NAHUM, BOOK OF. The seventh book of the twelve so-called Minor Prophets. It belongs to that class of prophecies known as the prophetiae contra gentes; it foretells the fall and destruction of Nineveh, the haughty capital of the mighty Assyrian empire.
1. Unity. The consensus of critical opinion regards only 2:3-3:19 as original. Critics agree that 1:2-10 is a secondary addition mainly because this passage is construed partly as an alphabetic psalm, and because it is supposedly not related to the central theme of the book. These arguments, however, are not decisive. First, it is evident that the acrostic is incomplete and that the opening letters of vv. 2-10 have a disturbed order: 1, 10, 3, 5, 12, 9, 6, 13 and 11. “Only by the most radical emendations and reshuffling of verses can the acrostic theory be made out” (Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction3 [1966], p. 341). The theory of Robert Pfeiffer that this type of acrostic poetry did not become popular until the 4th cent. b.c. presupposes a late dating of Lamentations 1 to 4, and of Psalms 34; 37; 111; 112; 119; 145. There is no reason why a man with such a distinguished poetical ability as Nahum could not have written this passage. Second, the charge of the absence of a reference to Nineveh is, of course, contradicted by the fact that Nineveh is mentioned in the title and alluded to esp. in v. 8. This section is, indeed, an appropriate introduction to Nahum’s prophecy emphasizing both retribution toward God’s enemies and consolation toward those who take refuge in Him.
Division of opinion exists in regard to the intervening passage (1:11-2:2). According to some this passage is partially redactional, and partly an original section of Nahum’s prophecy. The main objection against its originality is the “artificially balanced” representation of judgment upon the enemy and of promise toward God’s people. These two aspects of the prophecy, however, belong together in the sense of cause and effect.
2. Authorship. The second part of the title (1:1) assigns “the book” to Nahum of Elkosh. According to some scholars this part of the title was added to preserve the name of the prophet (Smit, Goslinga), and to characterize the oracle as “book.” There is no reason to doubt the validity of the title in connection with Nahum’s authorship of the book. In this form the name Nahum (Heb. Naḥūm, signifying “consolation”) occurs nowhere else in the OT, but is found in Luke 3:25 and on ostraca. Nothing is known of this prophet outside of the book that bears his name.
3. Date. Two major events define the approximate date of this prophecy: the fall of Thebes, according to Walter Maier (The Book of Nahum: A Commentary [1959]), in 668/7 b.c., and the fall of Nineveh in 612 b.c. The first event is referred to in 3:8-10 as a fact of history, and the fall of Nineveh is predicted as a future occurrence. Within these limits a wide range of conflicting dates has been advocated. Most critical scholars prefer a date shortly before the fall of Nineveh. According to Robert Pfeiffer “the poem was undoubtedly written between 625 and 612, and probably between 614 and 612.” The main reason for this viewpoint is the supposition that the fall of Nineveh is thought of as imminent. According to J. M. P. Smith “the invasion of Assyria has already begun.” This imminence, however, is read into the text. The internal evidence of the book itself points to a much earlier date. The description of Nineveh presupposes a city bathing in grandeur and might, and this could hardly have been applied to the Nineveh shortly after the death of Ashurbanipal in about 626 b.c. It is known that Assyria had lost its authority over the territories in the W during the reign of Josiah, king of Judah (639-609 b.c.). When Nahum wrote his prophecy Judah was still subjected to the Assyrian tyranny (1:13) and plundering (2:2, cf. 1:15). During the reign of Josiah, however, there was no occasion for the prophet to represent the deliverance and rejoicing of Judah as a result of the fall of Nineveh, for at that time Judah was no longer experiencing the rule of Assyria (cf. 2 Kings 23).
Two other dates have been advocated, one shortly before 626 b.c., in connection with a supposed attack on Nineveh led by Cyaxares, the Median king, and one shortly before 652-648 b.c., with reference to the Babylonian rebellion led by Shamash-shum-ukin. These theories are based upon the assumption that the prophecy of Nahum must have had a basis in historical events. We, of course, may in general grant this, but at the same time we must acknowledge the hypothetical character of a conclusion based upon such an assumption.
The present writer prefers a date shortly after the fall of Thebes. The reference to this event as an argument against Assyria gains in effectiveness under the assumption that the prophecy was uttered shortly after Thebes was captured and destroyed by Ashurbanipal. Perhaps it would be safe to date the prophecy before 654 b.c., because at that time Thebes began to rise from its ruins (cf. Maier, op. cit.).
Extreme positions have been taken by scholars who date Nahum post eventum (Sellin, Humbert), or even in the Maccabean age (O. Happel).
4. Place of origin. Contrary to the rendering of the Targum, according to which Nahum was from the “house of Ḳōs,” scholars are agreed that “Elkosh” (Heb ha’elqōsî) is a designation of his native town (cf. Mic 1:1). There are, however, four different theories in regard to the identification of this place: (1) an unlikely Islamitic tradition from the 16th cent. refers to the supposed grave of Nahum in Alqush near Mosul; (2) Jerome identified it as ElKauze in Galilee; (3) according to others Capernaum really signifies “The Village of Nahum”; (4) the theory which is favored by most conservative scholars identifies Elkosh with Elcesei, which according to Pseudepiphanius was a village of Judah in the vicinity of Bet Gabre in the territory of Simeon. The internal evidence of the text suggests that the author lived somewhere in Judah (1:15, Raven, Young, Archer, et al.).
