Nahum 1–2

Footnotes

1. 1 Heb “of Nineveh.”
2. 2 Or “Nahum of Elkosh” (, ).
3. 3 Heb “jealous.” The Hebrew term קַנּוֹא (qanno’, “jealous, zealous”) refers to God’s zealous protection of his people and his furious judgment against his enemies. The root קָנָא (qana’) can denote jealous envy (Gen 26:14; 30:1; 37:11; Pss 37:1; 73:3; 106:16; Prov 3:31; 23:17; 24:1, 19; Ezek 31:9), jealous rivalry (Eccl 4:4; 9:6; Isa 11:13), marital jealousy (Num 5:14, 15, 18, 25, 30; Prov 6:34; 27:4), zealous loyalty (Num 11:29; 25:11, 13; 2 Sam 21:2; 1 Kgs 19:10, 14; 2 Kgs 10:16; Ps 69:10; Song 8:6; Isa 9:6; 37:32; 42:13; 59:17; 63:15; Zech 1:14; 8:2), jealous anger (Deut 32:16, 21; Ps 78:58), and zealous fury (Exod 34:14; Deut 5:9; 29:19; 1 Kgs 14:22; Job 5:2; Pss 79:5; 119:139; Prov 14:30; Isa 26:11; Ezek 5:13; 8:3; 16:38, 42; 23:25; 35:11; 36:5, 6; 38:19; Zeph 1:18). See 888 קָנָא; E. Reuter, 13:47–58.
4. 4 The syntax of this line has been understood in two ways: (1) as a single clause with the Lord as the subject: “A jealous and avenging God is the Lord” (; ) or “The Lord is a jealous and avenging God” (); and (2) as two parallel clauses: “God is jealous, and the Lord avenges” (). The reflects the latter. Masoretic accentuation and Hebrew syntax support the former. Accentuation links קַנּוֹא וְנֹקֵם (qano’ vénoqem, “jealous and avenging”) together rather than dividing them into separate clauses. Normal word order suggests that קַנּוֹא וְנֹקֵם (“jealous and avenging”) are attributive adjectives modifying אֵל (’el, “God”). In verbless clauses such as this, the predicate normally precedes the subject; thus, “a jealous and avenging God” (אֵל קַנּוֹא וְנֹקֵם, ’el qanno’ vénoqem) is the predicate and “the Lord” (יְהוָה, yéhvah) is the subject.
5. 5 Or “exceedingly wrathful”; Heb “a lord of wrath.” The idiom “lord of wrath” (וּבַעַל חֵמָה, uva’al khemah) means “wrathful” or “full of wrath” (Prov 22:24; 29:22). The noun “lord” (בַעַל) is used in construct as an idiom to describe a person’s outstanding characteristic or attribute (e.g., Gen 37:19; 1 Sam 28:7; 2 Kgs 1:8; Prov 1:17; 18:9; 22:24; 23:2; 24:8; Eccl 7:12; 8:8; 10:11, 20; Isa 41:15; 50:8; Dan 8:6, 20); see §9.5.3.
6. 6 The term נָקַם (naqam, “avenge, vengeance”) is used three times in 1:2 for emphasis. The Lord will exact just retribution against his enemies (the Assyrians) to avenge their wickedness against his people (Judah).
7. 7 The verb “rage” (נָטַר, natar) is used elsewhere of keeping a vineyard (Song 1:6; 8:11–12) and guarding a secret (Dan 7:28). When used of anger, it does not so much mean “to control anger” or “to be slow to anger” ( ) but “to stay angry” ( 2:576). It describes a person bearing a grudge, seeking revenge, and refusing to forgive (Lev 19:18). It is often used as a synonym of שָׁמַר (shamar, “to maintain wrath, stay angry”) in collocation with לְעוֹלָם (lé’olam, “forever, always”) and לָעַד (la’ad, “continually”) to picture God harboring rage against his enemies forever (Jer 3:5, 12; Amos 1:11; Ps 103:9). The long-term rage depicted by נָטַר (“maintain rage”) serves as an appropriate bridge to the following statement in Nahum that the Lord is slow to anger but furious in judgment. God seeks vengeance against his enemies; he continually rages and maintains his anger; he is slow to anger, but will eventually burst out with the full fury of his wrath.
8. 8 Heb “long of anger,” i.e., “slow to anger” (Exod 34:6; Num 14:18; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Pss 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Prov 14:29; 15:18; 16:32; Neh 9:17) or restraining anger (Jer 15:15; Prov 25:15). Cf. “The Lord does not become angry quickly.”
9. 9 The editors suggest emending “power” (כֹּחַ, koakh) to “mercy” (חֶסֶד, khesed) as in Exod 34:6; Num 14:18; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Ps 103:8; Neh 9:17. However, this is unnecessary, it has no textual support, and it misses the rhetorical point intended by Nahum’s modification of the traditional expression. This is an allusion to the well-known statement, “The Lord is slow to anger but great in mercy” (Exod 34:6; Num 14:18; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Ps 103:8; Neh 9:17). Nahum subtly modifies this by substituting “great in mercy” with “great in power.” God’s patience at the time of Jonah (Jonah 4:2) one century earlier ( 750 b.c.), had run out. Nineveh had exhausted the “great mercy” of God and now would experience the “great power” of God.
10. 10 Or “he will certainly not acquit [the wicked]”; “and will not at all acquit the wicked.” The root נָקַה (naqah, “to acquit”) is repeated for emphasis. The phrase “he will certainly not allow the wicked to go unpunished” (וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה, vénaqqeh lo’ yénaqqeh) is an emphatic construction (see §75.hh; §35.3.1).
11. 11 The words “the wicked” are not in the Hebrew text but are supplied in the translation; they are implied when this idiom is used (Exod 34:7; Num 14:18). In legal contexts the nuance “the guilty” is most appropriate; in nonlegal contexts the nuance “the wicked” is used.
12. 12 Heb “His way is in the whirlwind” (so ). The noun דַּרְכּוֹ (darko, “his way”) is nuanced here in a verbal sense. The noun דֶּרֶךְ (derekh) often denotes a “journey” (Gen 28:20; 30:36; 45:23; Num 9:10; Josh 9:13; 1 Sam 21:6; 1 Kgs 18:27). The verb דָּרַךְ (darakh) often means “to tread a path” (Job 22:15) and “to march out” (Judg 5:21). The Lord is portrayed as the Divine Warrior marching out to battle (Exod 15:1–12; Deut 33:2; Judg 5:4–5; Pss 18:7–15; 68:4–10, 32–35; 77:16–19; Mic 1:3–4; Hab 3:3–15).
13. 13 Heb “clouds are dust.”
14. 14 Heb “of his feet.”
15. 15 The term גָּעַר (ga’ar) often denotes “reprimand” and “rebuke” (cf. , , , , ). When it is used in the context of a military attack, it denotes an angry battle cry shouted by a mighty warrior to strike fear into his enemies to drive them away (e.g., 2 Sam 23:16; Isa 30:17; Pss 18:15; 76:6; 80:17; 104:7). For example, the parallel Ugaritic term is used when Baal utters a battle cry against Yamm before they fight to the death. For further study see, A. A. MacIntosh, “A Consideration of Hebrew g`r,” 14 (1969): 474; P. J. van Zijl, “A Consideration of the root ga’ar (“rebuke”),” OTWSA 12 (1969): 56–63; A. Caquot, 3:49–53.
16. 16 The “sea” is personified as an antagonistic enemy, representing the wicked forces of chaos (Pss 66:6; 72:8; 80:12; 89:26; 93:3–4; Isa 50:2; Mic 7:12; Hab 3:8; Zech 9:10).
17. 17 This somewhat unusual use of the preterite (וַיַּבְּשֵׁהוּ, vayyabbéshehu) follows a participle which depicts characteristic (present-time) action or imminent future action; the preterite depicts the subsequent present or future-time action (see §33.3.5).
18. 18 The Assyrians waged war every spring after the Tigris and Euphrates rivers dried up, allowing them to cross. As the Mighty Warrior par excellence, the Lord is able to part the rivers to attack Assyria.
19. 19 The term אֻמְלַל (’umlal, “withers”) occurs twice in this verse in . The repetition of אֻמְלַל is also supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah). The editors suggest emending the first occurrence of אֻמְלַל (“withers”) to דָּלְלוּ (dollu, “languishes”) to recover the letter ד (dalet) in the partial acrostic. Several versions do, in fact, employ two different verbs in the line (, , , and ). However, the first verb at the beginning of the line in all of the versions reflects a reading of אֻמְלַל. Although several elements of an acrostic are present in Nahum 1, the acrostic is incomplete (only א [alef] to ך [kaf] in vv. 2–8) and broken (several elements are missing within vv. 2–8). There is no textual evidence for a complete, unbroken acrostic throughout the book of Nahum in any ancient Hebrew or other textual versions; it is most prudent simply to leave the as it stands.
20. 20 Or “because of him.” The Hebrew preposition מִמֶּנּוּ (mimmenu) is taken in a causal sense (“because of him”) by , ; however, it is taken in a locative sense (“before him”) by , , , . On the other hand, the rendered it in a separative sense: ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ (ap autou, “from him”). The parallelism between 1:5a and 1:5b seems to favor the locative nuance: “The mountains quake before him (מִמֶּנּוּ), the earth is laid waste before him (מִפָּנָיו, mifanayv).”
21. 21 Traditionally, “the hills melt.” English versions typically render הִתְמֹגָגוּ (hitmogagu) as “melt” (, , , ) or “dissolve” (). The renders it ἐσαλεύθησαν (esaleuthēsan, “are shaken”). The Hebrew root has a range of meanings: (1) “to melt,” of courage (Ps 107:26) or troops retreating (“melting away” in fear) in battle (1 Sam 14:16); (2) “to dissolve,” of mountains dissolving due to erosion (Amos 9:13); (3) “to quake, shake apart,” of mountains quaking, swaying backwards and forwards, coming apart, and collapsing in an earthquake (Amos 9:5; Pss 46:6 [7]; 75:3 [4]). The latter fits the imagery of v. 5 (violent earthquakes): the earth trembles in fear at the approach of the Divine Warrior (e.g., Hab 3:6).
22. 22 Or “is upheaved”; or “heaves.” There is debate whether the originally unpointed Hebrew verb וַתִּשָּׂא (vattissa’) should be vocalized as וְתִּשָּׂא (véttissa’; “is upheaved”; , “heaves”) from the root נָשָׂא (nasa’, “to lift up”) or as וַתִּשָּׁא (vattisha’, “is devastated, laid waste”) from the root שֹׁאָה (sho’ah, “to devastate, lay waste”). The vocalization וְתִּשָּׂא is attested in the Masoretic tradition and the Greek versions: Origen (“was raised up”), Symmachus (“was moved”), and Aquila (“shivered”). However, וְתִּשָּׂא demands an intransitive (“heaves”) or passive (“is upheaved”) sense which is not attested for the Qal stem. The vocalization וַתִּשָּׁא (“is devastated, laid waste”) is supported by the and . The revocalization of the וְתִּשָּׂא (“is lifted up”) to וַתִּשָּׁא (“is devastated”) is suggested by the editors and several Hebrew lexicons ( נשׁא; 670–71 נָשָׂא). The revocalization involves only the difference between the form שׂ (sin) and שׁ (shin) and is followed in the present translation.
23. 23 The phrase “the world and all its inhabitants” is used to stress the universal dimensions of God’s revelation of his glory and his acts of judgment (e.g., Pss 33:8; 98:7; Isa 18:3; 26:9, 18; Lam 4:12).
24. 24 The words “are laid waste” are not in the Hebrew text, but are an implied repetition from the previous line.
25. 25 Heb “stand before” (so , , , ). The Hebrew verb עָמַד (’amad, “stand”) here denotes “to resist, withstand.” It is used elsewhere of warriors taking a stand in battle to hold their ground against enemies (Judg 2:14; Josh 10:8; 21:44; 23:9; 2 Kgs 10:4; Dan 11:16; Amos 2:15). It is also used of people trying to protect their lives from enemy attack (Esth 8:11; 9:16). Like a mighty warrior, the Lord will attack his enemies, but none will be able to make a stand against him; none will be able to hold their ground against him; and none will be able to protect themselves from his onslaught (Pss 76:7[8]; 147:17; Mal 3:2).
26. 26 Heb “Who can stand before his indignation?” The rhetorical question expects a negative answer; it is translated here as an emphatic denial. The Hebrew noun זַעַם (za’am, “indignation, curse”) connotes the angry wrath or indignant curse of God (Isa 10:5, 25; 13:5; 26:20; 30:27; Jer 10:10; 15:17; 50:25; Ezek 21:31; 22:24, 31; Hab 3:12; Zeph 3:8; Pss 38:4; 69:25; 78:49; 102:11; Lam 2:6; Dan 8:19; 11:36). It depicts anger expressed in the form of punishment ( ; 1:247).
