Nahum
NAHUM
Consolation, the seventh of the twelve minor prophets. The circumstances of Nahum’s life are unknown, except that he was a native of Elkosh, which probably was a village in Galilee. His prophecy consists of three chapters, which form one discourse, in which he foretells the destruction of Nineveh in so powerful and vivid a manner, that he might seem to have been on the very spot. The native elegance, fire, and sublimity of his style are universally admired.Opinions are divided as to the time in which Nahum prophesied. The best interpreters adopt Jerome’s opinion, that he foretold the destruction of Nineveh in the time of Hezekiah, after the war of Sennacherib in Egypt mentioned by Berosus. Compare Isa 20:6 Jon 3:8 . Nahum speaks of the taking of shakeh, and of the defeat of Sennacherib, as things that were past. He implies that the tribe of Judah was still in their own country, and that they there celebrated their festivals. He notices also the captivity and dispersion of the ten tribes.
Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary
Nahum
One of the Prophets of the Old Testament, the seventh in the traditional list of the twelve Minor Prophets.
NAME
The Hebrew name, probably in the intensive form, Nahhum, signifies primarily “full of consolation or comfort”, hence “consoler” (St. Jerome, consolator), or “comforter”. The name Nahum was apparently of not rare occurrence. Indeed, not to speak of a certain Nahum listed in the Vulgate and Douay Version (Nehemiah 7:7) among the companions of Zorobabel, and whose name seems to have been rather Rehum (Ezra 2:2; Heb. has Rehum in both places), St. Luke mentions in his genealogy of Our Lord a Nahum, son of Hesli and father of Amos (iii, 25); the Mishna also occasionally refers to Nahum the Mede, a famous rabbi of the second century (Shabb., ii, 1, etc.), and another Nahum who was a scribe or copyist (Peah, ii, 6); inscriptions show likewise the name was not uncommon among Phoenicians (Gesenius, “Monum. Phoen.”, 133; Boeckh, “Corp. Inscript. Graec.”, II, 25, 26; “Corp. Inscript. Semitic.”, I, 123 a3 b3).
THE PROPHET
The little we know touching the Prophet Nahum must be gathered from his book, for nowhere else in the canonical Scriptures does his name occur, and extracanonical Jewish writers are hardly less reticent. The scant positive information vouchsafed by these sources is in no wise supplemented by the worthless stories concerning the Prophet put into circulation by legend-mongers. We will deal only with what may be gathered from the canonical Book of Nahum, the only available first-hand document at our disposal. From its title (i,1), we learn that Nahum was an Elcesite (so D. V.; A. V., Elkoshite). On the true import of this statement commentators have not always been of one mind. In the prologue to his commentary of the book, St. Jerome informs us that some understood `Elqoshite as a patronymic indication: “the son of Elqosh”; he, however, holds the commonly accepted view that the word `Elqoshite shows that the Prophet was a native of Elqosh.
But even understood in this way, the intimation given by the title is disputed by biblical scholars. Where, indeed, should this Elqosh, nowhere else referred to in the Bible, be sought?Some have tried to identify it with `Alqush, 27 miles north of Mossul, where the tomb of Nahum is still shown. According to this opinion, Nahum was born in Assyria, which would explain his perfect acquaintance with the topography and customs of Ninive exhibited in the book. But such an acquaintance may have been acquired otherwise; and it is a fact that the tradition connecting the Prophet Nahum with that place cannot be traced back beyond the sixteenth century, as has been conclusively proven by Assemani. This opinion is now generally abandoned by scholars. Still more recent and hardly more credible is the view advocated by Hitzig and Knobel, who hold that Elqosh was the old name of the town called Capharnaum (i.e., “the village of Nahum”) in the first century: a Galilean origin, they claim, would well account for certain slight peculiarities of the Prophet’s diction that smack of provincialism. Apart from the somewhat precarious etymology, it may be objected against this identification that Capharnaum, however well known a place it was at the New Testament period, is never mentioned in earlier times, and, for all we know, may have been founded at a relatively recent date; moreover, the priests and the Pharisees would most likely have asserted less emphatically “that out of Galilee a prophet riseth not” (John 7:52) had Capharnaum been associated with our Prophet in the popular mind. Still, it is in Galilee that St. Jerome located the birthplace of Nahum (“Comment. in Nah.” in P. L., XXV, 1232), supposed to be Elkozeh, in northern Galilee; but “out of Galilee doth a prophet rise?” might we ask again. The author of the “Lives of the Prophets” long attributed to St. Epiphanius tells us “Elqosh was beyond Beth-Gabre, in the tribe of Simeon” (P.G., XLIII, 409). He unquestionably means that Elqosh was in the neighbourhood of Beth-Gabre (Beit Jibrin), the ancient Eleutheropolis, on the borders of Juda and Simeon. This view has been adopted in the Roman Martyrology (1 December; “Begabar” is no doubt a corrupt spelling of Beth-Gabre), and finds more and more acceptance with modern scholars.
THE BOOK
Contents
The Book of Nahum contains only three chapters and may be divided into two distinct parts.
The one, including i and ii, 2 (Heb., i-ii, 1-3), and the other consisting of ii,1, 3-ii (Heb., ii, 2, 4-iii). The first part is more undetermined in tone and character. After the twofold title indicating the subject-matter and the author of the book (i, 1), the writer enters upon his subject by a solemn affirmation of what he calls the Lord’s jealousy and revengefulness (i, 2, 3), and a most forceful description of the fright which seizes all nature at the aspect of Yahweh coming into judgment (i, 3-6). Contrasting admirably with this appalling picture is the comforting assurance of God’s loving-kindness towards His true and trustful servants (7-8); then follows the announcement of the destruction of His enemies, among whom a treacherous, cruel, and god-ridden city, no doubt Ninive (although the name is not found in the text), is singled out and irretrievably doomed to everlasting ruin (8-14); the glad tidings of the oppressor’s fall is the signal of a new era of glory for the people of God (1:15; 2:2; Hebrews 2:1, 3).
