The Hebrew term שׁוֹבֵב ( shovev , “the one turning back”) elsewhere has the nuance “apostate” (cf. NASB) or “traitor” (cf. NIV). The translation assumes an emendation to שָׁבָה ( shavah , “captor”). tn Heb “to the one turning back he assigns our fields.”


Heb “therefore you will not have one who strings out a measuring line by lot in the assembly of the Lord .” sn No one will assign you land in the Lord ’s community . When judgment passes and the people are restored to the land, those greedy ones who disregarded the ancient land allotments will not be allowed to participate in the future redistribution of the land.


Heb “‘Do not foam at the mouth,’ they foam at the mouth.” The verb נָטַף ( nataf ) means “to drip.” When used of speech it probably has the nuance “to drivel, to foam at the mouth” ( HALOT 694 s.v. נטף ). The sinful people tell the Lord ’s prophets not to “foam at the mouth,” which probably refers in a derogatory way to their impassioned style of delivery. But the Lord (who is probably still speaking here, see v. 3 ) sarcastically refers to their impassioned exhortation as “foaming at the mouth.”


If one follows the MT as it stands, it would appear that the Lord here condemns the people for their “foaming at the mouth” and then announces that judgment is inevitable. The present translation assumes that this is a continuation of the quotation of what the people say. In this case the subject of “foam at the mouth” is the Lord ’s prophets. In the second line יִסַּג ( yissag , a Niphal imperfect from סוּג , sug , “to remove”) is emended to יַסִּגֵנוּ ( yassigenu ; a Hiphil imperfect from נָסַג / נָשַׂג , nasag / nasag , “to reach; to overtake”). tn Heb “they should not foam at the mouth concerning these things, humiliation will not be removed.”


Heb “house” (so many English versions); CEV “descendants.’


The MT has אָמוּר (’ amur ), an otherwise unattested passive participle, which is better emended to אָמוֹר (’ amor ), an infinitive absolute functioning as a finite verb (see BDB 55 s.v. אָמַר ).


The Hebrew word רוּחַ ( ruach ) often means “Spirit” when used of the Lord , but here it seems to have an abstract sense, “patience.” See BDB 925 s.v. 3 .d.


Heb “Has the patience of the Lord run short? Or are these his deeds?” The rhetorical questions expect the answer, “No, of course not.” The people contest the prophet’s claims that the Lord ’s judgment is falling on the nation.


Heb “Do not my words accomplish good for the one who walks uprightly?” The rhetorical question expects the answer, “Of course they do!” The Lord begins his response to the claim of the house of Jacob that they are immune to judgment (see v. 7 a). He points out that the godly are indeed rewarded, but then he goes on to show that those in the house of Jacob are not godly and can expect divine judgment, not blessing (vv. 8-11 ). Some emend “my words” to “his words.” In this case, v. 7 b is a continuation of the immediately preceding quotation. The people, thinking they are godly, confidently ask, “Do not his [God’s] words accomplish good for the one who walks uprightly?”


Heb “Recently my people rise up as an enemy.” The MT is problematic in light of v. 9 , where “my people” are the object of oppression, not the perpetrators of it. The form וְאֶתְמוּל ( vÿ ’ etmul , “and recently”) is probably the product of fusion and subsequent suppression of an ( ע ) ayin . The translation assumes an emendation to וְאַתֶּם עַל ( vÿ ’ attem ’ al , “and you against [my people]”). The second person plural pronoun fits well with the second plural verb forms of vv. 8 b-10. If this emendation is accepted, then יְקוֹמֵם ( yÿqomem , the imperfect of קוּם [ qum ]) should be emended to קָמִים ( qamim ; a participle from the same root).


Heb “From the front of a garment glory [or perhaps, “a robe”] you strip off,” but this makes little if any sense. The term מִמּוּל ( mimmul , “from the front of”) is probably the product of dittography (note the preceding word, which ends in [ ם ] mem ) and subsequent suppression of ע ( ayin ). The translation assumes an emendation to מֵעַל ( me ’ al , “from upon”). The translation also assumes an emendation of שַׂלְמָה אֶדֶר ( salmah ’ eder , “a garment, glory [or robe]”) to שֹׁלְמִים אֲדֶרֶת ( sholÿmim ’ aderet , “[from] a friend the robe [you strip off]”). The MT’s אֶדֶר (’ eder ) is the result of misdivision (the article has erroneously been attached to the preceding word) and haplography (of the final tav , which also begins the following word).


The passive participle שׁוּבֵי ( shuvey ) is unattested elsewhere and should be emended to a participle שָׁבִים ( shavim ). tn Heb “from those passing by peacefully, returnees from war.” Actual refugees, however, are probably not in view. The second line compares those who pass by peacefully with individuals returning from war. The battle is over and they do not expect their own countrymen to attack them.


Heb “women.” This may be a synecdoche of the whole (women) for the part (widows).


Heb “her little children” or “her infants”; ASV, NRSV “young children.”


Heb “from their children you take my glory forever.” The yod ( י ) ending on הֲדָרִי ( hadariy ) is usually taken as a first person common singular suffix (“my glory”). But it may be the archaic genitive ending (“glory of”) in the construct expression “glory of perpetuity,” that is, “perpetual glory.” In either case, this probably refers to the dignity or honor the Lord bestowed on each Israelite family by giving them a share of his land to be inherited perpetually from one generation to another within each family. The term הָדָר ( hadar ) may refer to possessions that a person prizes ( Lam 1:6 ).


Heb “Arise and go!” These imperatives are rhetorical. Those who wrongly drove widows and orphans from their homes and land inheritances will themselves be driven out of the land (cf. Isa 5:8-17 ). This is an example of poetic justice.


Heb “for this is no resting place.” The Lord speaks to the oppressors.


Heb “uncleanness will destroy, and destruction will be severe.”


Heb “if a man, coming [as] wind and falsehood, should lie”; NASB “walking after wind and falsehood”; NIV “a liar and a deceiver.”


Heb “I will foam at the mouth concerning wine and beer.”


Heb “he would be the foamer at the mouth for this people.”


Heb “the remnant of Israel.”


The MT reads בָּצְרָה ( batsrah , “Bozrah”) but the form should be emended to בַּצִּרָה ( batsirah , “into the fold”). See D. R. Hillers, Micah (Hermeneia), 38.


The MT reads “its pasture,” but the final vav ( ו ) belongs with the following verb. See GKC 413 §127. i .


Heb “and they will be noisy [or perhaps, “excited”] from men.” The subject of the third feminine plural verb תְּהִימֶנָה ( tÿhimenah , “they will be noisy”) is probably the feminine singular צֹאן ( tso ’ n , “flock”). (For another example of this collective singular noun with a feminine plural verb, see Gen 30:38 .) In the construction מֵאָדָם ( me ’ adam , “from men”) the preposition is probably causal. L. C. Allen translates “bleating in fear of men” ( Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah [NICOT], 300), but it is possible to take the causal sense as “because of the large quantity of men.” In this case the sheep metaphor and the underlying reality are mixed.


Heb “the one who breaks through goes up before them.” The verb form is understood as a perfect of certitude, emphasizing the certainty of this coming event.


The three verb forms (a perfect and two preterites with vav [ ו ] consecutive) indicate certitude. sn The “fold” from which the sheep/people break out is probably a reference to their place of exile.


The verb form (a preterite with vav [ ו ] consecutive) indicates certitude.


Heb “the Lord [will be] at their head.”


Heb “heads.”


Heb “house.”


Heb “Should you not know justice?” The rhetorical question expects the answer, “Of course you should!”


Heb “the ones who.”


Or “good.”


Or “evil.”


Heb “their skin from upon them.” The referent of the pronoun (“my people,” referring to Jacob and/or the house of Israel, with the Lord as the speaker) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “and their flesh from their bones.” sn Micah compares the social injustice perpetrated by the house of Jacob/Israel to cannibalism, because it threatens the very lives of the oppressed.


Heb “who.”


The MT reads “and they chop up as in a pot.” The translation assumes an emendation of כַּאֲשֶׁר ( ka ’ asher , “as”) to כִּשְׁאֵר ( kish ’ er , “like flesh”).


Heb “then they will cry out to the Lord .” The words “Someday these sinners” have been supplied in the translation for clarification.


Heb “concerning the prophets, those who mislead my people.” The first person pronominal suffix is awkward in a quotation formula that introduces the words of the Lord . For this reason some prefer to begin the quotation after “the Lord says” (cf. NIV), but this leaves “concerning the prophets” hanging very awkwardly at the beginning of the quotation. It is preferable to add הוֹי ( hoy , “woe, ah”) at the beginning of the quotation, right after the graphically similar יְהוָה ( yÿhvah ; see D. R. Hillers, Micah [Hermeneia], 44). The phrase הוֹי עַל ( hoy ’ al , “woe upon”) occurs in Jer 50:27 and Ezek 13:3 (with “the prophets” following the preposition in the latter instance).


Heb “those who bite with their teeth and cry out, ‘peace.’” The phrase “bite with the teeth” is taken here as idiomatic for eating. Apparently these prophets were driven by mercenary motives. If they were paid well, they gave positive oracles to their clients, but if someone could not afford to pay them, they were hostile and delivered oracles of doom.


Heb “but [as for the one] who does not place [food] in their mouths, they prepare for war against him.”


Heb “it will be night for you without a vision.” sn The coming of night (and darkness in the following line) symbolizes the cessation of revelation.


Heb “it will be dark for you without divination.” sn The reading of omens ( Heb “divination”) was forbidden in the law ( Deut 18:10 ), so this probably reflects the prophets’ view of how they received divine revelation.


Heb “and the day will be dark over them.”


Or “seers.”


Or “the mustache,” or perhaps “the beard.” Cf. KJV, NAB, NRSV “cover their lips.”


Heb “for there will be no answer from God.”


Heb “am full of power, the Spirit of the Lord , and justice and strength.” The appositional phrase “the Spirit of the Lord ” explains the source of the prophet’s power. The phrase “justice and strength” is understood here as a hendiadys, referring to the prophet’s strong sense of justice.


Heb “to declare to Jacob his rebellion and to Israel his sin.” The words “this enables me” are supplied in the translation for clarification.


Heb “house.”


Heb “who.” A new sentence was begun here in the translation for stylistic reasons (also at the beginning of v. 10 ).


Heb “bloodshed” (so NAB, NASB, NIV); NLT “murder.”


For location see Map5-B1 ; Map6-F3 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-F2 ; Map10-B3 ; JP1-F4 ; JP2-F4 ; JP3-F4 ; JP4-F4 .


Heb “judge for a bribe.”


Heb “they lean upon” (so KJV, NIV, NRSV); NAB “rely on.”


Heb “Is not the Lord in our midst?” The rhetorical question expects the answer, “Of course he is!”


Or “come upon” (so many English versions); NCV “happen to us”; CEV “come to us.”


The plural pronoun refers to the leaders, priests, and prophets mentioned in the preceding verse.


Or “into” (an adverbial accusative of result).


Heb “the mountain of the house” (so KJV, ASV, NRSV).


Heb “a high place of overgrowth.”


Heb “at the end of days.”


Heb “will be established as the head of the mountains.”


Heb “it will be lifted up above the hills.”


Heb “ways.”


Or “judge.”


Or “mighty” (NASB); KJV, NAB, NIV, NRSV “strong”; TEV “among the great powers.”


Heb “[for many nations] to a distance.”


Heb “take up the sword.”


Heb “and there will be no one making [him] afraid.”


Heb “for the mouth of the Lord of Hosts has spoken.”


Heb “walk each in the name of his god.” The term “name” here has the idea of “authority.” To “walk in the name” of a god is to recognize the god’s authority as binding over one’s life.


Heb “walk in the name of.”


Heb “make the lame into a remnant.”


The precise meaning of this difficult form is uncertain. The present translation assumes the form is a Niphal participle of an otherwise unattested denominative verb הָלָא ( hala ’, “to be far off”; see BDB 229 s.v.), but attractive emendations include הַנַּחֲלָה ( hannakhalah , “the sick one[s]”) from חָלָה ( khalah ) and הַנִּלְאָה ( hannil ’ ah , “the weary one[s]”) from לָאָה ( la ’ ah ).


Heb “from now until forever.”


Heb “Migdal-eder.” Some English versions transliterate this phrase, apparently because they view it as a place name (cf. NAB).


Heb “to you it will come, the former dominion will arrive.”


The Hebrew form is feminine singular, indicating that Jerusalem, personified as a young woman, is now addressed (see v. 10 ). In v. 8 the tower/fortress was addressed with masculine forms, so there is clearly a shift in addressee here. “Jerusalem” has been supplied in the translation at the beginning of v. 9 to make this shift apparent.


Heb “Now why are you shouting [with] a shout.”


Heb “Is there no king over you?”


Traditionally, “counselor” (cf. KJV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV). This refers to the king mentioned in the previous line; the title points to the king’s roles as chief strategist and policy maker, both of which required extraordinary wisdom.


Heb “that.” The Hebrew particle כִּי ( ki ) is used here in a resultative sense; for this use see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 73, §450.


