In the Same Boat (Acts 27:37)

How many people were on board Paul’s ship which was shipwrecked? 276 (Acts 27:37)

While recounting the trials he has endured for Christ, Paul informs the Corinthians that he has been shipwrecked three times (II Corinthians 11:25). One of these incidents is documented in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 27:14-44). Amid Acts’ account, a minute detail emerges: there are 276 passengers aboard the doomed ship (Acts 27:37).

All of us in the ship were two hundred and seventy-six persons. (Acts 27:37 NASB)

This line is often treated as a parenthetical aside. Some translations even supply the parentheses (ESV, NRSV, RSV) though the majority do not (ASV, CEV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT).

The insertion of this fact interrupts the text’s flow. Martin Dibelius (1883-1947) determines:

We can see very clearly from Acts 27:37 that there is a lack of continuity here...for wedged in between eating [Acts 27:36] and being satisfied [Acts 37:38], the number of the ship’s company is given at 276. This is obviously a relic of the old literary account, which has no connection with Paul. (Dibelius, The Book of Acts: Form, Style, and Theology, 13)

The verse does serve to identify the undefined “all” in the previous verse (Acts 27:36). C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) connects:

The numbering of those on board the ship follows upon the πάντες [“all”] of Acts 27:36: Luke will tell his readers what πάντες means. Gerhard Schneider [1926-2004] (2.397) however thinks that the number would link originally with Acts 27:32. The article before πασαι indicates the totality of persons present (M. 3.201—‘We were in all...’; Maximilian Zerwick [1901-1975] § 188; Friedrich Blass [1843-1907], Albert Debrunner [1884-1958] and Friedrich Rehkopf [1843-1907] § 275.3, n. 6). (Barrett, Acts 15-28 (International Critical Commentary, 1210)

The precision also fits Acts’ literary style. Joshua W. Jipp (b. 1979) relates:

The narrator adds that “everyone” was encouraged by the meal (εὔθυμοι δὲ αἱ πασαι ψυχαὶ ἐν τω πλοίω διαχόσιαι ἑβδομήχοντα ἕξ, Acts 27:37). This reference to the exact number of “souls” evokes earlier scenes in Acts where Luke recounts the number of “souls” who were converted (Acts 2:41; cf. Acts 4:4). (Jipp, Divine Visitations and Hospitality to Strangers in Luke-Acts, 35)

The detail may be included here because it is at this point in the story when it was discovered. F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) notes:

Arthur Breusing [1818-1892] thinks the number is mentioned at the point because the food had to be rationed. (Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 526)

Kenneth O. Gangel (1935-2009) imagines:

All of a sudden Luke counted heads; perhaps he was involved in the food distribution, and the number of passengers only became important at this point. At any rate, we discover 276 witnesses to the veracity of Paul’s prophecies. (Gangel, Acts (Holman New Testament Commentary), 452)

The headcount also informs the story which follows. Christoph W. Stenschke (b. 1966) connects:

With 276 people landing on their shores, including soldiers, the rural islanders were likely to be outnumbered and did not have much of a choice but to show hospitality (despite Acts 27:33). Possibly their behavior was not based on humanitarian concerns but derived from their belief in Δίχη: should they fail to perform their duties of hospitality, the ever present goddess might turn against them. (Stenschke, Luke’s Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith, 96)

Though often deemed superfluous, Acts’ specificity lends credibility to the account, conforms to its own internal literary style, defines terms, creates a better picture of the magnitude of the episode and adds to the later story.

Despite the number’s exactitude, not all manuscripts read 276. Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) informs:

The number 276 is read by manuscripts א, C, ψ, 33, 36, 81, 181, 307, 614, and 1739 of the Alexandrian tradition. The Western Text, MS B, the Sahidic version, and Epiphanius [310-403] read rather: “we were about seventy persons.” This Western Text reading seems to have risen from a dittography of the omega on the dative ploiō, “ship,” after which the cipher for 76 was written so that it was combined with s (= diakosiai, “two hundred”) and taken as the adverb hōs. Other readings: MS A reads “275,” and MS 69, “270.” See A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 442. (Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (Anchor Bible), 779)

C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) expounds:

The number is textually uncertain. The majority of witnesses have διαχόσιαι ἑβδομήχοντα ἕξ, 276; but B (pc) sa have ὡς ἑβδομήχοντα ἕξ, about 76. The textual problem is complicated by the fact that 276, if not written in words, would be written ΓΟΣ, and 76 as ΟΣ. Bruce M. Metzger [1914-2007] (499f.) represents a common opinion in the words, The reading of B sa ‘probably arose by taking ΠΛΟΙΩΓΟΣ as ΠΛΟΙΩΟΣ. In any case, ὡς with an exact statement of number is inappropriate (despite Luke’s penchant for qualifying numbers by using ὡς or ὡσεί, cf. Luke 3:23; Acts 2:41, 4:4, 5:7, 36, 10:3, 13:18, 20, 19:7, 34.’ Metzger notes other variants: A has 275; 69 and Ephraim have 270; bo have 176 or 876; 522 and l have 76; Epiphanius [310-403] has about (ὡς) 70. Metzger (similarly James Hardy Ropes [1866-1933], The Beginnings of Christianity 3.247) is probably right but like most commentators does not note the problem of the iota subscript, which in uncials is often though not always written adscript. Thus the two readings discussed might well be not as given above but ΠΛΟΙΩΓΟΣ and ΠΛΟΙΩΙΩΓΟΣ. This makes simple confusion less likely. (Barrett, Acts 15-28 (International Critical Commentary, 1210)

