Nimrod and Abraham:
The Fall and Reformation of Human Community

In partial fulfillment of:
OT 501 - Pentecostal Explorations of the Old Testament

Submitted to:
Dr. Rickie Dale Moore Church of God Theological Seminary
Cleveland, Tennessee

Daniel Tomberlin November 20, 2001 COGTS Box # 247 The Hebrew name for Genesis is bƒreÕµ séû tÆ ,_ preferably translated “by way of beginning”1 which is

also the overarching theme of the book - the beginnings of the creation of the universe, of humanity and human civilization, and of a covenant people of God. The traditional outline of Genesis is to divide the book into two major sections: Primeval History (chapters 1-11) which is universal in scope and serves to demonstrate the unity of humanity; and Patriarchal History (chapters 12-50) which is particular in scope and serves to present God’s concern for a covenant people. Gordon Wenham offers a similar outline: the origin of the world (chapter 1); the origin of the nations (chapters 2-11); and the origin of Israel (chapters
12-50).2 An outline that better serves the theological themes of Genesis is to present the book in three

major sections: generation (chapters 1-2) which reveals God as Creator of the universe and all life therein; degeneration (chapters 3-11), which reveals the fall of the first human family and the continued downward spiral of human civilization; and regeneration (chapters 12-50) in which we are introduced to Abram, the friend of God, the father of the faithful, through whom we are given the promise of eschatological salvation.
The major theme of beginnings is evident not only in the message of Genesis, but it is also

demonstrated by its natural literary structure which is a series of ten tolÆ ƒdo_ tÆ _ sections.3 TolÆ ƒdo_ tÆ _ is the

Hebrew word translated as “these are the generations of” which suggest that Genesis is the story of God’s ongoing creative and redemptive purposes. Professor Rickie Moore has suggested that this not just about human genealogy, but is about the transmitting of the story of faith from one generation to the next.4 As such, the themes of Genesis, such as divine creation, human sinfulness, messianic expectation, and

1International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Electronic edition by Logos Research Systems, 2001. s.v. “Genesis.” by R. K. Harrison.
2Gordon J. Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 1: Genesis 1-15, (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1987). Electronic edition by Logos Research Systems, 1998.
3William S. Lasor, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush, Old Testament Survey, 2nd edition. (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1996), 16. The ten toÆlƒd_oÆt_ sections are found at Ge. 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; and 37:2.
4Rickie Moore, class lecture. covenant relationship among others, continued to be appropriated by the prophets, poets, and theologians of the God’s covenant people.
Discussion of the authorship and occasion of the writing of Genesis is tenuous at best with opinions ranging from Moses, at the time of the Exodus, to a post-exilic scribe. The traditional, conservative view holds that Moses is the author Genesis as well as the entire Torah. Philo and Josephus attributed the Torah to Moses, as did Jesus and Paul.5 Mosaic authorship was not seriously challenged until the 19th century writings of Julius Wellhausen. He regarded Genesis as a compilation of material obtained from earlier source documents: P (5th cent B.C.), J (9th cent B.C.), and E (8th cent B.C.).6 The
Torah was produced for a the remnant Israel emerging from the Babylonian captivity.

R.K. Harrison is representative of conservative scholars who challenged the conclusions of

Wellhausen. Regarding the structure of the tolÆ ƒdo_ tÆ _ sections, he has written that contrary to the popular

assumption that the tolÆ ƒdo_ tÆ _ serves as the beginning of a literary section, the tolÆ ƒdo_ tÆ _ actually refers to that

which precedes.7 Therefore, according to Harrison, Genesis is comprised of eleven ancient underlying literary sources which, when carefully examined exhibit a definite form-critical character which coincides with that demonstrated from a vast number of clay tablets from Mesopotamia. The term “book” in Gen. 5:1 can refer only to such a clay tablet, and in the light of what is now known about ancient Near Eastern practices of writing history, personal and other, it seems clear that this type of tablet record was in the nature of ancient historiography. It might also be noted, following Mesopotamian usage, that the person mentioned in connection with the term tolÆ ƒdo_ tÆ _ could have been either the writer of the tablet, the owner, or both. In Gen. 10:1 the allusion to the sons of Noah can be taken to mean that the preceding account of family history was in their actual possession, a practice that can be documented at great length from family archives uncovered at Mari, Nuzi, and other sites in Mesopotamia.8