Heb “grabs hold of, seizes.”


Or perhaps “scream”; NRSV, TEV, NLT “groan.”


Or “redeem” (KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT).


Heb “hand.” The Hebrew idiom is a metonymy for power or control.


Heb “let her be desecrated.” the referent (Jerusalem) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “and let our eye look upon Zion.”


The words “to be threshed” are not in the Hebrew text, but have been supplied in the translation to make it clear that the Lord is planning to enable “Daughter Zion” to “thresh” her enemies.


Heb “I will make your horn iron.”


Or “the Lord” (so many English versions); Heb “the master.”


Heb “and their wealth to the master of all the earth.” The verb “devote” does double duty in the parallelism and is supplied in the second line for clarification. sn In vv. 11-13 the prophet jumps from the present crisis (which will result in exile, v. 10 ) to a time beyond the restoration of the exiles when God will protect his city from invaders. The Lord ’s victory over the Assyrian armies in 701 b.c. foreshadowed this.


The Hebrew verb גָדַד ( gadad ) can be translated “slash yourself” or “gather in troops.” A number of English translations are based on the latter meaning (e.g., NASB, NIV, NLT). sn Slash yourself . Slashing one’s body was a form of mourning. See Deut 14:1 ; 1 Kgs 18:28 ; Jer 16:6; 41:5; 47:5 .


Heb “daughter of a troop of warriors.” sn The daughter surrounded by soldiers is an image of the city of Jerusalem under siege (note the address “Daughter Jerusalem” in 4:8 ).


Or “staff”; KJV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT “rod”; CEV “stick”; NCV “club.” sn Striking a king with a scepter , a symbol of rulership, would be especially ironic and humiliating.


Traditionally, “the judge of Israel” (so KJV, NASB).


Heb “being small.” Some omit לִהְיוֹת ( lihyot , “being”) because it fits awkwardly and appears again in the next line.


Heb “from you for me one will go out to be a ruler over Israel.”


Heb “his goings out.” The term may refer to the ruler’s origins (cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT) or to his activities.


Heb “from the past, from the days of antiquity.” Elsewhere both phrases refer to the early periods in the history of the world or of the nation of Israel. For מִקֶּדֶם ( miqqedem , “from the past”) see Neh 12:46 ; Pss 74:12; 77:11 ; Isa 45:21; 46:10 . For מִימֵי עוֹלָם ( mimey ’ olam , “from the days of antiquity”) see Isa 63:9, 11 ; Amos 9:11 ; Mic 7:14 ; Mal 3:4 . In Neh 12:46 and Amos 9:11 the Davidic era is in view. sn In riddle-like fashion this verse alludes to David, as the references to Bethlehem and to his ancient origins/activities indicate. The passage anticipates the second coming of the great king to usher in a new era of national glory for Israel. Other prophets are more direct and name this coming ideal ruler “David” ( Jer 30:9 ; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25 ; Hos 3:5 ). Of course, this prophecy of “David’s” second coming is actually fulfilled through his descendant, the Messiah, who will rule in the spirit and power of his famous ancestor and bring to realization the Davidic royal ideal in an even greater way than the historical David (see Isa 11:1, 10 ; Jer 33:15 ).


Heb “he”; the referent (the Lord ) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “them”; the referent (the people of Israel) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The words “to their enemies” are supplied in the translation for clarification.


Heb “his”; the referent (the king) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “to the sons of Israel.” The words “be reunited with” are supplied in the translation for clarity. sn The rest of the king’s brothers are the coming king’s fellow Judahites, while the sons of Israel are the northern tribes. The verse pictures the reunification of the nation under the Davidic king. See Isa 11:12-13 ; Jer 31:2-6, 15-20 ; ; Hos 1:11; 3:5 .


Heb “stand up”; NAB “stand firm”; NASB “will arise.”


The words “the people” are supplied in the translation for clarification.


Heb “by the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.”


The words “in peace” are supplied in the translation for clarification. Perhaps וְיָשָׁבוּ ( vÿyashavu , “and they will live”) should be emended to וְשָׁבוּ ( vÿshavu , “and they will return”).


Heb “be great.”


Or “to the ends of.”


Heb “and this one will be peace”; ASV “and this man shall be our peace” (cf. Eph 2:14 ).


Some prefer to read “in our land,” emending the text to בְּאַדְמָתֵנוּ ( bÿ ’ admatenu ).


Heb “raise up.”


Heb “shepherds.”


Heb “and eight leaders of men.”


Or perhaps “break”; or “defeat.”


The MT reads “in her gates,” but the text should be emended to בַּפְּתִיחָה ( baptikhah , “with a drawn sword”).


Heb “he”; the referent (the coming king) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “the remnant of” (also in v. 8 ).


Heb “will be.”


This could mean “(scattered) among the nations” (cf. CEV, NLT) or “surrounded by many nations” (cf. NRSV).


Heb “that does not hope for man, and does not wait for the sons of men.” sn Men wait eagerly for the dew and the rain , not vice versa. Just as the dew and rain are subject to the Lord , not men, so the remnant of Israel will succeed by the supernatural power of God and not need the support of other nations. There may even be a military metaphor here. Israel will overwhelm their enemies, just as the dew completely covers the grass (see 2 Sam 17:12 ). This interpretation would be consistent with the image of v. 7 .


The words “its prey” are supplied in the translation for clarification.


Heb “and there is no deliverer.”


Heb “let your hand be lifted against your adversaries.”


Heb “be cut off.”


Heb “cut off” (also in the following verse).


Heb “magic charms” (so NCV, TEV); NIV, NLT “witchcraft”; NAB “the means of divination.” The precise meaning of this Hebrew word is uncertain, but note its use in Isa 47:9, 12 .


Heb “from your hands.”


Heb “and you will not have omen-readers.”


Or “Asherah poles.” sn Asherah was a leading deity of the Canaanite pantheon, wife/sister of El and goddess of fertility. She was commonly worshiped at shrines in or near groves of evergreen trees, or, failing that, at places marked by wooden poles. These were to be burned or cut down ( Deut 12:3; 16:21 ; Judg 6:25, 28, 30 ; 2 Kgs 18:4 ). The Lord states that he will destroy these images, something the Israelites themselves should have done but failed to do.


The MT reads “your cities,” but many emend the text to צִרֶיךָ ( tsirekha , “your images”) or עֲצַבֶּיךָ (’ atsbbekha , “your idols”).


Or “plead your case” (NASB, NIV, NRSV); NAB “present your plea”; NLT “state your case.” sn Defend yourself . The Lord challenges Israel to defend itself against the charges he is bringing.


Heb “let the hills hear your voice.”


This verse briefly interrupts the Lord ’s statement (see vv. 1, 3 ) as the prophet summons the mountains as witnesses. Because of this v. 2 has been placed in parentheses in the translation.


Heb “My people, what have I done to you?”


Heb “before you.”


Heb “remember what Balak…planned.”


Heb “From Shittim to Gilgal, in order to know the just acts of the Lord .” Something appears to be missing at the beginning of the line. The present translation supplies the words, “Recall how you went.” This apparently refers to how Israel crossed the Jordan River (see Josh 3:1; 4:19-24 ).


The words “with what” do double duty in the parallelism and are supplied in the second line of the translation for clarification.


Or “the exalted God.”


Heb “the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul.” The Hebrew term נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh ) is often translated “soul,” but the word usually refers to the whole person; here “the sin of my soul” = “my sin.”


Heb “except.” This statement is actually linked with what precedes, “What does he want from you except….”


Heb “to do,” in the sense of “promote.”


Heb “to love faithfulness.”


Heb “to walk humbly [or perhaps, “carefully”] with.”


Or “the voice of the Lord is calling.” The translation understands קוֹל ( qol , “voice”) as equivalent to an imperative.


Heb “one who sees your name is wisdom.” It is probably better to emend יִרְאֶה ( yir ’ eh , “he sees”) to יִרְאָה ( yir ’ ah , “fearing”). One may then translate, “fearing your name is wisdom.” The Lord ’s “name” here stands by metonymy for his authority.


Heb (apparently) “Listen [to] the staff and the one who appointed it.” Verse 10 then begins with עוֹד ( yod , “still” or “again”). The translation assumes an emendation to שִׁמְעוּ מַטֶּה וּמוֹעֵד הָעִיר ( shim ’ u matteh umo ’ ed ha ’ ir , “listen, O tribe and the assembly of the city”).


The meaning of the first Hebrew word in the line is unclear. Possibly it is a combination of the interrogative particle and אִשׁ (’ ish ), an alternate form of יֵשׁ ( yesh , “there is/are”). One could then translate literally, “Are there treasures of sin [in] the house of the sinful?” The translation assumes an emendation to הַאֶשֶּׁה ( ha ’ esheh , from נָשָׁא , nasha ’, “to forget”), “Will I forget?” The rhetorical question expects an answer, “No, I will not forget.”


Heb “the treasures of sin”; NASB “treasures of wickedness”; NIV “ill-gotten treasures.”


Heb “the accursed scant measure.” sn Merchants would use a smaller than standard measure so they could give the customer less than he thought he was paying for.


Heb “Do I acquit sinful scales, and a bag of deceptive weights?” The rhetorical question expects an answer, “No, I do not,” and has been translated as a declarative statement for clarity and emphasis. sn Merchants also used rigged scales and deceptive weights to cheat their customers. See the note at Amos 8:5 .


Heb “because her rich are full of violence.”


Heb “speak lies.”


Heb “and also I, I will make you sick, striking you.”


The first Hebrew term in the line ( וְיֶשְׁחֲךָ , vÿyeshkhakha ) is obscure. HALOT 446 s.v. יֶשַׁח understands a noun meaning “filth,” which would yield the translation, “and your filth is inside you.” The translation assumes an emendation to כֹּחַ - וְיֶשׁ ( vÿyesh-koakh , “and [if] there is strength inside you”).


The meaning of the Hebrew term וְתַסֵּג ( vÿtasseg ) is unclear. The translation assumes it is a Hiphal imperfect from נָסַג / נָשַׂג ( nasag / nasag , “reach; overtake”) and that hunting imagery is employed. (Note the reference to hunger in the first line of the verse.) See D. R. Hillers, Micah (Hermeneia), 80.


The Hiphal of פָּלַט ( palat ) is used in Isa 5:29 of an animal carrying its prey to a secure place.


Heb “you will tread olives.” Literally treading on olives with one’s feet could be harmful and would not supply the necessary pressure to release the oil. See O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel , 119. The Hebrew term דָּרַךְ ( darakh ) may have an idiomatic sense of “press” here, or perhaps the imagery of the following parallel line (referring to treading grapes) has dictated the word choice.


Heb “but you will not rub yourselves with oil.”


Heb “and juice, but you will not drink wine.” The verb תִדְרֹךְ ( tidrokh , “you will tread”) must be supplied from the preceding line.


Heb “the edicts of Omri are kept, and all the deeds of the house of Ahab.”


Heb “and you walk in their plans.” sn The Omride dynasty, of which Ahab was the most infamous king, had a reputation for implementing unjust and oppressive measures. See .


The Hebrew term שַׁמָּה ( shammah ) can refer to “destruction; ruin,” or to the reaction it produces in those who witness the destruction.


Heb “her”; the referent (the city) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “[an object] of hissing,” which was a way of taunting someone.


The translation assumes an emendation of the MT’s עַמִּי (’ ammi , “my people”) to עַמִּים (’ ammim , “nations”). tn Heb “and the reproach of my people you will bear.” The second person verb is plural here, in contrast to the singular forms used in vv. 13-15 .


Heb “woe to me!” In light of the image that follows, perhaps one could translate, “I am disappointed.”


Or “have perished”; “have been destroyed.”


Heb “and an upright one among men there is not.”


Heb “for bloodshed” (so NASB); TEV “for a chance to commit murder.”


Heb “upon evil [are their] hands to do [it] well.”


Heb “the official asks – and the judge – for a bribe.”


More literally, “the great one announces what his appetite desires and they weave it together.” Apparently this means that subordinates plot and maneuver to make sure the prominent man’s desires materialize.


Heb “[the] godly from a row of thorn bushes.” The preposition מִן ( min ) is comparative and the comparative element (perhaps “sharper” is the idea) is omitted. See BDB 582 s.v. 6 and GKC 431 §133. e .


Heb “the day of your watchmen, your appointed [time], is coming.” The present translation takes “watchmen” to refer to actual sentries. However, the “watchmen” could refer figuratively to the prophets who had warned Judah of approaching judgment. In this case one could translate, “The day your prophets warned about – your appointed time of punishment – is on the way.”


Heb “and now will be their confusion.”


Heb “from the one who lies in your arms, guard the doors of your mouth.”


Heb “rises up against.”


Heb “the enemies of a man are the men of his house.”


The singular form is understood as collective.


Or “rejoice” (KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV); NCV “don’t laugh at me.”


Heb “lift, bear.”


Heb “until.”


Or “plead my case” (NASB and NIV both similar); NRSV “until he takes my side.”


Heb “see.”


