by
Damien F. Mackey
“After surveying previous attempts to identify an “historical” Nimrod, the
author then suggests
that the biblical figure is modeled after the combined traditions
about Sargon of Akkad and his grandson, Naram-Sin”.
Dr.
Yigal Levin
Part One:
Hunting him amongst the Akkadians
Yigal Levin,
when referring to “… “The Table of Nations” recorded in Genesis x”, has
described as “arguably the most fascinating passage in the Table – the Nimrod story recounted in
verses 8-12” (Nimrod the Mighty, King of Kish, King of Sumer and
Akkad“Nimrod
the Mighty, King of Kish, King of Sumer and Akkad”, VT, Vol. 52, Fasc. 3, July 2002, p. 350). Vol. 52, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 2002),
Vol. 52, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 2002), pp. 350-366
(17 pages)
Reasonable
historical candidates who have been proposed for the imposing character of
biblical Nimrod are Enmerkar (Uruk,
c. 4500 BC); Gilgamesh (Early
Dynastic, Uruk, c. 2900 BC); Sargon of
Akkad (c. 2330 BC) and Naram-Sin
of Akkad (c. 2250 BC).
Enmerkar (Enmer
“the hunter”) was David Rohl’s choice; whilst Dr. David Livingston favours the
semi-legendary Gilgamesh for Nimrod.
Despite the one
and a half millennia time gap between these two kings by conventional reckoning
(which is mostly wrong), the fact that Enmerkar was, Gilgamesh was, a mighty
man of renown, a hunter, and, more specifically, a builder of the walls of Uruk (in Enmerkar’s case, ‘a wall to
protect Uruk’), it may be worthwhile (at some later stage) to test whether we
are dealing here with just the one mighty king – and, possibly, with Nimrod
himself.
David Rohl has
also linked the famous Narmer, perhaps of non-Egyptian origins, with Nimrod – a
connection I, too, would seriously consider being a possibility.
Sargon of Akkad
is Dr. Douglas Petrovich’s (amongst others) choice for Nimrod; whilst,
regarding Naram-Sin, Dr. Yigal Levin has - as I, too, have recently favoured
in:
- identified Nimrod with a combined
Sargon/Naram-Sin, though, in Levin’s case (not in mine), Sargon and Naram-Sin
remain separate historical entities. Thus he has written:
After surveying previous
attempts to
identify an “historical” Nimrod, the author then suggests that the
biblical figure is modeled after the combined
traditions about Sargon of Akkad and his
grandson, Naram-Sin. Nimrod is the son of “Cush”;
Sargon began his royal career at Kish right after the flood. The
Sargon-Naram-Sin
traditions reached the Levant during the second millennium BCE, being combined by
time
and distance into a composite personality.
[End of quote]
Or, perhaps
“time and distance” have caused to be split in twain he who was originally just
the one Akkadian potentate.
From a
combination of data such as Dr. John
Osgood’s archaeology for Abram (Abraham); the tradition of Abram’s having been a contemporary of Menes
of Egypt; Dr. W. F. Albright’s argument for this same Menes having been conquered by Naram-Sin of Akkad; Narmer (possibly =
Naram-Sin) being archaeologically attested in Palestine at this time;
Albright’s and Anne Habermehl’s location
of Akkad (in Shinar) in NE Syria; biblical Amraphel of Shinar a contemporary of Abram’s; and the tradition of Nimrod’s having accompanied Chedorlaomer of
Elam against Syro-Palestine at the time of Abram, then I can ultimately
arrive at only this one conclusion:
Sargon of Akkad (in Shinar) = Naram-Sin
(= Nimrod) must be
the biblical “Amraphel … king of Shinar”
(Genesis 14:1).
The name
“Amraphel” may, or may not, be a Hebrew name equating to a Shinarian one.
Abarim
Publications appears to have trouble nailing it:
Meaning
Unclear, but perhaps: One That Darkens
Counsel, or The Commandment Which Went Forth
Etymology
Unclear, but perhaps from (1) the verb
אמר (amar), to talk or command, and (2) the verb אפל ('pl), to be dark.
