The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

General Editor for the Old Testament:—

A. F. KIRKPATRICK, D.D.

THE BOOKS OF

NAHUM, HABAKKUK

and

ZEPHANIAH,

with introduction and notes

by

THE REV. A. B. DAVIDSON, LL.D., D.D.

professor of hebrew, edinburgh.

edited for the syndics of the university press.

Cambridge:

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

1896

[All Rights reserved.]

PREFACE

by the

GENERAL EDITOR FOR THE OLD TESTAMENT

The present General Editor for the Old Testament in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges desires to say that, in accordance with the policy of his predecessor the Bishop of Worcester, he does not hold himself responsible for the particular interpretations adopted or for the opinions expressed by the editors of the several Books, nor has he endeavoured to bring them into agreement with one another. It is inevitable that there should be differences of opinion in regard to many questions of criticism and interpretation, and it seems best that these differences should find free expression in different volumes. He has endeavoured to secure, as far as possible, that the general scope and character of the series should be observed, and that views which have a reasonable claim to consideration should not be ignored, but he has felt it best that the final responsibility should, in general, rest with the individual contributors.

A. F. KIRKPATRICK.

Cambridge,

August, 1896.

CONTENTS

  I.  Introduction to Nahum

§ 1.  Birthplace of the Prophet

§ 2.  Occasion of the Prophecy

§ 3.  Integrity of the Prophecy

§ 4.  Contents of the Prophecy

  II.  Notes

  III.  Introduction to Habakkuk

§ 1.  The Prophet

§ 2.  The Prophecy

§ 3.  Integrity of the Prophecy

§ 4.  Contents of the Book

  IV.  Notes

  V.  Introduction to Zephaniah

§ 1.  The Prophet

§ 2.  Date of the Prophecy

§ 3.  Integrity of the Prophecy

§ 4.  Contents of the Prophecy

  VI.  Notes

  VII.  Appendix

Note 1.  The Fall of Nineveh

Note 2.  On Zephaniah 2:4  VIII.  Index

*** The Text adopted in this Edition is that of Dr Scrivener’s Cambridge Paragraph Bible. A few variations from the ordinary Text, chiefly in the spelling of certain words, and in the use of italics, will be noticed. For the principles adopted by Dr Scrivener as regards the printing of the Text see his Introduction to the Paragraph Bible, published by the Cambridge University Press.

INTRODUCTION

§ 1. Birthplace of the Prophet

The name Nahum (in some MSS. Nâhum) probably meant consoling or consoler, comforter (cf. Nahum 3:7). The name does not occur again in the Old Testament, though it is found in Luke 3:25, and in the Mishna, as well as in Phenician inscriptions.

The term “the Elkoshite” implies that the prophet belonged to a place named Elkosh, just as the appellation “the Morashtite” describes Micah as a native of Moresheth-Gath (Micah 1:1); cf. 1 Kings 11:29; 1 Kings 17:1; Jeremiah 29:24; Jeremiah 29:27. Elkosh has been identified (i) with the modern Elkush, a town lying two days’ journey north of Mosul (Nineveh); (ii) with a village in Galilee, the ruins of which were seen by Jerome; and (iii) with a place in the south-west of Judea, not far from Lachish. (i) In the first case Nahum would have been a descendant of some of the families of northern Israel carried captive by the Assyrians. In 2 Kings 17:6 (2 Kings 18:11) these captives are said to have been placed “in Halah, and on the Habor the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.” The Sept. reads “on Halah and Habor, rivers of Gozan, and in the mountains of the Medes.” The Habor is the well-known river rising near Nisibis and falling into the Euphrates at Circesium (not Carchemish); while Gozan is the province around it, to which belonged such cities as Haran and Reseph[1]. The situation of Ḥalaḥ is uncertain[2]. Winckler has suggested that for Ḥalaḥ we should read Baliḥ, a river also in Mesopotamia, further north than the Habor[3]. There is another Habor, which falls into the Tigris, considerably north of Elkush; this, however, is a small stream, and appears excluded by the designation “river of Gozan.” It is of less consequence to ascertain accurately the settlements of the captive Israelites, as the chief point of interest is whether Nahum was familiar with Nineveh and possibly an eyewitness of the operations against her, and this must be determined from his prophecy. The modern Elkush is a considerable town. The name looks Arabic, and if it were so would not be older than the seventh century a.d.; it might however be an Arabized ancient name. The place appears to be of considerable antiquity, though naturally all references to it are later than the Arabic era. The connexion of Nahum with it may very well be the result of a combination, due to the similarity of the name to the prophet’s native place and to the fact that he prophesied against Nineveh. Such traditions are apt to arise in Christian and Mohammedan circles. Of a similar kind is the name Nebi Yunus (the prophet Jonas) borne by a part of the ruins of Nineveh, and the Monastery of Job in the Hauran. The tradition of the prophet’s grave at Elkush is said by Assemani to go back to the 16th century. Layard describes the place as follows:

[1] Delitzsch, Paradies, p. 183 seq.

[2] Cf. Schrader, vol. i. pp. 267–8.

[3] Alttest. Untersuch. pp. 108–110.

“Alkosh is a very considerable Christian village. The inhabitants, who were formerly pure Chaldaeans, have been converted to Roman Catholicism. It contains, according to a very general tradition, the tomb of Nahum, the prophet—the Alkoshite as he is called in the introduction to his prophecies. It is a place held in great reverence by Mohammedans and Christians, but especially by Jews, who keep the building in repair, and flock here in great numbers at certain seasons of the year. The tomb is a simple plaster box, covered with green cloth, and standing at the upper end of a large chamber. On the walls of the room are slips of paper, upon which are written, in distorted Hebrew characters, religious exhortations, and the dates and particulars of the visits of various Jewish families. The house containing the tomb is a modern building. There are no inscriptions nor fragments of any antiquity about the place[4].”

[4] Nineveh and its Remains, i. p. 233, 3rd ed. 1849.

The prophet’s descriptions of the siege and capture of Nineveh are very graphic, but being predictive they are to some extent imaginative. They might certainly have well been written by one familiar with the situation of the city, though it may be doubted if there is anything which is absolutely conclusive. The knowledge which the prophet exhibits of No Amon appears little less precise. Certain terms are used which, if well understood, might turn the scale in favour of local knowledge, but they are obscure. Examples are Huzzab (Nahum 2:7), a word used of the queen; the military term sokek (Nahum 2:5), and the title tiphsar (Nahum 3:17), which however occurs again, Jeremiah 51:27. The phrase “river gates” (Nahum 2:6) is also of somewhat uncertain meaning, but in whatever sense it be taken a general knowledge of the situation of Nineveh would sufficiently explain its use. And the same is true of the references to the “brickmould” (Nahum 3:14), to “the merchants” which flocked to the city (Nahum 3:16), and to the masses of people drawn from every quarter that filled it (Nahum 2:8). On the other hand, if the prophet drew his descent from the ten tribes it is strange that he should reveal so little interest in them. It is Judah that engrosses his attention. It is Sennacherib that “imagined evil against the Lord” (Nahum 1:11), not Tiglath-pileser or Sargon. It is Judah that hears the good tidings of Nineveh’s downfall, and through which “the wicked one” shall no more pass (Nahum 1:15). There may be a reference to the northern kingdom in “Israel” (Nahum 2:2), but even if so, Israel is subordinated to Judah, and Judean prophets, like Jeremiah, also predict the restoration of the exiles of the north (Jeremiah 3:12). The right of ch. 1 to be regarded as an integral part of the prophecy is denied by some authors; at any rate, all the references in it appear to be to Judah (Nahum 1:11; Nahum 1:13; Nahum 1:15), and in the other chapters allusions, except that in Nahum 2:2 (properly part of ch. 1), are to the nations in general (Nahum 2:13, Nahum 3:4; Nahum 3:19).