27. 27 Heb “Who can rise up against …?” The verb יָקוּם (yaqum, “arise”) is here a figurative expression connoting resistance. Although the adversative sense of בְּ (bet) with יָקוּם (yaqum, “against him”) is attested, denoting hostile action taken against one’s enemy (Mic 7:6; Ps 27:12), the locative sense (“before him”) is preferred due to the parallelism with לִפְנֵי (lifney, “before him”).
28. 28 Heb “Who can rise up against the heat of his anger?” The rhetorical question expects a negative answer which is translated as an emphatic denial to clarify the point.
29. 29 Or “burst into flames.” The Niphal perfect נִתְּצוּ (nittétsu) from נָתַץ (natats, “to break up, throw down”) may denote “are broken up” or “are thrown down.” The editors suggest emending the ’s נִתְּצוּ (nittétsu) to נִצְּתּוּ (nitsétu, Niphal perfect from יָצַת [yatsat, “to burn, to kindle, to burst into flames”]): “boulders burst into flames.” This merely involves the simple transposition of the second and third consonants. This emendation is supported by a few Hebrew (cited in apparatus). It is supported contextually by fire and heat motifs in 1:5–6. The same metathesis of נִתְּצוּ and נִצְּתּוּ occurs in Jer 4:26.
30. 30 Heb “before him” (so , , ).
31. 31 The Masoretic disjunctive accent marker (zaqeph parvum) divides the lines here. Most English versions reflect this line division (, , , , , ). Some extend the line: “Yahweh is better than a fortress” (); “The Lord is good to those who hope in him” (); and “The Lord is good to those who trust him” (). This issue is complicated by the textual problems in this verse.
32. 32 The preposition לְ (lamed) probably functions in an emphatic asseverative sense, suggested by D. L. Christensen, “The Acrostic of Nahum Reconsidered,” 87 (1975): 22. This explains the preceding statement: the Lord is good to his people (1:7a) because—like a fortress—he protects them in time of distress (1:7b).
33. 33 Some ancient versions read, “The Lord is good to those who trust him.” The reads לְמָעוֹז (léma’oz, “a fortress”): the noun מָעוֹז (ma’oz, “fortress”) with the preposition לְ (lé, see below). However, the reflects the reading לְמֵעִיז (léme’iz, “to those who trust [him]”): the Hiphil participle from עוּז (’uz, “seek refuge”) with the preposition לְ. The variants involve only different vocalizations and the common confusion of vav (ו) with yod. Most English versions follow the traditional Hebrew reading (, , , , , ); however, several others follow the alternate Greek reading (, ). The editors and several other scholars favor the tradition; however, the Masoretic tradition has been defended by others. The Masoretic tradition is supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah). The problem with the reading is the absence of the direct object in the Hebrew text; the is forced to supply the direct object αὐτόν (auton, “him”; for a similar addition of the direct object αὐτόν by the , see Amos 9:12). The main objection to the reading לְמָעוֹז (“a fortress”) is that לְ is hard to explain. However, לְ may be taken in a comparative sense (Cathcart: “Yahweh is better than a fortress in time of distress”) or an asseverative sense (Christensen: “Yahweh is good; indeed, a fortress in time of distress”). See K. J. Cathcart, Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic (), 55; idem, “More Philological Studies in Nahum,” 7 (1979): 4; D. L. Christensen, “The Acrostic of Nahum Reconsidered,” 87 (1975): 22. Elsewhere, the Lord is commonly portrayed as a “fortress” (מָעוֹז) protecting his people (Pss 27:1; 28:8; 31:3, 5; 37:39; 43:2; 52:9; Isa 17:10; 25:4; 27:5; Joel 4:16; Jer 16:19; Neh 8:10; Prov 10:29).
34. 34 The phrase “time of distress” (בְּיוֹם צָרָה) refers to situations in which God’s people are oppressed by enemy armies (Isa 33:2; Jer 14:8; 15:11; 16:19; Obad 12; Pss 20:2; 37:39). Nahum may be alluding to recent Assyrian invasions of Judah, such as Sennacherib’s devastating invasion in 701 b.c., in which the Lord protected the remnant within the fortress walls of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 18–19; 2 Chr 32; Isa 36–37).
35. 35 Heb “he knows” or “he recognizes.” The basic meaning of the verb יָדַע (yada’) is “to know,” but it may denote “to take care of someone” or “to protect” ( ; see Gen 39:6; Job 9:21; Ps 31:8). Most English versions render it as “know” here (, , , ) but at least two recognize the nuance “protect” (, [which reads “cares for”]). It often refers to God protecting and caring for his people (2 Sam 7:20; Ps 144:3). When the subject is a king (suzerain) and the object is a servant (vassal), it often has covenantal overtones. In several ancient Near Eastern languages this term depicts the king (suzerain) recognizing his treaty obligation to protect and rescue his servant (vassal) from its enemies. For example, a letter from Abdi-Ashirta governor of Ammuru to the Egyptian king Amenophis III ends with a plea for protection from the raids of the Mittani: “May the king my lord know [= protect] me” (yi-da-an-ni; 60:30–32). Similarly, in the treaty between Muwattallis and Alaksandus, the Hittite suzerain assures his vassal that in case he was attacked, “As he is an enemy of you, even so he is an enemy to the Sun; I the Sun, will know [= “protect”] only you, Alaksandus” (see H. B. Huffmon, “The Treaty Background of Hebrew YADA`,” 181 (1966): 31–37; idem, “A Further Note on the Treaty Background of Hebrew YADA`,” 184 (1966): 36–38.
36. 36 Or “those who trust in him” (); “those who have recourse to him.”
37. 37 Some scholars connect “in an overwhelming flood” (וּבְשֶׁטֶף עֹבֵר, uvéshetef ’over) with the preceding line: “he protects those who trust him in an overwhelming flood.” However, others connect it with the following line: “But with an overwhelming flood he will make a complete end of its [Nineveh’s] site.” D. T. Tsumura (“Janus Parallelism in Nah 1:8,” 102 [1983]: ) suggests that it does double duty and should be read with both lines: “he knows those who trust him in an overwhelming flood, / but with an overwhelming flood he will make a complete end of its [Nineveh’s] site.” Connecting it with the preceding line creates a tight parallelism and a balanced 5+5 metrical count. Connecting it with the following line harmonizes with Nah 2:9 [8], which describes the walls of Nineveh being destroyed by flood waters, and with historical evidence (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 2.27.1–3; Xenophon, Anabasis, 3.4.12) and modern archaeological evidence (A. T. Olmstead, History of Assyria, 637). This might be an example of intentional ambiguity: God will protect his people from the very calamity that he will use to destroy his enemies.
38. 38 Heb “her place.” Alternately, some ancient versions read “his adversaries.” The reads מְקוֹמָהּ (méqomah, “her place”). This is supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls (מקומה, “her place,” found in 4QpNah) and Symmachus (τῆς τόποῦ αὐτοῦ, tēs topou autou, “her place”). The reading of the (τούς ἐπεγειρουμένους, tous epegeiroumenous, “those who rise up [against Him]”) and Aquila (ἀντισταμενω¡ν, antistamenōHn, “adversaries”) reflect מְקּוֹמיהוּ or מְקִימיהוּ or מְקִּמָיו (“his adversaries”), also reflected in the and . Some scholars suggest emending the in the light of the to create a tight parallelism between “his adversaries” (מקומיו) and “his enemies” (וְאֹיְבָיו, vé’oyévayv) which is a parallel word pair elsewhere (Deut 28:7; 2 Sam 22:40–41, 49; Mic 7:6; Ps 59:2). Likewise, Tsumura suggests emending the because the text, as it stands, does not have a clear parallel word for “his enemies” (וְאֹיְבָיו)—emending the ’s מְקוֹמָהּ (“her place”) to מקומיו (“his adversaries”) would result in a parallel word (D. T. Tsumura, “Janus Parallelism in Nah 1:8,” 102 [1983]: ). The editors propose emending the in favor of the Greek tradition. The English versions reflect both textual traditions—several follow the with “her place” and “its site” (, , , , ), while others adopt the reading and emend the Hebrew, resulting in “his adversaries” () or “those who defy him” (). The makes sense as it stands, but the proposed emendation is attractive and involves only the common confusion between ה and יו.
39. 39 The editors propose emending the Masoretic reading יְרַדֶּף (yéraddef, Piel imperfect of רָדַּף [raddaf], “to chase”) to יֶהְדֹּף (yekhdof, Qal imperfect of הָדַף [hadaf], “to thrust away, drive away”). Although הָדַף is used with חֹשֶׁךְ (khoshekh, “darkness”) in Job 18:18 (“he is driven from light into darkness”), the makes good sense as it stands, and is supported by the versions. The conjectural emendation has no support and is unnecessary.
40. 40 Alternately, “Why are you plotting?” or “What are you plotting?” The term מַה (mah) ordinarily functions as the interrogative pronoun “what?” ( ; 552–53 ). It is often used in reproachful, ridiculing questions and in accusations with an insinuation of blame, reproach, or contempt; see Gen 4:10; 37:10; 44:15; Josh 22:16; Judg 8:1; 15:11; 20:12; 1 Sam 29:3; 2 Sam 9:8; 1 Kgs 9:13; 2 Kgs 9:22; 18:19). It is more disparaging than מִי (mi; מַה). The translates it with the interrogative pronoun τί (“what?”). R. L. Smith (Micah-Malachi [], ) takes it as the indefinite pronoun “whatever” (see also 553 מָה 3; §137.c; Num 23:3; 1 Sam 19:3; 20:10; 2 Sam 18:22–23, 29; Job 13:13; Prov 25:8). W. A. Maier (Nahum, 186) takes it as the interrogative adverb “why?” (see also 553 מָה 2.b; Gen 3:13; 12:18; 26:10; Exod 14:15; 17:2; 2 Kgs 6:33; 7:3; Pss 42:6, 11; 43:5; 52:3; Job 7:21; 15:12; Song 8:4). All three are represented in English versions: “What?” (, ), “Why?” (, ), and “Whatever” (, ).
41. 41 Less likely, “[What are you] thinking about.” When used with אֶל (’el) the verb חָשַׁב (khashav) may be taken (1) in a hostile sense: “What are you plotting against the Lord?” or (2) in a nonhostile sense: “What are you thinking about the Lord?” The hostile sense is clearly intended when it is used in collocation with the direct object רָעָה (ra’ah, “evil”; Zech 7:10; 8:17; Pss 35:4; 140:3; Prov 16:9) or when it is followed by the preposition עַל (’al; Gen 50:20; 2 Sam 14:13; Jer 11:19; 18:11, 18; 29:11; 48:2; 49:30; Mic 2:3; Nah 1:11; Pss 36:5; Esth 8:3; 9:24, 25; Dan 11:25). It is also used in a hostile sense when followed by the preposition אֶל, as it is here (Jer 49:20; 50:45; Hos 7:15; Nah 1:9). The major lexicons classify this usage in a hostile sense ( 363 חָשַׁב; חשׁב). The verb is repeated in Nah 1:11 where it is clearly used in a hostile sense.
42. 42 Or “The Lord will completely foil whatever you plot against him”; or “Whatever you may think about the Lord, he [always] brings everything to a conclusion.”
43. 43 The reads צָרָה (tsarah, “distress”). This is supported by the . However, the editors propose emending the ’s צָרָה (“distress”) to צָרָיו (tsarayv, “his adversaries”). Several English versions follow course (, ); however, the majority of English versions follow the traditional reading (, , , ). The term “distress” (צָרָה, tsarah) is repeated from v. 7: God will not only protect his people in time of “distress” (צָרָה) from the Assyrians (v. 7), he will put an end to “distress” (צָרָה) by destroying the Assyrians (v. 9).
44. 44 The originally unvocalized consonantal form תקום is vocalized in the as תָקוּם (taqum, “will arise”) from קוּם (qum, “to arise”). However, the reflects a vocalization of תִקּוֹם (tiqom, “will take vengeance”) from נָקַם (naqam, “to avenge”). The Masoretic vocalization makes sense and should be retained. The vocalization probably arose under the influence of the three-fold repetition of נקם in Nah 1:2.
45. 45 The verb אֻכְּלוּ (’ukkélu, “they will be consumed”) is an example of the old Qal passive perfect 3rd person common plural which was erroneously pointed by the Masoretes as Pual perfect 3rd person common plural. The Qal passive of אָכַל (’akhal) occurs several times in the Hebrew Bible, pointed as Pual (e.g., Exod 3:2; Neh 2:3, 13; Isa 1:20; Nah 1:10). For further discussion on the old Qal passive see H. L. Ginsberg, “Studies on the Biblical Hebrew Verb: Masoretically Misconstrued Internal Passives,” 46 (1929): 53–56; R. J. Williams, “The Passive Qal Theme in Hebrew,” Essays on the Ancient Semitic World, 43–50; 1: §58.a; §22.6 (see especially n. 36 on p. ).