Before
concluding: “The name Amraphel can
mean One That Darkens Counsel, or in the words of Alfred Jones
(Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names): One That Speaks Of Dark Things”.
There may be
needed at least one further Akkadian addition to my equation: Sargon of Akkad =
Naram-Sin = Nimrod, and that relates to my earlier hint of an identification
between:
Sargon and Shar-Kali-Sharri
given the same
apparent meaning of these two names, but more especially that the name “Sargon”
(Shar-Gani) is actually included in a
presumed version of the name, Shar-kali-sharri.
E.g. compare this: https://dinromerohistory.wordpress.com/tag/sargon
“Sargon of
Akkad (also known as Sargon the Great, Shar-Gani-Sharri, and Sarru-Kan, meaning “True
King” or “Legitimate King”) …”.
with this: https://nl.qwerty.wiki/wiki/Shar-Kali-Sharri
“Shar-Kali- Sharri (shar-Gani-Sharri ; rc 2217-2193 BC …”.
Part Two:
Hunting him amongst the Sumerians
The biblical
Nimrod has, at least as it seems to me, multi historical personae, just as I have found to have been the case with the much
later (Chaldean) king, Nebuchednezzar.
The historical
Nebuchednezzar - as he is currently portrayed to us - needs his other ‘face’,
Nabonidus of Babylon, for example, to complete him as the biblical “King
Nebuchadnezzar” (or “Nebuchadrezzar”); Nabonidus being mad, superstitious, given to dreams and omens, statue-worshipping, praising
the god of gods (ilani sa ilani); having a son
called “Belshazzar”.
The
biblico-historical Nebuchednezzar also needs Ashurbanipal to fill out in detail
his 43 years of reign, to smash utterly the nation of Egypt –
Ashurbanipal also having a fiery furnace
in which he burned people.
But
Nebuchednezzar also needs Esarhaddon (conquering
Egypt again) whose mysterious and
long-lasting illness is so perfectly reminiscent of that of Nebuchednezzar
in the Book of Daniel; Esarhaddon especially being renowned for his having built Babylon.
Nebuchednezzar
has other ‘faces’ as well, he being Nabopolassar, the careful archaeologist (like Nabonidus), fussing over the proper alignment of temples and other
buildings, and as the so-called Persian king, Cambyses, also named “Nebuchednezzar”, again quite mad, and being a known conqueror of Egypt. And we need to dip
into Persia again, actually the city of Susa, to find Nebuchednezzar now in the
Book of Nehemiah as the “Artaxerxes king
of Babylon” reigning in his 20th to 32nd years (cf.
Nehemiah 2:1 and 13:6).
Extending
matters yet still further, our necessary revisionist folding of ‘Neo’ Babylonia
with ‘Middle Kingdom’ Babylonia has likely yielded us the powerful (so-called)
Middle Babylonian king Nebuchednezzar I as being another ‘face’ of the ‘Neo’
Babylonian king whom we number as Nebuchednezzar II.
In similar
fashion, apparently, has our conventional biblico-history sliced and diced into
various pieces, Nimrod the mighty hunter king.
I have already
ventured to re-attach Nimrod to his Akkadian personae as (i) Sargon of Akkad; (ii) the deified Naram-Sin; and
(iii) Shar-kali-sharri.
And to the
biblical “Amraphel … king of Shinar” (Genesis 14:1).
Other
possibilities being Narmer, and those semi-legendary names, Enmerkar and
Gilgamesh.
Now here, in Part Two, I shall be looking to test whether Nimrod can ‘boast’ of
having further identification amongst one, or more, of those mighty Sumerian
kings of the dynasty of Ur III, who claimed to have ruled both “Sumer and
Akkad”.
In my recent
article:
Assyrian King
Sargon II, otherwise known as Sennacherib. Part Three: Akkadian King Sargon I,
otherwise known as Naram-Sin?
I wrote,
regarding my thesis identification of Sargon II with Sennacherib:
“Other factors
seemingly in favour of the standard view that Sargon II and Sennacherib were
two distinct kings may be, I suggest, put down to being ‘two sides of the same
coin’.” And I went on to liken that situation to Sargon of Akkad and Naram-Sin,
two sides of the same coin.
