Abstract
Sherman seeks to demonstrate that in the later Jewish tradition the understanding of the Babel narrative in Genesis 11 was shaped by various authors as they sought to address the religious and social needs of their Jewish audience. I think everyone would agree with this observation. But the author does a masterful job of explaining how each of various authors did indeed explicate the meaning of the story with a particular message. In retelling a story, a later author “translates” it—that is, provides language and details, with emphasis upon particular aspects that can radically interpret or re-interpret a story for its audience. By looking at the details of the Babel narration from each of these Jewish authors, Sherman is able to glean great insights into the specific meanings that those authors wished to impart. Sherman does an excellent job of drawing upon contemporary scholars and reacting against some of them in his interpretation of each of these sources. Though I might disagree with him in some of his particular interpretations, I admire the cogency of his overall arguments.
A secondary argument he proposes is that the biblical Babel account does not portray the actions of the Babelites as a sin against God; only at worst do they engage in action that merely goes against the divine plan (p. 54). (I'm not sure I buy into that distinction.) But he does a good job in considering the terse and ambiguous language of Genesis 11 in isolation from the rest of the biblical text to demonstrate his alternative understanding. To that end he responds to the commentary of significant Old Testament scholars. Our modern Christian and Jewish view of God's actions as punishment for the sins of the Babelites may have been influenced by Jewish commentators that viewed this account in the light of the two destructions of Jerusalem in 586
In the book of Jubilees the Babel narrative is part of the story of Noah's sons. Seeking divine knowledge, like astrological insights, is the sin of the Babelites. The breakdown of the Babel language and culture was a blessing, for thereafter Hebrew arose as the language of God's people. The warning to the Jewish audience was not to long for the contemporary hegemonic culture of their age, but to return to their ancestral ways, and especially to retain their pure Hebrew language.
Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities casts the character of Joktan as a tyrannical leader of the Babelites who is opposed by Abraham. His character is a warning to the audience not to follow tyrannical and false Jewish revolutionaries in the impending revolt against Rome (66–70
Josephus cleverly crafts a narrative that speaks both to a Greco-Roman audience and the Jewish community. In language understood by Greeks and Romans the narrative speaks of how the Babelites should have gone forth to “colonize” the world, as was so often done in the Greco-Roman world. To the Jewish audience Josephus alludes to the exile of Jews from Jerusalem and Palestine after 70
Third Baruch speaks of the celestial, universal, and eternal present in characterizing Babel. Babelites are metaphorically described as animals in their boastfulness in order to contrast with true believers who attain insight into the moral order of the universe. God will act for us true believers by developing our insight and virtues. The book warns against apocalyptic and revolutionary rhetoric.
The great philosopher Philo, who was deeply immersed in Platonic philosophy, sought to synchronize Moses and the Greek philosophical tradition. The punishment of the Babelites was designed to prevent the degeneration of their souls into evil. Divine punishment, in general, permits the souls to see God and obtain truth.
Though there is no over-arching message in Genesis Rabbah, different Rabbis made observations about certain phrases and images in the Babel narrative and related biblical texts.
Babelites were less evil than the flood generation due to a degree of righteousness, which implies that God also would be gracious to later Jews.
Babelites believed the firmament would collapse, thus demonstrating their lack of faith and bad theology.
Babelites slandered Abraham, who would ultimately receive from God the “name” that Babelites sought to wrest from God.
Babelites were fools who did not heed divine warnings, which the Rabbis somehow discerned that they received. 5) After God graciously saved them from the flood, the Babelites responded ungratefully with their pride. Above all, the Rabbis sought to portray God's actions as just.
Sherman has done a great job in his study of the history of Jewish interpretation. It is well-written book and fascinating to read, primarily aimed at critical scholars in biblical studies. I held this book in my hands for the first time only two weeks after I held the freshly printed copy of my own theological commentary on Genesis 1–11. I wish I could have been able to implement his insights and respond to some of his arguments. Isn't that the way it always happens? The book is an excellent contribution to the current study of the history of biblical interpretation.