Heb “who say.” A new sentence was begun here in the translation for stylistic reasons.


Heb “My eyes will look on them.”


Heb “a trampled-down place.”


Heb “they.” The referent has been specified as “people,” referring either to the nations (coming to God with their tribute) or to the exiles of Israel (returning to the Lord ).


The masculine pronominal suffix suggests the Lord is addressed. Some emend to a feminine form and take Jerusalem as the addressee.


The MT reads וְעָרֵי ( vÿ ’ arey , “and the cities [of Egypt]”), but the parallel line indicates this is a corruption of וְעַד ( vÿ ’ ad , “even to”).


Heb “the River,” referring to the Euphrates River. This has been specified in the translation for clarity (so also NASB, NIV).


Heb “and sea from sea.” Many prefer to emend this to מִיָּם עַד יָם ( miyyam ’ ad yam , “from sea to sea”).


Heb “and mountain of the mountain.” Many prefer to emend this to וּמֵהַר עַד הַר ( umehar ’ ad har , “and mountain to mountain”).


Or “will be ruined.”


Or “with your scepter” (the Hebrew term can mean either “rod” or “scepter”).


Heb “the flock of your inheritance.”


Or “in the midst of Carmel.” The Hebrew term translated “pastureland” may be a place name. sn The point seems to be that Israel is in a vulnerable position, like sheep in a thicket populated by predators, while rich pastureland (their homeland and God’s blessings) is in view.


Heb “as in the days of antiquity.”


Heb “him.” This probably refers to Israel in a collective sense. Because the switch from direct address to the third person is awkward, some prefer to emend the suffix to a second person form. In any case, it is necessary to employ a second person pronoun in the translation to maintain the connection for the English reader.


Or “be ashamed of.”


Heb “and their ears will be deaf.” Apparently this means the opposing nations will be left dumbfounded by the Lord ’s power. Their inability to respond will make them appear to be deaf mutes.


Heb “like crawling things on the ground.” The parallelism suggests snakes are in view.


Thetranslationassumesthatthe phrase אֶל־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ (’ el-yÿhvah ’ elohenu , “to the Lord our God”) goes with what precedes. Another option is to take the phrase with the following verb, in which case one could translate, “to the Lord our God they will turn in dread.”


Heb “they will be in dread and afraid.”


The Lord is addressed directly using the second person.


Heb “Who is a God like you?” The rhetorical question expects the answer, “No one!”


Heb “one who.” The prayer moves from direct address (second person) in v. 18 a to a descriptive (third person) style in vv. 18 b-19a and then back to direct address (second person) in vv. 19 b-20. Due to considerations of English style and the unfamiliarity of the modern reader with alternation of persons in Hebrew poetry, the entire section has been rendered as direct address (second person) in the translation.


Heb “pass over.”


Heb “of the remnant of his inheritance.”


The verb יָשׁוּב ( yashuv , “he will return”) is here used adverbially in relation to the following verb, indicating that the Lord will again show mercy.


Some prefer to read יִכְבֹּס ( yikhbos , “he will cleanse”; see HALOT 459 s.v. כבס pi). If the MT is taken as it stands, sin is personified as an enemy that the Lord subdues.


Heb “their sins,” but the final mem ( ם ) may be enclitic rather than a pronominal suffix. In this case the suffix from the preceding line (“our”) may be understood as doing double duty.


More literally, “You will extend loyalty to Jacob, and loyal love to Abraham.


Heb “our fathers.” The Hebrew term refers here to more distant ancestors, not immediate parents.


Heb “which you swore [or, “pledged”] to our fathers from days of old.”


Heb “of Nineveh.”


Or “Nahum of Elkosh” (NAB, NRSV).


Heb “jealous.” The Hebrew term קַנּוֹא ( qanno ’, “jealous, zealous”) refers to God’s zealous protection of his people and his furious judgment against his enemies. The root קָנָא ( qana ’) can denote jealous envy ( Gen 26:14; 30:1; 37:11 ; Pss 37:1; 73:3; 106:16 ; Prov 3:31; 23:17; 24:1, 19 ; Ezek 31:9 ), jealous rivalry ( Eccl 4:4; 9:6 ; Isa 11:13 ), marital jealousy ( Num 5:14, 15, 18, 25, 30 ; Prov 6:34; 27:4 ), zealous loyalty ( Num 11:29; 25:11, 13 ; 2 Sam 21:2 ; 1 Kgs 19:10, 14 ; 2 Kgs 10:16 ; Ps 69:10 ; Song 8:6 ; Isa 9:6; 37:32; 42:13; 59:17; 63:15 ; Zech 1:14; 8:2 ), jealous anger ( Deut 32:16, 21 ; Ps 78:58 ), and zealous fury ( Exod 34:14 ; Deut 5:9; 29:19 ; 1 Kgs 14:22 ; Job 5:2 ; Pss 79:5; 119:139 ; Prov 14:30 ; Isa 26:11 ; Ezek 5:13; 8:3; 16:38, 42; 23:25; 35:11; 36:5, 6; 38:19 ; Zeph 1:18 ). See BDB 888 s.v. קָנָא ; E. Reuter, TDOT 13:47-58.


The syntax of this line has been understood in two ways: (1) as a single clause with the Lord as the subject: “A jealous and avenging God is the Lord ” (NRSV; NASB) or “The Lord is a jealous and avenging God” (NIV); and (2) as two parallel clauses: “God is jealous, and the Lord avenges” (KJV). The LXX reflects the latter. Masoretic accentuation and Hebrew syntax support the former. Accentuation links קַנּוֹא וְנֹקֵם ( qano ’ vÿnoqem , “jealous and avenging”) together rather than dividing them into separate clauses. Normal word order suggests that קַנּוֹא וְנֹקֵם (“jealous and avenging”) are attributive adjectives modifying אֵל (’ el , “God”). In verbless clauses such as this, the predicate normally precedes the subject; thus, “a jealous and avenging God” ( אֵל קַנּוֹא וְנֹקֵם , ’ el qanno ’ vÿnoqem ) is the predicate and “the Lord ” ( יְהוָה , yÿhvah ) is the subject.


Or “exceedingly wrathful”; Heb “a lord of wrath.” The idiom “lord of wrath” ( וּבַעַל חֵמָה , uva ’ al khemah ) means “wrathful” or “full of wrath” ( Prov 22:24; 29:22 ). The noun “lord” ( בַעַל ) is used in construct as an idiom to describe a person’s outstanding characteristic or attribute (e.g., Gen 37:19 ; 1 Sam 28:7 ; 2 Kgs 1:8 ; Prov 1:17; 18:9; 22:24; 23:2; 24:8 ; Eccl 7:12; 8:8; 10:11, 20 ; Isa 41:15; 50:8 ; Dan 8:6, 20 ); see IBHS 149-51 §9.5.3.


The term נָקַם ( naqam , “avenge, vengeance”) is used three times in 1:2 for emphasis. The Lord will exact just retribution against his enemies (the Assyrians) to avenge their wickedness against his people (Judah).


The verb “rage” ( נָטַר , natar ) is used elsewhere of keeping a vineyard ( Song 1:6; 8:11-12 ) and guarding a secret ( Dan 7:28 ). When used of anger, it does not so much mean “to control anger” or “to be slow to anger” ( HALOT 695 s.v.) but “to stay angry” ( TWOT 2:576). It describes a person bearing a grudge, seeking revenge, and refusing to forgive ( Lev 19:18 ). It is often used as a synonym of שָׁמַר ( shamar , “to maintain wrath, stay angry”) in collocation with לְעוֹלָם ( lÿ ’ olam , “forever, always”) and לָעַד ( la ’ ad , “continually”) to picture God harboring rage against his enemies forever ( Jer 3:5, 12 ; Amos 1:11 ; Ps 103:9 ). The long-term rage depicted by נָטַר (“maintain rage”) serves as an appropriate bridge to the following statement in Nahum that the Lord is slow to anger but furious in judgment. God seeks vengeance against his enemies; he continually rages and maintains his anger; he is slow to anger, but will eventually burst out with the full fury of his wrath.


Heb “long of anger,” i.e., “slow to anger” ( Exod 34:6 ; Num 14:18 ; Joel 2:13 ; Jonah 4:2 ; Pss 86:15; 103:8; 145:8 ; Prov 14:29; 15:18; 16:32 ; Neh 9:17 ) or restraining anger ( Jer 15:15 ; Prov 25:15 ). Cf. NCV “The Lord does not become angry quickly.”


The BHS editors suggest emending MT “power” ( כֹּחַ , koakh ) to “mercy” ( חֶסֶד , khesed ) as in Exod 34:6 ; Num 14:18 ; Joel 2:13 ; Jonah 4:2 ; Ps 103:8 ; Neh 9:17 . However, this is unnecessary, it has no textual support, and it misses the rhetorical point intended by Nahum’s modification of the traditional expression. sn This is an allusion to the well-known statement, “The Lord is slow to anger but great in mercy” ( Exod 34:6 ; Num 14:18 ; Joel 2:13 ; Jonah 4:2 ; Ps 103:8 ; Neh 9:17 ). Nahum subtly modifies this by substituting “great in mercy” with “great in power.” God’s patience at the time of Jonah ( Jonah 4:2 ) one century earlier (ca. 750 b.c. ), had run out. Nineveh had exhausted the “great mercy” of God and now would experience the “great power” of God.


Or “he will certainly not acquit [the wicked]”; KJV “and will not at all acquit the wicked.” The root נָקַה ( naqah , “to acquit”) is repeated for emphasis. The phrase “he will certainly not allow the wicked to go unpunished” ( וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה , vÿnaqqeh lo ’ yÿnaqqeh ) is an emphatic construction (see GKC 215 §75. hh ; IBHS 584-88 §35.3.1).


The words “the wicked” are not in the Hebrew text but are supplied in the translation; they are implied when this idiom is used ( Exod 34:7 ; Num 14:18 ). In legal contexts the nuance “the guilty” is most appropriate; in nonlegal contexts the nuance “the wicked” is used.


Heb “His way is in the whirlwind” (so NIV). The noun דַּרְכּוֹ ( darko , “his way”) is nuanced here in a verbal sense. The noun דֶּרֶךְ ( derekh ) often denotes a “journey” ( Gen 28:20; 30:36; 45:23 ; Num 9:10 ; Josh 9:13 ; 1 Sam 21:6 ; 1 Kgs 18:27 ). The verb דָּרַךְ ( darakh ) often means “to tread a path” ( Job 22:15 ) and “to march out” ( Judg 5:21 ). The Lord is portrayed as the Divine Warrior marching out to battle ( Exod 15:1-12 ; Deut 33:2 ; Judg 5:4-5 ; Pss 18:7-15; 68:4-10, 32-35; 77:16-19 ; Mic 1:3-4 ; Hab 3:3-15 ).


Heb “clouds are dust.”


The term גָּעַר ( ga ’ ar ) often denotes “reprimand” and “rebuke” (cf. KJV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV). When it is used in the context of a military attack, it denotes an angry battle cry shouted by a mighty warrior to strike fear into his enemies to drive them away (e.g., 2 Sam 23:16 ; Isa 30:17 ; Pss 18:15; 76:6; 80:17; 104:7 ). For example, the parallel Ugaritic term is used when Baal utters a battle cry against Yamm before they fight to the death. For further study see, A. A. MacIntosh, “A Consideration of Hebrew g`r,” VT 14 (1969): 474; P. J. van Zijl, “A Consideration of the root ga ’ ar (“rebuke”),” OTWSA 12 (1969): 56-63; A. Caquot, TDOT 3:49-53.


This somewhat unusual use of the preterite ( וַיַּבְּשֵׁהוּ , vayyabbÿshehu ) follows a participle which depicts characteristic (present-time) action or imminent future action; the preterite depicts the subsequent present or future-time action (see IBHS 561-62 §33.3.5).


The term אֻמְלַל (’ umlal , “withers”) occurs twice in this verse in MT. The repetition of אֻמְלַל is also supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah). The BHS editors suggest emending the first occurrence of אֻמְלַל (“withers”) to דָּלְלוּ ( dollu , “languishes”) to recover the letter ד ( dalet ) in the partial acrostic. Several versions do, in fact, employ two different verbs in the line (LXX, Syr, Targum, and Vg). However, the first verb at the beginning of the line in all of the versions reflects a reading of אֻמְלַל . Although several elements of an acrostic are present in , the acrostic is incomplete (only א [ alef ] to כ [ kaf ] in vv. 2-8 ) and broken (several elements are missing within vv. 2-8 ). There is no textual evidence for a complete, unbroken acrostic throughout the book of Nahum in any ancient Hebrew mss or other textual versions; it is most prudent simply to leave the MT as it stands.


Or “because of him.” The Hebrew preposition מִמֶּנּוּ ( mimmenu ) is taken in a causal sense (“because of him”) by NASB, NJPS; however, it is taken in a locative sense (“before him”) by KJV, NKJV, NRSV, NIV. On the other hand, the LXX rendered it in a separative sense: ἀπ' αὐτοῦ ( ap autou , “from him”). The parallelism between 1:5 a and 1:5 b seems to favor the locative nuance: “The mountains quake before him ( מִמֶּנּוּ ), the earth is laid waste before him ( מִפָּנָיו , mifanayv ).”