Now here, when
considering the so-called Ur III dynasty in relation to the Akkadian dynasty,
but also, when considering Ur III’s Ur-Nammu in relation to Shulgi, I think
that the “coin” maxim may continue to apply.
Taking, firstly,
the supposedly two dynasties, we find that the Akkadian one, very rich in
legend, is quite poor in documentation. But might that surprising lack be
supplied by the super-abundant documentation to be found with Ur III, as M. Van
de Mieroop tells (A History of the
Ancient Near East ca. 3000 – 323 BC, p. 72):
Virtually no period of ancient
Near Eastern history presents the historian with such an abundance and variety
of documentation [as does Ur III]. Indeed, even in all of the ancient histories
of Greece and Rome, there are few periods where a similar profusion of textual
material is found.
[End of quote]
On the other hand,
whilst the Akkadian kings were greatly celebrated down through the centuries (ibid., p. 68): “There was no doubt in
the public imagination that Sargon and Naram-Sin had been the greatest kings
who ever ruled. They became the paradigms of powerful rulers and were the
subjects of numerous detailed stories, created and preserved for almost two
millennia”, this was by no means the case with the Ur III names (ibid., p. 72): “Remarkable is the lack
of interest in this period by later Mesopotamians when compared to how the
Akkadian kings were remembered. …. In later centuries, only a handful of
references to the Ur III kings are found”.
And this,
despite the massive volume of Ur III documentation!
On p. 73, Van de
Mieroop will make a further distinction between Akkadian and Ur III: “The Ur
III state was indeed of a different character than its predecessor:
geographically more restricted in size, but internally more centrally
organized”.
However, the
full extent of the geography of Akkadian, of Ur III, has not been properly
grasped, I would suggest, with Akkadian being incorrectly centred in Sumer, and
Ur III ruling, not only Sumer, but Akkad as well. (Van de Mieroop, p. 71):
“Ur-Namma … he could claim … a new title, “King of Sumer and Akkad”.”
Despite the
apparent differences, there are also plenty of similarities.
(Van de Mieroop,
p. 60): “A new system of taxation was developed …. In the reign of Naram-Sin, a
standardization of accounting is visible in certain levels of administration in
order to facilitate central control”. [Recall Ur III: “… internally more
centrally organized”].
(P. 73): “The
central administration [Recall Akkadian: “… administration in order to
facilitate central control”] established a system of taxation that collected a
substantial part of the provinces’ resources”.
Also Akkadian,
Ur III, military and trade expansions were widespread.
(Van de Mieroop,
p. 60): “[Sargon] claimed that he captured “fifty governors and the city of
Uruk”.” P. 63: “The Akkadian kings focused their military attention on the
regions of western Iran and northern Syria … east … Elam, Parahshum and
Simurrum. In the north … Tuttul … Mari and Ebla”.
(P. 74): “In the
Persian Gulf, Ur maintained the trade contacts that had existed since [sic] the
Old Akkadian period. P. 76: “In the Ur III sources … we find references to
people from the Syrian cities of Tuttul, Ebla and Urushu …”.
(Van de Mieroop,
p. 63): “Ships from overseas areas, such as Dilmun … Magan … Meluhha … are said
to have moored in Akkad’s harbor …”.
(p. 76): “Already Ur-Namma claimed to have
restored trade with Magan …”.
(Van de Mieroop,
p. 61): “[Akkadian] introduction of an annual dating system …”.
(p. 74): “…
Shulgi may have attempted to introduce a standard calendar throughout the
land”.
(Van de Mieroop,
p. 64): “[Naram-Sin] After crushing a major rebellion … took the unprecedented
step … of making himself a god”.
(P. 76): “Before
his twentieth year of rule Shulgi was deified”.
(Van de Mieroop,
p. 64): “[An Inscription in Iraq refers to] “Naram-Sin, the strong one …”.
(Brit. Museum cylinder seal, no: 89131): “Shulgi,
the strong man … [shul-gi nita kala-ga]”.
This description
of Naram-Sin, of Shulgi, could easily remind one of the biblical Nimrod (גִּבֹּ֖ר), gibbor, “a mighty one”, “a strong one” (Genesis 10:8).
