Table of Nations (10:1–32)

Sons of Japheth (10:2–5). Most of Japheth’s descendants can be defined from an Israelite perspective as coming from across the sea (cf. “maritime peoples” in v. 5). A Babylonian world map from the eighth or seventh century B.C. illustrated the geographical worldview that there were many peoples considered on the outskirts of civilization beyond the sea. Many of the names in Japheth’s line are connected with the Mediterranean region (Dodanim, Elishah, and Kittim). Tarshish has generally been identified as a port in Spain, but that is still in the Mediterranean shipping lanes. Others are identified with sections or peoples in Asia Minor (Magog, Tubal, Meshech, Tiras, Togarmah) and even extending to the area to the east in the region of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea—Cimmerians (Gomer), Scythians (Ashkenaz), Medes (Madai), and Paphlagonians (Riphath).

Sons of Ham (10:6–20). As the Japhethites stretch east and west across the northern latitudes, Ham’s descendants line the southern coast of the Mediterranean and both sides of the Red Sea. Through the “Canaanites” this line also extends partway up the eastern coast of the Mediterranean.

Nimrod (10:8–12). Attempts to identify Nimrod with some historical or literary figure from the ancient world have been many.240 Speiser identified him as an Assyrian king (Tukulti-Ninurta I, end of the thirteenth century), while van der Toorn, protesting that no known human king fits the description, identified him with the Assyrian god Ninurta, a warrior and hunter of a myriad of mythical creatures. An Assyrian poem from the end of the second millennium epitomizes an Assyrian king (thought to be Tiglath-pileser I) as a great hunter, but the piece is an extended metaphor using the language of hunting to describe the conquests of the king.241

Earliest known lion hunting scene from fourth-millennium Uruk

Scala/Art Resource, NY, courtesy of the Iraq Museum

It cannot be ruled out that this is also the case in the description of Nimrod, since hunting is a metaphor for royal conquest from earliest times. For example, the royal mace head of Mesilim, king of Kish in the twenty-sixth century B.C., is decorated with six intertwined lions around its circumference.242 The identification of the hunter as a royal metaphor would offer an explanation of why Genesis 10:9 includes “before the LORD”—it would indicate that his conquests had divine support. The royal lion hunt was considered a cultic act.243 “King of Kish” (notice the similarity between Kish and Cush) was a title that indicated some level of rule over a hegemony in the Early Dynastic period.244

Factors to Identify Names in Genesis 10:8–12

(3 = strong correspondence, 0 = none)

Sargon

“Nimrod”: 0

“Cush”: 2

Hero: 2

Hunter: 0

Babylon: 0

Assyria: 1

Shulgi

“Nimrod”: 0

“Cush”: 0

Hero: 3

Hunter: 3

Babylon: 0

Assyria: 1

Hammurabi

“Nimrod”: 1

“Cush”: 1

Hero: 1

Hunter: 0

Babylon: 3

Assyria: 2

The description of Nimrod positions him at the head of an empire. Only three major empires are known prior to the time of Moses: the Old Akkadian Empire (2335–2218 B.C.), the Third Dynasty of Ur (2112–2004), and the Old Babylonian Empire ruled by Hammurabi (1792–1750). If Nimrod is to be identified as a historical individual of early history, he must be connected to one of these. Scholars have argued for the following:

(1) Sargon (dynasty of Akkad): Some records indicate military activity on the upper Tigris (Gasur = Nuzi and Aššur, and his son built a temple at Nineveh), but little associates Sargon with the cities named in Genesis. Sargon built up Akkad and made it his capital city. Nothing in contemporary records connects him with Babylon. Levin suggests that Nimrod is a composite of the Sargonic kings Sargon I and Naram-Sin.245 The only evidence he offers is that they established the first empire and referred to themselves as kings of Kish (which he relates to “Cush was the father of Nimrod,” 10:8). The Akkadian empire, however, did not include Assyria, there is no mention of these kings as hunters, and nothing in their titulary offers an explanation of the name Nimrod.

(2) Shulgi (Ur III dynasty): Shulgi praises himself as a hunter in his poems,246 and in his inscriptions he regularly refers to himself as the mighty man or mighty hero.247 The core area of his political control was in southern Mesopotamia, but his capital was at Ur, not Babylon. His records make no mention of Babylon, though a late chronicle suggests that he despoiled Esagila, the temple of Marduk in Babylon.248 If this were true, there is even more distinction between him and Nimrod since the latter rules at Babylon. Shulgi also extended his empire from the south to the north, including some cities of Assyria. Extension to the upper Tigris involved cities that paid taxes (as far north as Assur) and allied cities, which included Nineveh, but there was little military control of these regions. There is no name for Shulgi that makes sense of Nimrod.

