by
Damien F. Mackey
Having the wrong geography would account for the failure by archaeologists, even to this day, of discovering the ancient capital city of Akkad that was so legendary and famous in antiquity.
Scholars in search of the biblical Nimrod as a real historical potentate and empire builder suffer
from a geographical obstacle, as I now believe, thinking to locate the focal point of his empire, Akkad (or Agade) in biblical Shinar (Genesis 10:10): “The beginning of [Nimrod’s] kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad [Akkad], all of them in the land of Shinar”, in Sumer (southern Mesopotamia). I have come to accept Dr. Anne Habermehl’s important thesis that “Shinar” was not Sumer, but NE Syria. On this see my article:
Tightening the Geography and Archaeology for Early Genesis
Having the wrong geography would account for the failure by archaeologists, even to this day, of discovering the ancient capital city of Akkad that was so legendary and famous in antiquity.
There have been several interesting attempts in recent years to identify Nimrod as an historical character. Those that come to mind immediately are:
David M. Rohl’s suggested identification of him with Enmerkar, as summarised at: http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/genesis/gen12.html
In Chapter 11 we considered a possible identification of Meskiagkasher, the first king of Uruk, with the Biblical Cush. Cush was the father of Nimrod, so if Meskiagkasher really was Cush, then the next king of Uruk, Enmerkar, was probably Nimrod himself. David Rohl came to this conclusion in his work Legend, pointing out that the syllable "kar" is Sumerian for "hunter," so the original name for this king might have been "Enmer the Hunter." It is not difficult to see how that might have become "Nimrod the Mighty Hunter" when translated from Sumerian to Akkadian to Hebrew. A few years earlier a German scholar, Werner Papke, noted that Enmerkar must have been a very important figure, because the Sumerians wrote more about about him than about their other early kings, with the exception of Gilgamesh.(8)
Dr Douglas N. Petrovich’s IDENTIFYING NIMROD OF GENESIS 10 WITH SARGON OF AKKAD BY EXEGETICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL MEANS, at Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/2184113/_2013_Identifying_Nimrod_of_Genesis_10_with_Sargon_of_Akkad_by_Exegetical_and_Archaeological_Means
And, at the same site:
Jason Freewalt’s SARGON THE GREAT OF AKKAD: THE FIRST EMPIRE BUILDER OF MESOPOTAMIA: https://www.academia.edu/9083418/Sargon_the_Great_of_Akkad_The_First_Empire_Builder_of_Mesopotamia
All three of these worthy attempts seek to locate the hub of the Akkadian empire in Sumer.
Whether or not a fully revised history based on a solid geography and archaeology will be able to absorb Enmerkar of Uruk into the scheme of things as an alter ego of Nimrod remains to be determined. Rohl has his historical Nimrod as a successor of his Cush, Meskiagkasher.
Dr. Petrovich, though, is adamant that Nimrod was “only … a remote descendant of Cush”, his conclusion on this being (op. cit., p. 276):
… Nimrod should be understood only as a remote descendant of Cush, clearly beyond even the possibility of being a grandson, given that Cush’s grand-sons already are named as sons of one of Cush’s sons. Moreover, in the Table of Nations listed in Genesis 10, בְּ× ֵ֣×™
places the emphasis on the ancestor, whereas ילד points to the descendant. …. Therefore, while Gen 10:8a focuses the reader’s attention on Nimrod, as a remote descendant of Cush, the text offers no indication whatsoever as to just how distant of a descendant he is.
There should be no objection to Cush’s “siring” a remote descendant, since this concept is not exclusive to the Cush-Nimrod relationship. The cognate noun ×™ֶלֶד
(“son, child, descendant”) is used of a wide range of progeny, including later descendants. …. In Isa 29:23, the prophet records the words of God, who states that “when he [Jacob] sees his children, … they will sanctify my name.” Since Isaiah lived over 1000 years after Jacob, there can be no denying that descendants are the children in view, not biological sons or daughters. Another example is the NT’s use of “son of David” as a designation for Jesus (Matt 9:27; Mark 10:47; et al.), which was used to demonstrate that Jesus’ lineage is traced back to David, who predated him by c. 1,000 years.
[End of quote]
Both Dr. Petrovich and Jason Freewalt have shown, at least, that Sargon of Akkad was Nimrod-like in his conquests and in the importance in each case of Akkad.
And this chimes in very well chronologically with my own location of Sargon’s third successor and grandson, Naram-Sin, to the time of Abram (later Abraham):
Narmer a Contemporary of Patriarch Abraham
Unlike David Rohl, both Dr. Petrovich and Jason Freewalt accept the conventional history and archaeology, thereby allowing Sargon of Akkad to remain unrealistically at c. 2300 BC, which is far too early for him.
