The diversity of cultures and languages

It's easy enough to reconstruct the priestly text (10:1-4*.5-7.20-23.31-32), which follows a clear pattern listing the descendants of Japheth, Ham and Shem (ending with the son from whom Abraham's family will descend).

What is the organizing principle of this table of nations? G. Hölscher(Drei Erdkarten, 1949) had thought of a climatic organization principle: Japhet would designate peoples in the North and in the cold, Ham (Hebrew: hot) would designate peoples in the South and Shem the temperate environment. This organization undoubtedly underpins the repetition of the map in the Book of Jubilees (Jub 8). In the text of Gn 10, such a principle does not apply. According to this list, Noah's three sons are at the origin of the three great known geographical areas: Egypt-Africa-Levant, Greece and beyond, the Near East.

We're dealing here with scholarly speculation, but the most important thing, before looking at some of these constructs, is the idea that from the moment Noah's descendants multiply on the earth, each nation with its different clans has its own language. For P, language diversity is apparently part of post-diluvian humanity. It's there from the start, and doesn't seem to pose any particular problem (see the refrain in v. 10, 20 and 31: "in their respective countries, each according to his language, according to their clans in their nations"). In a way, this corresponds to an Egyptian idea found in the hymn to Aten. From the outset, the list of peoples depicts the diversity of peoples and their languages as something "normal" in the creation order. The distribution of peoples throughout the known earth is, in a way, the fulfillment of the creator god's order to fill the earth. The various peoples are organized according to their languages, clans and nations, but the text makes no mention of religious differences, with all peoples apparently worshipping the same god.

The priestly author may have been inspired by the culture of lists (see in the Bible, for example, the list of commercial contacts in Ez 27), or perhaps also by an inscription by Darius in Behistun, copies of which existed on papyrus in Elephantine. This serenity has been disturbed by a number of insertions. As recent analyses show (Witte, de Pury, et al.), these fragments are not to be attributed to an early Yahwist; they are post-P additions and corrections, notably in Gen 10:8-13.15-19.21.24-25, which are intended to create a link with the curse of Canaan in Gen 9 and the Tower of Babel in Gen 11. The redactors thus seek to integrate the priestly table of the nations into a new context that emphasizes the differences between peoples and understands the diversity of languages as a divine sanction.

Noah's drunkenness and the curse of Canaan (Gen 9:20-27)

This little story, which has often been used to legitimize the enslavement of black peoples (the descendants of Ham), begins with the invention of the vine and wine. Compared with Gen 4 ("the man of the soil" recalls Cain's occupation in 4:2), wine is still missing from the list of cultural goods. It must therefore be invented. V. 21 immediately shows how difficult it is to manage wine, since Noah immediately experiences drunkenness (which can also affect the gods, as shown by a Sumerian myth of Inanna and Enki [where Enki, drunk, gives his daughter all his powers], and an Ugaritic text on El's drunkenness).

Transgression: there is considerable debate as to whether Cham's action is voyeurism [1] (which also constitutes the transgression of a taboo), whether it constitutes castration of the father [2], "homosexual" incest (as the expression seems to suggest: "discovering the sex of his father [3]") or "heterosexual" (according to Lev 18:8, where the expression "the nakedness of his father" refers to the father's wife: Cham would have slept with his mother, taking advantage of his father's drunkenness [4]). This latter theory would explain why it is Canaan who is cursed, since he will be the son Cham fathered with Noah's wife.

Although this latter interpretation is fairly plausible, it doesn't entirely fit with the behavior of brothers Shem and Japheth, who cover the naked father, taking care not to turn around, which speaks in favor of a first-degree reading.

Although the question cannot be decided with certainty, the resulting curse of Canaan is obvious. It is expressed three times, perhaps reflecting three stages in the formation of the text. Firstly, in the story's original ending, Canaan becomes a slave (v. 25). This reflects the theological opposition between Israel and Canaan. In v. 26, Canaan's curse is contrasted with Shem's blessing, and we find the expression "Yhwh, the god of Shem", which breaks with the internationalism of P. Whereas v. 26 had confined itself to the relationship between Shem and Ham, v. 27 returns to the triangle of Shem and Japheth together, and Canaan the servant of the gods. Again, this may point to a desire to strengthen the link between "Semites" and Greeks (so a late addition). This link was used in the Talmud (Meg 9b) to legitimize the use of Greek in synagogal worship.

Contrary to the egalitarian P vision of Gen 10, Gen 9:20-27 hierarchizes the world, in its final form, into three levels: Shem, Israel's ancestor; Japheth, the allied peoples; and Canaan - the cursed, enslaved peoples.

Origin and function of the myth of the Tower of Babel (Gen 11)

Ch. Uehlinger [5] has hypothesized that the tower referred to in the text was not originally a ziggurat, but a citadel which, in iconography, symbolizes the city itself. The themes of building a city with its citadel, the name and the unique language lead to the imperial rhetoric of Mesopotamian royal inscriptions, particularly Neo-Assyrian. According to Uehlinger, the origin of this myth has a precise historical context: the abrupt halt to the construction of Assyrian king Sargon II's new capital, Dur-Sarrukin, in 705 after the king's death in battle. According to Uehlinger, this story was retold in the Babylonian era in the^{second half of} the twentieth century, probably in connection with King Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562), who was known for his gigantic constructions.

However, it is also possible to imagine that this story is referring to these great Assyro-Babylonian constructions. Explaining the diversity of languages is indeed a central issue in the story, since it opens with the observation that the whole earth spoke a single language (v. 1). The unity of the language is underlined in verse 3 by onomatopoeia ("let's make bricks..."). As in Gen 3, the problem is to define the place of God and the place of men. Unlike in Gen 3, Yahweh and men no longer live together; Yhwh is in heaven and must come down to see what men are doing; the challenge of the story lies in enabling men, through civilization, to become Yhwh's equals.

There are many tower-building legends, but these are not linked to the explanation of the diversity of languages. A Sumerian text called Enmerkar and the Lord of Arata (the latter's name is never mentioned) apparently contains the motif of the confusion of languages by the god Enki. The reference to the confusion of tongues is found in "Enki's incantation", by which Enmerkar wants to convince the Lord of Arata to submit to him. The main problem is whether this is a past event (reference to a golden age) or a prophecy of a future event, to show the supremacy of Sumerian civilization. It may be a fragment inserted after the fact in the myth, as it plays no role in the rest of the story. Perhaps this is a reference to a more explicit myth about Enki's confusion of a single language.