The "Book of Jashar" you are reading is most likely from the 12th century AD.
Nimrod; Tower of Babel
by TheListener 45 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
lovelylil
Thanks Narkissos - then I don't have any other information about Nimrod. Does anyone else?
-
peacefulpete
Nisroch is regarded as a texual corruption of Nimrod and in this text the name is specificially identified with a deity. The Genesis Nimrod is an adaptation of Ninurta, as Leolaia mentioned, a deity asociated with hunting, and heroic exploits, granted kingship by the other gods. In the opening of the legend in Genesis he is called a hunter "before" Yahweh. This is not a negative description as it is often translated but rather mirrors the role of Ninurta as hunter hero before (as in a servant/son of) the greater god Enlil.The traditions were morphed into a new tale when associated with the tower story which itself was an amalgum of traditions as Leolaia posted some time ago.
-
Leolaia
Wow, looks like there is a lot of interest in Hislop. I got my copy of the Two Babylons from the kingdom hall when I was 14 years old and naturally I took it to be a reliable piece of scholarship at first. But in time I came to realize that it was not a very credible source at all. First of all, the book was published in 1858. This was before many crucial ANE archaeological discoveries which helped reveal the true history of Babylon and Assyria. The author thus relies on classical Greco-Roman sources which have their own distortions and confusions about the history and religion of Mesopotamia.
But Hislop does not only repeat old errors and legends (which of course he takes as historical), but also creates many new ones especially through false etymology of names, linking things together that have nothing to do with each other (particularly in linking Babylonian deities and historical figures to biblical Nimrod), and making other miscellaneous mistakes of interpretation. Moreover, the work is polemical in aim which also explains the motivation of some of Hislop's more fanciful theories. In short, what he wrote as "the origins of Babylon" and "the religion of ancient Babylon" do not reflect reality at all. I can mention some really good examples, but I think I'll have it for my post. But here is a good overview in Wikipedia:
Hislop's theory was that the goddess, in Rome called Venus or Fortuna, was the Roman name of the more ancient Babylonian cult of Ishtar, whose origins begun with a blonde-haired and blue-eyed woman named Semiramis.
According to Hislop, Semiramis was an exceedingly beautiful white woman, who gave birth to a son named Nimrod, a large, ugly black man, and later married him, thus founding Babylon, and its religion, complete with a pseudo-Virgin Birth. This he called a foreshadowing of the birth of Christ, prompted by Satan. Later, Nimrod was killed, and Semiramis, pregnant with his child, claimed the child was Nimrod reborn.
Hislop claimed that the cult and worship of Semiramis spread globally, her name changing with the culture. In Egypt she was Isis, in Greece and Rome she was called Venus, Diana, Athena, and a host of other names, but was always prayed to and central to the faith which was based on Babylonian mystery religion.
Then, according to Hislop, Constantine, though claiming to convert to Christianity, remained pagan but renamed the gods and goddesses with Christian names to merge the two faiths for his political advantage, under Satan's guidance.
The book has been severely criticized for its lack of evidence, and in many cases its contradiction of the existing evidence: for instance, the Roman state religion before Christianity did not worship a central Mother Goddess, and Jupiter was never called "Jupiter-Puer." Likewise, Semiramis lived centuries after Nimrod, and could neither have been his mother, nor married him. Hislop also makes unacceptable linguistic connections and fanciful word plays.
-
Leolaia
Thanks Narkissos - then I don't have any other information about Nimrod. Does anyone else?
Well, there are no other reflections on Nimrod or other traditions about him contemporaneous with the Yahwistic traditions in Genesis, other than the bare allusion in Micah 5:5. There are however later midrashic stories about Nimrod much earlier than the medieval Sefer Yashar which might enshire bits of earlier traditions about the Tower of Babel and Nimrod. The most important of these is Jubilees 10:18-26 (written c. 150 BC) and Pseudo-Philo 5:5 (written in the first century AD) and 6:1-7:5 (which is a long legend about the construction of Babel). The version of the story in Pseudo-Philo is particularly interesting because the primary villian is Joktan ("the chief of the leaders," 6:6), while Nimrod is seemingly subordinate to him (compare Josephus, Antiquities 1.4.2, which constures Nimrod as the chief planner of Babel). Moreover the story has a death-in-a-furnace martyr tale that provides excellent background to the similar Hellenistic-era tales in Daniel 3 and 2 Maccabees 7.
