ZEPHANIAH

INTRODUCTION

§ 1. The Prophet

The name Zephaniah appears to mean, He whom Jehovah protects, lit. has hid. The words used in ch. Zephaniah 1:4, “I will cut off the remnant of Baal from this place,” shew that the prophet lived in Jerusalem. He is familiar with the different localities in the capital, as the Fish gate, the Second Quarter, and the Maktesh, apparently the quarter of the merchants (Zephaniah 1:10-11), and with the various classes inhabiting the city; and his picture of the social and religious practices prevailing among the people is drawn from observation (Zephaniah 1:4-8; Zephaniah 1:12).

In ch. Zephaniah 1:1 it is said that the prophet was the great-great-grandson of Hezekiah. It is not usual to carry the genealogy of a prophet higher up than his father: Isaiah, for example, is called the son of Amoz, Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, Hosea the son of Beeri, and similarly in most cases. There was, therefore, probably some reason for carrying the descent of Zephaniah back through four generations. Such a reason would appear if Hezekiah, the highest link in the chain, were the king of that name. That the words “king of Judah” are not added after Hezekiah is of little consequence. His name was too well known to need such an addition, and as the words “king of Judah” had to follow the name of Josiah, their repetition would have been awkward in style.

The objection has been urged that, as Josiah was third in descent from Hezekiah, if Zephaniah was the fourth in descent from the same ancestor, the two could hardly have been contemporaries (ch. Zephaniah 1:1). The objection is not fatal, though perhaps Zephaniah could not have been of an age to prophesy at an early period of Josiah’s reign. From the dates given in the Book of Kings (2 Kings 21:1; 2 Kings 21:19) it appears that Manasseh was 45 years of age when his son Amon was born. This was probably an unusually late age, for Amon’s own son, Josiah, must have been born when he was 16 (2 Kings 21:19; 2 Kings 22:1). If Amariah, therefore, was a brother of Manasseh, he may very well have had a grandson contemporary with Manasseh’s son Amon, or even older than he. There is nothing, consequently, against the supposition that it was at this point that an additional generation came in in the line of Zephaniah’s descent. The prophet may have been about the same age as Josiah himself, or even some years older. When Jeremiah began to prophesy in 626 Josiah was 21, and 26 at the time of his great Reform. Zephaniah may have been one of the “prophets” (2 Kings 23:2) who supported this reform, though neither his name nor that of Jeremiah is mentioned.

The royal descent of Zephaniah, though not certain, is supported by plausible grounds. The prophet condemns the members of the royal house for their aping of foreign manners, and for the high-handed wrongs practised by their retainers. It would be interesting if the condemnation came from one who belonged to the royal family himself, though not at all strange, considering how widely the sentiments of Josiah differed from those of his grandfather Manasseh and of his father Amon.

§ 2. Date of the Prophecy

In the Title to the prophecy (Zephaniah 1:1) Zephaniah is said to have prophesied in the days of Josiah. Josiah reigned b.c. 639–608, and his Reform, consequent on the discovery of the Book of the Law in the Temple (2 Kings 22, 23), was inaugurated in the 18th year of his reign, b.c. 621. The prophet’s description of the state of religion and manners in his day, the syncretism and idolatry (Zephaniah 1:1-4), the high-handed injustice of the ruling officials (Zephaniah 1:8 ff.), and the general corruption of all classes (Zephaniah 3:1-7), points to a time before Josiah’s reform. No doubt Jeremiah assails similar abuses at a time much later. But most of Jeremiah’s prophecies belong to the reigns of Josiah’s successors, when his reforms were allowed to fall into abeyance and former practices to some extent reasserted themselves. The phrase “I will cut off the remnant of Baal” might suggest that a partial reform had already been introduced. Instead of “remnant of Baal” the Sept. reads “the names of Baal.” But, apart from this reading, “remnant of Baal” may mean “false worship wholly.” In 2 Chronicles 34:3 it is stated that Josiah’s efforts in the direction of reform began in his 12th year. It is possible that Zephaniah might allude to this earlier movement when he speaks of the remnant of Baal, though on the whole the most likely sense of the phrase is, “every vestige of false worship.” In any case the prophecy would precede Josiah’s final reform in 621.