46. 46 The particle עַד (’ad) is taken as a comparative of degree (“like”) by many lexicographers ( 724 I.3; 5), English versions (, , ), and scholars (W. A. Maier, Nahum, 192; R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi [], ; R. D. Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah [], 42). Although the comparative sense is rare (1 Sam 11:15; 2 Sam 23:19; 2 Kgs 24:20; 1 Chr 4:27), it is suggested by the similes in v. 10 (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 57, §312). The comparative sense is reflected in the Greek versions of Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion. Although Origen took עַד in its more common spatial sense (“up to”), his approach can be dismissed because he misunderstood the entire line: ὅτι ἕως θεμελίου αὐτοῦ ξερσωθήσεται (hoti heōs themeliou autou xersōthēsetai, “up to his foundation he shall be laid bare”). The takes עַד in its rare temporal sense (“while”; see 725 II.2). T. Longman suggests a locative sense: “by the entangled thorns they are like drunkards stinking of drink” (“Nahum,” The Minor Prophets, 2:794, 796; see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 56–57, §310). Because of its difficulty, several scholars have resorted to conjectural emendations of the : (1) K. J. Cathcart (Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic [], 61) suggests emending the ’s עַד to the temporal particle עוֹד (’od, “again”); (2) The editors suggest emending the ’s כִּי עַד (ki ’ad) to הוֹי עִיר (hoy ’ir, “woe to the city!”) which appears in Nah 3:1; (3) The editors suggest the alternate conjectural emendation of יִבְעֲרוּ ךְ (yiv’aru ké, “they will burn like …”); (4) H. Junker (Die zwolf kleinen Propheten, 175) suggests emending כִּי עַד (ki ’ad) to כְּיַעַד (kéya’ad, “like a forest”). Although the Masoretic reading is difficult, it is more plausible than any conjectural emendation.
47. 47 The reads סִירִים סְבֻכִים (sirim sévukhim, “entangled thorn-bushes”), and is supported by the Dead Sea text from Murabba`at: סירים סבכים (see 2:197). The noun סִירִים (“thorn bushes”) is from סִיר (sir, “thorn, thorn bush,” 696 II סִיר; *סִירָה), e.g., Isa 34:13; Hos 2:8; Eccl 7:6. The Qal passive participle סְבֻכִים (sévukhim) is from סָבַךְ (savakh, “to interweave,” 687 סָבַךְ; סבך), e.g., Job 8:17, which is related to Assyrian sabaku (“to entwine,” 2:999.a) and Arabic sabaka (“to entwine”; Leslau, 51). The is supported by several translators, e.g., Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion. It is also reflected in ’s spinarum perplexi (“thorn-bushes entangled”). On the other hand, the reflects סָרִים סוֹרְרִים (sarim sorérim, “your princes are rebels”) which points to orthographic confusion and a different vocalization. Similar textual confusion is apparent in Origen: θεμελίου αὐτοῦ ξερσωθήσεται (themeliou autou xersōthēsetai, “his foundation shall be laid bare”) seems to reflect יְסֹדָם יְכָבֵּס (yésodam yékhabbes, “their foundation shall be washed away”) which was caused by orthographic confusion and transposition of consonants. The should be retained. This simile compares the imminent destruction of Nineveh to the burning of a mass of entangled thorn-bushes (Job 8:17). When thorn-bushes are entangled they burn quickly and completely (Eccl 7:6; Isa 34:13).
48. 48 The reading וּכְסָבְאָם סְבוּאִים (ukhésav’am sévu’im, “and like the drink of drunkards”) is supported by Symmachus (“and as those drinking their drink with one another”) who is known for his wooden literalness to the Hebrew text, and by which reads et sicut vino suo inebriati. K. J. Cathcart revocalizes as וּכְסֹבְאִים סְבֻאִים (ukhésové’im sévu’im, “and like drunkards sodden with drink”; Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic [], 61). Haldar equates Hebrew סָבָא (sava’) with Ugaritic sp’ (“eat”) due to an interchange between ב (bet) and פ (pe), and produces “and as they consume a consuming” (A. Haldar, Studies in the Book of Nahum, 32). Barr argues that the mem (ם) on וּכְסָבְאָם (ukhésov’am) is enclitic, and he translates the line as “and as the drunken are getting drunk” (J. Barr, Comparative Philology, 33). The ’s וּכְסָבְאָם is a noun with masculine plural suffix from סֹבֶא (sove’, “drink, liquor”), meaning “their drink, liquor” (e.g., Hos 4:18). This is supported by Symmachus (“their drink”) and is reflected in the (“in their drink”). The Masoretic סְבוּאִים (sévu’im) is the passive participle from סָבָא (sava’, “to drink,” 684–85 סָבָא). This produces “and like their liquor/drink being drunken.” This makes good sense with the following line in which אֻכְּלוּ (’ukkélu, “they will be consumed”) appears. The verb אֻכְּלוּ is frequently used in comparisons of consuming liquor and being consumed like chaff.
49. 49 The editors propose emending the ’s מָלֵא (male’, “fully”) to the negative interrogative הֲלֹא (halo’, “Has not …?”) and connecting it with the next line: “Has not one plotting evil marched out from you?” However, this emendation is unnecessary because the makes sense as it stands, and there is no textual support for the emendation. The is supported by the Greek tradition, the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah), and the other versions. Or “They will be fully consumed like dried stubble.” The term מָלֵא (“fully”) functions either as: (1) an adjective modifying כְּקַשׁ יָבֵשׁ (kéqash yavesh, “like fully dried stubble”) or (2) an adverb modifying אֻכְּלוּ (’ukkélu, “they will be fully consumed”); see 571 מָלֵא. The adverbial sense is rare, appearing elsewhere only in Jer 12:6; thus, the adjectival sense is more probable. The Hebrew word order also suggests the adjectival sense because מָלֵא follows כְּקַשׁ יָבֵשׁ (kéqash yavesh) rather than אֻכְּלוּ.
50. 50 The words “O Nineveh” are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied in the translation for clarity. The preceding pronoun is feminine singular, indicating the personified city is in view. See 2:1 (2:2 ).
51. 51 Heb “a counselor of wickedness”; “a wicked counselor”; “the scoundrel planner.”
52. 52 Verse 12 begins with a typical prophetic introduction (“This is what the Lord says”) in language similar to the typical ancient Near Eastern messenger formula (see C. Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speeches, 100–115). This formula is frequently used to introduce prophetic speeches (e.g., Jer 2:5; Ezek 2:4; Amos 1:3). The messenger formula indicates that the prophet’s message is not his own, but is a revelatory and prophetic oracle from the Lord. It confirms the authenticity of the message.
53. 53 The syntax of this line is complicated and difficult to translate. The first clause is the concessive protasis of a real condition, while the second is the logical apodosis of a comparative clause. This creates an a fortiori argument: “Even though they are strong and likewise many, so much more will they be cut down and pass away!” The first use of the particle וְכֵן (vékhen, “Even though”) introduces a concessive or conditional protasis of a present-time or immediate future-time real condition (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 87, §515; §38.2). The second use of the particle וְכֵן (“so much more …”) introduces the apodosis of a logical resultative clause (see §38.5).
54. 54 Or “are strong” (cf. ); or “are at full strength” (, ); or “are intact.” Alternately, “Even though they have allies” (cf. , ). The Hebrew noun שְׁלֵמִים (shélemim, from שָׁלֵם [shalem]) means “complete, healthy, sound, safe, intact, peaceful” ( 1023–24 שָׁלֵם; שָׁלֵם). It can connote “full strength” or “full number” of an object (Gen 15:16; Deut 25:15; Prov 11:1; Amos 1:6, 9). Most commentators view this as a reference to the strength or numbers of the Assyrian army: “strong” (R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi [], ), “full strength” (, ) or “intact” (T. Longman, “Nahum,” The Minor Prophets, 2:798). On the other hand, and follow the lead of Wiseman who points out that שְׁלֵמִים can refer to military allies: “Even though they will have allies and so be all the more numerous” (D. J. Wiseman, “Is It Peace? Covenant and Diplomacy,” 32 [1982]: 311–26). Nahum refers to the allies of the Assyrians elsewhere (Nah 3:15–17).
55. 55 The particle וְכֵן (vékhen, “and moreover”) functions as an emphatic comparative adverb of degree ( 486 כֵּן; , §39.3.4). It draws a comparison between שְׁלֵמִים (shélemim, “strong”) and רַבִּים (rabbim, “many”) but goes one step further for emphasis. This creates an “A, what is more B!” parallelism: “They are strong—what is more—they are many!”
56. 56 The reads אִם־שְׁלֵמִים וְכֵן רַבִּים (’im-shélemim vékhen rabbim, “Even though they are strong and numerous”). The complicated syntax of this line led to textual confusion and several textual variants among the versions. For example, the ’s κατάρξων ὑδάτων πολλῶν (katarxōn hudatōn pollōn, “ruler of many waters”) reflects מֹשֵׁל מַיִם רַבִּים (moshel mayim rabbim, “ruler of many waters”) which redivides the words, and omits the letter א (aleph) and the word וְכֵן (vékhen). Similarly, the reflects אֶל מֹשְׁלֵי מַיִם רַבִּים (’el moséle rabbim, “to the rulers of many waters”). The is the most difficult reading and therefore best explains the origin of these textual variants. Moreover, the of Nahum is well-known for its unusual mistranslations of the Hebrew text of Nahum. The butchers v. 12 in several other places (see below). All major English versions follow the here.
57. 57 The particle וְכֵן (vékhen, “so much more …”) introduces the apodosis of a logical resultative clause ( §38.5). It emphasizes that the action described in the apodosis will occur almost immediately (e.g., 1 Kgs 20:40; Ps 48:6).
58. 58 Heb “they will be sheared.” The term “cut off” (גָּזָז, gazaz) is ordinarily used to describe the literal actions of “shearing” sheep (Gen 31:19; 38:12–13; Deut 15:19; 18:4; 1 Sam 25:2, 4, 7, 11; 2 Sam 13:23–24; Job 31:20; Isa 53:7) and “cutting” hair (Jer 7:29; Mic 1:16; Job 1:20). It is used figuratively here to describe the destruction of the Assyrian army ( 159 גָּזַז; גזז). The expression they will be cut off is an example of a hypocatastasis (implied comparison); Nahum intentionally chose this term to compare the destruction of the Assyrians to the shearing of sheep. This word-play has great rhetorical impact because the Assyrians frequently used sheep imagery when boasting of the ease and brutality with which they defeated their enemies (see D. Marcus, “Animal Similes in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” 46 [1977]: 92–93). It is both appropriate (poetic justice) and ironic (reversal of situation) that the Assyrians themselves should suffer a fate which they boasted of inflicting upon others. They will be an easy, helpless prey for the Divine Warrior. Their punishment will fit their crimes.
59. 59 In v. 12 the preserves a string of plural forms followed by a seemingly anomalous singular form: וְעָבָר … נָגֹזוּ … רַבִּים … שְׁלֵמִים (shélemim … rabbim … nagozzu … vé’avar, “Even though they are numerous … they are many … they will be cut off … and he [?] will pass away”). Several other versions (, , ) read the plural form וְעָבָרוּ (vé’avaru, “and they will pass away”). Several scholars emend the to the plural form, noting that the next word (וְעִנִּתִךְ, vé’innitikh) begins with vav (ו); they suggest that the plural ending of וְעָבָרוּ dropped out due to haplography or faulty word division (e.g., T. Longman, “Nahum,” The Minor Prophets, 2:798). Another scholar retains the consonantal text, but repoints the form as an infinitive absolute: “They will be cut off, passing away” (K. J. Cathcart). On the other hand, more conservative scholars defend the reading and try to solve the problem by suggesting a shift from a plural referent (the Assyrians) to a singular referent (God or the Assyrian king): “They shall be cut down, when he passes through” () and “They will be cut off and he will pass over” (R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi [], ). Still others suggest that the singular form functions as a collective: “They will be cut off and [they] will pass away” (W. A. Maier, Nahum, 206; K&D 27:15). However, rather than resorting to textual emendations or performing syntactical improbabilities, the best solution may be simply to posit the presence of a rhetorical, stylistic device. The shift from these plural forms to the concluding singular form may be an example of heterosis of the plural to the singular (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, [4.5]). This is a common poetic device used for emphasis, especially at the climactic point in a speech (e.g., Gen 29:27; Num 22:6; 32:25; Job 12:7; 18:2; Esth 9:23; Ps 73:7; Prov 14:1, 9; John 3:11; 1 Tim 2:15). Or “pass away.” The term עָבַר (’avar, “to pass through”) is a key word in Nahum 1; it occurs three times (Nah 1:8, 12, 15 [2:1 ]). This verb is often used in reference to water, both the raging onset of flood waters (Nah 1:8) and the passive trickling or dwindling away of receding waters (Job 6:15; 11:16). The phrase trickle away is an example of a hypocatastasis (implied comparison); Nahum compares the destruction of the mighty Assyrians with the trickling away of once high waters. This imagery has strong rhetorical impact because the Assyrians often boasted that they overwhelmed their enemies like a flood. It is ironic then that they would soon dwindle away to a mere trickle! This is also an appropriate image in the light of the historical destruction of Nineveh through the use of flood waters, as predicted by the prophet (Nah 2:7–9) and recorded by ancient historians (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica 2.26–27; Xenophon, Anabasis 3.4.12; also see P. Haupt, “Xenophon’s Account of the Fall of Nineveh,” 28 [1907]: 99–107).