Traditionally, “the hills melt.” English versions typically render הִתְמֹגָגוּ ( hitmogagu ) as “melt” (KJV, NRSV, NIV, NJPS) or “dissolve” (NASB). The LXX renders it ἐσαλεύθησαν ( esaleuqhsan , “are shaken”). The Hebrew root has a range of meanings: (1) “to melt,” of courage ( Ps 107:26 ) or troops retreating (“melting away” in fear) in battle ( 1 Sam 14:16 ); (2) “to dissolve,” of mountains dissolving due to erosion ( Amos 9:13 ); (3) “to quake, shake apart,” of mountains quaking, swaying backwards and forwards, coming apart, and collapsing in an earthquake ( Amos 9:5 ; Pss 46:6 [7]; 75:3 [4]). The latter fits the imagery of v. 5 (violent earthquakes): the earth trembles in fear at the approach of the Divine Warrior (e.g., Hab 3:6 ).


Or “is upheaved”; or “heaves.” There is debate whether the originally unpointed Hebrew verb וַתִּשָּׂא ( vattissa ’) should be vocalized as וְתִּשָּׂא ( vÿttissa ’; NASB “is upheaved”; NRSV, NJPS “heaves”) from the root נָשָׂא ( nasa ’, “to lift up”) or as וַתִּשָּׁא ( vattisha ’, “is devastated, laid waste”) from the root שֹׁאָה ( sho ’ ah , “to devastate, lay waste”). The vocalization וְתִּשָּׂא is attested in the Masoretic tradition and the Greek versions: Origen (“was raised up”), Symmachus (“was moved”), and Aquila (“shivered”). However, וְתִּשָּׂא demands an intransitive (“heaves”) or passive (“is upheaved”) sense which is not attested for the Qal stem. The vocalization וַתִּשָּׁא (“is devastated, laid waste”) is supported by the Syriac and Vulgate. The revocalization of the MT וְתִּשָּׂא (“is lifted up”) to וַתִּשָּׁא (“is devastated”) is suggested by the BHS editors and several Hebrew lexicons ( HALOT 726 s.v. נשׁא ; BDB 670-71 s.v. נָשָׂא ). The revocalization involves only the difference between the form שׂ ( sin ) and שׁ ( shin ) and is followed in the present translation.


The words “are laid waste” are not in the Hebrew text, but are an implied repetition from the previous line.


Heb “stand before” (so KJV, NASB, NRSV, NLT). The Hebrew verb עָמַד (’ amad , “stand”) here denotes “to resist, withstand.” It is used elsewhere of warriors taking a stand in battle to hold their ground against enemies ( Judg 2:14 ; Josh 10:8; 21:44; 23:9 ; 2 Kgs 10:4 ; Dan 11:16 ; Amos 2:15 ). It is also used of people trying to protect their lives from enemy attack ( Esth 8:11; 9:16 ). Like a mighty warrior, the Lord will attack his enemies, but none will be able to make a stand against him; none will be able to hold their ground against him; and none will be able to protect themselves from his onslaught ( Pss 76:7 [8]; 147:17 ; Mal 3:2 ).


Heb “Who can stand before his indignation?” The rhetorical question expects a negative answer; it is translated here as an emphatic denial. The Hebrew noun זַעַם ( za ’ am , “indignation, curse”) connotes the angry wrath or indignant curse of God ( Isa 10:5, 25; 13:5; 26:20; 30:27 ; Jer 10:10; 15:17; 50:25 ; Ezek 21:36; 22:24, 31; Hab 3:12 ; Zeph 3:8 ; Pss 38:4; 69:25; 78:49; 102:11 ; Lam 2:6 ; Dan 8:19; 11:36 ). It depicts anger expressed in the form of punishment ( HALOT 276 s.v.; TWOT 1:247).


Heb “Who can rise up against…?” The verb יָקוּם ( yaqum , “arise”) is here a figurative expression connoting resistance. Although the adversative sense of בְּ ( bet ) with יָקוּם ( yaqum , “against him”) is attested, denoting hostile action taken against one’s enemy ( Mic 7:6 ; Ps 27:12 ), the locative sense (“before him”) is preferred due to the parallelism with לִפְנֵי ( lifney , “before him”).


Heb “Who can rise up against the heat of his anger?” The rhetorical question expects a negative answer which is translated as an emphatic denial to clarify the point.


Or “burst into flames.” The Niphal perfect נִתְּצוּ ( nittÿtsu ) from נָתַץ ( natats , “to break up, throw down”) may denote “are broken up” or “are thrown down.” The BHS editors suggest emending the MT’s נִתְּצוּ ( nittÿtsu ) to נִצְּתּוּ ( nitsÿtu , Niphal perfect from יָצַת [ yatsat , “to burn, to kindle, to burst into flames”]): “boulders burst into flames.” This merely involves the simple transposition of the second and third consonants. This emendation is supported by a few Hebrew mss (cited in BHS apparatus). It is supported contextually by fire and heat motifs in 1:5-6 . The same metathesis of נִתְּצוּ and נִצְּתּוּ occurs in Jer 4:26 .


Heb “before him” (so NAB, NIV, TEV).


The Masoretic disjunctive accent marker ( zaqeph parvum ) divides the lines here. Most English versions reflect this line division (KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NKJV). Some extend the line: “Yahweh is better than a fortress” (NJB); “The Lord is good to those who hope in him” (NJPS); and “The Lord is good to those who trust him” (NEB). This issue is complicated by the textual problems in this verse.


The preposition לְ ( lamed ) probably functions in an emphatic asseverative sense, suggested by D. L. Christensen, “The Acrostic of Nahum Reconsidered,” ZAW 87 (1975): 22. This explains the preceding statement: the Lord is good to his people ( 1:7 a) because – like a fortress – he protects them in time of distress ( 1:7 b).


Some ancient versions read, “The Lord is good to those who trust him.” The MT reads לְמָעוֹז ( lÿma ’ oz , “a fortress”): the noun מָעוֹז ( ma ’ oz , “fortress”) with the preposition לְ ( lÿ , see below). However, the LXX reflects the reading לְמֵעִיז ( lÿme ’ iz , “to those who trust [him]”): the Hiphil participle from עוּז (’ uz , “seek refuge”) with the preposition לְ . The variants involve only different vocalizations and the common confusion of vav ( ו ) with yod . Most English versions follow the traditional Hebrew reading (KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NKJV); however, several others follow the alternate Greek reading (NEB, NJPS). The BHS editors and several other scholars favor the LXX tradition; however, the Masoretic tradition has been defended by others. The Masoretic tradition is supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah). The problem with the LXX reading is the absence of the direct object in the Hebrew text; the LXX is forced to supply the direct object αὐτόν ( auton , “him”; for a similar addition of the direct object αὐτόν by the LXX, see Amos 9:12 ). The main objection to the MT reading לְמָעוֹז (“a fortress”) is that לְ is hard to explain. However, לְ may be taken in a comparative sense (Cathcart: “Yahweh is better than a fortress in time of distress”) or an asseverative sense (Christensen: “Yahweh is good; indeed, a fortress in time of distress”). See K. J. Cathcart, Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic (BibOr), 55; idem, “More Philological Studies in Nahum,” JNSL 7 (1979): 4; D. L. Christensen, “The Acrostic of Nahum Reconsidered,” ZAW 87 (1975): 22. Elsewhere, the Lord is commonly portrayed as a “fortress” ( מָעוֹז ) protecting his people ( Pss 27:1; 28:8; 31:3, 5; 37:39; 43:2; 52:9 ; Isa 17:10; 25:4; 27:5 ; Joel 4:16; Jer 16:19 ; Neh 8:10 ; Prov 10:29 ).


Heb “he knows” or “he recognizes.” The basic meaning of the verb יָדַע ( yada ’) is “to know,” but it may denote “to take care of someone” or “to protect” ( HALOT 391 s.v.; see Gen 39:6 ; Job 9:21 ; Ps 31:8 ). Most English versions render it as “know” here (KJV, RSV, NASB, NKJV) but at least two recognize the nuance “protect” (NRSV, NIV [which reads “cares for”]). It often refers to God protecting and caring for his people ( 2 Sam 7:20 ; Ps 144:3 ). When the subject is a king (suzerain) and the object is a servant (vassal), it often has covenantal overtones. In several ancient Near Eastern languages this term depicts the king (suzerain) recognizing his treaty obligation to protect and rescue his servant (vassal) from its enemies. For example, a letter from Abdi-Ashirta governor of Ammuru to the Egyptian king Amenophis III ends with a plea for protection from the raids of the Mittani: “May the king my lord know [= protect] me” ( yi - da - an - ni ; EA 60:30-32). Similarly, in the treaty between Muwattallis and Alaksandus, the Hittite suzerain assures his vassal that in case he was attacked, “As he is an enemy of you, even so he is an enemy to the Sun; I the Sun, will know [= “protect”] only you, Alaksandus” (see H. B. Huffmon, “The Treaty Background of Hebrew YADA`,” BASOR 181 (1966): 31-37; idem, “A Further Note on the Treaty Background of Hebrew YADA`,” BASOR 184 (1966): 36-38.


Or “those who trust in him” (NIV); NAB “those who have recourse to him.”


Some scholars connect “in an overwhelming flood” ( וּבְשֶׁטֶף עֹבֵר , uvÿshetef ’ over ) with the preceding line: “he protects those who trust him in an overwhelming flood.” However, others connect it with the following line: “But with an overwhelming flood he will make a complete end of its [Nineveh’s] site.” D. T. Tsumura (“Janus Parallelism in Nah 1:8 ,” JBL 102 [1983]: 109-11) suggests that it does double duty and should be read with both lines: “he knows those who trust him in an overwhelming flood, / but with an overwhelming flood he will make a complete end of its [Nineveh’s] site.” Connecting it with the preceding line creates a tight parallelism and a balanced 5+5 metrical count. Connecting it with the following line harmonizes with Nah 2:9 [8], which describes the walls of Nineveh being destroyed by flood waters, and with historical evidence (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica , 2.27.1-3; Xenophon, Anabasis , 3.4.12) and modern archaeological evidence (A. T. Olmstead, History of Assyria , 637). This might be an example of intentional ambiguity: God will protect his people from the very calamity that he will use to destroy his enemies.


Heb “her place.” Alternately, some ancient versions read “his adversaries.” The MT reads מְקוֹמָהּ ( mÿqomah , “her place”). This is supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls ( מקומה , “her place,” found in 4QpNah) and Symmachus ( τῆς τόποῦ αὐτοῦ , th" topou autou , “her place”). The reading of the LXX ( τούς ἐπεγειρουμένους , tou" epegeiroumenou" , “those who rise up [against Him]”) and Aquila ( ἀντισταμενω ¡ ν , antistamenw>n , “adversaries”) reflect מְקּוֹמיהוּ or מְקִימיהוּ or מְקִּמָיו (“his adversaries”), also reflected in the Vulgate and Targum. Some scholars suggest emending the MT in the light of the LXX to create a tight parallelism between “his adversaries” ( מקומיו ) and “his enemies” ( וְאֹיְבָיו , vÿ ’ oyÿvayv ) which is a parallel word pair elsewhere ( Deut 28:7 ; 2 Sam 22:40-41, 49 ; Mic 7:6 ; Ps 59:2 ). Likewise, Tsumura suggests emending the MT because the text, as it stands, does not have a clear parallel word for “his enemies” ( וְאֹיְבָיו ) – emending the MT’s מְקוֹמָהּ (“her place”) to מקומיו (“his adversaries”) would result in a parallel word (D. T. Tsumura, “Janus Parallelism in Nah 1:8 ,” JBL 102 [1983]: 109-11). The BHS editors propose emending the MT in favor of the Greek tradition. The English versions reflect both textual traditions – several follow the MT with “her place” and “its site” (KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NJPS), while others adopt the LXX reading and emend the Hebrew, resulting in “his adversaries” (NRSV) or “those who defy him” (NJB). The MT makes sense as it stands, but the proposed emendation is attractive and involves only the common confusion between ה and יו .


The BHS editors propose emending the Masoretic reading יְרַדֶּף ( yÿraddef , Piel imperfect of רָדַּף [ raddaf ], “to chase”) to יֶהְדֹּף ( yekhdof , Qal imperfect of הָדַף [ hadaf ], “to thrust away, drive away”). Although הָדַף is used with חֹשֶׁךְ ( khoshekh , “darkness”) in Job 18:18 (“he is driven from light into darkness”), the MT makes good sense as it stands, and is supported by the versions. The conjectural emendation has no support and is unnecessary.