(2) The Galilean tradition appears more precise. Jerome in the preface to his commentary on Nahum says: “Helkesei is still at this day a hamlet in Galilee, small indeed, and scarcely shewing traces by ruins of ancient buildings, but for all that known to the Jews, and pointed out to me by a guide.” The form Helkesei seems rather like a reproduction of the Heb. adjective, Elkoshite, than strictly the name of the place itself. But it would be unwarrantable for this reason to discredit the whole statement. Jerome, no doubt, saw the place which he describes; whether its identification with the birthplace of the prophet was an inference of his own, or a suggestion of his guide, or a current tradition is not stated, though the last is the most natural meaning. It may be inferred perhaps from the name Capernaum (Kephar Nahum, village of Nahum) that a tradition did exist of the prophet’s connexion with Galilee. Elcese has been supposed to be El Kauze, two and a half hours south-west of Tibnin, between Ramieh (Rama in Naphtali) and Bint Jebeil. Other references to the Galilean origin of the prophet appear to be based on Jerome’s statement, and can scarcely be adduced in corroboration of it. If a native of Galilee, Nahum would be a descendant of some of the families left in the land; but if an Israelite of the North, his failure to shew any interest in his countrymen remains, as before, singular. Favoured however by the decline of the Assyrian power Josiah pushed his influence into the northern kingdom in the interests of Reform, and Nahum might have attached himself to Judah. The appearance of a prophet in northern Israel at this time has little probability, and certainly the references in ch. 1, if nothing else were known of Nahum, would suggest that he was himself a Judean. From John 7:52 it may be inferred that the Galilean tradition was little known in the first century.

(3) There is a tradition to the effect that Nahum was a native of the south. This is found in the work On the Prophets, how they died and where they are buried, usually ascribed, though perhaps wrongly, to Epiphanius, a native of the south of Judah, and subsequently (a.d. 367) bishop of Constantia (Salamis) in Cyprus. Epiphanius writes of Nahum: “He came from Elkesei beyond Jordan toward Begabar, of the tribe of Simeon.” The tribe of Simeon was located in the south-west of Judah, and had no connexion with the region beyond Jordan. The text of the passage is evidently corrupt In. 1855 Tischendorf published two other recensions of the work of Epiphanius. In one of them the passage runs: “Nahum, son of Elkesaios, was of Jesbe, of the tribe of Simeon”; and in the other: “Nahum was of Elkesem beyond Betabarem, of the tribe of Simeon.” In neither does the phrase “beyond Jordan” appear. Further welcome light was cast upon the passage by Prof. Nestle of Tübingen from Syriac sources. In the translation of the Old Testament into Syriac, made by Paul of Tella in 617, the notices of the prophets current in their collective form under the name of Epiphanius are appended by the translator to the several prophets to whom they respectively refer. In the notice of Nahum the Syriac reads: “Nahum was of Elkosh, beyond Bêt Gabrê, of the tribe of Simeon.” This may be assumed to be the genuine reading. The Syriac Bêt Gabrê is Beit-Jibrîn, the ancient Eleutheropolis, N.E. of Lachish. The phrase “beyond Beit-Jibrin” is to be explained by the position of the place in which the writer lived or which he reckoned from, though this is unknown[5].

[5] Zeitschr. des Deutsch. Pal. Vereins, i. 122 seq., translated in Quarterly Statement of Pal. Exp. Fund, 1879, p. 136 seq. Cf. G. A. Smith, Hist. Geography, p. 231, note 1.

These conflicting traditions leave the prophet’s birthplace quite uncertain.