60. 60 The terms אֲעַנֵּךְ (’a’annekh, “I will [no longer] afflict you”) and וְעִנִּתִךְ (vé’innitikh, “I afflicted you”) are both derived from the root II עָנָה (’anah, “to afflict”). The mistakenly confused this with the more common root I עָנָה (“to answer, respond”). Although it mistranslated the roots, the reflects the same consonantal text as the : וְעִנִּתִךְ לֹא אֲעַנֵּךְ (vé’innitikh lo’ ’a’annekh, “Although I have afflicted you, I will afflict you no longer”). Some modern English versions supply various terms not in the Hebrew text to indicate the addressee: “O Judah”; “O my people.” Judah is specifically addressed in 1:15 (2:1 ) and the feminine singular is used there, just as it is in 1:12.
61. 61 The particle וְעַתָּה (vé’attah, “And now”) often introduces a transition in a prophetic oracle ( 3.a). It often draws a contrast between a past condition (as described in v. 12) and what will happen in the immediate future (as described in v. 13; see, e.g., Gen 11:6; 2 Sam 2:6; 2 Kgs 12:8). See H. A. Brongers, “Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch des adverbialen we’attah im Alten Testament,” 15 (1965): 289–99.
62. 62 Heb “his”; the referent (Assyria) has been supplied from context.
63. 63 The editors propose revocalizing the מֹטֵהוּ (motehu, “his yoke bar”) to מַטַּהַוּ (mattahu, “his scepter”). The threat of breaking an enemy’s scepter was a common ancient Near Eastern treaty curse (see D. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets [], 61). This proposed revocalization has no external support. The is supported by the use of the parallel word pair מוֹטָה/מוֹסֵר (motah, “scepter” /moser, “bonds”) elsewhere (Jer 27:2). The term מוֹטָה is never used in parallelism with מוֹסֵר elsewhere. The terms yoke bar and shackles are figures of speech (hypocatastasis) for Assyrian subjugation of Judah. The imagery of the yoke bar draws an implied comparison between the yoking of a beast of burden to the subjugation of a nation under a foreign power, i.e., vassaldom (Lev 26:13; Jer 27:2; 28:14; Ezek 30:18; 34:27). This imagery also alludes to the Assyrian use of “yoke” imagery to describe their subjugation of foreign nations to the status of vassal. When describing their subjugation of nations, Assyrian rulers frequently spoke of causing them to “pull my yoke.” Sennacherib subjugated Judah to the Assyrian “yoke” in 701 b.c. when he invaded Judah and forced Hezekiah into a position of Assyrian vassal: “I laid waste the large district of Judah and put the straps of my yoke upon Hezekiah, its king” (“Sennacherib: The Siege of Jerusalem,” lines 13–15, in 288).
64. 64 Heb “from you”; the word “neck” is supplied in the translation as a clarification for the modern reader who may be less familiar with the imagery of a yoke around the neck of farm animals or draft animals. The statement I will break Assyria’s yoke bar from your neck draws an implied comparison (hypocatastasis) between breaking a plowing yoke off the neck of a farming animal and freeing a vassal from the tyranny of an oppressive suzerain through military conquest (Lev 26:13; Isa 58:6; Jer 30:8; Ezek 30:18; 34:27).
65. 65 The phrase the shackles that are on you draws an implied comparison between the chains and stocks of prisoners or slaves with the burden of international vassaldom to a tyrannical suzerain who demands absolute obedience and requires annual tributary offerings (e.g., Ps 2:3; Isa 52:2; Jer 27:2; 30:8). “Shackles” were the agent of covenantal discipline (e.g., Deut 28:48). Isaiah stated that the Assyrian “yoke” was the Lord’s instrument of discipline (Isa 28:22). The phrase I will tear apart the shackles that are on you draws an implied comparison (hypocatastasis) between removing the iron chains from a prisoner/slave and freeing a vassal from the oppression of a tyrannical suzerain through military conquest (Ps 2:3; Isa 52:2).
66. 66 Heb “your shackles.”
67. 67 Heb “has commanded concerning you.” The referent of the 2nd person masculine singular suffix (“you”) probably refers to the Assyrian king (cf. 3:18–19) rather than to the personified city of Nineveh (so ). Elsewhere in the book of Nahum, the city of Nineveh is referred to by the feminine rather than masculine gender. Some modern English versions supply terms not in the Hebrew text to indicate the addressee more clearly: “Nineveh”; “the Assyrians in Nineveh.”
68. 68 Heb “from your name there will no longer be sown.”
69. 69 The reading אָשִׂים קִבְרֶךָ (’asim qivrekha, “I will make your grave”) is usually understood as a figure of speech (metonymy of effect) meaning that the Lord will destroy/execute the Assyrian king. On the other hand, the and treat this as a double-accusative construction—the implied second object of אָשִׂים being מִבֵּית אֱלֹהֶיךָ (mibbet ’elohekha, “the house [i.e., “temple”] of your gods”): “I will make it [the house (i.e., temple) of your gods] your grave.” Cathcart suggests revocalizing the אָשִׂים to a Hiphil imperfect אָשִׁיִם (’ashiyim) from שָׁמֵם (shamem, “to devastate”): “I will devastate your grave.” Cathcart notes that the destruction of one’s grave, like the threat of no burial, was a common ancient Near Eastern treaty-curse: “Tombs, especially royal tombs, were often protected by curses directed against persons who might violate and desecrate them, and the very curse kings used to have inscribed on their tombs were precisely the curse of no progeny and no resting-place” (K. J. Cathcart, “Treaty-Curses and the Book of Nahum,” 35 [1973]: 180–81). This might reflect the background of the ancient Near Eastern kudurru curses which were made against those who might devastate a royal grave and which were put into effect by the gods of the king (see F. C. Fensham, “Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and Kudurru-Inscriptions Compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah,” 75 [1963]: 157–59). Despite the fact the king’s grave was allegedly protected by the Assyrian gods, the Lord would nevertheless successfully destroy it, and it would be the Assyrian king who would receive the curse. This approach respects the traditional consonantal text and only involves the revocalization of the ’s שׂ (sin) to שׁ (shin).
70. 70 The Hebrew verb קַלֹּוֹתָ (qallota) is usually rendered “you are despised” (e.g., Gen 16:4–5; 1 Sam 2:30). However, it is possible that the Hebrew root קָלַל (qalal) is related to the Assyrian term qalu “accursed” (W. von Soden, “Hebraische Wortforschung,” 16 [1967]: 295).
71. 71 Beginning with 1:15, the verse numbers through 2:13 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text (), with 1:15 = 2:1 , 2:1 = 2:2 , etc., through 2:13 = 2:14 . Beginning with 3:1, the verse numbers in the English Bible and the Hebrew Bible are again the same.
72. 72 Heb “the feet of a herald.”
73. 73 Heb “a messenger of peace.” The Hebrew noun translated “peace” is sometimes used in reference to deliverance or freedom from enemy attack or destruction (e.g., Jer 4:10; 6:14; 8:11; 12:5; 28:9; 29:7).
74. 74 The sacred vows to praise God were often made by Israelites as a pledge to proclaim the mercy of the Lord if he would be gracious to deliver (e.g., Gen 28:20; 31:13; Lev 7:16; Judg 11:30, 39; 1 Sam 1:11, 21; 2 Sam 15:7–8; Pss 22:25 [26]; 50:14; 56:12 [13]; 61:5 [6], 8 [9]; 65:1 [2]; 66:13; 116:14, 18; Eccl 5:4 [3]; Jonah 1:16; 2:9 [10]). The words “to praise God” are not in the Hebrew, but are added in the translation for clarification.
75. 75 The reflects the plural יוֹסִיפוּ (yosifu, “they shall [never]”). The reads the singular יוֹסִיף (yosif, “he shall [never]”) which is also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah). The subject of the verb is the singular noun בְּלִיַּעַל (béliyya’al, “the wicked one”) which is also misunderstood by the (see below).
76. 76 The reads בְּלִיַּעַל (béliyya’al, “the wicked one”; so , ). The reading εἰς παλαίωσιν (eis palaiōsin, “to old age”) mistakenly derived בְּלִיַּעַל from בָּלָה (balah, “to become worn”). There are several places in the book of Nahum where the produced poor translations. Heb “the wicked one.” This is a collective singular and has been translated as a plural.
77. 77 The term “Assyrians” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied from context for clarity. If left unspecified, the prophetic statement could be understood to mean that the wicked [i.e., wicked conquerors in general] would never again invade Judah. Cf. “your enemies from Nineveh.”
78. 78 Or “pass through you” (); or “march against you”; “attack you.”
79. 79 Heb “he.” This is in agreement with the singular “wicked one” in the previous line.
80. 80 Heb “he is completely cut off.”
81. 1 The introductory phrase “The watchmen of Nineveh shout” is not in the Hebrew text, but has been supplied from the context for clarity.
82. 2 The reads מֵפִיץ (mefits, “scatterer, disperser”), the Hiphil participle of פּוּץ (puts, “to scatter, to disperse”; פוּץ, but see 807 מֵפִיץ, which classifies it as a noun). The ’s qui dispergat (“one who disperses”) and the ’s ἐμφυσῶν (emphusōn, “one who blows hard; one who scatters”) also reflect מֵפִיץ. The editors propose the emendation מַפֵּץ (mappets, “shatterer, hammerer, war club”; e.g., Jer 51:20 and Prov 25:18). This is unnecessary; the text makes sense as it stands and there is no textual support for the emendation. The theme of exile and dispersion is prominent in the book (Nah 2:7; 3:10–11, 17–18). Heb “a scatterer.” The Hebrew term מֵפִיץ (mefits, “scatterer”) is either a collective singular referring to the Babylonian army or a singular of number referring to the Babylonian commander. Singular forms occur elsewhere in the vision of the fall of Nineveh (2:1–10), used in reference to the Babylonian commander (Nah 2:3, 5)
83. 3 Or “has come up”; or “has advanced.” Used in reference to an army, the verb עָלָה (’alah, “to go up”) means “to advance; to march against” ( 3.d; see 1 Sam 7:7; 1 Kgs 20:22; Isa 7:1; 21:2; Jer 46:9; Joel 1:6; Mic 2:3). Appearing in a prophetic vision, the suffix conjugation (perfect tense) form עָלָה can denote a future-time action that is pictured as complete (certain) and independent (not contingent upon other factors). The so-called “prophetic perfect” or “perfect of confidence” vividly expresses a future action that is “as good as done” (cf. Num 24:17; Isa 5:13; 8:23–9:1). See R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 33, §165; §30.5.1.
84. 4 Heb “against your face”; , “against you.”
85. 5 The Qal infinitive absolute נָצוֹר (notsar, from נָצַר [nastar], “to guard”) is used in an imperatival sense as the following string of imperatives suggests. The imperatival use of the infinitive absolute is often used to introduce a series of imperatives with special urgency (e.g., Deut 1:16; 2 Sam 24:12; 2 Kgs 5:10). See §35.5.1; R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 42, §211.
86. 6 The editors suggest revocalizing the Masoretic noun מְצֻרָה (métsurah, “rampart”) to the noun מַצָּרָה (matsarah, “the watchtower”) from the root נָצַר (natsar, “to watch, guard”). This would create a repetition of the root נָצַר which immediately precedes it: מַצָּרָה נָצוֹר (natsor matsarah, “Watch the watchtower!”). However, the proposed noun מַצָּרָה (“the watchtower”) appears nowhere in the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, the Masoretic reading מְצֻרָה (“rampart”) and the related noun מָצוֹר (matsor, “rampart”) appear often (Pss 31:22; 60:11; Hab 2:1; Zech 9:3; 2 Chr 8:5; 11:5, 10, 11, 23; 12:4; 14:5, 21:3; 32:10). Thus, the Masoretic vocalization should be preserved. The completely misunderstood this line. The reading (“one who delivers out of tribulation”) has probably arisen from a confusion of the noun נָצוֹר (“guard”) with the common verb נָצַר (“deliver”). It also reflects a confusion of מְצֻרָה (“road, rampart”) with מִצְּרָה (mitsérah, “from distress”).
