Was there an historical Nimrod?
by
Damien F. Mackey
Having the wrong geography would account for the failure
by archaeologists, even to this day, of discovering the ancient capital city of
Akkad that was so legendary and famous in antiquity.
Scholars
in search of the biblical Nimrod as a real historical potentate and empire
builder suffer
from a
geographical obstacle, as I now believe, thinking to locate the focal point of
his empire, Akkad (or Agade) in biblical Shinar (Genesis 10:10): “The
beginning of [Nimrod’s] kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad [Akkad], all of them in
the land of Shinar”,
in Sumer (southern Mesopotamia). I have come to accept Dr. Anne
Habermehl’s important thesis that “Shinar” was not Sumer, but NE Syria. On this
see my article:
Tightening the Geography and Archaeology for Early Genesis
Having
the wrong geography would account for the failure by archaeologists, even to this
day, of discovering the ancient capital city of Akkad that was so legendary and
famous in antiquity.
There
have been several interesting attempts in recent years to identify Nimrod as an
historical character. Those that come to mind immediately are:
David M. Rohl’s suggested
identification of him with Enmerkar, as summarised at: http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/genesis/gen12.html
In Chapter 11 we considered a possible
identification of Meskiagkasher, the first king of Uruk, with the Biblical
Cush. Cush was the father of Nimrod, so if Meskiagkasher really was Cush, then
the next king of Uruk, Enmerkar, was probably Nimrod himself. David Rohl came
to this conclusion in his work Legend, pointing out that the syllable
"kar" is Sumerian for "hunter," so the original name for
this king might have been "Enmer the Hunter." It is not difficult to
see how that might have become "Nimrod the Mighty Hunter" when
translated from Sumerian to Akkadian to Hebrew. A few years earlier a German
scholar, Werner Papke, noted that Enmerkar must have been a very important
figure, because the Sumerians wrote more about about him than about their other
early kings, with the exception of Gilgamesh.(8)
Dr Douglas N. Petrovich’s IDENTIFYING NIMROD
OF GENESIS 10 WITH SARGON OF AKKAD BY EXEGETICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL MEANS, at Academia.edu:
https://www.academia.edu/2184113/_2013_Identifying_Nimrod_of_Genesis_10_with_Sargon_of_Akkad_by_Exegetical_and_Archaeological_Means
And, at
the same site:
Jason Freewalt’s SARGON THE GREAT
OF AKKAD: THE FIRST EMPIRE BUILDER OF MESOPOTAMIA: https://www.academia.edu/9083418/Sargon_the_Great_of_Akkad_The_First_Empire_Builder_of_Mesopotamia
All
three of these worthy attempts seek to locate the hub of the Akkadian empire in
Sumer.
Whether
or not a fully revised history based on a solid geography and archaeology will
be able to absorb Enmerkar of Uruk into the scheme of things as an alter ego of Nimrod remains to be determined.
Rohl has his historical Nimrod as a successor of his Cush, Meskiagkasher.
Dr.
Petrovich, though, is adamant that Nimrod was “only … a remote descendant of
Cush”, his conclusion on this being (op.
cit., p. 276):
… Nimrod should be understood only as a remote descendant of Cush, clearly
beyond even the possibility of being a grandson, given that Cush’s grand-sons
already are named as sons of one of Cush’s sons. Moreover, in the Table
of Nations listed in Genesis 10, בְּנֵ֣י
places the emphasis on the ancestor, whereas ילד
points to the descendant. …. Therefore, while Gen 10:8a focuses the
reader’s attention on Nimrod, as a remote descendant of Cush, the text offers
no indication whatsoever as to just how distant of a descendant he is.
There should be no objection to Cush’s “siring” a remote descendant,
since this concept is not exclusive to the Cush-Nimrod relationship. The
cognate noun יֶלֶד
(“son, child, descendant”) is used of a wide range of progeny, including
later descendants. …. In Isa 29:23, the prophet records the words of God, who
states that “when he [Jacob] sees his children, … they will sanctify my name.”
Since Isaiah lived over 1000 years after Jacob, there can be no denying that
descendants are the children in view, not biological sons or daughters. Another
example is the NT’s use of “son of David” as a designation for Jesus (Matt
9:27; Mark 10:47; et al.), which was used to demonstrate that Jesus’
lineage is traced back to David, who predated him by c. 1,000
years.
[End of quote]
Both
Dr. Petrovich and Jason
Freewalt have shown, at least, that Sargon of Akkad was Nimrod-like in his
conquests and in the importance in each case of Akkad.
And this
chimes in very well chronologically with my own location of Sargon’s third
successor and grandson, Naram-Sin, to the time of Abram (later Abraham):
Narmer a Contemporary of Patriarch Abraham
Unlike David
Rohl, both Dr.
Petrovich and Jason
Freewalt accept the conventional history and archaeology, thereby allowing
Sargon of Akkad to remain unrealistically at c. 2300 BC, which is far too early
for him.