The burden of the Book is “the day of the Lord,” the judgment of God upon the whole earth. The day of the Lord is a day of darkness and supernatural terrors, but also a day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities. The judgment is executed partly by instruments whom the Lord has consecrated for that end. It is a sacrifice, and the guests are already bidden. Israel is the sacrifice, and the guests are those whom the Lord has called to consume it. It is obvious that in the phrase, “He hath sanctified his guests,” the prophet refers to some particular people, who, he anticipates, will execute the judgment of God on Israel (Isaiah 13:3 ff.). It was the movements of this people, the report of them and the alarm they were creating among the nations, that awoke the presentiment in the prophet’s mind that Jehovah was about to use them for the chastisement of Israel and of the world. The Chaldeans could hardly be the people in the prophet’s view, for, though Nabopolassar succeeded in 625 in placing the crown of Babylon on his brow, his kingdom was still a dependency of Assyria, and probably confined to the southern half of Babylonia. Assyria was still mistress of the West, and there was nothing in the history of the Chaldeans nor in their position at the time to suggest that they would be a menace to the world.

In a useful essay on Zephaniah[16], Schwally suggests that the Egyptians are the people whom the prophet has in view. The suggestion is not a happy one. As the prophets represent the “day of the Lord” it is a judgment upon the known world, upon Israel and the historical nations lying within its horizon of vision; and the nation that executes the judgment is some fierce and wild people, emerging from the far-off and unknown regions of the earth, the report of which only has reached the historical nations. In the earliest chapters of Isaiah it may be doubtful if any nation be regarded as the Lord’s instrument of judgment; the “day of the Lord” seems altogether a moral presentiment: the evil of mankind and their insensibility to the sovereignty of Jehovah is so great that the Lord, the King, must interpose to bring Himself to the knowledge of men. Even if somewhat later the Assyrians be in the prophet’s mind, the Assyrians at this time were still an unknown people, at least to Judah. In Isaiah 13 the nation associated with the day of the Lord is the Medes, a terrible and ruthless people “from a far country, from the end of heaven” (Isaiah 13:5). And in Ezekiel 38, 39 the nation is Gog, a people from the uttermost regions of the north, and the prophet appears to identify this nation with the foe prophesied of in Zephaniah, whose prediction he regards as still awaiting fulfilment (Ezekiel 38:17). A historical nation like Egypt, which had always lain within Israel’s horizon, was not fitted to be the executor of Jehovah’s judgment upon the known world, not to mention that in the present case Cush, which either means Egypt or includes it, has itself to bear the judgment (Zephaniah 2:12)[17].

[16] Zeitschr. für Alttest. Wissenschaft, 1890, Heft 2.

[17] Schwally, however, denies the authenticity of the verse.

