[190]LXX.In the days of thy festival, which it takes with the previous verse. The Heb. construction is ungrammatical, though not unprecedented—the construct state before a preposition. Besidesנוגיis obscure in meaning. It is a Ni. pt. forנוגהfromיגה,to be sad: cf. the Pi. in Lam. iii. 33. But the Hiphilהוגהin 2 Sam. xx. 13, followed (as here) byמן, meansto thrust away from, and that is probably the sense here.[191]LXX.thine oppressedin acc. governed by the preceding verb, which in LXX. begins the verse.[192]The Heb.,מַשְׂאֵת,burden of, is unintelligible. Wellhausen proposesמִשְׂאֵת עֲלֵיהֶם.[193]This rendering is only a venture in the almost impossible task of restoring the text of the clause. As it stands the Heb. runs,Behold, I am about to do, ordeal, with thine oppressors(which Hitzig and Ewald accept). Schwally pointsמְעַנַּיִךְ(active) as a passive,מְעֻנַּיִךְ,thine oppressed. LXX. has ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ποιῶ ἐν σοὶ ἕνεκεν σοῦ,i.e.it readאִתֵּךְ לְמַעֲנֵךְ. Following its suggestion we might readאֶת־כֹּל לְמַעֲנֵךְ, and so get the above translation.[194]Micah iv. 6.[195]This rendering (Ewald’s) is doubtful. The verse concludes within the whole earth their shame. Butבָּשְׁתָּםmay be a gloss. LXX. take it as a verb with the next verse.[196]LXX.do good to you; perhapsאטיבforאביא.[197]So Heb. literally, but the construction is very awkward. Perhaps we should readin that time I will gather you.[198]Before your eyes,i.e.in your lifetime. It is doubtful whether ver. 20 is original to the passage. For it is simply a variation on ver. 19, and it has more than one impossible reading: see previous note, and forשבותיכםreadשבותכם.[199]In the English version, but in the Hebrew chap. ii. vv. 1 and 3; for the Hebrew text divides chap. i. from chap. ii. differently from the English, which follows the Greek. The Hebrew begins chap. ii. with what in the English and Greek is the fifteenth verse of chap. i.:Behold, upon the mountains, etc.[200]In the English text, but in the Hebrew with the omission of vv. 1 and 3: see previous note.[201]Other meanings have been suggested, but are impossible.[202]So it lies on Billerbeck’s map in Delitzsch and Haupt’sBeiträge zur Assyr., III. Smith’sBible Dictionaryputs it at only 2 m. N. of Mosul.[203]Layard,Niniveh and its Remains, I. 233, 3rd ed., 1849.[204]Bohn’sEarly Travels in Palestine, p. 102.[205]Just as they show Jonah’s tomb at Niniveh itself.[206]See above, p.18.[207]Just as in Micah’s case Jerome calls his birthplace Moresheth by the adjective Morasthi, so with equal carelessness he calls Elḳosh by the adjective with the article Ha-elḳoshi, the Elḳoshite. Jerome’s words are: “Quum Elcese usque hodie in Galilea viculus sit, parvus quidem et vix ruinis veterum ædificiorum indicans vestigia, sed tamen notus Judæis et mihi quoque a circumducente monstratus” (inProl. ad Prophetiam Nachumi). In theOnomasticonJerome gives the name as Elcese, Eusebius as Ἐλκεσέ, but without defining the position.[208]This Elkese has been identified, though not conclusively, with the modern El Kauze near Ramieh, some seven miles W. of Tibnin.[209]Cf. Kuenen, § 75, n. 5; Davidson, p. 12 (2).Capernaum, which the Textus Receptus gives as Καπερναούμ, but most authorities as Καφαρναούμ and the Peshitto as Kaphar Nahum, obviously means Village of Nahum, and both Hitzig and Knobel looked for Elḳôsh in it. SeeHist. Geog., p. 456.Against the Galilean origin of Nahum it is usual to appeal to John vii. 52:Search and see that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet; but this is not decisive, for Jonah came out of Galilee.[210]Though perhaps falsely.[211]This occurs in the Syriac translation of the Old Testament by Paul of Tella, 617A.D., in which the notices of Epiphanius (Bishop of Constantia in CyprusA.D.367) or Pseudepiphanius are attached to their respective prophets. It was first communicated to theZ.D.P.V., I. 122 ff., by Dr. Nestle: cf.Hist. Geog., p. 231, n. 1. The previously known readings of the passage were either geographically impossible, as “He came from Elkesei beyond Jordan, towards Begabar of the tribe of Simeon” (so in Paris edition, 1622, of the works of St. Epiphanius, Vol. II., p. 147: cf. Migne,Patr. Gr., XLIII. 409); or based on a misreading of the title of the book: “Nahum son of Elkesaios was of Jesbe of the tribe of Simeon”; or indefinable: “Nahum was of Elkesem beyond Betabarem of the tribe of Simeon”; these last two from recensions of Epiphanius published in 1855 by Tischendorf (quoted by Davidson, p. 13). In the Στιχηρὸν τῶν ΙΒ´ Προφητῶν καὶ Ἰσαιοῦ, attributed to Hesychius, Presbyter of Jerusalem, who died 428 of 433 (Migne,Patrologia Gr., XCIII. 1357), it is said that Nahum was ἀπὸ Ἑλκεσεὶν (Helcesin) πέραν τοῦ τηνβαρεὶν ἐκ φυλῆς Συμεών; to which has been added a note from Theophylact, Ἑλκασαΐ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου εἰς Βιγαβρὶ.[212]Ad Nahum i. I (Migne,Patr. Gr., LXXI. 780): Κώμη δὲ αὕτη πάντως ποῦ τῆς Ἰουδαίων χώρας.[213]The selection Bashan, Carmel and Lebanon (i. 4), does not prove northern authorship.[214]אֶלְקוֹשׁmay be (1) a theophoric name = Ḳosh is God; and Ḳosh might then be the Edomite deityקוֹסwhose name is spelt with a Shin on the Assyrian monuments (Baethgen,Beiträge z. Semit. Religionsgeschichte, p. 11; Schrader,K.A.T.², pp. 150, 613), and who is probably the same as the Arab deity Ḳais (Baethgen,id., p. 108); and this would suit a position in the south of Judah, in which region we find the majority of place-names compounded withאל. Or else (2) theאis prosthetic, as in the place-namesאכזיבon the Phœnician coast,אכשׁףin Southern Canaan,אשדוד, etc. In this case we might find its equivalent in the formלְקוֹש(cf.כזיב אכזיב); but no such form is now extant or recorded at any previous period. The form Lâḳis would not suit. On Bir el Ḳûs see Robinson,B.R., III., p. 14, and Guérin,Judée, III., p. 341. Bir el Ḳûs means Well of the Bow, or, according to Guérin, of the Arch, from ruins that stand by it. The position,eastof Beit-Jibrin, is unsuitable; for the early Christian texts quoted in the previous note fix itbeyond, presumably south or south-west of Beit-Jibrin, and in the tribe of Simeon. The error “tribe of Simeon” does not matter, for the same fathers place Bethzecharias, the alleged birthplace of Habakkuk, there.[215]Einleitung, 1st ed.[216]Who seems to have owed the hint to a quotation by Delitzsch on Psalm ix. from G. Frohnmeyer to the effect that there were traces of “alphabetic” verses in chap, i., at least in vv. 3–7. See Bickell’sBeiträge zur Semit. Metrik, Separatabdruck, Wien, 1894.[217]Z.A.T.W., 1893, pp. 223 ff.[218]Cf. Ezra ii. 42; Neh. vii. 45; 2 Sam. xvii. 27.