The traditions were morphed into a new tale when associated with the tower story which itself was an amalgum of traditions as Leolaia posted some time ago.
Yes, I wish I could find that post. In essence, the tale in Genesis 11 looks like a conflation of two originally distinct stories: one concerning the building of a city to keep everyone together in one place, and another concerning the building of a tower in order to reach the heavens. The two stories can be disentagled pretty easily, but the story about the tower lacks an ending....the present ending comes from the story about the city, in which Yahweh came down to confuse the languages to prevent everyone from staying together in this single city -- hence the city is called Babel (a false etymology given from the root bll "confuse"). The ending of the tower story however is seemingly preserved in Jubilees 10:26 and echoes are also found elsewhere (e.g. Philo, Confusion of Tongues 68; Sibylline Oracles 3.101-107; Midrash Tanhuma, Noah 18); in this story, Yahweh came down to make people stop building the tower and made a great wind blow on the tower, causing it to collapse, and that is why the land is called Shinar (a false etymology given from the root n'r "shake, overthrow").
What is particuarly interesting about this analysis is that splitting up the Yahwistic story into these two strands lines up pretty neatly with actual Akkadian parallels to the biblical narrative. There is a very close literary parallel between the story of the building of the tower in Genesis and the story of the building of Esagila in the Enuma Elish...close enough to suggest literary dependence. But this story has nothing at all to do with confusing tongues. There is however an Akkadian story about the gods confusing an original "one language" in the Epic of Enmerkar, but similarly this story has nothing to do with the building of a tower. The present story in Genesis however combines these two (originally?) distinct traditions.
-
peacefulpete
A bit off topic but Micah 5:5,6 is interesting for another reason, for the author felt Assyria (aka land of Nimrod) was the threat that the son of Bethlehem Ephratha (a man held to be of David's line, not a place ) would conquer.2 "But as for ( B ) you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From ( C ) you One will go forth for Me to be ( D ) ruler in Israel
His goings forth are ( E ) from long ago,
From the days of eternity."
(referring to the antiquity of the legendary Davidic line)..............5 This One ( K ) will be our peace
When the ( L ) Assyrian invades our land,
When he tramples on our citadels,
Then we will raise against him
Seven shepherds and eight leaders of men.
6 They will ( M ) shepherd the land of Assyria with the sword,
The land of ( N ) Nimrod at its entrances;
And He will ( O ) deliver us from the Assyrian
When he attacks our land
And when he tramples our territory.When this never happened naturally the passage was reinterpreted as symbolic of some generic 'enemy'.
-
TheListener
There is a refutation of Hislop's work in print. It is called "The Babylon Connection?" by Ralph Woodrow. I own it. It could be more indepth.
Ralph Woodrow was a proponent of Hislop's and wrote a book using Hislop as a main source. Once he realized he was incorrect, he pulled his book of the market and wrote a refutation.
Here is the Amazon write up excerpt from the book:
"In my earlier Christian experience, certain literature fell into my hands which claimed paganism had been mixed into Christianity. While the Roman Catholic Church was usually the target, it seemed other churches had also been contaminated by customs and beliefs for which pagan parallels could be found.
"The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop (1807-1862), with its alarming subtitle, "the papal worship proved to be the worship of Nimrod and his wife," was THE textbook on which much of this teaching was based. Over the years, this book has impacted the thinking of many people-ranging all the way from those in radical cults to very dedicated Christians who hunger for a move of God and are concerned about anything that might hinder that flow. Its basic premise is that the pagan religion of ancient Babylon has continued to our day, in disguise, as the Roman Catholic Church and is described in the book of Revelation as "Mystery Babylon the Great"-thus, the idea of TWO Babylons, one ancient, and on modern. Because Hislop's book is very detailed, having a multitude of notes and references, I assumed, as did many others, it was factual. We quoted "Hislop" as an authority on paganism, jut like "Webster" might be quoted on word definitions.