§ 2. Occasion of the Prophecy

There are two fixed points between which the date of the prophecy must lie: the capture of No Amon or Thebes by the armies of Assurbanipal, cir. 664–2, and the destruction of Nineveh by the Medes, cir. 608–6. Some event or some combination of powers menacing to Nineveh, falling within these fifty or sixty years, must have given occasion to the oracle, for the catastrophe to No Amon referred to can hardly be any other than its capture by the Assyrians. In ch. Nahum 3:8 the prophet asks Nineveh, Art thou better than No Amon, which also had the waters for a rampart? And it has been argued by Schrader[6] and others that the fall of No Amon must have been recent and still fresh in men’s memory. The argument is not conclusive. The prophet Zechariah (Zechariah 14:5) refers to the earthquake under Uzziah, though he probably lived centuries later. The history of Egypt was always followed closely by Israel, and events of interest are alluded to very long after they took place, as for example the building of the city of Zoan (Numbers 13:22). On the other hand Wellhausen thinks that the question of the prophet would have something illogical in it, if reference were to the fall of No Amon before the Assyrians, for its fall might seem a proof of their might. Hebrew prophets reasoned differently: they considered less the immediate agents than the supreme agent, Jehovah. It was He that overthrew No Amon, as He would overthrow Nineveh. In answer however to Schrader it may be said that it would certainly be easier to overlook or forget the immediate agents, the Assyrians, if No Amon’s fall were an event comparatively distant.

[6] Vol. ii. 149 ff.

Other scholars (W. R. Smith, ‘Nahum,’ Encyc. Brit.) have expressed the opinion that no particular foe of Nineveh was in the eye of the prophet, whose oracle reposes entirely on general principles of the divine government of the world. This view appears based mainly on ch. 1, and would reduce ch. 2, 3 to very artificial rhetoric. The impression conveyed by these chapters is that in the time of the prophet Nineveh was menaced by some actual foe; and the general impression is confirmed by the particular words, ‘The hammer is come up against thee’ (Nahum 2:1). There are some prophecies which appear suggested just by the moral condition of the world: injustice and wrong doing were so rampant that the prophet could not repress a presentiment of imminent judgment (Isaiah 2, 3, 6); but usually prophecies are suggested by some great movement among the nations, in which Jehovah’s presence is already seen.

Events which might possibly have given occasion to the prophet’s oracle are these: (1) the sanguinary struggle between Assurbanipal and his brother Shamas-sum-ukin, whom he had appointed viceroy of Babylon (cir. 652–48). (2) The inroad of the Scythians (cir. 628?). (3) The attack on Assyria by Phraortes (Fravartis) king of the Medes, who fell in the campaign (cir. 626). (4) The renewed war with Assyria and siege of Nineveh under Cyaxares (Uvakhshathra), the son and successor of Phraortes (cir. 624, Herod. i. 103). Cyaxares is said to have been forced to raise the siege owing to the invasion of his own country by the Scythians. There may be some confusion of dates, but Scythian influence on Media appears substantiated by the fact, on which scholars seem agreed, that Astyages (Ishtuvêgu), the next and last king of the Medes, was a Scythian. (5) The final siege of Nineveh by Cyaxares and the Medes, before which the city fell (608–6). It is a point not easy to decide whether the Chaldean Nabopolassar, who had succeeded in seating himself upon the throne of Babylon since 625, lent active military support to the Medes in the siege, or merely looked benevolently on while Cyaxares pulled the chestnuts out of the fire.

With the exception of (1) and (5) little is known of the events named beyond their mere occurrence. An actual or threatened attack of the Scythians on Assyria (2) is very much a hypothesis, not improbable but without historical support. If Nahum was a native of Assyria the advance of these hordes from the north might have given occasion to his prophecy; if he belonged to Palestine he would in all probability, like Zephaniah and Jeremiah, have been more occupied with the destinies of his own country than with those of Nineveh.