In the second half of the 7th century the Scythians appeared in western Asia, and for a number of years spread terror and confusion among the nations. They broke into Palestine and penetrated as far as Egypt, though Psammetichus (b.c. 663–610) is said to have saved his country from their ravages by bribing them to retire. It is in all likelihood to this people that Zephaniah alludes. The date of their appearance in Palestine cannot be ascertained with precision, although the beginning of the last quarter of the century may be taken as an approximate date. Wellhausen suggests that the words in ch. Zephaniah 2:3, “it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the Lord’s anger,” may have been written after it was seen that the invaders were following the coast road, and it was hoped that Jerusalem would escape. There is nothing in the prophet’s language to support this view. It is certainly more natural to suppose that the prophecy belongs to the time before the actual appearance of the enemy in Palestine. The foe from the North of the earlier chapters of Jeremiah is probably the same terrible people, and the imposing though somewhat vague pictures of them given by both prophets shew that they drew from rumour rather than from actual acquaintance (Zephaniah 1:14-18). The order in which the nations are named in ch. 2 cannot be taken as indicating the line of march followed by the invaders. This order is Philistia, Moab and Ammon, Cush, and finally Nineveh; while the line of march would have given Philistia and then Cush or Egypt. Neither can it be supposed that the prophet’s view was that Moab and Ammon would suffer from the back-wave of the retreating Scythians, because here again Cush is named after Moab and Ammon. It would be more natural to suppose that, speaking when only rumours of the approaching foe had reached him, the prophet anticipated that they would follow the two great roads, that on the Mediterranean coast and that on the other side of the Jordan, or that the wave of invasion would submerge the whole country from the sea to the desert. In enumerating the nations the order followed by the prophet is west (Philistia), east (Moab), south (Cush), north (Nineveh), and no principle is to be detected in the order any more than in Amos 1, where the order is north-east (Damascus), south-west (Gaza), north-west (Tyre), south-east (Edom).

§ 3. Integrity of the Prophecy

While ch. 1 is universally admitted to be the writing of Zephaniah, several scholars have recently expressed serious doubts in regard to ch. 2 and 3. Stade[18] assigns ch. 3 to the post-Exile age, and is suspicious of some things in ch. 2, viz. Amos 1:1-3; Amos 1:11. In his Essay already alluded to Schwally concludes that ch. 3 belongs to the post-Exile age, and ch. Zephaniah 2:5-12 to the period of the Exile; only Zephaniah 2:13-15 can be ascribed to Zephaniah, and possibly Zephaniah 2:1-4. In a well-reasoned paper on Habakkuk and Zephaniah[19], Budde argues for the genuineness of Zephaniah 2:1-3, Zephaniah 3:1-5; Zephaniah 3:7-8; Zephaniah 3:6 (in this order), 11–13; rejecting Zephaniah 2:4-15 and Zephaniah 3:9-10; Zephaniah 3:14-20. Kuenen finds no difficulty except with regard to Zephaniah 3:14-20, which he assigns to a later date; while Driver in his Introduction raises no questions in respect of any part of the Book. In regard to Zephaniah 3:14-20 Driver would probably repeat the line of observation which he adopts in reference to Micah 7:7-20 (p. 313), as the two passages have many similarities.

[18] History, i. 644, note 3.

[19] Die Bücher Habakkuk und Sephanja, Stud. u. Kritiken, 1893, p. 383 ff.

The present is not the place to enter into the questions raised with any minuteness. The general ground on which the passages named above are denied to Zephaniah is that a phraseology and a circle of ideas appear in them which are characteristic of the Exile and post-Exile periods, to which therefore they are to be assigned; and, as regards ch. Zephaniah 2:4-15 in particular, that the rather keen nationalistic spirit and the resentment against the neighbouring peoples displayed in the passage is not in harmony with the profound sense of the sinfulness of his own people shewn by the prophet in ch. 1.

(1) With regard to ch. Zephaniah 2:1-3 it may be remarked that, though the text may be in some confusion, the idea expressed by the passage is necessary to complete the thought of ch. 1. The prophets do not usually content themselves with bare threats or announcements of judgment. Neither do they ever contemplate a complete destruction of the people. The purpose of the judgment is not to exterminate, but to purify (Isaiah 4:4), and even when it appears imminent it may be averted by repentance and amendment (Jeremiah 7:5 ff; Jeremiah 18:7; Joel 2:12 ff.). Such expressions as “all ye meek of the earth,” “seek meekness” (Zephaniah 2:3), have been thought suspicious on the ground that the use of “meek,” “meekness” as religious terms, is characteristic of an age later than that of Zephaniah. But unquestionably the idea that humility before God is the right attitude of men is one of the oldest ideas in Scripture (Exodus 10:3, J) and one of those most frequently insisted on by the prophets (Isaiah 2:11; Micah 6:8), and the argument that, though this be true, the term “meek” is not yet used in early writings to express the religious idea is rather precarious. In Numbers 12:3 (E) the expression is used of Moses, and in Isaiah 11:4 the phrase “the meek of the earth” bears the same sense as it does Zephaniah 2:3. Comp. also Amos 8:4.

