BABEL, TOWER OF. In Gen. xi. 1-9 we have an account of the commencement of the building of a city and a tower by the early occupants of the plain in the land of Shin'ar. This tower was to be of brick, cemented by bitumen, and the top of it was to reach unto heaven, an expression which probably means no more than that it was to be very high (comp. Dent. i. 2S; ix. 1, and the use of olipapogim)s in the classics, Od. v. 239; Herod. ii. 138; tEsch. fug. 92). The building of this tower was arrested in the course of its progress by the divine interposition ; but whether it was left ultimately in its originally unfinished state, or was completed on a humbler scale, and turned to some other use, no record remains to tell. Tradition asserts that it was utterly cast down, and that Babylon was built out of its ruins (Abydenus in Eusebius, I-'rap. Evangel., bk. ix. ch. 15 ; Sybilla in Joseph. Antig., bk. i. ch. 4, § 3). Benjamin of Tudela says it was struck with fire from heaven, which rent it to the foundations, a tradition which still subsists among the Arabs, and to which the calcined and vitrified masses which surround the base of the Birs Nemroud seem to give some countenance (Bochart, Phaleg, bk. i. ch. 9 ; Asher's Translation of Benjamin of Tudela's Itinerary; Rich, Memoirs on the Ruins of Babylon).
Various hypotheses have been advanced as to the design of the original builders in the erection of this tower. That they actually dreamt of reach ing heaven by such an erection is not to be sup posed, though this hypothesis has found supporters (Euseb. and Joseph. /occ. citt.); nor is it likely that they fell upon this device in order to preserve themselves from a second deluge, as Josephus sug gests, for from this risk they must have felt them selves exempt, having God's promise that such a dis aster should not recur. The reason assigned in the Bible is simply that they might make to them selves a name, lest they should be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. These words, however, have been variously interpreted. The word rendered name (x)) has been taken by some in the sense of sign, or manunzent ; and it has been supposed that the purpose of the tower was to serve as a guide to the nomadic inhabitants of that district, by which they might find their way to the central residence of the community (Perizonius, Orig. Babyl., pp. 193, 194). The objections to this are, that co nowhere has this meaning ; that the phrase no r1t!,3) has a fixed signification in Scrip ture, that, namely of acquiring fame or celebrity (see 2 Sam. viii. 13 ; Is. lxiii. 12, 14 ; Jer. xxxii. zo ; Dan. ix. 15) ; and that for the mere purpose of a signal tower there was no need in that level district of an erection so immense as this seems to have been. The LXX. have rendered the latter clause of the verse by rob roi; Securrapijpai ihuas, and this Philo, the Vulgate, and several of the ancient fathers have followed ; but for this there is no authority, as M never signifies before; and besides, it seems very improbable that such an idea, as that which this rendering imputes to the builders of Babel, would enter into their minds. Cocceius
(in loc.) and Heidegger (Hist. Patriarch., t. exert. 21, § 11) think that Pt, denotes here a senate or body of persons who might preserve the true tradition of the Noachic faith, and thereby maintain a permanent bond throughout the race ; and Kurz (Hist. of the Old Covenant, i. Ito) thinks that the Sher they sought to set up had reference to the Sizem God had chosen, and that in their Hamite pride they resolved to combine their ener gies, and provide for themselves a salvation inde pendent of that which God had provided. All this seems fanciful and 'farfetched. The explanation of Rosenmiiller is, that the passage represents these builders as resolving to erect in their city a lofty tower, in order that, by adorning and dignifying their society, they might attract all, both then and in time to come, to it, and so prevent the bond of community from being dissolved (Scholia, in loc.) In such a design, however, there is nothing impious, and it is plain that impiety pro minently marked the scheme in question. The suggestion of the Targumists, Jonathan Ben Uz ziel, and the Hierosolymitan, that the building was intended for idolatrous worship, and as the centre of a great warlike confederacy, is probably not far from the truth (Bib. Polyslott. Londin. vol. iv.) Bochart repudiates the tradition that the building was destroyed, and adopts the opinion that it sur vived the dispersion, and became the temple of Belus, described by Herodotus. In this he follows Jewish tradition, and has been followed by the ma jority of more recent, scholars. Of late, however, the claims of the ruined mound known as Birs Nemroud to be regarded as the site of the tower of Babel have been urged by several writers. Neither opinion seems to rest on satisfactory evi dence. The temple of Belus, described by Hero dotus, was a much later erection, and there is nothing to connect it with the tower mentioned by Moses but Jewish tradition resting on conjecture. The erection at Birs Nemroud was also of much later date, and besides, was not Eke the tower of Babel, within the city, but several miles from it ; at least, if it be as Rawlinson and others conclude, on the site of the ancient Borsippa. The utmost that can be said is, that in the plan of these erec tions, and in the materials of which they are com posed, we may find something to guide us in determining what sort of building the tower of Babel was.