As a young evangelist I began to share a sermon on the mixture of paganism into Christianity, and eventually wrote a book based on Hislop-"Babylon Mystery Religion." In time, my book became quite popular, went through many printings, and was translated into Korean, German, Spanish, Portuguese, and several other languages. I came to be regarded by some as an authority on the subject of pagan mixture. Even a noted Roman Catholic writer, Karl Keating, said: "Its best-known proponent is Ralph Woodrow, author of 'Babylon Mystery Religion'."
Many preferred my book over "The Two Babylons" because it was easier to read and follow. Sometimes the two books were confused with each other. Letters in a steady flow were received praising my book. Only occasionally would there be a dissenting voice. ONE WHO DISAGREED was Scott Klemm, a high school history teacher in southern California. Being a Christian, and appreciating other things I had written, he began to show me EVIDENCE THAT HISLOP WAS NOT A RELIABLE HISTORIAN. As a result, I realized that I needed to go back through Hislop's work, my basic source, and prayerfully check it out!
As I did this, it became clear-Hislop's "history" was often only mythology. Even though myths may sometimes reflect events that actually happened, an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths can not provide a sound basis for history. Take enough tribes, enough tales, enough time, jump from one time to another, from one country to another, pick and choose similarities-why anything could be "proved"!
The concern about not having anything pagan in our lives can be likened to a ship crossing a vast ocean. This concern has taken us in the right direction, but as we come to a better understanding as to what is actually pagan and what is not, a correction of the course is necessary in our journey. This is not a going back, but a correction of the course as we follow "the shining light, that shines more and more unto the perfect day" (Prov. 4:18).
Although we challenge some of Hislop's claims in THE BABYLON CONNECTION?-this is not intended as an attack against him personally. As far as we know, he was a dedicated Christian, a brother in Christ. Nor is it our goal in writing this book to merely discredit another book. Instead, it is our desire that this effort will help us understand "the way of God more perfectly" (cf. Acts 18:26), find a biblical balance, and glorify Him who said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6)."
I've found that most of Hislop's claims can be discredited just by using the internet and the vast amount of historical informaiton and writings that are available. In years past trying to get some excerpt from a book from antiquity would be a daunting task for the most ardent seacher. Now, with the internet, it's usually just a few clicks away.
-
greendawn
Leolaia you are the scholar I don't know any Hebrew but just about every source I have read associates the name Nimrod with rebellion, it basically means a rebel. In jewish tradition Nimrod is also thought of very negatively as a rebel against God and persecuter of his worshippers.
-
TheListener
Greendawn, your post makes the point exactly. Legend. The Bible itself doesn't show Nimrod to be an evil individual or show him to have any part of the tower of babel. Legends do. 2,000 year old oral legends that were written down 2,000 years ago.
OK maybe Nimrod was a bad guy and maybe not. Let's at least be honest and say that the Bible doesn't lean one way or the other. I have no problem with individuals hating Nimrod and attributing bad things to him. As long as they don't ascribe that the Bible supports those claims.
I mostly ticked off with the NWT's rendering of Genesis 10:8,9. It seems completely dishonest and a gratuitious use of translators license.
-
lovelylil
Thanks Leolaia,
I have the Jubilees book too and I am going to look into that information. I have so many books - I forget what I have. There are about 6 books on my reading list for this summer. Anyway, I pick up books at yard sales and flea markets so I get a good price. Then I put them in my library and hope to read them later.
I agree with just taking the bible we have today - we cannot come to the conclusion that Nimrod was evil. But some other works, like you pointed out seem to show he was.
I personally do not believe everything pagan is bad. some Christians are in total fear of the word even. In talking to many Catholics it seems that this church gets the most bad knocks due to paganism. Especially because of the relics and icons but not all these are used as idols for prayer. Greendawn has a post running on that subject and kissing the icons which is interesting.
I left the Roman Catholic church myself and do not care for all the traditions in it but I think it is no worse than other legalistic religions today. (this is my opinion so do not get mad at me for saying this) And as far as Babylon the Great in Revelation - I know many who believe this is the Catholic church and I have been looking into that but have not found anything to support that view. I am still learning but I believe Babylon the Great is representative of all man made religious institutions, governments and social establishments that are on earth and will be demolised by Christ when he comes to place his kingdom here. So it is the "systems" not the people who will be demolished. And the religion part is not only the Catholic Church. None of the Churches we have today will be needed to teach when Christ comes - why would they when we will have him?
Anyway, this is only my view.