Amraphel

A discussion of the connections between Nimrod and Amraphel

“Now it came to pass in the days of Amraphel the king of Shinar, Arioch the king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and Tidal the king of Goyim.” Genesis 14:1

Important for a proper historical identification of Nimrod would be his rabbinic association with Amraphel - the ‘evil’ king who antagonizes Abraham during his days in Shinar. From the Sefer HaYashar we are given a lengthy story about the relationship of Abraham and Nimrod, but for our purposes it helps connect both Nimrod and Amraphel together. “And Nimrod reigned securely once more, and his servants and ‎princes gave unto Nimrod the additional name of Amraphel, saying: All his people and all his ‎princes were dispersed through the building of the tower and the incidents connected therewith. And for all those hardships Nimrod would not return unto the Lord, but he would ‎only add new sins and transgressions to those already committed. And he instructed the ‎people in everything sinful and wicked before the Lord.”¹

We are given this identification originally in the Talmud during a discussion between Rav and Shmuel where they dispute the reason for Nimrod’s name. Directly from the Talmud, “One of them said: “His name was Nimrod, and why did they call him Amraphel? Because he spoke (amar) and dropped/cast (hippil) our father Abraham into the fiery furnace.” The other said: “His name was Amraphel, and why did they call him Nimrod, because he caused the whole world to rebel (himrid) in his kingship against Him (God).”²

Obviously the Talmud is unsure exactly why Nimrod was called Nimrod - disputed between him casting Abraham into the furnace versus his causing the world to rebel - but both sages are in agreement that Nimrod is indeed Amraphel. They even go so far as to invert each other's naming of Nimrod, with one saying his name was Nimrod, being called Amraphel, and the other saying his name was Amraphel, called Nimrod. No where do they indicate a dispute about the point that they were the same person, or at least shared a name, merely why he was called Nimrod and in what order.

Now this statement isn’t entirely clear. While they do agree that Amraphel was “called” Nimrod it isn’t exactly implying he “was” Nimrod. He was called Nimrod, as a title, but the actual Nimrod may have been a different figure. This is what the Talmud indicates, but other sages do take this to mean that Nimrod and Amraphel are one and the same. Rashi particularly openly says “He is identical with Nimrod who said (אמר) to Abraham”, but he bases this on the same Eruvin 53a that we just addressed.³ While I’m inclined to agree with Rashi that Amraphel was a Nimrod, I’m not sure the term “identical” is best applied in this context.

What is interesting within the Talmud is that this discussion between Rav and Shmuel is followed by a discussion of the King of Egypt where they debate: “There arose a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph” (Exodus 1:8). Rav and Shmuel disagreed. One said: He was actually a new king, and one said: He was in fact the old king, but his decrees were new.”⁴ To me it’s extremely strange that the Talmud would follow a discussion of Nimrod with a discussion of an Egyptian ‘king’ - note, not a pharaoh, making this even stranger.

There is a general rule that the Talmud never places two stories, or debates, next to each other for no reason. Often there is something that binds the two together. The obvious hint here is that Rav and Shmuel are debating if this Egyptian king was new, insinuating that there was also a debate regarding Nimrod being new, or old. Is the Talmud perhaps implying there was possibly a ‘new’ Nimrod? Was this new Nimrod also linked to these new decrees, while still being “related” to the previous Nimrod in some fashion?

Looking into the etymological meaning of Amraphel is sadly not very helpful. Some believe the name could be an illusion to the word אִמְרָה which translated can mean “obscure speech” - hinting at the “confusion” caused by Nimrod and mirroring the etymology of Babel. A slightly related word אֲמַרְכָּל has the implication of officers, or counselors, which in effect are some kind of governors and leaders of political bureaucracies. While the second part of the name, “cal” is not found in Amraphel, the first part “Amra” is the very same name. Another related term אֲמַר also has this intention of “to be above”, or “an authority” and would fit with this title of nobility concept.

Relating to this theory is David Rohl’s suggestion that Amraphel corresponds to the ruler Amar-sin, third ruler of the Ur III dynasty.⁵ This suggestion would place Amraphel as a semitic name composed of two elements “Am(a)r” and “aph(e)l” similar to the ruler Amar-sin. Given Amar-Sin and the Ur III dynasty was roughly around the year 2000 corresponding to nearly the same time as Abraham, it’s at least probable that the Torah is reflecting a similar time period and cultural context.

