Harvard Divinity School

Nimrod before and after the Bible

Author(s): K. van der Toorn and P. W. van der Horst
Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 83, No. 1 (Jan., 1990), pp. 1-29
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509930 .
Accessed: 12/10/2013 11:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Harvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HTR 83:1 (1990) 1-29

NIMRODBEFOREAND AFTERTHEBIBLE

K. van der Toorn and P. W. van der Horst

RijksuniversiteitUtrecht

The biblical informationconcerningthe figure of Nimrod is scarce. Post-

biblical traditionhas added supplementarydetails that cannot be found in
the biblical text, howevermuch they may be presentedas resultsof exege-
sis of this text. This article first examines the biblical data about Nimrod
and sees whetherhe can be identifiedwith an extra-biblical,a pre-biblical,
prototype.Second, it investigatesthe ways in which the few biblical data
have given rise to post-biblicalhaggadicdevelopments.K. van der Toorn
has writtenthe first part of this essay, P. W. van der Horst the second.

THEBIBLE
NIMRODBEFORE

The principalpassage in which Nimrodis mentionedplaces him against

a Mesopotamianbackground.Thus we read, in Gen 10:8-12:

And Cush begat Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a hero. He

was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is saids "Like Nimrod
a mighty hunter before the Lord.ssThe beginning of his kingdom was
Babels Erechs and Akkads all of theml in the land of Shinar. From that
land he went forth to Assyrias and built Ninevehs that is the vast city
[Rehoboth-Ir] Calahs and Resen between Nineveh and Calahs which
is the great city.

The historical backdropof the figure of Nimrod is furnishedby an

enumeration of cities eitherdominatedor builtby him. Most of the toponyms
offer no problem to the interpreter:Babel (Akkadian:Babilu), Erech

IReadwekullandrinsteadof wekalneh,accordingto the emendationproposedby William

F. Albright,"TheEnd of 'Calnehin Shinar',"JNES 3 (1944) 254-55.

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2 HARVARD
THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW

(Akkadian:Uruk),and Akkadall lie in southernIraq,the heartlandof the

ancientNIesopotamian civilization. These three cities,-each with historical
roots well into the thirdmillenniumBCE, were partof what was known in
cuneiform texts as "the Land of Sumer and Akkad."The biblical text
informs the reader that the three cities, "all of them" according to an
emendationof the Hebrewtext supportedby an ancientSamaritaninterpre-
tations2were to be found in the "Landof Shinar."Other biblical texts
make it clear that Sin'ar is a designationof Babylonia,that is, southern
Mesopotamia.3
Some extra-biblicalequivalentsof Sin'arare EgyptianSngr4andthe name
Sanharor Sanharaused in Hittitedocumentss5in a letterfrom the king of
Alashiya(Cyprus)to the Pharaohof Egypt,6and in the Hurrianletterfrom
Tushratta.7Earlierdoubts about equatingSanhar(a)with Babylonia8have
lost their force; scholarsnow see that the name refers to a kingdomon a
par with Hittite AnatoliasEgypt, Hanigalbatsand Assyria.9The origin of
the name remainsa moot point. EarlierAssyriologistsbelieved it to be a
westernvariantof Sumer,the name given to southernMesopotamiaby its

2See J. A. Thompson, "Samaritan Evidence for 'All of them in the Land of Shinar' (Gen
10:10),"
JBL 90 (1971) 99-102.
3InGen 11:2 "the land of Shinar"is connected with Babylon. Genesis 14 mentions Amraphel
king of Shinar alongside other unknown rulers from territories such as Ellasar, Elam, and
Goiim. lQapGen 21.23 reads bbl instead of stn'r, indicating that Shinar had come to be a
synonym of Babylonia, the common designation for southern Mesopotamia in the second and
first millennia BCE. Josh 7:21 mentions a "mantle from Shinar" found by Achan among the
spoils of Canaanite Ai. The passage gives no clue about the localization of Shinar. Isa 11: 11,
on the other hand, mentions Shinar in a list of territories inhabited by exiled Jews. Shinar is
named between Elam and Hamath, and distinguished from Assyria, which brings us once
more to the Babylonian homeland. In the younger texts of Zech 5:11 and Dan 1:2, Shinar has
clearly become a designation for the Babylonian territory. This is confirmed by the LXX
version of Zech 5:11, where 'eres gin'dr has been translated en ge Babylonos.
4See R. Giveon, "Toponymes
.. Ouest-Asiatiques a Soleb," VT 14 (1964) 245; Wolfgang
Helck, Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (2d rev.
ed.; Agyptologische Abhandlungen 5; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1971) 278.
sSee Giuseppe F. del Monte and Johann Tischler, Die Orts- und Gewassernamen der
hethitischen Texte (Repertoire Geographique des Textes Cuneiformes 6; Wiesbaden: Reichert,
1978) 344.
6J. A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2; Leipzig: Hinrichs,
1915) no. 35:49.
7Knudzton, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, no. 24 iv 95.
8For a survey of opinions by O. Weber, see Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, 2. 1080-83; see also
Samuel A. B. Mercer, The Tell El-Amarna Tablets (Toronto: Macmillan, 1939) 1. 1998-99,
commentary on line 49.
9See nn. 5-7 and Hans G. Guterbock in E. Laroche, "Documents hieroglyphiques hittites
provenant du palais d'Ugarit," Ugaritica 3 (1956) 103 n. 3.

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 K. VAN DERTOORNmd P. W. VANDERHORST 3

third-millennium inhabitants.10This equationis beset with philologicaldif-

ficulties, however.1l
Accordingto the advocatesof the "in'4r=umer" hypothesis,the name
Sumeritself is a dialectalform of ki-en-gi(-r),l2the currentdesignationof
southernMesopotamiain Sumeriantexts. Assumingthat ki-en-gi(-r) is to
be interpretedas /Kengir/,one could arguethat the Sumerianphoneme/ng/
became a /m/ in the Akkadianvariantof the name, /nh/ in the Hittite and
el-Amarnadesignations,and/n'/ in the HebrewnameSin'ar.GeorgesDossin
called attentionto an analogous distributionof phonemes in connection
with the name of Canaan.Many scholarsthink that the region referredto
in Hebrew as kn'n occurs in texts from Mari, Byblos, Tyrus, Assyria,
Anatolia,and Babyloniaunderthe nameKinah(h)u.13 On the basis of a list
of toponyms, Dossin believes that the Sumeriandesignationfor Canaan
was Ki-en-gi-en,i.e., /Kengen/.l4While this seems to be evidence to sup-
port the change of /ng/ into /n'/, the developmentfrom /k/ to /§/ (/Kengir/
>/9umer/) remains unexplained.Anton Deimel offered parallels such as
French Chateau <Latin castellum, which although interestingcannot be
matchedby similarSumerianvocabularyexamples.lsBiblicalscholarscould
argue,however,thatthe changeof /k/ into /§/ occurredas early as the third
millenniumBCE, in the adaptationof the Sumerianname into its dialectical
variant,and is thereforea problemfor Sumerologiststo solve and of no
relevance to the question of whetherShinarderives from Shumer.

l°See, e.g., AntonDeimel, "SUMER= Sin'ar,"Bib 2 (1921) 71-74; A. Deimel, "Nimrod

(Gen 10:8-12)," Or 26 (1927) 76-80.
llFor a recentdiscussionof the variousproblemsinvolved, see R. Zadok,"TheOriginof
the Name Shinar,"ZA 74 (1984) 240-44.
See, e.g., Deimel, "SUMER,"72.
l3See ManfredWeippert,"Kanaan,"in D. O. Edward,ed., Reallexikonder Assyriologie
(7 vols.; Berlin/NewYork:de Gruyter,1932-1989)5.352. Theearliestmentionof "Canaanites"
(immediatelyprecededby the habbatum,"robber")occurs in a letter from Mari (A 3552),
publishedby GeorgesDossin, "Unementionde Canaaneensdans une lettre de Mari,"Syria
50 (1973) 277-82; cf. Jean-MarieDurand,"Villes fantomesde Syrie et autreslieux,"MARl:
Annalesde Rechercheslnterdisciplinaires5 (1987) 219-20. It is doubtfulwhetherkinahhu
or kinahnuis to be distinguishedfrom qinahhu,analysedby Benno Landsbergeras consist-
ing of the noun qina, "purple"(cf. Syr. qena' ), followed by the grammaticalelement -hh-
[Landsberger,"UberFarbenim Sumerisch-Akkadischen," JCS 21 (1967) 166-67]. Appar-
ently, purplewas traditionallyassociatedwith Canaan;it is unclearwhetherthe regiontook
its name from the produceor vice versa.
l4See Georges Dossin, "Kengen,Pays de Canaan,"RSO 32 (1957) 35-39; reprintedin
RecueilGeorgesDossin: Melangesd'Assyriologie(1934-1959) (AkkadicaSuppl.1; Leuven:
Peeters, 1983) 85-89.
lsSee Deimel, "SUMER,"74.

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
4 HARVARD
THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW

Nearly all the above argumentsare open to criticism. It is not certain

at all that ki-en-gi(-r)is to be understoodas /Kengir/. The name appears
to be constructedon the model of ki- lagaNa(-ki). Consequentlysthe
philologicalconnectionbetweenSumerumand ki-en-gi(-r)is far from clear.
PerhapsSumerumis an autonomousAkkadiandesignationfor southern
Babylonia.l6The parallel with the term Canaan,adducedby Dossin, also
does not hold, since the alleged referenceto Canaanin the Sumerianlist
of toponymsis based on a misinterpretation of the evidence. The country
of ki-en-gi(-en)is mentionedin the Nippurforerunnerto the lexical series
HAR-ra=hubullu.Comparisonwith HAR-ra=hubulluXXI section 9:27'
shows that it refers to Sumer.17
In the light of these observations,it is uncertainwhetherSin'ar derives
from Sumer.In spite of the linguistic difficulties, however, the two must
in some way be connected.In all likelihoodthe name is of a pre-Sumerian
origin,which adds to the complexityof the problem.Ran Zadok'sproposed
solution, namely, that the Hebrewdesignationand its various equivalents
go back to the name of one of the Kassite tribes, the Samharites,l8is not
very attractiveeither. It is hardlyconceivablethat so minor a tribe would
lend its name to an entire region. Furthermore,the objectionthat in view
of EgyptianSngr the /'/ of HebrewSin'ar reflects /g/, which leads one to
posit *angar as the forerunnerof Sin'ar, is not a final blow to the hy-
potheticalderivationof Sin'ar fromthe antecedentof Sumer.19For the time
being, the problem must remain unresolved.Whateverbe the linguistic
antecedentsof Shinar,however, there can be no doubt that in Gen 10:10
the term refers to southernMesopotamia.
Althoughthe toponymsof Gen 10:10 pose no majorproblemof iden-
tification,some of the geographicaldesignationsof Gen 10:11-12 are still
somewhatof a crux interpretum.From southernMesopotamia(Babylonia)
the scene of interestshifts to the north,to the Assyrianhomeland.Nineveh
(modernKuyunjik)and Calah(Assyrian:Kalhu,modernNimrud)are well-
known cities that flourishedunder the neo-Assyrianempire. Rehoboth-Ir
and Resen, however, have not yet been convincingly identified with any
neo-Assyriancities in the cuneiformrecords.Since Nineveh and Kalhudid

16Claus Wilcke, "Zum Konigtum in der Ur-III Zeit," in P. Garelli, ed., Le Palais et la
Royaute: XlXe Rencontre Assyriologique lnternationale (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1974) 229-30
[Reference courtesy K. R. Veenhof, Leiden].
17EricaReiner, The Series HAR-ra = hubullu Tablets XX-XXIV (Materials for the Sumerian
Lexicon 11; Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1974) 105:314 and 18:27'.
This is the solution of Zadok, "The Origin of the Name Shinar."
9Pace Zadok, "Origin of the Name Shinar," 241.