The second part of the book is more directly than the other a “burden of Ninive”; some of the features of the great Assyrian city are described so accurately as to make all doubt impossible, even f the name Ninive were not explicitly mentioned in ii, 8. In a first section (ii), the Prophet dashes off in a few bold strokes three successive sketches: we behold the approach of the besiegers, the assault on the city, and, within, the rush of its defenders to the walls (2:1, 3-3; Hebrews 2:2, 4-6); then the protecting dams and sluices of the Tigris being burst open, Ninive, panic-stricken, has become an easy prey to the victor: her most sacred places are profaned, her vast treasures plundered (6-9); Heb., 7-10); and now Ninive, once the den where the lion hoarded rich spoils for his whelps and his lionesses, has been swept away forever by the mighty hand of the God of hosts (10-13; Hebrews 11-13). The second section (iii) develops with new details the same theme. The bloodthirstiness, greed, and crafty and insidious policy of Ninive are the cause of her overthrow, most graphically depicted (1-4); complete and shameful will be her downfall and no one will utter a word of pity (5-7). As No-Ammon was mercilessly crushed, so Ninive likewise will empty to the dregs the bitter cup of the divine vengeance (8-11). In vain does she trust in her strongholds, her warriors, her preparations for a siege, and her officials and scribes (12-17). Her empire is about to crumble, and its fall will be hailed by the triumphant applause by the whole universe (18-19).
Critical Questions
Until a recent date, both the unity and authenticity of the Book of Nahum were undisputed, and the objections alleged by a few against the genuineness of the words “The burden of Ninive” (i, 1) and the description of the overthrow of No-Ammon (iii, 8-10) were regarded as trifling cavils not worth the trouble of an answer. In the last few years, however, things have taken a new turn: facts hitherto unnoticed have added to the old problems concerning authorship, date, etc. It may be well here for us to bear in mind the twofold division of the book, and to begin with the second part (ii, 1, 3-iii), which, as has been noticed, unquestionably deals with the overthrow of Ninive. That these two chapters of the prophecy constitute a unit and should be attributed to the same author, Happel is the only one to deny; but his odd opinion, grounded on unwarranted alterations of the text, cannot seriously be entertained.
The date of this second part cannot be determined to the year; however, from the data furnished by the text, it seems that a sufficiently accurate approximation is obtainable. First, there is a higher limit which we have no right to overstep, namely, the capture of No-Ammon referred to in iii, 8-10. In the Latin Vulgate (and the Douay Bible) No-Ammon is translated by Alexandria, whereby St. Jerome meant not the great Egyptian capital founded in the fourth century B.C., but an older city occupying the site where later on stood Alexandria (“Comment. in Nah.”, iii,8: P. L., XXV, 1260; cf. “Ep. CVIII ad Eustoch.”, 14: P. L., XXII, 890; “In Is.”, XVIII: P. L., XXIV, 178; “In Os.”, IX, 5-6: P. L., XXV, 892). He was mistaken, however, and so were who thought that No-Ammon should be sought in Lower Egypt; Assyrian and Egyptian discoveries leave no doubt whatever that No-Ammon is the same as Thebes in Upper Egypt. Now Thebes was captured and destroyed by Assurbanipal in 664-663 B.C., whence it follows that the opinion of Nicephorus (in the edition of Geo. Syncell, “Chronographia”, Bonn, 1829, I, 759), making Nahum a contemporary of Phacee, King of Israel, the early tradition according to which this prophecy was uttered 115 years before the fall of Ninive (about 721 B.C.; Josephus, “Ant. Jud.”, IX, xi, 3), and the conclusions of those modern scholars who, as Pusey, Nagelsbach, etc., date the oracle in the reign of Ezechias or the earlier years of Manasses, ought to be discarded as impossible. The lower limit which it is allowable to assign to this part of the book of Nahum is, of course, the fall of Ninive, which a well-known inscription of Nabonidus permits us to fix at 607 or 606 B.C., a date fatal to the view adopted by Eutychius, that Nahum prophesied five years after the downfall of Jerusalem (therefore about 583-581; “Annal.” in P. G., CXI, 964).
Within these limits it is difficult to fix the date more precisely. It has been suggested that the freshness of the allusion to the fate of Thebes indicates an early date, about 660 B.C., according to Schrader and Orelli; but the memory of such a momentous event would long dwell in the minds of men, and we find Isaias, for instance, in one of his utterances delivered about 702 or 701 B.C. recalling with the same vividness of expression Assyrian conquests achieved thirty or forty years earlier (Isaiah 10:5-34). Nothing therefore compels us to assign, within the limits set above, 664-606, an early date to the two chapters, if there are cogent reasons to conclude to a later date. One of the arguments advanced is that Ninive is spoken of as having lost a great deal of her former prestige and sunk into a dismal state of disintegration; she is, moreover, represented as beset by mighty enemies and powerless to avert the fate threatening her. Such conditions existed when, after the death of Assurbanipal, Babylonia succeeded in regaining her independence (625), and the Medes aims a first blow at Ninive (623). Modern critics appear more and more inclined to believe that the data furnished by the Prophet lead to the admission of a still lower date, namely “the moment between the actual invasion of Assyria by a hostile force and the commencement of the attack on its capital” (Kennedy). The “mauler”, indeed, is already on his way (2:1; Hebrews 2); frontier fortresses have opened their gates (iii, 12-13); Ninive is at bay, and although the enemy has not yet invested the city, to all appearances her doom is sealed.
