Num. 13 : 33 Who were the children of Anak

[Mark]

What was the significance of the children of Anak being in the land of Canaan (Leviticus 13) and how did the children of Israel know of them?

[ken]

Genesis 6:4
4 It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on earth—when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.

Numbers 13:33
33 we saw the Nephilim; there—the Anakites are part of the Nephilim—and we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves, and so we must have looked to them.”

Jewish Publication Society. (1997, c1985). Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures : A new translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the traditional Hebrew text. Title facing t.p.: , Nevi'im, Kethuvim = , Nevi'im, Ketuvim. (Ge 6:4); (Nu 13:33). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society..

[ken]

Joshua 11:21
21 At that time, Joshua went and wiped out the Anakites from the hill country, from Hebron, Debir, and Anab, from the entire hill country of Judah, and from the entire hill country of Israel; Joshua proscribed them and their towns. 22 No Anakites remained in the land of the Israelites; but some remained in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod.

1 Samuel 17:4
4 A champion of the Philistine forces stepped forward; his name was Goliath of Gath, and he was six cubits and a span tall.

[ken]

Deuteronomy 2:11
11 Like the Anakites, they are counted as Rephaim; but the Moabites call them Emim.

2 Samuel 21:22
22 Those four were descended from the Raphah in Gath, and they fell by the hands of David and his men.

1 Samuel 17:40
40 Then he took his staff in his hand and chose five smooth stones from the brook and put them in his shepherd’s pouch. His sling was in his hand, and he approached the Philistine.

1 Samuel 17:26
26 David asked the men standing near him, “What will be done for the man who kills that Philistine and removes the disgrace from Israel? Who is that uncircumcised Philistine that he dares defy the ranks of the living God?”

[Mark]

Yes, there are several places in Scripture where the Anakim show up; but little that suggests where they came from. Whether or not they were the result of strange relations between human girls and fallen angels is of little or no concern.

The use of the term "nephilim" has unfortunately been given that definition; but in reality the term means tyrannical or war-like: big mean bad guys. Some suggest that since the word "nephilim" is derived from the word "naphal" which means "to fall" the bad angel theory is supported; but the use of the word is not typically used as an unfortunate experience with gravity, rather it is used in the sense of falling upon one's prey in an active and purposeful manner, to come down upon, to "light off her camel" as it is used of Rebekah in Genesis 24:64.

The question is rather as to why the Anakim are specifically mentioned by the spies and would be recognized by the rest of the Israelites as a group of people worthy of their fear? Why were the Anakim specifically mentioned as opposed to the Emmims?

The answer may be that another name for the Anakim may well have been the Hyksos. The Hyksos invaded and controlled the land of Egypt for a very dark time between the days of Joseph and the time of Moses. It was for fear of the Hyksos (and their possible allegiance with the Jewish people) that the Egyptians began to fear the Jewish people, leading to their genocide.

[ken]

Maybe this will help: The Meaning of the Word Nephilim: Fact vs. Fantasy

[Mark]

The Greek septuigent translates nephilim as gigantes which simply means big people. The Anakim are compared the the Emims which in Hebrew called raw-faw (which is translated as giants but means "of great stamina"). Interestingly, the Greek Septuigent renders raw-faw as Pathain logistheisetai which (after some pretty complicated parsing) means specifically emotional little monsters, which if you get past my 3rd grade sense of humor, can see the similarity with the Hebrew.

[ken]

Actually gigantes can also be translated as titan which is half terrestrial/half human.

GIANTS γίγαντες
I. In the strict sense the Gigantes in Greek mythology were the serpent-footed giants who were born from the blood-drops of the castration of Uranus (→Heaven) that had fallen on →Earth (Hesiod Theogony 183–186). The term gigantes occurs about 40 times in the LXX and refers there respectively to: a) the giant offspring of ‘the sons of God’ and ‘the daughters of mankind’ (Gen 6:1–4; Bar 3:26–28; Sir 16:7); b) strong and mighty men, like →Nimrod (Gen 10:8–9); c) several pre-Israelite peoples of tall stature in Canaan and Transjordania. The etymology of the name, which may be pre-Greek, is unknown, but was in Antiquity thought to be γηγενής or ‘born from earth’.