[219]ver. 1 is title; 2 begins withא; then ב is found inבסופה, 3b;גinגוער, 4; ד is wanting—Bickell proposes to substitute a New-Hebrew wordדצק, Gunkelדאב, forאמלל, 4b;הinותשא, 5b;זby removingלפניof ver. 6ato the end of the clause (and reading it thereלפניו), and so leavingזעמוas the first word;חinחמתוin 6b;טinטוב, 7a;יby elidingוfromוידע, 7b;כinכלה, 8;לis wanting, though Gunkel seeks to supply it by taking 9c, beginningלא, with 9b, before 9a;מbegins 9a.[220]See below in the translation.[221]As thus: 9a, 11b, 12 (but unintelligible), 10, 13, 14, ii. 1, 3.[222]See above on Zephaniah, pp.49ff.[223]Cornill, in the 2nd ed. of hisEinleitung, has accepted Gunkel’s and Bickell’s main contentions.[224]iii. 8–10.[225]The description of the fall of No-Amon precludes the older view almost universally held before the discovery of Assurbanipal’s destruction of Thebes, viz. that Nahum prophesied in the days of Hezekiah or in the earlier years of Manasseh (Lightfoot, Pusey, Nägelsbach, etc.).[226]So Schrader, Volck in Herz.Real. Enc., and others.[227]It is favoured by Winckler,A.T. Untersuch., pp. 127 f.[228]Above, pp.15f.;19,22ff.[229]This in answer to Jeremias in Delitzsch’s and Haupt’sBeiträge zur Assyriologie, III. 96.[230]I. 103.[231]Hitzig’s other reason, that the besiegers of Niniveh are described by Nahum in ii. 3 ff. as single, which was true of the siege in 625c., but not of that of 607—6, when the Chaldeans joined the Medes, is disposed of by the proof on p.22above, that even in 607—6 the Medes carried on the siege alone.[232]Page 17.[233]In commenting on chap. i. 9; p. 156 ofKleine Propheten.[234]The phrase which is so often appealed to by both sides, i. 9,Jehovah maketh a complete end, not twice shall trouble arise, is really inconclusive. Hitzig maintains that if Nahum had written this after the first and before the second siege of Niniveh he would have had to say, “not thriceshall trouble arise.” This is not conclusive: the prophet is looking only at the future and thinking of it—not twiceagainshall trouble arise; and if there were really two sieges of Niniveh, would the wordsnot twicehave been suffered to remain, if they had been a confident predictionbeforethe first siege? Besides, the meaning of the phrase is not certain; it may be only a general statement corresponding to what seems a general statement in the first clause of the verse. Kuenen and others refer thetroublenot to that which is about to afflict Assyria, but to the long slavery and slaughter which Judah has suffered at Assyria’s hands. Davidson leaves it ambiguous.[235]Technical military terms: ii. 2,מצורה; 4,פלדת(?); 4,הרעלו; 6,הסכך; iii. 3,מעלה(?). Probably foreign terms: ii. 8,הצב; iii. 17,מנזריך. Certainly foreign: iii. 17,טפסריך.[236]Above, pp.78ff.,85ff.[237]See above, pp.81ff.[238]ver. 3, if the reading be correct.[239]Gunkel amends toin mercyto make the parallel exact. But see above, p.82.[240]Gunkel’s emendation is quite unnecessary here.[241]See above, p.83.[242]So LXX. Heb. =for a stronghold in the day of trouble.[243]Thrusts into, Wellhausen, readingינדףorידףforירדף. LXX.darkness shall pursue.[244]Heb. and R.V.drenched as with their drink. LXX.like a tangled yew. The text is corrupt.[245]The superfluous wordמלאat the end of ver. 10 Wellhausen reads asהלאat the beginning of ver. 11.[246]Usually taken as Sennacherib.[247]The Hebrew is given by the R.V.though they be in full strength and likewise many. LXX.Thus saith Jehovah ruling over many waters, readingמשל מים רביםand omitting the firstוכן. Similarly Syr.Thus saith Jehovah of the heads of many waters,על משלי מים רבים. Wellhausen, substitutingמיםfor the firstוכן, translates,Let the great waters be ever so full, they will yet all...? (misprint here)and vanish. Forעברreadעברוwith LXX., borrowingוfrom next word.[248]Lit.and I will afflict thee, I will not afflict thee again. This rendering implies that Niniveh is the object. The A.V.,though I have afflicted thee I will afflict thee no more, refers to Israel.[249]Omit ver. 13 and run 14 on to 12. For the curious alternation now occurs: Assyria in one verse, Judah in the other. Assyria: i. 12, 14, ii. 2 (Heb.; Eng. ii. 1), 4 ff. Judah: i. 13, ii. 1 (Heb.; Eng. i. 15), 3 (Heb.; Eng. 2). Remove these latter, as Wellhausen does, and the verses on Assyria remain a connected and orderly whole. So in the text above.[250]Syr.make it thy sepulchre. The Hebrew left untranslated above might be renderedfor thou art vile. Bickell amends intodunghills. Lightfoot,Chron. Temp. et Ord. Text V.T.in Collected Works, I. 109, takes this as a prediction of Sennacherib’s murder in the temple, an interpretation which demands a date for Nahum under either Hezekiah or Manasseh. So Pusey also, p. 357.[251]LXX.destructionכָּלָה, forכֻּלה.[252]Davidson:restoreth the excellency of Jacob, as the excellency of Israel, but when was the latter restored?[253]See above, pp.22ff.[254]The authorities are very full. First there is M. Botta’s huge workMonument de Ninive, Paris, 5 vols., 1845. Then must be mentioned the work of which we availed ourselves in describing Babylon inIsaiah xl.—lxvi., Expositor’s Bible, pp.52ff.: “Memoirs by Commander James Felix Jones, I.N.,” inSelections from the Records of the Bombay Government, No. XLIII., New Series, 1857. It is good to find that the careful and able observations of Commander Jones, too much neglected in his own country, have had justice done them by the German Colonel Billerbeck in the work about to be cited. Then there is the invaluableNiniveh and its Remains, by Layard. There are also the works of Rawlinson and George Smith. And recently Colonel Billerbeck, founding on these and other works, has published an admirable monograph (lavishly illustrated by maps and pictures), not only upon the military state of Assyria proper and of Niniveh at this period, but upon the whole subject of Assyrian fortification and art of besieging, as well as upon the course of the Median invasions. It forms the larger part of an article to which Dr. Alfred Jeremias contributes an introduction, and reconstruction with notes of chaps. ii. and iii. of the Book of Nahum: “Der Untergang Niniveh’s und die Weissagungschrift des Nahum von Elḳosh,” in Vol. III. ofBeiträge zur Assyriologie und Semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, edited by Friedrich Delitzsch and Paul Haupt, with the support of Johns Hopkins University at Baltimore, U.S.A.: Leipzig, 1895.[255]Pages20f.[256]Colonel Billerbeck (p. 115) thinks that the south-east frontier at this time lay more to the north, near the Greater Zab.[257]First excavated by M. Botta, 1842–1845. See also George Smith,Assyr. Disc., pp. 98 f.[258]iii. 12.[259]iii. 14.[260]See Jones and Billerbeck.[261]Delitzsch places theעיר רחבותof Gen. x. 11, the “ribit Nina” of the inscriptions, on the north-east of Niniveh.