Land of Nimrod (Part 1/2)
“And they shall break the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod at its gates; and he shall save [us] from Assyria, who comes into our land, and who treads in our border.” Micah 5:5
Based on the text and through a commentary by the Radak we know that “first [Nimrod] conquered Babylon, and established himself as king there”. The Radak continues saying “Subsequently, he conquered ארך, אכד, and כלנה, all of which are part of the land known as the land of Shinor. After that he went on to conquer many more and more distant lands.”1 Through the Radak’s commentary we are clued into the information that these are merely the principal seats of power he conquers, and there are various far off lands, cities, and kingdoms that Nimrod conquers.
Nimrod as a figure must be viewed as separate from the region that he founds, and conquers. This is no different from Cush, who founded territory later occupied by different kingdoms and peoples. In fact, the Torah has the text “The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erekh, and Akkad, and Kalne, in the land of Shinar”2 which nowhere specifically states or even implies that Nimrod founded these cities. Nimrod may have conquered them, and begun his kingdom at Babel, but the cities and the land of Shinar itself was founded by a different figure - possibly even predating the dispersion.
One important perspective to have when thinking about the Land of Nimrod is that all seventy nations only split after the Tower of Babel's dispersion. This is critical because we know all the nations were living together, speaking one tongue, gathering in the valley of Shinar to build the Tower of Babel eponymously located in “Babel”.
We know this information from the Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer where it says “The second king was Nimrod, who ruled from one end of the world to the other, for all the creatures were dwelling in one place and they were afraid of the waters of the flood, and Nimrod was king over them, as it is said, "And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel".3 This helpful Midrash from between the 2nd-8th century explicitly gathers all of the world's creatures into one place following the flood placing Nimrod as the king of the world.
While this seemingly has Nimrod as the ruler of a unified global empire, the reality is Nimrod was merely the first human king who ruled a complex multi-national polity likely being tributed from various far off lands. In this sense, Nimrod was the first world leader to have a theological center of gravity capable of influencing the totality of humanity - at least since the time of Noah and the flood - lining up with earlier discussions of Nimrod as the one who misled the earth into idolatry. The midrash previously states that God was the first king over the earth - essentially honing in on this identification of “king” as “one who the people tribute/sacrifice toward”. We know that Pharaohs, and likely other Hamitic kings, had a system of top-down centralized theology where the Pharaoh, or King, sat at the top of the pantheon as a physical manifestation of God. This system can thus be seen to have been started by Nimrod, who probably was a “Pharaoh” of sorts.
Looking into rabbinical sources for the identifications of the four main cities ruled by Nimrod in the land of Shinar we find a confusing series of possible locations. From Bereshit Rabbah “The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erekh, and Akad, and Kalne” – Ḥeren, Nesibin, and Katosfin. “In the land of Shinar” – this is Babylon. Why was it called Shinar? Reish Lakish said: It is because all the dead of the Flood were deposited [ninaru] there. Another interpretation, [it is called] Shinar because it is empty [meno’eret] of mitzvot, as there is no teruma, no tithes, and no Sabbatical year [there]. Another interpretation, [it is called] Shinar because they [its inhabitants] would die in discomfort [tashnik], without a lamp and without a bath. Another interpretation, [it is called] Shinar because their princes die as youths [ne’arim]. Another interpretation, [it is called] Shinar because its princes look into the Torah while they are still youths [ne’arim]. Another interpretation, [it is called] Shinar because it produced an enemy [soneh] and a foe [ar] of the Holy One blessed be He. Who is that? It is Nebuchadnezzar.”4
Bereshit Rabbah is quite a good source for various possible meanings of Shinar, and helpfully explains that Nebuchadnezzar comes from Shinar making this obvious identification of Babylon very clear. However, the identification of the cities “Ḥeren, Nesibin, and Katosfin” is subject to scrutiny.
Contradictory evidence for this comes thankfully from a higher source, the Talmud in tractate Yoma where it says “It is stated: “And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar” (Genesis 10:10). Babel in accordance with its plain meaning, Babylonia; Erech, that is the city known then as Orikhut; and Accad, that is the place known then as Baskar; Calneh, that is Nofer Ninefi.”5 Unhelpfully all of this “evidence” leaves us with three unknown locations: Orikhut, Baskar, and Nofer Ninefi. The actual identification for these three cities is also unknown, with too many competing possible claims making this Talmudic example more flexible with how it could be applied.
