Nimrod and Other Legendary City Founders

In the middle of a genealogy about the descendants of Noah in Genesis 10, the author inserts a brief and obviously incomplete narrative about a great king named Nimrod who founds and rules several of the great cities of Babylonia and Assyria. The story cannot be described as historical, of course. No ruler named Nimrod can be found in the archaeological record, and the cities in question — to the extent that they can be identified — were established at different times over the span of several millennia.

It might seem strange that ancient authors would invent or tell stories about fictitious founders of great cities, but this was, in fact, common practice. Ancient Greek authors were particularly interested in the founding stories of Nineveh and Babylon, even though they possessed very little reliable knowledge about those cities and their histories.

The best-known foundation story of Nineveh is the one by Ctesias, a Greek physician who wrote a history of Persia called the Persica around 400 BCE after spending some years in the Persian court. Ctesias attributed the founding of Nineveh (Ninos in Greek) to Ninos, whom Ctesius said was the first great king of the Assyrians. But like Nimrod, King Ninos never actually existed. As historian Menko Vlaardingerbroek puts it, despite efforts to equate him with various known Assyrian kings, 

…none of the attempts to identify Ninos is totally convincing. Greek historians needed a founder for the city they called Ninos and therefore they created a king after whom the city allegedly has been named. The story of Ninos is mainly a Greek invention, based on the idea that a city needs an herōs epōnumos [eponymous hero/founder]. (p. 234)

Later historians added to the Ninos legend and fleshed out his genealogy. Abydenus made Ninos the seventh in a line of kings who all had the names of other famous Mesopotamian cities (Babylon, Calah, and so on). Without going so far as to say that Nimrod is based on Ninos (though some have suggested it), it’s clear that the Greek approach to history was similar to the biblical approach. Both were interested in the legendary founders of great cities, and both were willing to rewrite “history” by inserting those founders into fictional genealogies. (Nimrod, of course, is described as a son of Cush the grandson of Noah, even though Cush’s five sons have already been named in a previous verse. More on that in a bit.) 

It is similar with Babylon, whose founding the Greek historians attributed either to the god Belos or to Queen Semiramis, the supposed successor of Ninos. While Semiramis might be a faint echo of the Neo-Assyrian queen Shammuramat, the latter lived a thousand years after Babylon’s founding, and the story of Semiramis told by Ctesius is “mainly a Greek invention” based on the goddess Ishtar with elements from Sargon’s birth legend. (Vlaardingerbroek, p. 235)

Edgar Degas, Semiramis Building Babylon, 1861

Nimrod and Cush

The past century of Bible scholarship has produced no small number of proposals regarding the “true” identity of Nimrod. These attempts typically consist of trying to match up the characteristics of a certain king, god, or legendary hero with coinciding elements of the brief Nimrod passage. Most are plausible, but none convincing enough to spur any consensus.

A better approach might be to understand Nimrod as a character of pure legend much like Ninos and Semiramis, invented to fill a hole in some forgotten storyteller’s historical knowledge.

The supposed Cushite ancestry of Nimrod has long been considered a problem for who Nimrod was, since Cush represents Nubia, the region of the upper Nile. (It’s often referred to as Ethiopia, but the borders of modern Ethiopia are not a good fit.) Of all Noah’s descendants, why make Nimrod a son of Cush? The answer I find most convincing also reveals the influences behind the Nimrod legend.

In a nutshell, the original Israelite legend of Nimrod probably involved a name very similar phonetically to Cush: Kish, one of the oldest cities of ancient Sumer. (See Burkitt.) Associating Nimrod with Kish puts the legend in a whole new light.

According to the Sumerian King List, Kish was the city where kingship first descended from Heaven after the great flood. It was also in Kish that Sargon the Great first came to power. After making himself king, Sargon led his armies to conquer first Sumer (Babylonia) to the south and then Assyria to the north. This was probably the first real empire to have existed in Mesopotamia — at least, the first that we know of. Even though Sargon made Akkad the capital of his kingdom, he retained the title King of Kish. The same cuneiform word also had the meaning of “totality” in Akkadian, and by dropping the silent “KI” symbol that identified Kish as a city, Sargon was able to use the title as a description of universal kingship. From then on, “king of Kish” meant “king of the world” whenever it appeared on royal monuments and in royal inscriptions. (For all this, see Maeda 1981.)

This title remained in occasional use by other kings after the Akkadian empire fell, but it was particularly the Neo-Assyrian kings who revived its use over a thousand years after Sargon. The reigns of Sargon and his grandson Naram-Sin had taken on mythical proportions by then, and two Neo-Assyrian kings even named themselves Sargon in imitation of the original Sargon of Akkad. 