[262]ii. 4 Eng., 5 Heb.[263]ii. 3 Eng., 4 Heb.[264]Ibid.LXX.[265]iii. 2.[266]iii. 3.[267]It is the waters of the Tigris that the tradition avers to have broken the wall; but the Tigris itself runs in a bed too low for this: it can only have been the Choser. See both Jones and Billerbeck.[268]ii. 6.[269]If the above conception of chaps. ii. and iii. be correct, then there is no need for such a re-arrangement of these verses as has been proposed by Jeremias and Billerbeck. In order to produce a continuous narrative of the progress of the siege, they bring forward iii. 12–15 (describing the fall of the fortresses and gates of the land and the call to the defence of the city), and place it immediately after ii. 2, 4 (the description of the invader) and ii. 5–11 (the appearance of chariots in the suburbs of the city, the opening of the floodgates, the flight and the spoiling of the city). But if they believe that the original gave an orderly account of the progress of the siege, why do they not bring forward also iii. 2 f., which describe the arrival of the foe under the city walls? The truth appears to be as stated above. We have really two poems against Niniveh, chap. ii. and chap. iii. They do not give an orderly description of the siege, but exult over Niniveh’s imminent downfall, with gleams scattered here and there of how this is to happen. Of these “impressions” of the coming siege there are three, and in the order in which we now have them they occur very naturally: ii. 5 ff., iii. 2 f., and iii. 12 ff.[270]ii. 2 goes with the previous chapter. See above, pp.94f.[271]ii. 13, iii. 5.[272]See above, Vol. I., Chap.IV., especially pp.54ff.[273]ii. 8.[274]Isaiah xl.—lxvi.(Expositor’s Bible), pp.197ff.[275]Readמַפֵּץwith Wellhausen (cf. Siegfried-Stade’sWörterbuch, subפּוּץ) forמֵפִיץ,Breaker in pieces. In Jer. li. 20 Babylon is also called by Jehovah Hisמַפֵּץ,HammerorMaul.[276]Keep watch, Wellhausen.[277]This may be a military call to attention, the converse of “Stand at ease!”[278]Heb. literally:brace up thy power exceedingly.[279]Heb. singular.[280]Rev. ix. 17. Purple or red was the favourite colour of the Medes. The Assyrians also loved red.[281]Readכאשׁforבאשׁ.[282]פלדות, the word omitted, is doubtful; it does not occur elsewhere. LXX. ἡνίαι; Vulg.habenæ. Some have thought that it meansscythes—cf. the Arabicfalad, “to cut”—but the earliest notice of chariots armed with scythes is at the battle of Cunaxa, and in Jewish literature they do not appear before 2 Macc. xiii. 2. Cf. Jeremias,op. cit., p. 97, where Billerbeck suggests that the words of Nahum are applicable to the covered siege-engines, pictured on the Assyrian monuments, from which the besiegers flung torches on the walls: cf.ibid., p. 167, n. ***. But from the parallelism of the verse it is more probable that ordinary chariots are meant. The leading chariots were covered with plates of metal (Billerbeck, p. 167).[283]So LXX., readingפרשיםforברשיםof Heb. text, that meansfir-trees. If the latter be correct, then we should need to suppose with Billerbeck that either the long lances of the Aryan Medes were meant, or the great, heavy spears which were thrust against the walls by engines. We are not, however, among these yet; it appears to be the cavalry and chariots in the open that are here described.[284]Orbroad placesorsuburbs. See above, pp.100f.[285]See above, p. 106, end of n.282.[286]Heb.They stumble in their goings.Davidson holds this is more probably of the defenders. Wellhausen takes the verse as of the besiegers. See next note.[287]הסֹּכֵךְ. Partic. of the verbto cover, hence covering thing: whethermantlet(on the side of the besiegers) orbulwark(on the side of the besieged: cf.מָסָךְ, Isa. xxii. 8) is uncertain. Billerbeck says, if it be an article of defence, we can read ver. 5 as illustrating the vanity of the hurried defence, when the elements themselves break in vv. 6 and 7 (p. 101: cf. p. 176, n. *).[288]Sluices(Jeremias) orbridge-gates(Wellhausen)?[289]Orbreaks into motion, i.e.flight.[290]הֻצּב, if a Hebrew word, might be Hophal ofנצבand has been taken to meanit is determined, she(Niniveh)is taken captive. Volck (in Herzog), Kleinert, Orelli:it is settled. LXX. ὑπόστασις =מצב. Vulg.miles(as if some form ofצבא?). Hitzig points itהַצָּב,the lizard, Wellhausenthe toad. But this noun is masculine (Lev. xi. 29) and the verbs feminine. Davidson suggests the otherהַצָּב, fem., thelitterorpalanquin(Isa. lxvi. 20): “in lieu of anything better one might be tempted to think that the litter might mean the woman or lady, just as in Arab. ḍḥa’inah means a woman’s litter and then a woman.” One is also tempted to think ofהַצְּבי,the beauty. The Targ. hasמלכתא,the queen. From as early as at least 1527 (Latina InterpretatioXantis Pagnini Lucensis revised and edited for the Plantin Bible, 1615) the word has been taken by a series of scholars as a proper name, Huṣṣab. So Ewald and others. It may be an Assyrian word, like some others in Nahum. Perhaps, again, the text is corrupt.Mr. Paul Ruben (Academy, March 7th, 1896) has proposed instead ofהעלתה,is brought forth, to readהעתלה, and to translate it by analogy of the Assyrian “etellu,” fem. “etellitu” = great or exalted,The Lady. The line would then runHuṣṣab, the lady, is stripped. (WithהעתלהCheyne,Academy, June 21st, 1896, comparesעתליה, which, he suggests, is “Yahwe is great” or “is lord.”)[291]Heb.מֵימֵי הִיאforמימי אשר היא,from days she was. A.V.is of old. R.V.hath been of old, and Marg.from the days that she hath been. LXX.her waters, מֵימֶיהָ. On waters fleeing, cf. Ps. civ. 7.[292]Buḳah, umebuḳah, umebullāḳah. Ewald:desert and desolation and devastation. The adj. are feminine.[293]Literally:and the faces of all them gather lividness.[294]ForמרעהWellhausen readsמערה,caveorhold.[295]LXX., readingלבואforלביא.[296]Heb.her chariots. LXX. and Syr. suggestthy massormultitude,רבכה. Davidson suggeststhy lair,רבצכה.[297]Literallyand the chariot dancing, but the word, merakedah, has a rattle in it.[298]Doubtful,מַעֲלֶה. LXX. ἀναβαίνοντος.[299]Jeremias (104) shows how the Assyrians did this to female captives.[300]Jer. xlvi. 25:I will punish Amon at No. Ezek. xxx. 14–16:. . . judgments in No. . . . I will cut off No-Amon(Heb. and A.V.multitude of No, readingהמון; so also LXX. τὸ πλῆθος forאמון) . . .and No shall be broken up. It is Thebes, the Egyptian name of which was Nu-Amen. The god Amen had his temple there: Herod. I. 182, II. 42. Nahum refers to Assurbanipal’s account of the fall of Thebes. See above, p.11.[301]היארים. Pl. of the word for Nile.[302]Arabs still call the Nile the sea.[303]So LXX., readingמַיִםfor Heb.מִיָּם.[304]So LXX.; Heb.thee.[305]Heb.be drunken.[306]I.e.against,because of.[307]Jer. l. 37, li. 30.[308]Heb. and LXX. adddevour thee like the locust, probably a gloss.