Vetus

Testamentum
Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 63-68 brill.nl/vt

“. . . A Mighty Hunter before YHWH”:

Genesis 10:9 and the Moral-Theological
Evaluation of Nimrod

Mary Katherine Y. H. Hom

Cambridge

Abstract
The key to interpreting ‫ גִּ בּוֹר ַציִ ד ִל ִפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬in Gen 10:9 lies not so much in ‫ל ְפנֵ י‬,ִ but ‫יְ הוָ ה‬, which
posits a relation between Nimrod and YHWH that expresses the superlative with regard to the
strength of Nimrod’s abilities. Connections between Gen 10:8-12 and 11:1-9 reinforce a nega-
tive assessment of Nimrod’s character.

Keywords
Gen 10:9, Nimrod, ‫ל ְפנֵ י‬,ִ superlative

‫ל־כּן יֵ ָא ַמר ְכּנִ ְמרׂד גִּ בּוֹר ַציִ ד ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬

ֵ ‫הוָה ַﬠ‬
֑ ְ‫ׂר־ציִ ד ִל ְפנֵ י י‬
ַ ‫וּא־היָ ה גִ ֽבּ‬
ָ ‫ֽה‬
He was a mighty hunter before the LORD;
that is why it is said, ‘Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD’.
—Gen 10:9 (NIV)

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the meaning of Gen 10:9, particu-
larly the phrase ‫“( גִּ בּוֹר ַציִ ד ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬a mighty hunter before YHWH”). The
immediate context of Gen 10:9 presents Nimrod as a descendant of Cush in
the Table of Nations. Nimrod stands out in the genealogy as a unique figure
deserving attention in that 1) he is the only clearly non-eponymous individ-
ual mentioned, and 2) he is the only figure significantly elaborated upon.1
While the text does not present an explicit theological evaluation of Nimrod,
implicit indications in the description behoove further inquiry.
First, we ask, what is the significance of ‫ ?גִּ בּוֹר ַציִ ד ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬Early readers
often found that a key to interpretation involved the meaning of ‫ל ְפנֵ י‬.ִ Though

1)
Peleg, in Gen 10:25, is accompanied by the brief nominal explanation that “because in his
time the earth was divided”.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/004249310X12577537066918
64 M. K. Y. H. Hom / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 63-68

the LXX and Vulgate render ‫ ִל ְפנֵ י‬with similar terms—ἐναντίον and coram,
respectively—others sought to further explicate this term, resulting in a vari-
ety of interpretations. Augustine, whose reading of 10:9 proved influential
among early Christian writers, preferred understanding ‫ ִל ְפנֵ י‬as “against”
instead of the usual “before”.2 Pseudo-Philo introduces Nimrod with “he
began to be arrogant before the Lord”.3 Targum Neofiti and the Fragment
Targums understand ‫ ִל ְפנֵ י‬as “before”, but qualify Nimrod’s prowess before
the Lord as “in sin”.4 Being that ‫ נִ ְמרׂד‬could be understood as a Niphal form
of ‫מרד‬, “to rebel”, Philo reads the end of Gen 10:9 as “ ‘a giant before God’,
which clearly is opposition to the Deity”.5 Elsewhere, Philo describes Nimrod
as one who “began this desertion” by the “sons of earth”, in relation to the fact
that “his name means ‘desertion [αὐτομόλησις]’ ”.6 Similarly, Talmudic inter-
pretations describe Nimrod as one who “led all the world in rebellion against
him [i.e., God]”.7 Some early scholars found the text defended Nimrod’s
nobility and bravery, however. Ephrem the Syrian asserted that Nimrod acted
“according to the will of the Lord” and that the comparison of a leader with
Nimrod was a blessing.8 “Before YHWH” was interpreted by Chrysostom as
indicating that Nimrod “was strong and brave” and meaning “created by
[God], receiving from him God’s blessing. Or it may mean that God was on
the point of arousing our wonder through him by creating such a remarkable
creature and displaying him before us on the earth”.9 While it is beyond the
purposes of this essay to engage in a critical discussion of each of the above
proposals,10 may it suffice to note that ‫ ִל ְפנֵ י‬per se may be construed with a