We may now return to the first part of the book. This first chapter, on account of the transcendent ideas it deals with, and of the lyric enthusiasm which pervades it throughout has not inappropriately been called a psalm. Its special interest lies in the fact that it is an alphabetical poem. The first to call attention to this feature was Frohnmeyer, whose observations, however, did not extend beyond vv. 3-7. Availing himself of this key, Bickell endeavoured to find out if the process of composition did not extend to the whole passage and include the twenty-two letters of the alphabet, and he attempted repeatedly but without great success (“Zeitschr. der deutsch. morg. Gesell.”, 1880, p. 559; “Carmina Vet. Test. metrice”, 1882; “Zeitschr. fur kath. Theol.”, 1886), to restore the psalm to its pristine integrity. This failure did not discourage Gunkel who declared himself convinced that the poem is alphabetical throughout, although it is difficult, owing to the present condition of the text, to trace the initial letters X to X (Zeitschr. fur alttest. Wissensch., 1893, 223 sqq.). This was for Bickell an incentive to a fresh study (Das alphab. Lied in Nah. i-ii, 3, in “Sitzungsberichte der philos.-hist. Classe der kaiser. Akademie der Wissensch.”, Vienna, 894, 5 Abhandl.), the conclusions of which show a notable improvement on the former attempts, and suggested to Gunkel a few corrections (Schopfung und Chaos, 120). Since then Nowack (Die kleinen Propheten, 1897), Gray (“The Alphab. Poem in Nah.” in “The Expositor” for Sept. 1898, 207 sqq.), Arnold (On Nahum 1:1-2:3, in “Zeitschr. fur alttest. Wissensch.”, 1901, 225 sqq.), Happel (Das Buch des Proph. Nah., 1903), Marti (Dodekaproph. erklart, 1904), Lohr (Zeitschr. fur alttest. Wissensch., 1905, I, 174), and Van Hoonacker (Les douze petits proph., 1908), have more or less successfully undertaken the difficult task of extricating the original psalm from the textual medley in which it is entangled. There is among them, a sufficient agreement as to the first part of the poem; but the second part still remains a classical ground for scholarly tilts.
Wellhausen (Die kleinen Proph., 1898) holds that the noteworthy difference between the two parts from the point of view of poetical construction is due to the fact that the writer abandoned halfway his undertaking to write acrostically. Happel believes both parts were worked out separately from an unacrostic original. Critics are inclined to hold that the disorder and corruption which disfigure the poem are mostly due to the way it was tacked on to the prophecy of Nahum: the upper margin was first used, and then the side margin; and as, in the latter instance, the text must have been overcrowded and blurred, this later on caused in the second part of the psalm an inextricable confusion from which the first was preserved. This explanation of the textual condition of the poem implies the assumption that this chapter is not to be attributed to Nahum, but is a later addition. So much indeed was granted by Bickell, and Van Hoonacker (not to speak of non-Catholic scholars) is inclined to a like concession. On the one hand, the marked contrast between the abstract tome of the composition and the concrete character of the other two chapters, we are told, bespeaks a difference of authorship; and, on the other hand, the artificiality of the acrostic form is characteristic of a late date. These arguments, however, are not unanswerable. In any case it cannot be denied that the psalm is a most fitting preface to the prophecy.
Little will be found in the teaching of the book of Nahum that is really new and original. The originality of Nahum is that his mind is so engrossed by the iniquities and impending fate of Ninive, that he appears to lose sight of the shortcomings of his own people. The doom of Ninive was nevertheless in itself for Juda an object-lesson which the impassioned language of the Prophet was well calculated to impress deeply upon the minds of thoughtful Israelites. Despite the uncertainty of the text in several places, there is no doubt that the book of Nahum is truly “a masterpiece” (Kaulen) of literature. The vividness and picturesqueness of the Prophet’s style have already been pointed out; in his few short, flashing sentences, most graphic word-pictures, apt and forceful figures, grand, energetic, and pathetic expressions rush in, thrust vehemently upon one another, yet leaving the impression of perfect naturalness. Withal the language remains ever pure and classical, with a tinge of partiality for alliteration (i, 10; ii, 3, 11) and the use of prim and rare idioms; the sentences are perfectly balanced; in a word Nahum is a consummate master of his art, and ranks among the most accomplished writers of the Old Testament.
———————————–
CHARLES L. SOUVAY Transcribed by Sean Hyland
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XCopyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Nahum
(Heb. Nachumn, , consolation; a name likewise found as in the Phoenician inscriptions, [Gesenius, Monun. Pheen. pages 134, 137]; and in the form in a Greek inscription given by Bockh, Coap. Inscr. 4:3; Sept. ; comp. Luk 3:25), the seventh of the minor prophets, according to the arrangement of both the Hebrew and Greek. (In this and the following article we give a copious exposition of all the topics of interest relating to the whole subject). Of the author himself we have no more knowledge than is afforded us by the scanty title of his book, “the book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite,” which gives no indication whatever of his date, and leaves his origin obscure. The site of Elkosk, his native place, is disputed, some placing it in Galilee, with Jerome, who was shown the ruins by his guide (Prcem. in Nah.); so Cyril (ad loc.). Capernaum, literally “village of Nahum,” is supposed to have derived its name from the prophet. Schwarz (Descr. of Pal. page 188) mentions a Kefar Tanchum, or Nachum, close on Chinnereth, and two and a half English miles north of Tiberias. “They point out there the graves of Nahum the prophet, of rabbis Tanchum and Tanchuma, who all repose there, and through these the ancient position of the village is easily known.” Others (after Assemani, Bibl. Orient. 1:525; 3:352) locate Nahum’s birthplace in Assyria, where the tomb of the prophet is still visited as a sacred spot by Jews from all parts. Benjamin of Tudela (page 53 Heb. text, ed. Asher) thus briefly alludes to it: “And in the city of Asshur (Mosul) is the synagogue of Obadiah, and the synagogue of Jonah the son of Amittai, and the synagogue of Nahum the Elkoshite.” SEE ELKOSH.