[309]Cf. Jer. ix. 33. Some take it of the locusts stripping the skin which confines their wings: Davidson.[310]מנזריך. A.V.thy crowned ones; but perhaps like its neighbouran Assyrian word, meaning we know not what. Wellhausen readsממזרך, LXX. ὁ συμμικτός σοῦ (applied in Deut. xxiii. 3 and Zech. ix. 6 to the offspring of a mixed marriage between an Israelite and a Gentile), deine Mischlinge: a term of contempt for the floating foreign or semi-foreign population which filled Niniveh and was ready to fly at sight of danger. Similarly Wellhausen takes the second term,טפסר. This, which occurs also in Jer. li. 27, appears to be some kind of official. In Assyriandupsaris scribe, which may, like Heb.שׁטר, have been applied to any high official. See Schrader,K.A.T., Eng. Tr., I. 141, II. 118. See also Fried. Delitzsch,Wo lag Parad., p. 142. The name and office were ancient. Such Babylonian officials are mentioned in the Tell el Amarna letters as present at the Egyptian court.[311]Heb.day of cold.[312]ישכנו,dwell, is the Heb. reading. But LXX.ישנו, ἐκοίμισεν. Sleep must be taken in the sense of death: cf. Jer. li. 39, 57; Isa. xiv. 18.[313]Except one or two critics who place it in Manasseh’s reign. See below.[314]See next note.[315]So Pusey. Delitzsch in his commentary on Habakkuk, 1843, preferred Josiah’s reign, but in hisO. T. Hist. of Redemption, 1881, p. 226, Manasseh’s. Volck (in Herzog,Real Encyc.,² art. “Habakkuk,” 1879), assuming that Habakkuk is quoted both by Zephaniah (see above, p. 39, n.) and Jeremiah, places him before these. Sinker (The Psalm of Habakkuk: see below, p. 127, n.342) deems “the prophecy, taken as a whole,” to bring “before us the threat of the Chaldean invasion, the horrors that follow in its train,” etc., with a vision of the day “when the Chaldean host itself, its work done, falls beneath a mightier foe.” He fixes the date either in the concluding years of Manasseh’s reign, or the opening years of that of Josiah (Preface, 1–4).[316]Pages 53, 49. Kirkpatrick (Smith’sDict. of the Bible,² art. “Habakkuk,” 1893) puts it not later than the sixth year of Jehoiakim.[317]Einl. in das A. T.[318]Beiträge zur Jesaiakritik, 1890, pp. 197 f.[319]See Further Note on p.128.[320]Studien u. Kritikenfor 1893.[321]Cf. the opening of § 30 in the first edition of hisEinleitungwith that of § 34 in the third and fourth editions.[322]Budde’s explanation of this is, that to the later editors of the book, long after the Babylonian destruction of Jews, it was incredible that the Chaldean should be represented as the deliverer of Israel, and so the account of him was placed where, while his call to punish Israel for her sins was not emphasised, he should be pictured as destined to doom; and so the prophecy originally referring to the Assyrian was read of him. “This is possible,” says Davidson, “if it be true criticism is not without its romance.”[323]This in opposition to Budde’s statement that the description of the Chaldeans in i. 5–11 “ist eine phantastische Schilderung” (p. 387).[324]It is, however, a serious question whether it would be possible in 615 to describe the Chaldeans asa nation that traversed the breadth of the earth to occupy dwelling-places that were not his own(i. 6). This suits better after the battle of Carchemish.[325]See above, p. 121, n.322.[326]See above, pp.114ff.[327]Pages 49 and 50.[328]See above, pp.118f.[329]Wellhausen in 1873 (see p. 661); Giesebrecht in 1890; Budde in 1892, before he had seen the opinions of either of the others (seeStud. und Krit., 1893, p. 386, n. 2).[330]Cornill quotes a rearrangement of chaps, i., ii., by Rothstein, who takes i. 2–4, 12a, 13, ii. 1–3, 4, 5a, i. 6–10, 14, 15a, ii. 6b, 7, 9, 10abβ, 11, 15, 16, 19, 18, as an oracle against Jehoiakim and the godless in Israel about 605, which during the Exile was worked up into the present oracle against Babylon. Cornill esteems it “too complicated.” Budde (Expositor, 1895, pp. 372 ff.) and Nowack hold it untenable.[331]As of course was universally supposed according to either of the other two interpretations given above.[332]Z.A.T.W., 1884, p. 154.[333]Cf. Isa. v. 8 ff. (x. 1–4), etc.[334]So LXX.[335]Cf. Davidson, p. 56, and Budde, p. 391, who allows 9–11 and 15–17.[336]E.g.Isa. xl. 18 ff., xliv. 9 ff., xlvi. 5 ff., etc. On this ground it is condemned by Stade, Kuenen and Budde. Davidson finds this not a serious difficulty, for, he points out, Habakkuk anticipates several later lines of thought.[337]See above, p. 39, n.84.[338]A. T. Religionsgeschichte, p. 229, n. 2.[339]Cf. the ascription by the LXX. of Psalms cxlvi.-cl. to the prophets Haggai and Zechariah.[340]Cf. Kuenen, who conceives it to have been taken from a post-exilic collection of Psalms. See also Cheyne,The Origin of the Psalter: “exilic or more probably post-exilic” (p. 125). “The most natural position for it is in the Persian period. It was doubtless appended to Habakkuk, for the same reason for which Isa. lxiii. 7—lxiv. was attached to the great prophecy of Restoration, viz. that the earlier national troubles seemed to the Jewish Church to be typical of its own sore troubles after the Return. … The lovely closing verses of Hab. iii. are also in a tone congenial to the later religion” (p. 156). Much less certain is the assertion that the language is imitative and artificial (ibid.); while the statement that in ver. 3—cf. with Deut. xxxiii. 2—we have an instance of the effort to avoid the personal name of the Deity (p. 287) is disproved by the use of the latter in ver. 2 and other verses.[341]ישע את, ver. 13, cannot be taken as a proof of lateness; read probablyהושיע את.[342]Pusey, Ewald, König, Sinker (The Psalm of Habakkuk, Cambridge, 1890), Kirkpatrick (Smith’sBible Dict., art. “Habakkuk”), Von Orelli.[343]חֲבַקּוּק(the Greek Ἁμβακουμ, LXX. version of the title of this book, and again the inscription toBel and the Dragon, suggests the pointingחַבַּקוּק; Epiph.,De Vitis Proph.—see next note—spells it Ἁββακουμ), fromחבק,to embrace. Jerome: “He is called ‘embrace’ either because of his love to the Lord, or because he wrestles with God.” Luther: “Habakkuk means one who comforts and holds up his people as one embraces a weeping person.”[344]See above, pp.126ff. The title to the Greek version ofBel and the Dragonbears that the latter was taken from the prophecy of Hambakoum, son of Jesus, of the tribe of Levi. Further details are offered in theDe Vitis Prophetarumof (Pseud-) Epiphanius,Epiph. Opera, ed. Paris, 1622, Vol. II., p. 147, according to which Habakkuk belonged to Βεθζοχηρ, which is probably Βεθζαχαριας of 1 Macc. vi. 32, the modern Beit-Zakaryeh, a little to the north of Hebron, and placed by this notice, as Nahum’s Elkosh is placed, in the tribe of Simeon. His grave was shown in the neighbouring Keilah. The notice further alleges that when Nebuchadrezzar came up to Jerusalem Habakkuk fled to Ostracine, where he travelled in the country of the Ishmaelites; but he returned after the fall of Jerusalem, and died in 538, two years before the return of the exiles.Bel and the Dragontells an extraordinary story of his miraculous carriage of food to Daniel in the lions’ den soon after Cyrus had taken Babylon.