Nimrod a “mighty man”

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
 

Hunting Nimrod 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”,
VT, Vol. 52, Fasc. 3, July 2002, p. 350).

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.
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:

Assyrian King Sargon II, otherwise known as Sennacherib. Part Three:

Akkadian King Sargon I, otherwise known as Naram-Sin?
https://www.academia.edu/39616195/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_otherwise_known_as_Senn
acherib._Part_Three_Akkadian_King_Sargon_I_otherwise_known_as_Naram-Sin

- 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:
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Amraphel.html#.XQmBvuQ8R9A

Meaning
Unclear, but perhaps: One That Darkens Counsel, or The Commandment Which Went
Forth

Etymology
Unclear, but perhaps from (1) the verb ‫( אמר‬amar), to talk or command, and (2) the
verb ‫'( אפל‬pl), 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

https://www.academia.edu/39473281/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 …”.

Hunting Nimrod amongst the Sumerians

I wrote this section before I had differently concluded that the Ur III dynasty was actually
Hammurabic. See e.g. my more recent articles:

Ur Nammu as Hammurabi?
https://www.academia.edu/42020418/Ur_Nammu_as_Hammurabi
and:
https://www.academia.edu/43472127/Ur_Nammu_as_Hammurabi_Part_Two_Very_similar_
seal_design
Here is some of what I had written previously:

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.
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.

From there I had gone on to suggest the possibility that Nimrod may have been able to
‘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?
https://www.academia.edu/39616195/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_otherwise_known_as_Senn
acherib._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.
Then, I had added, 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!
I now think that, as according to convention, the Ur III dynasty belonged after the Akkadian
dynasty. Well after, though, in my opinion, at the time of Hammurabi, a contemporary of the
great King Solomon of Israel:

Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon

https://www.academia.edu/35404463/Hammurabi_and_Zimri_Lim_as_Contemporaries_of_S
olomon