Caroline KayeHost
In the previous episode, we discussed writer Daniel Gordis' interpretation about Babel being a precursor to the concept of the nation.

In summary, Gordis takes something from the post-flood Noah genealogies and suggests that dispersal into distinct peoples, each with its own land, language, and lineage, is the natural divinely sanctioned order after the flood.

The word nation appears repeatedly in these chapters, and the point is made that the nations branched out after the flood.


We can then see that the combination of the uniformity of language and thought arises because of imperial coercion, the forced flattening of natural national diversity.


Gordis argues that the real transgression was their refusal to disperse given the instruction after the Noah episode and what is to come with Abraham.

Gordis claims that we can understand God's response as a correction, a sort of getting back on track rather than a punishment.

And furthermore, of course, as we've covered, the story forms a bridge to the Abraham story.

With humanity now properly divided into nations, the text can focus in on one particular nation.

Gordis traces linguistic and thematic links, shared vocabulary such as bricks and the phrase, "Let us," the recurring role of land and naming, connecting Babel to Abraham's call, and then later to the Exodus, arguing that these are essentially parts of one continuous political narrative about how a people acquires nationhood and a land.

In this episode, I want to push the ideas further and ask a darker question about the Babel story.

Can we understand the Babel story as a warning about totalitarianism? In order to do this, I want to consider two other thinkers with their ideas.

Firstly, one from the 19th century known as the Netziv, I will explain that further, and the other Shai Held, and both happen to be rabbis, and that's just an interesting coincidence.

So far in our series, I've avoided labeling our various scholars and thinkers in terms of religion or background, preferring to let their ideas stand for themselves.


It is my belief, as I said at the start of the series, that we should be open to all types of thought in order to learn as much as we can about the story, and our two commentators both share a substantial amount of biblical knowledge and a rather dark yet necessary understanding about the Babel story.

In the previous episode, we discussed writer Daniel Gordis' interpretation about Babel being a precursor to the concept of the nation.

In summary, Gordis takes something from the post-flood Noah genealogies and suggests that dispersal into distinct peoples, each with its own land, language, and lineage, is the natural divinely sanctioned order after the flood.

The word nation appears repeatedly in these chapters, and the point is made that the nations branched out after the flood.


We can then see that the combination of the uniformity of language and thought arises because of imperial coercion, the forced flattening of natural national diversity.


Gordis argues that the real transgression was their refusal to disperse given the instruction after the Noah episode and what is to come with Abraham.

Gordis claims that we can understand God's response as a correction, a sort of getting back on track rather than a punishment.

And furthermore, of course, as we've covered, the story forms a bridge to the Abraham story.

With humanity now properly divided into nations, the text can focus in on one particular nation.

Gordis traces linguistic and thematic links, shared vocabulary such as bricks and the phrase, "Let us," the recurring role of land and naming, connecting Babel to Abraham's call, and then later to the Exodus, arguing that these are essentially parts of one continuous political narrative about how a people acquires nationhood and a land.

In this episode, I want to push the ideas further and ask a darker question about the Babel story.

Can we understand the Babel story as a warning about totalitarianism? In order to do this, I want to consider two other thinkers with their ideas.

Firstly, one from the 19th century known as the Netziv, I will explain that further, and the other Shai Held, and both happen to be rabbis, and that's just an interesting coincidence.

So far in our series, I've avoided labeling our various scholars and thinkers in terms of religion or background, preferring to let their ideas stand for themselves.


It is my belief, as I said at the start of the series, that we should be open to all types of thought in order to learn as much as we can about the story, and our two commentators both share a substantial amount of biblical knowledge and a rather dark yet necessary understanding about the Babel story.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.