II. As Gaea-Earth was vexed with the sorry fate of the →Titans after their battle with the Olympian gods, she now stirred up her other sons, the Giants, against the Olympians. They endeavoured to storm heaven by building a tower (cf. Gen 11:4), that is by piling up the mountains Pelion, Ossa and →Olympus on top of one another (Homer, Od. 11,315-316). According to an oracle, the gods could not destroy the Giants unless they were helped by a mortal man. In the ensuing Gigantomachy it was →Heracles who assisted the gods, killing off the Giants with his arrows after they had already been wounded, mainly so by →Zeus’ thunderbolts (Apollodorus, Library 1, 6, 1–2). Out of their blood-drops that fell on Earth such a new race of savage and bloodthirsty men was born that Jupiter destroyed them by the Flood (Ovid Metam. 1,151-162; 262–312). Not all of them were killed, however, though some were punished in the Nether World or Tartarus and were supposed to lie as prisoners under islands and volcanoes.
In Antiquity the story was sometimes believed literally, skeletons of whales or dinosaurs being explained as the bones of the Giants (Suetonius, Augustus 72, 3), but sometimes it was dismissed as fiction (Plato, Euth. 6b-c; Resp. 2,378c). Between these two extremes there were various other opinions: Ephorus of Cyme considered the Giants to have been a historical tribe of barbarians in Chalcidice which had been defeated by Heracles (FGH 70F34); Proclus saw the Gigantomachy psychologically as the battle between reason and the lower passions (In Plat. Parmenidem 127c), Joannes Lydus as the victory of sunlight over winter (De mensibus 4, 3), etc. As a literary motif it was often used in panegyrics in honour of rulers or generals who had defeated the tall Celts or Germans: Claudian makes the Visigoth Alaric as the ‘Giant’ the opponent of the god Eridanus, the river Po (On the 6th Consulship of Honorius 178–186).