2)
Augustine, Civ. 16.4. For further discussion, see E. B. Farisani, “Nimrod: Reading the Bible
with South African Eyes”, in A. B. Pinn and A. D. Callahan (eds.), African American Religious
Life and the Story of Nimrod (New York, 2008), pp. 97-109 (pp. 100-101).
3)
L. A. B. 4:7.
4)
See M. L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources,
2 vols. (Rome, 1980), 1.49; 2.11.
5)
Philo, QG II, 82. See also L. Grabbe, Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew
Names in Philo (BJS; Atlanta, 1988), p. 191.
6)
Philo, Gig. 65-66.
7)
b. Erub. 53a; b. Pesah. 94b; b. Hag. 13a. Further examples of rabbinic texts propagating this
interpretation of Nimrod as a sinful person are in B. Grossfeld’s study, Targum Neofiti 1: An
Exegetical Commentary to Genesis; Including Full Rabbinic Parallels (New York, 2000), p. 120.
8)
Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on Genesis 8.2, cf. 8.4.2.
9)
Chrysostom, Hom. Gen. 29.29, though cf. 29.30.
10)
Most efforts in modern academic discussions regarding Nimrod concentrate on the histori-
cal identity of the Nimrod portrayed in Gen 10:8-12. Consider, for example, Y. Levin, “Nim-
rod the Mighty, King of Kish, King of Sumer and Akkad”, VT 52/3 (2002), pp. 350-364; E. A.
 M. K. Y. H. Hom / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 63-68 65

number of nuances and one must appeal to other aspects of the text to defend
a particular meaning of ‫ ִל ְפנֵ י‬beyond its very general sense of “at the face of ”,
“in front of ”, “in the presence of ”.11
Indeed, the focal issue becomes not so much whether ‫ ִל ְפנֵ י‬is intended to
denote “before” or “against”, but what the indication of ‫ יְ הוָ ה‬being in some
sort of relation to Nimrod connotes. To begin, few question the appropriate-
ness of “YHWH” in 10:9, text-critically speaking.12 Occupying the positive
end of the interpretive spectrum is the explanation that YHWH “had some
regard for [Nimrod]”.13 A more conservative, but still positive rendering
understands Nimrod’s power (note: power, not character) as “a gift of God’s
grace”.14 Similarly, Kidner remarks that “there is warmth in the reiterated
before the Lord . . ., marking God’s estimate of his skill”.15 Mathews argues for
a negative character portrayal of Nimrod on the basis of “lexical connections”
(primarily references to Babel, Shinar, the building of cities, and “began”)
between the Nimrod description and the tower of Babel narrative soon to

Speiser, “In Search of Nimrod”, ErIsr 5 (1958), pp. 32-36; and K. van der Toorn and P. W. van
der Horst, “Nimrod Before and After the Bible”, HTR 83/1 (1990), pp. 1-29 ; see also B. Oded,
“The Table of Nations (Genesis 10)—A Socio-cultural Approach”, ZAW 98 (1986), pp. 14-31 ;
and A. van der Kooij, “The City of Babel and Assyrian Imperialism: Genesis 11:1-9 Interpreted
in the Light of Mesopotamian Sources”, presidential address in A. Lemaire (ed.), Congress Vol-
ume Leiden 2004 (Leiden, 2006), pp. 1-17. Each of these essays contributes helpful observa-
tions of historical events and cognate literature, though the degree to which they focus on the
literary meaning of particular details in the text itself varies. Perhaps unsurprisingly, even more
various are the proposals for the historical identity of Nimrod. For a bizarre and erroneous, but
unfortunately influential, compilation of Nimrod “rumours” in more recent times, see Alexan-
der Hislop, The Two Babylons; or, The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His
Wife, 4th ed. (London, 1871), pp. 36-40, 50-160; see also comments regarding Hislop’s Two
Babylons in Stephen R. Haynes, Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery
(Oxford, 2002), pp. 58-59, 171.
11)
See BDB, “‫”פנה‬, def. 4//pp. 816-817.
12)
However, H. Gunkel, Genesis (Macon, 1997), pp. 90-91, surmises that “YHWH” is merely
“due to the Israelitization of the material” and that a Babylonian hunter god was probably the
original deity in the tradition. Cf. U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 2:
From Noah to Abraham; Genesis 6:9-11:32. With an Appendix: A Fragment of Part III, trans. I.
Abrahams (Jerusalem, 1964), pp. 201-202, which directly counters Gunkel’s assertion by insist-
ing that “the Tetragrammaton occurs here because the epic poem from which these verses are
cited was a purely Israelite work”.
13)
S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis. With Introduction and Notes (15th ed.; London, 1948),
p. 120.
14)
V. P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis. Chapters 1-17 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, 1991), p. 339.
15)
D. Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; London, 1967), p. 107.
66 M. K. Y. H. Hom / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 63-68

follow.16 One could argue that the reference to “YHWH” is so strongly

emphasized that the character of Nimrod is moot; the point is that Nimrod’s
prowess—whether deemed good or evil—is subject to YHWH.17 Speiser
comments similarly, but in a way allowing for possible moral-theological
evaluation, depending on the context: “Not infrequently, lipnê Yahweh is
like our deo volente”.18 Still others interpret “before YHWH” as a neutral
superlative,19 indicated in similar expressions by the use of the generic names
of the deity.20 Thomas is careful to recognize that superlative uses of divine
names are not simply stock expressions, but retain theological significance: a
person or thing is elevated to superlative degrees by virtue of being brought
into relationship with God.21
I find that the most convincing interpretation involves a nuanced approach
that understands “before YHWH” as a superlative with the theological under-
tones Thomas proposes for such expressions. The choice of ‫ יְ הוָ ה‬instead