Alternately, “Why are you plotting?” or “What are you plotting?” The term מַה ( mah ) ordinarily functions as the interrogative pronoun “what?” ( HALOT 550-51 s.v.; BDB 552-53 s.v.). It is often used in reproachful, ridiculing questions and in accusations with an insinuation of blame, reproach, or contempt; see Gen 4:10; 37:10; 44:15 ; Josh 22:16 ; Judg 8:1; 15:11; 20:12 ; 1 Sam 29:3 ; 2 Sam 9:8 ; 1 Kgs 9:13 ; 2 Kgs 9:22; 18:19 ). It is more disparaging than מִי ( mi ; HALOT 551 s.v. מַה ). The LXX translates it with the interrogative pronoun τί (“what?”). R. L. Smith ( Micah-Malachi [WBC], 76) takes it as the indefinite pronoun “whatever” (see also BDB 553 s.v. מָה 3; GKC 443-44 §137. c ; Num 23:3 ; 1 Sam 19:3; 20:10 ; 2 Sam 18:22-23, 29 ; Job 13:13 ; Prov 25:8 ). W. A. Maier ( Nahum , 186) takes it as the interrogative adverb “why?” (see also BDB 553 s.v. מָה 2.b; Gen 3:13; 12:18; 26:10 ; Exod 14:15; 17:2 ; 2 Kgs 6:33; 7:3 ; Pss 42:6, 12; 43:5; 52:3 ; Job 7:21; 15:12 ; Song 8:4 ). All three are represented in English versions: “What?” (KJV, NKJV), “Why?” (NRSV, NJPS), and “Whatever” (NASB, NIV).


Less likely, “[What are you] thinking about.” When used with אֶל (’ el ) the verb חָשַׁב ( khashav ) may be taken (1) in a hostile sense: “What are you plotting against the Lord ?” or (2) in a nonhostile sense: “What are you thinking about the Lord ?” The hostile sense is clearly intended when it is used in collocation with the direct object רָעָה ( ra ’ ah , “evil”; Zech 7:10; 8:17 ; Pss 35:4; 140:3 ; Prov 16:9 ) or when it is followed by the preposition עַל (’ al ; Gen 50:20 ; 2 Sam 14:13 ; Jer 11:19; 18:11, 18; 29:11; 48:2; 49:30 ; Mic 2:3 ; Nah 1:11 ; Pss 36:5 ; Esth 8:3; 9:24, 25 ; Dan 11:25 ). It is also used in a hostile sense when followed by the preposition אֶל , as it is here ( Jer 49:20; 50:45 ; Hos 7:15 ; Nah 1:9 ). The major lexicons classify this usage in a hostile sense (BDB 363 s.v. חָשַׁב ; HALOT 360 s.v. חשׁב ). The verb is repeated in Nah 1:11 where it is clearly used in a hostile sense.


Or “The Lord will completely foil whatever you plot against him”; or “Whatever you may think about the Lord , he [always] brings everything to a conclusion.”


The MT reads צָרָה ( tsarah , “distress”). This is supported by the LXX. However, the BHS editors propose emending the MT’s צָרָה (“distress”) to צָרָיו ( tsarayv , “his adversaries”). Several English versions follow course (NRSV, NJPS); however, the majority of English versions follow the traditional MT reading (KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV). The term “distress” ( צָרָה , tsarah ) is repeated from v. 7 : God will not only protect his people in time of “distress” ( צָרָה ) from the Assyrians (v. 7 ), he will put an end to “distress” ( צָרָה ) by destroying the Assyrians (v. 9 ).


The originally unvocalized consonantal form תקום is vocalized in the MT as תָקוּם ( taqum , “will arise”) from קוּם ( qum , “to arise”). However, the LXX reflects a vocalization of תִקּוֹם ( tiqom , “will take vengeance”) from נָקַם ( naqam , “to avenge”). The Masoretic vocalization makes sense and should be retained. The LXX vocalization probably arose under the influence of the three-fold repetition of נקם in Nah 1:2 .


The verb אֻכְּלוּ (’ ukkÿlu , “they will be consumed”) is an example of the old Qal passive perfect 3rd person common plural which was erroneously pointed by the Masoretes as Pual perfect 3rd person common plural. The Qal passive of אָכַל (’ akhal ) occurs several times in the Hebrew Bible, pointed as Pual (e.g., Exod 3:2 ; Neh 2:3, 13 ; Isa 1:20 ; Nah 1:10 ). For further discussion on the old Qal passive see H. L. Ginsberg, “Studies on the Biblical Hebrew Verb: Masoretically Misconstrued Internal Passives,” AJSL 46 (1929): 53-56; R. J. Williams, “The Passive Qal Theme in Hebrew,” Essays on the Ancient Semitic World , 43-50; Joüon 1:166-67 §58.a; IBHS 373-76 §22.6 (see especially n. 36 on p. 375).


The particle עַד (’ ad ) is taken as a comparative of degree (“like”) by many lexicographers (BDB 724 s.v. I.3; HALOT 787 s.v. 5 ), English versions (NASB, NRSV, NJPS), and scholars (W. A. Maier, Nahum , 192; R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi [WBC], 76; R. D. Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah [WEC], 42). Although the comparative sense is rare ( 1 Sam 11:15 ; 2 Sam 23:19 ; 2 Kgs 24:20 ; 1 Chr 4:27 ), it is suggested by the similes in v. 10 (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 57, §312). The comparative sense is reflected in the Greek versions of Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion. Although Origen took עַד in its more common spatial sense (“up to”), his approach can be dismissed because he misunderstood the entire line: ὅτι ἕως θεμελίου αὐτοῦ ξερσωθήσεται ( Joti Jew" qemeliou autou xerswqhsetai , “up to his foundation he shall be laid bare”). The KJV takes עַד in its rare temporal sense (“while”; see BDB 725 s.v. II.2). T. Longman suggests a locative sense: “by the entangled thorns they are like drunkards stinking of drink” (“Nahum,” The Minor Prophets , 2:794, 796; see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 56-57, §310). Because of its difficulty, several scholars have resorted to conjectural emendations of the MT: (1) K. J. Cathcart ( Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic [BibOr], 61) suggests emending the MT’s עַד to the temporal particle עוֹד (’ od , “again”); (2) The BHS editors suggest emending the MT’s כִּי עַד ( ki ’ ad ) to הוֹי עִיר ( hoy ’ ir , “woe to the city!”) which appears in Nah 3:1 ; (3) The BHS editors suggest the alternate conjectural emendation of יִבְעֲרוּ כְ ( yiv ’ aru kÿ , “they will burn like …”); (4) H. Junker ( Die zwolf kleinen Propheten , 175) suggests emending כִּי עַד ( ki ’ ad ) to כְּיַעַד ( kÿya ’ ad , “like a forest”). Although the Masoretic reading is difficult, it is more plausible than any conjectural emendation.


The MT reading וּכְסָבְאָם סְבוּאִים ( ukhÿsav ’ am sÿvu ’ im , “and like the drink of drunkards”) is supported by Symmachus (“and as those drinking their drink with one another”) who is known for his wooden literalness to the Hebrew text, and by Vulgate which reads et sicut vino suo inebriati . K. J. Cathcart revocalizes as וּכְסֹבְאִים סְבֻאִים ( ukhÿsovÿ ’ im sÿvu ’ im , “and like drunkards sodden with drink”; Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic [BibOr], 61). Haldar equates Hebrew סָבָא ( sava ’) with Ugaritic sp ’ (“eat”) due to an interchange between ב ( bet ) and פ ( pe ), and produces “and as they consume a consuming” (A. Haldar, Studies in the Book of Nahum , 32). Barr argues that the mem ( מ ) on MT וּכְסָבְאָם ( ukhÿsov ’ am ) is enclitic, and he translates the line as “and as the drunken are getting drunk” (J. Barr, Comparative Philology , 33). tn The MT’s וּכְסָבְאָם is a noun with masculine plural suffix from סֹבֶא ( sove ’, “drink, liquor”), meaning “their drink, liquor” (e.g., Hos 4:18 ). This is supported by Symmachus (“their drink”) and is reflected in the Syriac (“in their drink”). The Masoretic סְבוּאִים ( sÿvu ’ im ) is the passive participle from סָבָא ( sava ’, “to drink,” BDB 684-85 s.v. סָבָא ). This produces “and like their liquor/drink being drunken.” This makes good sense with the following line in which אֻכְּלוּ (’ ukkÿlu , “they will be consumed”) appears. The verb אֻכְּלוּ is frequently used in comparisons of consuming liquor and being consumed like chaff.


The BHS editors propose emending the MT’s מָלֵא ( male ’, “fully”) to the negative interrogative הֲלֹא ( halo ’, “Has not…?”) and connecting it with the next line: “Has not one plotting evil marched out from you?” However, this emendation is unnecessary because the MT makes sense as it stands, and there is no textual support for the emendation. The MT is supported by the Greek tradition, the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah), and the other versions. tn Or “They will be fully consumed like dried stubble.” The term מָלֵא (“fully”) functions either as: (1) an adjective modifying כְּקַשׁ יָבֵשׁ ( kÿqash yavesh , “like fully dried stubble”) or (2) an adverb modifying אֻכְּלוּ (’ ukkÿlu , “they will be fully consumed”); see BDB 571 s.v. מָלֵא . The adverbial sense is rare, appearing elsewhere only in Jer 12:6 ; thus, the adjectival sense is more probable. The Hebrew word order also suggests the adjectival sense because מָלֵא follows כְּקַשׁ יָבֵשׁ ( kÿqash yavesh ) rather than אֻכְּלוּ .


The words “O Nineveh” are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied in the translation for clarity. The preceding pronoun is feminine singular, indicating the personified city is in view. See 2:1 ( 2:2 HT).


Heb “a counselor of wickedness”; NASB “a wicked counselor”; NAB “the scoundrel planner.”


The syntax of this line is complicated and difficult to translate. The first clause is the concessive protasis of a real condition, while the second is the logical apodosis of a comparative clause. This creates an a fortiori argument: “Even though they are strong and likewise many, so much more will they be cut down and pass away!” The first use of the particle וְכֵן ( vÿkhen , “Even though”) introduces a concessive or conditional protasis of a present-time or immediate future-time real condition (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 87, §515; IBHS 636-37 §38.2). The second use of the particle וְכֵן (“so much more…”) introduces the apodosis of a logical resultative clause (see IBHS 641-42 §38.5).


Or “are strong” (cf. NCV); or “are at full strength” (NAB, NRSV); or “are intact.” Alternately, “Even though they have allies” (cf. NIV, NLT). The Hebrew noun שְׁלֵמִים ( shÿlemim , from שָׁלֵם [ shalem ]) means “complete, healthy, sound, safe, intact, peaceful” (BDB 1023-24 s.v. שָׁלֵם ; HALOT 1538-1539 s.v. שָׁלֵם ). It can connote “full strength” or “full number” of an object ( Gen 15:16 ; Deut 25:15 ; Prov 11:1 ; Amos 1:6, 9 ). Most commentators view this as a reference to the strength or numbers of the Assyrian army: “strong” (R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi [WBC], 77-78), “full strength” (NASB, NRSV) or “intact” (T. Longman, “Nahum,” The Minor Prophets , 2:798). On the other hand, NIV and NLT follow the lead of Wiseman who points out that שְׁלֵמִים can refer to military allies: “Even though they will have allies and so be all the more numerous” (D. J. Wiseman, “Is It Peace? Covenant and Diplomacy,” VT 32 [1982]: 311-26). Nahum refers to the allies of the Assyrians elsewhere ( Nah 3:15-17 ).


The particle וְכֵן ( vÿkhen , “and moreover”) functions as an emphatic comparative adverb of degree (BDB 486 s.v. כֵּן ; IBHS 663, 665-67 §39.3.4). It draws a comparison between שְׁלֵמִים ( shÿlemim , “strong”) and רַבִּים ( rabbim , “many”) but goes one step further for emphasis. This creates an “A, what is more B!” parallelism: “They are strong – what is more – they are many!”


The MT reads אִם־שְׁלֵמִים וְכֵן רַבִּים (’ im-shÿlemim vÿkhen rabbim , “Even though they are strong and numerous”). The complicated syntax of this line led to textual confusion and several textual variants among the versions. For example, the LXX’s κατάρξων ὑδάτων πολλῶν ( katarxwn Judatwn pollwn , “ruler of many waters”) reflects מֹשֵׁל מַיִם רַבִּים ( moshel mayim rabbim , “ruler of many waters”) which redivides the words, and omits the letter א ( aleph ) and the word וְכֵן ( vÿkhen ). Similarly, the Syriac reflects אֶל מֹשְׁלֵי מַיִם רַבִּים (’ el mosÿle rabbim , “to the rulers of many waters”). The MT is the most difficult reading and therefore best explains the origin of these textual variants. Moreover, the LXX of Nahum is well-known for its unusual mistranslations of the Hebrew text of Nahum. The LXX butchers v. 12 in several other places (see below). All major English versions follow the MT here.


The particle וְכֵן ( vÿkhen , “so much more…”) introduces the apodosis of a logical resultative clause ( IBHS 641-42 §38.5). It emphasizes that the action described in the apodosis will occur almost immediately (e.g., 1 Kgs 20:40 ; Ps 48:6 ).


