THIRD DISPUTATION. Who among men that Nemrod was — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

THIRD DISPUTATION. Who among men that Nemrod was.¹

TERTIA DISPUTATIO. Quisnam hominum Nemrod ille fuerit.

QUIS fuerit ille Nemrod, controversum est propter varias et discrepantes auctorum opiniones. Dicam primum et expendam quae sunt ab aliis memoriae prodita: Iosephus libro primo Antiquitatum (Iosephi verba paulo superius posita sunt) illud tantum ait, eum fuisse hominem audacem, bellicosum atque impium, et qui non ipse modo sperneret Deum, sed alios quoque ad contemptum Dei adduceret: fuisse item eum auctorem aedificandi turrim Babel, qua disturbata et subversa, et propter divisionem linguarum discedentibus in varias regiones hominibus, ipsum remansisse inibi cum multis, et tyrannidem invasisse. Beatus Hieronymus in Traditionibus Hebraicis scribit, eum insuetam populis tyrannidem primum arripuisse, regnavisseque Babylone, suoque imperio adiecisse alias urbes hic commemoratas a Mose.

Who that Nemrod was is controverted, on account of the various and discrepant opinions of the authors. I shall first state and weigh what has been handed down to memory by others: Josephus in the first book of the Antiquities (Josephus's words have been set down a little above) says only this, that he was an audacious, warlike, and impious man, and one who not only himself despised God but also led others to contempt of God; that he was likewise the author of building the tower of Babel, and that, when it had been thrown into confusion and overturned, and when, owing to the division of tongues, men were departing into various regions, he himself remained there with many, and seized tyranny. Blessed Jerome in the Hebrew Questions writes that he was the first to seize an unwonted tyranny over the peoples, and reigned at Babylon, and added to his empire the other cities here mentioned by Moses.²

MULTI et magni auctores putarunt Nemrod fuisse eundem quem historiae Gentilium appellant Belum patrem Nini, et regnasse Babylone annis sexaginta quinque. Hoc tradit Eusebius in exordio sui Chronici, et Hieronymus in capite secundo Oseae, et Augustinus libro 16 de Civitate Dei, cap. 17. „Ninus,“ inquit, „regnavit Babylone post mortem patris sui Beli, qui primus hic regnaverat, sexaginta quinque annos.“ Atque horum auctoritate permulti postea ad idem sentiendum adducti sunt. Haec opinio firmatur ea coniectura, quod in sacris literis significatur Nemrod fuisse primum conditorem et fundatorem Babylonis: apud Eusebium vero libro nono de Praeparatione Evangelica capite quarto Abydenus, scriptor perantiquus et gravis, primum Babylonis aedificatorem molitoremque facit Belum.

Many and great authors thought that Nemrod was the same whom the histories of the Gentiles call Belus the father of Ninus, and that he reigned at Babylon for sixty-five years. This Eusebius hands down at the opening of his Chronicle, and Jerome in the second chapter of Hosea, and Augustine in book 16 of the City of God, chapter 17. „Ninus,“ he says, „reigned at Babylon after the death of his father Belus, who had first reigned here, sixty-five years.“ And by their authority very many were afterward led to think the same. This opinion is strengthened by the conjecture that in the sacred letters it is signified that Nemrod was the first builder and founder of Babylon: and in Eusebius, in book nine of the Preparation for the Gospel, chapter four, Abydenus, a very ancient and weighty writer, makes Belus the first builder and contriver of Babylon.³

SED non video qui cohaereat hoc cum altera sententia eiusdem Augustini affirmantis libro 16 de Civitate Dei, cap. 3, Ninum filium Beli, quem Moses hoc capite appellat Assur, non fuisse de stirpe Cham; de qua tamen fuisse Nemrod perspicuis verbis hoc loco docet Moses, sed fuisse eum de genere Sem: namque Moses inter posteros Sem nominat Assur, quem volunt esse Ninum.