With the death of Assurbanipal (cir. 626) the Assyrian empire began to break up. The Chaldeans of South Babylonia were able to seat their prince upon the throne of Babylon in 625. Possibly Assyria came to terms with the Chaldean usurper and acknowledged him as viceroy, and Nabopolassar might not trouble himself much about a name. About the same time the Median kingdom which had been gradually consolidating itself felt strong enough to enter upon a struggle with Assyria. This movement was more vital as it was an attack upon Assyria proper. The old lion, though enfeebled, proved himself still dangerous; Phraortes was defeated and fell in battle. As Cyaxares succeeded his father and continued the war with Assyria, in which he had such success that he was able to lay siege to the capital, only a short time can have intervened between the events marked (3) and (4). Either might have furnished occasion for the prophecy of Nahum, though the successful campaign of Cyaxares was more likely to inspire such hopes as the prophet expresses, and the fame of it would be more certain to penetrate to the west, supposing Nahum a prophet of Judah. Ewald pronounces in favour of the attempt of Phraortes, as it was the earliest attack upon Assyria (Nahum 1:12), while Kuenen and others think the siege of Cyaxares has in it more elements of probability. It is obvious that from our ignorance of the circumstances the most that can be said of either of these events or of any others is that they were of such a kind that they might have been the occasion of the prophet’s oracle.

The fratricidal war between Assurbanipal and Shamas-sum-ukin, the Babylonian viceroy (652–48), has been thought by others the most probable occasion of the prophecy. There arose at this time a wide and powerful combination against the empire. The Chaldeans of south Babylon, Elam and other peoples allied themselves with Shamas-sum-ukin, and, though the western states for the most part remained quiet, Tyre and some Arabian tribes threw themselves into the struggle. The movement, however, was rather a rebellion and war of independence on the part of Babylon and the Chaldean states than an attack upon the Assyrian empire. Assyria proper was not seriously menaced. From the first the Assyrian king assumed the offensive and carried the war into the territory of his opponents, on whom he inflicted a series of crushing defeats. Babylon was invested and reduced to such straits that the populace maddened by famine seized Shamas-sum-ukin and burned him alive (Tiele, Bab.-Assyr. Gesch., p. 376 seq.). The incident is one of the most bloody in the annals of Assyria, but the extraordinary promptitude, and it must be added ferocity, with which the revolt was stamped out shewed that the spirit and vigour of the empire was as yet little impaired. Such a prophecy as Nahum’s could hardly have been uttered at any period of the struggle, except perhaps just at the moment when rumours of the coalition began to circulate, or, at the furthest, before the Assyrian armies took the field. The prophecy all through suggests some danger much more vital and pressing.

It is usually assumed (e.g. by Kuenen) that the siege of Nineveh by Cyaxares, which ended in its capture, is too late to have been the occasion of Nahum’s oracle. The exact date of the fall of Nineveh is not ascertained; it must have been cir. 608–6. But in 608 the fatal field of Megiddo on which Josiah fell put Palestine into the hands of Necho. The prophecy could hardly be later than this date. It is not to be forgotten, however, that Nineveh sustained the siege of the Medes for two years, and no doubt the invaders, as the language of Nahum implies (Nahum 3:12-13), met with resistance more or less prolonged before they were able to penetrate to the capital and invest it. How long the war lasted is quite uncertain. In Nahum 1:13 reference is made to the “yoke” of Assyria, and this yoke it is thought could hardly have been felt to be galling in the years after 621, when Josiah was exercising a free hand even in northern Israel. The historical background of ch. 1 is very indefinite. The only event of history referred to is the invasion of Sennacherib, who is “the wicked one,” type or genius of the Assyrian monarchy. Apart from the other difficulties of Nahum 1:13 its language is very general; and, nominally at any rate, up to 608 Judah was still a vassal of Assyria. The historian of the Kings in narrating Necho’s invasion of this date still says that “he went up against the king of Assyria” (2 Kings 23:29). It would therefore be unwise to exclude the final siege of Nineveh from view. A date 610–8 for the prophecy, is well within the range of possibility. If the “distress” of Nineveh referred to were the final one (Nahum 1:9; Nahum 1:12) the descriptions of the prophecy would acquire a reality and naturalness which they otherwise want, and the general characteristics of Hebrew prophecy would be more truly conserved. The language of Wellhausen is entirely justified when he says that “but for Herodotus it would never have come into anybody’s head to doubt that the prophecy of Nahum and the downfall of Nineveh coincided with one another” (Skizzen, v. 156). He refers particularly to Nahum 3:18-19; and remarks that the last verse of the Book almost suggests that Nineveh had already fallen.