III. In the LXX-translation the word γίγαντες correponds to four or five Hebrew words or expressions in the MT: (1) →nĕpîlîm = the offspring of the sons of God (Gen 6:1–4); rarely the same people as (2), in Num 13:33; (2) →rĕpāʾîm, the tall, original inhabitants of the promised land; the word was also left untranslated as Rafaeim or Rafaein e. g. Gen 15:20; (3) ‘sons of Râphâ(h)’, the eponymous ancestor of the rĕpāʾîm (2 Sam 21:22); (4) ‘sons of ʿănāqîm’ (Deut 1:28), tall people living near Hebron (Num 13:22.33) and in Philistia (Jos 11:22); the remaining instances of Hebrew ʿanāqîm are matched in the LXX by Enakim, only in Deut 9:2 by Enak; the Hebrew name has nothing to do etymologically with τὼ Ἄνακε or οἱ Ἄνακες (as the →Dioscuri, who were otherwise gigantic of stature, could also be called) because the latter derives from an older Greek ϝάνακε(ς); (5) gibbôrîm, strong, mighty men or heroes, such as Nimrod. In the MT a number of these Hebrew names occur side by side, as synonyms, (1) and (4) at Num 13:33, (1) and (5) at Gen 6:4, (2) and (3) at 1 Chr 20:4–8, and (2) and (4) at Deut 2:10–11. It is therefore quite understandable and expectable that all could apparently be rendered by the one Greek term γίγαντες, sometimes with the variant reading Τιτᾶνες.
A god whose sons marry mortal women on earth, could, of course, by opponents of Judaism easily be taken to refer to no one else than Cronus, whose sons Zeus and →Poseidon had a reputation for having fathered many earthlings, especially ancestors of royal dynasties, such as Heracles the son of Zeus from whom the Macedonian kings claimed descent (Plutarch, Alexander 2, 1). Probably in order to prevent such interpretations, the expression ‘the sons of God’ was replaced by ‘the angels of God’ in a number of manuscripts of the LXX and also by Philo of Alexandria. He denies that Gen 6:1–4 is a piece of mythology and likewise makes ‘the giants’ sons of ‘the angels of God’ and of earthly women, while he explains their name as ‘the earthborn’ or those who indulge in the pleasures of the body (On the Giants 6 and 58–60; Questions and Answers on Gen 92; cf. also Josephus Ant 1, 73). These →angels were sinners because they mixed with mortal women, and their sinful giant children were named Nephilim, since they caused the downfall of the world (so Gen. Rabbah 26, 7, deriving the name from נפל ‘fall’). In 1 Enoch 6,2 one finds the combination οἱ ἄγγελοι υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ to refer to the giants’ fathers, while Syncellus’ version of this passage has οἱ ἐγρήγοροι or ‘the →watchers’ (so also in T. Rub. 5,6; cf. עיריא or עיריה in 4QEn a,1, 1, 5 etc.). It was they who taught people on earth all kinds of science and technology (1 Enoch 7,1), and astrology in particular (ibid 8,3). According to Jub. 8,3 Kâinâm, here the son of Arpachshad (contrary to Gen 5:9 and 10:24), even found rock inscriptions made by ‘former’ generations (Syncellus and Cedrenus: “of the giants”), which contained the very teaching of these Watchers, which is then further described as the observation of celestial omens (cf. Gen. Rabbah 26, 5). Josephus, however, ascribed not only the inscriptions, but also the invention of astronomy itself to the sons of Seth (Ant. 1, 70–71). Apart from these passages there existed a special, more detailed apocryphon about the Giants, of which only fragments have been preserved from Qumran (4 QEnGiants, in Aramaic) and from the Manichaean tradition (in Soghdian and Uigur). Here the various giants have received names, and of two of them, the brothers Ôhyâh and Hahyâh, it is related that they had prognostic dreams, which were then explained by →Enoch. The race of the giants was mostly supposed to have drowned in the Flood (3 Macc 2, 4; Wis 14, 5–6), numbering then 409.000 (3 Apoc. Bar. 4,10). Their souls lived on as evil spirits who caused harm to mankind (e. g. 1 Enoch 15,8–16,1; Jub. 10,1–3; Test. Sal. 17,1). The angels who had sinned were “thrown down”, according to 2 Pet 2:4 by God himself into “the Tartarus”, to be kept there for the coming judgment. The author makes use here of the verb ταρταρόω, which is the typical expression for the punishment of the Titans, cf κατεταρτάρωσεν in Apollodorus, Library 1, 2, 3 and Sextus Empiricus Pyrrh. 3,210. The substantive Τάρταρος, however, is found more often, though not as frequently as →Hades, referring to the Hebrew →Sheol e.g. LXX Prov 24:51 (30:16); cf. 1 Enoch 20,2 where the angel →Uriel is the prince of the Kosmos and the Tartarus.
As to the fate of the Giants, the Samaritan anonymus (Ps-Eupolemus) relates that some of them were saved from the Flood and became the builders of the Tower of Babylon (frg 1 in Eusebius, P. E. 9, 17, 2). This may show the influence of the current story of those other giants, Otus and Ephialtes, who were no sons of Uranus and Gaea; they wanted to storm Heaven by means of piling up some mountains on top of Olympus (Homer, Od. 11,305-320). Ovid ascribed this to the Giants in the proper sense (see above).
The exegesis itself of ‘the sons of God’ as fallen angels at Gen 6:2 did not go unchallenged. Tryphon is reported to have considered the whole idea of sinning angels as such to be blasphemy (Justin Martyr, Dial. 79). Symmachus’ translation of the passage had οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν δυναστευόντων or “the sons of those holding power” and similarly, Gen. Rabbah 26, 5 has the tradition that they were to be seen as “sons of nobles”. Julius Africanus simply wanted to explain them as the sons of the rightful Seth and the daughters of mankind as descendants of Cain (Chron. frg. 2), thus removing the slightest trace of mythology.

IV. Bibliography
H. von Geisau, Gigantes, KP 2 (1975) 797–798; J. T. Milik (& M. Black), The Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford 1976) (298–339 for the Book of Giants); J. C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony. Studies in the Book of Giants Tradition (Cincinnati 1992); W. Sontheimer, Gigantomachie, KP 2 (1975) 798; W. Speyer, Gigant, RAC 10 (1978) 1247–1276; F. Vian, La guerre des géants. Le mythe avant l’époque hellénistique (Paris 1952).
G. Mussies

Toorn, K. v. d., Becking, B., & Horst, P. W. v. d. (1999). Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible DDD (2nd extensively rev. ed.) (343). Leiden; Boston; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brill; Eerdmans.

[ken]

Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament): 400
400 אֵימִים (ʾê∙mîm): n.pr. [BDB: n.pr.masc.pl.]; ≡ Str 368;—LN 93-pers. (gent.) Emites (Emim BDB): powerful inhabitants of Moab, their name possibly having the associative meaning of instilling fear in their enemies (Ge 14:5; Dt 2:10, 11+)

The Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon
†אֵימִים S368 GK400 n.pr.m.pl. Emim (terrors) ancient inhab. of Moab Gn 14:5 (הָאֵימִים); Dt 2:10 (הָאֵמ׳); v 11 (אֵמ׳).

Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament: אֵימָה
אֵימָה (for אֲיֵמָה), f. terror, Deu. 32:25. Followed by a genitive of the causer of terror to others. Pro. 20:2, אֵימַת מֶלֶךְ “terror of a king,” which the royal majesty causes. Job 33:7, אֵימָתִי “my terror,” i.e. which I cause. With ה parag. אֵימָתָה Ex. 15:16. Pl. אֵימוֹת Ps. 55:5.
Pl. אֵימִים—(1) terrors, Ps. 88:16.
(2) idols, Jer. 50:38; so called from the terror which they cause to their worshippers. Comp. ·מִפְלֶצֶת
(3) Emim, pr.n. of a very ancient people, who are mentioned as having occupied the land of the Moabites before them, Gen. 14:5; Deu. 2:11.

[Mark]

Yes, and "Nimrod" probably meant idiot when he ruled the known world.

[ken]

NIMROD נמרוד
I. In the Hebrew Bible, Nimrod is the name of a Mesopotamian →hero known to have been a famous hunter as well as the founder of major Mesopotamian cities and of the first state in (post-diluvian) primaeval times. The name Nimrod might be interpreted as a 1st pl. qal of the root mrd (‘to rebel’, i.e. ‘we shall rebel’) and has indeed been understood in this sense by Jewish tradition, which considered Nimrod to be a paradigm of god-offending hybris. This distorting negative valuation, underscored by an artificial etymology, is not yet found in the biblical texts, however. The name Nimrod most probably derives from that of a major Mesopotamian deity, i.e. Ninurta (Sum dNin-urta ‘Lord of arable →Earth’, Akk Ninurta, Inurta, Nurti, Urti etc.). This etymological derivation alone could support an identification of the Biblical hero either with the Mesopotamian god or with a king such as the Assyrian Tukultı̄-Ninurta I (ca. 1243–1207 bce, as suggested by Speiser 1958, but see below). Still, the precise development from the Sumerian prototype to its Hebrew affiliate remains unclear as potential intermediates (e.g. for a shift from *nwrt > *nmrt > nmrd) are still lacking while attested variants (such as ʾnšt on Aramaic dockets or ʾnrt in Aramaean and Ammonite inscriptions of the 7th century bce: Sefire I A 38, KAI no. 55; cf. H. Tadmor, IEJ 15 [1966] 233–234) represent separate developments.
For the time being, the ultimate identification of Nimrod with Ninurta seems the most reasonable one. However, it does not rest upon linguistic reasoning, but represents a majority view based on circumstantial arguments such as the comparison of the Mesopotamian god’s image and functions with those of the biblical hero. Among alternative proposals, obsolete historical identifications such as Nazimaruttaš (a Kassite king of ca. 1300 bce), Amenophis III (Nb-mʒʿt-rʿ called Nibmuʾareya in the Amarna correspondence) may be disposed of, but one should note an ingenious hypothesis linking Nimrod to the Babylonian god →Marduk (Lipiński 1966). Impossible on strictly philological grounds, it postulates a deliberate scribal manipulation (tiqqûn sôpherîm: deletion of the final kaph, addition of a prefixed nun) but does not explain why the scribes should have left unchanged the name of Marduk, e.g. in Jer 50:2.