But I do not see how this coheres with the other opinion of the same Augustine, affirming in book 16 of the City of God, chapter 3, that Ninus the son of Belus — whom Moses in this chapter calls Assur — was not of the stock of Cham; of which stock, however, that Nemrod was, Moses teaches in plain words in this place; but that he was of the line of Shem: for Moses among the descendants of Shem names Assur, whom they will have to be Ninus.⁴

NISI cui forte placuerit figmentum fictitii Methodii, quod narrat auctor Historiae Scholasticae in historia libri Geneseos capite trigesimo septimo: Nemrod fuisse gigantem decem cubitorum, de semine ipsius Sem, a quodam Ionitho filio Noë, quem is genuit post diluvium, cum de aliis multis, tum maxime de modo regnandi, quibusve in locis regnare deberet, doctum atque eruditum…

Unless perchance the fiction of the spurious Methodius please someone, which the author of the Scholastic History relates in his history of the book of Genesis, chapter thirty-seven: that Nemrod was a giant of ten cubits, of the seed of Shem himself, taught and instructed by a certain Ionithus a son of Noah (whom Noah begot after the flood) in many other matters, but especially in the manner of reigning and in what places he ought to reign…⁵

…hunc cupidine dominandi incensum solicitasse gentiles suos qui erant de stirpe Sem, ut imperium in alios quasi primogeniti arriperent; sed ipsis nolentibus, transisse ad posteros Cham: quibus assentientibus et acquiescentibus regnasse inter eos Babylone, atque ex eo tempore habitum esse atque appellatum de filiis Cham. At enim ut ille auctor non verus sed fictitius fuit Methodius (quod alio huius operis loco ostensum est), sic ista de Nemrod mera sunt figmenta.

…that this man, inflamed with the desire of ruling, urged his kinsmen, who were of the stock of Shem, to seize empire over others as though by right of the firstborn; but when they were unwilling, he crossed over to the descendants of Cham; and with these assenting and acquiescing, he reigned among them at Babylon, and from that time was reckoned and called among the sons of Cham. But just as that author was not the true but a spurious Methodius (as has been shown in another place of this work), so these tales about Nemrod are mere fictions.⁶

BEROSUS Annianus libro quinto Antiquitatum Chaldaicarum ait hunc Nemrod alio nomine dictum esse Saturnum primum, et patrem fuisse Iovis Beli, avumque Nini, primi Assyriorum monarchae, nepotem autem ipsius Cham, filiumque Cur, qui pater fuit Curetum: anno autem post diluvium centesimo trigesimo primo aggressum esse urbem Babylonem aedificare, turremque altissimam; sed ab incepto destitisse, inchoato tantum opere, regnasseque annos quinquaginta sex: initium ergo regni Nemrod competere in annum post diluvium centesimum trigesimum primum.

Berosus Annianus, in the fifth book of the Chaldaic Antiquities, says that this Nemrod was by another name called Saturn the First, and was the father of Jupiter Belus, and grandfather of Ninus the first monarch of the Assyrians, but grandson of Cham himself, and son of Cur (Cush), who was the father of the Curetes: and that in the 131st year after the flood he set about building the city of Babylon and a very high tower; but that he desisted from his undertaking, the work only begun, and reigned fifty-six years: so the beginning of Nemrod's reign falls in the 131st year after the flood.⁷

AT enim vero contra Mercator sua Chronologia hanc Berosi sententiam acriter pugnat, contendens id quod a Beroso proditum est de Nemrod nec verum esse nec verisimile. „Cum enim,“ inquit, „circa centesimum a diluvio annum acciderit divisio linguarum et discessio hominum in varias regiones, nequaquam credibile est triginta consequentium annorum spatio in tantum esse multiplicatam illam gentem, apud quam erat Nemrod, ut non modo iustum regnum efficeret, verum et in longissime dissitas regiones deduceretur. Etenim Arach, una primarum urbium ditionis Nemrod (teste Hieronymo et Hebraeis), fuit Edessa in occidentali extremitate Mesopotamiae trecentis septuaginta quinque millibus passuum procul Babylone sita: respuit autem animus credere gentem illam eiusque imperium tam brevi tempore tantum propagari ac prolatari potuisse.“ Existimat igitur Mercator Nemrod fuisse eum ipsum quem Graeci et Latini appellant Ninum: quae enim de utroque dicuntur, mirifice congruunt inter se. Primus namque mortalium Nemrod dicitur fuisse potens in terra, et regnum vel tyrannidem obtinuisse et ditionem protulisse in longinquas regiones. Eadem ad unum omnia de Nino testificatur Iustinus. Deinde imperium Nemrod habuit initium in Chaldaea atque Mesopotamia; in his enim terris sunt civitates illae quattuor, quas hoc loco assignat Moses eius imperio; atqui hoc idem etiam fuit exordium regni Nini. Praeterea dicit Scriptura illum non contentum suo regno, egressum ex terra Assur aliena regna quaesisse, et primo invasisse Assyriam, et Niniven urbem maximam condidisse. Haec ipsa de Nino tradiderunt cum alii, tum Diodorus libro tertio.