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 K. VAN DERTOORNandP. W. VAN DERHORST s

not become cities of internationalreputeuntil the time of the neo-Assyrian

rulers, one would expect Rehoboth-Irand Resen to refer to other great
neo-Assyrian centers, such as Dur-Sharrukin(modern Chorsabad).The
Hebrewnames in the Masoretictext, however,cannotbe harmonizedwith
the expected Assyriantoponyms.
Reluctantto pronouncea verdict of non liquet, both Assyriologistsand
Biblicists have endeavoredto solve the riddle of Rehoboth-Irand Resen.
Dossin tried to show that they were cryptonymsfor the city of Assur.20
The evidence he adduces,however,is insufficient;his suggestionhas won
no adherents.E. Lipinski proposes to understandRehoboth-Irliterally as
"city squares."He connectsthe expressionwith the subsequentmentionof
Nineveh and translates:"he built Nineveh with city squares.''2lGram-
maticallythis solution is unattractive,but the idea that Rehoboth-Iris not
the name of an unknowncity but qualifiesNineveh, mentionedjust before,
should be seriously considered.In 1983, Jack M. Sasson, following this
track, arguedthat rkbt 'yr means "the broadestcity." It would have been
inserted by the authorto stress the magnitudeof Nineveh, just as ha'?r
haggGdolain vs 12 underscoresthe greatnessof Calah.22Assumingthat'?r
is a collective singular,one shouldperhapsvocalize rkbt'yr as rakd;bat'?r,
which would lead one to translate"the broadestof cities," that is, "a most
vast city." Isa 29:19 and Isa 35:9 could be adducedas analogousconstruc-
tions.23When we translatethe phraseas "andhe built Nineveh, which is
a most vast city," we have a statementthat agrees with the traditional
image of Nineveh in the Bible (cf. Jonah 3:3; 4:11).
If we accept the lattersolutionfor the otherwiseinexplicableRehoboth-
Ir, we are still left with the problematictoponymResen. It would not do
to say that the term means "bridle"and is a symbolic name. Nor is the
identificationwith the village Resh-eni,mentionedby Sennacheribin con-
nection with his work to supplyNineveh with water,24very plausible.The

20Georges Dossin, "Le site de Rehobot-'Ir et de Resen," Museon47 (1934) 107-21. The
article has been re-issued in idem, Recueil Georges Dossin, 70-84.
2IE. Lipixiski, "Nimrod et Assur," RB 73 (1966) 84-85. The interpretation of reh.obo^t-'Ir
as "city squares" goes back, in fact, to E. Dhorme's translation in the Bible de la Pleiade
(Paris: Gallimard, 1956).
22Jack M. Sasson, "Reh.ovot 'Zr,"RB 90 (1983) 94-96.
23See GKB § 132c 2; P. Jouon, Grammairede l'hebreubiblique(Rome: Institut biblique
pontifical, 1923) § 141d. The expression 'z mlkin Ps 99:4 might be another instance of this
construction, if it is indeed to be translated as "the mightiest king."
24Henry C. Rawlinson and George Smith, TheCuneiformlnscriptionsof WesternAsia (4
vols.; London: Bowler, 1870) 3. no. 14:9. For a transcription and translation of the pertinent
text, see Daniel D. Luckenbill, TheAnnalsof Sennacherib(Oriental Institute Publications 2;
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924) 79:9.

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
6 HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW

location of the latter village would fit with the rest of the text, but the
village in questioncan hardlyhave been knownoutsideAssyria.Insteadof
Resen the LXX readsDasen. This can be explainedby assuminga scribal
errordue to the similaritybetween daleth and resh in the Hebrew script.
ShouldResen be a corruptionof Desen, however,one might envisage the
possibility that the name refers to Dur-Sharrukin, the administrativecity
foundedby SargonII, halfway between Nineveh and Kalhu to the north.
Yet this is hardlymore than a strainedguess. For the time being, it seems
wisest to confess our ignoranceas to the identificationof Resen.
Despite the toponymicaldifficulties adumbratedabove, therecan be no
doubt that Gen 10:8-12 situatesNimrodin Mesopotamia,with his sphere
of influence based in the south (Babylonia) and later extending to the
north (Assyria). If Nimrod belongs to the Mesopotamianworld, as it is
generallyadmitted,why did the authorof Gen 10:8-12 link him up with
Cush as his ancestor?In the Bible, Cush is currentlyused as the eponym
of an Africanpeople living in southernEgypt. There have been attempts
to circumventthe difficultyby assumingthat Cush refers here to a differ-
ent region.Around1500 BCE, Babyloniayielded to the rule of the Kassites,
a non-Semiticpeople whose origins are obscure. Various scholars have
venturedthe suggestionthat Cush in Gen 10:8 refers to this people.25P.
T. Englishproposesto identifyCush with Kash(ta),a region in Asia Minor
northeastof the Hittite kingdom.26
A differentiationbetweenthe Cush mentionedin Gen 10:6-7 and Cush,
ancestorof Nimrod,referredto in Gen 10:8, is hardlyconvincing, how-
ever. Despite occasional attempts to identify Nimrod with an Egyptian
king27or a Libyan hero,28the Mesopotamiancharacterof Nimrod is be-
yond dispute. Unless one decides that here "Cush"is due to a scribal
error,29one must look for a commondenominatorfor Cush and Babylonia
that is neitherethnic nor geographical.Recently, B. Oded made the sug-
gestion that "only by socio-economic and socio-culturalcriteriacould a
scribe combine in one setting the kingdom of Babylonia and the great

25E. Speiser, "In Search of Nimrod," Eretz-lsrael 5 (FS. B. Mazar; Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society and the Hebrew University, 1958) 32*; Lipinski, "Nimrod et Assur,"
80-81.
26p. T. English, "Cushites, Colchians and Khazars," JNES 18 (1959) 50.
27KurtSethe, "Heroes and Hero-Gods (Egyptian)," ERE 6 (1913) 650a.
28E. Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstamme (Halle an der Saale, 1906; reprint
Tubingen: Max Niemeyer, 1967) 448.
29Thus., e.g., M. Naor, "'And Cush Begot Nimrod' (Gen 10:8)," Beth Mikra 100 (1948)
41-47 [Hebrew]. Naor proposes to read "Put" instead of "Cush" (pp. 46-47).

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 K. VANDERTOORNandP. W. VAN DERHORST 7

cities of Mesopotamiain the northwith Egypt and Cush in the south."For

the Israelites,Odedargues,Egyptand Mesopotamiarepresented"thesettled
and organizedbranchof civilization, in contrastto the nomads and their
tribalconfederations."30 This solutionpreservesthe integrityof the biblical
passage and seems preferableto the tentativeidentificationsof Cush with
a region other than that of southernEgypt or Ethiopia.
Since Nimrodis a Mesopotamianfigurewhose fame exceededthe bounds
of his homeland, one expects to find him mentioned in the cuneiform
records.Ever since the archaeologicaldiscoveries of the last centuryand
the deciphermentof the cuneiformscript, scholarshave attemptedto spot
the Mesopotamianprototypeof the biblical Nimrod. The identifications
they advancedependin parton theirappreciationof the biblicaldata.Does
Gen 10:8-12 describeNimrodas a god, a demigod,or as a sundrymortal?
Those who hold that the prototypeof Nimrodmust be soughtamongthe
historicalheroes of Mesopotamiastress that Nimrod'sactivities, according
to the account of Gen 10:8-12, were strictly mundane.His achievements
might have been extraordinary; they were not of themselvessupernatural.
Startingfrom the assumptionthat Nimrod was a mortal, scholars have
suggested a variety of prototypes,the most appealing of which is the
Assyrianking Tukulti-Ninurta I (1243-1207).3l Apartfrom the minor dif-
ficulty that the first part of his name would obviously have been dropped,
the historicalrange of the dominionascribedto Nimroddoes not fit this
ruler. Though his political influence embracedBabylonia, it cannot be
maintainedthat Babylon, Uruk, and Akkad were "the beginning of his
kingdom."Also, the cities mentionedin Gen 10:9-12 are given in a more
or less chronologicalsequence. The list reads as a condensedresume of
Mesopotamianhistory. Akkad, though still in use as a cult-centerin the
first millennium,32 had its floruitunderthe Sargonicdynasty.Kalhuhad its
heyday in the first half of the first millenniumBCE, some fifteen hundred
years later. If Nimrodis not a god, he must at least have enjoyed a divine
longevity, his reign embracingboth cities.
Aware of the problemscreatedby the identificationof Nimrodwith a
particularhuman individual,yet convinced that Nimrod could not have
been a god, Sh. Abramskihas suggested that Nimrodpersonifiesthe his-

30B. Oded, "The Table of Nations (Genesis 10)-A Socio-Cultural Approach," ZAW 98
(1986)14-31,esp. 28.
3ISpeiser, "In Search of Nimrod," 32*-36*.
32SeeG. J. P. McEwan, "Agade after the Gutian Destruction: the Afterlife of a Mesopotamian
City," in H. Hirsch, ed., Vortrage gehalten auf der 28. Rencontre Assyriologique lnternationale
in Wien. 6-10. Juli 1981 (AfO Beiheft 19; Horn: F. Berger, 1982)8-1S.