In v. 12 the MT preserves a string of plural forms followed by a seemingly anomalous singular form: וְעָבָר … נָגֹזּוּ … רַבִּים … שְׁלֵמִים ( shÿlemim … rabbim … nagozzu … vÿ ’ avar , “Even though they are numerous…they are many…they will be cut off…and he [?] will pass away”). Several other versions (LXX, Syr, Targum) read the plural form וְעָבָרוּ ( vÿ ’ avaru , “and they will pass away”). Several scholars emend the MT to the plural form, noting that the next word ( וְעִנִּתִךְ , vÿ ’ innitikh ) begins with vav ( ו ); they suggest that the plural ending of וְעָבָרוּ dropped out due to haplography or faulty word division (e.g., T. Longman, “Nahum,” The Minor Prophets , 2:798). Another scholar retains the consonantal text, but repoints the form as an infinitive absolute: “They will be cut off, passing away” (K. J. Cathcart). On the other hand, more conservative scholars defend the MT reading and try to solve the problem by suggesting a shift from a plural referent (the Assyrians) to a singular referent (God or the Assyrian king): “They shall be cut down, when he passes through” (KJV) and “They will be cut off and he will pass over” (R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi [WBC], 77). Still others suggest that the singular form functions as a collective: “They will be cut off and [they] will pass away” (W. A. Maier, Nahum , 206; K&D 27:15). However, rather than resorting to textual emendations or performing syntactical improbabilities, the best solution may be simply to posit the presence of a rhetorical, stylistic device. The shift from these plural forms to the concluding singular form may be an example of heterosis of the plural to the singular (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 525 [4.5]). This is a common poetic device used for emphasis, especially at the climactic point in a speech (e.g., Gen 29:27 ; Num 22:6; 32:25 ; Job 12:7; 18:2 ; Esth 9:23 ; Ps 73:7 ; Prov 14:1, 9 ; John 3:11 ; 1 Tim 2:15 ). tn Or “pass away.” The term עָבַר (’ avar , “to pass through”) is a key word in ; it occurs three times ( Nah 1:8, 12, 15 [ 2:1 HT]). This verb is often used in reference to water, both the raging onset of flood waters ( Nah 1:8 ) and the passive trickling or dwindling away of receding waters ( Job 6:15; 11:16 ). sn The phrase trickle away is an example of a hypocatastasis (implied comparison); Nahum compares the destruction of the mighty Assyrians with the trickling away of once high waters. This imagery has strong rhetorical impact because the Assyrians often boasted that they overwhelmed their enemies like a flood. It is ironic then that they would soon dwindle away to a mere trickle! This is also an appropriate image in the light of the historical destruction of Nineveh through the use of flood waters, as predicted by the prophet ( Nah 2:7-9 ) and recorded by ancient historians (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica 2.26-27; Xenophon, Anabasis 3.4.12; also see P. Haupt, “Xenophon’s Account of the Fall of Nineveh,” JAOS 28 [1907]: 99-107).


The terms אֲעַנֵּךְ (’ a ’ annekh , “I will [no longer] afflict you”) and וְעִנִּתִךְ ( vÿ ’ innitikh , “I afflicted you”) are both derived from the root II עָנָה (’ anah , “to afflict”). The LXX mistakenly confused this with the more common root I עָנָה (“to answer, respond”). Although it mistranslated the roots, the LXX reflects the same consonantal text as the MT: וְעִנִּתִךְ לֹא אֲעַנֵּךְ ( vÿ ’ innitikh lo ’ ’ a ’ annekh , “Although I have afflicted you, I will afflict you no longer”). Some modern English versions supply various terms not in the Hebrew text to indicate the addressee: NIV “O Judah”; NLT “O my people.” Judah is specifically addressed in 1:15 ( 2:1 HT) and the feminine singular is used there, just as it is in 1:12 .


The particle וְעַתָּה ( vÿ ’ attah , “And now”) often introduces a transition in a prophetic oracle ( HALOT 902 s.v. 3 .a). It often draws a contrast between a past condition (as described in v. 12 ) and what will happen in the immediate future (as described in v. 13 ; see, e.g., Gen 11:6 ; 2 Sam 2:6 ; 2 Kgs 12:8 ). See H. A. Brongers, “Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch des adverbialen we ’ attah im Alten Testament,” VT 15 (1965): 289-99.


Heb “his”; the referent (Assyria) has been supplied from context.


The BHS editors propose revocalizing the MT מֹטֵהוּ ( motehu , “his yoke bar”) to מַטַּהַוּ ( mattahu , “his scepter”). The threat of breaking an enemy’s scepter was a common ancient Near Eastern treaty curse (see D. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets [BibOr], 61). This proposed revocalization has no external support. The MT is supported by the use of the parallel word pair מוֹטָה / מוֹסֵר ( motah , “scepter” /moser , “bonds”) elsewhere ( Jer 27:2 ). The term מוֹטָה is never used in parallelism with מוֹסֵר elsewhere. sn The terms yoke bar and shackles are figures of speech (hypocatastasis) for Assyrian subjugation of Judah. The imagery of the yoke bar draws an implied comparison between the yoking of a beast of burden to the subjugation of a nation under a foreign power, i.e., vassaldom ( Lev 26:13 ; Jer 27:2; 28:14 ; Ezek 30:18; 34:27 ). This imagery also alludes to the Assyrian use of “yoke” imagery to describe their subjugation of foreign nations to the status of vassal. When describing their subjugation of nations, Assyrian rulers frequently spoke of causing them to “pull my yoke.” Sennacherib subjugated Judah to the Assyrian “yoke” in 701 b.c. when he invaded Judah and forced Hezekiah into a position of Assyrian vassal: “I laid waste the large district of Judah and put the straps of my yoke upon Hezekiah, its king” (“Sennacherib: The Siege of Jerusalem,” lines 13-15, in ANET 288).


Heb “from you”; the word “neck” is supplied in the translation as a clarification for the modern reader who may be less familiar with the imagery of a yoke around the neck of farm animals or draft animals. sn The statement I will break Assyria’s yoke bar from your neck draws an implied comparison (hypocatastasis) between breaking a plowing yoke off the neck of a farming animal and freeing a vassal from the tyranny of an oppressive suzerain through military conquest ( Lev 26:13 ; Isa 58:6 ; Jer 30:8 ; Ezek 30:18; 34:27 ).


Heb “your shackles.”


Heb “has commanded concerning you.” The referent of the 2nd person masculine singular suffix (“you”) probably refers to the Assyrian king (cf. 3:18-19 ) rather than to the personified city of Nineveh (so NIV). Elsewhere in the book of Nahum, the city of Nineveh is referred to by the feminine rather than masculine gender. Some modern English versions supply terms not in the Hebrew text to indicate the addressee more clearly: NIV “Nineveh”; NLT “the Assyrians in Nineveh.”


Heb “from your name there will no longer be sown.”


The MT reading אָשִׂים קִבְרֶךָ (’ asim qivrekha , “I will make your grave”) is usually understood as a figure of speech (metonymy of effect) meaning that the Lord will destroy/execute the Assyrian king. On the other hand, the Targum and Syriac treat this as a double-accusative construction – the implied second object of אָשִׂים being מִבֵּית אֱלֹהֶיךָ ( mibbet ’ elohekha , “the house [i.e., “temple”] of your gods”): “I will make it [the house (i.e., temple) of your gods] your grave.” Cathcart suggests revocalizing the MT אָשִׂים to a Hiphil imperfect אָשִׁיִם (’ ashiyim ) from שָׁמֵם ( shamem , “to devastate”): “I will devastate your grave.” Cathcart notes that the destruction of one’s grave, like the threat of no burial, was a common ancient Near Eastern treaty-curse: “Tombs, especially royal tombs, were often protected by curses directed against persons who might violate and desecrate them, and the very curse kings used to have inscribed on their tombs were precisely the curse of no progeny and no resting-place” (K. J. Cathcart, “Treaty-Curses and the Book of Nahum,” CBQ 35 [1973]: 180-81). This might reflect the background of the ancient Near Eastern kudurru curses which were made against those who might devastate a royal grave and which were put into effect by the gods of the king (see F. C. Fensham, “Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and Kudurru-Inscriptions Compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah,” ZAW 75 [1963]: 157-59). Despite the fact the king’s grave was allegedly protected by the Assyrian gods, the Lord would nevertheless successfully destroy it, and it would be the Assyrian king who would receive the curse. This approach respects the traditional consonantal text and only involves the revocalization of the MT’s שׂ ( sin ) to שׁ ( shin ).


The Hebrew verb קַלֹּוֹתָ ( qallota ) is usually rendered “you are despised” (e.g., Gen 16:4-5 ; 1 Sam 2:30 ). However, it is possible that the Hebrew root קָלַל ( qalal ) is related to the Assyrian term qalu “accursed” (W. von Soden, “Hebraische Wortforschung,” VTSup 16 [1967]: 295).


Heb “the feet of a herald.”


Heb “a messenger of peace.” The Hebrew noun translated “peace” is sometimes used in reference to deliverance or freedom from enemy attack or destruction (e.g., Jer 4:10; 6:14; 8:11; 12:5; 28:9; 29:7 ).


The LXX reflects the plural יוֹסִיפוּ ( yosifu , “they shall [never]”). The MT reads the singular יוֹסִיף ( yosif , “he shall [never]”) which is also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah). The subject of the verb is the singular noun בְּלִיַּעַל ( bÿliyya ’ al , “the wicked one”) which is also misunderstood by the LXX (see below).


The MT reads בְּלִיַּעַל ( bÿliyya ’ al , “the wicked one”; so ASV, NASB). The LXX reading εἰς παλαίωσιν ( ei" palaiwsin , “to old age”) mistakenly derived בְּלִיַּעַל from בָּלָה ( balah , “to become worn”). There are several places in the book of Nahum where the LXX produced poor translations. tn Heb “the wicked one.” This is a collective singular and has been translated as a plural.


The term “Assyrians” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied from context for clarity. If left unspecified, the prophetic statement could be understood to mean that the wicked [i.e., wicked conquerors in general] would never again invade Judah. Cf. NLT “your enemies from Nineveh.”


Or “pass through you” (NASB); or “march against you”; NCV “attack you.”


Heb “he.” This is in agreement with the singular “wicked one” in the previous line.


Heb “he is completely cut off.”


The introductory phrase “The watchmen of Nineveh shout” is not in the Hebrew text, but has been supplied from the context for clarity.


The MT reads מֵפִיץ ( mefits , “scatterer, disperser”), the Hiphil participle of פּוּץ ( puts , “to scatter, to disperse”; HALOT 755 s.v. פוּץ , but see BDB 807 s.v. מֵפִיץ , which classifies it as a noun). The Vulgate’s qui dispergat (“one who disperses”) and the LXX’s ἐμφυσῶν ( emfuswn , “one who blows hard; one who scatters”) also reflect מֵפִיץ . The BHS editors propose the emendation מַפֵּץ ( mappets , “shatterer, hammerer, war club”; e.g., Jer 51:20 and Prov 25:18 ). This is unnecessary; the text makes sense as it stands and there is no textual support for the emendation. The theme of exile and dispersion is prominent in the book ( Nah 2:7; 3:10-11, 17-18 ). tn Heb “a scatterer.” The Hebrew term מֵפִיץ ( mefits , “scatterer”) is either a collective singular referring to the Babylonian army or a singular of number referring to the Babylonian commander. Singular forms occur elsewhere in the vision of the fall of Nineveh ( 2:1-10 ), used in reference to the Babylonian commander ( Nah 2:3, 5 )


Or “has come up”; or “has advanced.” Used in reference to an army, the verb עָלָה (’ alah , “to go up”) means “to advance; to march against” ( HALOT 829 s.v. 3 .d; see 1 Sam 7:7 ; 1 Kgs 20:22 ; Isa 7:1; 21:2 ; Jer 46:9 ; Joel 1:6 ; Mic 2:3 ). Appearing in a prophetic vision, the suffix conjugation (perfect tense) form עָלָה can denote a future-time action that is pictured as complete (certain) and independent (not contingent upon other factors). The so-called “prophetic perfect” or “perfect of confidence” vividly expresses a future action that is “as good as done” (cf. Num 24:17 ; Isa 5:13; 8:23-9:1 ). See R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 33, §165; IBHS 489-90 §30.5.1.


Heb “against your face”; NASB, NRSV “against you.”


The Qal infinitive absolute נָצוֹר ( notsar , from נָצַר [ nastar ], “to guard”) is used in an imperatival sense as the following string of imperatives suggests. The imperatival use of the infinitive absolute is often used to introduce a series of imperatives with special urgency (e.g., Deut 1:16 ; 2 Sam 24:12 ; 2 Kgs 5:10 ). See IBHS 593-94 §35.5.1; R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 42, §211.