But against this Mercator, in his Chronology, sharply contends, arguing that what Berosus has handed down about Nemrod is neither true nor likely. „For since,“ he says, „around the hundredth year from the flood the division of tongues and the departure of men into various regions occurred, it is by no means credible that within the space of thirty following years that nation, among whom Nemrod was, was so multiplied that he not only made for himself a proper kingdom but was even extended into the most far-distant regions. For Arach, one of the first cities of Nemrod's dominion (on the testimony of Jerome and the Hebrews), was Edessa, situated at the western extremity of Mesopotamia, 375 miles distant from Babylon: and the mind rejects believing that that nation and its empire could in so brief a time be so propagated and extended.“ Mercator therefore judges that Nemrod was that very one whom the Greeks and Latins call Ninus: for the things said about each agree wonderfully with one another. For Nemrod is said to have been the first of mortals mighty in the earth, and to have obtained a kingdom or tyranny and extended his dominion into far-off regions. Justin testifies to all the very same things of Ninus, to a man. Next, Nemrod's empire had its beginning in Chaldaea and Mesopotamia; for in these lands are those four cities which Moses here assigns to his empire; and this same was also the beginning of Ninus's reign. Moreover, Scripture says that he, not content with his own kingdom, went out from the land of Assur and sought other kingdoms, and first invaded Assyria, and founded Niniue, a very great city. These same things about Ninus others have handed down, and especially Diodorus in the third book.⁸

PUTAT idem Mercator Nemrod non fuisse filium Chus, id est, ab eo proxime generatum, sed quia ex eius stirpe et genere erat, more scripturae, dicitur ab eo genitus: nam si proprie fuisset filius ipsius Chus, numeratus esset a Mose inter filios eius; qui hoc capite decimo, quinque commemorantur…

The same Mercator thinks that Nemrod was not the son of Chus — that is, immediately begotten by him — but, because he was of his stock and line, is said in the manner of Scripture to have been begotten by him: for if he had properly been the son of Chus himself, he would have been numbered by Moses among his sons; who in this tenth chapter are reckoned as five…⁹

…At Moses post memoratos quinque filios Chus, et aliquos eius nepotes, subiungit: „Porro Chus genuit Nemrod,“ non obscure significans Nemrod cognationis gradu etiam ultra nepotes distantem fuisse a Chus.

…But Moses, after the five sons of Chus mentioned, and some of his grandsons, subjoins: „Now Chus begot Nemrod,“ not obscurely signifying that Nemrod was, in degree of kinship, distant from Chus even beyond the grandsons.¹⁰

ATQUE haec quidem Mercator. Cuius opinioni communis sententia Doctorum adversatur, qui Nemrod diversum faciunt a Nino: hoc est, vel patrem, vel avum eius; et alterum quidem primum conditorem Babylonis, alterum vero civitatis Niniue. Nec initium regni Nini fuit Babylon, ut vult Mercator, quippe qui urbem Niniue caput ac sedem imperii sui constituerit, ut ex Diodoro libro tertio licet intelligere, a quo proditum est Babylonios fuisse a Nino debellatos nondum condita Babylone. Nec quia Moses post recensitos alios filios Chus et duos eius nepotes narrationem Nemrod subtexuerit, ex eo Mercator bene argumentatur ipsum non fuisse filium Chus: hanc enim eius rationem et vidit, et diluit Beatus Augustinus, ut supra dictum est. S. Epiphanius sub initium operis quod scripsit adversus haereses tradit Nemrod filium fuisse Chus et patrem Assur, et a quibusdam putari Zoroastrem magiae atque astrologiae inventorem; sed revera sibi videri alium fuisse Nemrod, et alium fuisse Zoroastrem, et hunc quidem illo posteriorem, sed non longo intervallo.

And so much for Mercator. To whose opinion the common judgment of the Doctors is opposed, who make Nemrod different from Ninus: that is, either his father or his grandfather; and the one indeed the first founder of Babylon, the other of the city Niniue. Nor was the beginning of Ninus's reign Babylon, as Mercator will have it, since he constituted the city Niniue as the head and seat of his empire, as may be understood from Diodorus book three, by whom it is recorded that the Babylonians were conquered by Ninus when Babylon was not yet founded. Nor, because Moses wove in the narrative of Nemrod after the other sons of Chus and his two grandsons had been reviewed, does Mercator argue well from this that he was not the son of Chus: for this reasoning of his Blessed Augustine both saw and dissolved, as was said above. Saint Epiphanius, near the beginning of the work he wrote against heresies, hands down that Nemrod was the son of Chus and the father of Assur, and is by some thought to be Zoroaster the inventor of magic and astrology; but that in truth it seems to him that Nemrod was one and Zoroaster another, and the latter indeed later than the former, but by no long interval.¹¹