(2) Objections have been taken to ch. Zephaniah 2:4-15 as a whole or to parts of it, e.g. the prophecy against Moab and Ammon, Zephaniah 2:8-10, and the passage has been assigned to the period of the Exile. In answer to those who would reject the whole passage it may be urged that it was to be expected that Zephaniah, who foresees the approaching day of the Lord, and a universal judgment to be executed by the terrible foe from the north, should mention some nations by name, just as Amos does ch. 1, 2. It is true that he is mainly occupied with the condition of his own people, whose indifference and sin and idolatry must for ever be swept away that a new era may arise. And it is also true that in some other passages where the day of the Lord and a general judgment is announced the judgment concentrates itself upon a particular nation, on Babylon in Isaiah 13, and on Israel Isaiah 2, 3. But both in ch. 1 and ch. 3 the view of Zephaniah remains general, e.g. Zephaniah 1:14-18 and Zephaniah 3:8.

Further, the passage Zephaniah 2:4-15 appears to have no points of contact with the period of the Exile. A threat of God’s judgment upon Nineveh during the Exile would be very strange, considering that Nineveh was in ruins twenty years before the Exile began. It may be admitted that the prophecy against Nineveh is somewhat general and wants the power of Nahum’s impassioned oratory, but the style of Zephaniah throughout has little of the vigour of that of Nahum, though in religious depth and earnestness of moral tone he greatly excels the other prophet.

There is one point which rather tells against dating Zephaniah 2:4-15 in the period of the Exile. The passage does not allude to Edom. But it is highly improbable that a threat of judgment on the nations, uttered during the Exile, would fail to include Edom. On the other hand if the passage belong to the time of Zephaniah, the parallel between it and Deuteronomy in the view taken of the neighbouring nations is what might have been looked for. In Deuteronomy 23:3-8 Moab and Ammon are also strongly denounced, while Edom is spoken of with kindness.

As no movements among the nations are known late in the Exile which would suggest an impending attack upon the nations named in Zephaniah 2:4-15, those who assign the passage to this period are compelled to regard it as totally unreal. It is a mere foil to ch. 1, with no historical foundation. It is the production of a writer who desired to relieve the dark picture of judgment on Israel by presenting a companion one shewing a judgment no less terrible upon the nations. It was really of no consequence what heathen nations were named; the author felt safe in devoting Moab and Ammon, Israel’s old relentless foes, to the vengeance of God at any time. This is a view of the passage which serious students will not take without good evidence.

Ch. Zephaniah 2:4-15 appears to be a unity, being written in elegiac measure. In some verses the rhythm is imperfect. The same rhythmical irregularity is observable in most of the elegiac passages in the prophets. Either the poet did not succeed completely in giving expression to the rhythmical movement, or, what is more likely, the verses have been mutilated in transcription or loaded with additions. It is quite possible that Zephaniah 2:4-15 have in various places been expanded.

(3) No reasonable objection can be urged against the genuineness of ch. Zephaniah 3:1-7. The passage is characterized by the same moral earnestness that distinguishes ch. Zephaniah 1:2 to Zephaniah 2:3. It is altogether improbable that such epithets as “rebellious and polluted” and “oppressive” should be applied to Jerusalem except in the pre-Exile period. Again, Zephaniah 2:11-13 have also every mark of genuineness. They describe the Jerusalem of the future, purified by judgment. And as was to be expected the picture is in contrast, point by point, to the Jerusalem of the prophet’s day (Zephaniah 2:1-7), just as the Jerusalem of Isaiah’s dreams (Isaiah 1:26), righteous and faithful, is in contrast to the city of murderers (Isaiah 1:21) with which he was familiar.