Mr. Layard, who visited the place, says (Nineveh, 1:197), “It is held in great reverence by Mohammedans and Christians, but especially by Jews, who keep the building a modern one in repair. The tomb is a simple plaster box, covered with green cloth, and standing at the upper end of a large chamber. There are no inscriptions nor fragments of any antiquity about the place; and I am not aware in what the tradition originated, nor how long it has attached to the village of Alkosh.” Gesenius regards both the above locations of Elkosh as very doubtful (Thesaurus, s.v.). Those who maintain the latter site assume that the prophet’s parents were carried into captivity by Tiglath-pileser, and planted, with other exile colonists, in the province of Assyria, the modern Kurdistan, and that the prophet was born at the village of Alkush, on the east bank of the Tigris, a few miles north of Mosul. (So Eichhorn, Einl. 4:390; Ritter, Erdk. 9:742; and others.) Ewald is of opinion that the prophecy was written there at a time when Nineveh was threatened from without. Against this it may be urged that it does not appear that the exiles were carried into the province of Assyria proper, but into the newly-conquered districts, suchl as Mesopotamia, Babylonia, or Media. The arguments in favor of an Assyrian locality for the prophet are supported by the occurrence. of what are presumed to be Assyrian words: , 2:8; , 17; and the strange form in Nahum 2:14, which is supposed to indicate a foreign influence. In addition to this is the interrial evidence supplied by the vivid description of Nineveh, of whose splendors it is contended Nahum must have been an eye-witness; but Hitzig justly observes that these descriptions display merely a lively imagination, and such knowledge of a renowned city as might be possessed by any one in Anterior Asia. The Assyrian warriors were no strangers in Palestine, and that there was sufficient intercourse between the two countries is rendered probable by the history of the prophet Jonah. There is nothing in the prophecy of Nahum to indicate that it was written in the immediate neighborhood of Nineveh, and in filll view of the scenes which are depicted, nor is the language that of an exile in an: enemy’s country. No allusion is made to the captivity; while, on the other hand, the imagery is such as would be natural to an inhabitant of Palestine (Nah 1:4), to whom the rich pastures of Bashan, the vineyards of Carmel, and the blossoms of Lebanon were emblems of all that was luxuriant and fertile. The language employed in Nah 1:15 and Nah 2:2 is appropriate to one who wrote for his countrymen in their native land. In fact, the sole origin of the theory that Nahum flourished in Assyria is the name of the village Alkush, which contains his supposed tomb, and from its similarity to Elkosh was apparently selected by mediaeval tradition as a shrine for pilgrims, with as little probability to recommend it as exists in the case of Obadiah and Jephthah, whose burial- places are still shown in the same neighborhood. This supposition is more reasonable than another which has been adopted in order to account for the existence of Nahum’s tomb at a place the name of which so closely resembles that of his native town. Alkush, it is suggested, was founded by the Israelitish exiles, and so named by them in memory of Elkosh in their own country. Tradition, as usual, has usurped the province of history. According to pseudo-Epiphanius (De Vitis Proph. in Opp. 2:247), Nahum was of the tribe of Simeon, “from Elaesei, beyond the Jordan, at Begabar (; Chron. Pasch. 150 B. ),” or Bethabara, where he died in peace and was buried. In the Roman Martyrology the 1st of December is consecrated to his memory. For the period in which he lived, see the discussion below as to the date of his writing.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Nahum
consolation, the seventh of the so-called minor prophets, an Elkoshite. All we know of him is recorded in the book of his prophecies. He was probably a native of Galilee, and after the deportation of the ten tribes took up his residence in Jerusalem. Others think that Elkosh was the name of a place on the east bank of the Tigris, and that Nahum dwelt there.
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Nahum (1)
1Ch 4:19.
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
Nahum (2)
“consolation” and “vengeance”, to Israel and Israel’s foe respectively. The two themes alternate in Nahum 1; as the prophecy advances, vengeance on Assyria predominates.
Country. “The Elkoshite” (Nah 1:1), from Elkosh or Elkesi a village of Galilee pointed out to Jerome (Preface in Nahum). Capernaum, “village of Nahum,” seemingly takes its name from Nahum having resided in the neighbourhood, though born in Elkosh. The allusions in Nahum indicate local acquaintance with Palestine (Nah 1:4; Nah 1:15; Nah 2:2) and only general knowledge of Nineveh (Nah 2:4-6; Nah 3:2-3). This confutes the notion that the Alkush (resembling the name Elkosh), E. of the Tigris and N. of Mosul, is Nahum’s place of birth and of burial, though Jewish pilgrims visit it as such.
DATE. Hezekiah’s time was that in which trust in Jehovah and the observance of the temple feasts prevailed as they did not before or after. So in Nah 1:7; Nah 1:15, “Jehovah is a stronghold in the day of trouble; and He knoweth (with approval) them that trust in Him … O Judah, keep thy solemn feasts.” Moreover Nahum has none of the reproofs for national apostasy which abound in the other prophets. Nahum in Elkosh of Galilee was probably among those of northern Israel, after the deportation of the ten tribes, who accepted Hezekiah’s earnest invitation to keep the Passover at Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 30). His graphic description of Sennacherib and his army (2Ch 1:9-12) makes it likely he was near or in Jerusalem at the time.
Hence, the number of phrases corresponding to those of Isaiah (Nah 1:8-9, compare Isa 8:8; Isa 10:23; Nah 2:10 with Isa 24:1; Isa 21:3; Nah 1:15 with Isa 52:7). The prophecy in Nah 1:14, “I will make it (namely, ‘the house of thy gods,’ i.e. Nisroch) thy grave,” foretells Sennacherib’s murder 20 years after his return from Palestine, “as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god” (Isa 37:38). He writes while Assyria’s power was yet unbroken (Nah 1:12; Nah 2:11-13; Nah 3:1, “the bloody city, full of lies … the prey departeth not”: Nah 3:15-17). The correspondence of sentiments in Nahum with those of Isaiah and Hezekiah implies he wrote when Sennacherib was still besieging and demanding the surrender of Jerusalem (Nah 1:2 ff, with 2Ki 19:14-15; Nah 1:7 with 2Ki 18:22; 2Ki 19:19; 2Ki 19:31; 2Ch 32:7-8; Nah 1:9; Nah 1:11 with 2Ki 19:22; 2Ki 19:27-28; Nah 1:14 with 2Ki 19:6-7; Nah 1:15 and Nah 2:1-2 with 2Ki 19:32-33; Nah 2:13, “the voice of thy messengers shall no more be heard,” namely, Rabshakeh the bearer of Sennacherib’s haughty message, with 2Ki 19:22-23).