5Philo; Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1:1; Jesus, Matthew 19:7-8; 22:24; Mark 7:10; 10:3-4; 12:19,26; Luke 20:28,
37; 24:27, 44; Paul, Romans 10:5, 19; I Corinthians 9:9.
6Harrison. 7Ibid.
8Ibid. Harrison’s eleven toÆlƒd_oÆt “tablets” are: 1:1-2:4; 2:5-52; 5:3-6:9a; 6:9b-10:1; 10:2-11:10a; 11:10b-27a;
11:27b-25:12; 25:13-19a; 25:19b-36:1; 36:2-9; and 36:10-37:2. The Joseph narratives (37:2b-50:26) are not included in the toÆlƒd_oÆt sources. Harrison concludes by asserting that it would be a relatively simple matter for a skilled ancient writer,

Moses, to combine the various tolÆ ƒdo_ tÆ _ narratives with a Joseph narrative to produce Genesis. The

intended audience would have been the Israel of the Exodus, a nation in its formative years in need of a national history. It should be noted that Harrison allows for post-Mosaic redaction such as “the modernizing of archaic grammatical forms, ...as well as the updating of ancient names of places and persons by successive generations of scribes, and the insertion of explanatory glosses for the guidance of the reader.”9

Harrison’s view regarding the tolÆ ƒdo_ tÆ _ sources is a minority view. Allen Ross rejects it outright as

unworkable because the “cuneiform evidence is unconvincing and the outworking of the arrangement of scripture is impossible.”10 Victor Hamilton also rejects Harrison’s view in favor of a traditional view in which each of the tolÆ ƒdo_ tÆ _ “focuses on one personality and weeds out lesser individuals” which

demonstrates the literary and theological unity of Genesis.11 Although Ross and Hamilton present some serious challenges against Harrison, it seems that all are advancing arguments that go beyond the evidence. Ross and Hamilton may be correct in their suppositions as they relate to the present text of Genesis, but that does not preclude the possibility of the tolÆ ƒdo_ tÆ _ as early sources appropriated by a later

author.

In speaking of historical sources for the writings of Genesis, one should not conclude that the consensus of scholarship is that the stories of Genesis represent actual historical events. This is especially true of chapters 1-11 which are often described as myth. Rudolph Bultmann defined myth as “the use of imagery to express the other worldly in terms of this world and the divine in terms of human life...”12 Lasor refuses to classify Genesis 1-11 as myth but writes that this material conveys “theological

9Ibid.
10Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), 71f.
11Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17. (Grand Rapids: William Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1990), 8-10.
12Rudolph Bultmann, Kerygma and Myth, tr. R.H. Fuller, ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1961), 10. truths about events, portrayed in a largely symbolic, pictorial literary style.”13 One is hard pressed to discern an appreciable difference between Bultmann and Lasor! Following Herman Gunkel, Gerhard von Rad has written that the stories of Genesis are to be understood as saga which “with respect to its simplest and most original purpose that it narrates an actual event that occurred once for all in the realm of history.”14 He explains that saga is more than history in that it reflects the historical experience of the faith community which through the centuries becomes so dominant that the historical fact disappears.15

Myth, saga, or history? How shall we understand these stories?

The Genesis stories represent the theological reflections of the scribes, sages, priests, and prophets of Israel who lived in a pre-scientific, polytheistic world in which there was no distinction between the gods and the natural world. Into this ancient milieu the Hebrew theologians presented a radical monotheism in which Yahweh is revealed as Creator who exists apart from the created order. The Genesis stories are anti-myth, a polemic against the dominant mythology (theology?) of the ancient near east. It is precisely for this reason that the Genesis stories are more than myth, saga, or history. Genesis is a historical-theological narrative that presents God as He who reveals Himself in human history. Therefore, even though the Genesis stories do indeed reflect the ancient literary genre of saga, one should not too quickly dismiss the factual historical events contained within these stories.