Isaiah 1:8-10 form the connexion between Isaiah 1:1-7 and Isaiah 1:11-13, and the verses are rather obscure. In Isaiah 1:8 the threat of universal judgment is repeated from ch. Zephaniah 1:18. This judgment must be considered to overtake both Israel and the heathen, “the whole earth.” The following verses then describe the day of salvation that breaks after the night of judgment, Zephaniah 1:9-10 applying to the nations and Zephaniah 1:11 ff. to Israel. The text of Zephaniah 1:10 is difficult (see notes). If the reading “daughter of my dispersed” be retained, as this expression could be applied only to Jews, the verse would predict that the converted nations shall bring back the dispersed of Israel as an offering to Jehovah (Isaiah 66:20). With this sense the pre-Exile date of Isaiah 66:10 would be questionable. The omission of the verse, which at best adds a mere local detail to Isaiah 66:9, might even be felt to add dignity to the passage, the two great facts of the conversion of the nations (Isaiah 66:9) and the regeneration of Israel (Isaiah 66:11) being set in fine simplicity side by side.

The extremely beautiful passage Isaiah 66:14-20 appears to belong to a different situation. Instead of threatening a universal judgment on Jew and Gentile, as alike guilty before God, the writer promises to Zion that Jehovah “will deal with all them that afflict her” (Isaiah 66:19). Of those belonging to Zion there are also some “that sorrow far away from the solemn assembly,” and a promise is given that they shall be “gathered” (Isaiah 66:18; Isaiah 66:20). Further, the “judgments” on Israel m to have already fallen and to lie behind the prophet (Isaiah 66:15), while before him there is the vision of a glorious day about to dawn. The situation is very similar to that which appears in Isaiah 40 ff. The language of the passage, too, is not without similarities to these chapters of Isaiah, e.g. “sing” (Isaiah 40:14), “fear not” (Isaiah 40:16), and other expressions. There is a great contrast between the jubilant tone of Isaiah 40:14-20 and that of Isaiah 40:11-13, which is very sombre. In Zephaniah 3:1-13 the profound moral feeling of the prophet, his sense of the sin of his people and of the severity of the judgments needful to change them, colours his picture of their final felicity (Zephaniah 3:11-13). Though the people are blessed and enjoy peace, the scars of the afflictions which they have passed through remain upon them.

There are some things in ch. 3 which might suggest that it is a unity, e.g. the use of the phrases “thy midst,” “her midst,” Zephaniah 3:5; Zephaniah 3:11-12; Zephaniah 3:15; Zephaniah 3:17. There are also coincidences of the language with that of Jeremiah, which do not appear in ch. 1. Such similarities are “receive correction” (Zephaniah 3:2; Zephaniah 3:7, cf. Jeremiah 5:3; Jeremiah 7:28 &c.); reference to the “righteousness” of Jehovah (Zephaniah 3:5, cf. Jeremiah 11:20; Jeremiah 12:1); the phrase “rose early and corrupted” (Zephaniah 3:7, cf. Jeremiah 7:13, and very often); the expression “fierce anger” (Zephaniah 3:8, cf. Jeremiah 4:8; Jeremiah 4:26, and a number of times); deprecation of pride or “haughtiness” on the part of the people (Zephaniah 3:11, cf. Jeremiah 13:15); the idea of the Lord “rejoicing over” His people (Zephaniah 3:17, cf. Jeremiah 32:41); and the promise that Israel restored shall be “a name and a praise” (Zephaniah 3:20, cf. Jeremiah 13:11; Jeremiah 33:9).