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8 HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW

tory of the Mesopotamianmonarchy.The stress on his building activities

in Assyria can be explainedin the light of the Assyrianhegemonyat the
time of the redactionof Genesis 10.33 Judgingby the contextof Gen 10:8-
12, the interpretationof Nimrod as a symbol of Mesopotamianpolitical
leadershipmay well correspondto the intentionof the redactor.34Yet this
leaves the question as to the Mesopotamiannamesakeof Nimrod unan-
swered.Even if the name Nimrod,meaning"we shall revolt,"is an inten-
tional distortion,it must be connectedin some way with a specific figure
from Mesopotamia'sculturalheritage.Also, the details of Nimrod'shunt-
ing careerwould seem to be too specific to be takenas a characteristicof
Mesopotamianrulersin general.The Israeliteauthormay have adaptedhis
materialto serve his particularpurpose.Yet, what is the traditionthat is
incorporatedhere and critically reflected upon?
Althoughit must be grantedthat the biblical authoravoids any impli-
cations of Nimrod'sdivinity, his portrayalof the Mesopotamianhero sug-
gests thatthe latterwas more thana merehuman(becauseof the time-span
of his career),yet with a well-circumscribed individuality(a mightyhunter,
ruler, and builderof cities). This hardlyallows any other conclusionthan
that the prototypeof Nimrodmust have been a god. The emphaticpreci-
sion that Nimrodwas a mighty hunter"beforethe Lord"(Gen 10:9) could
be due to the author'scensorshipof the Mesopotamianmaterialhe worked
with. What we have in Gen 10:8-12 are the vestiges of Mesopotamian
mythologicalmotifs purposefullyreworkedto make them acceptablefor an
Israelitebeliever.The fact that,in our eyes, huntingand buildingare purely
humanexploits does not invalidatethe hypothesisthat Nimrodis modeled
after a Mesopotamiandeity. On the contrary,some Mesopotamiangods
were credited with capturingand killing mythical animals and founding
local centers of civilization.
The opinionthatNimrodgoes back to a Mesopotamiandeity is not new.
As early as 1871, J. Grivel suggestedthat Nimrodis to be identifiedwith
Marduk(biblical Merodachor Bel).3s Unwittingly,he thus revived an an-
cient haggadic speculationin which Nimrod is identified with Belus.36

33Sh. Abramski, "Nimrod and the Land Nimrod," Beth Mikra 82 (1980) 237-55; 83 (1980)
321-40 [Hebrew].
34Such is also the opinion of Claus Westermann, Genesis (BKAT 1/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1974) 687.
35J.Grivel, "Nemrod et les ecritures cuneiformes," Transactions of the Society of Biblical
Archaeology 3 (1874) 136-44. On p. 136 Grivel refers to the appendix of an article entitled
"Le plus ancien Dictionnaire" that he wrote for the Revue de la Suisse catholique (August
1871) in which he first made his suggestion.
36See the second part of this paper and n. 70.

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 K. VAN DERTOORNandP. W. VANDERHORST 9

This identification,thoughrejectedby many,was given a new lease on life

in 1966 by E. Lipinski.37One of the principalargumentsin its favor is the
role of Mardukin the Babylonianmyth of creationEnumaeliC,"whenon
high."38In this compositionMardukfigures as the championof the gods.
He is the "valianthero" (IV 70,126) who, with his bow and arrow, his
club andhis net (IV 3541), has capturedandkilled the monstersof Tiamat's
army.In returnfor his heroic exploits he is proclaimedleaderof the gods,
king of the universe (IV 14; V 88ff.). One of the first acts Mardukper-
forms afterhis triumphis the constructionof Babylon(V 129ff.; VI 37ff.).
In Babylonianiconography,Mardukis frequentlydepicted as a warrior
standingon a muChuPCu, a monsterwith the body of a lion, the neck and
head of a snake, and the hind legs of an eagle.39
AlthoughMardukfits the descriptionof Nimrodas a mighty hunter,a
ruler, and a builder of cities, the proposed identificationmeets two ob-
stacles. From a philological point of view, one is unable to see how the
name Mardukcould become Nimrodin the HebrewBible. This difficulty
is all the more pressingsince Mardukdoes occur in the Hebrewscriptures
as Merodachor Bel. Lipinskitries to refutethis objectionby assumingthat
Nimrod is a tiqqfinsopGrim:confrontedwith the name Marduk,the He-
brew scribes would have deleted the final kaph,while they prefixeda nun,
so as to obtain Nimrod, "we shall revolt."40Thoughone may admirethe
ingenuityof this solution,it does not carryconviction.An attendantproblem
is the synonymousparallelismbetween"theland of Assyria"and "theland
of Nimrod"in Mic 5:5[6]. It is true that Sennacheribintroducedthe cult
of Mardukin Assyria, but he did not succeed in turningthe god into an
Assyrian deity. Marduknever became an emblem of Assyria's political
power, as was the case with the god Ashurand, to a lesser extent, the god
Ninurta.
Althoughthe identificationof Mardukas the prototypeof Nimrodmust
be abandoned,it does contain a parcel of truth and points the way to a

37Lipidski,"Nimrodet Assur,"77-93.
38Theprovisionalcuneiformeditionof this text has been publishedby W. G. Lambertand
Simon B. Parker,Enuma eli§. The Babylonian Epic of Creation: The Cuneiform Text (Ox-
ford: Clarendon,1966). The widely used translationby AlexanderHeidel (The Babylonian
Genesis [Chicago/London:The Universityof Chicago Press, 1942; reprintedPhoenix Edi-
tion, 1963l) has to be correctedand supplementedby the aforementionedcuneiformedition.
39SeeW.G. Lambert,"TheHistoryof them u s-h u s in AncientMesopotamia," Ph.Borgeaud,
Y. Christe, and I. Urio, eds., L' animal, I'homme et le dieu dans le Proche-Orient ancien
(Leuven:Peeters, 1984) 87-94.
40Lipidski,"Nimrodet Assur,"78.

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW
10

more satisfyingsolutionto the problem.We

have seen that Mardukcould
be adducedas the model for Nimrodon
accountof his role in Enuma eliC.
Yet the motif of a mythologicalbattle
between a heroic god and an army
of monsterswas not invented by the
authorof the Babyloniancreation
myth. On the contrary,in the literaryhistory
of Mesopotamiathe topos of
the divine combat occurs as early as
the third millennium BCE. In a
numberof these compositionsit is the god
Ninurtawho is the monster-
slayer. When this role is conferred upon
Mardukin Enuma elit, the
mythologicalfeats traditionallyascribed to Ninurta
mentsof the city god of Babylon.This become accomplish-
is a piece of religio-politicalpropaganda.reinterpretationof an ancienttheme
By turningMardukinto a Ninurta
redivivus,the Babyloniantheologiansunderscored
the preeminenceof their
god,whose triumphhad to match the
leading position of their city.41
The oldest myth known to us in which
Ninurtaacts as a divine warrior
isa Sumeriancompositioncustomarily
referredto as LUGAL-E, according
tothe first word of its opening line,
"The king (a storm whose radiance
isprincely)."42In the introductory
paean, Ninurtais said to be a "hero
stridingfiercelyinto battle"(line 4). The battleis with
inAkkadian),an enemy bornof the union Azag (called Asakku
betweenheavenand earth(lines
26-27).Apartfrom Azag, the myth lists other
has"killed in the mountain"(lines adversarieswhom Ninurta
129-34). The AkkadianMyth of Anzd
describes Ninurta'striumphover Anzu, a giant bird that
appearance may have had the
of a bat or an eagle.43Othertexts
sters enumerate still other mon-
defeatedby Ninurta.44Among the slain enemies
estgroupconsists of mythicalanimals, of Ninurta, the larg-
such as the lion, the seven-headed
serpent,the six-headedboar, the bison, the
buffalo. seven-headedhound, and the
In his edition of LUGAL-E, J. van Dijk
has pointedout the strik-

41See W. G. Lambert, "Ninurta

Mythology in the Babylonian Epic of
Hecker
and W. Sommerfeld, eds., Creation," in K.
Keilschriftliche Literaturen. Ausgewdhlte Vortrage
Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale (Berlin: Dietrich der 32.
42The text has been edited by J. van Reimer, 1986) 55-61.
Dijk, LUGAL UD ME-LAM-bi NIR-(AL
epique
et didactique des Travaux de Ninurta, Le recit
du Deluge et de la Nouvelle Creation
Leiden:
Brill, 1983). See also the translation by (2 vols.;
Thorkild Jacobsen, The larps That Once...
Sumerian
Poetry in Translation (New
Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1987)
43Forthe Myth of Anzu see M. E. 233-72.
Vogelzang, Bin Car dadme. Edition and
Akkadian
Anzu Poem (Groningen: Styx, 1988) and Analysis of the
H. W. F. Saggs, "Additions to Anzu,"
33
(1986 [19881) 1-29. For a discussion of AfO
the appearance of Anzu see William
and
W. L. Moran, "The First Tablet of the W. Hallo
SB Recension of the Anzu-Myth," JCS
70 31 (1979)
44Fora survey, see Jerrold S. Cooper,
The Return of Ninurta to Nippur (AnOr
Pontificium
Institutum Biblicum, 1978) 141-54. 52; Rome:

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 K. VAN DER TOORN and P. W. VAN DER HORST ll

ing analogy between these feats of Ninurtaand the works of Hercules.4s

Consideringthe parallels,it is likely that the Mesopotamianand the Greek
mythographersdrew their materialfrom the same (prehistoric)source.
Judging by the mythologicalexploits of Ninurta,then, there is every
reasonto call him a "mightyhunter."By virtueof his mythologicalcareer,
Ninurtabecame the patronof hunters.The neo-Assyriankings, who liked
to boast of their huntingprowess, refer to him as their source of inspira-
tion. Thus Tiglath-PileserI writesthathe went huntingfor bulls, elephants,
lions, and birds "at the commandof Ninurtawho loves me."46The god's
role as a hunter has been corroboratedby his association with the star
called "arrow"(SumerianKAK.SI.SA,AkkadianPukudu),i.e., Sirius.47The
identificationof Ninurta with Sirius, the principal star of Canis maior
(referredto as "Bow" by the Mesopotamians),may have facilitated the
identificationof Nimrod with Orion in late antiquity.48In Greek mythol-
ogy, Sirius is known as the dog of Orion, a legendarygiant and hunter.
Though in Mesopotamianastrology Orion (called Sipazianna,"faithful-
shepherd-of-heaven") is takenas the celestialimage of Dumuzi(Tammuz),49
a conflationof traditionscould have resultedin the idea that Orioninstead
of Sirius was the heavenly counterpartof Ninurta/Nimrod.In this connec-
tion it is interestingto note that in Syriac Orionis namedgabbar, "hero."
It would be mistaken,however, to limit the exploits of Ninurtato the
realm of hunting.Just as Marduk'sdefeat of Tiamatin Enuma eliC paves
the way for his acts of creation,so Ninurta'skilling of Azag in LUGAL-
E is followed by his organizationof Sumer's water-economy.After his
slaying of Azag, Ninurtareportedlyconstructeddikes aroundthe cities and
conductedthe waters into the beddingof the Tigris. "He made the fields
bear mottledbarley,made the orchardirrigationbeds bear fruit at harvest,

45Van Dijk, LUGAL UD ME-LAM-bi NIR-GAL, 17-18.