Nimrod, A Mighty One on the Earth

The saga of Nimrod is told within the tolÆ ƒdo_ tÆ _ of Noah’s sons after the flood.16 Here we find the

table of nations (Genesis 10) which, according to D. J. Wiseman, is of unknown origin and is “unique in ancient literatures.”17 Source critics believe this material to be derived from J and P with corresponding

13Lasor, 20f. Lasor prefers to classify this material as “unique.”
14Gerhard von Rad, Genesis. (Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1972), 32.
15Ibid, 34.
16Genesis 10:1-11:9. This is based on the traditional toÆlƒd_oÆt_ divisions.
17D. J. Wiseman, ed., Peoples of Old Testament Times. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973). Cited in Wenham. dates from the fourteenth to the sixth century BC.18 Even so, it is likely that the subjects of this

document are of greater antiquity. As the various genealogies would imply, the history here is very dense, that is, the stories of many generations, encompassing hundreds of years, are told in just a few words. Whereas some of the material is meant to speak of historical individuals of great antiquity, it is evident that many of the names found in this document are meant to be eponymous and refer to families, tribes, and nations.19 The table of nations offers an ancient record of post flood human migration and international political alliances which are determined by the sovereign acts of God. In this regard, this document anticipates the Babel event.
Nimrod, a descendant of Ham, is presented as “a mighty one on the earth,”20 “a mighty hunter in the eyes of Yahweh,”21 and as the builder of a great empire in the land of Shinar beginning with the city of Babel.22 According to Victor Hamilton, Nimrod’s notoriety as “a mighty one on the earth” suggest the “martial prowess of this individual against other nations and to the hunting of wild game.”23 God had created humanity for the purpose of dominion, that humans might “fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over... every living thing that moves on the earth.”24 The author of this Genesis saga wants the reader to imagine Nimrod as the first great conqueror and empire builder in human history.
Various attempts have been made to identify Nimrod with a historical king, but it is more likely that Nimrod represents a pre-historical person whose saga survived the ages and was embellished so that he came to be seen in supra-human or semi-divine terms. It was a common tendency of the peoples in the

18Wenham.
19Allen P Ross, “The Table of Nations: It’s Structure.” Bibliotheca Sacra, v. 137, #548. (Dallas, Texas: Dallas Theological Seminary, Oct. 1980), Electronic edition by Galaxie Software, 1999.
20Genesis 10:8. The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation) 1996, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.
21Genesis 10:9. The New Jerusalem Bible. (New York: Doubleday, 1985). Database Copyright 1995 by NavPress Software.
22Genesis 10:10
23Hamilton, 339.
24Genesis 1:28 The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update ancient near east to attribute to their leaders divine generation and attributes.25 With this in mind, it is possible that the saga of Nimrod became the basis for the myth of Ninurta, the Sumerian god of war. According to Simo Parpola, Ninurta was a young prince, the son of the divine king, Enlil. Sumerian myths portray Ninurta as a celestial savior because he destroyed a monster which threatened the kingdom of heaven. After his victory he founded a new world. He came to be regarded by Mesopotamian kings as the “defender of the divine world order.”26 All subsequent kings who were successful at restoring order out of chaotic situations were regarded as the incarnation of Ninurta.
After a time of great chaos, the great flood, humans settled on the plain of Shinar and began to establish a city. As one reads the text of Genesis 11:1-9, the presentation of early human civilization as utopian is striking. There is one empire, one people, and one language. The people dwell on the plain of Shinar.27 Everything about this seems to imply a peaceful and serene post flood human civilization. Nimrod and the people of Shinar wanted to build for themselves a great city, a great tower, and a great name so that their kingdom would be established and their name would be remembered throughout successive generations.28 However, we have already been introduced to Nimrod and he is not a prince of peace, but a man of war! The story of Nimrod’s conquest may be hidden by the ages, but it is certain that the first great human empire, like all those that follow, was built not only with mortar and bricks, but also with the blood and bone of conquered subjects.
Also remarkable about this story is that Nimrod’s kingdom seems to be a wholly secular enterprise, for there is no mention of local deities. Although the culture of the ancient near east had its