In Genesis Rabbah we are given some helpful etymological information about Amraphel: “It was in the days of Amrafel” – he was called by three names: Kush, Nimrod, and Amrafel. Kush – because he was literally a Kushite. Nimrod – because he brought about a rebellion [mered] in the world. Amrafel – because his statements [imrato] were darkness [afela]. [In addition,] it is because he defied [amrei] and ridiculed [aflei] the world, and because he defied and ridiculed Abraham, because he said [amar] that he should be cast down into the fiery furnace.”⁶ Not only does this explain two alternative meanings for Amraphel - one being “his statements were darkness” and the other because he “defied and ridiculed the world/Abraham” - but we are given the addition of a third identification for Amrafel in the form of Cush. How confusing...

If we were to make sense of Cush, Nimrod, and Amraphel being the same person then there is no chance Cush and Nimrod can be identical. This would mean either Cush or Nimrod became a delineated title passed down, likely both of them being titles. Cush would have been the dynasty with our example of the name Cush being the earliest name discovered in the entire world in Sumeria itself helping validate the historical provenance of the name.

There are also references to Mesopotamian groups with the name “Kush” such as the Kassites from the 17th century BCE⁷, and as early as the Ur III period.⁸ The Kassites ruled nearly all of Shinar from the 1600s through the 1200s until the Assyrians and Elamites conquered their empire. One critical fact is the patron idol god of the Kassites was ‘Marduk’ could be related to the root for Nimrod, ‘marad’, but is clearly related to Nimrod’s son Mardon known to us through the Sefer HaYashar.⁹

Could this reference to being the same as “Cush” be a reference to Amraphel of the Kassite dynasty? The reference to Cush is not prominent in the Rabbinic literature potentially implying it was more of a colloquial understanding, and not a specific tie to the Kassite dynasty, but reflecting some sort of continuity in relationship. We will look at specific rulers in chronological order for now, but it’s possible later rulers built up this series of titles as hangovers from previous dynasties.

The full story of Amraphel is fairly limited and only comprises chapter fourteen of Genesis where it mostly discusses his role in an alliance of kings fighting Abraham, but has loads of Rabbinic literature that expands on the various clues given in the original text. Much of this is passed to us in the form of oral literature only written down in later centuries when the memories of these kings were no longer politically charged, and writing such information down would not endanger the lives of Jews.

The opening of the chapter begins “Now, when King Amraphel of Shinar, King Arioch of Ellasar, King Chedorlaomer of Elam, and King Tidal of Goiim”, however there is a Targum - an aramaic translation of the original texts written by an important Jewish convert named Onkelos that sometimes includes additional aggadic material - where the line reads “This happened in the days of Amraphel, king of Shinar”¹⁰ expanding on the line and temporally locating this event in the days of Amraphel.

The actual Hebrew used before the list of kings here is “yayhi bimei” which translates to “it came to pass”. In the Talmud we learn that the phrase “it came to pass” preludes incredible grief, and loss for what is about to transpire.¹¹ The Talmud compares “It came to pass in the days of Ahasherus (King of Persia)” where the near genocidal events of Haman follow, to the “It came to pass in the days of Amraphel” where a great war is waged - potentially implying a similar ethnic cleansing of the various regional peoples. The Talmud helpfully mentions dozens of examples where this phrase indicates calamity, of sorts, is about to occur.

Based on the Kitzur Baal HaTurim, the line before “It came to pass” has some relevance to the story. “And he built an altar there,” and the verse following it says, “And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, etc.,” indicating that they needed to bring a sacrifice before going to war.”¹² It’s not exactly clear the implication, but it’s likely Abraham was implored by Amraphel to bring a sacrifice before the war, obviously to an idol god, and this was the ultimate source of the contention between the two.

That is about all we get when it comes to Amraphel proper, and while the story has many historical clues to locations, kingdoms, cities, people and ancient events they aren’t helpful in understanding Amraphel as a real figure, or related to Nimrod. The story’s lack of later bronze age peoples such as Moabites, Ammonites, or many Canaanite people - with the exclusion of the proto-Canaanite Horites and teminologically generic “Amorites” - helps place the story in an era predating the 1800s and many of the later polities that would have necessarily shown up by this era.

There is another important story regarding Abraham and Nimrod that is critical to understanding certain contexts; the story is as follows: “He [Abraham] was given over to Nimrod. [Nimrod] told him: Worship the Fire! Abraham said to him: Shall I then worship the water, which puts off the fire! Nimrod told him: Worship the water! [Abraham] said to him: If so, shall I worship the cloud, which carries the water? [Nimrod] told him: Worship the cloud! [Abraham] said to him: If so, shall I worship the wind, which scatters the clouds? [Nimrod] said to him: Worship the wind! [Abraham] said to him: And shall we worship the human, who withstands the wind? Said [Nimrod] to him: You pile words upon words, I bow to none but the fire—in it shall I throw you, and let the God to whom you bow come and save you from it!