II. Ninurta is thought to have been a god of fertility, responsible for growth in field and herd and even among the fish. Son of Enlil, the lord of the gods, he belongs to the cultic tradition of Nippur. Another god called Ningirsu, whose main centre was the town of Girsu/Tallô near Lagash shares the same functions as Ninurta, and the two seem to have been basically identical, although a god-list may consider them to be brothers. Their virtual identity has found different interpretations: while most authors hold Ningirsu to be a local variant or specification of Ninurta, van Dijk (1983) has argued that the latter was originally a warrior god who progressively took over Ningirsu’s prerogatives, thus entering late into the domain of agriculture. At any rate, Ninurta is then called ‘ploughman of Enlil’ in Sumerian hymns and gives advice on the cultivation of crops in the so-called ‘Sumerian Georgica’. But he also acts as a champion warrior against various kinds of inimical monsters who try to impede the institution of irrigation, agriculture and civilization in general. One major myth about Ninurta, going back to the 3rd millenium, is a composition called Lugal-e ‘King, a storm whose radiance is princely…’ (van Dijk 1983; cf. Bottéro & Kramer 1989, no. 20): it relates several battles of Ninurta against the ‘Slain Heroes’, the Asakku monster who is vanquished by a deluge, and other adversaries killed ‘in the mountain’ such as the seven-headed serpent, the six-headed ram, the lion, the bison, the buffalo etc. (→Dragon, →Tannin and cf. ANEP 671). Just as with Ninurta’s other combat against the Anzû bird-monster (Bottéro & Kramer 1989, no. 22), the whole issue not only mirrors contradictory forces of nature, but also the political and cultural antagonism between Mesopotamia and the north-eastern mountain regions, the so-called ‘rebel lands’, claiming divine protection and superiority for the Mesopotamian civilization. As a result of Ninurta’s victory, irrigation and agriculture are instituted in Lugal-e, while in the Anzû myth, Ninurta is granted kingship by the other gods (cf. H. W. F. Saggs, AfO 33 [1986] 1–29), a promotion also told in independent compositions such as ‘The Return of Ninurta to Nippur’ (or Angimdimma: J. S. Cooper, The Return of Ninurta to Nippur [AnOr 52, Rome 1978]; cf. Bottéro & Kramer 1989, no. 21).
Not surprisingly, Ninurta who has qardu ‘fierce’, ‘heroic’ and qarrādu ‘warrior’, ‘hero’ among his standard epithets (note S. Maul, “wenn der Held (zum Kampfe) auszieht…”. Ein Ninurta-Eršemma Or. n.s. 60 [1991] 312–334), is attested as a patron god of royal war and hunt from Middle Assyrian times on. In the 9th century bce, at the time of Assurnasirpal II, Ninurta became the main deity of the capital city Kalah. Astronomers of the 8th-7th century added further connotations, identifying Ninurta (or Pabilsag) with Sagittarius or, alternatively, associating Ninurta with the planet Sirius (called šukūdu ‘arrow’), the major star of Canis maior (Akk qaštu ‘bow’). Numerous Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian cylinder seals show a divine hero drawing his bow against various kinds of monsters, some of them clearly identical with the Anzû on a famous monumental relief from the Ninurta temple at Kalah. It is probable that some of them are related to Ninurta’s combats, and as such seals have found their way to Palestine (O. Keel & C. Uehlinger, Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole [QD 134, Freiburg i.Br. 19932] §§ 169–170), pictorial sources may well have contributed to Ninurta/ Nimrod’s heroic hunter image. Similarly, the Labours of →Heracles contain clear reminiscences of the Mesopotamian Ninurta tradition.

III. As they stand, the biblical texts mentioning Nimrod show no awareness of his ultimately divine identity. The god Ninurta is probably meant in 2 Kgs 19:37 par Isa 37:38 relating the murdering of Sennacherib ‘in the temple of his god →Nisroch’, since Nisroch is best understood as a textual corruption from Nimrod (graphically ם > ס, ד > ך). But wherever the texts retain the name Nimrod, they have in mind a human hero of (post-diluvian) primaeval times.
The main biblical reference is Gen 10:8–12, a secondary addition to the so-called Table of Nations. As it stands, the text considers Nimrod to be a son of Kush (v 8a) and grand-son of →Ham, the father of the African branch of humanity. However, this presentation does not fit Nimrod’s otherwise clearly Mesopotamian location and image, a problem which is not solved by an emendation of Kush to Put (as suggested by Naor 1984). The confusion simply results from a blending of two independent traditions: the Table of Nations where Kush stands for Nubia, and the Nimrod passage from another source mentioning another(!) Kush, probably the eponym of the Kassites (Akk kaššu, Nuzi kuššu). V 8b considers Nimrod to have been the first ‘hero’ on earth (gibbôr, →Mighty Ones)—clearly an echo of Ninurta’s epithet. V 9 speaks about his proverbial prowess in hunting (gibbôr-ṣayid) ‘before →YHWH’. Later tradition inferred an opposition of Nimrod against YHWH interpreting lipnê ‘before’ as ‘over against’, but the text definitely does not support this interpretation; it rather sees a positive relationship between the (major) god and the hero, mirroring the Enlil – Ninurta relationship of much earlier Mesopotamian sources. The only facets of the biblical portrait which are not directly rooted in the Ninurta tradition are his kingship in Babel, Uruk and Akkad (Gen 10:10) as well as the building account concerning Assyrian cities such as Nineveh and Kalah (vv 11–12). Together with heroism in war and hunting, these underline the royal characteristics of Nimrod (note mamlaktô in v 10). While they are undisputably of Mesopotamian origin, too, it is not possible to identify either the ultimate source (a lost chronicle of the 7th century?) or to identify Nimrod with one single monarch of Mesopotamian history. Similarly, neither do we know the intermediaries (Phoenician?, cf. the hellenistic Ninos) by which the whole tradition reached a post-exilic Judaean historiographer, nor can we ascertain whether the telescoping of various aspects of Mesopotamian religious and royal fame into one legendary founder hero was realized by the biblical author or already prepared by the latter’s sources. Mic 5:5 (post-exilic?) offers interesting complementary information insofar as it considers Nimrod to be the heroic founder of Assyrian military strength. In contrast, 1 Chr 1:10 merely represents a short excerpt from Gen 10:8–9.