46Ernest Alfred Wallis Budge and Leonard W. King, Annals of the Kings of Assyria
(London: Luzac, 1902) 84:vi 61-87:vi 84.
47See Leonard W. King, Babylonian Magic and Sorcery (London: Luzac, 1896) no.50:29
["you are Sirius, (that is) Ninurta, the first among the great gods"]; E. Burrows, "Hymn to
Ninurta as Sirius (K128)," Centenary Supplement to the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
(London, 1924) Pl. II, vss 8 and 12 ["(Ninurta) indefatigable arrow that [slays?] all the
enemies. . . whose name in heaven is Arrow"];Erich Ebeling, Keilschrifttexteaus Assur religiosen
Inhalts, vol. 1 (Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 28;
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1919) no 76:14 [ //O. R. Gurney, The Sultantepe Tablets II (London: The
British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1964) nos. 214-17 i 65], no. 83 i 4.
48See B. Jacob, Das erste Buch der Tora: Genesis (Berlin: Schocken, 1934) 283. See also
n. 96.
49Alasdair Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and
Babylonian Scholars (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986) 154.

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
12 HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW

heapedup grainpiles; high over the (surrounding)

countrythe lord (Ninurta)
piled them up (on) the harborquays."50Ninurta'sacts of heroism are a
prelude to his role as the founderof Mesopotamiancivilization. To the
Sumerians,agriculturewas the basis of all humancivilization. As the one
who created the conditions for farming and who taught the appropriate
techniques,Ninurtagoes by the traditionalepithet of "the good farmer."
The SumerianGeorgica, a collection of instructionsfor farmers,is placed
underhis authority.51On boundarystones, the plough is used as his sym-
bol.52
According to the theology of Nippur, Ninurtanot only stands at the
beginningof agriculture,he detains all the MEs, the powers of civilized
life. At the dawn of Sumeriansociety, our sources tell us, Ninurtamade
a journeyto Eridu,the city of the god Enki. Therethe gods conferredupon
him the supremeauthority.He was entrustedwith the leadershipof the
gods, that all the universemightbe underhis command.53 The composition
Angimdimmarelateshis triumphantreturnfrom Eriduto Nippur,once the
gods had proclaimed him king. There he is received in his temple
Eshumesha,from where he is to exercise kingship unto the ends of the
universe.54 Dominionover the establishedorderis also the rewardof Ninurta
for his slaying of Anzu, accordingto a recentlydiscoveredtext belonging
to the Myth of Anzu.55An Assyriancommentaryfrom the first millennium
BCE describes how the god, after his triumphover the giant bird, was
invested with the paraphernaliaof kingship by his fathers.56
In severalrespects,then, Ninurtafits the descriptionof Nimrodgiven in
Gen 10:8-12. The literarytraditionof Mesopotamiamakes Ninurtaindeed
"the first on earth to be a hero."His heroismmanifesteditself mainly in

5°LUGAL-E,11. 353-65. For the last lines I have followed the translation of Jacobsen
(TheHarps ThatOnce. . ., 253).
51See Claus Wilcke, "Philologische Bemerkungen zum Ratdes Suruppagund Versuch einer
neuen Ubersetzung," ZA 68 (1978) 231-32. For Ninurta as a god of agriculture, see also
Adam Falkenstein, SumerischeGotterlieder(Heidelberg: Winter, 1959) 1. 83:iii 22.
52U. Seidl, "Die babylonischen Kudurru-Reliefs," BaghdaderMitteilungen4 (1968) 125-
28.
s3D. Reisman, "Ninurta's Journey to Eridu," JCS 24 (1973) 3-10. See also Falkenstein,
SumerischeGotterlieder,84; Ake W. Sjoberg et al., TheCollectionof the SumerianTemple
Hymns(Texts from Cuneiform Sources 3; Locust Valley: Augustin, 1969) 136:463; Cooper,
The Returnof Ninurta,58:9-14.
s4The text has been edited by Cooper, TheReturnof Ninurta.
s5H. W. F. Saggs, "Additions to Anzu," AfO 33 (1986 [1988]) 25:120-24.
56Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works 124: VAT 8917; cf.
Livingstone's commentary on p. 146.

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 K. VAN DER TOORN and P. W. VAN DER HORST 13

his exploits as a formidablehunter(a gibbor sayid) of mythical animals.

Also the dominion(mamlak8)ascribedto Nimrodhas its equivalentin the
career of Ninurta.The only thing to distinguishNimrod from Ninurtais
the former'sreputationas a builderof (Assyrian)cities. The importanceof
this discrepancy,however, should not be overestimated.In cuneiformlit-
erature,Ninurtais celebratedas the founderof the Mesopotamianciviliza-
tion. Thoughthe texts at our disposal do not say that he built cities, they
imply that he laid the foundationsof all civilized life and thus createdthe
conditionsunderwhich humansettlementscould prosper.In LUGAL-E,it
is statedexplicitly that Ninurtatook measuresto protectall the cities from
futureinundation(lines 349-55). Thus, while strictlyspeakingNinurtawas
not a builder of cities, his beneficial activities embracedthe urbancivi-
lization as well.
The identificationof Nimrod with Ninurtacan be corroboratedby an
analysisof the toponymsmentionedin Gen 10:8-12. The sequenceof city
names roughly reflects the political history of Mesopotamia.Before the
second half of the second millenniumBCE, political and culturalhegemony
was concentratedin southernMesopotamia.By Middle-Assyriantimes,
Assyria had gained military and political ascendancy;this situationpre-
sumablystill obtainedwhen Gen 10:8-12 was written.The historicalshift
of the political center from the south to the north correspondswith the
gradual propagationof the cult of Ninurta. Under the first dynasty of
Akkad (ca. 2330-2150), Ninurtadeveloped from a local deity of minor
importanceinto a warriorgod equal in rankwith An, Enlil, and Enki. The
fusion of Ninurtaand Ningirsu, the warlike god of Lagash, favored the
introductionof his cult in the cities of southernMesopotamiaother than
Nippur,his traditionalhome.57One of the cities to have dedicateda temple
to Ninurtaat the beginningof the second millenniumBCE was Babylon.58
Around 1200 BCE, however, the focus of the cult of Ninurtawas moving
to Assyria.FromBabylonia,the god "wentforth to Assyria"(Gen 10:11).
This move is reflected by Tukulti-NinurtaI, the first Assyrian king to
invoke the deity in his throne-name.
In this connection it can hardly be fortuitousthat the biblical author
chose to mentionKalhu.This city was the principalcenterof the Assyrian
cult of Ninurta.59If Resen (LXX: Dasen) should turn out to refer to Dur-

57See William W. Hallo, "Review of 'The Return of Ninurta to Nippur' by Jerrold S.

Cooper," JAOS 101 ( 1981 ) 253-55 .
58See E. Unger, "Babylon," in Erich Ebeling and B. Meissner, eds., Reallexikon der
Assyriologie (7 vols. to date.; Berlin/Leipzig: de Gruyter, 1932-) 1. 361-62: § 120.
59 See Brigitte Menzel, Assyrische Tempel (2 vols.; Studia Pohl Series Maior 10/1; Rome:
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1981) 1. 94.

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
14 HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW

Sharrukin,the choice of the name may have been determinedby a similar

motive, since the lattercity also possessed a temple of Ninurta.60In what
first seems to be a ratherarbitrarylist of Mesopotamiantoponyms,then,
one discovers an attemptto trace the historicaldevelopmentof the cult of
Ninurta.Originatingfrom the south, the god came to be a typical Assyrian
deity, which is why Mic 5:5[6] could use "the land of Nimrod"as a
synonymfor "the land of Assyria."
In view of the above evidence, it is not surprisingthat many scholars
have identifiedNimrodwith Ninurta.6lIt should not be ignored,however,
that the philologicalrelationshipbetweenthe two namesis still unclear.In
Emesal, a dialectal variantof Sumerian,Ninurtais called Umunurta.62 In
Aramaictexts from the first millenniumBCE, his name appearsas 'nrt or
'nwCt.63 Some Late-Babylonian anthroponyms referto the deity as nurti,urti,
or urtu.64None of these forms can be consideredthe immediateprecursor
of the Hebrewform nmrd.Assumingthat nimrodis not a deliberatedis-
tortionof the Mesopotamianname, one would have to posit a form Fnwrt
as its substratum.It shouldbe rememberedthat the cuneiformsign read as
urta also has the value of urat, which points to an underlyingform Furat.
One could conceive of the developmentFnwrt>*nmrt>nmrd.In the present
state of our knowledge, such reconstructionsare of necessity speculative.
An attendantcomplicationof the problemis the name Nisrok in 2 Kgs
19:37 // Isa 37:38 (LXX: Neserach, variantsEsdrach,Esthrach,Asrach),
which can hardlyrefer to any otherthanthe god Ninurta.These philologi-
cal difficulties, still insolvable, cannot be used as a decisive argument
against the identificationof Nimrod with Ninurta.A systematicstudy of
biblical names of Mesopotamianorigin constantlyencountersthese types
of problems.Though we have no philological evidence for the develop-
ment of Ninurtainto Nimrod, we have the cold consolationthat all the
other alleged Mesopotamianprototypesof Nimrod are as problematic,if
not far unlikelier,from a philological point of view.
Despitethesedifficulties,the evaluationof the availableevidencestrongly
suggests thatthe biblicalNimrodwas modeledafterthe Mesopotamiangod

60Menzel, Assyrische Tempel, 1. 83.

6lSee, e.g., W. G. Lambert, "A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis," JTS
16 (1965) 298-99 n. 2.
62See Ake W. Sjoberg, "Miscellaneous Sumerian Texts, III," JCS 34 (1982) 62-80, esp.
71 ad 1.18.
63Jonas C. Greenfield, "Three Notes on the Sefire Inscription," JSS 11 (1966) 100-103;
R. Zadok, "Babylonian Notes," BO 38 (1981) 548.
64Zadok, "Babylonian Notes," 548.