5. Background. During the first half of the 7th cent. b.c. the international scene was dominated by Assyria. Ashurbanipal (669-626 b.c.), the son of Esar-hāddon (680-669 b.c.), played a high hand in international affairs. He conquered Egypt the first year of his kingship (669 b.c.), and repeated it a second time in 663 or 661 b.c. Some scholars apply the reference in Nahum 3:8-10 to this occasion. Little is known of the last part of Ashurbanipal’s reign. His country was surrounded by mighty enemies: the Scythians in the N, the Medes in the E, and the Chaldeans in the S. Egypt had previously regained its independence (645 b.c.). The hour of Assyria’s fall was drawing near. In 612 b.c. Nineveh was conquered and destroyed by the Medes and Chaldeans, and in 609 b.c. the mighty Assyrian empire vanished from the map.
Judah’s internal situation was determined by the long reign of Manasseh (687?-641 b.c.). Being a vassal of Assyria (cf. the relevant inscrs. in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, pp. 291, 294, 295), he introduced into Judah the official cult of the Assyrians (cf. 2 Kings 21:1-18; 23:8, 9; 2 Chron 33:3), along with a whole host of heathen practices. Later he was taken captive (2 Chron 33:11), and afterward was returned to Jerusalem, where he repented of his sins and tried to undo his evil work (2 Chron 33:10-13, 15-17). His son Amon (641-639 b.c.) also “did what was evil in the sight of the Lord” (2 Kings 21:20). During the reign of Josiah (639-609 b.c.), however, the heathen cult was abolished, the suzerainty of Assyria ended, and the reformation extended even into the territory of Israel (2 Kings 23:15ff.; 2 Chron 34:6ff.).
6. Canonicity and text. The canonicity of the book was never seriously questioned. It occupied the same order in both the Palestinian and Alexandrian Canon.
Apart from minor difficulties in the tr. (cf. 1:10, 12; 2:7, 8), the text of Nahum is on the whole well preserved. A number of alterations in the RSV are unnecessary (cf. 1:8, 9, 10, 11; 2:3, 11, 13; 3:7, 9). Chapter 1:15-2:13 corresponds with the Heb. text 2:1-14.
7. Content. It may be outlined as follows:
a. The title (1:1) characterizes the prophecy as a burden (massa’) concerning Nineveh.
b. In an introductory statement (1:2-8) Nahum describes the power and patience of God, his wrath toward His enemies, and His goodness for those who seek refuge in Him. The divine resolve to destroy Nineveh (v. 8) is implied.
c. The prediction of Nineveh’s doom on account of her sins is meant as a consolation for Judah (1:9-15).
d. Chapter 2:1-13 (Heb. 2:2-14) depicts in a vivid manner the conquering of Nineveh. The precautions to defend the city against the instrument of doom (2:1-5), will be in vain. The city will be flooded (2:6), her people taken captive (2:7, 8), and her treasures plundered (2:9). Terrifying fear will prevail (2:10), and Nineveh, that self-assured lion’s den (2:11-13), will be destroyed.
e. In ch. 3 the fall of Nineveh is again announced, and described in highly poetical language. The murderous city (3:1) will be captured by the instrument of God’s judgment (3:2, 3). Since this city acted like a harlot, she will be treated in like manner (3:4-7). She will fare no better than the mighty and well-fortified Thebes in Egypt, which went down in bloody defeat (3:8-10). Nineveh’s defense will be in vain (3:11-14). Her multitudes of merchants and military leaders will desert the doomed city (3:16, 17). Its inhabitants will be scattered, never to be gathered again (3:18). Amid universal applause Nineveh will disappear forever (3:19).
8. Theology. Critical scholars unjustly degrade the religious significance of Nahum’s prophecy on the ground that the prophet was “filled with a detestation of foreign oppressors.” The allusion to Nahum’s supposed chauvinistic attitude and concern with the sins of foreign nations only is extremely subjective. His prophecy was concerned primarily with the “consolation” for the people of God, who at that time were in subjection to the Assyrians. The affliction of Judah (1:12) presupposes her sins, and the deliverance out of the bondage of Assyria (1:13) must be seen as an act of God’s mercy (2:2). The main point, however, is that this prophecy has its roots in the preceding history of the divine revelation (cf. 1:2, 3a with Exod 20:5; 34:7; Num 14:18; 1:4 with Pss 18:16; 104:7; 2:1 with Isa 52:7; and 3:7 with Isa 51:19). In the prophecy of Nahum the history of God’s judgments in connection with Assyria (cf. Isa 10:5-19; 14:24-27; 17:12-14; 18:4-6; 29:5ff.; 30:27-33; 31:5-9; 33; 37:6ff., 21-35) reaches its climax. At the same time the prophecy of Nahum links up with the subsequent history of revelation, in as much as the antithesis between Assyria and Judah is deepened to represent the world power as enemy of God and His kingdom. This is esp. evident in the description of Nineveh as harlot, which figure is again reflected in the visions of Revelation 17:1, 2, 15, 18; 18:23. In the announcement of judgment upon this enemy the people of God are “consoled.”
Bibliography O. Happel, Das Buch des Propheten Nahum (1902); P. Haupt, “The Book of Nahum,” JBL (1907), 1-53, 151-164; C. Goslinga, Nahum’s Godsspraak tegen Ninevé (1923); P. Humbert, “Le Problème du livre de Nahoum,” Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie religieuses, XII (1932), 1ff.; A. Haldar, Studies in the Book of Nahum (1947); W. A. Maier, The Book of Nahum—A Commentary (1959).