Haran [Abraham's brother] was standing there. He said [to himself]: what shall I do? If Abraham wins, I shall say: "I am of Abraham's [followers]", if Nimrod wins I shall say "I am of Nimrod's [followers]". When Abraham went into the furnace and survived, Haran was asked: "Whose [follower] are you?" and he answered: "I am Abraham's!". [Then] they took him and threw him into the furnace, and his belly opened and he died and predeceased Terach, his father.”¹³

The first half of this story concerns Nimrod taunting Abraham to worship the four classic elements: fire, water, earth, and air. While many would gloss over this as a simple story of idolatry the actual mystical message goes quite a bit deeper. Within Kabbalah the four classic elements are all methods of creation by which the physical world and matter itself was brought into existence. The four letter name of God is often associated with these four forms of creation, and in effect by telling Abraham to worship these “pieces” of God he is telling him to worship the emanations that Kabbalists warn lead to idolatry.

The second half is more simple, and deals with Haran trying to take the side of the victor, and as a result failing to survive the trial of fire. Ultimately this part about Haran shows how he may have outwardly expressed support for Abraham, internally it was a matter of self convenience and disloyalty.

In another interesting story retarding Abraham’s actual war with Amraphel we are given some riveting information regarding God’s intervention in the war: “And when he came to make war with Amraphel and his companions, as it says in Isaiah 41:2, 'He makes his sword like dust,' what is meant by 'like dust'? Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Nehemiah disagreed. Rabbi Judah said that Abraham took dust and threw it at them, and it turned into swords, and he took straw and threw it, and it turned into bows and arrows. Rabbi Nehemiah said to him: If so, you have uprooted the verse, for it is not written 'dust and straw,' but rather 'like dust and straw.' What is meant by 'like straw'? That Amraphel threw swords and they turned into dust, and he threw arrows and they turned into straw.”¹⁴ In this Midrash, Amraphel “threw swords and arrows” which turned into dust and straw respectively. Within this story we see God acting as a defensive protector to Abraham, rather than an offensive God of war like the other Mesopotamian deities.

Rashi elaborates on this line, bringing up Nimrod, probably based on Midrash Tehillim, explaining the line as follows “although I am dust and ashes: I was already fit to be dust at the hands of the kings and ashes at the hands of Nimrod, were it not for Your mercies that stood by me.” Yet again we get more regarding this dust and ashes from Genesis Rabbah “Behold now, I have presumed […and I am dust and ashes]” – he said: ‘Had Amrafel killed me, would I not be dust now? Had Nimrod burned me, would I not be ashes now?’ The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘By your life, you said: “I am dust and ashes,” by your life, I will provide atonement to your descendants through them,’ as it is stated: “They shall take for the impure from the dust of the burning of the purification” (Numbers 19:17), “a pure man shall gather the ashes of the heifer” (Numbers 19:9).”¹⁵ Again, this obvious association between Nimrod and Amraphel is very clear, but even this association between dust and a promise of generations - a pattern reflected in both Adam and Abrahams stories.

Following Genesis Rabbah there is a deep association between Amraphel and any broadly evil figures, based on a commentary on a line from Psalms. “The wicked drew their swords…their swords will come into their own hearts….” (Psalms 37:14–15) the text interprets “the wicked drew their swords [and stretched their bows]” as Amrafel and his cohorts showing a deeper association between Amraphel and any manner of war-mongering figures.¹⁶

Continuing in Genesis Rabbah 42:2 we are given an interesting tidbit from Rabbi Avon who said: “Just as he started off with four kingdoms, so will he conclude with four kingdoms. [He started off with four kingdoms] – “with Kedorlaomer king of Eilam, Tidal king of Goyim, and Amrafel king of Shinar, and Aryokh king of Elasar” (Genesis 14:9). So will he conclude with four kingdoms: The kingdom of Babylon, the kingdom of Media, the kingdom of Greece, and the kingdom of Edom.”¹⁷ This is our first indication of the very deeply held belief within Judaism of a cyclical pattern of Kingdoms that will be necessary before the arrival of the Messiah.

According to Rabbeinu Bahya, Amrafel is also ‘identical’ with Nimrod, and elaborates that he was the same king who threw Avram - yet to be named Avraham - into the fiery furnace for his refusal to bow to an idol.¹⁸ Bahya even goes further and says that he was the first of ten kings who ruled over the entire populated earth, with the last being the Messiah, showing a clear allusion to eight other kings who should rule the earth and another reference to that Messianic cycle of kings. In Rabbeinu Bahya’s words, the “paragraph is intended to tell us that Avram was a great hero and warrior” by elaborating how Avram single handedly defeated the alliance of four kings after the other five kings were already defeated.