The historical facts presupposed in Nahum are Judah’s and Israel’s humiliation by Assyria (Nah 2:2); the invasion of Judah (Nah 1:9-11); the conquest of No-Amon or Thebes in Upper Egypt, probably by Sargon (Isaiah 20) who, fearing lest Egypt should join Palestine against him, undertook an expedition against it, 717-715 B.C. (Nah 3:8-10). Tiglath Pileser and Shalmaneser had carried away Israel. Judah was harassed by Syria, and oppressed by Ahaz’s payments to Tiglath Pileser (2 Chronicles 28; Isaiah 8-9). As Nahum refers in part prophetically to Sennacherib’s (Sargon’s successor) last attempt on Judah ending in his host’s destruction, in part as matter of history (Nah 1:9-13; Nah 2:13), he must have prophesied about 713-710 B.C., 100 years before the event foretold, namely, the overthrow of Nineveh by the joint forces of Cyaxares and Nabopolassar in the reign of Chyniladanus, 625 or else 603 B.C.
The name “Huzzab” (Nah 2:7) answers to Adiabene, from the Zab or Diab river on which that region lay; a personification of Assyria, and seems to be an Assyrian word. So the original words, minzaraik, taphsarika, for “crowned” or “princes” (Nah 3:17) and “captains” or “satraps” (also in Jer 51:27); contact with Assyria brought in these words. Nah 2:18, “the faces gather blackness,” corresponds to Isa 13:8; Joe 2:6; Joel is probably the original. Nah 1:6 with Joe 2:7; Amo 2:14; Nah 1:3 with Joe 2:13; the mourning dove, Nah 2:7, with Isa 38:14; the first ripe figs, Nah 3:12, with Isa 28:4; Nah 3:13 with Isa 19:16; Nah 3:4 with Isa 23:15; Nah 2:4-5; Nah 2:14 with Isa 22:7; Isa 36:9; Mic 1:13; Mic 5:10.
The Assyrians, by just retribution, in turn should experience themselves what they caused to Israel and Judah (compare also Nah 1:3 with Jon 4:2; Nah 1:13 with Isa 10:26-27; Nah 1:8 with Isa 10:21-22; Isa 8:8; Nah 1:9; Nah 1:11 with Isa 37:23; Nah 3:10 with Isa 13:16; Nah 2:2 with Isa 24:1; Nah 3:5 with Isa 47:2-3; Nah 3:7 with Isa 51:19). Plainly, Nahum is the last of the prophets of the Assyrian period. Jeremiah borrows from, and so stamps with inspiration, Nahum (Jer 10:19 compare Nah 3:19; Jer 13:26 compare Nah 3:5; Jer 50:37; Jer 51:30, compare Nah 3:13). Nahum is seventh in position in the canon, and seventh in date.
Subject matter. “The burden of Nineveh.” The three chapters form one consecutive whole, remarkable for unity of aim. Nahum encourages his countrymen with the assurance that, alarming as their position seemed, assailed by the mighty foe which had already carried captive the ten tribes, yet that not only should the Assyrian fail against Jerusalem, but Nineveh and his own empire should fall; and this not by chance, but by Jehovah’s judgment for their iniquities.
STYLE. Clear and forcible. Several phases of an idea are presented in the briefest sentences; as in the sublime description of God in the beginning, the overthrow of Nineveh, and that of No Amon. Melting softness and delicacy alternate with rhythmical, sonorous, and majestic diction, according as the subject requires; the very sound of the words conveys to the ear the sense (Nah 2:4; Nah 3:3). Paronomasia or verbal assonance is another feature of likeness to Isaiah, besides those already mentioned (Nah 1:3; Nah 1:6; Nah 1:10; Nah 2:2-3; Nah 2:11; Nah 3:2).
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
NAHUM
At the time of Nahums prophecy, Assyria had passed the peak of its power and was heading for inevitable conquest by the rising power of Babylon. Nahum, as Gods spokesman, announced a fitting judgment on Assyria, enlivening his message with graphic descriptions of the destruction of Assyrias capital, Nineveh.
Background to the book
About one hundred years previously, Assyria had conquered the northern kingdom Israel and taken its people into captivity (722 BC; 2Ki 17:6). It then applied pressure to the southern kingdom Judah. Through the reign of one Judean king after another, tension and conflict existed between Judah and Assyria (2Ki 16:7-20; 2Ki 18:7-37; 2 Kings 19; 2Ch 28:20-21; 2Ch 30:6; 2Ch 33:11).
By the time Josiah became king of Judah (640 BC), Assyria had weakened sufficiently for Josiah to carry out extensive political and religious reforms in Judah. Nahum was most likely one of those prophets who began to preach in Judah during the revival of prophetic activity that occurred during Josiahs reign.
Most nations of the region had at some time suffered from the brutality of Assyria (Nah 3:19). Nahum, who had been deeply stirred over Assyrias injustice and cruelty, had a feeling of satisfaction that at last a fitting divine judgment was to fall upon the ruthless oppressor (Nah 2:10; Nah 2:13; Nah 3:5-7; Nah 3:19). Nineveh was conquered by the armies of Babylon in 612 BC.
Summary of the book
Nahum opens his book with striking word-pictures showing that God takes vengeance on those who fight against him, though he protects those who trust in him (1:1-15). The prophet then describes the coming attack on Nineveh (2:1-9), which is to be punished because of the fierce cruelty with which it destroyed its victims (2:10-13). A third poem gives a further description of Ninevehs overthrow. The reason given this time is the nations unrestrained greed for wealth and power (3:1-19).
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Nahum
NAHUM.An ancestor of Jesus, Luk 3:25.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Nahum
NAHUM
I. The Man.The word Nahum means full of comfort and is probably a contraction of e longer Heb. term meaning God is a comforter. Of the man so named nothing is certainly known. He is called the Elkoshite, but the exact meaning of the term cannot at present be determined. It is made in the Targum a kind of patronymic, recording the assumed descent of the prophet from an unknown ancestor Koshi It is more likely to preserve the name of the prophets birthplace or place of residence, of which the identification is still lacking. Three or four conjectures have been made.
(1) The prophets tomb is shown at Elkosh, 24 miles to the N. of Nineveh; and accordingly he is said to have lived there, a descendant of a member of the ten tribes who was deported in b.c. 721. But the tradition that buries Nahum there is not met with before the 16th cent., and is sufficiently accounted for by the interest in the city shewn by the prophet.