There is nothing in these coincidences to awaken suspicion of the genuineness at least of Zephaniah 3:1-13, though they might suggest that the passage was later than ch. 1. The progress of thought in ch. Zephaniah 1:2 to Zephaniah 2:3 is entirely parallel to that in ch. Zephaniah 3:1-13. In the former passage the judgment, ch. 1, is followed by the prospect of deliverance, ch. Zephaniah 2:1-3; and in the latter the judgment, Zephaniah 3:1-8, is followed by the promise of redemption, Zephaniah 3:9-13.

§ 4. Contents of the Prophecy

The prophecy of Zephaniah falls into two general divisions, first, ch. Zephaniah 1:2 to Zephaniah 3:8, a threat of judgment on the world, on Israel and the nations; and secondly, a promise of salvation equally universal, ch. Zephaniah 3:9-20.

The great conception of the prophecy is that of “the day of the Lord.” The day of the Lord is the time when the Lord reveals Himself in His fulness to the world, when He judges evil and fulfils His great purposes of redemption among men. The judgment of this “day” is universal, though it falls primarily upon the sinners in Israel. But the judgment has not its end in itself, it is but the means of making Jehovah known to the world, and this knowledge of Him is salvation. The lips of the nations are purified that they may call upon the name of the Lord, and Israel comes forth from the judgment a chastened and humble people, trusting in Jehovah their God alone (Zephaniah 3:9-13).

Jehovah’s revelation of Himself is accompanied with terrible signs and convulsions in nature (Zephaniah 1:14-18). But for the execution of His judgment He also uses instruments, whom He has commissioned and consecrated for that work. The judgment on Israel is represented by the prophet as a great sacrificial feast. Israel is the sacrifice, and the fierce nation from afar, the executors of His judgment, are the guests whom Jehovah has invited to consume it.

The first division of the prophecy, the announcement of judgment, ch. Zephaniah 1:2 to Zephaniah 3:8, has three chief sections: (i) the judgment on Israel, ch. Zephaniah 1:2 to Zephaniah 2:3. (ii) The judgment on the nations, ch. Zephaniah 2:4-15. And (iii) the renewed threat of judgment on Israel and the nations alike, ch. Zephaniah 3:1-8.

i. Ch. Zephaniah 1:2 to Zephaniah 2:3, the judgment on all created things, concentrating itself on Judah and Jerusalem.

(1) The judgment is universal, consuming man and beast (Zephaniah 2:2-3). (2) It falls particularly on the devotees of false worship and on the irreligious (Zephaniah 2:4-7). (3) But all classes are depraved, from the royal house down to the people. The Lord will search Jerusalem with lanterns, and no hiding-place shall conceal men (Zephaniah 2:8-13). (4) The terrors of the day of the Lord. It is a day of wrath, a day of darkness and convulsions in nature. It is also a day of the trumpet and hostile assault on the fenced cities, when men’s blood shall be poured out as the dust (Zephaniah 2:14-15). (5) Therefore let the meek seek Jehovah, it may be they shall be hid in the day of His fierce anger (ch. Zephaniah 2:1-3).

ii. Ch. Zephaniah 2:4-15, judgment on the nations.

Five nations are named, the Philistines, Moab and Ammon, Cush and Assyria, lying west, east, south and north of Israel.

iii. Ch. Zephaniah 3:1-8, renewed announcement of judgment, particularly on Jerusalem, but also on the nations, even on the whole earth.

(1) Jerusalem is rebellious, polluted and full of oppression (Zephaniah 3:2); disobedient to God, and indifferent to His word and His operations among the nations (Zephaniah 3:2; Zephaniah 3:5-7). Every class within her is corrupt: her princes violent, her judges venal and greedy (Zephaniah 3:3), her prophets unstable and false, and her priests profaners of that which is holy (Zephaniah 3:4 ff.).

(2) Therefore the Lord will rise up in judgment and consume the whole earth in the fire of His jealousy (Zephaniah 3:8).

The second division of the prophecy, the promise of salvation to the world, ch. Zephaniah 3:9-20, has also three short sections: the promise to the nations (Zephaniah 3:9-10); the promise to Israel (Zephaniah 3:11-13); and lastly a reference to the final condition of Israel, for ever joyful in the presence of their God (Zephaniah 3:14-20).

