Who Built Nineveh??
GEN.10.11
Who built Nineveh? Ashur vs. Assyria (v.s. the Assyrian)
Reading 1:
מִן־הָאָרֶץ הַהִוא יָצָא אַשּׁוּר וַיִּבֶן
“From that land Ashur went out, and he built...”
Reading 2:
מִן־הָאָרֶץ הַהִוא יָצָא [נִמְרֹד] אַשּׁוּר וַיִּבֶן
“From that land [Nimrod/he] went out [to] Assyria, and he built...”
Genesis 10:11 contains an interpretive question concerning the identity of אַשּׁוּר (Ashur) and the subject of the verbs in the verse. The Masoretic Hebrew reads:
מִן־הָאָרֶץ הַהִוא יָצָא אַשּׁוּר וַיִּבֶן אֶת־נִינְוֵה וְאֶת־רְחֹבֹת עִיר וְאֶת־כָּלַח׃
“From that land went out Ashur, and he built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah.”
The Hebrew word order is significant. יָצָא (yatsa), “went out,” is a third-person masculine singular verb, followed immediately by אַשּׁוּר (Ashur). The following verb, וַיִּבֶן (vayiven), “and he built,” is also third-person masculine singular. On a straightforward reading, Ashur is the explicit noun following “went out,” and the same person can naturally be understood as the subject of “built.”
There is, however, another possible interpretation. אַשּׁוּר can refer not only to the personal name Ashur but also to Assyria. On this reading, the unstated subject is understood from the preceding context to be Nimrod:
“From that land he went forth into Assyria, and built Nineveh...”
This interpretation depends upon understanding אַשּׁוּר as the destination rather than the person who went out, and upon carrying Nimrod forward as the implied subject from verses 8–10. The Hebrew itself does not insert the name “Nimrod” in verse 11.
The ancient translations demonstrate that this was not a question created by modern English translators. The Septuagint reads:
ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκείνης ἐξῆλθεν Ασσουρ καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν τὴν Νινευη...
“From that land went forth Assur, and he built Nineveh...”
The Greek explicitly preserves Ασσουρ as the name Assur and makes him the one who went forth and built. The Peshitta and Vulgate likewise preserve the same basic interpretation, with the Vulgate reading “de terra illa egressus est Assur et aedificavit Nineven”—“from that land Assur went out and built Nineveh.” Josephus likewise attributes the founding of Nineveh to Assur, identifying him as a descendant of Shem: “Assur built the city Nineveh, and named his subjects Assyrians” (Antiquities 1.6.4).
The Targumic evidence is varied. Onkelos reads:
מִן אַרְעָא הַהִיא נְפַק אַתּוּרָאָה וּבְנָא יָת נִינְוֵה...
“From that land went out the Assyrian, and he built Nineveh...”
Onkelos does not preserve the Hebrew personal name Ashur but renders it as אַתּוּרָאָה (Atura'ah), “the Assyrian.” Neofiti and the Fragmentary Jerusalem Targum (Targum Yerushalmi II) similarly speak of “the Assyrian” (or “Assyrians”) as the one who went out and built. These renderings therefore preserve an Assyrian subject without resolving whether the underlying reference is specifically to the personal name Ashur or to an Assyrian figure more generally.
In contrast, Pseudo-Jonathan (Targum Yerushalmi I) explicitly resolves the passage in favor of Nimrod:
מִן אַרְעָא הַהוּא נְפַק נִמְרוֹד וּמְלַךְ בְּאַתּוּר...
“From that land went forth Nimrod, and reigned in Athur...”
It continues by saying that Nimrod left the four cities previously mentioned and that God gave him a place where he built four other cities, including Nineveh. Thus Pseudo-Jonathan provides an explicit ancient Jewish witness to the Nimrod/Assyria interpretation.
Jewish commentators likewise preserve both main interpretations. Rashi reads Ashur as the person who went forth. He explains:
כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאָה אַשּׁוּר אֶת בָּנָיו שׁוֹמְעִין לְנִמְרוֹד... יָצָא מִתּוֹכָם
“When Ashur saw that his sons were listening to Nimrod... he went out from among them.”
Rashi therefore understands the verse as describing Ashur’s departure from the people associated with Nimrod.
Radak also understands Ashur as the subject. He identifies the land as Shinar and considers Ashur possibly to have been the son of Shem mentioned later in Genesis 10:22. Radak then offers a speculative reconstruction: perhaps Ashur lived in Shinar after growing up, overcame its king—whom Radak identifies as “Nimrod or one of his sons”—and took the kingship from him. Radak writes:
אולי ישב אשור בארץ שנער אחר שגדל והתגבר על מלך הארץ ההיא שהיה נמרד או אחד מבניו ולקח המלוכה מידו
“Perhaps Ashur dwelt in the land of Shinar after he grew up, and overcame the king of that land, who was Nimrod or one of his sons, and took the kingship from him.”
Radak explicitly says this is his assumption based on " יָצָא”, understanding Ashur as the one who went out from the land after taking the kingship. Thus, Radak’s proposed overthrow of Nimrod is not stated by Genesis itself; it is Radak’s explanation for how the wording of the verse might fit his interpretation.
Other medieval Jewish commentators took the opposite approach. Ramban understands the verse as describing Nimrod’s movement into Assyria. He explains יצא אשור as meaning that Nimrod went out to Assyria, comparing the construction with other biblical examples in which “going out” is followed by a destination. He consequently connects the Assyrian cities with Nimrod’s kingdom.
Some modern interpreters also favor the Nimrod reading by appealing to Micah 5:6, which speaks of “the land of Assyria” and “the land of Nimrod” in poetic parallel, suggesting an association between Nimrod and the Assyrian region.
Given the evidence, the issue should not be reduced to “the Hebrew says Ashur, while modern translators changed it to Nimrod.” There are two primary ancient interpretive traditions. One understands אַשּׁוּר as the personal name Ashur and takes him as the subject who went forth and built Nineveh. This reading is represented clearly by the Masoretic wording, Septuagint, Peshitta, Vulgate, Josephus, Rashi, and Radak. The other understands אַשּׁוּר as Assyria and carries Nimrod forward as the implied subject; this interpretation is explicitly represented by Pseudo-Jonathan and Ramban and is followed by many modern translations. Onkelos, Neofiti, and the Fragmentary Jerusalem Targum render the Hebrew with “the Assyrian” rather than preserving the personal name Ashur or supplying the name Nimrod.
The Hebrew therefore permits a real interpretive question. The surface sequence יָצָא אַשּׁוּר וַיִּבֶן can naturally be read, “Ashur went out, and he built.” The alternative requires אַשּׁוּר to be understood as the geographical name “Assyria” and Nimrod to be supplied as the continuing subject. The surrounding context makes that alternative understandable, but it should be recognized as an interpretation of the construction rather than as the only possible rendering of the Hebrew.