(2) Capernaum is really a transliteration of Heb. words which mean village of Nahum. But a Galiln origin for our prophet is unlikely (Joh 7:52), and is not supported by any allusions in the prophecy.
(3) The same objection applies to Jeromes identification of Elkosh with a village Elkozeh in N. Galilee, which on other grounds is precarious.
(4) The most probable tradition associates Nahum with Elkosh of the tribe of Simeon, and locates the hamlet near Beth-Gabre, the modern Beit-Jibrn, about half-way between Jerusalem and Gaza. The tradition occurs in a Syriac version of the biographies of the prophets, ascribed to Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in Cyprus towards the close of the 4th cent., but probably of much later date.
II. The Book
1. Analysis of contents.In the analysis of the book, a line of division can be best drawn at the close of Nah 2:2. The latter section is the actual prophecy or oracle. It is preceded by a psalm or proem consisting of two parts, of which the one is general in its assertion of Gods universal judgment, the other particular in its specific messages to Judah and to Assyria. Jehovah as the jealous Avenger is the opening theme. This fact holds good of His administration (Nah 1:3); and as He passes on to the overthrow of the wicked, physical proofs of His power become evident everywhere (Nah 1:4-6). Tenderness towards those who wait upon Him, but an overwhelming flood upon His enemies (Nah 1:7-10), are the two great characteristics of His rule. What think ye of Jehovah? (Nah 1:9, where RV [Note: Revised Version.] does not preserve the sequence of thought) is the point of passage to the section dealing with His particular acts, in which section either the text is corrupt through the displacement of some of the verses, or the two messages, of deliverance to Judah (Nah 1:13; Nah 1:15, Nah 2:2) and of vengeance upon Israel (Nah 1:11 f., Nah 1:14, Nah 2:1, were meaot to be entangled in repeated antitheses. Already the bearer of the good news is speeding over the hills (Nah 1:15; cf. Isa 52:7, Rom 10:15).
The oracle proper consists also of two sections, corresponding with the division into chapters. The second chapter is a swift and vivid description of the siege of Nineveh, its capture and sack, with the complete desolation that followed.
A second oracle is contained in the third chapter, which there is no need to regard as compacted of several prophecies, but of which the unity in theme and sequence of thought is conspicuous. The mention of the city of blood, full of lies and rapine, is followed by one of the most vivid battle-pictures in Heb. literature (Nah 3:2 f.). The cause of destruction is to be found in the diplomatic barlotry, whereby nations and races had been lured and sold; and so richly merited will be the woe, that none will be left or disposed to pity or bemoan Nineveh (Nah 3:7). The analogy of No-amon (Thebes) makes it certain that a similar fate is awaiting the Assyrian city (Nah 3:8 ff.). Her outposts and defences are already falling before the invader, just as the first-ripe figs fall at the mere shaking of a fig-tree; and her people have become women (Nah 3:12 f.). The time to prepare for the siege is past, adds the prophet, with his sarcastic appeal, Tread the mortar, lay hold of the brick-mould. The swarming merchants, the crowned ones (floating foreign population, according to Wellhausen; more probably the princes and prosperous men, cf. Isa 10:8), the marshals or high officials, are like locusts or grasshoppers, that camp in the hedges and walls, but vanish with the sunrise. Finally, the prophet addresses the king himself, and on the eve of the destruction of the city proclaims her disappearance from history amidst the joy of all who had suffered under her tyranny: There is no assuaging of thy hurt all that hear the bruit of thee clap the hands over thee.
2. Authenticity of the first chapter.That Nahum was the author of the two oracles is hardly open to question, but of late years some doubt has been thrown upon the authenticity of the prologue. Against Nahums authorship the plea is of a technical character, that the first chapter is really, in Heb., an alphabetic poem, and that its right metrical division yields, with a few alterations and transpositions, a series of stanzas, of which the first words commence with the letters of the Heb. alphabet in order. This plea is followed by the statement that such a literary form points to a late origin; and consequently the prologue is held to have been composed or constructed in the post-exilic period, and prefixed as an appropriate Introduction to the oracle of Nahum on account of its expression of the general principle of Gods avenging justice, of which the drama of Nineveh was supposed to afford a striking illustration.
On the other side, the re-arrangements necessary to restore an alphabetical form are difficult, though perhaps possible as far as Nah 1:9, after which resort has to be had to processes that are scientifically indefensible. The order of the verses and of the words within the verses has to be altered, words are omitted or introduced with freedom, and on the whole A. B. Davidsons verdict standsthat the attempt to restore the alphabetical form can never be more than an academical exercise.
Even if an alphabetical form be conceded, a necessary lateness of date cannot be successfully inferred. Instances of the use of such a form occur, e.g., in Psa 9:10, where the tone and teaching are distinctly pre-exilic; and history would allow of the appearance of such a form, or at least of tentative efforts at its construction, at a comparatively early period in the development of a literature. The language and atmosphere of the prologue are those of the succeeding oracles. Alleged parallels with the post-exilic psalms are in reality parallels with earlier writings, which possibly supplied both Nahum and the writers of the psalms in question with their common phrases. Vividness and force, severity towards sin, fervent confidence in God, are features of all three chapters, which are further knit together by their theme, the first setting up Gods throne of judgment and announcing His sentence on Nineveh, the others portraying the execution of that sentence. And the attempts to destroy the unity of the book, able as they have been and full of valuable contributions to its exegesis and to Biblical science generally, must be regarded as having so far failed.