(1) In His judgments the Lord is made known unto the nations, and He purifies their lips so that they fitly call on the name of the Lord; and all peoples, even the most distant, serve Him with offerings (Zephaniah 3:9-10).

(2) And Israel comes forth from the judgment chastened and no more haughty, the people’s trust being in the Lord alone. And the social wrongs of former days are no more found; every one deals in rectitude and truthfulness with his neighbour (Zephaniah 3:11-13).

(3) The people redeemed and all their outcasts restored rejoice for ever in the Lord, who abides in the midst of them, mighty to save (Zephaniah 3:14-20).

The value of the Book of Zephaniah is not to be estimated by its size. In two respects it is of great importance: first, for the revelation which it gives of the religious and social condition of Jerusalem in the years preceding the Exile; and secondly, on account of the profoundly earnest moral tone by which it is pervaded. Perhaps not less remarkable is the prophet’s comprehensive view of history. The history of the nations is but another name for the operations of Jehovah among them; and the goal which all these operations pursue is not the redemption of Israel merely but of mankind. The most important parts of the prophecy are ch. Zephaniah 1:2 to Zephaniah 2:3 and ch. Zephaniah 3:1-13. The other parts, e.g. ch. Zephaniah 2:4-15, are characterized by a narrower nationalistic spirit. The most beautiful thing in the book is the passage ch. Zephaniah 3:11-13. The picture of the redeemed people coming newly forth from the convulsions and afflictions of the judgment, humble and truthful, blessed, but filled with a chastened joy, is exquisite.

“The immediate judgment with which Zephaniah threatened Jerusalem was averted. But his prophecy began to be fulfilled in the disasters which befell neighbouring nations. It was fulfilled yet further in those great convulsions of the nations of the East which followed shortly. It was fulfilled for Judah in the captivity and the destruction of the guilty nation. For these were all steps of progress advancing towards the great end, elements contributing to the fulness of the times, preludes to the establishment of the universal divine kingdom[20].”

[20] Kirkpatrick, Doctrine of the Prophets, p. 262.

APPENDIX

Note 1. THE FALL OF NINEVEH

Since the Introductions to Nahum and Habakkuk were in print, some further light has been cast upon the circumstances of the fall of Nineveh by the publication of an inscription of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon. The stele of Nabonidus, which is now in the Constantinople Museum, was discovered near Hilleh (Babylon), and has been described by Scheil in the Recueil de Travaux &c., published under the direction of Maspero, 18., 1896; by Rev. C. H. W. Johns, Queens’ College, Cambridge, in Expository Times, 1896; and most recently by L. Messerschmidt in Mittheilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, part i., 1896. The two points of interest are the date of the fall of Nineveh, and the part which the Babylonians under Nabopolassar took in its overthrow.

The inscription leaves the precise date of the fall of the city still somewhat uncertain. In col. 10. of the inscription Nabonidus states that the temple of Sin, the moon-god, in Harran, had been destroyed by the Ummanmanda (Medes); that in the beginning of his reign he was exhorted in a dream to restore it, and that he accomplished its restoration in his third year, 54 years after it had been destroyed. As the reign of Nabonidus began in 555 b.c., his third year would be 553, and thus the destruction of the temple of Sin would have occurred b.c. 607. It is uncertain, however, whether the attack on Harran, resulting in the destruction of the temple, preceded the capture of Nineveh or followed it, or possibly occurred in the same year, and consequently the approximate date for the fall of Nineveh, 608–6, must still be left. The relation of the attack on Harran to the capture of Nineveh may yet be further elucidated.