[345]See above, pp.119ff.[346]Heb.saw.[347]Text uncertain. Perhaps we should read,Why make me look upon sorrow and trouble? why fill mine eyes with violence and wrong? Strife is come before me, and quarrel arises.[348]Never gets away, to use a colloquial expression.[349]Here vv. 5–11 come in the original.[350]ver. 12b:We shall not die(many Jewish authorities readThou shalt not die).O Jehovah, for judgment hast Thou set him, and, O my Rock, for punishment hast Thou appointed him.[351]Wellhausen:on the robbery of robbers.[352]LXX.devoureth the righteous.[353]LiterallyThou hast made men.[354]Wellhausen: cf. Jer. xviii. 1, xix. 1.[355]So Giesebrecht (see above, p. 119, n.318), readingהעולם יריק חרבוforהעל־כן יריק חרמו,shall he therefore empty his net?[356]Wellhausen, readingיהרגforלהרג:should he therefore be emptying his net continually, and slaughtering the nations without pity?[357]מצור. But Wellhausen takes it as fromנצרand =wardorwatch-tower. So Nowack.[358]So Heb. and LXX.; but Syr.he: so Wellhausen,what answer He returns to my plea.[359]Bredenkamp (Stud. u. Krit., 1889, pp. 161 ff.) suggests that the writing on the tablets begins here and goes on to ver. 5a. Budde (Z.A.T.W., 1889, pp. 155 f.) takes the כי which opens it as simply equivalent to the Greek ὅτι, introducing, like our marks of quotation, the writing itself.[360]וְיָפֵחַ: cf. Psalm xxvii. 12. Bredenkamp emends toוְיִפְרַח.[361]Not be late, or past its fixed time.[362]So literally the Heb.עֻפְּלָה, i.e.arrogant,false: cf. the colloquial expressionswollen-head= conceit, as opposed to level-headed. Bredenkamp,Stud. u. Krit., 1889, 121, readsהַנֶעֱלָףforהִנֵּה עֻפְּלָה. Wellhausen suggestsהִנֵּה הֶעַוָל,Lo, the sinner, in contrast toצדיקof next clause. Nowack prefers this.[363]LXX. wronglymy.[364]LXX. πίδτις,faith, and so in N. T.[365]Chap. i. 5–11.[366]So to bring out the assonance, readingהִתְמַהְמְהוּ וּתִמָהוּ.[367]So LXX.[368]Or Chaldeans; on the name and people see above, p.19.[369]Heb. singular.[370]Omitופרשיו(evidently a dittography) and the lameיבאוwhich is omitted by LXX. and was probably inserted to afford a verb for the secondפרשיו.[371]Heb. sing., and so in all the clauses here except the next.[372]A problematical rendering.מגמהis found only here, and probably meansdirection. Hitzig translatesdesire,effort,striving.קדימה,towards the frontorforward; but elsewhere it means onlyeastward:קדים,the east wind. Cf. Judg. v. 21,נחל קדומים נחל קישון,a river of spates or rushes is the river Kishon(Hist. Geog., p. 395). Perhaps we should changeפניהיםto a singular suffix, as in the clauses before and after, and this would leaveמto form withקדימהa participle fromהקדים(cf. Amos ix. 10).[373]Ortheir spirit changes, orthey change like the wind(Wellhausen suggestsכרוח). Grätz readsכֺּחַandיַחֲלִיף,he renews his strength.[374]Von Orelli. ForאשׁםWellhausen proposesוְיָשִׂם,and sets.[375]The wickedof chap. i. 4 must, as we have seen, be the same asthe wickedof chap. i. 13—a heathen oppressor ofthe righteous,i.e.the people of God.[376]i. 3.[377]i. 4.[378]i. 13–17.[379]Amos iii. 6. See Vol. I., p.90.[380]See above, pp.119ff.[381]Its proper place in Budde’s re-arrangement is after chap. ii. 4.
[190]LXX.In the days of thy festival, which it takes with the previous verse. The Heb. construction is ungrammatical, though not unprecedented—the construct state before a preposition. Besidesנוגיis obscure in meaning. It is a Ni. pt. forנוגהfromיגה,to be sad: cf. the Pi. in Lam. iii. 33. But the Hiphilהוגהin 2 Sam. xx. 13, followed (as here) byמן, meansto thrust away from, and that is probably the sense here.
[191]LXX.thine oppressedin acc. governed by the preceding verb, which in LXX. begins the verse.
[192]The Heb.,מַשְׂאֵת,burden of, is unintelligible. Wellhausen proposesמִשְׂאֵת עֲלֵיהֶם.
[193]This rendering is only a venture in the almost impossible task of restoring the text of the clause. As it stands the Heb. runs,Behold, I am about to do, ordeal, with thine oppressors(which Hitzig and Ewald accept). Schwally pointsמְעַנַּיִךְ(active) as a passive,מְעֻנַּיִךְ,thine oppressed. LXX. has ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ποιῶ ἐν σοὶ ἕνεκεν σοῦ,i.e.it readאִתֵּךְ לְמַעֲנֵךְ. Following its suggestion we might readאֶת־כֹּל לְמַעֲנֵךְ, and so get the above translation.
[194]Micah iv. 6.
[195]This rendering (Ewald’s) is doubtful. The verse concludes within the whole earth their shame. Butבָּשְׁתָּםmay be a gloss. LXX. take it as a verb with the next verse.
[196]LXX.do good to you; perhapsאטיבforאביא.
[197]So Heb. literally, but the construction is very awkward. Perhaps we should readin that time I will gather you.
[198]Before your eyes,i.e.in your lifetime. It is doubtful whether ver. 20 is original to the passage. For it is simply a variation on ver. 19, and it has more than one impossible reading: see previous note, and forשבותיכםreadשבותכם.
[199]In the English version, but in the Hebrew chap. ii. vv. 1 and 3; for the Hebrew text divides chap. i. from chap. ii. differently from the English, which follows the Greek. The Hebrew begins chap. ii. with what in the English and Greek is the fifteenth verse of chap. i.:Behold, upon the mountains, etc.
[200]In the English text, but in the Hebrew with the omission of vv. 1 and 3: see previous note.
[201]Other meanings have been suggested, but are impossible.
[202]So it lies on Billerbeck’s map in Delitzsch and Haupt’sBeiträge zur Assyr., III. Smith’sBible Dictionaryputs it at only 2 m. N. of Mosul.
[203]Layard,Niniveh and its Remains, I. 233, 3rd ed., 1849.
[204]Bohn’sEarly Travels in Palestine, p. 102.
[205]Just as they show Jonah’s tomb at Niniveh itself.
[206]See above, p.18.
[207]Just as in Micah’s case Jerome calls his birthplace Moresheth by the adjective Morasthi, so with equal carelessness he calls Elḳosh by the adjective with the article Ha-elḳoshi, the Elḳoshite. Jerome’s words are: “Quum Elcese usque hodie in Galilea viculus sit, parvus quidem et vix ruinis veterum ædificiorum indicans vestigia, sed tamen notus Judæis et mihi quoque a circumducente monstratus” (inProl. ad Prophetiam Nachumi). In theOnomasticonJerome gives the name as Elcese, Eusebius as Ἐλκεσέ, but without defining the position.
[208]This Elkese has been identified, though not conclusively, with the modern El Kauze near Ramieh, some seven miles W. of Tibnin.