3. Date.The question of the authenticity of the first chapter does not seriously affect the further question of the date at which Nahum composed the two oracles by general consent ascribed to him. Two points may be fixed at once; and in the period between them the actual date must be found. Nahum prophesied after the capture of No-amon or Thebes (Nah 3:8-10) by Ashurbanipal in b.c. 664663, but before the fall of Nineveh in b.c. 606. The interval, within which the exact date must be sought, may be shortened with great probability. Ashurbanipals brilliant reign terminated in b.c. 626, and before that date there cannot be said to have been any great decline in the strength of Assyria. The Medes and the Scythians were beginning to threaten the empire, but its most serious difficulties arose from dynastic rivalries and the revolt of Ashurbanipals brother. Had that revolt been the occasion of Nahums prophecy, he would have directed his words against the king in person and not against the city. After the death of Ashurbanipal the Medes rapidly grew in strength, and laid siege to Nineveh, but were called away by an invasion of their own country; and the city was spared for nearly twenty years. The right date for Nahum seems to be a little after the death of Ashurbanipal, when the signs of Assyrian weakness were multiplying, and the outlying parts of the empire had already recovered their independence or been appropriated by other powers. At a later date the language of a prophet in Judah would be likely to be affected by the Deuteronomic style, of which there are no traces in Nahum; an earlier date would fail to supply the historic conditions, which are always an essential feature of Jewish prophecy. About 623 or 624 Nahum would need no great discernment to see the approaching fall of Assyria, and in the equipment and quick movements of the Medes and Scythians he would find the imagery which he uses to such good effect in his oracles.
4. Literary character and religious value.Picturesqueness and force have been described as the most prominent characteristics of Nahums poety. Compact thought, vivid description (Nah 2:3-5, Nah 3:2 f.), effective imagery (Nah 2:11 f., Nah 3:17 f.) separate him sufficiently from the prophets of the Chaldan period, and give him a position not far behind that of Isaiah. Obscurity is sometimes met with (e.g. Nah 1:10, Nah 2:8), but the cause is probably quite as often the high specific gravity of the sentence as an error in transcription. Findlay says (Books of the Prophets, II. 191) that Nahum is neglected by the Bible-reader, as though the story of Nineveh had little connexion with the progress of the Kingdom of God, and were merely a complete and isolated fact of the past with no relation to present needs. Yet if Nahum is not a religious teacher like Micah or Isaiah, he focuses the truth of Gods moral government of the world, concentrating the light upon a single typical instance; and he does not fail to defend confidence in God as the eventual Avenger of wrong and the perpetual defence of those who love Him. Where he differs chiefly from the other prophets is in the complete outwardness of his gaze. He has no eye for the shortcoming or sin of Judah, and no revelation to make of the inner history or moral character of his own generation. In this respect he contrasts especially with his contemporary Zephaniah, who also looked for the collapse of the Assyrian kingdom, but saw clearly a similar fate about to overtake the sinners of Israel. For Nahum, Nineveh fills up the whole canvas. The prophecy is a stern song of war, a shout of triumph over the conquered and slain; and though thereby it stands in contrast with the kindlier temper and spirit of the NT, in which no citation from the book occurs, it accords well with the traditions of its own age. And its great lesson, from which attention is not allowed to be diverted, is that the mills of God grind exceeding small, and for nations as for individuals sin, when it is full grown, bringeth forth death (Jam 1:15).
R. W. Moss.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Nahum
One of the lesser prophets. He was a native of Elkoshai, a village in Galilee. His name signifies comforter. See his prophecy. (Nah 1:1-15)
Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures
Nahum
nahum (, Naoum; the King James Version Naum): An ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy, the 9th before Joseph, the husband of Mary Luk 3:25.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Nahum
Nahum (consolation), the seventh of the Minor Prophets, according to the arrangement of both the Greek and Hebrew, but the sixth in point of date, was a native of Elkosh, a village of Galilee. He prophesied in Judah after the deportation of the ten tribes, and soon after the unsuccessful eruption of Sennacherib (Nah 1:11-13; Nah 2:1; Nah 2:13), consequently towards the close of the reign of Hezekiah. Attempts have been made to fix the date with precision, from the allusion to the destruction of No-Ammon or Thebes in Egypt (Nah 3:8); but as it is uncertain when this event took place, Eichhorn and others have conjectured that it was near the beginning of the reign of Hezekiah, or about B.C. 720, as about this time Sargon, king of Assyria, waged an unsuccessful war for three years against Egypt (Isaiah 20).
The contents of the prophecy of Nahum are as follows:Nah 1:2-7. The destruction of Nineveh and of the Assyrian monarchy is depicted in the liveliest colors, together with the relief of Judah from oppression. The destruction of Nineveh is detailed with still greater particularity in Nahum 3; which has induced some to suppose that the prophet refers to two different eventsthe sack of Nineveh by the Medes, B.C. 867, in the reign of Sardanapalus, and its second and final destruction, under Chyniladan, by Cyaxares the First and Nabopolassar, B.C. 625. But this opinion has been satisfactorily refuted by Jahn and De Wette.
The beauty of the style of Nahum has been universally felt. It is classic, observes De Wette, in all respects. It is marked by clearness, by its finished elegance, as well as by fire, richness, and originality. The rhythm is regular and lively. The whole book remarkably coherent, and the author only holds his breath, as it were, in Nahum 3. Jahn observes that the language is pure, with a single exception; that the style is ornate, and the tropes bold and elegant (rendering it, however, necessary for the reader to supply some omissions; see Nah 2:8; Nah 3:3; Nah 3:16); and that the descriptions of the divine omnipotence, and of the destruction of Nineveh, are resplendent with all the perfection of oratory.
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
Nahum
[Na’hum]
Nothing is known of the personal history of this prophet: he is called ‘the Elkoshite,’ which is supposed to refer to a place named Elkosh in Galilee. There is no reference to dates in the prophecy, but it is generally placed at about B.C. 714, when Sennacherib invaded Judaea. 2Ki 18:13. The prophecy is against Nineveh, and foretells its destruction, though, like other prophecies, it has an application to the future, when ‘Assyria’ will again be the open enemy of Israel.
The prophecy opens with the character of Jehovah in government. He is slow to anger, but He is jealous, and His revenge is furious. He is good, and a safe refuge in the day of trouble for those that trust in Him; but, as to His enemies, with an overflowing flood He will make an utter end of their place. Not only is the destruction of Nineveh foretold, but the Assyrian nation also should come to a full end.