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 K. VAN DER TOORN and P. W. VAN DER HORST 15

Ninurta.Within the context of Genesis 10, the use of Mesopotamianma-

terial by the biblical authordoes not come as a surprise.It has long been
known that many elements in the first eleven chaptersof Genesis have a
Babylonian background. The creation as a series of separations, the
fashioningof humankind,the divine repose, the assumptionof Enoch, the
antediluvianheroes, the deluge, the Babel of tongues they are all motives
the Israelitescould have borrowedfrom the Babylonians.65 Nimrod,too, is
of Mesopotamianorigin. Apparently,the biblical authorwas familiarwith
the "biography"of Ninurta:transformedinto a humanbeing, he was given
a place in the account of Israel's prehistoryas the first "mightyhunter
before the Lord."
Since Abram,too, is said to have come from southernMesopotamia,the
legendarytale of his confrontationwith Nimrodhas a specific raisond'etre.
Nimrod (Ninurta)is the archetypeof the Babyloniandeity, a symbol of
Mesopotamiancivilization. Prior to his covenant with the God of Israel,
Abramhad to triumphover the religious powers of his native soil. Also,
the position of the legend,just after Gen 11:28, is significant.It marksthe
transitionfrom the primevalhistory in Mesopotamia,the cradle of civili-
zation, to the wanderingsof the patriarchdeep down into the Promised
Land.
A last observationconcerningthe Mesopotamianprototypeof Nimrod:
Abramwas not the first to defeat him. Althoughthe cuneiformtradition
usually picturesNinurtain a heroic role, there is one Sumeriancomposi-
tion in which the god is worsted.66The myth, dubbedNinurta'sPride and
Punishmentby SamuelN. Kramer,relateshow Ninurtamade hostile plans
against Enki. When Enki realized that Ninurtameant to do him serious
injury,he fashionedthe turtleout of clay. The turtle attackedNinurtabut
was unable to chase him away. Enki then had the turtle dig a pit into
which he threwNinurtaalongsidethe turtle.Thus Ninurtawas turnedinto
an object of derision: the monster-slayerwas confined to a pit out of
which neitherhe nor the turtlecould escape. Since only a fragmentof the
myth has been preserved,one may surmise that Ninurtawas eventually
rescuedfrom his embarrassingposition. Yet the tenorof the text is clearly

65See Lambert, "New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis," 285-300; Samuel
N. Kramer, "The 'Babel of Tongues': A Sumerian Version," JAOS 88 (1968) 108-11; Rykle
Borger, "Die Beschworungsserie Bl t Meseri und der Himmelfahrt Henochs," JNES 33 (1974)
183-96; R. A. Oden, Jr., "Divine Aspirations in Atrahasis and in Genesis 1-11," ZAW93 (1981)
197-216. These studies are but a small sample of the available literature.
66B. Alster, "'Ninurta and the Turtle,' UET 6/1 2," JCS 24 (1972) 120-25; Samuel N.
Kramer, "Ninurta's Pride and Punishment," Aula Orientalis 2 (1984) 231-37.

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
16
ironic: in the eyes of the
author
circumstancesin which he is as Ninurtahas limited powers. There are
Ninurta as a braggart helpless as a
differs completely fromturtle.67This exposure of
conflict with Nimrod.Still, the
the message that both tales have a similar account of Abram's
be. Nimrod/Ninurta is not the superiorpurpose:they convey
deity he pretendedto
NIMROD
AFTERTHE BIBLE

We do not know
exactly when post-biblical
matichunterbegan to
develop. Unfortunately,speculation aboutthe enig-
the first piece of
evidenceto be discussed is haggadic
rather
mentioned in it, and whetheror uncertainsince Nimrod's name is not
sial.
In one of the not he is implied there
fragmentsof is very controver-
weread the following: Pseudo-Eupolemus, in fact, an
"Abrahamtraced his family adespoton,68
these
giants were living in to the giants. While
becauseof their wickedness.Babylonia,they were destroyedby the gods
dwell in Babylon.There One of them, Belus, escapeddeath and came
to
Belus, he built a tower and
after Belus who built lived in it. It was named
it" (quoted from
Eusebius,Praeparatio Evangelica Alexander Polyhistor by
Genesis 6 (both the motif 9.18.2).69Here is a medley of allusions
to
Genesis of the giants and
11 (the building of that of the flood) and
As we shall see in the tower of Babel).
other instancesof linking
the
intermediatelink is Nimrodfrom Genesis 6 to Genesis 11,
however,
is thatif Belus, one of Genesis 10. The problemin
the giants who built the this case,
with
Nimrod,he also is said to tower, is
an have escapedthe flood, identical
identificationof Noah and Nimrod! which would imply
of
"this And indeed, Martin
identificationof Noah and Hengel speaks
follows
from the text."70Odd as Nimrod=Bel-Kronos, which
this identificationmay necessarily
seem at first sight,

67The
Greek story of Orion's
parallel
of the Sumerian defeat by a scorpion
could perhaps be
composition. Orion, though adduced as a distant
response
to his threat that he not a god, is a giant
would exterminate all and a hunter. In
scorpion
to kill the arrogant the living animals on earth,
hero. See P. Wehrli, Gaia sent the
Metzler,
1939) 1073-74. "Orion,"PW. Neue
Bearbeitung 18/1 (Stuttgart:
68See
on this matterCarl R.
(Chico, Holladay, Fragmentsfrom
CA: Scholars Press, Hellenistic Jewish Authors1.
1983) 158-59 . Historians
69Translation
by Holladay,
70Judaism Fragments, 177.
and Hellenism
with
ZionBen (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1981) 2.
Wacholder, 60 n. 244. There
Hengel polemicizes
34(1963) 94. J. "Pseudo-Eupolemos' Two Greek Fragments on the
HUCA
Freudenthal, Alexander Life of Abraham,"
judaischer
und samaritanischer Polyhistor und die von ihm
Geschichtswerke (Hellenistische erhaltenen Reste
Studien, I+II; Breslau:
Skutsch,

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 K. VAN DER TOORN and P. W. VAN DER HORST 17

Hengel points out that other peculiar identificationscan be found else-

wherein earlyJewishliteraturef ShemandMelchizedek,andof Phinehas
and Elijah, for example. There are clear traces of a positive image of
Nimrod in other passages still to be discussed. Moreover,there existed
speculationsin early Jewish haggadic circles about whetheror not Noah
descendedfrom the giants of Genesis 6.71So an identificationof Noah and
Nimrodshouldbe regardedas a distincthaggadicpossibility.Nevertheless,
the connectionis problematic.First, Eusebiusquotes AlexanderPolyhistor
as saying that he found these data "in some anonymouswritings,"which
may imply that he drew here upon several authors;second, the plural
"gods"may imply that one of these authorswas not a Jew at all; third,
these observationssuggest that what we have in this fragmentis "a pot-
pourriof traditions,most probablythrowntogetherby AlexanderPolyhistor
out of disparateelements."72Hence one should be careful in drawingtoo
firm conclusionsfrom this passage.
The earliest Jewish writer mentioning Nimrod explicitly is Philo of
Alexandria.In his writings is a clear creationof a negative image of the
hunter.Of course, in a typically Philonic way, Nimrod is allegorized.In
his Quaestionesin Genesin2.81-82 Philo first remarksthatHam,Nimrod's
grandfather,standsfor evil and thatHam's son Cush standsfor "the sparse
natureof earth"and is a symbol of unfruitfulnessand barrenness.Nimrod
is Cush's son because spiritualunproductivenesscan only producegiants,
i.e., people who honor earthlythings more than heavenly things. "For in
truth he who is zealous for earthly and corruptiblethings always fights
againstand makeswar on heavenlythings and praiseworthyand wonderful
natures,and builds walls and towers on earth against heaven. But those
things which are [down]here are againstthose things which are [up] there.
For this reasonit is not ineptlysaid, 'a giantbefore (enantion)God,' which

1875) 94, quotes a remarkfrom the "Historyof Armenia"by the early medievalArmenian
ChristianscholarMoses of Choreneto the effect thatBelus andNimrodare to be identified.
Hengel is followed by Holladay,Fragments,187 n. 46, and by P. W. van der Horst, "The
Interpretationof the Bible by the MinorHellenisticJewishAuthors,"in MartinJanMulder,
ed., Mikra:Text, Translation,Reading and Interpretationof the HebrewBible in Ancient
Judaismand Early Christianity(CRINT2.1; Assen: Van Gorcum;Philadelphia:Fortress,
1988) 541.
7ISee IQapGen 2. 16 and I Enoch 106. 8 and cf. Jack Pearl Lewis, A Studyof the In-
terpretationof Noah and the Flood in Jewish and ChristianLiterature(Leiden:Brill, 1968)
14; see also the pertinentremarksin Emil Schurer,TheHistoryof the Jewish People in the
Age of Jesus Christ(rev. ed. by G. Vermes,F. Millar,M. Goodman;Edinburgh:Clark,1986)
3.1. 332-33.
72ThusR. Doranin OTP 2.878.

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW
18
is clearly in oppositionto the Deity. For the
impious man is none other
than the enemy and foe who stands against73
God." Philo then adds that
Nimrodshouldbe translatedas "Ethiopian,"i.e., the
has no participationin light. In De gigantibus black one, becausehe
65-66, Philo remarkson Gen
6:4 that the sons of the earth surrenderto the
natureof the flesh instead
of to reason. "It was Nimrodwho began this
desertion[. . . ], his name
means 'desertion' (automolesis)."
In these two very brief passages from the first
half of the first century
CEwe have in a nutshell a numberof
haggadicelements that returntime
and again in later haggadicdevelopments.74
First we note the connection
of Nimrodwith the story of the giants in
Genesis 6 on the one hand and
withthe storyof the towerof Babel on the other.
Thereare severalreasons
forthis connection.The offspringof the sons
of God are called gibborim
(LXX:gigantes) in Gen 6:4, and Nimrodis called
a gibbor (LXX: gigas)
in Gen 10:8-9. This suggested to the early
haggadiststhat Nimrod may
havebeen one of the giants of Genesis 6. In
Gen 10:10 the beginningof
Nimrod'skingdomis said to have been Babel in the
inGen 11:1-10, the people who settled in the land of Shinar,and
land of Shinarare said to
havebuilt a city there that was called Babel
(11:9). If that city was the
beginning of Nimrod'skingdom,he cannotbut have been
SoNimrodwho was one of the giants of one of its builders.
Genesis 6 was also the one who
hadbuilt Babel. All this is implied in these
two short passages of Philo.
Second,Philo etymologizesNimrod's name: his
name means "desertion."
Thiselement too recurs in other writings where
the name Nimrod is re-
peatedly explainedfrom the Hebrewword marad,"to rebel"
that is), which comes very close to Philo's notion (againstGod,
of desertionfrom God,
ifit is not identicalto it.75Third,because
Nimrodis a son of Cush, Philo
calls him an Ethiopian,a blackman.This
characterization helpedto blacken
Nimrod in the developmentof the tradition,whereas
the biblical text itself
does not do anythingof the sort.76 Finally,Philo
exploits the fact that the
LXX versionof Gen 10:9 calls him a mightyhunter
enantionthe Lord.This

73TheGreek text probably also had enantion,

but the Armenian version, which is our only
textual
witness here, has a different word than the
one used in the phrase "a giant before
God."
74See also the useful comments in David
Winston and John Dillon, Two Treatises of Philo
ofAlexandria:A Commentary on De
gigantibus and Quod deus sit immutabilis (Chico,
Scholars
Press, 1983) 69-71, 272. CA:
75See Lester L. Grabbe, Etymology in Early
Jewish Interpretation. The Hebrew Names in
Philo
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 191.
76On the evaluation of blacks in antiquity,
see Frank M. Snowden, Blacks in
Ethiopians
in the Greco-Roman Experience Antiquity:
(Cambridge, MA/London: Belknap, 1970).

