Nahum 2:5

Footnotes

1. 31 Heb “he”; the referent (the commander) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
2. 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” ().
3. 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.”
4. 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.”
5. 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.
6. 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.”
7. 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).