With regard to those who actually overthrew Nineveh the inscription is more explicit. If Colossians 2. refers to the final destruction of the city, as it appears to do, those who accomplished it were the Ummanmanda (Medes) alone, the Babylonians having no part in it. In this respect the statement of Herodotus is confirmed. It may perhaps be inferred that a condition of hostilities existed between Babylon and Assyria. The inscription states that Marduk called in the Ummanmanda to the aid of Nabopolassar, and in order to avenge the indignities offered to himself at a former time by Sennacherib—the reference in the last words being to Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon and his deportation of Marduk to Assyria. It may not be quite easy to translate this statement about Marduk’s intervention and the aid to Nabopolassar into the actual movements of events, and discover the real relations of the Medes and Babylonians. Messerschmidt, relying on some other inscriptions, infers that the Babylonian army was operating in Mesopotamia, and that, owing to reverses inflicted by the Assyrians, the help of the Medes was invoked. These combinations of Messerschmidt and the whole question will no doubt be fully discussed by competent Assyrian scholars. It appears from the inscription that a number of cities in north Babylonia (Accad) took the part of Assyria against Babylon. A condition of friction between Babylon and Assyria was nothing uncommon, but it may now be considered as a point ascertained that the Babylonians took no actual part in the overthrow of Nineveh. It is a fact worth recalling in connexion with the discussion of this question that in 1889 Winckler expressed the opinion that any direct participation of the Babylonians in the destruction of Nineveh was very improbable, because such an act would have been regarded as a “misdeed,” something of the nature of a sacrilege, just as Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon was regarded. Winckler’s feeling is confirmed by the present inscription, in which the Babylonian king is exonerated of having had any part in the destruction of the temples of the gods, and (if the passage be rightly understood) even made to deprecate the violent wrath of Marduk and the excessive vengeance he had taken.

The relations of Babylon and Assyria and the course of events suggested by the inscription can hardly be said to give any additional plausibility to the interpretation of Habakkuk advocated with so much acuteness and learning by Prof. Budde (Introd. to Hab., p. 50 ff.).

It may be inferred from the stele of Nabonidus that Ummanmanda is not an ethnological name, and of itself gives no light regarding the race or nationality of the conquerors of Nineveh; the name is rather geographical, and equivalent generally to “northern peoples,” including Medes, Scythians &c. When, therefore, Astyages is said to be of the Ummanmanda, this does not imply a strictly Scythian origin, and the remark regarding him, p. 15, founded on previous statements of Assyrian scholars (Winckler, Untersuch., p. 124 ff., Billerb.-Jerem., p. 96 note, with references), has to be modified. See now Winckler’s revisal of his former opinion, Messerschmidt, p. 71 ff. In a communication received from Mr C. H. W. Johns, before the publication of Messerschmidt’s work, the true signification of the expression Ummanmanda was clearly indicated.

Note 2. On Zephaniah 2:4The expression, Zephaniah 2:4, “they shall drive out Ashdod at the noon day,” occurring again Jeremiah 15:8, is obscure. In an extract from Esar-haddon’s Senjirli inscription given in Winckler’s Altorient. Untersuch., p. 100, the Assyrian king says, “Memphis, his capital, I took ina míkit ûmí,” which Winckler renders, bis zu der Mitte des Tages. The similarity of the expression to the Heb., and also its use in speaking of the capture of a city, suggested that the phrase might be common to the two languages, and have the same meaning in both. Through the kindness of Principal Whitehouse I learn that Schrader in his Monograph on the Senjirli inscription reads the words ina mí-shil ûmí, which he would render in the half of the day, or, by midday. The phrase would thus express the rapidity with which, or the short time within which, Memphis was taken. This general sense is suitable both in Zephaniah 2:4 and in Jeremiah 15:8. In the latter passage “suddenly” is parallel to “at noon day.” Somewhat similar is the language Job 4:20, “from a morning to an evening they are destroyed,” i.e. in the briefest space of time; cf. Isaiah 38:12. More doubtful perhaps is Moab. Stone, 50:15, 16, “and I fought against it from the break of dawn until noon; and I took it.”