MIHI certum est Nemrod alium fuisse quam Ninum. Habeo huius sententiae auctores plurimos, immo neminem contrariae: unicus enim est Mercator suae opinionis probator atque propugnator. Nisi forte secutus sit auctorem Recognitionum Clementis, in quarum libro quarto traditur Nemrod fuisse eundem atque Ninum. Certe Nemrod fuisse primum Babylonis aedificatorem et in ea urbe primordia regni eius esse constituta, et significat Scriptura, et affirmat Iosephus, consentientibus fere scriptoribus ecclesiasticis. At Nini nec opus fuisse Babylonem, nec in ea civitate imperii eius initium, Diodori demonstrat historia.

To me it is certain that Nemrod was other than Ninus. I have very many authors for this opinion, indeed none for the contrary: for Mercator is the sole approver and defender of his opinion — unless perchance he has followed the author of the Recognitions of Clement, in whose fourth book it is handed down that Nemrod was the same as Ninus. Certainly, that Nemrod was the first builder of Babylon and that the beginnings of his reign were established in that city, both Scripture signifies and Josephus affirms, with the ecclesiastical writers almost in agreement. But that Babylon was not the work of Ninus, nor the beginning of his empire in that city, the history of Diodorus demonstrates.¹²

ILLUD quoque mihi sit percredibile, Nemrod fuisse eundem atque eum quem alii appellant Belum patrem Nini. Sic opinantur multi quos supra indicavi, et paulo infra commemorabo: idque suadet ratio: nam quae de Nemrod prodita sunt, ea plane conveniunt ad unum omnia in Belum. Siquidem utriusque tempora congruunt, cum utrumque reperiamus annos post diluvium circiter ducentos Babylone regnasse, et eius civitatis utrumque primum nominari designatorem et fundatorem. Uterque praeterea primus idololatriae auctor fuit. De Nemrod aperte id scribit Iosephus; de Belo plerique nostrorum idem sentiunt; et arguunt nomina deorum seu Idolorum, quae olim apud regiones orientales colebantur, prima a Belo originem duxisse, ut Belial, Beelzebub, et Beelphegor: et ut Plinius ait, apud Babylonios sacratissimus Deus erat Belus, cui omnium primo statuas…

This too is for me most credible: that Nemrod was the same as the one whom others call Belus the father of Ninus. So think many whom I indicated above and shall mention a little below; and reason persuades it: for the things handed down about Nemrod agree plainly, all of them to a single point, with Belus. For the times of both agree, since we find each to have reigned at Babylon about two hundred years after the flood, and each to be named the first designer and founder of that city. Each, moreover, was the first author of idolatry. Of Nemrod Josephus writes this openly; of Belus most of ours think the same; and they argue that the names of the gods or idols which were once worshipped in the eastern regions first took their origin from Belus, such as Belial, Beelzebub, and Beelphegor: and, as Pliny says, among the Babylonians the most sacred god was Belus, to whom first of all the first kings of the Assyrians set up statues…¹³

…et aras et templa primi reges Assyriorum statuerunt. Similia item utriusque fuere facta, ingenium, mores: uterque fuisse traditur ferocis ingenii, crudelis animi, insatiabilis imperandi cupiditatis, vel ad tyrannicam usque dominandi violentiam: denique ante Ninum nec auctores alium agnoscunt regem Babylonis quam Belum, nec Scriptura quam Nemrod. Verum haec maiorem ex proxime sequenti disputatione lucem simul et fidem capient.

…and altars and temples the first kings of the Assyrians set up. Likewise the deeds, the disposition, and the manners of both were similar: each is handed down to have been of fierce disposition, of cruel mind, of insatiable lust for command, even to the point of tyrannical violence in ruling: finally, before Ninus the authors acknowledge no other king of Babylon than Belus, nor Scripture any than Nemrod. But these things will receive greater light and credence at once from the disputation that next follows.¹⁴