[209]Cf. Kuenen, § 75, n. 5; Davidson, p. 12 (2).
Capernaum, which the Textus Receptus gives as Καπερναούμ, but most authorities as Καφαρναούμ and the Peshitto as Kaphar Nahum, obviously means Village of Nahum, and both Hitzig and Knobel looked for Elḳôsh in it. SeeHist. Geog., p. 456.
Against the Galilean origin of Nahum it is usual to appeal to John vii. 52:Search and see that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet; but this is not decisive, for Jonah came out of Galilee.
[210]Though perhaps falsely.
[211]This occurs in the Syriac translation of the Old Testament by Paul of Tella, 617A.D., in which the notices of Epiphanius (Bishop of Constantia in CyprusA.D.367) or Pseudepiphanius are attached to their respective prophets. It was first communicated to theZ.D.P.V., I. 122 ff., by Dr. Nestle: cf.Hist. Geog., p. 231, n. 1. The previously known readings of the passage were either geographically impossible, as “He came from Elkesei beyond Jordan, towards Begabar of the tribe of Simeon” (so in Paris edition, 1622, of the works of St. Epiphanius, Vol. II., p. 147: cf. Migne,Patr. Gr., XLIII. 409); or based on a misreading of the title of the book: “Nahum son of Elkesaios was of Jesbe of the tribe of Simeon”; or indefinable: “Nahum was of Elkesem beyond Betabarem of the tribe of Simeon”; these last two from recensions of Epiphanius published in 1855 by Tischendorf (quoted by Davidson, p. 13). In the Στιχηρὸν τῶν ΙΒ´ Προφητῶν καὶ Ἰσαιοῦ, attributed to Hesychius, Presbyter of Jerusalem, who died 428 of 433 (Migne,Patrologia Gr., XCIII. 1357), it is said that Nahum was ἀπὸ Ἑλκεσεὶν (Helcesin) πέραν τοῦ τηνβαρεὶν ἐκ φυλῆς Συμεών; to which has been added a note from Theophylact, Ἑλκασαΐ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου εἰς Βιγαβρὶ.
[212]Ad Nahum i. I (Migne,Patr. Gr., LXXI. 780): Κώμη δὲ αὕτη πάντως ποῦ τῆς Ἰουδαίων χώρας.
[213]The selection Bashan, Carmel and Lebanon (i. 4), does not prove northern authorship.
[214]אֶלְקוֹשׁmay be (1) a theophoric name = Ḳosh is God; and Ḳosh might then be the Edomite deityקוֹסwhose name is spelt with a Shin on the Assyrian monuments (Baethgen,Beiträge z. Semit. Religionsgeschichte, p. 11; Schrader,K.A.T.², pp. 150, 613), and who is probably the same as the Arab deity Ḳais (Baethgen,id., p. 108); and this would suit a position in the south of Judah, in which region we find the majority of place-names compounded withאל. Or else (2) theאis prosthetic, as in the place-namesאכזיבon the Phœnician coast,אכשׁףin Southern Canaan,אשדוד, etc. In this case we might find its equivalent in the formלְקוֹש(cf.כזיב אכזיב); but no such form is now extant or recorded at any previous period. The form Lâḳis would not suit. On Bir el Ḳûs see Robinson,B.R., III., p. 14, and Guérin,Judée, III., p. 341. Bir el Ḳûs means Well of the Bow, or, according to Guérin, of the Arch, from ruins that stand by it. The position,eastof Beit-Jibrin, is unsuitable; for the early Christian texts quoted in the previous note fix itbeyond, presumably south or south-west of Beit-Jibrin, and in the tribe of Simeon. The error “tribe of Simeon” does not matter, for the same fathers place Bethzecharias, the alleged birthplace of Habakkuk, there.
[215]Einleitung, 1st ed.
[216]Who seems to have owed the hint to a quotation by Delitzsch on Psalm ix. from G. Frohnmeyer to the effect that there were traces of “alphabetic” verses in chap, i., at least in vv. 3–7. See Bickell’sBeiträge zur Semit. Metrik, Separatabdruck, Wien, 1894.
[217]Z.A.T.W., 1893, pp. 223 ff.
[218]Cf. Ezra ii. 42; Neh. vii. 45; 2 Sam. xvii. 27.
[219]ver. 1 is title; 2 begins withא; then ב is found inבסופה, 3b;גinגוער, 4; ד is wanting—Bickell proposes to substitute a New-Hebrew wordדצק, Gunkelדאב, forאמלל, 4b;הinותשא, 5b;זby removingלפניof ver. 6ato the end of the clause (and reading it thereלפניו), and so leavingזעמוas the first word;חinחמתוin 6b;טinטוב, 7a;יby elidingוfromוידע, 7b;כinכלה, 8;לis wanting, though Gunkel seeks to supply it by taking 9c, beginningלא, with 9b, before 9a;מbegins 9a.
[220]See below in the translation.
[221]As thus: 9a, 11b, 12 (but unintelligible), 10, 13, 14, ii. 1, 3.
[222]See above on Zephaniah, pp.49ff.
[223]Cornill, in the 2nd ed. of hisEinleitung, has accepted Gunkel’s and Bickell’s main contentions.
[224]iii. 8–10.
[225]The description of the fall of No-Amon precludes the older view almost universally held before the discovery of Assurbanipal’s destruction of Thebes, viz. that Nahum prophesied in the days of Hezekiah or in the earlier years of Manasseh (Lightfoot, Pusey, Nägelsbach, etc.).
[226]So Schrader, Volck in Herz.Real. Enc., and others.
[227]It is favoured by Winckler,A.T. Untersuch., pp. 127 f.
[228]Above, pp.15f.;19,22ff.
[229]This in answer to Jeremias in Delitzsch’s and Haupt’sBeiträge zur Assyriologie, III. 96.
[230]I. 103.
[231]Hitzig’s other reason, that the besiegers of Niniveh are described by Nahum in ii. 3 ff. as single, which was true of the siege in 625c., but not of that of 607—6, when the Chaldeans joined the Medes, is disposed of by the proof on p.22above, that even in 607—6 the Medes carried on the siege alone.
[232]Page 17.
[233]In commenting on chap. i. 9; p. 156 ofKleine Propheten.
[234]The phrase which is so often appealed to by both sides, i. 9,Jehovah maketh a complete end, not twice shall trouble arise, is really inconclusive. Hitzig maintains that if Nahum had written this after the first and before the second siege of Niniveh he would have had to say, “not thriceshall trouble arise.” This is not conclusive: the prophet is looking only at the future and thinking of it—not twiceagainshall trouble arise; and if there were really two sieges of Niniveh, would the wordsnot twicehave been suffered to remain, if they had been a confident predictionbeforethe first siege? Besides, the meaning of the phrase is not certain; it may be only a general statement corresponding to what seems a general statement in the first clause of the verse. Kuenen and others refer thetroublenot to that which is about to afflict Assyria, but to the long slavery and slaughter which Judah has suffered at Assyria’s hands. Davidson leaves it ambiguous.
[235]Technical military terms: ii. 2,מצורה; 4,פלדת(?); 4,הרעלו; 6,הסכך; iii. 3,מעלה(?). Probably foreign terms: ii. 8,הצב; iii. 17,מנזריך. Certainly foreign: iii. 17,טפסריך.
[236]Above, pp.78ff.,85ff.
[237]See above, pp.81ff.
[238]ver. 3, if the reading be correct.
[239]Gunkel amends toin mercyto make the parallel exact. But see above, p.82.
[240]Gunkel’s emendation is quite unnecessary here.