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 K. VAN DER TOORN and P. W. VAN DER HORST 19

word, used by the LXX translatorsas equivalentof lipne, could also have
the meaningof "against";so Nimrod's activities must have been directed
against the Lord.
This element will recurin the targumimand elsewhere,but most explic-
itly in St. Augustine,when he says about the phrase that Nimrod was a
great hunterbefore the Lord:

Some interpretershave misunderstoodthis phrase,being deceived by

an ambiguityin the Greek and consequentlytranslatingit as "before
the Lord" instead of "against the Lord." It is true that the Greek
enantion means "before"as well as "against".. . It is in the latter
sense that we must take it in the descriptionof Nimrod;that giant was
"a hunteragainst the Lord."For the word "hunter"can only suggest
a deceiver, oppressorand destroyerof earth-borncreatures.Thus he,
with his subject peoples, began to erect a tower against the Lord,
which symbolizes his impious pride (Civ. D. 16.4).

The Liber antiquitatumbiblicarumby Pseudo-Philo,an author about

whom we know nothing except that he probablylived in the second half
of the first centuryCE, contains a full-blown Nimrod haggada.77In LAB
4:7, Gen 10:9 is quotedas "he began to be arrogant(superbus)before the
Lord."The sons of Ham make Nimrodtheir leader (5.1) and Nimrodhas
all the sons of Ham pass in review (5.5). Finally in chapter6 we find for
the first time the story that will have such a rich future,namely,the direct
confrontationof Nimrodwith Abraham:the leaders of the three tribes of
Shem, Ham, and Japhethplannedto build the great tower in Babel, but
twelve men, including Abraham,refuse to join the project because they
were worshippersof the Lord. Joktan,the chief of the leaders,puts these
men in jail, thoughhe does so reluctantly,being himself a secret worship-
per of the Lord. Whenhe offers them the chanceto escape, only Abraham
declines the offer. Nimrod, however, wants the men to be punished se-
verely. He finds out that only Abrahamis left in jail, and demandsthat he
be thrown alive into a fiery furnace. The sentence is executed, but God
sees to it that Abrahamdoes not suffer the least injury in the flames.
Whereas 83,500 others are burnt by the fire that leaps forth out of the
furnace,Abrahamescapes unscathed.
What is the backgroundof the developmentof such a motif that is so
evidently modeled upon the story of the three young men in the fiery

77Iused the editionby DanielJ. Harringtonet al., Pseudo-Philon: Les antiquites bibliques
(2 vols; Paris:Cerf, 1976) and Harrington'stranslationin OTP vol. 2.

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
20 HARVARD
THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW

furnacein Daniel 3?78We know from later sources (e.g., GenesisRabbah,

see below) that the words Ur Kasdimin Gen 15:7 ("I am the Lord who
brought you out of Ur Kasdim")were taken to mean "the fire of the
Chaldeans"since Ur was read as 'or, "flame,fire."79If God himself said
that he had rescuedAbrahamfrom the fire of the Chaldeans,if Babel was
the center of the Chaldeans,if Nimrod was the king of Babel, and if
Nimrod was the archrebelagainst God, then inevitably there must have
been a confrontationbetween these two men, the more so since a conflict
over idolatrywas suggestedby the fact thatJosh 24:2 states:"Yourfathers
lived of old beyond the Euphrates,Terah, the father of Abrahamand of
Nahor; and they served other gods." A conflict between Abrahamand
Terahover the idols in the city of Nimrodis one of the stock elementsin
most of the haggadaon these persons. Nevertheless,it is clear that the
motive for confrontationbetween Nimrodand Abrahamis here still in its
infancy.They are not the only characterson stage and the plot is relatively
simple. We cannot be sure whetherPseudo-Philois the originatorof the
motif. The connectionof Ur of the Chaldeanswith the motif of fire ap-
pears two centuries earlier, in Jubilees 12, but Nimrod does not figure
there.80Neither is there a confrontationbetween Abrahamand Nimrodin
Pseudo-Philo'scontemporary,Josephus, as we shall presently see. This
suggests that the motif may not yet have been widespreadin this early
period.
Josephusrelatesin his Antiquitates1.113-14 that the people in the plain
of Shinarsuspectedthat God was plotting againstthem in urgingthem to
emigrate,in orderthat, being divided, they might be more open to attack:

They were incited to this insolent contemptof God by Nimrod [lit.

Nebrodes],grandsonof Ham the son of Noah, an audaciousman of
doughtyvigour. He persuadedthem to attributetheirprosperitynot to
God but to their own valour, and little by little transformedthe state
of affairs into a tyranny,holding that the only way to detach men

780n the role of Daniel 3 in this story, see also Geza Vermes, "The Life of Abraham," in
his Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1973) 88, and B. Beer, "Zurjudischen
Sagengeschichte," MGWJ 4 (1855) 59-65.
79See e.g. Hermann L. Strack and Paul N. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: Beck, 1928) 4. 1.454 n. 4, and John Bowker, The Targums
and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 187-88.
80Also in the second century BCE we find Philo Epicus stating that Abraham "left the
splendid enclosure of the giants" (frg. 1, 4-5). This seems to imply that Babel was built by
the giants, but the poet does not name Nimrod as one of them. Nevertheless it was clear that
the haggadic process was fully on its way already in the middle of the second century BCE,
which can also be seen in Jdt 5:5-8.

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 K. VAN DER TOORN arldP. W. VAN DER HORST 21

from the fear of God was by making them continuouslydependent

upon his own power. He threatenedto have his revenge on God if he
wished to inundatethe earthagain, for he would build a tower higher
than the water could reach and avenge the destructionof their fore-
fathers.

As we alreadyremarked,there is no conflict with Abrahamhere. But

there are some other new elements. Besides the familiar componentsof
Nimrod's building the tower and his rebellious attitudetoward God, we
find here Nimrod as the instigator of suspicion that God was plotting
againstthem by urginga migrationthat would divide the people of Shinar
and so expose them to attack,and of their consequentrefusal to colonize.
Building the tower now is intendedto counteractGod's commandto mi-
grateand colonize, as well as to prove that God would not be able to bring
a new flood over the earth. We can observe here how the various ingre-
dients from Genesis 6, 10, and 11 get more interwoven.8l
Turningto the rabbinicevidence, the targumimyield some interesting
insights. Let us look at some of their renderingsof Genesis 10 and begin
with an exceptionalpiece of evidence:Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan'srenditionof
Gen 10:11. Whereasin 10:9 the translatorhad said that Nimrod was "a
mighty rebel before the Lord, whereforeit is said that from the day on
which the world was createdthere has not been any like Nimroda mighty
hunterand a rebel (mrwdh)before the Lord" in 10:11 Nimrod is unex-
pectedly "immortalizedas the outstandinglyrighteous individual of his
generation"82 by the following words:"Outof thatland [sc. Shinar]Nimrod
went forth and ruled in Asshur because he had not wished to associate
with the projectof the generationof the divisions [cf. Gen 10:25]. And he
left those four cities, and the Lord settled him elsewhere instead, and he
built othertowns, Nineveh, etc." Severalcommentsare in orderhere. First,
the fact that Nimrodis here said to have left Babel is a consequenceof the
fact that in the Hebrewtext the wordsmin ha'ares hahi' ya$a 'ashur were
takento nrean"he left that countryfor Asshur"insteadof "Asshurleft that

8l0n Nimrod's role in Josephus'renderingof Genesis, see the extensive and excellent
discussionby ThomasW. Franxman,Genesisandthe "JewishAntiquities"of FlaviusJosephus
(Rome:Biblical InstitutePress, 1979) 93-121, esp. 96-98.
82EtanLevine, TheAramaicVersionof the Bible (Berlin: de Gruyter,1988) 35. Levine
cites this instanceas one of the manycases wherein the very sametargumone finds midrashic
elements that are mutually contradictory.;;This reflects the eclectic use of sources, the
variantpurposesto which midrashwas put, andthe latitudinarianapproachto targumitself"
(ibid.).

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
22
HARVARD
THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
country."OnceNimrodwas madethe grammaticalsubjectof
yasa', a reason
had to be found for his leaving the countryof Babel.
he left beforechapter11, he musthave been opposed Apparently, because
to the buildingof the
tower.
There are other traces of such traditions.To be sure, they
are found in
Christianwritings, but there is little doubt that their
authorsdrew upon
Jewish sources, as was so often the case with Syrian
writers such as
Ephraemand Ishodad.83In his commentaryon Gen 10:9,
EphraemSyrus
remarked:"Nimrodwas a strong giant before the Lord
because in accor-
dance with God's will he waged war upon the peoples in
orderto spread
them out to the areas that God had allotted them.
Therefore,if someone
wantsto bless a leader or king, he says: 'May you
become like Nimrod,
a stronggiant beforethe Lord,triumphantin the wars
of the Lord."'84And
Ishodadof Merv commentedon the same verse that the
wish "may you
becomelike Nimrod,a bravehunterbefore the Lord,"was
in earliertimes
a common way of greeting a leader, and that
Nimrod became so famous
byGod's will becausehe had combattedthe buildersof
the towerof Babel
anddriventhem away from the city; only Peleg
remained,who still spoke
Hebrew,the primevallanguage,which was thus preserved
underNimrod's
rule.85
These passagesmake it somewhatcertainthat theremust
asomewhatextensive positive Nimrodhaggada have been
which has all but disap-
pearedfrom early Jewish literature,even though the Bible
itself nowhere
specificallystates that Nimrod had an evil character.
andPseudo-Jonathan Pseudo-Eupolemus
have preservedsome tracesof this positiveapproach.86
Tg. Pseudo-Jonathanon Gen 11:28 again presentsa
new motif:

83A.Levene, TheEarlySyrianFatherson Genesis

(London: Taylor's Foreign Press, 1951)
esp.123ff.
84See the translation in R.-M. Tonneau, Sancti
EphraemSyri in Genesin et in Exodum
commentarii (CSCO 153; Louvain: Durbecq, 1955) 52-53.
85See the translation in C. van den Eynde,
Commentaired'lCodadde Mervsur l'Ancien
Testament, vol. 1 Genese (CSCO 156; Louvain: Durbecq,
1955) 143-46. On the matter of
Hebrew in the Nimrod haggada, see also Louis Ginzberg,
"Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvatern
undin der apokryphischen Literatur," MGWJ43
(1899) 468-70, 485. The following two
worksdo not yield anything for our subject: Robert
Devreesse, Les anciens commentateurs
grecs
de l'Octateuqueet des Rois (Vatican City: Bibliotheca
Petit, Apostolica,1959), and FranSoise
Catenaegraecae in Genesin et Exodum,vol. I (CChr Series
Graeca 2 15; Turnhout:
Brepols,1977).
86Levene (Early SyrianFathers, 85) quotes from a
Syriac MS on the Pentateuch in the
Mingana collection the following section: "Of Nimrod, Scripture
says, 'He was a mighty
hunter
before the Lord.' It was according to the will of God
that he should be renowned; and
he
made war on those who built the tower and he first
captured Babylon. Therefore it is said,
'Be
like unto Nimrod' as when one blesses his
neighbour with any kind of blessing." Levene
also
makes the interesting observation that Ibn Ezra in his
commentary discards the unfavor-

