[Bêthberry]

Finally able to return to reply . . .

Some of this discussion leads us very far away from the topic and Tolkien, so I will keep my comments short. Those who wish to consider Numenor might well wish to ignore this post.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

But the way you use the examples is actually not percieving them the way they are meant. (Whoever doesn't want to read more and to whom this suffices may skip the rest of the post.)

Hoom. Hummm. Hruummm. Ascertaining the way stories are meant is a long and difficult process, as anyone who followed the infamous Canonicity may recall(That was I think before your time) and one not immune to the ravages of time. In fact, it can be argued that often 'intention' is more a creation of the time of the reader/perceiver than of the author. Nor is intention the only criterion one may use in discussing or analyzing narrative; it is often valuable to consider the context of narrative, something that, in a text as old and as gathered from multiple sources as Genesis, may not always provide one clear intention. After all, the story of Lot's incest is missing from the Quran, where Lot is regarded as a Prophet.

Originally Posted by Legate

Lot's wife was turned into that statue because she turned back even though the refugees were told not to do so.

Actually, she did not turn back; she merely looked back, possibly the first Entwife. And while this was prohibited by the angels who warned Lot, my comment was to point out the value system of the story. One may not even look upon destruction without incurring wrath, but one may engage in incest without being punished--or rather, having only the descendents punished, as Amon and Moab were to become the traditional enemies of the Isrealites. Readers may ask why or how that system exists-- why is it that a mere look or glance is circumscribed but a sexual act that had been prohibited is not punished. Of course Genesis is all about men's refusal to accept limitation, therebye putting in greater contrast the great climax of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son on God's demand. But one can also ask why no Ram appeared in a bush to save Jephthah's daughter. It is all well and good to say that offerring one's child, one's most prized possession, is a sign of faithfulness and virtue, but one can also ask how the offerring is distributed and what it means for a child to be a mere possession of a father.

Originally Posted by Legate

Well, here [referring to my comment about Babel] I would actually say that it definitely were not just males. Because even though a patriarchal society, the point of the story was that all the people wanted to be united by building the tower - and that would include even women, with no doubt, simply because of the logical point of the story.

Actually, the passage in Genesis 11.1-9 uses only the word 'men' or 'children of men' or 'they' (I'm using the King James Bible and the Oxford New Engish Bible; I don't have the Jerusalem Bible at hand to compare translations.) And the context of Genesis 11 names only males: Genesis 10 lists the generations of male children of Noah and Genesis 11:10-23 lists the generations of Shem, again, all male children. The only named children are first born sons. It is a cultural assumption to say that the word 'men' includes women and it can quite often be demonstrated (not just in the Bible but in many literary texts over the centuries) that women are really not represented in this word because they don't contribute to the significance of the context, in this case, the context being heredity. As Morthoron pointed out, Aragorn comes from an unbroken line of male heirs. (As the Supreme Court of Canada once decided, "persons" does not include women.)

Originally Posted by Legate

In any case, of all the comparisons of the tale mentioned here, I think the best comparison used was alatar's tower of Babel. Although I am pretty sure Tolkien did not intend it, so I disagree on that it would be retelling of it, but the point of the story seems to be the closest to what happened on Númenor: just as alatar said.

One of the really interesting things about this comparison to Babel is, I think, the absence of its linguistic consequence in Tolkien's work. His Legendarium has no mythological moment to explain or justify linguistic variation. Was this a case of his professional life influencing his creative life: the career philologist who devoted his time to the historical development of language could not imagine/write an episode which attributed language diversity to something other than historical change?

What this all rambling has to do with the drowning of Numenor, I'm not sure.