IV. Nimrod is a quite prominent figure in Jewish (later Christian and Islamic) tradition (cf. van der Horst 1990; Uehlinger 1990). Following Gen 10, he was regarded as the first post-diluvian king, founder of state and city builder, but his positive biblical image was radically altered. The LXX of Gen 10:8–9 considered Nimrod to have been a giant and translates ‘before YHWH’ by enantion kyriou tou theou, which Philo (Quaest. in Gen 2, 82) and subsequent tradition interpreted as ‘in opposition against God’. One may note a general influence of Greek tradition about the →giants’ revolt against the →Olympian gods (Philo, Quaest. in Gen 2, 82; Conf. 4–5; cf. the anonymous author cited in Praep. Ev. 9, 17, 2–3; Sib. Or. 1, 307–318). This and etymological elaboration on Nimrod’s name (Philo, Gig. 66; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 10:8–9; b.Erub. 53a) made him appear as the prototype of tyrannical hybris (cf. explicitly Josephus in Ant 1, 113–114). Early midrash further associated Nimrod with idolatry and made him the instigator of the building of the Tower of Babel (already Philo, Quaest in Gen 2, 82; on Praep. Ev. 9, 18, 2, see Uehlinger 1990: 91–92 n. 225), who persecuted →Abraham because the latter refused to join his project (Ps-Philo, LAB 6; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 11:28; cf. Wis 10:5; 4 Ezra 3:12). As a result, the valiant Mesopotamian hero defending arable land against dreadful monsters of chaos was finally turned himself into “a deceiver, oppressor and destroyer of earth-born creatures” (Augustine, Civ. D. 16, 4). As such he has remained famous in literature and art through the ages. Islamic legend and toponymy—partly based on local traditions of Babylonian Jews which may be traced back to the 3rd century ce—maintained the memory of the famous builder at various places such as, e.g. Birs Nimrūd (ancient Borsippa) and Tall Nimrūd (ancient Kalah).

V. Bibliography
S. Abramski, Nimrod and the Land of Nimrod, Beth Mikra 25/82–83 (1980/1) 237–255, 321–340 [Heb]; J. Bottéro & S. N. Kramer, Lorsque les dieux faisaient l’homme (Paris 1989) 338–429; I. M. Ceccherelli, Nimrod, primo re ‘universale’ della storia, BeO 36 (1994) 25–39; *J. van Dijk, LUGAL UD ME-LÁM-bi NIR-G̃ÁL (Leiden 1983); D. O. Edzard, Ninurta, WbMyth I/1 (1965) 114–115; E. Lipiński, Nimrod et Aššur, RB 73 (1966) 77–93; P. Machinist, Nimrod, ABD 4 (1992) 1116–1118; M. Naor, And Cush Begot Nimrod (Gen 10:8), Beth Mikra 30/100 (1984) 41–47 [Heb]; E. A. Speiser, In Search of Nimrod, ErIsr 5 (1958) 32*-36*; Speiser, Oriental and Biblical Studies (Philadelphia 1967) 41–52; *K. van der Toorn & P. W. van der Horst, Nimrod before and after the Bible, HTR 83 (1990) 1–29 [& lit] (the second part, with minor changes, also in P. W. van der Horst, Nimrod after the Bible, Essays on the Jewish World of Early Christianity [NTOA 14; Fribourg/Göttingen 1990] 220–232); C. Uehlinger, Weltreich und «eine Rede» (OBO 101; Fribourg/Göttingen 1990) [index s.v. & lit]; Uehlinger, Nimrod, NBL Lfg. 11 (19952) [fc.].
C. Uehlinger

Toorn, K. v. d., Becking, B., & Horst, P. W. v. d. (1999). Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible DDD (2nd extensively rev. ed.) (627). Leiden; Boston; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brill; Eerdmans.