Rabbeinu Bahya continues to explain a Midrashic perspective that the four kings represent the four empires who at one time or another played host to the Jewish people when they were in exile.¹⁹ The Tur HaArokh supports this same point about the four empires “This war too may be viewed as מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, that events in which our forefathers were involved served as a preview of what would happen in the lives of their descendants. Four Kingdoms would emerge in human history, each one of whom would enslave Avraham’s descendants at one time or another.”²⁰

An elaborate commentary by Ramban on Genesis supports Bahya on this account, saying: “This event happened to Abraham in order to teach us that four kingdoms will arise to rule the world. In the end, his [Abraham’s] children will prevail over them, and they will all fall into their hands. Then they will return all their captives and their wealth. The first one mentioned here is the king of Babylon for so it was to be in the future, as it is written, Thou art the head of gold. Perhaps Ellasar, mentioned here second, is the name of a city in Media or Persia, and Elam, mentioned third, is the city in which the first Greek king — Alexander — was crowned. From there his kingdom spread after he was victorious over Darius, [king of the Persians]. Our Rabbis have already mentioned this matter: “Rabbi Yosei said, ‘For six years the Greeks ruled in Elam, and after that their kingdom spread over the entire world.’” The king of Goiim, [the last of the four kings mentioned here], who ruled over various nations that had made him their head and leader, is an allusion to the king of Rome who ruled over a city comprised of many peoples: Kittim, Edom, and the rest of the nations. Thus the Rabbis said in Bereshith Rabbah, “Rabbi Avin said, ‘Just as Abraham’s grief began with four kingdoms, so will it end for his descendants only with four kingdoms.’” And it further says there: “And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar — this is Babylon; Arioch king of Ellasar — this is Media; Chedorlaomer king of Elam — this is Greece; And Tidal king of Goiim — this is that kingdom (Rome) which writes out a levy [and collects assessment] from all nations of the world.”²¹

Rabbi Bahya also affirms all of this in nearly identical language - likely lifted from Ramban himself given that he was Bahya’s role model - but going further with a few more elaborate details. “The reason the Torah calls the king of that country a “king of nations,” is that his capital was a Metropolis of many different nations, tribes, and political groups. The point of the Midrash is to demonstrate that just as Avram overcame these nations, so his descendants in the future would succeed in overcoming their exiles in accordance with the oft-cited principle of מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, that the experiences of the patriarchs foreshadowed the experiences of their descendants.”²² Effectively Bahya is telling us that these patterns, and cycles are all repeatable throughout various eras in history, and each generation will experience a microcosm of these events.

Genesis Rabbah also supports the theory of Messianic cycles saying “Rabbi Elazar bar Avina said: If you see kingdoms clashing with one another, you should anticipate the coming of the Messiah. You may know that it is so, as in the days of Abraham, as a result of the kingdoms clashing with one another, redemption came to Abraham.”²³ Rabbi Elazar bar Avina helps show that these events of Avram versus Nimrod are really not just events of the ancient world, by cyclical parallels that will repeat throughout history with global war as a major sign for the coming arrival of the Messiah.

Perhaps, then, it is through this lens that a theory of Nimrod can start to take shape. Nimrod is Amraphel, but he is Amraphel in a cyclical manner relative to a perpetual ‘reincarnation’ of Nimrods through the ages. Perhaps there were multiple Nimrods, entirely different historical figures, but with the identical ‘soul’ of Nimrod coming back in cyclical fashion to be an enemy of the Jewish people? We will play with this theory in the coming sections.

1. Sefer HaYashar Noach 18

2. Eruvin 53a:7

3. Rashi on Genesis 14:1:1

4. Eruvin 53a:8

5. Rohl, David (2010). The Lords of Avaris. Random House. p. 294.

6. Bereshit Rabbah 42:4

7. Koppen, Frans van. "2. The Early Kassite Period". Volume 1 Karduniaš. Babylonia under the Kassites 1, edited by Alexa Bartelmus and Katja Sternitzke, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2017, pp. 45-92

8. J. A. Brinkman, “Kassiten (Kassû),” RLA, vol. 5 (1976–80

9. Sefer HaYashar Noach 18

10. Onkelos Genesis 14:1

11. Megillah 10b:4

12. Kitzur Baal HaTurim Genesis 13:18

13. Bereshit Rabbah 38

14. Midrash Tehillim 110:1

15. Bereshit Rabbah 49:12

16. Bereshit Rabbah 42:1

17. Bereshit Rabbah 42:2

18. Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 14:1:1-2

19. Bereshit Rabbah 42:4

20. Tur HaArokh, Genesis 14:1:1

21. Ramban on Genesis 14:1:1

22. Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 14:1:1-2

23. Bereshit Rabbah 42:4