87. 7 Heb “Make strong your loins,” an expression which could refer (1) to the practice of tucking the ends of the long cloak (outer garment) into the belt to shorten it in preparation for activities like running, fighting in battle, etc. (cf. , “gird your loins”); (2) to preparing oneself physically for the onslaught of the enemy (cf. “strengthen your back”); or (3) to a combination of mental and physical preparation for battle (cf. “brace yourselves”).
88. 8 Heb “Make [your] strength exceedingly firm.”
89. 9 The Qal perfect שָׁב (shav, “restore, return”) is an example of the so-called “prophetic perfect.” In this case, the perfect tense does not denote past-time action, but a future-time action that is pictured as complete (certain) and independent (not contingent upon other factors). The so-called “prophetic perfect” or “perfect of confidence” vividly expresses a future action that is deemed “as good as done” (Num 24:17; Isa 5:13; 8:22–9:1). See R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 33, §165; §30.5.1. Though the transitive use of the Qal of this verb is problematic, most scholars derive שָׁב from the root שׁוּב (shuv, “to turn, to return, to restore”). However, W. A. Maier (Nahum, 232) contends that שָׁב is derived from I שָׁבַב (shavav, “to cut off, to destroy, to smite”) which is related to Arabic sabba (“to cut”), Aramaic sibba’(“splinter”), and New Hebrew. Maier admits that this would be the only occurrence of a verb from I שָׁבָב in the OT; however, he argues that the appearance of the plural noun שְׁבָבִים (shévavim, “splinters”) in Hos 8:6 provides adequate support. There are several problems with Maier’s proposal. First, his support from Arabic, Aramaic () and New Hebrew is all late. Second, it creates a hapax legomenon (a word that occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible) for a well-known Hebrew word which frequently appears in climactic contexts in prophetic speeches, as here. Third, the root שׁוּב (shuv, “to turn, to return, to restore”) makes perfectly good sense in this context. The meaning of this usage of שָׁב (from the root שׁוּב) is debated. The took it in the negative sense “has turned aside.” On the other hand, it is nuanced in a positive, salvific sense by the , , and . The salvific nuance is best for the following reasons: (1) its direct object is גְּאוֹן (ge’on) which should be understood in the positive sense of “majesty; exaltation; glory” (see following note on the word “majesty”); (2) the motive clause introduced by causative/ explanatory כִּי (ki, “for”) would make little sense, saying that the reason the Lord was about to destroy Nineveh was because he had turned away the pride of Judah; however, it makes good sense to say that the Lord would destroy Nineveh because he was about to deliver Judah; and (3) a reference to the Lord turning aside from Judah would be out of harmony with the rest of the book.
90. 10 The editors propose emending the reading גְּאוֹן (gé’on, “majesty; pride”) to גֶּפֶן (gefen, “vineyard”) due to the mention of “their branches” (וּזְמֹרֵיהֶם, uzémorehem) in the following line (so גָּאוֹן [2.b]). However, the supports the . While גְּאוֹן (ge’on) sometimes has the negative connotation “pride; arrogance; presumption” (Isa 13:11, 19; 14:11; 16:6; 23:9; Jer 13:9; 48:29; Ezek 16:49, 56; 32:12; Hos 5:5; 7:10; Amos 6:8; Zeph 2:10; Zech 9:6; 10:11; 11:3; Ps 59:13; Job 35:12; 40:10), it probably has the positive connotation “eminence; majesty; glory” (e.g., as in Exod 15:7; Isa 2:10, 19, 21; 4:2; 24:14; 60:15; Mic 5:3; Ps 47:5) in this context ( 145 1.a).
91. 11 The preposition ךְּ (kaf) on כִּגְאוֹן (kig’on, “the glory of Israel”) may be comparative (“like the glory of Israel”) or emphatic (“the glory of Jacob, indeed, the glory of Israel”). See J. O’Rourke, “Book Reviews and Short Notes: Review of Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic by Kevin J. Cathcart,” 36 (1974): 397.
92. 12 Or “for.” The introductory particle כִּי (ki) may be causal (“because”), explanatory (“for”), or concessive (“although”). adopts the causal sense (“For”), while the concessive sense (“Although”) is adopted by , , , .
93. 13 Heb “plunderers have plundered them.” The Hebrew root בָּקַק (baqaq, “to lay waste, to empty”) is repeated for emphasis: בְקָקוּם בֹּקְקִים (véqaqum boqéqim, “plunderers have plundered them”). Similar repetition of the root בָּקַק occurs in Isa 24:3: “[The earth] will be completely laid waste” (הִבּוֹק תִּבּוֹק, hibboq tibboq).
94. 14 Heb “their vine-branches.” The term “vine-branches” is a figurative expression (synecdoche of part for the whole) representing the agricultural fields as a whole.
95. 15 The reads מְאָדָּם (mé’adam, “reddened”) from אָדֹם (’adom, “red”). The confused the roots אָדָם (“man”) and אָדֹם (“red”): ἐξ ἀνθρώπων (ex anthrōpōn, “from among men”) which reflects מֵאָדָם (me’adam, “from man”) from אָדָם. The Hebrew term מְאָדָּם (“reddened”) from אָדֹם (“red”) refers to clothes made red with dye (Exod 25:6; 26:14; 35:7, 23; 36:13; 39:34) or made red from bloodshed (Isa 63:2). The parallelism between מְאָדָּם (“reddened”) and מְתֻלָּעִים (métulla’im, “clad in scarlet colored clothing”) suggests that the shields were dyed prior to battle, like the scarlet dyed uniforms. Nahum 2:1–10 unfolds the assault in chronological sequence; thus, the spattering of blood on the warrior’s shields would be too early in the account (R. D. Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah [], 65). As psychological warfare, warriors often wore uniforms colored blood-red, to strike fear into the hearts of their enemy (see Xenophon, Cyropaedia 6.4.1; Ezek 23:5–6).
96. 16 The Pual participle מְתֻלָּעִים (métulla’im, “dressed in scarlet”) from תָּלָע (tala’, “scarlet”) is used elsewhere of clothing dyed red or purple (Isa 1:18; Lam 4:5).
97. 17 The reads פְּלָדוֹת (péladot, “steel”; see the following ). The ’s αἱ ῥνιάι (hai hēniai, “the reins”) and ’s habenai (“reins”) confused פְּלָדוֹת (péladot) with כְּלָיוֹת (kélayot, “reins, kidneys”). The editors suggest emending the ’s פְּלָדוֹת (peladot) to לַפִּדוֹת (lappidot, “torches”) to create the simile כְּאֵשׁ לַפִּדוֹת (ké’esh lappidot, “like torches of fire” or “like flaming torches”) which is reflected in the and Symmachus (so , , ). The problem with this is that לַפִּיד (lappid, “torch”) is masculine in gender, so the plural form is not לַפִּדוֹת but לַפִּדִים (lappidim)—which appears in Nah 2:4 ( 542 לַפִּיד; לַפִּיד). Others propose a complete reversal of the consonants to דלפות from the root דָּלַף (dalaf, “to drip, to trickle, to leak, to weep”) and translate כְּאֵשׁ דְלָפוֹת (ké’esh délafot) as “like flickering fire” (so ). Against this proposal is the fact that דָּלָף is usually used in reference to water, but it is never used in reference to fire ( דלף; 196 דָּלַף). Heb “the steel.” The Hebrew term פְּלָדוֹת is a hapax legomenon. The corresponding noun פְּלָדָה (péladah) probably means “metal, steel” ( 811 פְּלָדָה; פְּלָדָה), and it is probably related to Arabic puladu, pld’, and early Persian fulad (all of which mean “steel”). This rendering is followed by , , . The term פְּלָדוֹת (“steel”) probably refers to the metallic pole attachments for the chariot spears, the side armor of the chariots, or the steel scythes fastened to the axle of a chariot. Xenophon described the army of Cyrus in a similar manner; the side armor of the chariots and the breastplates and thigh-pieces of the chariot-horses were “flashing with bronze” (Xenophon, Cyropaedia 6.4.1). On the other hand, Cathcart connects Hebrew פְּלָדָה to Ugaritic paladu, which means “a garment made of linen hair,” and suggests that פְּלָדוֹת הָרֶכֶב (péladot harekhev) refers to the coverings, blankets, or caparisons of chariot horses (K. J. Cathcart, Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic [], 88). This demands that הָרֶכֶב be nuanced “chariot horses”—a problem when it means “chariots” in Nah 2:4; 3:2.
98. 18 The collective singular רֶכֶב (rekhev, “chariot”) refers to all of the chariots in the army as a whole: “chariots; chariotry” ( 939 1; 1). The singular form rarely refers to a single chariot ( 939 2; 3). The collective use is indicated by the plural verb “they race back and forth” (יִתְהוֹלְלוּ, yitholélu) in v. 5 ( §145.b). The term רֶכֶב usually refers to war chariots (Exod 14:7; Josh 11:4; 17:16, 18; 24:6; Judg 1:19; 4:3, 7, 13; 5:28; 1 Sam 13:5; 2 Sam 1:6; 8:4; 10:18; 1 Kgs 9:19, 22; 10:26; Jer 47:3; 50:37; 51:21; Ezek 23:24; Nah 2:3, 4, 13).
99. 19 The reads the preposition בְּ (bet, “are [like]”), but several Hebrew read the comparative preposition ךְּ (kaf, “like”). This textual variant probably arose due to the visual similarity of the two letters (orthographic confusion) and the relatively rare use of בְּ in metaphors—the comparative preposition ךְּ (“like”) is much more common in metaphors. The is the more difficult reading and best explains the origin of the variant. Heb “The chariots are …” The preposition בְּ on בְּאֵשׁ (bé’esh) denotes essence: “The chariots are …” ( §133.c; בְּ 3). The use of this preposition creates a metaphor, comparing the steel fittings of the chariots to flashes of fire.
100. 20 Or perhaps “The chariots are [like] flaming torches.”
101. 21 Heb “on the day of its preparation.” The Hiphil infinitive construct הֲכִינוֹ (hakhino; from כּוּן, kun) means “to prepare, to make ready” ( כּוּן; 466 כּוּן). The Hiphil verb is used of preparing weapons and military equipment for the day of battle (2 Chr 26:14; Ps 7:13 [ 7:14]; 57:6 [ 57:7]). The 3rd person masculine singular suffix (“its preparation”) is a collective singular, referring to the chariotry as a whole.
102. 22 Some scholars adopt the variant reading הַפְּרֹשִׁים (happéroshim, “the horses”) and relate הָרְעָלוּ (hor’alu) to Arabic raʿala (“to stand in row and rank”): “the horses stand in row and rank,” that is, at attention. However, it is preferable to retain the for the noun, with the verb given its normal Hebrew meaning. Heb “the spears quiver”; or “the spears are made to quiver.” Alternately, “the horses quiver” or “the horses shake [with excitement].” The Hophal perfect הָרְעָלוּ (hor’alu, “are made to quiver”) is from רָעַל (ra’al, “to quiver, to shake”) which appears elsewhere only in Hab 2:16 ( 947 רָעַל; II רעל); the related noun רַעַל (“reeling”) appears only once (Zech 12:2). This Hebrew root is related to the Aramaic רְעַל (ré’al, “to quiver, to shake”). The action of the spear-shafts quivering is metonymical (effect for cause) to the action of the spear-shafts being brandished by the warriors. In the translation the words “the soldiers” are supplied for clarity.
103. 23 The reads הַבְּרֹשִׁים (habbéroshim, “the cypresses”). A variant textual tradition (preserved in several Hebrew ) reads הַפְּרֹשִׁים (happéroshim, “spears, horses, horsemen”) which is reflected in the and . The variant noun הַפְּרֹשִׁים is derived either from IV פָּרַשׁ (“horse, horseman”; see 831 פָּרַשׁ; פָּרָשׁ) or II פָּרַשׁ (“spear, staff”) which is related to Akkadian parussu (“spear-staff”; see 831 II פָּרַשׁ). The connects הַבְּרֹשִׁים to IV פָּרַשׁ (“horsemen”) as indicated by its translation οἱ ἱππεϊς (hoi hippeis, “the horsemen”). While some English versions follow the (, , , ), others adopt the alternate textual tradition (, , , ). Heb “the cypresses”; alternately, “the horses.” The Hebrew noun הַבְּרֹשִׁים (“the cypresses”) is probably from the root בְּרוֹשׁ (bérosh, “cypress, fir”) and is a figure of speech (synecdoche of material) in which the thing made (spear-shafts) is intended by the use of the term for the material out of which it is made (cypress wood). See K. J. Cathcart, Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic (), 89.
104. 24 Heb “the chariot.” The Hebrew noun הָרֶכֶב (harekhev, “the chariot”) is a collective use of the singular, as indicated by the plural verb “[they] race madly” (see §145.b).