On the
other hand, Freewalt will locate Sargon stratigraphically to “near the end of
the Early Bronze Age”. And this is far too late.
I have tentatively
proposed something quite different from this:
Akkadians Separated From Their Culture by Some Three Millennia
Freewalt
has written of the mighty Sargon (op.
cit., pp. 1-2):
Sargon the Great (reigned c. 2334-2279 BC) was ruler of Mesopotamia near
the end of the Early Bronze Age. He was a powerful and innovative warrior who
brutally subdued his opponents and established a precedent for imperialism in
Mesopotamia. …. Ruling from the archaeologically lost city of Akkad, perhaps
near modern Baghdad [sic], he established what might have been the world’s
first empire. Sargon expanded his influence beyond Akkad and the neighboring
cities to build an empire that encompassed much of the Fertile Crescent at a
time when most other rulers controlled only individual city-states,
foreshadowing later conquerors such as Hammurabi, Tiglath-Pileser, and
Nebuchadnezzar. Unfortunately, the historical Sargon and the legendary Sargon
are inseparably blurred due to the lack of historical sources and the
aggrandizement of various traditional accounts. As a result, historians have
only a vague historical image of Sargon, a man whose enormous accomplishments
arguably merit the numerous legends and traditions about him. Sargon was a
powerful warrior and the first great empire builder of Mesopotamia.
Historians know little, if anything, about Sargon’s life before his
ascendancy to the throne. This is due in part to the inadequacy of surviving
information. Extant inscriptions concerning him lack the details necessary to
construct an accurate history of his life. …. There are, however, numerous
legends about Sargon, such as various “romances.” Like the Alexander romances
written in the centuries following Alexander the Great’s conquests, the stories
about Sargon often cloud our understanding of him rather than improve it. On
the other hand, the Sargon romances likely contain some snippets of historical
texts, creating a body of historical fiction interwoven with
historical fact, providing historians with the only information we have about
certain aspects of Sargon’s life. ….
The “Legend of Sargon,” likely written long after Sargon’s death,
provides a great example of a work of historical fiction that may contain some
historical fact. It provides some rare clues about Sargon’s early life, or at
least the life Sargon wanted his scribes to portray. In James B. Pritchard’s
1958 translation of the legend, Sargon’s mother was a “changeling,” and he
“knew not” his father. Sargon’s mother bore him in secret in the city of
Azupiranu, placed him in a basket, and sent him floating down the Euphrates. A
“drawer of water” named Akki rescued him and raised him. Sargon became a
gardener for Akki. The goddess Ishtar fell in love with Sargon and helped him
become king and ruler over various people and places. Sargon’s legend ends with
a prayer that his successor would travel, conquer, and rule just as he had
done. ….
If the Sargon legend contains any historical truth, it certainly leaves
a great deal of room
for scholarly debate. Clearly, there is an obvious similarity between
Sargon’s birth legend and the biblical story of Moses in Exodus 2:1-10.
However, in the Sargon legend, the term “changeling” is puzzling. Other
translations use terms such as “princess,” “vestal,” or “high priestess,”
more closely paralleling the Moses account. …. The father that Sargon “knows
not” may represent a divinity, such as in the birth narratives of the Greek
hero Perseus, Rome’s founders Romulus and Remus (who also floated in a basket
at birth), the Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu, the Aztec deity Quetzalcoatl,
Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) ….
Mackey’s comment: Both the
legendary account of Sargon as a baby, and essentially the whole Buddha, were
based upon the Hebrew Moses.
See e.g. my
articles:
Did Sargon of Akkad influence the Exodus account of the baby Moses?
https://www.academia.edu/35752394/Did_Sargon_of_Akkad_influence_the_Exodus_account_of_the_baby_Moses
and
Buddha just a re-working of Moses. Part One: The singular greatness of Moses
Buddha just a re-working of Moses. Part Two: Ancient appropriations of
Moses as a baby
Freewalt, turning
to consider the possibility that Sargon of Akkad can be Nimrod, continues (p.
4):
A less controversial theory presented by J. Dyneley Prince and Yigal
Levin equates Sargon with the biblical Nimrod, possible builder of the Tower of
Babel. …. The Bible states about Nimrod, “Cush was the father of Nimrod, who
became a mighty warrior on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord;
that is why it is said, ‘Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord.’ The
first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Uruk, Akkad and Kalneh, in Shinar.” ….
The mention of Nimrod’s hunting prowess fits the militarism of Sargon. In
addition, the mention of Akkad as one of Nimrod’s “first centers” is certainly
an important clue, since Akkad served as the capital of Sargon’s empire.
Another clue possibly linking Sargon with Nimrod is the mention that Cush was
the “father of Nimrod.” Cush may have been the biblical name for the city of Kish,
where Sargon first took power. …. While this theory is perhaps more credible
than Bristowe’s, it lacks conclusive historical verification. Thus, a
connection between any biblical figure and Sargon remains elusive. ….
Comments