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 K. VAN DER TOORN and P. W. VAN DER HORST 23

And it came to pass, when Nimrod cast Abram into the fiery furnace
because he would not worship his idol and there was no power for the
fire to burn him, that Haran's [Abraham's brother] heart became
doubtful, and he said: "If Nimrod prevails, I will be on his side, but
if Abram prevails, I will be on his side." And when all the people
who were there saw that the fire had no power over Abram, they said
in their hearts: "Is not Haran, the brother of Abram, full of divining
and charms, and has he not uttered a spell over the fire to stop it
burning his brother?" At once fire fell from the heavens and con-
sumed him LHaran],and Harandied in the presence of his father [Gen
11:28], even as he was burnt in the land of his birth in the fiery
furnace which the Kasdai had made for Abram his brother.87

The biblical text of Gen 11:28 reads: "Harandied before his father
Terah in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldeans."Again, probably,
the text was takento meanthatHarandied in the fire ('ur) of the Chaldeans,
so that Nimrod now becomes guilty of the death of Abraham'sbrother.
Anothernew elementfound in Tg. Pseudo-Jonathanis the identification
of Nimrodwith Amraphel,one of the kings mentionedin Genesis 14. On
Gen 14:1 this targumremarksthat Amraphelwas the same as Nimrodwho
had said that Abrahamshould be throwninto the fire, obviously with an
etymologicalplay on 'amar and hippil (or pil). The real reasonbehindthis
identification,however, may have been that Amraphelis said in the bib-
lical text to have been "King of Shinar"in the days of Abraham.But, of
course, the king of Shinar in Abraham'stime was known to have been
Nimrod. One could find corroborativeevidence for this identificationin
the folk-etymologicalanalysis of the name Amraphel:'amarpil, "he said:
'throw!"'This etymologicalderivationis discussed explicitly in the Tal-
mud (see below). Tg. Onqelos does not yield much of relevancefor our
purposeapartfrom the fact that Nimrodhere is called "a powerfulpoten-
tate" (gibbar taqip), perhapsbecause the translatorassociatedthe Hebrew
$ayid with me$udah,"stronghold,fortress."88Tg. Neofiti on Gen 10:9 calls
Nimrod"a hero in sin before the Lord."And the FragmentTargumad loc
has: "He was very mighty at-the hunt and mighty in sin before the Lord.

able traditionsregardingNimrodand does not deduce any "rebelliousness"from the name

Nimrod,but explains that Nimrodwas the first man to show the prowessof man over beast
and that he built altarson which he offered burntofferings to God. Ibn Ezra was censured
for that by Nachmanides(ibid., 201-2).
87Translation and discussion of this passage in Bowker, Targums,183, 187-88.
88ThusBernardGrossfeld,TheTargumOnqelosto Genesis (Edinburgh:Clark,1988) 61.
Cf. also Moshe Aberbachand BernardGrossfeld, TargumOnkelosto Genesis (New York:
Ktav, 1982) 69-70.

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
24 HARVARD
THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW

He would trapmen by their tongues (i.e., words) and say to them:Depart

from the laws of Shem and cling to the laws of Nimrod."89Here we see
that"hunter" is understoodmetaphorically
as one who knowshow to ensnare
people; that is why he is called "mightyin sin" or "a hero in sin." This
expressionrecurs in the targumon 1 Chr 1:10; and the same targumon
28:3 says thatGod savedAbrahamfromthe fiery furnaceinto whichNimrod
had thrownhim because he would not worshiphis idol.90Let me quote
finally from the targumto Qoh 4:13:

Better like Abraham, the poor youth in whom was the spirit of proph-
ecy from the Lord and to whom the Lord was known when he was
three years old, and he would not worship an idol, than the wicked
Nimrod, who was an old and foolish king. And because Abraham
would not worship an idol, he threw him into the burning furnace, and
a miracle was performed for him from the Lord of the world, and he
delivered him from it. Even after this, Nimrod had no sense to be
admonished not to worship the idol which he worshipped before. For
Abraham went out from the family of idolaters and reigned over the
land of Canaan, and during Abraham's reign Nimrod became destitute
in the world.9l

More targumicpassages could be added,but these suffice to show the

growthof a traditionin the periodfrom the secondto the seventhcenturies
of our era.
Whenwe turnto Talmudand midrashim,some new details are addedto
the picture,but basically the story remainsthe same.92In b. 'Erubin53a
we read:

"And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel" (Gen 14:1). Rav and
Samuel are at variance. One holds that his name was Nimrod; and

89See Michael L. Klein, TheFragment-Targums of the Pentateuch(2 vols.; Rome: Bib-

lical Institute Press, 1980) 1. 49 and 2. 11. Roger le Ddaut, Targumdu Pentateuque1 (Paris:
Cerf, 1978) 136-39. Michael L. Klein's GenizahManuscriptsof Palestinian Targumto the
Pentateuch(2 vols.; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986) has no material on
Nimrod.
90Roger le Ddaut and Jean Robert, Targumdes Chroniques(AnBib 51; 2 vols.; Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1971) 1. 40, 156; 2. 9, 142.
91Etan Levine, TheAramaicVersionof Qohelet (New York: Sepher Hermon, 1978) 34.
Cf. Levine's AramaicVersionof the Bible, 184-85 n. 13.
92Oldersurveys can be found in B. Beer, LebenAbraham'snachAuffassungderjudischen
Sage (Leipzig: Leiner, 1859) 7-19 with notes on pp. 105-16. M. Seligmann, "Nimrod,"
Jewish Encyclopedia 9 (1905) 309. M. J. bin Gorion, Die Sagen der Juden (4 vols;

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 K. VAN DER TOORN and P. W. VAN DER HORST 25

why was he called Amraphel? Because he ordered our father Abraham

to be cast into a burning furnace (Ce'amarwehippille'Avraham'avinu
betokhkivGanha'e§). But the other holds that his name was Amraphel;
and why was he called Nimrod? Because in his reign he led all the
world in rebellion against himself [=God] (Pehimrid'et kol ha'olam
kullo 'alav bemalkhuto).

We see here two more instances of the etymologies alreadyknown to

us. The motif that Nimrodled the whole world to rebellionagainstGod is
also found in b. Pesab. 94b and b. Hag. 13a, where Nebuchadnezzaris
called a "grandsonof Nimrod,"i.e., Nimrod'sspiritualdescendantbecause
of his rebellionagainstGod and his attemptto force otherpeople into the
same attitude.93In b. 'AbodaZar. 3a we read:"TheHoly One, blessed be
He, will say: 'Some of yourselvesshall testify that Israelhas observedthe
entire Torah.Let Nimrodcome and testify that Abrahamdid not worship
idols."' (In 'AbodaZar. 53b the tower of Babel is called "thehouse/temple
of Nimrod"and regardedas an idol that its worshipersabandoned.)A nice
haggadic trait is found in b. Pesah. 118a, where it is said:

When the wicked Nimrod cast our father Abraham into the fiery fur-
nace, Gabriel said to the Holy One, blessed be He: "Sovereign of the
universe, let me go down, cool [it], and deliver that righteous man
from the fiery furnace." The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him:
"I am unique in my world and he is unique in his world; it is fitting
for Him who is unique to deliver him who is unique." But because the
Holy One, blessed be He, does not withhold the [merited] reward of
any creature, He said to him: "Thou shalt be privileged to deliver
three of his descendants" [sc. Hananiah, Mishael, and Azaryah].

Frankfurt:Ritterund Loening, 1913-1927) 2. 17-25, 56-59, 73-74, 103-24, 160-61. Louis

Ginzberg,TheLegendsoSfthe Jews (Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety, 1909) 1. 174-
217 with notes in vol. 5 (1925) 198-218. A. S. Rappoport,AncientIsrael:MythsandLegends
I (reprintedLondon:Mystic, 1987) 226-53. See also the short notice by the editor in the
EncJud12 (1972) 1167.
93Theetymologicalplaywithmrdis also foundin connectionwith 1 Chr4:18, "thedaughter
of Pharaoh,whomMeredtook,"aboutwhich it is remarkedin b. Meg 13a: "WasMeredhis
name?Was not Caleb his name [cf. 1 Chr4:15]? The Holy One, blessed be He, said: 'Let
Caleb, who rebelled (marad)against the plan of the spies, come and take the daughterof
Pharaoh,who rebelledagainstthe idols of herfather'shouse.' " Therecan be little doubtthat
Jeromegoes back to Jewish etymological speculationswhen, in his Liber interpretationis
hebraicorumnominum,he quotes as meanings of the name Nimrod: tyrannus,profugus,
transgressor,apostata[P. de Lagarde,ed., OnomasticaSacra(Gottingen:Vandenhoeck,1870)
9, 52; also (CCSL72; Turnhout:Brepols, 1959) 69, 124].