Some scholars have been skeptical of a number as large as 276. Gerd Lüdemann (b. 1946) remarks:

The reported number on board, 276, is an utterly incredible figure; it evidently represents a remnant of whatever stirring saga has been pressed into service as a vehicle for Paul’s fateful journey to Rome. (Lüdemann, The Acts Of The Apostles: What Really Happened In The Earliest Days Of The Church, 334)

C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) counters:

The number 276 is not impossibly large; Josephus [37-100] (Vita 15) records his own experience of shipwreck (in Adria), as a result of which about 600 were obliged to swim all night. On the size of ships see James Smith [1782-1867] (187-90) and Colin J. Hemer [1930-1987] (149f.) (Barrett, Acts 15-28 (International Critical Commentary, 1210)

Its capacity to transport both the cargo (wheat, Acts 27:38) and 276 passengers and crew indicates a large vessel. Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) deduces:

At Acts 27:37 Luke mentions parenthetically that there were 276 persons on board...This means that Paul was on a fairly substantial-sized boat, though not as large as the one in which Josephus [37-100] traveled on a similar route in about A.D. 63. He, too, experienced shipwreck in the Sea of Adria with some 600 persons on board, but only 80 survived (Vita 15). (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary, 773)

H. Leo Boles (1874-1946) estimates the ship’s weight at “ten or eleven tons” (Boles, Commentary on Acts, 415). There were ships of this era which could fill this bill.

Loveday Alexander describes:

Greek seamanship drew on an age-old expertise in sailing coastal waters, but was much less confident in crossing the open sea towards Italy. There was, however, a regular trade supplying the voracious imperial city with its luxuries and its basics—top among which was grain. Enormous grain-ships from Egypt regularly made the hazardous crossing from Alexandria via the ports and islands of the southern Aegean. The emperor Caligula [12-41] described them as ‘crack sailing craft, their skippers the most experienced there are; they drive their vessels like race horses on an unswerving course that goes straight as a die’ (Lionel Casson [1914-2009] 1999, p. 158). This was the type of ship Julius found to transport his little group of prisoners to Italy (Acts 27:6). Such a ship could take up to 1000 passengers (probably camping on deck), as well as a hold stuffed with grain (Acts 27:38), so there would be plenty of room for the 276 passengers that Luke mentions on this sailing (Acts 27:37). (Alexander, Acts (Daily Bible Commentary: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer), 187)

Brian M. Rapske (b. 1952) hypothesizes:

Indications of the relative capacity of such ships to carry crew and passengers may be helpful...The Isis had a veritable army of crew members according to Lucian and the carrier in which Josephus [37-100] unsuccessfully attempted to make Rome must have been quite large; besides cargo, there were some 600 individuals on board. Luke’s record indicates that, all told, 276 individuals were aboard the first grain carrier on which Paul travelled (Acts 27:37). Moreover, Luke’s reference at Acts 27:30 to the conspiracy of the sailors (οἱ ναυται) to abandon ship using the lifeboat (σκαφή) would seem to imply a smaller crew. Far from being troublesomely large, the numerical indications may actually show Paul’s ship to have been an Alexandrian carrier of significantly less than Isis class tonnage. The crew (3rd person plural of ποιέω: Acts 27:18) would first have lightened the ship by jettisoning the topmost cargo (possibly located above decks?) earlier during the storm. The urgent labors of all those aboard (3rd person plural of κουφίζω after mention of the 276: Acts 27:38) in the pre-dawn hours of the morning of the shipwreck might reasonably be thought to have significantly lightened such a smaller grain carrier before its run for shore. (David W. J. Gill [b. 1946] and Conrad Gempf [b. 1955], “Acts, Travel and Shipwreck”, The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting, 32-33)

Some have sought significance in the number 276 and its properties. This marks the only occurrence of this highly precise number in the Bible. It is, however, one of four triangular numbers referenced.

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) catalogs:

No significance need be seen in the fact that 276 is a triangular number (the sum of all whole numbers from 1 through 23), like 120 in Acts 1:15; 153 in John 21:11; 666 in Revelation 13:18. (Bruce, The Book of the Acts (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 493)

C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) notices:

A surprising number of commentators repeat the statement that 276 is the sum of the digits from 1 to 24. It is not; it is the sum of the digits from 1 to 23. (Barrett, Acts 15-28 (International Critical Commentary, 1210-11)

For example, Gerhard A. Krodel (1926-2005) miscalculates:

The number 276 is a triangular number, the sum of all numbers from 1 to 24, and as such as [sic] mysterious and perfect number. (Krodel, Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament, 478)

Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) gleans:

The specific number may have been added to give verisimilitude to the account (although the scribal tendency to give a round number [270, 275] or approximate [about 76 or about 70] number destroys that effect if intended), which claims to be that of an eyewitness (cf. François Bovon [b. 1938] 1985). If any symbolism is to be attached to 276 it is probably to be found in the fact that 276 is a “triangular number,” the sum of the numbers 1 through 23; and here the significance is that 23 is not 24 (a similar phenomenon has been noted about the “seven sayings from the cross”; cf. Jason Whitlark [b. 1975] and Mikeal C. Parsons [b. 1957] 2006). In Luke’s logic, 24, as a multiple of 12, represents the church (a common later view; cf. Tyconius [370-390], Commentarium in Apocalypsim 4.4), and 23 does not. Thus the 276 gathered on the boat with Paul do not represent the church, and the meal Paul shares with them is not the Eucharist, because 23 is not 24 (for more on this possible symbolism, see Parsons 2008). (Parsons, Acts (Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament), 358)

Despite the irregularity of the number, the reversion to the first person “us” is more telling (Acts 27:37). Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) instructs:

Notice the shift to the “we” again in this verse—which may also help account for the Western addition in Acts 27:36—the first since Acts 27:27. (Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina), 455)

The voice noticeably returns to the third person in the following verse (Acts 27:38). David G. Peterson (b. 1944) tracks:

The first person plural (we) in Acts 27:27 changes to the third person plural they in Acts 27:28-44, with a brief reference to us in Acts 27:37 (ēmetha, ‘we were’, as in most English versions). This gives the impression that Paul’s ministry of encouragement was essentially to the unbelieving soldiers and sailors who were in charge of the situation. Paul inspired them to act decisively and courageously for the benefit of all. (Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 694)

This usage of the first person is irregular as it is typically reserved for Christians and the majority aboard the ship are unbelievers. Robert C. Tannehill (b. 1934) observes:

Acts 27:37 indicates, “All the lives in the ship, we were two hundred seventy-six.” The “we” in the voyage to Rome generally refers to a small group of Christians. Here, however, the entire ship’s company becomes a single “we” as the narrator numbers the company so that readers will know what “all” means [Acts 27:36]. Even though the boundary of the church is not completely eliminated, the meal on the ship is an act that benefits all, Christian and non-Christian, and an act in which community is created across religious lines. (Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, Volume 2: The Acts of the Apostles, 335)

Some have speculated that the 276 are not only saved from the temporary wreckage but also recipients of eternal redemption. Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) rejects:

Especially unconvincing are the arguments of Petr Pokorný [b. 1933], “Die Romfahrt des Paulus und der antike Roman,” that Luke means us to think that all 276 received eternal salvation. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary, 773)

Here, the “we” previously reserved for Christians takes on a wider scope (Acts 27:37). William S. Kurz (b. 1939) comments:

The inclusive use of the first person indicates Luke’s feeling of solidarity not only with Paul but also with all on the ship, who together were undergoing the same dramatic trials. (Kurz, Acts of the Apostles (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture), 371-72)

In the face of a life or death situation, the hierarchical ordering of the 276 souls disappears. Reta Halteman Finger (b. 1940) assesses:

The ship’s passengers in Acts 27:1-44, who come from various social strata (including prisoners), have become one group whose lives are saved or lost together. They experience social reversal as one who has been in chains among them takes the lead in hosting a meal and urging commensality. By eating together they ensure that not a single one of them will be lost from the group of 276. (Finger, Of Widows and Meals: Communal Meals in the Book of Acts, 240)

The camaraderie among the passengers on Paul’s vessel is as improbable as naive Gilligan befriending the erudite professor, Roy Hinkley, or the movie star, Ginger Grant, palling around with the unrefined skipper, Jonas Grant, after the shipwreck of the S.S. Minnow on an unchartered desert isle on “Gilligan’s Island” (1964-1967).

This unity may be evidence of a phenomenon psychologists label “shared coping” in which those enduring crisis experience a bond. Hans-Josef Klauck (b. 1946) discusses:

Paul encourages his companions by telling them about this heavenly assurance. His first words are: ‘An angel of the God to whom I belong...’ (Acts 27:23). The fact that the majority of the two hundred and seventy-six persons on board (Acts 27:37) are Gentiles makes it necessary to specify this; the story is related from the perspective of the Christian ‘we’-group, who accompany Paul, but these were few in number (cf. the mention of Aristarchus in Acts 27:2). When the total number is given in Acts 27:37, however, this ‘we’ becomes what Karl Löning [b. 1938] has called a ‘we of the community in trouble’: ‘We were in all two hundred and seventy-six persons in the ship.’ No one is allowed to break out of this fellowship, neither the crew, who plan to escape by stealth (Acts 27:30-32), nor the soldiers, who are tempted to take desperate action (Acts 27:42). The rescue will succeed only if all stay together. (Klauck, Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity: The World of the Acts of the Apostles, 112),

There are 276 souls aboard the ship (Acts 27:37). When the vessel sets sail there are various divisions: crew/passengers, free/imprisoned and many other usses and thems. When calamity strikes all 276 become one. They are a single “us”. They are in the same boat.

What shipwrecks are you familiar with? How do you envision the events of Acts 27:1-44? Why does Acts include the precise number of passengers; what does it add to the story? In these trying circumstances, who took the time to complete a headcount? Would the 276 souls on board have helped or hurt in such unfavorable conditions; would they add stabilizing weight? What most bonds you with others? When have you found yourself in the same boat with a surprising co-passenger? Have you ever bonded with another person during a tragedy; a stranger? Do you feel unified with your fellow believers? When has a clearly defined “us and them” become simply an “us”?

The shipwreck in Acts 27:14-44 is first and foremost a miracle story. It is nothing short of miraculous that all 276 passengers are accounted for: there are no casualties.

Richard I. Pervo (b. 1942) classifies:

At that point [Acts 27:37] Luke enumerates the company: 276 in all. Such numbers normally appear as an element of miracle stories, as in the feeding of the 5,000 (Luke 9:14). Acts 27 is a miracle story. (Pervo, The Mystery of Acts: Unraveling Its Story, 111)

David J. Williams (1933-2008) researches:

Luke may have mentioned the number at this juncture because the distribution of rations had brought it to his attention. But it also underlines the marvel that they were all saved. In Josephus [37-100]’s case only eighty of the six hundred survived. (Williams, Acts (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series), 439)

Some have cited the totality of the rescue as evidence of the prisoner Paul’s innocense. Brian M. Rapske (b. 1952) refutes:

Gary B. Miles [b. 1940] and Garry Trompf [b. 1940] argue that the escape of all 276 passengers amounts to a ‘divine confirmation of Paul’s innocense’. Troublesome to their argument, however, is the fact that while there is no loss of life, there is a disaster; the ship on which Paul is a passenger and its cargo are completely destroyed. David Ladoucer [b. 1948] suggests that Paul’s safe passage under the sign of the Dioskouroi (Acts 28:11), the guardians of truth and punishers of perjurers, may well be ‘one more argument in a sequence calculated to persuade the reader of Paul’s innocence’. The relationship of the Dioskouroi to the Imperial cult may, Ladoucer argues, render the need for a narrative of the trial’s outcome superfluous. (David W. J. Gill [b. 1946] and Conrad Gempf [b. 1955], “Acts, Travel and Shipwreck”, The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting, 43-44)

It is clear that the miracle is facilitated by Paul who takes charge of the situation (Acts 27:9-10, 21-26, 33-36). James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) speculates:

I do not think the world has any awareness of how much it owes to the presence of Christians in its midst. Here were soldiers, sailors, prisoners—276 of them. All of them were spared because of Paul. Yet afterward, when it was over, I am sure that most of them went away and never thought of their deliverance again. They did not thank God. (Boice, Acts: An Expositional Commentary, 414)

Aboard the ship, Paul is just 1 of 276 souls (Acts 27:37). Yet his presence completely changes the situation. 276 became one and because of one 276 are saved. One Christian can make all the difference to the world.

What are some of the largest recorded wrecks with no casualties? What would have happened to the ship had Paul not been aboard? Would all have perished? How much of an effect do you believe that Christian prayer and presence has upon world history? When has one person made a difference to a large group?

“You don’t have to know a lot of things for your life to make a lasting difference in the world. But you do have to know the few great things that matter, perhaps just one, and then be willing to live for them and die for them. The people that make a durable difference in the world are not the people who have mastered many things, but who have been mastered by one great thing.” - John Piper (b. 1946), Don’t Waste Your Life, p. 44

The Original Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-14)

Who was a great grandson of Noah, “the first on earth to be a mighty man”? Nimrod (Genesis 10:8)

The tenth chapter of Genesis is comprised of a genealogy commonly referred to as the Table of Nations (Genesis 10:1-32). This passage immediately succeeds the account of the Great Flood (Genesis 6:1-9:28) and traces the lineage of Noah’s three surviving sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Genesis 10:1).

The Table of Nations follows a standard formula and much like Enoch (Genesis 5:21-24) in the Bible’s previous genealogy (Genesis 5:1-32), one character breaks the pattern, a descendant of Ham named Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-14). Nimrod is the son of Cush and great-grandson of Noah.

Now Cush became the father of Nimrod; he became a mighty one on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord.” The beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land he went forth into Assyria, and built Nineveh and Rehoboth-Ir and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city. Mizraim became the father of Ludim and Anamim and Lehabim and Naphtuhim and Pathrusim and Casluhim (from which came the Philistines) and Caphtorim. (Genesis 10:8-14, NASB)

Nimrod is a true outlier. He stands out from his contemporariess as the only character in the genealogy provided with biographical details. The deviation recounting Nimrod’s enterprises is especially striking in context as the chapter is meticulously structured and the information concerning Nimrod disrupts the arrangement.

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) observes:

The only major departure from the stylized narrative is the treatment of Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-9). In a structural way, the peculiar digression on Nimrod is parallel to that of Enoch in Genesis 5:22-24. The difference is that Enoch is assessed theologically whereas Nimrod is celebrated politically. This is what might be expected as the narrative moves closer to identifiable historical reality. (Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 92)

Laurence A. Turner notes:

The reference to Nimrod has all the indications of being a parenthetical note in the genealogy. Interestingly there are six genealogical lists in Genesis 10:2-7 (Japheth, Gomer, Javan, Ham, Cush and Raamah). Genesis 10:8 begins the seventh list. However, it reverts to Cush, who has already been mentioned (Genesis 10:7a), and concerns the exploits of Nimrod, son of Cush who was omitted from the previous list. The deletion of Nimrod, highlighted and distinguished in this way from the other genealogical elements, would reduce the actual total to 70. (Turner, Genesis (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), 51-52)

Despite relaying several facts about Nimrod, most of the information provided in the table is ambiguous. Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971) speculates:

The statements are so general, and connected to one another so loosely, that one senses how remote and legendary the information about Nimrod was even in the ancient Israelite period; only particular recollections have been preserved. Our list considers Nimrod as the first wielder of power of earth, the first ruler of historical significance, the first in the series of those great men whose will become determinative for the fate of entire nations. (Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 146)

Even Nimrod’s name is enigmatic. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) researches:

The etymology of Nimrod is...uncertain. Most writers have connected it with the Hebrew verb mārad, “to rebel.” In the Haggadah (T.B. Hag. 13a; Pes. 94b) Nimrod is pictured as the prototype of rebellion, the builder of the Tower of Babel, and the one who led the people in rebellion against God. Mitchell J. Dahood [1922-1982] has noted that at both Ebla and Ugarit some proper names combine an animal and a deity. He notes particularly Ugar. ni-mi-ri-ya (which translates “panther of Yah”), which leads him to suggest that Nimrod means “panther of Hadd” (i.e., Baal), analogous to nqmd (“victory of Hadd”). (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 338)

Nimrod is so lauded that it might be assumed that he would be featured prominently throughout the Bible as well as extra-biblical sources. This is simply not the case. The potentate’s name appears only four times in the Biblical text: twice in the Table of Nations, in another genealogy in I Chronicles and in Micah which refers to northern Mesopotamia/Assyria as the “land of Nimrod” (Genesis 10:8, 9; I Chronicles 1:10; Micah 5:6).

More surprisingly, Nimrod is evidently unknown elsewhere in ancient literature. To bridge the gap between Scripture and history, many have conjectured as to which known luminary could correspond to Nimrod. Ironically, commentators have spent a great deal of time trying to identify the most famous man of his time. Humans, deities, demigods, an archetypical ideal (as opposed to real person) and a composite character have all been suggested.

Claus Westermann (1909-2000) surveys the usual suspects:

Benno Jacob [1862-1945] gives a detailed account of the explanations offered for the name Nimrod and concludes: “But there is no sign at all of a Nimrod or similar name.” Likewise John Skinner [1851-1925] and others, and the situation has not changed despite more recent attempts. The name is linked with Marduk, the tutelary god of Babylon (A.H. Sayce [1846-1938], Julius Wellhausen [1844-1918]); with Nuzi-Maruttash, a king of the Kassite dynasty (Paul Haupt [1858-1926], H.V. Hilprecht [1859-1925]); as nu-marad (man from Marad) with the middle Babylonian city Marad (Franz Delitzsch [1830-1890]); with the constellation Orion, who appears as a mighty hunter in Greece and later as a hunter translated to the sky; in Syriac the constellation is known as gabbār; with Amen-Hotep III (1411-1375) who is called neb-ma-re, in the Amarna letters Nimmuri (Kurt Sethe [1869-1934]); with Gilgamesh, who is described as gibbōr in the epic, and presented as a hunter in sculpture (so many interpreters); with the Babylonian god of war and hunt Ninurta (Heinrich Zimmern [1862-1931], KBL); more recently (E.A. Speiser [1902-1965], Eretz-Israel V[1958] 32-45) with Yukulti-Ninurta I, of the 13th century, the first Assyrian master of Babylon; as Ninos a figure of Greek story. (Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary, 515)

Joseph Blenkinsopp (b. 1927) updates:

The list of candidates includes Sargon, founder of the dynasty of Akkad in the late third millennium BC (Yigal Levin [b. 1963] 2002); Tikulti-Ninurta I (ca. 1244-1208 BC), a great builder who was the first Assyrian ruler to conquer Babylon (E.A. Speiser [1902-1965] 1958; 1964: 72-73), Ashurnasirpal II (878-707 BC), who made Calah (Kalhu, now Nimrud, on the east bank of the Tigris south-east of Mosul) his capital; and Sargon II (721-705 BC), whose new capital at Dur Sharrukin (Khorsabad) was abandoned after his death (Christoph Uehlinger [b. 1958] 2003; Arie van der Kooij [b. 1945] 2006). To these we may add Ashurbanipal (668-627 BC), last significant ruler in the long succession of Assyrian kings, in spite of the fact that “the beginning of his kingdom’ was Assyria not Babylon. (Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A discursive commentary on Genesis 1-11, 161-162)

Each suggestion has its limitations and there is no consensus among scholars.

Whoever Nimrod was, he was impressive. Three times the text uses the word “mighty” (Hebrew: gibbôr) to describe him (Genesis 10:8-9). The only other time this word occurs in Genesis is in relation to the Nephilim (Genesis 6:4). In Genesis 10:8, in addition to “mighty” (ASV, CEV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), the word is also translated “great” (MSG) “heroic” (NLT) and “powerful” (HCSB). The word means “strong, mighty” and can be equated with “champion” though the context is clearly does not fit sports or games.

Kenneth A. Mathews (b. 1950) defines:

The association of “mighty warrior” (Genesis 10:8) with the prowess of the hunt (“mighty hunter,” Genesis 10:9) reflects the early traditions of Egyptian and Mesopotamian kings famous for this practice. In both expressions gibbor (“mighty”) refers to the strength of Nimrod as a champion warrior. It is reminiscent of Genesis 6:4, which describes the infamous heroes of the past. Usually the term occurs in the context of military achievement (e.g., Joshua 10:2; Amos 2:14, 16). (Mathews, Genesis 1- 11:26 (The New American Commentary), 450)

Nimrod is characterized as a mighty hunter (Genesis 10:9); Esau is the only other hunter mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 25:27). Robert Alter (b. 1935) analyzes:

The Hebrew, which says literally, “he began to be a mighty man,” uses the same idiom that is invoked for Noah’s planting a vineyard. The implication, is that Nimrod, too, was the founder of an archetypical human occupation. The next verse suggests that this occupation is that of hunter, with his founding of a great Mesopotamian empire then introduced in Genesis 10:10-12 as an ancillary fact. Perhaps his prowess as a hunter is put forth as evidence of the martial prowess that enabled him to conquer kingdoms, since the two skills are often associated in the ruling classes of older civilizations. Numerous Neo-Assyrian bas-reliefs depict royal lion hunts or royal bull hunts. (Alter, Genesis: Translation and Commentary, 43)

Some have supposed that his fellow humans are the game that Nimrod hunts. Martin Kessler (b. 1927) and Karel Deurloo (b. 1936) interpret:

The cultural innovation was no cause for rejoicing. Anyone who knows the Assyrian hunting reliefs in the British Museum in London understands that Nimrod was not a prince on a safari. The king was the “lord of animals,” a caricature of the (exemplary) man of the stripe of Noah who dominates the animals as a human in God’s image. A man like Nimrod hunted predators of the semi-chaotic field that adjoined the cultivated land. He was superhuman in his power, “a hero in hunting before the face of YHWH.” A greater superlative cannot be imagined. Or does the author intend to express a limitation of his power? (Kessler and Deurloo, A Commentary on Genesis: The Book of Beginnings, 89-90)

Yael Shemesh documents:

The midrash views Nimrod, of whom the Bible reports that “he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord” (Genesis 10:8-9), with extreme disfavor. According to Midrash Aggadah...on Genesis 10:8, Nimrod was the first person to eat meat: “Before Nimrod human beings did not eat meat, until Nimrod came and hunted and ate them. This is why it says that ‘he began to be a [that is, was the first] mighty hunter.’” The midrash’s disapproval of the hunter is evident from what comes next: “‘He was a mighty hunter’: This means that he hunted men [beriyot] and killed them. ‘Before the Lord’: This means that he knew his Master and intended to rebel against him: “He was a mighty hunter before the Lord’: This refers to Esau, who is called ‘a skillful hunter’ (Genesis 25:27).” The midrash evidently draws a link between harming animals and harming human beings: someone who overcame the basic human revulsion at shedding the blood of animals is a villain who also hunts and kills human beings. As for “before the Lord,” which might be interpreted as favorable, the midrash reads it negatively: even though he knows the Lord, Nimrod intends to rebel against Him. (Athalya Brenner [b. 1943], Archie Chi Chung Lee, Gale A. Yee [b. 1949], Genesis (Texts @ Contexts), 117)

Unlike the shepherd kings from the Ancient Near East applauded in the Bible, Nimrod is able to exert his will and parlay his unique skills into becoming the world’s first potentate. He builds an empire. Before Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE), Genghis Khan (1162-1227) and Adolph Hitler (1889-1945), there was Nimrod.

John Goldingay (b. 1942) portrays:

Nimrod is the Bible’s first individual “champion” or outstanding warrior, following on the Fallen of Genesis 6 who were also “champions” or warriors; there will be no more “champions” in the Torah (except God). Further, Nimrod is the only hunter in the Old Testament except Esau. And he is this “before Yahweh”: even by God’s standards, Nimrod is impressive. Yet further, he is the first person in Scripture with whom words such as king or reign are associated, the first person in the Bible with a kingdom. The comments about him suggest an anticipatory judgment on earthly kingship and kingdom. The existence of powerful states and powerful rulers is at best an ambiguous development in the world’s unfolding story. (Goldingay, Genesis for Everyone, Part One: Chapters 1-16 123)

Nimrod vastly expands his territory. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) traces:

Four (or three?) cities are connected with Nimrod. Three of them are well known: Babylon, the ancient capital city of Mesopotamia, situated on a branch of the Euphrates, southwest of Baghdad; Erech (ancient Uruk, modern Warka), an important Sumerian city (especially 4th-3rd millennium B.C.), located about 160 miles southeast of Baghdad; Accad (also spelled Akkad or Agade), the capital city of the dynasty of Sargon of Akkad, situated on the Euphrates in northern Babylonia, though its site has never been discovered...The city about which there is uncertainty is Calneh. Amos 6:2 mentions a city by this name, along with Carchemish, Hamathm and Arpad, as cities conquered by the Assyrians, and hence pointing to northern Syria. It is difficult, however, to identify this northern Calneh with the one in Genesis 10, which is specifically designated as being in the land of Shinar, that is Sumer, which is in the south, unless the northern Calneh (Amos 6:2), is to be seen as a commercial colony named after the mother city in the south (Genesis 10:10). Furthermore, the extant cuneiform literature has no references to a southern (i.e., Babylonian) Calneh. (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 339)

Nimrod became so celebrated that a proverbial saying developed around his name, the way a great basketball move today might be described as “Jordanesque” in deference to Michael Jordan (Genesis 10:9).

Robert Davidson (1927-2012) compares:

Just as biblical names have come down to us embedded in proverbial sayings – we speak, for example of someone having ‘the patience of Job’ –so the Hebrews knew of a proverbial saying in which the name of an ancient non-Hebrew hero Nimrod appeared. (Davidson, Genesis 1-11 (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the Old Testament), 102)

Like most of the material involving Nimrod, the aphorism is cryptic. Kenneth A. Mathews (b. 1950) explains:

The proverb “Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD” is unclear about how the author interprets the expression. “Before the LORD” has been taken as God’s favor toward Nimrod, or conversely, suggesting sinful rebellion as in the thought of Psalm 66:7: “He [God] rules forever by his power, his eyes watch the nations—let not the rebellious rise up against him.” Some conclude alternatively that the phrase is neutral, only expressing a superlative, thereby indicating that Nimrod’s activities stood out especially. Lexical connections between the Nimrod narrative and the tower event (Genesis 11:1-9), however, encourage the reader to interpret Nimrod’s activities, as the founder of Babel, in the same negative light the Lord “saw” the efforts of the tower builders. (Mathews, Genesis 1- 11:26 (The New American Commentary), 450)

Bill T. Arnold (b. 1955) views Nimrod’s exploits as indicative of far reaching ramifications:

This note also gives the etiological understanding of an early aphorism in ancient Israel (Genesis 10:9): “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before Yahweh.” This presumably hints that post-flood humanity has already reverted to pre-flood despotism. (Arnold, Genesis (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 116)

The name Nimrod persists today with two widely disparate meanings, a hunter and a person deemed silly or foolish. The prevalence of the latter has trumped the former. Amazingly, the second meaning likely derived from the cartoon character Bugs Bunny. The wily rabbit used the term in its original sense to refer to his nemesis, the asinine hunter Elmer Fudd, whom he called a “poor little Nimrod.” Eventually, the name became more associated with the characteristics of the inept animated hunter than the great biblical warrior.

The original Nimrod, however, was the most influential person of his and the surrounding generations. Nimrod utilized his entrepreneurial spirit to become a world changer.

Who are today’s “mighty men”? What historical figures are comparable to Nimrod? Who will stand out in your generation? How is the world different because of Nimrod; what impact did he have? How did the original readers view Nimrod, as a hero or a villain? How should Nimrod be remembered?

Nimrod is remembered for personal prowess and political power, traits loved by the world. Yet the Bible is not so clear as to whether Nimrod should be as revered as he was in his own lifetime.

Donald E. Gowan (b. 1929) remarks:

The note is neutral in tone, like Genesis 4:17-22 and Genesis 9:20. It does not follow the pattern of the stories of Cain and Abel or the tower of Babel, which express negative judgments about what has gone wrong in human culture. This is somewhat remarkable in that the list of cities includes Israel’s deadly enemies, Babel and Nineveh. (Gowan, Genesis 1-11: From Eden to Babel (International Theological Commentary), 113)

Miguel A. De La Torre (b. 1958) expounds:

Not much is said about Nimrod, except that he is reckoned as the world’s first potentate. Although we are not told anything about his relationship with God except that he was a mighty hunter in Yahweh’s eyes, his name might betray his character. The Hebrew word “to rebel” (marad) may be the root of the Hebrew word Nimrod. But what was it about Nimrod that was rebellious? Nimrod is credited with building an empire that included Babel (Babylon), Erech, and Achad. From there he continued to Assyria and built Nineveh, the capital city of the Assyrian Empire. If there is any connection with the word “rebellion” and Nimrod’s name, Walter Brueggemann [b. 1933] suggests it might be that empire building is a rebellion against Yahweh. (De La Torre, Genesis: Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible, 132)

Traditionally, Nimrod is typically depicted negatively. Later Jewish traditions portray the potentate as the builder of the infamous Tower of Babel and the originator of idolatry. Josephus (37-100) envisions Nimrod (called Nebrodes following the Septuagint) as a tyrant who is actively hostile towards God and builds the Tower of Babel in preparation for another Flood (Jewish Antiquities I.113-199). Philo (20 BCE-50 CE) stretches by translating his epithet as the condemning “a mighty hunter against the Lord” (Questions and Answers on Genesis II.82).

Though tradition links Nimrod as the impetus behind the Tower of Babel, he is not included in the biblical account (Genesis 11:1-9). Even so, Bruce K. Waltke (b. 1930) sees a linguistic connection:

The narrator foreshadows the Tower of Babel narrative by key words in the biographical note about Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-12). Both Nimrod and the tower builders “build,” bānâ, “cities,” ‘îr (Genesis 10:11-12, 11:4-5), in “Babylon” and “Shinar” (Genesis 10:10, 11:2, 9). Moreover, in both of these narratives the narrator inserts the only two references to “the LORD” in the book. Both pertain to God’s sovereignty over the godless humans and their cities. Nimrod’s deeds were “before the LORD” (Genesis 10:9), and the “LORD came down to the city [Babylon]” (Genesis 11:5; cf. Genesis 11:6, 8-9). (Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary, 163)

Interpretations of Nimrod hinge on the enigmatic expression “before the LORD” featured in the proverb (Genesis 10:9). It can mean either in the Lord’s presence or in the Lord’s estimation.

John E. Hartley (b. 1940) examines:

The text states twice that Nimrod achieved fame as a hunter “before Yahweh.” This phrase elevates Nimrod’s achievement to a superior level. It also shows that Yahweh was involved in the course of the development of the nations. (Hartley, New International Biblical Commentary, 121)

Kenneth O. Gangel (1935-2009) and Stephen J. Bramer (b. 1953) posit:

The relevance of this expression is not clear. Nimrod was in the line of Ham, not Shem, through whom Abram would descend. Perhaps this statement about the Lord was included to signify that not all of Ham’s descendants would be under the curse of Canaan (Genesis 9:25), or it could signify that this was done in God’s presence, as Genesis 11:5 points out. (Gangel and Bramer, Genesis (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 105)

W. Sibley Towner (b. 1933) deduces:

The interesting thing about him here is that the narrator offers a proverbial saying, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD” (Genesis 10:8-9). Whoever Nimrod was, he was not outside the interests of Yahweh. In the view of the Priestly genealogist, he lived out his life of greatness by the grace of the creator of all peoples. (Towner, Genesis (Westminster Bible Companion), 104)

Despite many traditions to the contrary, Nimrod has found supporters. He has been seen as a reminder that God can use those outside of the chosen people, like Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28, 45:1), to accomplish the divine will.

John Rogerson (b. 1935) presents:

A possible key verse for the understanding of the chapter is Genesis 10:9, where Nimrod is described as a ‘mighty hunter before the LORD’...If, as seems most likely, the verse is taken to be a compliment to Nimrod, then we have a non-Israelite described both as a founder of civilization in Babylon and Assyria, and as standing in some sort of relationship to God. From this we could conclude that the chapter is saying not only did the nations consist of men and women created by the God worshipped by Israel, but that among these nations were individuals who enjoyed the favour of the God worshipped by Israel. We must not overlook the fact that the Old Testament has a strong sense that foreign nations can be used of God (cf. Isaiah 10:5, 45:1), and that God’s purpose in calling Abraham is to bring blessing to all nations (Genesis 12:3). (Rogerson, Genesis 1-11 (T and T Clark Study Guides), 74)

Joseph Coleson (b. 1947) adds:

The significant prepositional phrase, lipnê yhwh, occurs twice in Genesis 10:9. Most often it is translated, “before the Lord/Yahweh,” but that does not reflect its full significance in this context. It was not just in Yahweh’s presence, or estimation, that Nimrod was a master of the hunt. It was by God’s will, even by God’s grace (E.A. Speiser 1902-1965] 1964, 51, 64; Victor P. Hamilton [b. 1952] 1990, 335, see, e.g. Numbers 32:20-22). This insight militates against understanding the name Nimrod as meaning “rebel.” Taken seriously, it also has the potential to revise our (usually negative) opinions of Nimrod. (Coleson, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary), 273-74)

Leon R. Kass (b. 1939) justifies the potentate by noting that Nimrod’s actions are understandable:

He was...the founder, presumably by conquest, of an empire of cities in the plain of Shinar, and the beginning of his kingdom was Babel (Genesis 10:8-10). By means of a large kingdom, Nimrod attempts to overcome by force the division of mankind. We should not be too quick to blame him: if what lies behind the human world is only chaos and instability, man must make his own order. Human ordering is the theme fo the story of Babel. (Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis , 222)

In spite of this praise, the context is flooded with negative associations. The term “mighty” connects Nimrod with the cause fo the “flood’ (Genesis 6:4). In the preceding chapter, Nimrod’s grandfather, Ham, and his descendants are cursed (Genesis 9:20-27). On top of this, as a son of Cush, he appears to be a Hamite, yet his entire kingdom is in Shemite territory.

Paul J. Kissling (b. 1957) connects:

That Nimrod became a mighty warrior...(gibbōr) probably alludes to the “heroes”...(hěggibbōrîm) of Genesis 6:4. Nimrod’s violence is thus linked to the violence that brought on the divine judgment of the Flood. That Nimrod is later associated with the founding of the great kingdoms of Israel’s experience leads the audience to be reminded of the violence of kingdoms with their secular views of authority (whether it be Egypt who enslaved them or Babylon who exiled them matters little.) They start from a man whose name means “we will rebel” and who became a warrior like the warriors destroyed in the Flood. (Kissling, Genesis, Volume 1 (The College Press NIV Commentary), 365)

Joseph Blenkinsopp (b. 1927) contextualizes:

Like Cain, Nimrod built a city (Genesis 4:17), and like the Nephilim destroyed in the deluge, he was one of the gibbōrîm, the ‘mighty men’ of old, though clearly a different type of gibbôr. While the brief narrative about Nimrod is not explicitly prejudicial and negative, in the broader context of Genesis 1-11 these associations suggest a negative verdict on his political and military accomplishments and a further stage of deterioration according to the Yahwist’s realistic and disenchanted view of human affairs. (Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A discursive commentary on Genesis 1-11, 161)

Mark G. Brett (b. 1958) sees empire building in general as problematic:

A unifying principle among the Hamites is urbanism, and this feature is reflected especially in...Nimrod...who somehow founds the urban centres both of Babylon and of Assyria. Nimrod is an empire builder, indeed the prototype of empire builders. And the implicit suggestion from the editors of Genesis is that empire builders...are guilty of crimes of dominance...More than that, empire builders are guilty of improper ambition. (Brett, Genesis: Procreation and the Politics of Identity, 46)

Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) concludes:

He should have been a terrifying figure—the personification or incarnation of overwhelming power. But the story demystifies him. In the figure of his ancestor Ham, the weakness of his foundations have already been seen; ultimately his fate is not mightiness but servitude. The description of him as “mighty...mighty...mighty” recalls the mighty men who were washed away by the mightier flood (Genesis 6:4, 7:18-20). To emphasize God’s presence, Nimrod’s hunting is placed “before Yhwh,” in other words, subject to Yhwh (Genesis 10:9). (Brodie, Genesis As Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary, 194)

The final verdict on Nimrod’s virtue is left to the reader. Perhaps he is like most people, possessing both good and bad traits. From the Biblical perspective, a person’s greatness should not be assessed based upon worldly accomplishments but rather relationship to God. By this standard, Enoch who leaves no political legacy (Genesis 5:21-24) is far greater than Nimrod who shaped the ancient world (Genesis 10:8-14).

What is Nimrod’s relationship to God? Is there anything intrinsically wrong with building empires? What is the barometer for greatness? Who do you consider to be great?

“Greatness lies, not in being strong, but in the right using of strength; and strength is not used rightly when it serves only to carry a man above his fellows for his own solitary glory. He is the greatest whose strength carries up the most hearts by the attraction of his own.” - Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887), Life Thoughts: Gathered from the Extemporaneous Discourses of Henry Ward Beecher, 1858