25Simo Parpola, “Sons of God: The Ideology of Assyrian Kingship.” Archaeology Odyssey (November/December 1999). [Online] Available: http://www.bib-arch.org/aond99/sonsl.html
26Simo Parpola, “From Whence the Beast?” Bible Review (December 1999). [Online] Available: http://www.archaeologyodyssey.org/brd99/beast.html
27Dale S. Dewitt, “The Historical Background of Genesis 11:1-9: Babel or Ur?” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society, 22/1, March 1979, 16. Electronic edition by Galaxie Software, 1999. DeWitt suggests that this is the biblical description of the Sumerian civilization of the 3rd millennium (see also: Hamilton, 351f). Accordingly, the judgment and subsequent dispersion of the peoples reflects the fall of the third Dynasty of Ur at about 2010 to 1960 B. C. He views the reference to Babel in Genesis 11:9 as a later redaction to an earlier story.
28Genesis 11:4. Themes of personal greatness, glory, and immortality are common in ancient hero literature. C. M. Bowra, Hero Poetry. (London: MacMillian and Company Limited, 1964). pantheon of deities which were utilized for political purposes,29 the author of Genesis had no intention of acknowledging these deities. This story teller was a theologian who sought to challenge the polytheistic world view prevalent in his day and assert the lordship of Yahweh over human history. Further, he understood that idolatry has as its highest aim the worship of self. He saw through the pretensions of human devotion to deity and uncovered the ugliness of human megalomania.
The center of this great building project was “a tower whose top will reach into heaven.”30 According to Dale DeWitt, the ancient builders of the Mesopotamian ziggurats sought the reunification of the heavens and the earth.31 What Nimrod and his builders were seeking was divinization. This recounts an earlier theme found in the account of the temptation and fall of Adam. That which was forbidden to humanity in Eden, the tree of knowledge and the desire to be as God, is that which humans continue to aspire.32 When Nimrod’s royal court began deliberations and planning of their great building projects, they attributed to themselves the language of deity - “Come, let us build.... let us make....”33 In fact, it seems that Nimrod and his builders were fulfilling God’s command to rule over the earth.34

However, the problem with this building project is that Nimrod was building for himself a city, a tower, and a name. He was not ruling as God’s regent - he was ruling as a god.
Babel was a human community in covenant with itself for the purpose of self preservation and self glorification. The possibilities of an unified human civilization are endless. This is acknowledged by Yahweh: “Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they

29Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage. (New York: MJF Books, 1935, 1963), 127.
30Genesis 11:4 The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update. According to DeWitt, such towers were common in Mesopotamia and date as early as 3000 BC. He suggests that the tower of Genesis 11 predates 2000 BC. The Babel story is very dense history and may reflect several generations, speaking to the rise and fall of an ancient kingdom.
31DeWitt.
32Genesis 2:17; 3:5
33Compare Genesis 11:4 with 1:26 and 11:7.
34Genesis 1:28; 9:1, 7 began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them.”35 However, these possibilities do not reflect human capacity for good, but for evil.36 God’s purpose for humanity was to “be fruitful and multiply; populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.”37 Therefore, for the sake of humanity, Yahweh must intervene. Intervention will come, not because the citizens were unified, or because they were building a great city and a high tower, but because they did so contrary to the purpose of Yahweh and to the exclusion of covenant with Yahweh.
Yahweh’s act of judgment upon Babel was to “confuse their language” and the result was that the building project was halted and the people were scattered throughout the earth.38 Walter Bruggemann suggests that judgment upon the language of the people reflects theological and covenantal concerns.39 Language is the medium of covenant. The people of Shinar had formed political, economic, and social alliances among themselves based upon a common language. Therefore, the judgment of Yahweh meant that they could not understand one another, and that they would not listen to one another. The failure to understand and the unwillingness to listen thrusts human society into conflict. The citizens of Babel were now in conflict with Yahweh and with each other. The result was that the people were scattered throughout the earth. In judgment they would fulfill the purpose of Yahweh, that the earth be filled.40
In many ways, the saga of Nimrod and the story of Babel reflect earlier motifs in Genesis. It may be that the Babel incident is to be understood in terms of the second fall of humanity. In Genesis 2 and 3 we have the first human family living in the paradise of God. Because of an act of disobedience, desiring to be like God, they are banished from Eden and scattered in the earth. Due to the exponential increase

35Genesis 11:6 The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update. Wenham writes that the Hebrew verb µmz
(purpose, to plot) often refers to “nefarious human scheming.”
36Genesis 3:22; 6:5; and 8:21.
37Genesis 9:7 The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update.
38Genesis 11:7f
39Walter Bruggemann. Genesis. (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 103.
40Genesis 9:1, 7. The scattering motif is important in scripture. Israel and Judah were scattered (Deut. 28:64; 30:3; 1 Kings 22:17; 1 Chron. 18:16; Neh. 1:8f; Ps. 44:11; 92:9; Jere. 9:16; 10:21; 24:9; 30:11; 31:10; 50:17; Lament.
4:16; Ezek. 5:2ff; 6:5,8; 11:16f; 12:14f; 17:21; 20:23, 34, 41; 22:15; 28:25; 29:12f; 30:23; 34:16; 36:19; 46:18; Joel of sin, God acted in judgment and destroyed all humanity, save one family. God entered into a covenant with the family of Noah in which he blessed them, commanded them to be fruitful, and promised that he would never again destroy humanity by flood.41 In Genesis 11 we have the first human civilization presented to us as a utopia. However, because they acted contrary to the purpose of God, God brought judgment against the people and scattered them throughout the earth. Genesis demonstrates the corruption of human civilization (chapter 11) as well as the corruption of human nature (chapter 3). However, God was faithful to his covenant with Noah in that He did not destroy humanity. And once more, God entered into a covenant with a human family so that all human families could be blessed.
Abraham, the Friend of God