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
26 HARVARD REVIEW
THEOLOGICAL

89a God says: "I

To concludethis brief talmudicanthology,in b. Hull.
build a city"'
bestowed greatnessupon Nimrod,but he said, 'Come, let us
as a man initially
(Gen 11:4). Here is a final trace of an image of Nimrod
for power. On
bestowed with favors by God but later corruptedby his lust
Nimrod-haggada.
thewhole, the Talmudadds no reallynew elementsto the
midrashim,especially
Some new elementscan be found in the haggadic
23.7 (on 4:26), it is said
inGen.Rabba,as is to be expected. In Gen. Rab.
the text of Genesis
thatthe word begin or beginningis used four times in
of these passagesare
(4:26;6:1; 10:8; 11:6) in the sense of rebelling.Two
it is said that God
aboutNimrod, also 11:6, on the basis of which text
incitedthemto rebel."
smoteNimrod'shead, exclaiming:"It is he who has
This applicationof the
(Thesame traditionin Gen. Rab. 26.4, on 6:1.) growing
hermeneutic rule of analogy is a new element supportingthe
we also
traditionof Nimrodas the archrebelagainstGod. In this midrash and
Gen. Rab. 37.2-3
finda paralleldrawnbetween Esau and Nimrodin said that
25:27 it is
63.13.Of course, this is due to the fact that in Gen
This suggested a rivalry betweenthe two. In
"Esauwas a skillful hunter."
to slay him [Esau]
thelatterpassage it is said that "Nimrodwas seeking
had belonged to Adam [and which Esau
onaccountof the garmentwhich
into the field, all the
nowpossessed], for wheneverhe put it on and went
aroundhim."
beastsand birds in the world would come and flock
Eliezer 24), we find the reverse situa-
Elsewhere(e.g., Pirqe de Rabbi
via his forefathers the garmentsof
tion,namely that Nimrodhas received who had stolen
3:21) from Ham,
skinthat God had made for Adam (Gen jealous
Esau saw them, he became
themout of the ark of Noah; when that he wore
was due to the fact
becauseNimrod's success in hunting him. Hence he
prostrate before
these coats of skin that made the animals
slew Nimrod.94
Nimrodproposes
In Gen. Rab. 38.13 (on 11:28) we find the motif that
This is followed by a long discus-
to Abraham:"Let us worshipthe fire." into the fire
being thrown
sion between the two, resultingin Abraham's motif of fire
the same fire. The
and being saved, whereasHarandies in that Nimrod was
worshipis interesting,since we know from other sources
who was regarded as the one who
sometimes identified with Zoroaster
we also see that
introducedthe worship of fire. In these same sources and magic.95
is viewed as the originator of astrology
Nimrod-Zoroaster

in the extensive Nimrod haggada in

94The elaboration of this theme can best be studied
out of account here since we want to limit the discussion
the Sefer ha-Yashar, which we leave
ha-Yashar see Hermann L. Strack and Gunter
to ancient sources. For the late date of Sefer
und Midrasch (Munich: Beck, 1982) 300.
Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud
Wilhelm Bousset, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
95See

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 K. VANDERTOORNandP. W. VAN DERHORST 27

Althoughtestimoniesabout Nimrod as the originatorof fire worship and

star worship are found in Christian sources, especially the Pseudo-
ClementineHomiliae 9.4-5 (cf. the Recognitiones1.30) and the so-called
Cave of the Treasures27,96there can be little doubtthat the identification
of Nimrodand Zoroasterhad a Jewish origin. Bousset has aptly remarked:

After a certain point, it also must have seemed to the Jews of the
Babylonianlowlands that [Zoroaster]was the creator of the pagan
religion that dominatedthe region, indeed, that he was the most fa-
mous and outstandingof all the foundersof pagan religions. Conse-
quently, Zoroasteralso became for them a Babylonian, creator of
Babylonianwisdom, and leader of the Chaldeans. From there it was
only a step to the identificationZoroaster-Nimrod. The figure of
Nimrod,so familiarto Jewish legend, and the figure of the founderof
the Persianreligion, the religion ruling in the Babylonianlowlands,
henceforthflow together,and althoughit appearsat first glance like
the fantasyof some lazy mind, in the identificationNimrod-Zoroaster
we have a last distantecho of a tremendouslyimportantevent in the
history of religion, namely the incursionof the Persianreligion into
the Babylonianlowlands.97

More could be said aboutthis fascinatingidentification,but space does

not permitus to do so here. Anyway, it is clear that the image of Nimrod

1907, repr.1973) 144ff. esp. 369-78. JosephBidez andFranzCumont,Les mages hellenises:

Zoroastre, Ostanes et Hystape d'apres la tradition gresque (2 vols.; Paris:Les Belles Lettres,
1938) 1. 4244; 2. 50-55, 60-61, 120-25. KarlPreisendanz,"Nimrod(1)," PW 17 (1936)
624-27. HansJ. Schoeps,Aus fruhchristlicher Zeit (Tubingen:Mohr/Siebeck,1950) 19-24.
On the early medieval traditionsaboutNimrodas astrologer,see C. H. Haskins,Studies in
the History of Mediaeval Science (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress, 1924) 33645.
Bidez and Cumont(Mages, 2. 60-61) and Preisendanz("Nimrod,"625) also discuss the
identificationof Nimrodwith Orion,a giant and hunter(!) from Greekmythology,in some
late sources;I leave this out of accountfor reasonsof space and becausethis identification
probablydoes not have a Jewish origin.
96Cf.also the following remarkby Epiphanius,Panarion 1.3, 2-3: "Nimrod,the son of
Cush the Ethiopian,the fatherof Asshur,ruled as a king. (. . .) The Greeks say that he is
Zoroasterand that he went on furthereast and became the pioneer settler of Bactria. (3)
Everytransgressionin the worldwas disseminatedat this time, for Nimrodwas an originator
of wrongteaching,astrologyand magic, which is what some say of Zoroaster.But in actual
fact this was the time of Nimrodthe giant; the two, Nimrodand Zoroaster,are far apartin
time" (F. Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Book 1 [Leiden: Brill,
1987] 16-17).
97Bousset,Hauptprobleme, 377. Cf. Schoeps's carefulremark(Aus fruhchristlicher Zeit,
32): "Die IdentifikationNimrod-Zoroasterkonntebereits rabbinischsein."

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 28 HARVARD
THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
as the archrebelagainstGod lent itself easily to
identificationwith a per-
son who in a certain religio-historicalconstellationcould
be regardedas
the founderof paganismpar excellence,in this case the
influentialZoroaster.
Let us returnto the midrashim.In Qoh.Rab. 2.14.1, the
biblicalproverb
"The wise man, his eyes are in his head, but the fool
walks in darkness"
is interpretedas alluding to Abrahamand Nimrod.The
element of dark-
ness is reminiscentof Philo's descriptionof Nimrodas the
black one who
does not participatein the light (and cf. also Gen. Rab. 42.4
whereNimrod
is called a Cushite,i.e., Ethiopian,because his father
was Cush). In Deut.
Rab. 2.27 the ministeringangels declare before God,

"Lo, he [Abraham]is standingbefore Amraphel,lo, his

sentence is
being pronounced,lo, he is aboutto be burned."God
replied:"I will
protect him." When he was cast into the fiery furnace,
God came
down and deliveredhim. Whencethis? For it is said: "I am
the Lord
that broughtyou out of Ur of the Chaldees."(Gen 15:7)

In otherhaggadicmidrashimare passagesdealingwith
Abraham'sbeing
persecutedor sentencedto deathor throwninto the fire by
Nimrod,about
Nimrod(=Amraphel)being defeatedby Abraham,etc., but
they do not add
to our knowledgeof the haggadawe have already
seen.98
The developmentdoes not stop at the end of antiquity.A
look at Pirqe
deRabbi Eliezer and especially at Sepher ha-Yashar
reveals that Nimrod
continuedto quickenthe imagination.This developmentwent
on not only
inJewish but also in Christianand especially in Islamic
circles.99Several
ofthe minormidrashimin Jellinek's collection even
stand underthe sus-
picionof being influencedby IslamicNimrodlegends.l°°Be
thatas it may,
thematerialsurveyed allows some provisional
conclusions to be drawn
aboutthe developmentsof the Nimrodhaggadaand the
reasonsbehindthat
process.
Haggadain which Nimrodis mentionedexplicitly is found for
the first
timein the first century CE. But since we know from
J7wbilees,from
Pseudo-Eupolemus, and from Philo the epic poet, that alreadyin the sec-

98Morepassageson Nimrodin the haggadicmidrashimcan be

foundin the IndexVolume
to
the Soncino translationof the MidrashRabba. See Shir
ha-Shirim Rab. 8.8 2; Vayyiqra
27.5, 28.4, 36.4;Midrash Tehillim 24.8;Pesiqta Rabbati 18.3,
Rab.
33.4;Pesiqta de Rav Kahana
8.2;
Tanhuma, Lekh lekha 2; etc.
99Seebesides the surveys mentionedin n. 23, esp. the
dissertationby H. Schutzinger,
Ursprung
und Entwicklungder arabischen
Abraham-Nimrod-Legende(Ph.D diss., Bonn,1962).
100SeeAdolf Jellinek,Beth ha-Midrasch, 1. 25-34 (Ma'aseh
'Avraham'Avinu = August
Wunsche,
Aus Israels Lehrhallen 1. 14-34), 2. 188-19 (Ma'aseh
'Avraham'Avinu= Wunsche

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 K. VAN DER TOORN and P. W. VAN DER HORST 29

ond centuryBCE there was Abrahamhaggadain which a connectionhad

been made between Abrahamand the giants, between the tower of Babel
and the giants, and between the tower of Babel and Abraham,it is hardly
thinkablethat the Nimrod connectionwas made only two centurieslater.
Presumablyit is accidentaland due only to the vicissitudesof fortunethat
no texts with Nimrod haggada prior to the turn of the era have been
preserved.The fact, however,that once such haggadaturnsup in the first
centuryCE Nimrodis not yet the sole antagonistof Abraham,but only one
of many, seems to indicate that the growth of Nimrod into the archrebel
againstGod was a gradualprocess.The absenceof Nimrodin the writings
from Qumranseems to point in the same direction.
Variousfactorswere at work in this process. Most probablythe earliest
factor was the circumstancethat the biblical text called Nimroda gibborl
gigas, using the same word as in Gen 6:4 for the offspringof the rebelling
sons of God. In additionwas the fact that Nimrod'skingdomwas in Babel
in the land of Shinaraccordingto Genesis 10, where also the tower was
built accordingto Genesis 11, which seemed to leave no other possibility
than that Nimrod built the tower. Once Babel and Ur KaNdimwere
identified and '7wrkasdim was taken to mean "the fiery furnace of the
Chaldees,"Abrahammust of course have met his famous contemporary
and compatriot,and this meeting could only have been an inimical con-
frontation,resulting in Abraham'smiraculousdelivery from the fire (on
the basis of Gen 15:7). That there must have been such a confrontation
was confirmedby the biblical text of Genesis 14, which mentionsa war
between Abrahamand several kings among whom was the king of Shinar
whose name, Amraphel,indicatedthat he had said to throwAbrahaminto
the furnace.This same king was of course also responsiblefor the death
of Abraham'sbrother,Haran, who did die in Ur Kaidim (Gen 11:28).
Finally, Nimrod'sbad characterwas made clear by his own name, which
indicatedbeyondany doubtthathe was a rebel (mrd)againstthe Lord,and
by the word "hunter"that was also used for his competitorEsau; and for
Greek-speaking Jews also by the expression "a hunter
before=enantion=against the Lord." So we see that in the post-biblical
expositionof these few biblical verses a wide range of haggadicpotential
is broughtto fruition.

1. 42-45), 5. 40-41 (Midrashde 'Avraham'Avinu = Wunsche1. 46-47). Referencesto other

medievalsourcescan be foundin Moses Gaster,The Exempla of the Rabbis (1924; reprinted
New York:Ktav, 1968) 185. Fora discussionof medievalmanuscriptillustrationsto Nimrod
haggadasee K. Appel, "Abrahamals dreijahrigerKnabeim Feuerofendes Nimrod,"Kairos
25 (1983) 36-40.
[This article was completedin February1989.]

This content downloaded from 128.197.27.9 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:11:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions