And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
Cush begat Nimrod. Rawlinson, viewing this chart as having an exclusively national and geographical bearing, rejects as inconsistent with that character the notion of a biographical notice in the midst of such a document; and in the belief that the word Nimrod is the regular past-participle of an Assyrian verb, signifying 'those who are found,' or 'the settlers,' assigns its application to the collective body of original colonists of Babylonia. This interpretation, however, appears inadmissible, not only because, in introducing the name of Nimrod, the usual formula at the commencement of each family register is dropped, and a phraseology adopted which intimates that the ensuing narrative relates to an individual, but because the personal existence of the subject of it is plainly implied in the whole details. Nimrod is here expressly declared to have been a Cushite.
Bunsen, who maintained that the Biblical Cush uniformly points to Africa, regarded the reading in this text as corrupt х Kuwsh (H3568) being erroneously put for Kows], and consequently that Nimrod was a Cossoean -
i.e., belonged to a Scythian or Turanian tribe, which, issuing from the highland region east of Mesopotamia, came under his leadership to invade that country. But the remarks made above relative to the various settlements of the Cushites in Asia will show that there is no ground for scepticism as to the recorded genealogy of Nimrod; and there is the clearest historical evidence that the first Chaldean kingdom was established and governed by a Hamite dynasty.
According to the natural import of the words "Cush begat Nimrod," this person was the great-grandson of Ham, and the brother of those sons of Cush who are mentioned in the first clause of Genesis 10:7; he is introduced in a special manner, and out of the family order, in consequence of his extraordinary pre-eminence. Since there is, however, force in the objection which has been urged, that in the course of two generations after the deluge there could not have been a sufficient number of people to inhabit the cities erected, the words "Cush begat Nimrod," are probably used in a loose sense, merely to denote that he was a descendant of Cush.
The name "Nimrod" was, according to ancient usage, allusive to circumstances in the history of this person, and bestowed on him in his mature age, or after death. The Septuagint calls him Nebrood, from the Assyrian root nipru, meaning to pursue in the chase; whereas "Nimrod," if of Hebrew etymology, comes from a verb signifying to rebel, being by some considered as the past participle, and denoting a determined, an extremely impious rebel; and by others taken for the first person plural future, 'we will rebel,' that being, in their view, the watchword of the leader and his party in resisting the divine decree for dispersion over the earth. But this is purely conjectural, as it is impossible to say whether the name be of Cushite or of Semitic origin. Havernick considers it an appellative, synonymous with Belus, or Bel - i:e., lord; and therefore, instead of conveying the idea of 'rebel' to be taken in the wider sense of 'ruler-sole ruler' х Turannos (G5181)].
He began to be a mighty one in the earth. The phrase "began to be" is an idiomatic form of expression, very appropriate in this case, as it intimates the gradual progress of Nimrod in the acquisition of imperial power, (see the note at Genesis 6:1; Genesis 9:20, etc.) Classical antiquity, which assigned to Bel or Belus an Egyptian descent (Diodorus Siculus, 1: 28), this corroborates the Mosaic genealogy. Isolated notices similar to this episode of Nimrod are not unfrequently introduced into the Hebrew genealogies (1 Chronicles 11:7; 1 Chronicles 11:23; 1 Chronicles 4:22-23; 1 Chronicles 4:39-41). 'These analogies,' observes Delitzsch, 'overthrow the assertion that the verses before us have been interpolated by the Jahwist into the Elohistic document, since the use of the name Yahweh (H3068) is no proof of difference of authorship.'