Even more unhelpful is that when the Talmud claims “Babel in accordance with its plain meaning, Babylonia” it is completely not plain what-so-ever and further confounded due to the fact “Babylonia” is not a city but a region. In this context, Babylonia is not “Babel”, but actually Shinar, and Babel is the specific city of Babel, or Babylon. This is important because of Babylon’s usage in allegorical works as places other than Babylonia proper.
It is known that in Jewish sources Babylon, and often other great kingdoms such as Edom being used for Rome, are used in place of certain kingdoms having dual meanings beyond strictly “Babylon” which became more of a concept than a place. Consistent with this is Eridu which is associated with Babylon in numerous ancient references outside of Judaism for example Berossus who says “Aloros, a Chaldaean from Babylon, was the first king and he reigned for ten saroi.”6 Numerous other textual references associate these two cities together.7
Beyond post dated references affiliating the two cities we actually have creation myths supporting this connection. In one of these creation myths it says “At the time Eridu was built, E-sagil created - E-sagil, which Lugaldukuga [Ea] settled in the midst of the Apsu - Babylon was built, E-sagil complete.”8 These references could imply that “Babylon” was more of the Empire that Nimrod founded, why the city itself was not exactly Babylon proper, but a metaphor for Eridu with a double meaning.
Unhelpful again is that one of the quarters in the city of Babylon, containing the temple of Esagil and the temple of Annunitum actually was named “Eridu” showing the close linkage between these cities by ancient people and affirming the previous creation myth. These references put the text's identification of “Babel” completely into doubt especially when considering Babylon was a later, but still extremely ancient city (2200 BCE~) that wouldn’t make sense as the original place of Sumerian kingship. Eridu would fit this bill more cleanly.
Crazier is that the Assyrian city of Nineveh was actually for a period referred to as Babylon after the Assyrians sacked Babylon showing a pattern of previous cities names being “lifted” and transposed onto the new center of power. Effectively we can see how Eridu has it’s name taken by Babylon, and later Babylon has it’s name taken by Assyria. We see this repeated by many empires throughout history with completely unrelated Persian Empires staking claim for a time, and multiple Romes such as the well known Holy Roman Empire, or the lesser known Sultanate of Rum.9
Rather than Babel meaning Babel, or the city of Babylon at all, it could very well mean Eridu which was located nowhere near Babylon and much further south at the nexus of early Sumerian sites. What is most interesting about Eridu is actually the fact it is recorded as the very first city on the Sumerian Kings list, and it’s archeological attestation puts it as far back at 5500 BCE making it easily one of the earliest inhabited major cities, if not the earliest real “city”.
When looking at a definition of the word בבל (Babel) “Bavel is made up of the words ba (came) and bel (confusion), with the alef missing. Bagad (Fortune is come) (Gen. 30:11) and Bamah (high place) (Ezek. 20:29) are similar.”10 In yet another incredible mystery Hebrew itself gives the definition of “confusion” to the word Babel. Almost hinting at this cities continual relocation and renaming, or the later applications that make identification quite challenging, the Torah openly states that with Babel will come confusion. The alternative definitions of Bamah, meaning a high place, would fit well with a city that came before all the others and was the first seat of kingship.
This is part one of a two part post on the territory and geography of Nimrod. Hopefully this gives you a better understanding for the region that these events will take place in over the coming sections, since everything will be located in Mesopotamia. Join us in the next post for a completion of this discussion.
Radak on Genesis 10:10:1
Genesis 10:10
Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 11:12
Bereshit Rabbah 37:4:1
Yoma 10a:4
Berossus, Babyloniaca 2.1
George, A. R. “Babylonian Topographical Texts.” Peeters, 1992, pp. 251-253 -Ashmolean 1924-877, iv, 7 -Erimhus V 25 -Cavigneaux Textes scolaires I p. 112 -Gadd, Iraq 3, p. 89f -UET VII 2 -Sitti-Marduk kudurru (BBSt 6= VR 55, i3)
Creation Text 13 35, 12-36, 2 George, A. R. “Babylonian Topographical Texts.” Peeters, 1992, pp. 251-253
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. Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 July 2012.
Ibn Ezra on Genesis 11:9:1