105. 25 The Hitpolel imperfect יִתְהוֹלְלוּ (yitholélu, “they rush wildly”) is from the root III הלל (“to be foolish, to be senseless, to be insane”). The Hitpolel stem describes seemingly insane actions: “to pretend to be insane; to act like a madman” (1 Sam 21:14; Jer 25:16; 50:38; 51:7; see III הלל). When used in military contexts, it describes the wild, furious action of war-chariots charging forward to attack the enemy (Jer 46:9). The Hitpolel stem is the equivalent to the Hitpael stem for geminate verbs (see §26.1.1). The Hitpolel stem expresses energetic, intense, and rapid action; it gives special energy and movement to the verbal idea (J. Muilenburg, “Hebrew Rhetoric: Repetition and Style,” 1 [1953]: 101).
106. 26 The Hitpalpel imperfect יִשְׁתַּקְשְׁקוּן (yishtaqshéqun, “they rush back and forth”; see §55.g) is from שָׁקַק (shaqaq, “to rush upon; to rush forth”); cf. Prov 28:15; Isa 33:4; Joel 2:9 ( I שׁקק). The Hitpalpel is the Hitpael stem for geminate verbs ( §26.1.1). The Hitpalpel stem gives special energy and movement to the verbal idea; it connotes intense, furious, and energetic action (e.g., Deut 9:20; Jer 5:22; see J. Muilenburg, “Hebrew Rhetoric: Repetition and Style,” 1 [1953]: 101). The nun ending on יִשְׁתַּקְשְׁקוּן may denote additional energy and emphasis (see §31.7.1).
107. 27 Heb “Their appearance is like.”
108. 28 Or “like torches.” The Hebrew term לַפִּיד (lappid) often means “torch, flame” (Gen 15:17; Judg 7:16, 20; 15:4, 5; Isa 62:1; Ezek 1:13; Zech 12:6; Dan 10:6), but sometimes refers to “lightning bolts” (Exod 20:18; Job 12:5; see לַפִּיד; 542 לַפִּיד). Most English versions render this usage as “torches” (, , , , ). However, the parallelism with כַּבְּרָקִים (kabbéraqim, “like lightning flashes”) suggests that in this context כַּלַּפִּידִם (kalappidim) may be nuanced “like lightning bolts.”
109. 29 Or “they flash here and there.” The Polel imperfect יְרוֹצֵצוּ (yirotsetsu, “they dash here and there”) is from the root רוּץ (ruts) which means “to run quickly” in reference to men (Gen 18:2; 2 Kgs 23:12; Prov 4:12) and “to gallop” in reference to horsemen (Joel 2:14). The Hiphil stem denotes “to drive off with haste” (Jer 49:19; 50:44). The Polel stem, which is used here, means “to race about swiftly; to flash by speedily; to run to and fro” ( רוץ; 930 רוּץ).
110. 30 Or simply, “like lightning.” The term “lightning flash” (בָּרָק, baraq) is often used to compare the brightness of an object to the flash of lightning: the glory of Yahweh (Ezek 1:13), the splendor of an angel (Dan 10:6), the glitter of swords (Deut 32:41; Ezek 21:15; Nah 3:3; Hab 3:11), and the gleam of arrowheads (Job 20:25). It is also used as a figure (hypocatastasis) for speed, such as the swift destruction of an enemy (Zech 9:14). Perhaps both images are suggested here: the bright glitter of the chariots (v. 4b) and the speed of the chariots as suggested by the verb “they dash here and there” (יְרוֹצֵצוּ, yérotsetsu, v. 5b).
111. 31 Heb “he”; the referent (the commander) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
112. 32 The reads the Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular יִזְכֹּר (yizkor, “he commands”) from II זָכַּר (zakkar, “to command”); see above. The rarity of this homonymic root in Hebrew has led to textual variants and several proposed emendations. The misunderstood זָכַּר and the syntax of the line: καὶ μνησθνήσονται οἱ μεγιστα¡τες (mnēsthnēsontai hoi megistaHtes, “And their mighty men will be remembered”; or “will remember themselves”). The reflects the Niphal imperfect 3rd person common plural יִזָּכְרוּ (yizzakhru, “they will be remembered”). The editors suggest emending to יִזָּכְרוּ on the basis of the . The editors proposed emending to pilpel imperfect 3rd person common plural יְכַרְכְרוּ (yékharkhéru, “they prance, they whirl”) from II כָּרַר (karar, “to dance”). None of the emendations are necessary once the existence of the homonym II זָכַּר (“to order”) is recognized. The Hebrew verb II זָכַּר is related to Akkadian zakartu (“to give an order”; see 2:17). This is distinct from the more common root zakar I (“to remember”) which is related to Akkadian zakaru. The English versions are split between the two roots: “he commands” () and “he summons” () versus “he recounts” (), “he remembers” (), and “he calls” ().
113. 33 The reads the Niphal imperfect 3rd person masculine plural יִכָּשְׁלוּ (yikoshlu, “they stumble”) from the root כָּשַׁל (kashal, “stumble”). G. R. Driver argues that the makes little sense in the portrayal of a successful assault; the motif of stumbling warriors usually connotes defeat (Isa 5:27; Jer 46:6). Driver argues that ’s יִכָּשְׁלוּ (“they stumble”) arose from metathesis (reversal of consonants) from an original יִשָּׁלְכוּ (yishalkhu, Niphal from שָׁלַךְ [shalakh, “to cast forth”]) which also appears in 2 Kgs 13:24–25, 28 (“hurled himself,” i.e., rushed headlong). Driver suggests that this is related to Arabic salaka VII (“to rush in”). He notes that the emendation would produce a tighter parallelism with the following noun: יְמַהֲרוּ (yémaharu, “they hasten”). See G. R. Driver, “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Minor Prophets II,” 39 (1938): 270. On the other hand, Armerding argues that the anomalous reading יִכָּשְׁלוּ (“they stumble”) can be explained without recourse to textual emendation. The stumbling of the attacking army is caused, not by their weakness, but by the corpses of the Assyrians strewn in their path which obstructs their advance. Armerding suggests that this motif appears in Nah 3:3 (C. E. Armerding, “Nahum,” 7:). Alternately, “they rush forward.”
114. 34 Or “in their trenches”; or “in their columns”; Heb “in their advance”; or “in their march.” The noun הֲלִיכָה (halikhah, “procession, journey”) is nuanced “march; advance” in a military context ( 237 1.a; 1.a). Similarly, the related verb הָלַךְ (halakh) means “to march, to advance” in battle contexts (Judg 1:10; Hab 1:6). This is related to the Assyrian noun alaktu (“to advance”) which is often used of military advances ( 1.1.299). The related Assyrian noun aliktu means “detachment of soldiers” ( 1.1.346). suggests that הֲלִיכָה is related to an Assyrian noun which is a technical military term: “trenches, columns” ( *הֲלִיכָה). This line could be rendered, “They stumble in their trenches” or “They stumble in their columns.”
115. 35 The reads הוֹמָתָהּ (homatah, “her wall”). On the other hand, several Hebrew , Jonathan, and the omit the mappiq and preserve an alternate textual tradition of the directive -he ending: הוֹמָתָה (“to the wall”). The directive sense is seen in the . Although the lacks the directive -he (ה) ending, it is possible that the ’s הוֹמָתָהּ functions as an adverbial accusative of direction meaning “to her wall.” The adverbial accusative of direction often occurs after verbs of motion (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 13–14, §54; §10.2.2). Heb “to her wall,” referring to Nineveh.
116. 36 The reads the Hophal perfect 3rd person masculine singular וְהֻכַן (véhukhan, “and [it] is prepared”). On the other hand, the reading reflects the Hiphil perfect 3rd person common plural וְהֵכִינּוּ (véhekhinnu, “and they will prepare”). Arguing that the active sense is necessary because the three preceding verbs are all active, K. J. Cathcart (Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic [], 95) suggests emending to the Hiphil infinitive absolute וְהָכִין (véhakhin, “and [they] prepare”). However, the Masoretic form should be retained because it is the more difficult reading that best explains the origin of the reading. The shift from active to passive verbs is common in Hebrew, marking a cause-result sequence (e.g., Pss 24:7; 69:14 [15]; Jer 31:4; Hos 5:5). See M. Weinfeld, “The Active-Passive (Factitive-Resultive) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic,” 84 (1965): 272–82. Heb “the mantelet is prepared.”
117. 37 Heb “mantelet.” The Hebrew noun סֹכֵךְ (sokhekh, “mantelet”) is a military technical term referring to a large movable shelter used as a protective cover for soldiers besieging a fortified city, designed to shield them from the arrows shot down from the city wall ( ; 697 ). This noun is a hapax legomenon (a word that only occurs once in the Hebrew Bible) and is derived from the verb III סָכַךְ (sakhakh, “to cover; to protect”; 2:623–24). K. J. Cathcart (Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic [], 95) suggests that the translation “mantelet” is supported by the use of the verb III סָכַךְ in Ps 140:7 [8]: “Yahweh, my Lord, my fortress of safety; shelter (סַכֹּתָּה, sakotah) my head in the day of arms.” This is reflected in several recent English versions: “wheeled shelters” (), “protective shield” (), “covering used in a siege” ( margin), and “mantelet” (, , , ). Cf. also “the shield for the battering ram.” The Hebrew term translated covered siege tower probably does not refer to a battering ram, but to a movable protective tower, used to cover the soldiers and the siege machinery. These are frequently depicted in Neo-Assyrian bas-reliefs, such as the relief of Sennacherib’s siege of Lachish. The Neo-Assyrians used both small, hut-like shelters that could be carried by a few men, as well as larger, tower-like structures rolled on wheels to the top of siege embankments. These mantelets protected the attackers while they built the embankments and undermined the foundations of the city walls to hasten their collapse. Siege towers were equipped with machines designed to hurl stones to smash the fortifications and firebrands to start conflagrations (see A. H. Layard, Nineveh and Its Remains, 2:281–86).
118. 38 Or “river dam gates”; , , , “river gates.” Nineveh employed a system of dams and sluice gates to control the waters of the Tebiltu and Khoser Rivers which flowed through the city (R. C. Thompson and R. W. Hutchinson, A Century of Exploration at Nineveh, 120–132). However, the Tebiltu often flooded its banks inside the city, undermining palace foundations and weakening other structures. To reduce this flooding, Sennacherib changed the course of the Tebiltu inside the city. Outside the city, he dammed up the Khoser and created a reservoir, regulating the flow of water into the city through an elaborate system of double sluice gates (D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon, 99–100; J. Reade, “Studies in Assyrian Geography, Part I: Sennacherib and the Waters of Nineveh,” 72 [1978]: 47–72; idem, “Studies in Assyrian Geography, Part II: The Northern Canal System,” 72 [1978]: 157–80). According to classical tradition (Diodorus and Xenophon), just before Nineveh fell, a succession of very high rainfalls deluged the area. The Khoser River swelled and the reservoir was breached. The waters rushed through the overloaded canal system, breaking a hole twenty stades (about 2.3 miles or 3.7 km) wide in the city wall and flooding the city. When the waters receded, the Babylonians stormed into Nineveh and conquered the city (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 2.26–27, especially 27.1–3; Xenophon, Anabasis, 3.4.12; P. Haupt, “Xenophon’s Account of the Fall of Nineveh,” 28 [1907]: 65–83). This scenario seems to be corroborated by the archaeological evidence (A. T. Olmstead, History of Assyria, 637).
119. 39 Heb “and the palace melts.” The Niphal perfect נָמוֹג (namog, “is undulated”) from מוּג (mug, “to melt, to soften, to dissolve”) is sometimes used of material objects (earth, hills) being softened or eroded by water (Ps 65:11; Amos 9:13). Nahum pictures the river banks inside Nineveh overflowing in a torrent, crashing into the royal palace and eroding its limestone slab foundations. Ironically, a few decades earlier, Sennacherib engaged in a program of flood control because the Tebiltu River often flooded its banks inside Nineveh and undermined the palace foundations. Sennacherib also had to strengthen the foundations of his palace with “mighty slabs of limestone” so that “its foundation would not be weakened by the flood of high water” (D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon, 99–100). At the time of the fall of Nineveh, the Palace of Ashurbanipal was located on the edge of the sharpest bend of the Khoser River as it flowed through the city; when the Khoser overflowed its banks, the palace foundation was weakened (J. Reade, “Studies in Assyrian Geography, Part I: Sennacherib and the Waters of Nineveh,” 72 [1978]: 51).