The Babel episode ends with a great migration of the peoples. With the beginning of the tolÆ ƒdo_ tÆ

of Terah42 we find one such family in the midst of migration. The family of Terah departed “Ur of the Chaldeans in order to enter the land of Canaan.”43 Historically, the migration of the family of Terah out of Ur coincides with the fall of the of the third dynasty of Ur in about 2070-1960 BC.44 According to
Durant, the cities of Sumer suffered from military invasion by the Elamites and Amorites with a subsequent occupation that lasted for two hundred years.45 This was a period of mass migration out of the lands of Sumer into civilizations of Canaan and Egypt which were rising to great power and influence. As Daniel Estes has suggested, the migration of the family of Terah during this period “outwardly have been indistinguishable from that of many people who were migrating at that time.”46

3:2; Nahum 2:1; Zech. 1:19, 21; 7:14; 10:9; 11:16; 13:7) as well as the church at Jerusalem (Acts 5:37; 8:1,4; 11:19;
1 Peter 1:1).
41Genesis 9:8-17
42Genesis 11:27ff
43Genesis 11:31 The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update
44International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, s.v. “Abraham” by R. K. Harrison.
45Durant, 122f.
46Daniel J. Estes, “Looking for Abraham’s City.” Bibliotheca Sacra, (Dallas, Texas: Dallas Theological Seminary.) Electronic edition by Galaxie Software, 1999. [Online] Available: Logos Library System.

Our introduction to Abraham is totally without the accolades given to Nimrod. Abram of Ur is not renown as a great builder or military leader. During his life, he did not build a city, nor did he establish a kingdom. In fact, as we are introduced to Abram, he is a migrant, a nomad seeking a new life. However, Abraham will come to be known as the friend of God.47 It may very well be that those qualities which humans seek are not the qualities that God desires in them! What distinguishes Abram of Ur from the masses of humanity is his capacity to respond to the call of God and enter into covenant with Him.
In spite of the tendency of most Western scholars to divide the Genesis story into two major sections, primeval and patriarchal, that was certainly not the intent of the author who composed his work as a series of family narratives. The continuity of chapters 11 and 12 are demonstrated in certain motifs that are shared in the Babel story and the call of Abram.
In both stories there is a call, a conversation. Whereas, the conversation within the Babel narrative humanity is speaking to itself, the conversation in the Abram narrative is God speaking to humanity. In the Babel narrative there is no covenant relationship between humanity and God. The people of Babel speak only to themselves. Likewise God speaks only to himself. In the end there is chaos. In the chaos that follows Babel, in the midst of the myriad of competing voices, one person heard

47James 2:23; 2 Chronicles 20:7; Isaiah 41:8 the call of God. Abram’s response to the divine call is the beginning of the reformation of humanity in which tyrannical human dominion falls before Yahweh, the great king.
The citizens of Babel sought to exercise human dominion for the purpose of self glorification, which became self deification. However, their city will not endure and their name is remembered in mockery. Rather than the “gate of the gods,” Babel is synonymous with confusion.48 However, God’s rejection of Babel should not be interpreted as his rejection of all human efforts at civilization. In God’s

call to Abram, the covenant promise includes that of a great nation and a great name. However, whereas Babel sought to create for itself a great city and name, the great nation and name that will proceed from Abram is the gift of God and it will endure because it is a people in covenant with Yahweh. The city of Abram is not of human design, but a city “whose architect and builder is God.”49
The purpose of the city and tower of Babel was to prevent the scattering of humanity throughout

the earth which was contrary to the purpose of God whose covenant with Noah included a command to “swarm in the earth.”50 However, their efforts at self preservation were the cause of the very thing they sought to avoid. Further, the Babel story is placed within the context of the generations of Ham, for Nimrod, the founder of Babel, is the son of Cush, the son of Ham. It may be that the Babel story is a family saga that is representative of the whole of humanity. As a family saga, the story of Babel speaks to the presevation of one family over and against all other human families. Remember, Nimrod is a mighty one in the earth, a warrior-conqueror. All other families of the earth are diminished, even oppressed, by Babel’s pursuit of greatness. But in the call of Abram, God expressed his desire for all the families of the earth. Abram’s response to the call of God did not mean that the Shemites would be