According to Old Testament scholar Yigal Levin, Nimrod is best understood as a composite character that reflects the glory of the ancient Sargonid kings, the title of Kish as a name that represented divine authority, and the Neo-Assyrian motif of the king as a great hunter who protects his people from harm (Levin, pp. 364–366). He was originally seen as a positive character who probably received his kingship from Yahweh, and not as the villain of the Tower of Babel story that biblical interpreters turned him into.

Relief of a royal hunt from the palace of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh, 7th century BCE

Unfortunately, we will never know the details of the Israelite Nimrod legend, which survives in Genesis 10 in only its barest form. The decision of the author to insert it into Noah’s genealogy is best understood as either an error or an inspired editorial decision based on the similarities between Kish and Cush.

I have more to say on Nimrod in a new video I’ve made for my YouTube channel. I hope you’ll check it out.


  • Menko Vlaardingerbroek (2004). The founding of Nineveh and Babylon in Greek historiography. Iraq, 66. 
  • F. C. Burkitt (1920). Note on the Table of Nations (Genesis X). Journal of Theological Studies, old series, 21/2.
  • Yigal Levin (2002). Nimrod the Mighty, King of Kish, King of Sumer and Akkad. Vetus Testamentum 52/3.
  • Tohru Maeda (1981). “‘King of Kish’ in Pre-Sargonic Sumer”. Orient 17.

12 thoughts on “Nimrod and Other Legendary City Founders

  1. Where do the genealogies fit in, generally speaking, in terms of authorship? Friedman, working within a version of the documentary hypothesis, regards them as on the whole cut and pasted from yet a different source from J, E, P, D.


    • I believe most of them are typically attributed to the Priestly source, except for the genealogy of Cain in Genesis 4. The Table of Nations is usually credited to the Priestly source as well, although Carr thinks it belongs to a later priestly redactor.

      Liked by 1 person

    • You’re referring to the fact that “Mizraim” is a dual noun? I’m not really familiar with the Hebrew details, but I gather it’s because Egypt consisted of two lands (Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt), and this way of referring to Egypt was common in Semitic languages (though not Arabic). I don’t think it has any bearing on the genealogy of Genesis 10, since the author knows that he is talking about nations rather than historical individuals. (Or maybe that’s what you mean, that it would be hard to think of the name “Two Fortresses” as originally being a person’s name.)

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, gramatically dual. “[T]he author knows that he is talking about nations rather than historical individuals”; my point exactly. So calculations based on regarding them as individuals, like the Jewish Anno Mundi or their Christian counterparts such as Ussher, are meaningless.

        Liked by 1 person

        • It’s a good point, although the Table of Nations is largely redundant for dating schemes, since Genesis 11 picks up the genealogy from Shem as if Genesis 10 didn’t exist, and it more clearly treats everyone as individuals.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. You might want to include that Nimrod was the great grandson of Noah, and Nimrod built all of those cities and the Tower of Babel! Of course a great grandson is only three generations removed from his great grandfather, and since only eight people were alive when Noah landed his boat, and we assume that in one generation the population doubles, heck lets say it increases ten fold to be really, really generous, then after one generation you’d have 80 people, after two generations 800 people, and after three generations, 8000 people. Now half of these would be women and because of the birth rate many would be children. So, where the heck did the workers come from to build whole cities and mighty ziggurats, let alone occupy those cities? Those occupying the first cities built would be available to build the next, no? And what about those who died in childhood and from workplace accidents?

    The authors of these fables have either a math problem or a bullshit problem, if not both.


    • Good point, Steve. Any attempt to take the Genesis timeline literally produces similar numerical problems if you try doing the math. It’s the same with Cain’s exile from civilization for fear of being murdered, with the city founded in Genesis 4:17, with the millions of Hebrew slaves who were served by only two midwives, with the Ishmaelites in the Joseph story who are a wide-ranging tribe despite being one generation removed from Ishmael’s death, and so on.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Yigal Levin has also written an article about Nimrod at

    Regarding the connection between Cush and Kish, I can’t help but to think of Saul’s father when I hear the name Kish, and in only two places is Kish referred to as a “Benjaminite”:

    1 Samuel 9:1
    There was a man of Benjamin whose name was Kish… a Benjaminite, a man of wealth.

    Esther 2:5
    5 Now there was a Jew in the citadel of Susa whose name was Mordecai son of Jair son of Shimei son of Kish, a Benjaminite.

    What’s interesting is the introduction to Psalm 7:
    A Shiggaion of David, which he sang to the Lord concerning Cush, a Benjaminite.

    There’s no scholarly consensus about the identity of “Cush, a Benjaminite.” Rabbinic interpreters thought it was Saul, son of Kish (Jewish Study Bible, page 1274). Regardless of Cush’s identity, I can’t help but want to connect these dots in some manner. At the very least, this may suggest the fluidity of these phonetically similar names.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Well. Since I have been basically cross-referencing all names in the Old Testament in Genesis, this one came up. Fundamentalists are encouraged not to go beyond the text so it was like shoulder shrug growing, funny name, ha ha but there’s not much to know and I appreciate your effort her because I keep going back and researching our hunter friend.

