For the first post on this blog, I am uploading a link (below) to the 2013 peer-reviewed journal article I published on Nimrod of Genesis 10. This article is the most viewed document I have uploaded to my academia.edu webpage, bar none. As of November of 2021, the article has received over 14,500 hits. The popularity of this article stuns me to this day. Many people obviously find Nimrod to be a fascinating character. Typical published translations of the passage in which the story of Nimrod is found (Gen 10:7-12) contain numerous imprecise renditions of how the Hebrew text reads.
For example, most published English versions state in Gen 10:8 that "Cush became the father of Nimrod." However, Gen 10:7 lists the 5 sons of Cush, and Nimrod is not included among them. In my article, I demonstrate that the Hebrew verb (yalad), which describes the Cush-Nimrod relationship in Gen 10:8, sometimes is used in the Hebrew Bible not of a father-son relationship, but of an ancestor-descendant relationship. The context demands that Gen 10:8 is one of those times. Therefore, a better translation of the Hebrew wording here is that "Cush sired Nimrod" (i.e. was his distant progenitor).
For another example, most published English versions suggest in Gen 10:9 that Nimrod "was a mighty hunter before the Lord." On a minor note, the word "Lord" (Hebrew adonai) is not the word used in the original text. Rather, the covenant-name of God is used, which is translated best as "He-who-is," or "The-one-who-goes-on-existing," as the masculine, singular participle derives from the "to be" verb. The emphasis of the substantival participle here is on the ongoing eternal existence of God, which is one of the most pertinent incommunicable (i.e. non-transferable [to mankind]) attributes that God possesses.
Of more vital note to the article, the Hebrew word translated by many as "hunter" is a terrible choice in Gen 10:9. In the article, I explain that the word actually means "foodstuff." Of course, Nimrod could not have become a powerful foodstuff. Instead, a Semitic (actually Ugaritic) cognate for the Hebrew word means "slaughter, sacrifice." A Punic construct of this term is "sacrifice of slaughtering," meaning that the focus not only could be on the sacrifice, but the slaughtering of the sacrificial life-form. This implies that the ANE (ancient Near Eastern) word can refer to the person performing the slaughtering. For this reason, a far more preferable translation of Gen 10:9 is that Nimrod "became a powerful slaughterer in the sight of He-who is." It is almost comical that the tantalizing and thrilling word "hunter" typically appears here in translation, as the implication is that Nimrod was a resourceful expeditioner who tracked and hunted down exotic animals in his leisure time. Instead, the context reflects how Nimrod was an empire-builder, one who violently exploited his tyrannical power by slaughtering innocent residents of the many cities that he conquered along his way to renown.
The article then goes on to critique three false views of Nimrod's historical identity: Ninurta (the Sumerian god of war), Amenhotep III (an Egyptian king of Dynasty 18, whose rule began two years before the Israelites first entered Canaan under Joshua), and Gilgamesh (a supposed King of Uruk). After this, the article argues for the proper identity of Nimrod as Sargon of Akkad, the first king of the Akkadian Empire, who also represents the world's first empire-builder. Archaeological and epigraphical (i.e. written) evidence is utilized to draw amazing parallels between biblical Nimrod and historical Sargon. The hope is that the blog viewer will consider reading the entire case for identifying the biblical figure of Sargon with Sargon of Akkad, which lends credence to the reliability of the biblical text by connecting a previously unrelatable character of early biblical history with a known person. Enjoy!
Identifying Nimrod of Genesis 10 with Sargon of Akkad by Exegetical and Archaeological Means
