After the date of the later books of the Old Testament we know nothing of Nimrod for some time; it is probable…
- Date of account
- Ancient material presented in a revised 1880 edition
- Source
- The Chaldean account of Genesis: Containing the description of the creation, the fall of man, the deluge, the tower of Babel, the times of the patriarchs
- Reference
- The Chaldean account of Genesis: Containing the description of the creation, the fall of man, the deluge, the tower of Babel, the times of the patriarchs · selected passage 22
- Rights
- public_domain
- Language
- English translation and reconstruction from cuneiform sources
- Translation
- George Smith with later editorial material
- Record updated
- 2026-08-24
Record summary
After the date of the later books of the Old Testament we know nothing of Nimrod for some time; it is probable that he was fully mentioned by Berosus in his history, but his account of the giant hunter has been lost
Published source text
Read the available text below. Archive transcriptions may contain OCR errors; later context is labelled separately. A recorded claim is not a finding that it happened.
Source passage
Source text · mention onlyAfter the date of the later books of the Old Testament we know nothing of Nimrod for some time; it is probable that he was fully mentioned by Berosus in his history, but his account of the giant hunter has been lost. The reason of this appears to be, that a belief had grown up among early Christian writers that the Biblical Nimrod was the first king of Babylonia after the Flood, and looking at the list of Berosus they found that after the Flood according to him Evechous first reigned in Babylonia, and at once assumed that the Evechous of Berosus was the Nimrod of the Bible; but as Evechous has given to him the extravagant reign of four ners or 2,400 years, and his son and successor, Chomasbelus, four ners and five sosses, or 2,700 years, this identification gives little hope of our finding an historical Nimrod.
Historical context
Contextual commentary · mention onlyThis is a passage from a historical religious or interpretive text. Its genre, manuscript history, translation and place within its own tradition are part of the evidence and must remain visible.
Modern context
Contextual commentary · mention onlyLattice can compare the passage's descriptive features with later reports, but resemblance does not turn a vision, angel, mythic creature or sacred narrative into a modern incident report.
Investigate related details with Anomaly Graph’s account-based search, or read how matching and provenance work.