16)
K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26 (NAC; Nashville, 1996), p. 450.
17)
I forward this suggestion on the basis of T. L. Brodie, Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Histori-
cal, and Theological Commentary (New York, 2001), pp. 194-195, and W. H. Gispen, “Who
Was Nimrod?”, trans. T. E. N. Ozinga, in J. H. Skilton (ed.), The Law and the Prophets: Old
Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis (n.p., 1974), pp. 207-214, note
esp. p. 212:
. . . Jahweh sees this mighty man and his hunting, which takes place under Jahweh’s eye.
Jahweh is present at the chase. Not only the righteous man (Noah; cf. Gen. 7:1), but also
the man who seeks his strength in the hunt (Nimrod), and even the murderer (Cain; cf.
Gen. 4:14, 16) act under His eye; yea, all the inhabitants of the earth (Gen. 6:11). Cain
and Noah are conscious of the presence of the LORD; Nimrod probably is not. . . . It is
not to be assumed that the expression “before the LORD”, “in God’s sight”, conveys a
kind of approval of the hunt which at the time might have been considered a blessing,
because wild beasts formed a menace to mankind (cf. Gen. 9:2). The expression “before
the LORD”, “in God’s sight”, is a general one . . . Only when this is quite clear from the
context, it may denote approval or disapproval.
18)
E. A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB; Garden City, 1964), p. 51,
which qualifies that “what is involved in such instances is the attitude of the party concerned
[in this case, YHWH], in terms of judgment, will, approval, and the like”.
19)
See brief discussion in C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, trans. J. J. Scullion
(London, 1984), p. 516.
20)
Cassuto, Genesis, p. 201, and D. W. Thomas, “A Consideration of Some Unusual Ways of
Expressing the Superlative in Hebrew”, VT 3 (1953), pp. 209-224, esp. examples on p. 210.
21)
Thomas, “A Consideration”, pp. 215-218. As Thomas concludes for his eight case studies,
“In all these examples it may be conceded that the divine names have a superlative force so long
as we understand that the superlative force is imparted, not by the addition of the divine names
as intensifying epithets, but by the fact that a person or thing is brought into relationship with
God” (p. 216).
 M. K. Y. H. Hom / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 63-68 67

of ‫לה ׁים‬
ִ ‫א‬,
ֱ the usual generic name for Israel’s God, draws attention to the
greatness of Nimrod’s power in relation to not the gods of Babylonia nor
just a universally-recognized notion of deity, but to YHWH in particular. In
this respect, I agree with the first part of Gispen’s interpretation (see above,
note 17), though I would pair this theological nuance with—if not subsume
it under—an intent to convey the superlative, at least with regard to the
strength of Nimrod’s abilities.
A relative ‘weakening’ of the force of the divine name22 may be supported
by the apparent proverbial nature of Gen 10:9b. That Gen 10:9b was a say-
ing familiar to the original audience is maintained by almost all modern
scholars. Dillman observes that ‫ל־כּן יֵ ָא ַמר‬
ֵ ‫ ַﬠ‬is “elsewhere the formula with
which reference is made to something written . . . or generally known and
proverbial”.23 Further, if one accepts that ‫ נִ ְמרׂד‬is or is derived from a Niphal
form of ‫מרד‬, then it is worth observing that the Niphal with impersonal
meaning and in reference to names may convey “a byword, or something that
is habitually said”.24 I agree with Westermann that the content of Gen 10:9
commends itself to proverbial status: “It is clear that the whole sentence [of
v. 9] is shaped out of the proverb. Proverbs of this kind, in which the deeds
or conduct of a contemporary are compared with those of a famous figure
from the past, are found all over the earth”.25
While the proverbial status of Gen 10:9 may seem to render the depiction
of Nimrod as too common to merit significant moral-theological evaluation,
the surrounding verses of Gen 10:9 do not. Distinctive vocabulary and
phrases imply a negative perspective of Nimrod’s activity both within Gen
10:8-12 as a contained unit and further in relation to the Tower of Babel
narrative soon to follow (11:1-9). The use of ‫ חלל‬in the Hiphil in Gen 11:6
echoes its recent use in 10:8.26 ‫בּ ֶבל‬,
ָ in Gen 10:10 and 11:9, instantaneously
evokes an impression of corruption and immorality. Likewise, innerbiblical
interpretations evidently understood ‫( ִשׁנְ ָﬠר‬Gen 10:10; 11:2) as denoting “a
place of false religion, self-will, and self-aggrandizement” (in addition to the
above, see Josh 7:21; Zech 5:11; Dan 1:2; cf. Gen 14:1, 9; Isa 11:11 might
play on the negative connotation of the word to emphasize its positive
22)
Note that this is a relative weakening, and is not to deny the overall efficacy of the use of the
divine name in Gen 10:9b. See discussion in Thomas, “A Consideration”, p. 219.
23)
A. Dillman, Genesis, Critically and Exegetically Expounded, vol. 1, trans. W. B. Stevenson
(Edinburgh, 1897), p. 352.
24)
Hamilton, Book of Genesis, p. 339.
25)
Westermann, Genesis 1-11, p. 516.
26)
Possibly other passages in Genesis that include ‫ חלל‬and morally-deplorable situations are
echoed (e.g., Gen 6:1-7; 9:20-27; 34:1-31 [cf. v. 27]; 49:4).
68 M. K. Y. H. Hom / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 63-68