The BHS editors suggest revocalizing the Masoretic noun מְצֻרָה ( mÿtsurah , “rampart”) to the noun מַצָּרָה ( matsarah , “the watchtower”) from the root נָצַר ( natsar , “to watch, guard”). This would create a repetition of the root נָצַר which immediately precedes it: מַצָּרָה נָצוֹר ( natsor matsarah , “Watch the watchtower!”). However, the proposed noun מַצָּרָה (“the watchtower”) appears nowhere in the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, the Masoretic reading מְצֻרָה (“rampart”) and the related noun מָצוֹר ( matsor , “rampart”) appear often ( Pss 31:22; 60:11 ; Hab 2:1 ; Zech 9:3 ; 2 Chr 8:5; 11:5, 10, 11, 23; 12:4; 14:5, 21:3; 32:10 ). Thus, the Masoretic vocalization should be preserved. The LXX completely misunderstood this line. The LXX reading (“one who delivers out of tribulation”) has probably arisen from a confusion of the MT noun נָצוֹר (“guard”) with the common verb נָצַר (“deliver”). It also reflects a confusion of MT מְצֻרָה (“road, rampart”) with מִצְּרָה ( mitsÿrah , “from distress”).


Heb “Make strong your loins,” an expression which could refer (1) to the practice of tucking the ends of the long cloak (outer garment) into the belt to shorten it in preparation for activities like running, fighting in battle, etc. (cf. NAB, NRSV “gird your loins”); (2) to preparing oneself physically for the onslaught of the enemy (cf. NASB “strengthen your back”); or (3) to a combination of mental and physical preparation for battle (cf. NIV “brace yourselves”).


Heb “Make [your] strength exceedingly firm.”


The Qal perfect שָׁב ( shav , “restore, return”) is an example of the so-called “prophetic perfect.” In this case, the perfect tense does not denote past-time action, but a future-time action that is pictured as complete (certain) and independent (not contingent upon other factors). The so-called “prophetic perfect” or “perfect of confidence” vividly expresses a future action that is deemed “as good as done” ( Num 24:17 ; Isa 5:13; 8:23-9:1 ). See R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 33, §165; IBHS 489-90 §30.5.1. Though the transitive use of the Qal of this verb is problematic, most scholars derive שָׁב from the root שׁוּב ( shuv , “to turn, to return, to restore”). However, W. A. Maier ( Nahum , 232) contends that שָׁב is derived from I שָׁבַב ( shavav , “to cut off, to destroy, to smite”) which is related to Arabic sabba (“to cut”), Aramaic sibba ’(“splinter”), and New Hebrew. Maier admits that this would be the only occurrence of a verb from I שָׁבָב in the OT; however, he argues that the appearance of the plural noun שְׁבָבִים ( shÿvavim , “splinters”) in Hos 8:6 provides adequate support. There are several problems with Maier’s proposal. First, his support from Arabic, Aramaic (Targum) and New Hebrew is all late. Second, it creates a hapax legomenon (a word that occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible) for a well-known Hebrew word which frequently appears in climactic contexts in prophetic speeches, as here. Third, the root שׁוּב ( shuv , “to turn, to return, to restore”) makes perfectly good sense in this context. The meaning of this usage of שָׁב (from the root שׁוּב ) is debated. The LXX took it in the negative sense “has turned aside.” On the other hand, it is nuanced in a positive, salvific sense by the Vulgate, Targum, and Syriac. The salvific nuance is best for the following reasons: (1) its direct object is גְּאוֹן ( ge ’ on ) which should be understood in the positive sense of “majesty; exaltation; glory” (see following note on the word “majesty”); (2) the motive clause introduced by causative/ explanatory כִּי ( ki , “for”) would make little sense, saying that the reason the Lord was about to destroy Nineveh was because he had turned away the pride of Judah; however, it makes good sense to say that the Lord would destroy Nineveh because he was about to deliver Judah; and (3) a reference to the Lord turning aside from Judah would be out of harmony with the rest of the book.


The BHS editors propose emending the MT reading גְּאוֹן ( gÿ ’ on , “majesty; pride”) to גֶּפֶן ( gefen , “vineyard”) due to the mention of “their branches” ( וּזְמֹרֵיהֶם , uzÿmorehem ) in the following line (so HALOT 169 s.v. גָּאוֹן [2.b]). However, the LXX supports the MT. tn While גְּאוֹן ( ge ’ on ) sometimes has the negative connotation “pride; arrogance; presumption” ( Isa 13:11, 19; 14:11; 16:6; 23:9 ; Jer 13:9; 48:29 ; Ezek 16:49, 56; 32:12 ; Hos 5:5; 7:10 ; Amos 6:8 ; Zeph 2:10 ; Zech 9:6; 10:11; 11:3 ; Ps 59:13 ; Job 35:12; 40:10 ), it probably has the positive connotation “eminence; majesty; glory” (e.g., as in Exod 15:7 ; Isa 2:10, 19, 21; 4:2; 24:14; 60:15 ; Mic 5:3 ; Ps 47:5 ) in this context (BDB 145 s.v. 1 .a).


The preposition כְּ ( kaf ) on כִּגְאוֹן ( kig ’ on , “the glory of Israel”) may be comparative (“like the glory of Israel”) or emphatic (“the glory of Jacob, indeed, the glory of Israel”). See J. O’Rourke, “Book Reviews and Short Notes: Review of Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic by Kevin J. Cathcart,” CBQ 36 (1974): 397.


Or “for.” The introductory particle כִּי ( ki ) may be causal (“because”), explanatory (“for”), or concessive (“although”). KJV adopts the causal sense (“For”), while the concessive sense (“Although”) is adopted by NASB, NIV, NJPS, NRSV.


Heb “plunderers have plundered them.” The Hebrew root בָּקַק ( baqaq , “to lay waste, to empty”) is repeated for emphasis: בְקָקוּם בֹּקְקִים ( vÿqaqum boqÿqim , “plunderers have plundered them”). Similar repetition of the root בָּקַק occurs in Isa 24:3 : “[The earth] will be completely laid waste” ( הִבּוֹק תִּבּוֹק , hibboq tibboq ).


Heb “their vine-branches.” The term “vine-branches” is a figurative expression (synecdoche of part for the whole) representing the agricultural fields as a whole.


The MT reads מְאָדָּם ( mÿ ’ adam , “reddened”) from אָדֹם (’ adom , “red”). The LXX confused the roots אָדָם (“man”) and אָדֹם (“red”): ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ( ex anqrwpwn , “from among men”) which reflects מֵאָדָם ( me ’ adam , “from man”) from אָדָם . tn The Hebrew term מְאָדָּם (“reddened”) from אָדֹם (“red”) refers to clothes made red with dye ( Exod 25:6; 26:14; 35:7, 23; 36:13; 39:34 ) or made red from bloodshed ( Isa 63:2 ). The parallelism between מְאָדָּם (“reddened”) and מְתֻלָּעִים ( mÿtulla ’ im , “clad in scarlet colored clothing”) suggests that the shields were dyed prior to battle, like the scarlet dyed uniforms. Nahum 2:1-10 unfolds the assault in chronological sequence; thus, the spattering of blood on the warrior’s shields would be too early in the account (R. D. Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah [WEC], 65). sn As psychological warfare, warriors often wore uniforms colored blood-red, to strike fear into the hearts of their enemy (see Xenophon, Cyropaedia 6.4.1; Ezek 23:5-6 ).


The Pual participle מְתֻלָּעִים ( mÿtulla ’ im , “dressed in scarlet”) from תָּלָע ( tala ’, “scarlet”) is used elsewhere of clothing dyed red or purple ( Isa 1:18 ; Lam 4:5 ).


Heb “the steel.” The Hebrew term פְּלָדוֹת is a hapax legomenon . The corresponding noun פְּלָדָה ( pÿladah ) probably means “metal, steel” (BDB 811 s.v. פְּלָדָה ; HALOT 761 s.v. פְּלָדָה ), and it is probably related to Arabic puladu , Syriac pld ’, and early Persian fulad (all of which mean “steel”). This rendering is followed by NASB, NIV, NRSV. The term פְּלָדוֹת (“steel”) probably refers to the metallic pole attachments for the chariot spears, the side armor of the chariots, or the steel scythes fastened to the axle of a chariot. Xenophon described the army of Cyrus in a similar manner; the side armor of the chariots and the breastplates and thigh-pieces of the chariot-horses were “flashing with bronze” (Xenophon, Cyropaedia 6.4.1). On the other hand, Cathcart connects Hebrew פְּלָדָה to Ugaritic paladu , which means “a garment made of linen hair,” and suggests that פְּלָדוֹת הָרֶכֶב ( pÿladot harekhev ) refers to the coverings, blankets, or caparisons of chariot horses (K. J. Cathcart, Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic [BibOr], 88). This demands that הָרֶכֶב be nuanced “chariot horses” – a problem when it means “chariots” in Nah 2:4; 3:2 . tc The MT reads פְּלָדוֹת ( pÿladot , “steel”; see the following tn ). The LXX’s αἱ ἡνιάι ( Jai Jhniai , “the reins”) and Vulgate’s habenai (“reins”) confused פְּלָדוֹת ( pÿladot ) with כְּלָיוֹת ( kÿlayot , “reins, kidneys”). The BHS editors suggest emending the MT’s פְּלָדוֹת ( peladot ) to לַפִּדוֹת ( lappidot , “torches”) to create the simile כְּאֵשׁ לַפִּדוֹת ( kÿ ’ esh lappidot , “like torches of fire” or “like flaming torches”) which is reflected in the Syriac Peshitta and Symmachus (so KJV, RSV, NJPS). The problem with this is that לַפִּיד ( lappid , “torch”) is masculine in gender, so the plural form is not לַפִּדוֹת but לַפִּדִים ( lappidim ) – which appears in Nah 2:4 (BDB 542 s.v. לַפִּיד ; HALOT 533 s.v. לַפִּיד ). Others propose a complete reversal of the consonants to דלפות from the root דָּלַף ( dalaf , “to drip, to trickle, to leak, to weep”) and translate כְּאֵשׁ דְלָפוֹת ( kÿ ’ esh dÿlafot ) as “like flickering fire” (so NEB). Against this proposal is the fact that דָּלָף is usually used in reference to water, but it is never used in reference to fire ( HALOT 223 s.v. דלף ; BDB 196 s.v. דָּלַף ).


The collective singular רֶכֶב ( rekhev , “chariot”) refers to all of the chariots in the army as a whole: “chariots; chariotry” (BDB 939 s.v. 1 ; HALOT 891 s.v. 1 ). The singular form rarely refers to a single chariot (BDB 939 s.v. 2 ; HALOT 891 s.v. 3 ). The collective use is indicated by the plural verb “they race back and forth” ( יִתְהוֹלְלוּ , yitholÿlu ) in v. 5 (GKC 462 §145. b ). The term רֶכֶב usually refers to war chariots ( Exod 14:7 ; Josh 11:4; 17:16, 18; 24:6 ; Judg 1:19; 4:3, 7, 13; 5:28 ; 1 Sam 13:5 ; 2 Sam 1:6; 8:4; 10:18 ; 1 Kgs 9:19, 22; 10:26 ; Jer 47:3; 50:37; 51:21 ; Ezek 23:24 ; Nah 2:3, 4, 13 ).


Heb “The chariots are…” The preposition בְּ on בְּאֵשׁ ( bÿ ’ esh ) denotes essence: “The chariots are…” (GKC 430 §133. c ; HALOT 104 s.v. בְּ 3). The use of this preposition creates a metaphor, comparing the steel fittings of the chariots to flashes of fire. tc The MT reads the preposition בְּ ( bet , “are [like]”), but several Hebrew mss read the comparative preposition כְּ ( kaf , “like”). This textual variant probably arose due to the visual similarity of the two letters (orthographic confusion) and the relatively rare use of בְּ in metaphors – the comparative preposition כְּ (“like”) is much more common in metaphors. The MT is the more difficult reading and best explains the origin of the variant.


Or perhaps “The chariots are [like] flaming torches.”


Heb “on the day of its preparation.” The Hiphil infinitive construct הֲכִינוֹ ( hakhino ; from כּוּן , kun ) means “to prepare, to make ready” ( HALOT 465 s.v. כּוּן ; BDB 466 s.v. כּוּן ). The Hiphil verb is used of preparing weapons and military equipment for the day of battle ( 2 Chr 26:14 ; Ps 7:13 [HT 7:14 ]; 57:6 [HT 57:7 ]). The 3rd person masculine singular suffix (“ its preparation”) is a collective singular, referring to the chariotry as a whole.


Some scholars adopt the variant reading הַפְּרֹשִׁים ( happÿroshim , “the horses”) and relate הָרְעָלוּ ( hor ’ alu ) to Arabic raàala (“to stand in row and rank”): “the horses stand in row and rank,” that is, at attention. However, it is preferable to retain the MT for the noun, with the verb given its normal Hebrew meaning. tn Heb “the spears quiver”; or “the spears are made to quiver.” Alternately, “the horses quiver” or “the horses shake [with excitement].” The Hophal perfect הָרְעָלוּ ( hor ’ alu , “are made to quiver”) is from רָעַל ( ra ’ al , “to quiver, to shake”) which appears elsewhere only in Hab 2:16 (BDB 947 s.v. רָעַל ; HALOT 900 s.v. II רעל ); the related noun רַעַל (“reeling”) appears only once ( Zech 12:2 ). This Hebrew root is related to the Aramaic רְעַל ( rÿ ’ al , “to quiver, to shake”). The action of the spear-shafts quivering is metonymical (effect for cause) to the action of the spear-shafts being brandished by the warriors. In the translation the words “the soldiers” are supplied for clarity.


