarding the name of the city, Babel (25), the puns seem to be the crux,
and untranslatable: the Hebrew root balal, Gen 11,7, signifies “to mixâ€, “to
confoundâ€, “to disperseâ€. Another reading is nebelah, meaning “destructionâ€.
The root nbl also gives us the word for “foolâ€. So when the people, who had
been dignified with homogeneity of language, used the privilege given them
for evil purposes, God put a stop to the impulse of their wickedness through
creating differences in language (26).
The word dabar appears for the first time in Genesis 11,1, which led
midrashic commentators to suppose that the initial ten chapters of Genesis
transpire in some pre-discursive context. Speech goes unrecorded as in the
monologues of Adam and Eve. We are also not told what Cain said to Abel;
Noah has no dialogue with God. dabar, in its full speech-sense, evolves
around and is aborted at Babel (27). Henceforth mankind chatters in a host of
closed, mutually incomprehensible tongues (28).
Yahweh’s confusing of their speech is a punishment for their pride; it is
also a guarding against any future massed assaults on divine sovereignty. The
act resembles the expulsion of the protoparents from further contact with the
tree of life, lest they eat of that tree, too, Gen 3,22-23. God’s will that the race
go forth to possess their lands is now carried out with added vehemence
because of human resistance; God scatters them because they will not freely
spread abroad(29). Unlike Adam/Eve, Cain/Abel and Noah/Flood, there seems
(25) The name Babel is understood to mean “confusion†but more probably means
“Gate of Godâ€: this is the Mesopotamian setting from which the people of Israel will spring,
through Abraham.
(26) Cf. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis.
(27) “The fact that the Divine and the humans do not stand in dialogue with one another
constitutes one of the most ominous elements in this textâ€, L. KECK et al. (eds.), The New
Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville, TN 1994) I, 411.
(28) Cf. G. STEINER, No Passion Spent. Essays 1978-1996 (New Haven 1996).
(29) Rabbinical scholars have compared the Babylonian exile to the thwarting of the
plan of Babel’s builders.