[241]See above, p.83.
[242]So LXX. Heb. =for a stronghold in the day of trouble.
[243]Thrusts into, Wellhausen, readingינדףorידףforירדף. LXX.darkness shall pursue.
[244]Heb. and R.V.drenched as with their drink. LXX.like a tangled yew. The text is corrupt.
[245]The superfluous wordמלאat the end of ver. 10 Wellhausen reads asהלאat the beginning of ver. 11.
[246]Usually taken as Sennacherib.
[247]The Hebrew is given by the R.V.though they be in full strength and likewise many. LXX.Thus saith Jehovah ruling over many waters, readingמשל מים רביםand omitting the firstוכן. Similarly Syr.Thus saith Jehovah of the heads of many waters,על משלי מים רבים. Wellhausen, substitutingמיםfor the firstוכן, translates,Let the great waters be ever so full, they will yet all...? (misprint here)and vanish. Forעברreadעברוwith LXX., borrowingוfrom next word.
[248]Lit.and I will afflict thee, I will not afflict thee again. This rendering implies that Niniveh is the object. The A.V.,though I have afflicted thee I will afflict thee no more, refers to Israel.
[249]Omit ver. 13 and run 14 on to 12. For the curious alternation now occurs: Assyria in one verse, Judah in the other. Assyria: i. 12, 14, ii. 2 (Heb.; Eng. ii. 1), 4 ff. Judah: i. 13, ii. 1 (Heb.; Eng. i. 15), 3 (Heb.; Eng. 2). Remove these latter, as Wellhausen does, and the verses on Assyria remain a connected and orderly whole. So in the text above.
[250]Syr.make it thy sepulchre. The Hebrew left untranslated above might be renderedfor thou art vile. Bickell amends intodunghills. Lightfoot,Chron. Temp. et Ord. Text V.T.in Collected Works, I. 109, takes this as a prediction of Sennacherib’s murder in the temple, an interpretation which demands a date for Nahum under either Hezekiah or Manasseh. So Pusey also, p. 357.
[251]LXX.destructionכָּלָה, forכֻּלה.
[252]Davidson:restoreth the excellency of Jacob, as the excellency of Israel, but when was the latter restored?
[253]See above, pp.22ff.
[254]The authorities are very full. First there is M. Botta’s huge workMonument de Ninive, Paris, 5 vols., 1845. Then must be mentioned the work of which we availed ourselves in describing Babylon inIsaiah xl.—lxvi., Expositor’s Bible, pp.52ff.: “Memoirs by Commander James Felix Jones, I.N.,” inSelections from the Records of the Bombay Government, No. XLIII., New Series, 1857. It is good to find that the careful and able observations of Commander Jones, too much neglected in his own country, have had justice done them by the German Colonel Billerbeck in the work about to be cited. Then there is the invaluableNiniveh and its Remains, by Layard. There are also the works of Rawlinson and George Smith. And recently Colonel Billerbeck, founding on these and other works, has published an admirable monograph (lavishly illustrated by maps and pictures), not only upon the military state of Assyria proper and of Niniveh at this period, but upon the whole subject of Assyrian fortification and art of besieging, as well as upon the course of the Median invasions. It forms the larger part of an article to which Dr. Alfred Jeremias contributes an introduction, and reconstruction with notes of chaps. ii. and iii. of the Book of Nahum: “Der Untergang Niniveh’s und die Weissagungschrift des Nahum von Elḳosh,” in Vol. III. ofBeiträge zur Assyriologie und Semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, edited by Friedrich Delitzsch and Paul Haupt, with the support of Johns Hopkins University at Baltimore, U.S.A.: Leipzig, 1895.
[255]Pages20f.
[256]Colonel Billerbeck (p. 115) thinks that the south-east frontier at this time lay more to the north, near the Greater Zab.
[257]First excavated by M. Botta, 1842–1845. See also George Smith,Assyr. Disc., pp. 98 f.
[258]iii. 12.
[259]iii. 14.
[260]See Jones and Billerbeck.
[261]Delitzsch places theעיר רחבותof Gen. x. 11, the “ribit Nina” of the inscriptions, on the north-east of Niniveh.
[262]ii. 4 Eng., 5 Heb.
[263]ii. 3 Eng., 4 Heb.
[264]Ibid.LXX.
[265]iii. 2.
[266]iii. 3.
[267]It is the waters of the Tigris that the tradition avers to have broken the wall; but the Tigris itself runs in a bed too low for this: it can only have been the Choser. See both Jones and Billerbeck.
[268]ii. 6.
[269]If the above conception of chaps. ii. and iii. be correct, then there is no need for such a re-arrangement of these verses as has been proposed by Jeremias and Billerbeck. In order to produce a continuous narrative of the progress of the siege, they bring forward iii. 12–15 (describing the fall of the fortresses and gates of the land and the call to the defence of the city), and place it immediately after ii. 2, 4 (the description of the invader) and ii. 5–11 (the appearance of chariots in the suburbs of the city, the opening of the floodgates, the flight and the spoiling of the city). But if they believe that the original gave an orderly account of the progress of the siege, why do they not bring forward also iii. 2 f., which describe the arrival of the foe under the city walls? The truth appears to be as stated above. We have really two poems against Niniveh, chap. ii. and chap. iii. They do not give an orderly description of the siege, but exult over Niniveh’s imminent downfall, with gleams scattered here and there of how this is to happen. Of these “impressions” of the coming siege there are three, and in the order in which we now have them they occur very naturally: ii. 5 ff., iii. 2 f., and iii. 12 ff.
[270]ii. 2 goes with the previous chapter. See above, pp.94f.
[271]ii. 13, iii. 5.
[272]See above, Vol. I., Chap.IV., especially pp.54ff.
[273]ii. 8.
[274]Isaiah xl.—lxvi.(Expositor’s Bible), pp.197ff.
[275]Readמַפֵּץwith Wellhausen (cf. Siegfried-Stade’sWörterbuch, subפּוּץ) forמֵפִיץ,Breaker in pieces. In Jer. li. 20 Babylon is also called by Jehovah Hisמַפֵּץ,HammerorMaul.
[276]Keep watch, Wellhausen.
[277]This may be a military call to attention, the converse of “Stand at ease!”
[278]Heb. literally:brace up thy power exceedingly.
[279]Heb. singular.
[280]Rev. ix. 17. Purple or red was the favourite colour of the Medes. The Assyrians also loved red.
[281]Readכאשׁforבאשׁ.
[282]פלדות, the word omitted, is doubtful; it does not occur elsewhere. LXX. ἡνίαι; Vulg.habenæ. Some have thought that it meansscythes—cf. the Arabicfalad, “to cut”—but the earliest notice of chariots armed with scythes is at the battle of Cunaxa, and in Jewish literature they do not appear before 2 Macc. xiii. 2. Cf. Jeremias,op. cit., p. 97, where Billerbeck suggests that the words of Nahum are applicable to the covered siege-engines, pictured on the Assyrian monuments, from which the besiegers flung torches on the walls: cf.ibid., p. 167, n. ***. But from the parallelism of the verse it is more probable that ordinary chariots are meant. The leading chariots were covered with plates of metal (Billerbeck, p. 167).
[283]So LXX., readingפרשיםforברשיםof Heb. text, that meansfir-trees. If the latter be correct, then we should need to suppose with Billerbeck that either the long lances of the Aryan Medes were meant, or the great, heavy spears which were thrust against the walls by engines. We are not, however, among these yet; it appears to be the cavalry and chariots in the open that are here described.