Heb “the chariot.” The Hebrew noun הָרֶכֶב ( harekhev , “the chariot”) is a collective use of the singular, as indicated by the plural verb “[they] race madly” (see GKC 462 §145. b ).


The Hitpolel imperfect יִתְהוֹלְלוּ ( yitholÿlu , “they rush wildly”) is from the root III הלל (“to be foolish, to be senseless, to be insane”). The Hitpolel stem describes seemingly insane actions: “to pretend to be insane; to act like a madman” ( 1 Sam 21:14 ; Jer 25:16; 50:38; 51:7 ; see HALOT 249 s.v. III הלל ). When used in military contexts, it describes the wild, furious action of war-chariots charging forward to attack the enemy ( Jer 46:9 ). The Hitpolel stem is the equivalent to the Hitpael stem for geminate verbs (see IBHS 425-26 §26.1.1). The Hitpolel stem expresses energetic, intense, and rapid action; it gives special energy and movement to the verbal idea (J. Muilenburg, “Hebrew Rhetoric: Repetition and Style,” VTSup 1 [1953]: 101).


The Hitpalpel imperfect יִשְׁתַּקְשְׁקוּן ( yishtaqshÿqun , “they rush back and forth”; see GKC 153 §55. g ) is from שָׁקַק ( shaqaq , “to rush upon; to rush forth”); cf. Prov 28:15 ; Isa 33:4 ; Joel 2:9 ( HALOT 1009 s.v. I שׁקק ). The Hitpalpel is the Hitpael stem for geminate verbs ( IBHS 425-26 §26.1.1). The Hitpalpel stem gives special energy and movement to the verbal idea; it connotes intense, furious, and energetic action (e.g., Deut 9:20 ; Jer 5:22 ; see J. Muilenburg, “Hebrew Rhetoric: Repetition and Style,” VTSup 1 [1953]: 101). The nun ending on יִשְׁתַּקְשְׁקוּן may denote additional energy and emphasis (see IBHS 516-17 §31.7.1).


Heb “Their appearance is like.”


Or “like torches.” The Hebrew term לַפִּיד ( lappid ) often means “torch, flame” ( Gen 15:17 ; Judg 7:16, 20; 15:4, 5 ; Isa 62:1 ; Ezek 1:13 ; Zech 12:6 ; Dan 10:6 ), but sometimes refers to “lightning bolts” ( Exod 20:18 ; Job 12:5 ; see HALOT 533 s.v. לַפִּיד ; BDB 542 s.v. לַפִּיד ). Most English versions render this usage as “torches” (KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NJPS). However, the parallelism with כַּבְּרָקִים ( kabbÿraqim , “like lightning flashes”) suggests that in this context כַּלַּפִּידִם ( kalappidim ) may be nuanced “like lightning bolts.”


Or “they flash here and there.” The Polel imperfect יְרוֹצֵצוּ ( yirotsetsu , “they dash here and there”) is from the root רוּץ ( ruts ) which means “to run quickly” in reference to men ( Gen 18:2 ; 2 Kgs 23:12 ; Prov 4:12 ) and “to gallop” in reference to horsemen ( Joel 2:14 ). The Hiphil stem denotes “to drive off with haste” ( Jer 49:19; 50:44 ). The Polel stem, which is used here, means “to race about swiftly; to flash by speedily; to run to and fro” ( HALOT 1208 s.v. רוץ ; BDB 930 s.v. רוּץ ).


Or simply, “like lightning.” The term “lightning flash” ( בָּרָק , baraq ) is often used to compare the brightness of an object to the flash of lightning: the glory of Yahweh ( Ezek 1:13 ), the splendor of an angel ( Dan 10:6 ), the glitter of swords ( Deut 32:41 ; Ezek 21:15 ; Nah 3:3 ; Hab 3:11 ), and the gleam of arrowheads ( Job 20:25 ). It is also used as a figure (hypocatastasis) for speed, such as the swift destruction of an enemy ( Zech 9:14 ). Perhaps both images are suggested here: the bright glitter of the chariots ( v. 4 b) and the speed of the chariots as suggested by the verb “they dash here and there” ( יְרוֹצֵצוּ , yÿrotsetsu , v. 5 b).


Heb “ he”; the referent (the commander) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The MT reads the Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular יִזְכֹּר ( yizkor , “he commands”) from II זָכַּר ( zakkar , “to command”); see above. The rarity of this homonymic root in Hebrew has led to textual variants and several proposed emendations. The LXX misunderstood זָכַּר and the syntax of the line: καὶ μνησθνήσονται οἱ μεγιστα ¡ τες ( mnhsqnhsontai Joi megista>te" , “And their mighty men will be remembered”; or “will remember themselves”). The LXX reflects the Niphal imperfect 3rd person common plural יִזָּכְרוּ ( yizzakhru , “they will be remembered”). The BHS editors suggest emending to יִזָּכְרוּ on the basis of the LXX. The BHK editors proposed emending to pilpel imperfect 3rd person common plural יְכַרְכְרוּ ( yÿkharkhÿru , “they prance, they whirl”) from II כָּרַר ( karar , “to dance”). None of the emendations are necessary once the existence of the homonym II זָכַּר (“to order”) is recognized. tn The Hebrew verb II זָכַּר is related to Akkadian zakartu (“to give an order”; see CAD 2:17). This is distinct from the more common root zakar I (“to remember”) which is related to Akkadian zakaru . The English versions are split between the two roots: “he commands” (NJPS) and “he summons” (NIV) versus “he recounts” (KJV), “he remembers” (NASB), and “he calls” (NRSV).


The MT reads the Niphal imperfect 3rd person masculine plural יִכָּשְׁלוּ ( yikoshlu , “they stumble”) from the root כָּשַׁל ( kashal , “stumble”). G. R. Driver argues that the MT makes little sense in the portrayal of a successful assault; the motif of stumbling warriors usually connotes defeat ( Isa 5:27 ; Jer 46:6 ). Driver argues that MT’s יִכָּשְׁלוּ (“they stumble”) arose from metathesis (reversal of consonants) from an original יִשָּׁלְכוּ ( yishalkhu , Niphal from שָׁלַךְ [ shalakh , “to cast forth”]) which also appears in 2 Kgs 13:24-25, 28 (“hurled himself,” i.e., rushed headlong). Driver suggests that this is related to Arabic s alaka VII (“to rush in”). He notes that the emendation would produce a tighter parallelism with the following noun: יְמַהֲרוּ ( yÿmaharu , “they hasten”). See G. R. Driver, “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Minor Prophets II,” JTS 39 (1938): 270. On the other hand, Armerding argues that the anomalous MT reading יִכָּשְׁלוּ (“they stumble”) can be explained without recourse to textual emendation. The stumbling of the attacking army is caused, not by their weakness, but by the corpses of the Assyrians strewn in their path which obstructs their advance. Armerding suggests that this motif appears in Nah 3:3 (C. E. Armerding, “Nahum,” EBC 7:475). tn Alternately, “they rush forward.”


Or “in their trenches”; or “in their columns”; Heb “ in their advance”; or “in their march.” The noun הֲלִיכָה ( halikhah , “procession, journey”) is nuanced “march; advance” in a military context (BDB 237 s.v. 1 .a; HALOT 246 s.v. 1 .a). Similarly, the related verb הָלַךְ ( halakh ) means “to march, to advance” in battle contexts ( Judg 1:10 ; Hab 1:6 ). This is related to the Assyrian noun alaktu (“to advance”) which is often used of military advances ( CAD 1.1.299). The related Assyrian noun aliktu means “detachment of soldiers” ( CAD 1.1.346). HALOT suggests that הֲלִיכָה is related to an Assyrian noun which is a technical military term: “trenches, columns” ( HALOT 246 s.v. * הֲלִיכָה ). This line could be rendered, “They stumble in their trenches” or “They stumble in their columns.”


Heb “ to her wall,” referring to Nineveh. tc The MT reads הוֹמָתָהּ ( homatah , “her wall”). On the other hand, several Hebrew mss , Targum Jonathan, and the Syriac Peshitta omit the mappiq and preserve an alternate textual tradition of the directive - he ending: הוֹמָתָה (“to the wall”). The directive sense is seen in the LXX. Although the MT lacks the directive - he ( ה ) ending, it is possible that the MT’s הוֹמָתָהּ functions as an adverbial accusative of direction meaning “ to her wall.” The adverbial accusative of direction often occurs after verbs of motion (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 13-14, §54; IBHS 169-71 §10.2.2).


Heb “the mantelet is prepared.” tc The MT reads the Hophal perfect 3rd person masculine singular וְהֻכַן ( vÿhukhan , “and [it] is prepared”). On the other hand, the LXX reading reflects the Hiphil perfect 3rd person common plural וְהֵכִינּוּ ( vÿhekhinnu , “and they will prepare”). Arguing that the active sense is necessary because the three preceding verbs are all active, K. J. Cathcart ( Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic [BibOr], 95) suggests emending to the Hiphil infinitive absolute וְהָכִין ( vÿhakhin , “and [they] prepare”). However, the Masoretic form should be retained because it is the more difficult reading that best explains the origin of the LXX reading. The shift from active to passive verbs is common in Hebrew, marking a cause-result sequence (e.g., Pss 24:7; 69:14 [15]; Jer 31:4 ; Hos 5:5 ). See M. Weinfeld, “The Active-Passive (Factitive-Resultive) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic,” JBL 84 (1965): 272-82.


Heb “mantelet.” The Hebrew noun סֹכֵךְ ( sokhekh , “mantelet”) is a military technical term referring to a large movable shelter used as a protective cover for soldiers besieging a fortified city, designed to shield them from the arrows shot down from the city wall ( HALOT 754 s.v.; BDB 697 s.v.). This noun is a hapax legomenon (a word that only occurs once in the Hebrew Bible) and is derived from the verb III סָכַךְ ( sakhakh , “to cover; to protect”; TWOT 2:623-24). K. J. Cathcart ( Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic [BibOr], 95) suggests that the translation “mantelet” is supported by the use of the verb III סָכַךְ in Ps 140:7 [8]: “Yahweh, my Lord, my fortress of safety; shelter ( סַכֹּתָּה , sakotah ) my head in the day of arms.” This is reflected in several recent English versions: “wheeled shelters” (NJPS), “protective shield” (NIV), “covering used in a siege” (NASB margin), and “mantelet” (ASV, NAB, NASB, NRSV). Cf. also TEV “the shield for the battering ram.” sn The Hebrew term translated covered siege tower probably does not refer to a battering ram, but to a movable protective tower, used to cover the soldiers and the siege machinery. These are frequently depicted in Neo-Assyrian bas-reliefs, such as the relief of Sennacherib’s siege of Lachish. The Neo-Assyrians used both small, hut-like shelters that could be carried by a few men, as well as larger, tower-like structures rolled on wheels to the top of siege embankments. These mantelets protected the attackers while they built the embankments and undermined the foundations of the city walls to hasten their collapse. Siege towers were equipped with machines designed to hurl stones to smash the fortifications and firebrands to start conflagrations (see A. H. Layard, Nineveh and Its Remains , 2:281-86).


Or “river dam gates”; NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT “river gates.” sn Nineveh employed a system of dams and sluice gates to control the waters of the Tebiltu and Khoser Rivers which flowed through the city (R. C. Thompson and R. W. Hutchinson, A Century of Exploration at Nineveh , 120-132). However, the Tebiltu often flooded its banks inside the city, undermining palace foundations and weakening other structures. To reduce this flooding, Sennacherib changed the course of the Tebiltu inside the city. Outside the city, he dammed up the Khoser and created a reservoir, regulating the flow of water into the city through an elaborate system of double sluice gates (D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon , 99-100; J. Reade, “Studies in Assyrian Geography, Part I: Sennacherib and the Waters of Nineveh,” RA 72 [1978]: 47-72; idem, “Studies in Assyrian Geography, Part II: The Northern Canal System,” RA 72 [1978]: 157-80). According to classical tradition (Diodorus and Xenophon), just before Nineveh fell, a succession of very high rainfalls deluged the area. The Khoser River swelled and the reservoir was breached. The waters rushed through the overloaded canal system, breaking a hole twenty stades (about 2.3 miles or 3.7 km) wide in the city wall and flooding the city. When the waters receded, the Babylonians stormed into Nineveh and conquered the city (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica , 2.26-27, especially 27.1-3; Xenophon, Anabasis , 3.4.12; P. Haupt, “Xenophon’s Account of the Fall of Nineveh,” JAOS 28 [1907]: 65-83). This scenario seems to be corroborated by the archaeological evidence (A. T. Olmstead, History of Assyria , 637).