Now, as in the
case of the Akkadians with Sargon, and deified Naram-Sin, and Shar-kali-sharri,
at least, all having been merged into the one king - different sides of the
same coin, as I said - so may it possibly be with the Ur III dynasty, Ur-Nammu,
and deified Shulgi, and Amar-Sin, to be merged together, but also, now to be
interlaced with the Akkadians.
In other words,
our composite biblical Nimrod-Amraphel now to become, all at once:
Sargon
= Naram-Sin = Shar-kali-sharri = Ur-Nammu = Shulgi = Amar-Sin
Already
mentioned has been “Remarkable … [the] lack of interest in this period [Ur III]
by later Mesopotamians …”.
And I have read
somewhere that later generations tended to focus their attention (when they did
actually refer back to the Ur III kingship) upon Shulgi to the exclusion of the
other names.
There is perhaps
no ancient king who so resembles the Nimrod of the Bible and traditions in his
strength and heroic deeds as does the long-reigning Shulgi. To give just this
one description:
….
Shulgi Boasted Much About His
Abilities And With Good Reason
As the most influential ruler
of Ur III king, Shulgi was native Akkadian speaker who was fluent in five languages
like Elamite, Sumerian, Hurrian, Amorite and even Meluhhan (Dravidian). He was
trained as a scribe and organized schools for scribes. He was a self-confident
ruler who declared himself a divinity and established a tradition of royal
praise for himself in many hymns.
“Shulgi boasts that he hunts lions and
serpents in steppe…. without the aid of a net or enclosure… He claims to be so
fast on his feet he can catch a gazelle on the run..” (Kramer N. S.)
….
Usually people wrote hymns for the gods, but
Shulgi wrote a hymn to honor himself.
In “The Sumerian World,” Harriet Crawford
writes that “by some accounts, in 2088 BC, during what is known as the King’s
Run, documents show that Shulgi claimed that during a celebration of eshesh,
he ran the distance of the parade (200 miles round-trip) from Nippur to Ur and
back.
“That my name be established until distant
days and that it leave not the mouth of men, that my praise be spread
wide in the land; I, the runner rose in my strength… and from Nippur to
Ur I resolved to travel…”
"My black-headed people marveled at
me" he wrote.
The problem is that Nippur was at the distance
of 100 miles from Ur. Shulgi claimed that he run 100 miles and then he run back
home again. All that happened in one day and during a storm. Did Shulgi really
run 200 miles in the stormy weather or was it only a way to glorify himself? ….
[End of quote]
Works begun by
Ur-Nammu, such as the great ziggurat of Ur (a replica of the Tower of Babel?),
are thought to have been completed by Shulgi.
Ur-Nammu’s Law
Code is attributed by some to Shulgi instead.
Two sides of the
same coin?
And, just to include briefly
(and to conclude with) Amar-Sin, I have previously written:
….
Normally one
will find that, prior to, say, the C8th BC approximately, the conventional
history is well out of kilter with the biblical history. In the case of the Ur
III dynasty, however, which some consider to be contemporaneous with Abraham,
the unusual situation may actually be that these two histories are in fact
closely synchronous. Revisionist scholar, David Rohl – presumably following
Herb Storck (see below) – has accepted this syncretism between the two and has
proceeded to identify Abraham’s contemporary, Amraphel of Shinar, with Ur III’s
Amar-Sin (c. 1980 BC, conventional dating).
Despite the
likes of Kenneth Kitchen arguing that the Genesis 14 coalition of kings would
have to have occurred at a time in Mesopotamian history when, in the words of McClellan
“no individual dynasty had complete control over the region” (Kitchen wrote on
this):
However, by contrast with the Levant,
this kind of alliance of eastern states was only possible at certain periods.
Before the Akkadian Empire, Mesopotamia was divided between the Sumerian
city-states, but this is far too early for our narrative (pre-2300). After an
interval of Gutian interference, Mesopotamia was then dominated by the Third
Dynasty of Ur, whose influence reached in some form as far west as north Syria
and Byblos. After its fall, circa 2000, Mesopotamia was divided between a
series of kingdoms, Isin, Larsa, Eshnunna, Assyria, etc., with Mari and various
local powers in lands farther north and west. This situation lasted until the
eighteenth century, when Hammurabi of Babylon eliminated most of his rivals.