    Wikipedia says very little but based upon what I have seen so far, the writers of the Bible were witty, funny, poetic and clever and Christians don’t get that because they are so obsessed with finding “the meaning”. So again. Humor isn’t true or false; humor is. The Greeks did the same thing. You have to look up every single name or you will not understand because no other evangelicals study this because they pretend it never happened. Why? Because Zoroasterism is shockingly close to the Essenes, maybe the Zealots and definitely to the Book of Revelation which hit many of the same exact points as the Persia religion as well as it’s mystery version. Satan must have inspired the Persian to come up with all of these stuff so they could transmit it to Christians. Why is it obscured? Islam completely changed, well not completely but Islam was imposed on a very different culture and Iraq and Iran were too very different peoples and they still are so no, the Kurds were not Sadaam’s people. They are of Iranian extraction.

    It’s also somewhat pointless to study this “stuff” if a person does not have a good grasp of Vedic concepts and sometimes Scythian concepts since they were somewhat related to the Hittites. And no, we didn’t need Christians/Jews to discover the Hittites. Once it was discovered that Into-Iranian was related to Greek and European languages, much of this fell into place but it was very late in terms of being attested by the British in India who were like, “Wow. Mind-blowing. This language is in many ways similar to like Latin and Greek. and Celto-Italic.

    But as you say, enlightened author, the cupboard is a bit bare linguistically here but that was scholars do. They turn things around for knowledge; not to avoid hell or be a good apologist.

    There is no one meaning to a slew of these questions about people’s names when you check. The references usually note that something sounds like something else in Hebrew and it makes sense when it’s your native tongue or it you are really proficient in Hebrew but I am not. We have that in English all the time where a statement can mean two things and we laugh about it. Well the ancients did that quite often.

    So names in the Old Testament seem to be seldom “on accident”. People bear names quite often that are composed of “El” or “Ja”, or “Ya” such as Hallelujah and that to me, seldom came through. My eyes used to roll when they would go through Adonai and El and Elohim and it was like who cares. Then, hmmm. Abba, Allah, Ba’al, El, Elohim and I am forgetting one but yes, Christians you do worship Allah in terms of the roots of the meaning of the name of God so kudos all! It’s less apparent to someone without knowledge of the various Semitic and Info-European languages spoken in the Near East/Mediterranean.

    Once one goes behind the scenes and looks all of these names/words up be careful because it will shake the faith of an intelligent person engaging in true inquiry and Evangelicals will not like what they find at all.

    Every single thing falls apart, guys. I grew up enmeshed in this and nobody is telling you the truth so maybe that’s the conspiracy. The Hebrews believed Yahweh was “married” to the Queen of Heaven, “Ashrah”, well spell check keeps changing it so Astarte instead. Except maybe She was married to El or was it Ba’al? lt appears that there was a huge amount of overlap among these deities.

    You also have to go elsewhere, usually to the Wisdom books to flesh out the picture which of course, evangelicals don’t do because they don’t want to know too much about leviathan and behemoth. Trust me.

    Is it possible that countries were given out to 70 nations/gods and Yahweh got Israel or was it El? Isra-el? Is-ra-jah? It seems to me that El was originally superior to Yahweh but eh, evangelicals do not care.

    On the same theme:

    Guess what evangelicals? The Jews/Hebrews/Canaanites out of Egypt were not backsiders at all. All of that is contrived by later writers because Christians have the dates (and the authors) of most of these books completely wrong often by hundreds if not thousands of years. It’s difficult to find a single book in the Bible ascribed to anyone except for Paul and some of the lesser prophets did exist but I doubt there was fire from heaven coming down but that’s a faith thing, right? Things unseen? We don’t prove father.

    There’s no point in discussing any aspect of any of this with any evangelical who has not spent several hours at least studying the period of the pre-exile and the post-exile and understanding it thoroughly. You are a pretend whatever you if you have no idea what Zoroasterism is or Mithras or Devas. You will not find truth and you will not even understand what is going on because the Hebrews were pagan first and there’s no evidence that any of the the people in Genesis or Exodus ever even existed. Sorry.

    Jewish history goes back 5,000 years? Try 2,500 years. Judaism and Christianity both, but Christianity much more so, are so heavily influenced by Persian religious thought that none of you believe in anything original. Sorry. Later, the Jews dumped much of the Persian eschatology that the Essenes ascribe to but the Christians did not. That’s why Judaism largely lacks hell or a redemptive/judgment aspect in terms of any sort of clear doctrine. No evangelical can even begin to understand Christianity without some knowledge of the Talmud or the Jewish concept related to “My children have defeated me” which would be blasphemy to most Christians.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s