120. 40 Or “the palace collapses and crumbles.” The Hophal perfect 3rd person masculine singular וְהֻצַּב (véhutsav) is from either I נָצַב (“to stand”; (“to stand”; I נצב; 662 נָצַב) or II נָצַב (“to dissolve, weaken”; II נצב). Many scholars who take וְהֻצַּב from I נָצָב (“to stand”) suggest that the meaning is “it is fixed; it is determined” ( 662 נָצַב). This is followed by several English versions: “it is decreed” (, ) and “it is fixed” (). This is a rather awkward idea and does not seem to fit the context of the description of the destruction of the palace or the exile of the Ninevites. On the other hand, several scholars suggest that וְהֻצַּב is derived from נָצָב II (“to be weak”; cf. Ps 39:6; Zech 11:16; ) which is related to Arabic nasiba (“to be weak”) or Arabic nasaba (“to suck out, to dissolve”) and Assyrian nasabu (“to suck out”); see W. H. F. Saggs, “Nahum and the Fall of Nineveh,” 20 (1969): 220–21; R. D. Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (), 69–70. As a parallel word to נָמוֹג (namog, “is deluged” or “melts”), וְהֻצַּב (“is weakened” or “is dissolved”) describes the destructive effect of the flood waters on the limestone foundations of the palace. The verse divisions in the place וְהֻצַּב at the beginning of v. 7 [v. 8 ]; however, it probably should be placed at the end of v. 6 [v. 7 ] and connected with the last two words of the line: וְהַהֵיכָל נָמוֹג וְהֻצַּב (véhahekhal namog véhutsav, “the palace is deluged and dissolved”; see Patterson, 69–70). This is supported by several factors: (1) the gender of וְהֻצַּב is masculine, while the verbs in v. 7 are feminine: גֻּלְּתָה הֹעֲלָתָה (gullétah ho’alatah, “she is led into exile and taken away”); (2) the gender of the final verb in v. 6 is masculine: נָמוֹג (“[the palace] is deluged”); (3) both וְהֻצַּב and נָמוֹג are passive verbs (Niphal and Hophal); (4) both נָמוֹג (“is deluged”) and וְהֻצַּב (“is dissolved/weakened”) are parallel in meaning, describing the effects of flood waters on the limestone foundation of the royal palace; (5) this redivision of the lines produces a balanced 3+3 and 2+2 colon count in these two lines; and (6) this produces a balance of two verbs each in each colon. The meaning of וְהֻצַּב is notoriously difficult. Scholars offer over a dozen different proposals but only the most important are summarized here: (1) Most scholars take וְהֻצַּב as Hophal perfect 3rd person masculine singular with vav (ו) conjunction from I נָצַב (“to stand”), meaning “it is fixed; it is determined” ( 662 נָצַב). This is followed by several English versions: “it is decreed” (, ) and “it is fixed” (). The translation καὶ ἡ ὑπόστασις (kai hē hupostasis, “and the foundation”) reflects a reading of וְהֻצַּב with a meaning similar to its use in Gen 28:12 (“a stairway resting on the earth”) or a reading of וְהַמַּצָּב (véhammatsav) from the noun מַצָּב (matsav, “place of standing”; cf. 662 מַצָּב; מַצָּב). (2) The editors suggest emending to Hophal perfect 3rd person feminine singular וְהֻצְאָה (véhuts’ah) from יָצָא (yatsa’, “to go out”), meaning “she is led out into exile” or “she is led out to be executed” ( יצא; see, e.g., Gen 38:25; Jer 38:22; Ezek 14:22; 38:8; 44:5; Amos 4:3). (3) Early Jewish interpreters ( Jonathan, Kimchi, Rashi) and modern Christian interpreters (e.g., W. A. Maier, Nahum, 259–62) view וְהֻצַּב as the proper name of an Assyrian queen, “Huzzab.” This is adopted by several English versions: “And Huzzab is exiled” (, , ). However, this view has been severely criticized by several scholars because no queen in Assyrian history is known by this name (G. R. Driver, “Farewell to Queen Huzzab!” 16 [1965]: 296–98; W. H. F. Saggs, “Nahum and the Fall of Nineveh,” 20 [1969]: 220). (4) Several scholars suggest that וְהֻצַּב is the Hophal perfect of II נָצַב which is related to…
121. 41 The term “Nineveh” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied from context.
122. 42 The reads the Pual perfect 3rd person feminine singular גֻּלְּתָה (gullétah) from גָלָה (galah, “to uncover, to go into exile”; 162–63 גָלָה; גלה). There are two basic views of the meaning of גֻּלְּתָה in this verse: (1) “She is stripped” (see R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi [], ). This may describe the exposure of the foundation of a building (Ezek 13:14) or the uncovering of intimate parts of the body (Exod 20:26; Isa 47:3; Ezek 16:36, 57; 23:29;). This is reflected in the reading ἀπεκαλύφθη (apekaluphthē, “she has been exposed”). This approach is followed by (“she is stripped”). (2) “She is taken into exile” (, , , ). The Qal stem of גָלָה often means “to go into exile” (Judg 18:30; 2 Kgs 24:14; Isa 5:13; 49:21; Jer 1:3; Ezek 39:23; Amos 1:5; 5:5; 6:7; Lam 1:3); the Hiphil often means “to deport exiles” (2 Kgs 15:20; 16:9; 17:6, 11, 26, 28, 33; 18:11; 24:14–15; 25:11; Jer 20:4; 22:12; 24:1; 27:20; 29:1, 4, 7, 14; 39:9; 43:3; 52:15, 28, 30; Ezek 39:28; Amos 1:6; 5:27; Lam 4:22; Esth 2:6; Ezra 2:1; Neh 7:6; 1 Chr 5:6, 26, 41; 8:6; 2 Chr 36:20); and the Hophal stem always means “to be deported; to be taken into exile” (Jer 40:1, 7; Esth 2:6; 1 Chr 9:1). This makes the best sense in the light of the parallel verb הֹעֲלָתָה (ho’alatah, “she is led away”) in v. 7 [8 ] and the description of the fleeing Ninevites in v. 8 [9 ]. The editors and suggest that consonantal גלתה be vocalized as Qal perfect 3rd person feminine singular גָּלְתָה (goltah, “she goes into exile”) from גָלָה (Qal: “go into exile”). R. D. Patterson suggests vocalizing consonantal גלתה as the noun with 3rd person feminine singular suffix גָּלְתָהּ for גּוֹלְתָהּ (goltah, “her exiles/captives”) and taking the singular form as collective in meaning: “her exiles/captives are carried away” (Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah [], 70). W. H. F. Saggs suggests that גֻלְּתָה is the noun גֻּלָּה (gullah, “column-base”) as in 1 Kgs 7:41–42; 2 Chr 4:12–13 ( 165 גֻּלָּה 2.b; גֻּלָּה 1.b) which is related to Assyrian gullatu (“column-base”; 5:128). He renders the phrase וְהֻצַּב גֻּלְּתָה (véhutsav gullétah) as “its column-base[s] is/are dissolved” (see above). He suggests that this provides an excellent parallel to “the palace begins to melt” (וְהַהֵיכָל נָמוֹג, véhahekhal namog). W. H. F. Saggs also proposes that the reflects this picture (“Nahum and the Fall of Nineveh,” 20 [1969]: 220–25).
123. 43 Or “And its column-bases collapse and it goes up [in smoke].” The reads the Hophal perfect 3rd person feminine singular הֹעֲלָתָה (ho’alatah, “she is carried away”) from עָלָה (’alah, “to go up”). The Hiphil stem of עָלָה often describes a military commander leading a group of forced workers out of a town (1 Kgs 5:13 [ 5:27]; 9:15, 21; 2 Chr 8:8); likewise, the Hophal stem may denote “to be led away into exile” ( ; 748 עָלָה).
124. 44 The reads the Piel participle מְנַהֲגוֹת (ménahagot, “sobbing, moaning”) from II נָהַג (“to moan, to lament”; ; 624 II נָהַג). This root is related to Assyrian nagagu (“to cry”; 2:709.b). This harmonizes well with the following cola: “Her maidservants moan like doves, they beat upon their breasts.” This is adopted by several English versions (, , ). On the other hand, an alternate vocalization tradition (represented by several Hebrew , Jonathan, , and ) reads the Pual participle מְנֹהֲגוֹת (ménohagot, “forcibly removed”) from the more common root I נַהַג (“to drive away, to lead away”; נהג). This root is often used of conquerors leading away exiles or prisoners of war (Gen 31:26; Deut 4:27; 28:37; Isa 20:4; Lam 3:2). This picture is clearly seen in the reading καὶ αἱ δοῦλαι αὐτῆς ἤγοντο (kai hai doulai autēs ējgonto, “and her maidservants were led away”). This textual tradition harmonizes with the imagery of exile in the preceding colon (see translator’s note on the word “exile” in this verse). This approach is adopted by several English versions (, ). Or “her maidservants are led away [into exile].”
125. 45 Heb “like the sound of doves.”
126. 46 The Poel participle מְתֹפְפֹת (métoféfot, “beating continuously”) is from תָפַף (“to beat”; תֹּף; 1074 תָּפַף). Elsewhere it is used of beating timbrels (Ps 68:26; 1 Sam 21:14). The participle describes a circumstance accompanying the main action (“her maidservants moan”) and functions in a continual, repetitive manner (see §37.6; R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 43, §221).
127. 47 The reads מְתֹפְפֹת עַל־לִבְבֵהֶן (métoféfot ’al-livvehen, “beating upon their hearts [= breasts]”). The reading φθεγγόμεναι ἐν καρδίαις αὐτῶν (phthengomenai en kardiais autōn, “moaning in their hearts”) reflects either an alternate textual tradition or simple textual confusion. The Greek participle φθεγγόμεναι seems to reflect either: (1) the Qal participle הֹגוֹת (hogot) from הָגָה (hagah, “to moan”) as reflected in Jonathan and or (2) the Poel participle מְנֹהֲגוֹת (ménohagot, “moaning”) from II נָהַג (“to moan”) which appears in the previous line, pointing to a transposition of words between the two lines. Heb “upon their heart.” The term “their heart” (לִבְבֵהֶן, livvehen) is a figure of speech (synecdoche of the inner organ for the outer body part) representing their breasts/chests (e.g., Dan 4:16 [13]; see לֵבָב; 523 לֵבָב II.1). The singular noun is used collectively for all the maidservants as a whole, as the plural suffix indicates (see §7.2.1; R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 7, §2).
128. 48 The term “pool” (בְּרֵכָה, bérekhah) usually refers to a man-made artificial water reservoir fed by water aqueducts rather than to a natural pond ( ). For example, it is used in reference to man-made water reservoirs for the royal gardens (Eccl 2:6; Neh 2:14); man-made water reservoirs in Jerusalem, some of which were fed by aqueducts (2 Kgs 18:17; 20:20; Isa 7:3; 22:9, 11; 36:2; Neh 3:15, 16); the pool of Gibeon (2 Sam 2:13); the pool of Hebron (2 Sam 4:12); the pool of Samaria (1 Kgs 22:38); and the pools of Heshbon (Song 7:5). The pool of Siloam, built by Hezekiah and fed by the underground aqueduct known as Hezekiah’s Tunnel, is designated by the term בְּרֵכָה in 2 Kgs 20:20 and the Siloam Inscription (line 5). Nineveh was like a pool of water. This is an appropriate simile because Nineveh was famous for its artificial pools, many of which serviced the royal gardens. Two rivers also flowed through the city: the Tebiltu and the Khoser.
129. 49 Or “Nineveh [is] like a pool of water.” Either a present tense or a past tense verb may be supplied.
130. 50 The reads מִימֵי הִיא (mime hi’, “from her days”). The form מִימֵי is composed of the assimilated preposition מִן (min, “from”) prefixed to the plural construct of יוֹם (yom, “day”; see יוֹם). The preposition מִן is used temporally, marking the beginning of a continuous period (“since, from”; see מִן 2; 581 מִן 4.a). Several scholars suggest that the third-person independent pronoun הִיא (hi’) functions as a possessive genitive (“her”), a usage attested in Ugaritic, Akkadian, and elsewhere in Hebrew (2 Kgs 9:18; Isa 18:2; Nah 2:12). See K. J. Cathcart, Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic (), 100–101; §16.2 n. 9; T. Longman, “Nahum,” The Minor Prophets, 2:807. The plural of יוֹם (“day”) here denotes “lifetime” ( יוֹם 6.c). The phrase מִימֵי הִיא probably means “from the beginning of her days” or “throughout her days” or “during her lifetime.” This is similar to “from the beginning of your days” or “since your days began” or “as long as you live” (1 Sam 25:28; Job 38:12; see יוֹם 6.c; 597 מִן 2.a; 581 מִן 4.a). Several English versions adopt this: “throughout her days” (), “from earliest times” (), and “[Nineveh] of old” (). In contrast to the Masoretic vocalization, the consonantal text מִימֵי הִיא is rendered “her waters” by the and critical scholars. The reading of the (τὰ ὕδατα αὐτῆς, ta hudata autēs, “her waters”) reflects the alternate vocalization מֵימֶיהָ (memeha, “her waters”). The editors suggest emending the to מֵימֶיהָ (“her waters”). Saggs suggests that the original form was מֵימֶיהָא (memeha’, “her waters”) which he explains thus: מִימֶי is the plural construct of מָיִם (mayim, “waters”); הָא is the 3rd person feminine singular suffix on the plural noun, as in Ezek 41:15 ( §32.l); the yod (י) of Masoretic הִיא (hi’) is a secondary matres lectionis inserted into wrongly-divided and misunderstood ־הָא (W. H. F. Saggs, “Nahum and the Fall of Nineveh,” 20 [1969]: 220–25). These alternative approaches are followed by several English versions: “its water is draining away” (); “whose waters run away” (); and “its waters are fleeing” (). Heb “from days of her” or “from her days.”