The closing years of the Assyrian empire are covered with obscurity. Two rulers followed Assurbanipal, though little is known of them beyond their names. The family of Sargon, the last Assyrian dynasty, is as follows:

  b.c. 722  Sargon.

  705  Sennacherib.

  681  Esarhaddon.

  668  Assurbanipal.

  626  Two other rulers, Sinsharishkun (Sarakos) and Assur-itil-ili-ukin[7].

[7] Winckler, Altorient. Unters. p. 63. Others as Tiele, p. 413, read the names somewhat differently, Belzikirishkun and Asurêtililâni.

  608–6 Fall of Nineveh.

§ 3. Integrity of the Prophecy

In recent times the question has been raised by some writers whether ch. 1 be an integral part of the prophecy. A remark of G. Frohnmeyer cited by Delitzsch on Psalms 9 to the effect that there were traces of an alphabetical arrangement in Nahum 1:3-7, appears to have first drawn the attention of scholars to the subject. Bickell, who has devoted much pains to the elucidation of Hebrew metre, has given reconstructions of the chapter at various times from 1880 to 1894, founded on the idea that Nahum 1:2 to Nahum 2:3 (A.V. Nahum 2:2) is an alphabetical poem of 22 distichs, though so confused and mutilated in transcription that the alphabetical structure has almost disappeared. In his latest tract the author gives a full history of his previous efforts, which need not be recounted here[8]. Another reconstruction on the same lines has been offered by H. Gunkel, though the readings suggested by him often differ widely from those of Bickell[9].

[8] Beiträge zur Semit. Metrik. Das Alphab. Lied in Nahum 1:2 to Nahum 2:3 (separate print from the Sitzungsberichte of the Imper. Acad. of Sciences of Vienna). Vienna, 1894.

[9] Zeitschr. für Alttest. Wissensch., 1893, p. 223. The author has returned to the subject in his recent work Schöpfung und Chaos, p. 102 seq. Gött. 1895.

On the one hand it must be acknowledged that the text of ch. 1 appears to be in some disorder. In some places, e.g. Nahum 2:10; Nahum 2:12, the language is unusual both in diction and syntax; while the repeated alternation of address to Nineveh and Judah, ch. Nahum 1:12 to Nahum 2:3, is far from natural, and Nahum 2:2 can hardly be in its original place between Nahum 2:1; Nahum 2:3 (see notes). The historical background of the chapter seems rather indefinite, the only event alluded to being Sennacherib’s invasion, and this is touched upon as if it were distant and the only incident in Assyrian history still borne in mind. The words “the wicked one shall no more pass through thee” (Nahum 1:15) need not refer to any recent aggression, cf. Joel 3:17; Zechariah 9:8. Further, the reference to Nineveh, Zechariah 9:8, “the place thereof” (cf. Zechariah 9:11) is introduced in a way altogether unprepared for. In manner, too, ch. 1 differs much from the other chapters. Neither is the long theological introduction in the usual style of the prophets, though perhaps not much weight is due to this, as it is only in breadth that the passage differs from the briefer allusions to the Theophany in Amos 1:2 and Micah 1:3-4.

On the other hand, considering the violence necessary to force the passage into the strait jacket of an alphabetical form some may be inclined to ask whether the supposed traces of alphabetical arrangement in the beginning of the chapter be not accidental. An alphabetical arrangement can be imposed upon the passage without very extensive manipulation of the text down to Micah 1:7 (the letter Teth), but further verses cannot be discovered without frequent transposition of words and clauses, nor even without considerable rewriting of the passage by substitution of one word for another, and the insertion of words to which there is nothing in the present text or the versions to correspond. The restorations, too, proposed by Bickell are often extraordinarily feeble and wanting in taste (e.g. Micah 1:10; Micah 1:12). The general effect of the restoration offered is to eliminate from the piece all reference to Nineveh, and leave it a general Eschatological poem, such as it is supposed very late writers delighted to construct. It would perhaps also follow that in the amalgamation of the passage with Nahum the real beginning of his prophecy in ch. 2 had been thrust out.