Translator’s notes

Liber XV, Disputation 3 (title): the identity of Nemrod. ↩
§61. Disp. 3 opens: the sources on Nemrod. Josephus (Antiquities bk. 1): an audacious, warlike, impious man who despised God and led others to do so; author of the tower of Babel; when the tongues were divided he stayed and seized tyranny. Jerome (Hebrew Questions): first to seize an unwonted tyranny, reigning at Babylon and adding the other cities Moses names. Margins: Josephus; Jerome. ↩
§61 (cont.). Many great authors identify Nemrod with the Gentiles' Belus, father of Ninus, who reigned 65 yrs at Babylon (Eusebius's Chronicle; Jerome on Hosea 2; Augustine, City of God 16.17). Supported by Scripture making Nemrod first founder of Babylon, and by Abydenus (in Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel bk. 9 ch. 4) making Belus the first builder. Margins: Eusebius; Jerome; Augustine. ↩
§61 (cont.). Objection: this clashes with Augustine (City of God 16.3) holding that Ninus son of Belus — equated with the ‘Assur’ Moses names — was not of Cham's stock (to which Nemrod plainly belonged) but of Shem's line, since Moses lists Assur among Shem's descendants. ↩
§62. Unless one accepts the fiction of pseudo-Methodius (in Comestor's Scholastic History, Gen ch. 37): Nemrod a giant of 10 cubits, of Shem's seed, taught the art of reigning by Ionithus, a post-flood son of Noah (continues p. 426). ↩
§62 (concl.). The pseudo-Methodius tale: Nemrod, of Shem's stock, urged his kinsmen to seize rule; they refused, so he went over to Cham's line and reigned at Babylon, thence counted among Cham's sons. But Methodius is spurious (shown elsewhere), so these are mere fictions. ↩
§63. Berosus Annianus (the forged Berosus, bk. 5): Nemrod = ‘Saturn the First,’ father of Jupiter Belus, grandfather of Ninus, grandson of Cham, son of Cur/Cush (father of the Curetes); began Babylon and the tower in yr 131 after the flood but desisted, reigned 56 yrs. Margin: Berosus Annianus bks. 4–5. ↩
§64. Mercator (Chronology) attacks Berosus: in only ~30 yrs after the dispersion (~yr 100), Nemrod's nation could not have multiplied enough to rule and reach Edessa/Arach (375 mi from Babylon). So Mercator identifies Nemrod with Ninus: the accounts match (first mighty conqueror, dominion to far regions — Justin says the same of Ninus; both begin in Chaldaea/Mesopotamia with the four cities; both go out to invade Assyria and found Nineveh — Diodorus bk. 3). Margins: the altercation of Mercator with Annius's Berosus; Jerome; Justin bk. 1; Diodorus. ↩
§64 (cont.). Mercator further holds Nemrod was not literally Chus's son but only of his stock, since Moses lists only five sons of Chus (continues p. 427). ↩
§64 (concl.). Mercator's argument: that Moses adds ‘Now Chus begot Nemrod’ after the five sons and some grandsons shows Nemrod was more than a grandson removed from Chus. ↩
§65. The common view refutes Mercator: Nemrod ≠ Ninus, being his father or grandfather; one founded Babylon, the other Nineveh. Ninus's seat was Nineveh, not Babylon (Diodorus bk. 3: Ninus conquered the Babylonians before Babylon was founded). Augustine already dissolved the ‘not son of Chus’ argument. Epiphanius (Against Heresies): Nemrod = son of Chus, father of Assur, thought by some to be Zoroaster — but Nemrod and Zoroaster were distinct, Zoroaster slightly later. Margins: Mercator's opinion refuted; Diodorus; Epiphanius. ↩
§66. Pererius's own view: Nemrod ≠ Ninus, backed by very many authors, none for the contrary except Mercator (and perhaps the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions bk. 4). Nemrod first built Babylon and reigned there (Scripture, Josephus, the church writers); but Babylon was neither Ninus's work nor his seat (Diodorus). Margins: the author's opinion — Nemrod was one, Ninus another; the author of the Recognitions; Diodorus bk. 3. ↩
§67. Pererius's further view: Nemrod = Belus, father of Ninus. The accounts coincide: both reigned at Babylon ~200 yrs after the flood, both named first founder of the city, both first authors of idolatry (Josephus of Nemrod; many of ours of Belus — the eastern idol-names Belial, Beelzebub, Beelphegor derive from Belus; Pliny: Belus the most sacred Babylonian god, first to receive statues). Margins: Nemrod the same as Belus father of Ninus; Pliny (continues p. 428). ↩
§67 (concl.). Belus = Nemrod: alike in deeds, disposition, manners — fierce, cruel, insatiable for rule even to tyranny; before Ninus the authors know no king of Babylon but Belus, nor Scripture any but Nemrod. To be confirmed in the next disputation. ↩