message).27 All three of these distinctive words occur in Gen 11:1-9 to

describe the humans’ activity, which is clearly condemned by YHWH. Thus,
Nimrod and his activities are retroactively reinforced as rebellious. The shared
unusual vocabulary sets up the relation between Gen 10:8-12 and 11:1-9,
which is then supported by other, more-common phrases and motifs that
also suggest themselves as connections: ‫ל־כּן‬ ֵ ‫( ַﬠ‬10:9; 11:9), ‫( ָה ָא ֶרץ‬10:11;
11:1, 4, 8, 9; cf. 10:8, 10), and city-building, ‫( בנה‬10:11; 11:4, 5, 8). Also,
the vain project of the men—building a city and a tower (‫וּמגְ ָדּל‬ִ ‫ﬠיר‬,ִ 11:4, cf.
v. 5)—resembles in form the conclusive phrase of the Nimrod description,
‫( ָהעִיר ַהגְּ ד ָׂלה‬10:12b).28
Mesopotamian ideology may also be reflected in the description of Nim-
rod in Gen 10:8-12. The depiction of Nimrod as a hunter-king resonates
soundly with Assyrian portrayals.29 As well, the twice-occurring motif of four
cities (vv. 10-12a) suggests imperialist notions along the lines of the “four
corners of the earth”.30 The overall effect indicates a response on the part of
the text to Assyrian ideology—whereas a Babylonian or Assyrian monarch
typically presumed to be king of the world, “before YHWH” makes clear
that YHWH is actually king of the world.31
In conclusion, we have seen that 10:9 depicts Nimrod as a superlatively
mighty hunter whose strength reaches colloquialistic status—yet it is defined
and determined so only in relation to YHWH. Further, literary cues within
Gen 10:1-12 itself and also in relation to the surrounding chapters indicate
an implicit, but clear view of Nimrod’s character as truly living up to his
name—rebellious, in a manner further expressed in the tower of Babel narra-
tive.32 Possible allusions to Mesopotamian ideology may reinforce the under-
standing that YHWH—not Babylon or Assyria—is the true king of the
world.
27)
J. E. Goldingay, Daniel (WBC; Dallas, 1989), p. 15.
28)
Observe that Josephus, apparently on the basis of content alone, attributes Nimrod
(Νεβρω΅δης) with “incit[ing the inhabitants of Shinar] to this insolent contempt of God” and
advising them to build the tower of Babel (Ant. 1.4.4.2-3). While I agree with the general con-
nections between the Nimrod description and the tower of Babel narrative, to posit such spe-
cific connections is something of an imaginative departure from the text.
29)
The Assyrian lion hunt reliefs at the British Museum come most readily to mind in this
respect.
30)
E.g., see A. Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad (Göttingen, 1994), p. 33, l. 9;
p. 43, ll. 72-73; pp. 47-48, ll. 49-51; p. 72, ll. 92-95a; see also pp. 79-80, ll. 49-51; and discus-
sion in van der Kooij, “City of Babel and Assyrian Imperialism”, pp. 9, 12-15.
31)
Many thanks to A. van der Kooij for drawing my attention to this.
32)
I would like to thank R. P. Gordon for comments on an earlier draft of this article. Any
inconsistencies or errors are solely mine, of course.
Copyright of Vetus Testamentum is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.