Identification Four: Akkadian Period

World's First Empire

Sargon rose to power either between 2270-2215 BCE (short chronology), or 2334-2279 BCE after defeating Lugalzagesi of Uruk, and unifying Sumeria. Unlike previous rulers, Sargon doesn't stop in the south and continues his conquests in the north to form what many consider the earliest “empire” in the technical sense of the term. As mentioned previously the connection to Nimrod as the son of “Cush” would come from the Kassites, founders of the city Kish - due to Sargon’s birth either in the city’s surroundings, or in the very nearby region.

Sargon, or Sarru-kin, is actually not his birth name, but a throne name meaning “the true king’ in Akkadian. Nimrod translates in Hebrew to “we shall rebel” or simply “rebellion” which is clearly a nickname used for Nimrod rather than his original name. Both of these rulers are using ‘false names’ of sorts even if we presume the ‘real’ name of Nimrod to be Amraphel in a later era. Regardless of how long Nimrod lives, he clearly changes his name, and Nimrod is not a title he goes by in later periods.

While Sargon had successfully conquered much of the ‘known’ universe (from a Sumerian perspective) including: Syria, (Mari, Ebla), Canaan, Lebanon, Mesopotamia, Elam, Marhashi (Persia), Dilmun, Magan (Oman, implying much of the gulf coast was under his thumb), possibly Cyprus, and much of the northern hills of Anatolia where he reportedly fought with Hattian kings.¹ He even was able to successfully trade as far as Afghanistan for their precious gems, importantly lapis lazuli, as well as trade with Meluhha “blocks of lapis lazuli and bright carnelian from Meluhha” - probably identified with the Harappans in the Indus-Valley.²

During his reign, the legitimacy of the empire was under question and various lands began revolting such as Sumer, and Gutium. This would show there was resistance from the people despite his “universal” acknowledgement as a ‘good’ ruler. Good rulers still have opposing factions because no leader is exempt from criticisms despite their achievements and strengths. Sometimes, a single flaw might even overcome a supposedly “good” ruler, or a single positive trait can overcome an otherwise incompetent leader’s legacy in the eyes of certain groups. Look no further than Roman emperors and their treatment in Judaism to understand this legacy.

Impossible to ignore is the erroneously named Wiedner Chronicle, better named as the Esagila Chronicle or ABC 19 (Assyrian Babylonian Chronicle), purports that Sargon of Akkad built Babylon “in front of Akkad”.³ The whole text seems like a fabrication with the mention of Utu-Hengal, Kubaba, Puzur-Nirah, Ur-Zababa, Enmerkar, Naram-Sin, and even Adapa all mentioned in the same text. It would appear to be a compilation of events from after the period of all these rulers making its information speculative.

From a later chronicle (ABC 20) we learn that Sargon “dug up the dirt of the pit of Babylon, and made a counterpart of Babylon next to Akkad”⁴ Scholar Marc Van de Mieroop has suggested that those sources may refer to the much later Assyrian king Sargon II of the Neo-Assyrian Empire rather than Sargon of Akkad.⁵ If this is true, then both of these texts are completely useless for identifying Sargon, but might have served contemporary Jews in the period of Sargon II to identify him as a cyclical Nimrod. Both of these texts are no help at understanding the founding of Akkad.

Many might presume Akkad is extremely important in a biblical context given all this background, but the reality is that Akkad is mentioned in the Bible only here, one time in Genesis. If the famed “Sargon of Akkad” was mentioned in the bible, we would probably see more references to the city if it was meant as the location for ‘Babel’ or Nimrod - irrelevant to Nimrod having his kingdom in Akkad. This might be due to the fact Akkad is lost to this day, unlike other cities from the bible. We may one day still find this city, but there could be some other reason it was lost to time.

Both of these texts (ABC 19, 20) actually suggest that Sargon might have rebuilt the city of Babylon in a new location near Akkad.⁶  This would be very interesting and actually explain the “founding” of Babylon by Nimrod - if one actually believes Nimrod lines up with Sargon. If we exclude the later achievements under the name “Amraphel” and accept that figure is a different variant of Nimrod in some sense, then this would set up Sargon - or at the least the Sargonic dynasty - as the identity of the legendary Nimrod. Sargon’s nearly 56 year reign would actually seem almost mythological to many of the average citizens, and the dynasty itself lasting 180 years does line up with certain Midrashic texts for the reign of “Nimrod”.

In the final years of his reign there was a revolt in Elam “In his old age, all the lands revolted against him, and they besieged him in Akkad (the city) [but] he went forth to battle and defeated them, he knocked them over and destroyed their vast army.”⁷ Another revolt shortly followed in “the Subartu the upper country—in their turn attacked, but they submitted to his arms, and Sargon settled their habitations, and he smote them grievously.” Obvious from these revolts was resistance to Sargon’s leadership with certain nations viewing him as illegitimate.

There are those who directly identify Sargon with the traditions of Nimrod’s story, but amalgamate him with his grandson, Naram-Sin.⁸ I actually view this as unlikely, and as we have already seen there is no reason Sargon’s traditions feed into Nimrod in any greater way than the previous eras under Enmerkar or Gilgamesh. One reason I suspect this makes no sense is due to the overwhelming agreement in ancient Mesopotamia that Sargon was an incredibly wise, and just ruler, however the cause of this might be the amalgamation with his son Naram-Sin who is universally viewed as a terribly evil ruler. While I do not view “Sargon as Nimrod” a likely theory, I would much more strongly affiliate with the theory that the entire Sargonic dynasty represents one of the Nimrods. Let us turn to his descendants.

1. Stiebing, H. William Jr. (2009). Ancient Near Eastern History and Culture. Pearson Longman; University of New Orleans. p. 70.

2. Moorey, Peter Roger Stuart (1999). Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence. Eisenbrauns. p. 87.

3. ABC 19:51

4. ABC 20:18–19

5. Dalley, Stephanie (18–22 July 2005). Babylon as a name for other cities including Nineveh (PDF). Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. SAOC. Vol. 62. pp. 25–33. OCLC 938410607

6. Dalley proposes that these sources may have originally referred to Sargon II of the Assyria rather than Sargon of Akkad. Stephanie Dalley, "Babylon as a Name for Other Cities Including Nineveh", in [4] Archived 30 July 2012 at the Wayback Machine Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Oriental Institute SAOC 62, pp. 25–33, 2005

7. Ibid. p. 71.

8. Levin, Yigal (2002). "Nimrod the Mighty, King of Kish, King of Sumer and Akkad". Vetus Testamentum. 52 (3): 350–366.