131. 51 The translation takes the vav on וְהֵמָּה (véhemmah) in a temporal sense. This approach is also adopted by : “Now they flee.”
132. 52 Heb “they”; the referent (the people of Nineveh) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
133. 53 Or “fleeing away”; or (maintaining the imagery of the pool of water) “draining away.”
134. 54 The introductory phrase “she cries out” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
135. 55 Or “can turn [them] back.” The Hebrew verb פּנַהָ (panah, “to turn”) often describes the fearful flight from an attacking enemy army (Josh 7:12; Judg 20:42, 45, 47; Jer 46:5, 21; 47:3; 48:39; 49:8, 24). Nahum pictures the people of Nineveh fleeing from their attackers; nothing can be done to stop their fearful flight. The Hiphil participle מַפְנֶה (mafneh) may be taken in an intransitive (Jer 46:5, 21; 47:3; 49:24) or transitive sense (Judg 15:4; 1 Sam 10:9; Jer 48:39), i.e., “no one turns back” or “no one can turn [them] back,” respectively (see §27.2).
136. 56 The phrase “Her conquerors cry out” has been supplied from context.
137. 57 Heb “Emptiness and devastation and being laid waste.” Several English versions attempt to reproduce the assonance, alliteration, and paronomasia of three similarly sounding Hebrew words: בּוּקַָה וּמְבוּקָה וּמְבֻלָּקָה (buqah umévuqah umévullaqah; “Desolation, devastation, and destruction!”; : “Devastation, desolation, and destruction!”). Destruction, devastation, and desolation. The feminine form of each of these terms is used, referring to Nineveh (e.g., : “She is emptied! Yes, she is desolate and laid waste!”). Conquered cities are often personified as a desolated woman (e.g., Isa 47:1; 54:1).
138. 58 Heb “and melting heart.”
139. 59 Heb “and tottering of knees.”
140. 60 Heb “and shaking in all of the loins.”
141. 61 Heb “all of their faces.”
142. 62 Heb “gather” or “withdraw.” The Piel perfect קִבְּצוּ (qibbétsu) from קָבַץ (qavats, “to gather”) may be nuanced in the intensive sense “to gather glow; to glow [in excitement]” ( קבץ pi. 4) or the privative sense “to take away, withdraw” ( 868 קָבַץ Pi.3). The phrase קִבְּצוּ פָארוּר (qibbétsu pa’rur) is very difficult; it occurs only here and in Joel 2:6 which also describes the fearful facial reaction to an invading army. It probably means: (1) to grow red in fear; (2) to grow pale in fear; or (3) to turn ashen in fear. This difficult phrase may be translated by the modern English idioms: “every face grows pale” or “every face flushes red in fear.”
143. 63 The Hebrew term פָּארוּר (pa’rur) occurs only here and in Joel 2:6 where it also describes a fearful facial reaction. The meaning of פָּארוּר is debated and numerous etymologies have been suggested: (1) From פָּרוּר (parur, “cooking pot”; פָּרוּר): τὸ πρόσωπον πάντων ὡς πρόσκαυμα ξύτρας (to prosōpon pantōn hōs proskauma xutras, “all their faces are like a blackened/burned pot”); et facies omnium sicut nigredo ollae (“all their faces are like a black pot”); Jonathan (“covered with black like a pot”). This approach is adopted by the and : “the faces of them all gather blackness.” (2) From פְּאֵר (pé’er, “beauty”). Taking קָבַץ (qavats) in a private sense (“gather in”), several scholars propose: “to draw in beauty, withdraw color,” hence: “their faces grow pale” (, ); see K&D 26:192–93; A. Haldar, Studies in the Book of Nahum, 59. (3) From פָּרַר (parar, “break in pieces”). Due to fear, their faces have gathered wrinkles. (4) From IV פּרר (“to boil”), related to Arabic ’pr and npr (“to boil”): “their faces glow red in excitement” ( ). (5) From פּאר (“grey, ash grey”): “their faces turn grey” (J. J. Gluck, “parur—paʾrur: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia,” OTWSA 12 [1969]: 21–26). The translation appears to adopt this approach: “all faces turn ashen.”
144. 64 Or “What has become of the den of the lions?”
145. 65 The Masoretic form וּמִרְעֶה (umir’eh, “the feeding ground”) is supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls: ומרעה (4QpNah). It is also reflected in the reading ἡ νομή (he nomē, “the pasture”). The editors suggest emending to וּמְעָרָה (umé’arah, “the cave”), which involves the metathesis of ר (resh) and ע (ayin). This proposed emendation is designed to create a tighter parallelism with מְעוֹן (mé’on, “the den”) in the preceding line. However, this emendation has no textual support and conflicts with the grammar of the rest of the line: the feminine noun וּמְעָרָה (umé’arah, “the cave”) would demand a feminine independent pronoun instead of the masculine independent pronoun הוּא which follows. Nevertheless, several English versions adopt the emendation (, , , ), while others follow the reading of the (, , , ).
146. 66 Alternately, “the lion … [once] prowled there.” The construction שָׁם … אֲשֶׁר (’asher … sham) denotes “where … there” ( 81 אֲשֶׁר). This locative construction is approximately reflected in the interrogative ποῦ (pou, “where?”).
147. 67 The meaning of the term לָבִיא (lavi’) is debated. There are three basic approaches: (1) The reads לָבִיא, which is supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah) which preserves the consonantal form לביא (see 5:38). Most English versions render לָבִיא as “lioness,” the parallel term for אַרְיֵה (’aryeh, “lion”); so , , , ; in contrast, has “old lion.” Indeed, the noun לָבִיא (“lioness” or “lion”; 522 לָבִיא) occurs frequently in poetic texts (Gen 49:9; Num 23:24; 24:9; Deut 33:20; Isa 5:29; 30:6; Joel 1:6; Job 4:11; 38:39). The problem is the absence of a vav (ו) conjunction between the two nouns and the presence of a singular rather than plural verb: הָלַךְ אַרְיֵה לָבִיא (halakh ’aryeh lavi’, “lion [and] lioness prowled”). Furthermore, the term for “lioness” in the following verse is not לָבִיא but לִבְאָה (liv’ah; see *לִבְאָה; 522 לָבִיא). (2) Due to the grammatical, syntactical, and lexical difficulties of the previous approach, several scholars propose that the ’s לָבִיא is a Hiphil infinitive construct form shortened from לְהָבִיא (léhavi’, “to bring”); cf. Jer 27:7; 39:7; 2 Chr 31:10; בוא. Because the Hiphil of בּוֹא (bo’) can depict an animal bringing food to its dependents (cf. 1 Kgs 17:6), they treat the line thus: “where the lion prowled to bring [food]” (Ehrlich, Haldar, Maier). The Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah) reading לביא does not solve the problem because the pesher to this line uses לבוא (“to enter”), and it is not clear whether this is a literal translation or creative word-play: “Its pesher concerns Demetrius, king of Greece, who sought to enter (לבוא) Jerusalem” (col. 1, line 4). (3) The translation τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν (tou eiselthein, “would enter”) seems to have confused the consonantal form לביא with לבוא which it viewed as Qal infinitive construct לָבוֹא from בּוֹא (“to enter”). This approach is followed by at least one modern translation: “where the lion goes” ().
148. 68 The verb הָלַךְ (halakh, “to go, to walk”) is occasionally used of animals (1 Sam 6:12). Here it is nuanced “prowled” in the light of the hunting or stalking imagery in vv. 12–13.
149. 69 Or “and no one frightened [them].” Alternately, reflecting a different division of the lines, “Where the lion [and] lioness [once] prowled // the lion-cub—and no one disturbed [them].”
150. 70 Heb “as much as he needs.” The term בְּדי (bédi, “as much as he needs”; 2a) is composed of the preposition בְּ (bet) and the noun דַּי (day, “enough, what is required”). This idiom means” to satisfy the hunger of [something]” (cf. Jer 51:58; Hab 2:13).
151. 71 The words “to provide food” are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied in the translation for clarity.
152. 72 The Piel verb וַיְמַלֵּא (vayémalle’) is a preterite with vav (ו) consecutive which depicts a sequence of events.
153. 73 The term נְאֻם (né’um) is a fixed formulaic term meaning “oracle” (Isa 14:22–23; 17:3; 22:25; Jer 8:3; 25:29; 31:38; 49:26; Zech 13:2, 7).
154. 74 Traditionally, “the Lord of hosts.” The title pictures God as the sovereign king who has at his disposal a multitude of attendants, messengers, and warriors to do his bidding. In some contexts, like this one, the military dimension of his rulership is highlighted. In this case, the title pictures him as one who leads armies into battle against his enemies.
155. 75 The reads the 3rd person feminine singular suffix on a singular noun: רִכְבָּהּ (rikhbah, “her chariot”). However, the editors suggest emending to the 2nd person feminine singular suffix on a plural noun: רִכְבֵּךְ (rikhbekh, “your chariots”) due to the use of 2nd person feminine singular suffixes throughout this verse and the anomaly of the singular noun. On the other hand, the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah) read רובכה (“your abundance”) which is the plene spelling of רֹבְכָה (rovékhah). This reflects the transposition (metathesis) of ך (kaf) and ב (bet) in the consonantal forms רכבה and רבכה. The textual tradition attested at Qumran is reflected in the ’s πλῆθος σου (plēthos sou, “your abundance”) which reflects a reading of רֹבְכָה (“your abundance”) as well. It should be noted that the plene form of the 2nd person feminine singular suffix appears elsewhere in the of this verse: מַלְאָכֵכֵה (mal’akhekheh, “your messenger”). Although there is good evidence for the alternate traditions, the reading may be retained for three reasons: (1) The burning of enemy chariots was a common threat in ancient Near Eastern warfare (see D. R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, 60; K. J. Cathcart, “Treaty-Curses and the Book of Nahum,” 35 [1973]: 182). (2) The singular רֶכֶב (rekhev, “chariot”) is often used collectively to refer to all the chariots of a nation (Exod 14:7; Josh 11:4; 24:6; Judg 4:7, 13; 5:28). (3) The abrupt shift from the 2nd person feminine singular suffix on אֵלַיִךְ (’elayikh, “I am against you!”) to the 3rd person feminine singular suffix on רִכְבָּהּ (“her chariot”) is an example of a common poetic/stylistic device: heterosis of second to third person (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, [4.5]). The 2nd person feminine singular suffix in the translation above is used simply for smooth literary style. This is a good example of how sensitivity to figures of speech, ancient Near Eastern backgrounds, and syntax can prevent unnecessary textual emendations.
156. 76 Heb “with smoke.” The term “smoke” (עָשָׁן, ’ashan) is a figure of speech (metonymy of effect for the cause) representing the fire which produces the smoke (Josh 8:19–20; Isa 65:5; cf. Rev 14:11). In the translation this has been replaced with “fire” since most English readers would find the expression “to burn [something] with smoke” unfamiliar.
157. 77 The reads וּכְפִירַיִךְ (ukhéfirayikh, “and your young lions”), as reflected by the . The editors emend to וּגִיבֹּרַיִךְ (ugibborayikh, “and your warriors”); this lacks textual support and is unnecessary. The Assyrian warriors are pictured as young lions in Nah 2:11–13. The Assyrians often pictured themselves with lion imagery (see D. Marcus, “Animal Similes in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” 46 [1977]: 87).
158. 78 Heb “I will cut off your prey from the land.”
159. 79 The reading מַלְאָכֵכֵה (mal’akhekheh, “your messengers”) has a very unusual ending: the plural ending of the noun is spelled defectively (short spelling), while the 2nd person feminine singular pronominal suffix is spelled plene (long spelling); see §91.l. It is possible that the final ה (hey) is due to dittography with the first letter of the first word of the next verse, הוֹי (hoy, “Woe!”). On the other hand, the reads τὰ ἔργα σου (ta erga sou, “your deeds”) which reflects מַלְאֲכַיִךְ (mal’akhayikh, “your deeds”)—a confusion of מַלְאָךְ (mal’akh, “messenger”) for מְלָאכָה (méla’khah, “deed”) due to the unusual Hebrew ending here.