48International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, s.v. “Tower of Babel” by D. F. Payne. “The name Babel has no connection with the Heb baµlal, “He confused.” Its meaning is in fact patent in its Assyrian form, Baµb-iléµ, “gate of god.” The final syllable, ×eµl in Hebrew, is common to all Semitic languages, and means “god”; while baÆb is well- known in Assyrian, Arabic, Aramaic, and late Hebrew. It seems probable, then, that the narrator of Gen. 11:9 is indulging in a play on words, a verbal irony, or else relating a folk etymology, rather than attempting a serious etymology of the name. He must surely have known that such a word could not possibly derive from a root b-l-l.”
49Hebrews 11:10 The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update
50Genesis 9:7 The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update translation note exalted over and against all other families, but that all families, even the family of Ham, will be blessed. From the scattered mass of humanity, the response of Abram to God’s call will result in God’s blessing of humanity. Human dominion in the earth will be blessed only within the context of covenant with God.
Throughout the centuries, human kingdoms have risen to great glory, conquering peoples and exploiting resources, only to be scatted throughout the world by Yahweh who has determined the boundaries of human dominion.51 Within this history is the story of the children of Abraham, a people in covenant with God who look beyond the Nimrods of the earth to seek the kingdom of God. This story finds its climax in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, who is the fulfillment of the seed of Abraham, when the great, last Babylon has fallen.52 Out of the scattered ruins of the fallen Babylon, God will raise up a new humanity “from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues.”53

51Acts 17:26
52Revelation 14:8; 16:9; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21
53Revelation 7:9 The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update Bibliography

Bowra, C. M. Hero Poetry. London: MacMillian and Company Limited, 1964.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W., editor. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979-1988. Electronic edition by Logos Library Systems, 2001.

Bruggemann, Walter. Genesis. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

Bultmann, Rudolph. Kerygma and Myth, tr. R.H. Fuller, ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1961.

DeWitt, Dale S. “The Historical Background of Genesis 11:1-9: Babel or Ur?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 22/1, March 1979, 16. Electronic edition by Galaxie Software, 1999.

Dillard, Raymond B. and Tremper Longman III. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.

Durant, Will. Our Oriental Heritage. New York: MJF Books, 1935, 1963.

Estes, Daniel J. “Looking for Abraham’s City.” Bibliotheca Sacra. Dallas, Texas: Dallas Theological Seminary.
Electronic edition by Galaxie Software, 1999.

Hamilton,Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17. Grand Rapids: William Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1990.

Lasor, William S., David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush. Old Testament Survey, 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1996.

Merrill, Eugene H. “The Peoples of the Old Testament According to Genesis 10.” Bibliotheca Sacra, v. 154, #613. Dallas, Texas: Dallas Theological Seminary, January, 1997. Electronic edition by Galaxie Software, 1999.

Parpola, Simo. “From Whence the Beast?” Bible Review, December 1999. [Online] Available: http://www.archaeologyodyssey.org/brd99/beast.html

“Sons of God: The Ideology of Assyrian Kingship.” Archaeology Odyssey, November/December 1999. [Online] Available: http://www.bib-arch.org/aond99/sonsl.html

Ross, Allen P. “The Table of Nations: It’s Structure.” Bibliotheca Sacra, v. 137, #548. Dallas, Texas: Dallas Theological Seminary, Oct. 1980. Electronic edition by Galaxie Software, 1999.

“The Dispersion of the Nations in Genesis 11:1-9.” Bibliotheca Sacra, v. 138, #550. Dallas, Texas: Dallas Theological Seminary, Apr. 1981. Electronic edition by Galaxie Software, 1999.

Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.

Von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis. Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1972.

Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 1: Genesis 1-15, Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1987.

Wiseman, D. J. ed., Peoples of Old Testament Times. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973.