One who had come out to oppress Israel, was a wicked counsellor, who imagined evil, not only against Judah, but against Jehovah: he should be cut off. Compare the insulting language of Rab-shakeh, the general of the king of Assyria: at first he said that Jehovah had sent him, and then treated the God of Israel as no better than the heathen gods, who had not been able to protect their worshippers. 2Ki 18:25; 2Ki 18:32-33. But there was good news for Judah; God would break the yoke of Assyria off their necks. They might keep their solemn feasts. The enemy should no more pass through. What took place in Hezekiah’s day was but a type of the latter-day fulfilment of this chapter: cf. Nah 1:10 and 2Ki 19:35; and in this way we see the scope of prophecy and not simply the immediate events that gave rise to it.
Nahum 2 concerns the city of Nineveh directly. God had allowed Jacob to be disciplined and ’emptied out;’ but now Nineveh must be dealt with. It is exhorted to make good its defence, yet the gates of the rivers should be opened, and the palace should be dissolved. Here it is not the ‘gates of the city,’ as when Babylon was taken, but ‘the gates of the rivers.’ This may refer to the Tigris and the canals that watered the city. The overflowing river, it is said, caused a breach in the sun-dried brick walls.
“Huzzab shall be led away captive.” Nah 2:7. This name is supposed by some to be symbolical of Nineveh, the one ‘established,’ or ‘held to be impregnable,’ as in the margin ; others, however, believe it refers to the reigning queen, who should be led captive with her maids. The spoil which had been taken in many wars was great, but should now enrich others. The reference to the lions, and the strangling, and the filling the dens with ravin, possibly applied to the cruelties which the Assyrians inflicted on their prisoners, and which are depicted by themselves on their monuments. Truly, as said in Nahum 3, it was a ‘bloody city.’ The following verses, as also Nah 2:3-4, show that it was a warlike nation, ever seeking to enrich itself by the spoil of other nations, among which were Israel and Judah. It should not only be brought down, but should be made vile and a gazing-stock. Nah 3:8-10 show that as ‘populous No’ (the renowned Thebes, with its hundred gates), had been brought to nought (probably by Sargon, king of Assyria), so should Nineveh fall. The gates of the land should be left open for their enemies, and as the cankerworm, the locust, and the grasshopper destroy vegetation, so should be their desolation. Fire is spoken of several times, and the explorations that have been made at the ruins of Nineveh abundantly prove that fire did its destructive work. The denunciations close with, “There is no healing of thy bruise; thy wound is grievous: all that hear the bruit of thee shall clap the hands over thee: for upon whom hath not thy wickedness passed continually?” The ruins show how complete and lasting was God’s judgement on the guilty city. See NINEVEH.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Nahum
H5151
One of the minor prophets.
Prophesies against the Assyrians; declares the majesty of God and His care for His people
Nah 1:1-15
Foretells the destruction of Nineveh
Nah 2
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Nahum
Nahum (N’hum), consolation. One of the twelve minor prophets. In Nah 1:1 he is called an Elkoshite. Some refer this name to a place in Galilee, others to a village on the Tigris. The intimate acquaintance the book shows with Syrian affairs makes it probable that Nahum lived an exile in Assyria, and perhaps at the village on the Tigris. Nahum prophesied before the destruction of Nineveh, which he predicts, and probably in the reign of Hezekiah.
Book of. It is a poem of great sublimity, and admirable for the elegance of its imagery. It describes with much beauty and poetic force the siege and destruction of Nineveh as a punishment for her wickedness. Nah. chaps. 2 and 3.
Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible
Nahum
Na’hum. (consolation). Nahum, called “the Elkoshite,” is the seventh, in order, of the minor prophets. His personal history is quite unknown. The site of Elkosh, his native place, is disputed, some placing it in Galilee, others in Assyria. Those who maintain the latter view, assume that the prophet’s parents were carried into captivity by Tiglath-pileser, and that the prophet was born at the village of Alkush, on the east bank of the Tigris, two miles north of Mosul.
On the other hand, the imagery of his prophecy is such like would be natural to an inhabitant of Palestine, Nah 1:4, to whom the rich pastures of Bashan, the vineyards of Carmel, and the blossoms of Lebanon were emblems of all that was luxuriant and fertile.
The language employed in Nah 1:15; Nah 2:2, is appropriate to one who wrote for his countrymen in their native land. (McClintock and Strong come to the conclusion that Nahum was a native of Galilee, and that at the captivity of the ten tribes, he escaped into Judah, and prophesied in the reign of Hezekiah, B.C. 726-698. — Editor).
Prophecy of Nahum. — The date of Nahum’s prophecy can be determined, with as little precision as his birthplace. It is, however, certain that the prophecy was written before the final downfall of Nineveh and its capture by the Medes and Chaldeans, circa, B.C. 625. The allusions to the Assyrian power imply that it was still unbroken. Nah 1:12; Nah 2:8; Nah 2:13; Nah 3:16-17.
It is most probable that Nahum flourished, in the latter half of the return of Hezekiah, and wrote his prophecy, either in Jerusalem or its neighborhood. The subject of the prophecy is, in accordance with the superscription, “the burden of Nineveh,” the destruction of which he predicts. As a poet, Nahum occupies a high place in the first rank of Hebrew literature. His style is clear and uninvolved, though pregnant and forcible; his diction sonorous and rhythmical, the words re-echoing to the sense. Compare Nah 2:4; Nah 3:3.
Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary
Nahum
is supposed to have been a native of Elcosh or Elcosha, a village in Galilee, and to have been of the tribe of Simeon. There is great uncertainty about the exact period in which he lived; but it is generally allowed that he delivered his predictions between the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, and probably about B.C. 715. They relate solely to the destruction of Nineveh by the Babylonians and Medes, and are introduced by an animated display of the attributes of God. Of all the minor prophets, says Bishop Lowth, none seems to equal Nahum in sublimity, ardour, and boldness. His prophecy forms an entire and regular poem. The exordium is magnificent and truly August. The preparation for the destruction of Nineveh, and the description of that destruction, are expressed in the most glowing colours; and at the same time the prophet writes with a perspicuity and elegance which have a just claim to our highest admiration.