(3) Hammurabi (Old Babylonian Dynasty): Here we finally find a ruler of an empire whose center is Babylon. When he came to the throne, southern Mesopotamia was united under the rule of Rim-Sin from Larsa and the upper Tigris was united under the control of Shamshi-Adad I from his capital of Shubat-Enlil. The southern cities were taken from Larsa in 1763 B.C. Then Hammurabi expanded east into Elam, up the Euphrates to Mari, and up the Tigris to Eshnunna in the Diyala region. He campaigned further north on the Tigris, but did not control the region. Nineveh is not among the cities he controls. The fact that he often identified himself as “king of the MARDU” gives a possible connection to the name Nimrod, since a variety of prefixes or determinatives could combine an N with MARDU, though none of them is attested in his inscriptions.249

Royal head, perhaps depicting Hammurabi

Rama/Wikimedia Commons, courtesy of the Louvre

As seems obvious, none of these names offers a close match to the description of Nimrod. Perhaps future finds will reveal an earlier empire and king that will better fit the data.

Ancient Mesopotamia

Early Empires

Babylon (10:10). Babylon is first mentioned (in passing) in contemporary records in the time of Šar-kali-šarri (last king of Akkad, twenty-third century B.C.). References to it remain occasional and suggest no great significance until the First Dynasty of Babylon, when the predecessors to Hammurabi make it their capital. From that time on it becomes legendary as the seat of culture and religion in Mesopotamia. Archaeologically, excavations can only recover data as far back as the First Dynasty of Babylon because the water table shifted and destroyed all earlier layers. We therefore know nothing of the history of Babylon’s founding from either literary or archaeological records.

Erech (10:10). This is the Hebrew spelling for the great ancient city of Uruk, the largest city of the third millennium (six miles in circumference) and the home of Gilgamesh. This city of the goddess Inanna was legendary for its great walls and beautiful temples. Archaeological strata suggest that the city was founded in the fifth millennium B.C. Sargon (twenty-fourth century) claims to have conquered the city and destroyed its walls.250 The kings of the Ur III dynasty continued building on the site, as did the kings of the Old Babylonian period.

Akkad (10:10). The location of the city of Akkad remains unknown archaeologically, though it is well known in the literature. First mention of the city occurs just prior to the time of Sargon, who made it his capital city in the middle of the twenty-fourth century B.C. It continued to exist into the first millennium and was even excavated to some extent by Nabonidus, the last Neo-Babylonian king, who had antiquarian interests. The last reference to it is in the early fifth century in an inscription of Darius.251

Calneh (10:10). Though there is a significant city named Kalno in Assyrian records (see also Isa. 10:9), it is located in northern Syria, not in southern Mesopotamia. As a result, the city referred to here in Genesis is unknown.

Nineveh (10:11). Excavations at Nineveh (contiguous with modern Mosul in northern Iraq) indicate that the site was settled in prehistoric times. It shows up briefly in the historical record in the time of Manishtushu, son of Sargon, in the latter part of the third millennium. It was apparently an important city in the kingdom of Shamshi-Adad I around 1800 B.C., and retained some prominence throughout the second and first millennia. Its fortunes rose and fell with Assyrian successes, with its greatest period coming with the building projects of Sennacherib around 700 B.C., who made the city his capital.

Rehoboth Ir (10:11). This unusual name simply means “city squares,” which makes it difficult to identify. Some have considered it simply an alternate designation of Nineveh or perhaps a section of Nineveh.252

Calah (10:11). This appears to be a reference to the well-known Assyrian city of Kalḫu, modern Nimrud, twenty-five miles south of Nineveh. The problem is that the evidence suggests this city was not founded until the thirteenth century and did not become prominent until the ninth century.253

Resen (10:12). This city has not been identified. It is said to be between Nineveh and Calah (=Kalḫu), which are only about twenty-five miles apart with no major cities between them. There is a small village called Reš-eni in the other direction, about fifteen miles north of Nineveh, which would hardly seem to qualify. P. Machinist notes the similarity of the name to the Akkadian word risnu (“canal”) and indicates that such canals were built for both Nineveh and Calah, though only in the Neo-Assyrian period.254

Sons of Shem (10:21–31). The descendants of Shem settle along the Arabian Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Tigris and Euphrates, and stretch west across the Syrian desert (Aram and his descendants).