But the general opinion is, that no moral appro bation is implied, but only that, by his extraordinary possession of prowess, the gift of God,- as is every natural talent, he became thus distinguished in clearing the country of wild beasts ; and that these exploits led him to make aggressions upon men. Interpreters, with scarcely an exception, from the Septuagint and the Targums down to our own times, understand the whole case thus : that Nim rod was a man of vast bodily strength, and eminent for courage and skill in the arts of hunting down and capturing or killing the dangerous animals, which probably were both very numerous, and fre quently of enormous size ; that, by these recom mendations, he made himself the favourite of bold and enterprising young men, who readily joined his hunting expeditions; that hence he took encourage ment to break the patriarchal union of venerable and peaceful subordination, to set himself up as a military chieftain, assailing and subduing men, training his adherents into formidable troops, by their aid subduing the inhabitants of Shinar and its neighbouring districts ; and that, for consolidating and retaining his power, now become a despotism, he employed his subjects in building forts, which became towns and cities, that which was afterwards called Babel being the principal. Combining this with the contents of chapter xi., we infer that Nimrod either was an original party in the daring impiety of building the tower, or subsequently joined himself to those who had begun it. The former fact is positively affirmed by Josephus ; but it is not probable that he could have any other evidence than that of the general interpretation of his countrymen. The late Mr. Rich, not thirty years ago, in the extensive plain where lie buried the ruins of Babylon, discovered the very remark able mound with remains of buildings on its summit (of which see the figure in the article BABEL, of this work), which even now bears the name of Birs Nimrod: and this may well be regarded as some confirmation of the common opinion. The precise meaning of the word Birs is said to be unknown ; which seems to be a proof of high antiquity. There is only one other passage of the O. T. in which Nimrod is mentioned, Micah v. 6, the land of Nimrod.' But it is not quite indubitable that these words refer to Babylon, though they may very pro perly be so construed ; for it is possible, and agree able to frequent usage, to take them as put in apposition with the preceding object of the action, ' the land of Assyria.' The repetition of the demonstrative particle nt. adds something to the former of the two constructions, yet not decisively.
Two different translations of verse r I have been proposed. The translation which Bochart and many other high authorities have sanctioned is, From that land he [Nimrod] went forth to Asshur, and builded Nineveh and Rehoboth city, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah, that the great city.' As of the three last-named places we can find scarcely a vestige, or rather none at all, in the Scriptures or in profane authors, we seem to have here a proof of an antiquity far higher than the age of Moses—thus strengthening the idea of a collection, above mentioned. The an nexed clause, That [or this] the great city' (we decline supplying the verb is or was, as we can have no authority for determining the tense) is most evidently, according to the use of the pronoun, to be referred to Resen, and not, as some have sup posed, to the remoter object, Nineveh.
The writer of this article must acknowledge that he thinks the other rendering, which takes Asshur for the name of the son of Shem (verse 22), the more probable. His reasons are—(r.) The internal probability as arising from a remark made in the beginning of this article, that the whole chapter carries in itself moral evidence of having been written while many of the facts remained in the traditional memory of tribes and nations : thus this passage would give authentic confirmation to a matter of current belief. (2.) Had Asshur not
been the nominative to the verb, but the name of the country, propriety would have required a pre position separate or prefixed, or the fl directive or local to be subjoined ; as we find it in ch. xxv. IS ' in the going [i. e., on the road] to Asshur,' Ass/1u ra/rt (see ample and elucidatory proof of this usage in Ewald's Gram., Nicholson's transl., sec. 420, and in Nordheimer's Gram., vol. i. sec. 642). We are aware of the objection, that this He directive is sometimes omitted ; but, we reply, such omission is uncommon, and an instance cannot be found easily, if at all, of the omission when any import ance attaches to the idea of local direction (see abundant examples in Noldius's Poetical. Hebr., p. 217). (3.) The translation for which we plead is the plain and natural one, the most obvious to both writer and reader : whereas the other is artificial and obscure : which would not therefore be likely to be adopted by a writer, such as this is, of extreme simplicity and straightforwardness. (4.) All the ancient versions, except the Targum of Onkelos (to which unquestionably great deference is due), adopt this construction.
The objections to this are—(r.) That it is out of place, and unnatural, to bring in any mention of another family, and that a circumstance which would have found its proper position in verse 22. To this objection we reply, that there are two links of association which would dictate the antici pative mention, the idea of building towns, which has this only place in the whole enumeration of descents from Noah's sons ; and the fact that a son of Shem, having for some reason (probable, though we can only conjecture it) settled with his tribe among the Hamites, was, either by prospects of superior advantage, or by the jealousy and annoy ance of Nimrod, induced to colonise another dis trict. (2.) That, thus taken, the proposition comes naturally as the correlate of verse to ; the one laying down the commencement and chief seat of Nimrod's dominion, namely Babel and its depen dencies, and the other subjoining a secondary and subordinate annexation. To this we reply, that it is quite hypothetical, and that the flow of thought and connection is plain and natural upon the other interpretation. (3.) That, in Micah v. 6, Assyria is called the land of Nimrod,' The doubtfulness of this interpretation we have already shown. (4.) The learned Mr. Bochart even claims support from the lost writings of Ctesias, as cited by Diodorus the Sicilian ; and he might have added Justin's Ejtitome of Trogns. Ctesias lived later than B.C. 400, and wrote histories of Assyria and Persia, of which some fragments, or rather abstracts, are in the collections of Photius. He professed to have derived his materials from ancient authorities in the respective countries ; but he is declared by his contemporary Aristotle to be unworthy of any credit, by Plutarch to be frequently a liar, by Aulus Gellius to be a dealer in fables ; and he is charac terised by Joseph Scaliger as a petty and absurd writer, full of errors and direct falsehoods, and utterly worthless as an historical authority. Yet the utmost that can be derived from Ctesias is, that Ninus was the first king of the Assyrians, that he built Nineveh, calling it after his own name [suppose Win ' town of Nin '], and that, after his death, his widow Semiramis founded, and carried to a great extent of magnificence, the city of Babylon. How precarious these premises are to support the conclusion, the studious reader will judge.