Even if it should be assumed that an alphabetical poem lurks under ch. 1, the attempt to restore it, just as in Psalms 10, can never be more than an academic exercise. Naturally, this is not the place to pursue the question further, though it could not be altogether passed over in silence.

§ 4. Contents of the Prophecy

Ch. 1 (1) Manifestation of the Avenging God. His wrath is poured out like fire. Who shall stand before His indignation? (Nahum 1:2-6). (2) He will make an utter end of the enemies of His people (Nahum 1:7-15).

Ch. 2 (1) Brilliant description of the besiegers, the siege and the defence (Nahum 2:1-5). (2) Defence is in vain: opening of the river gates; capture of the queen and harem; flight of the populace and sack of the city, which is left a desolate ruin (Nahum 2:6-10). (3) Exultation of the prophet over the destruction of the ancient den of lions (Nahum 2:11-13).

Ch. 3 (1) New threat against the bloody city. The harlot who sold nations by her witchcrafts shall be exposed before the eyes of the nations. Who will be found to bemoan her? (Nahum 3:1-7). (2) Shall she have a better fate than No Amon, which also had the waters for a rampart? (Nahum 3:8-11). (3) Her outer defences fall before the invader as ripe figs fall into the mouth when the tree is shaken. Let her make ready for the siege (Nahum 3:12-15). (4) Her countless merchants shall be like the young locusts which cast their skin and fly away, and her officers like the locusts which sit torpid on the hedges in the cold, but when the sun rises they spread their wings and disappear. All that hear her fate shall clap their hands over her, for she has been the enemy of mankind (Nahum 3:16-19).

The prophet’s language is forcible and graphic, and his descriptions condensed and brilliant. He is animated by the intensest hatred of Assyria. In ch. 1 there are elements of patriotism in this feeling; in ch. 2, 3, it is purer and simply human. The prophecy is the voice of the human mind expressing its revolt against the spirit and deeds of the brutal foe of the human race, and might almost have come from the heart of any of the oppressed nationalities trodden under the foot of Assyria. It is the blood, the wiles and demonic witchcrafts (Nahum 3:1-4), and the spirit of the wild beast (Nahum 2:11-13) that in the name of mankind the prophet appeals against; and if he adds the traffic and riches and luxury of Nineveh, it is only to complete the picture of the immoral spirit of the people. This universal voice of humanity is no new thing in Hebrew prophecy; it is heard in Amos 1, 2; even more distinctly in a contemporary of Nahum, Habakkuk 1:12-17, and all down history, as in Isaiah 14:5-8; Isaiah 47:7-15, and many psalms. And the prophet is assured that the voice of mankind is also the voice of God: “Behold, I am against thee, saith the Lord of Hosts, and I will cut off thy prey from the earth, and the voice of thine emissaries shall no more be heard” (Nahum 2:13).

Nahum differs from previous prophets, and even from some prophets of his own age, such as Zephaniah and Jeremiah, in making no allusion to the sin of his own people. The same remarkable peculiarity characterizes in great measure the prophecy of Habakkuk, a prophet of the same period. See Habakkuk, Introduction, § 2 and § 4.

Books referred to in the following notes are:

Sayce, Assyria; its princes, priests and people (Tract Society).

Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions, 2 vols. (English Translation).

Tiele, Babylonisch-Assyrische Geschichte, 1886.

Billerbeck-Jeremias, Der Untergang Nineveh’s, 1895. (The joint authors are Adolf Billerbeck and Alfred Jeremias.)