On the other hand, Freewalt will locate Sargon stratigraphically to “near the end of the Early Bronze Age”. And this is far too late.
I have tentatively proposed something quite different from this:
Akkadians Separated From Their Culture by Some Three Millennia
Freewalt has written of the mighty Sargon (op. cit., pp. 1-2):
Sargon the Great (reigned c. 2334-2279 BC) was ruler of Mesopotamia near the end of the Early Bronze Age. He was a powerful and innovative warrior who brutally subdued his opponents and established a precedent for imperialism in Mesopotamia. …. Ruling from the archaeologically lost city of Akkad, perhaps near modern Baghdad [sic], he established what might have been the world’s first empire. Sargon expanded his influence beyond Akkad and the neighboring cities to build an empire that encompassed much of the Fertile Crescent at a time when most other rulers controlled only individual city-states, foreshadowing later conquerors such as Hammurabi, Tiglath-Pileser, and Nebuchadnezzar. Unfortunately, the historical Sargon and the legendary Sargon are inseparably blurred due to the lack of historical sources and the aggrandizement of various traditional accounts. As a result, historians have only a vague historical image of Sargon, a man whose enormous accomplishments arguably merit the numerous legends and traditions about him. Sargon was a powerful warrior and the first great empire builder of Mesopotamia.
Historians know little, if anything, about Sargon’s life before his ascendancy to the throne. This is due in part to the inadequacy of surviving information. Extant inscriptions concerning him lack the details necessary to construct an accurate history of his life. …. There are, however, numerous legends about Sargon, such as various “romances.” Like the Alexander romances written in the centuries following Alexander the Great’s conquests, the stories about Sargon often cloud our understanding of him rather than improve it. On the other hand, the Sargon romances likely contain some snippets of historical texts, creating a body of historical fiction interwoven with historical fact, providing historians with the only information we have about certain aspects of Sargon’s life. ….
The “Legend of Sargon,” likely written long after Sargon’s death, provides a great example of a work of historical fiction that may contain some historical fact. It provides some rare clues about Sargon’s early life, or at least the life Sargon wanted his scribes to portray. In James B. Pritchard’s 1958 translation of the legend, Sargon’s mother was a “changeling,” and he “knew not” his father. Sargon’s mother bore him in secret in the city of Azupiranu, placed him in a basket, and sent him floating down the Euphrates. A “drawer of water” named Akki rescued him and raised him. Sargon became a gardener for Akki. The goddess Ishtar fell in love with Sargon and helped him become king and ruler over various people and places. Sargon’s legend ends with a prayer that his successor would travel, conquer, and rule just as he had done. ….
If the Sargon legend contains any historical truth, it certainly leaves a great deal of room
for scholarly debate. Clearly, there is an obvious similarity between Sargon’s birth legend and the biblical story of Moses in Exodus 2:1-10. However, in the Sargon legend, the term “changeling” is puzzling. Other translations use terms such as “princess,” “vestal,” or “high priestess,” more closely paralleling the Moses account. …. The father that Sargon “knows not” may represent a divinity, such as in the birth narratives of the Greek hero Perseus, Rome’s founders Romulus and Remus (who also floated in a basket at birth), the Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu, the Aztec deity Quetzalcoatl, Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) ….
Mackey’s comment: Both the legendary account of Sargon as a baby, and essentially the whole Buddha, were based upon the Hebrew Moses.
See e.g. my articles:
Did Sargon of Akkad influence the Exodus account of the baby Moses?
https://www.academia.edu/35752394/Did_Sargon_of_Akkad_influence_the_Exodus_account_of_the_baby_Moses
and
Buddha just a re-working of Moses. Part One: The singular greatness of Moses
Buddha just a re-working of Moses. Part Two: Ancient appropriations of Moses as a baby
Freewalt, turning to consider the possibility that Sargon of Akkad can be Nimrod, continues (p. 4):
A less controversial theory presented by J. Dyneley Prince and Yigal Levin equates Sargon with the biblical Nimrod, possible builder of the Tower of Babel. …. The Bible states about Nimrod, “Cush was the father of Nimrod, who became a mighty warrior on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; that is why it is said, ‘Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord.’ The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Uruk, Akkad and Kalneh, in Shinar.” …. The mention of Nimrod’s hunting prowess fits the militarism of Sargon. In addition, the mention of Akkad as one of Nimrod’s “first centers” is certainly an important clue, since Akkad served as the capital of Sargon’s empire. Another clue possibly linking Sargon with Nimrod is the mention that Cush was the “father of Nimrod.” Cush may have been the biblical name for the city of Kish, where Sargon first took power. …. While this theory is perhaps more credible than Bristowe’s, it lacks conclusive historical verification. Thus, a connection between any biblical figure and Sargon remains elusive. ….