From circa 1600/1500 onward, Assyria and Babylon (now under Kassite rule)
dominated Mesopotamia, sharing with none except briefly Mitanni (ca. 1500 to
mid-thirteenth century) within the Euphrates’ west bend, and the marginal Khana
and Sea-land princedoms were eliminated in due course. Thus, from circa 2000 to
1750 (1650 at the extreme), we have the one and only period during which
extensive power alliances were common in Mesopotamia and with its neighbors
(Kitchen 2003, p. 320) [,]
I think it is
quite possible that this coalition could have consisted of two dominant rulers,
Amraphel and
Chedorlaomer of Elam, and two of their governors.
Did not the
neo-Assyrian kings later boast that their ‘governors were all kings’?
Thus the two
other coalitional kings listed in Genesis 14:1, “Arioch king of Ellasar”, and
“Tidal king of Goyim”, were likely of secondary status by comparison with
Amraphel and Chedorlaomer, and may thus have been only local rulers, e.g., ensi-governors.
Herb Storck has
made some potentially important observations regarding these two characters, Erioch
and Tidal, in his article, “The Early Assyrian King List, The Genealogy
of the Hammurapi Dynasty, and the ‘Greater Amorite’ Tradition” (C and AH
Proceedings 3, 1986).
Here I
reproduce a summary I made of the relevant parts of this article back in 2002:
Storck’s
identification of the name 16 [in Assyrian King List: AKL], Ushpia (Ishbak),
with the “Ushpia … known to have built at Ashur, according to a later tradition
by Shalmaneser”, and his dating of this Ushpia “as a later contemporary of
Abraham … [to] the later part of Ur III dynasty” now encourages me to try to
identify members of the Mesopotamian coalition of Genesis 14 during Ur III, at
the time of Abraham. Since Storck has already dealt with these four kings in
part, I shall begin where he does, with Arioch of Ellasar [p. 45. Storck had
already noted, with reference to Poebel, that the name Azarah might be composed
of a Western Semitic (WS) form, “to come forth” and WHR “moon” (month)]:
A certain
Arioch of Ellasar, furthermore, is cited as one of the four kings against five.
This Arioch may provisionally be identified with Azarah if “WRH” moon (month)
is closer to the original etymology. Ellasar has received various treatments
over the years: Larsa al sarri or “city of the King”, Til Assuri, “the country
of Assyria” and/or “the city of Assur ….The connection between Ellasar is
explained as a derived form of A LA-SAR, an ideogram denoting the city of
Assyria” …. That “Assur” is meant here may receive further support if the
connection with Arioch-Azarah is defensible. However, to the best of our
knowledge A LA SAR is not an attested reading for Assur. We therefore suggest
that it was heard as “alu Assur” and “Ellasar” is an attempt to render this,
based on oral transmission.
Now in the
later part of the Ur III dynasty era – the era for Abraham according to
Storck’s view – at the time of Amar-Sin of Ur (c. 2046-2038 BC, conventional
dating), we read of an official of Ashur who may well be this Arioch/Azarah. He
is Zariqum. I quote regarding him from the Cambridge Ancient History
[Vol. I, pt. 2 (3rd ed.), p. 602]:
“From Ashur
itself comes a stone tablet dedicated by Zariqum, calling himself governor of
Ashur, ‘for the life of Amar-Sin the mighty, king of Ur, king of the four
regions’, whereby it is certain that Ashur was a vassal-city of Ur under its
next king”.
The name
Zariqum contains the main elements of both Arioch (ariq) and Azarah (zari),
thus supporting Storck’s view that these are the same names, and further
linking the king lists and the Bible. But this quotation may tell us more with
regard to the coalition. It in fact gives us the name of the Sumerian ruler
whom Zariqum served: Amar-Sin (var. Amar-Su’en).
[End of quotes]
I think that there is an
excellent possibility that Amar-Sin - with whom in this article I have merged
Akkadian as well as other of the Ur III king names - was likewise the biblical
Nimrod-Amraphel (in league with Arioch-Zariqum).