[284]Orbroad placesorsuburbs. See above, pp.100f.
[285]See above, p. 106, end of n.282.
[286]Heb.They stumble in their goings.Davidson holds this is more probably of the defenders. Wellhausen takes the verse as of the besiegers. See next note.
[287]הסֹּכֵךְ. Partic. of the verbto cover, hence covering thing: whethermantlet(on the side of the besiegers) orbulwark(on the side of the besieged: cf.מָסָךְ, Isa. xxii. 8) is uncertain. Billerbeck says, if it be an article of defence, we can read ver. 5 as illustrating the vanity of the hurried defence, when the elements themselves break in vv. 6 and 7 (p. 101: cf. p. 176, n. *).
[288]Sluices(Jeremias) orbridge-gates(Wellhausen)?
[289]Orbreaks into motion, i.e.flight.
[290]הֻצּב, if a Hebrew word, might be Hophal ofנצבand has been taken to meanit is determined, she(Niniveh)is taken captive. Volck (in Herzog), Kleinert, Orelli:it is settled. LXX. ὑπόστασις =מצב. Vulg.miles(as if some form ofצבא?). Hitzig points itהַצָּב,the lizard, Wellhausenthe toad. But this noun is masculine (Lev. xi. 29) and the verbs feminine. Davidson suggests the otherהַצָּב, fem., thelitterorpalanquin(Isa. lxvi. 20): “in lieu of anything better one might be tempted to think that the litter might mean the woman or lady, just as in Arab. ḍḥa’inah means a woman’s litter and then a woman.” One is also tempted to think ofהַצְּבי,the beauty. The Targ. hasמלכתא,the queen. From as early as at least 1527 (Latina InterpretatioXantis Pagnini Lucensis revised and edited for the Plantin Bible, 1615) the word has been taken by a series of scholars as a proper name, Huṣṣab. So Ewald and others. It may be an Assyrian word, like some others in Nahum. Perhaps, again, the text is corrupt.
Mr. Paul Ruben (Academy, March 7th, 1896) has proposed instead ofהעלתה,is brought forth, to readהעתלה, and to translate it by analogy of the Assyrian “etellu,” fem. “etellitu” = great or exalted,The Lady. The line would then runHuṣṣab, the lady, is stripped. (WithהעתלהCheyne,Academy, June 21st, 1896, comparesעתליה, which, he suggests, is “Yahwe is great” or “is lord.”)
[291]Heb.מֵימֵי הִיאforמימי אשר היא,from days she was. A.V.is of old. R.V.hath been of old, and Marg.from the days that she hath been. LXX.her waters, מֵימֶיהָ. On waters fleeing, cf. Ps. civ. 7.
[292]Buḳah, umebuḳah, umebullāḳah. Ewald:desert and desolation and devastation. The adj. are feminine.
[293]Literally:and the faces of all them gather lividness.
[294]ForמרעהWellhausen readsמערה,caveorhold.
[295]LXX., readingלבואforלביא.
[296]Heb.her chariots. LXX. and Syr. suggestthy massormultitude,רבכה. Davidson suggeststhy lair,רבצכה.
[297]Literallyand the chariot dancing, but the word, merakedah, has a rattle in it.
[298]Doubtful,מַעֲלֶה. LXX. ἀναβαίνοντος.
[299]Jeremias (104) shows how the Assyrians did this to female captives.
[300]Jer. xlvi. 25:I will punish Amon at No. Ezek. xxx. 14–16:. . . judgments in No. . . . I will cut off No-Amon(Heb. and A.V.multitude of No, readingהמון; so also LXX. τὸ πλῆθος forאמון) . . .and No shall be broken up. It is Thebes, the Egyptian name of which was Nu-Amen. The god Amen had his temple there: Herod. I. 182, II. 42. Nahum refers to Assurbanipal’s account of the fall of Thebes. See above, p.11.
[301]היארים. Pl. of the word for Nile.
[302]Arabs still call the Nile the sea.
[303]So LXX., readingמַיִםfor Heb.מִיָּם.
[304]So LXX.; Heb.thee.
[305]Heb.be drunken.
[306]I.e.against,because of.
[307]Jer. l. 37, li. 30.
[308]Heb. and LXX. adddevour thee like the locust, probably a gloss.
[309]Cf. Jer. ix. 33. Some take it of the locusts stripping the skin which confines their wings: Davidson.
[310]מנזריך. A.V.thy crowned ones; but perhaps like its neighbouran Assyrian word, meaning we know not what. Wellhausen readsממזרך, LXX. ὁ συμμικτός σοῦ (applied in Deut. xxiii. 3 and Zech. ix. 6 to the offspring of a mixed marriage between an Israelite and a Gentile), deine Mischlinge: a term of contempt for the floating foreign or semi-foreign population which filled Niniveh and was ready to fly at sight of danger. Similarly Wellhausen takes the second term,טפסר. This, which occurs also in Jer. li. 27, appears to be some kind of official. In Assyriandupsaris scribe, which may, like Heb.שׁטר, have been applied to any high official. See Schrader,K.A.T., Eng. Tr., I. 141, II. 118. See also Fried. Delitzsch,Wo lag Parad., p. 142. The name and office were ancient. Such Babylonian officials are mentioned in the Tell el Amarna letters as present at the Egyptian court.
[311]Heb.day of cold.
[312]ישכנו,dwell, is the Heb. reading. But LXX.ישנו, ἐκοίμισεν. Sleep must be taken in the sense of death: cf. Jer. li. 39, 57; Isa. xiv. 18.
[313]Except one or two critics who place it in Manasseh’s reign. See below.
[314]See next note.
[315]So Pusey. Delitzsch in his commentary on Habakkuk, 1843, preferred Josiah’s reign, but in hisO. T. Hist. of Redemption, 1881, p. 226, Manasseh’s. Volck (in Herzog,Real Encyc.,² art. “Habakkuk,” 1879), assuming that Habakkuk is quoted both by Zephaniah (see above, p. 39, n.) and Jeremiah, places him before these. Sinker (The Psalm of Habakkuk: see below, p. 127, n.342) deems “the prophecy, taken as a whole,” to bring “before us the threat of the Chaldean invasion, the horrors that follow in its train,” etc., with a vision of the day “when the Chaldean host itself, its work done, falls beneath a mightier foe.” He fixes the date either in the concluding years of Manasseh’s reign, or the opening years of that of Josiah (Preface, 1–4).
[316]Pages 53, 49. Kirkpatrick (Smith’sDict. of the Bible,² art. “Habakkuk,” 1893) puts it not later than the sixth year of Jehoiakim.
[317]Einl. in das A. T.
[318]Beiträge zur Jesaiakritik, 1890, pp. 197 f.
[319]See Further Note on p.128.
[320]Studien u. Kritikenfor 1893.
[321]Cf. the opening of § 30 in the first edition of hisEinleitungwith that of § 34 in the third and fourth editions.
[322]Budde’s explanation of this is, that to the later editors of the book, long after the Babylonian destruction of Jews, it was incredible that the Chaldean should be represented as the deliverer of Israel, and so the account of him was placed where, while his call to punish Israel for her sins was not emphasised, he should be pictured as destined to doom; and so the prophecy originally referring to the Assyrian was read of him. “This is possible,” says Davidson, “if it be true criticism is not without its romance.”
[323]This in opposition to Budde’s statement that the description of the Chaldeans in i. 5–11 “ist eine phantastische Schilderung” (p. 387).
[324]It is, however, a serious question whether it would be possible in 615 to describe the Chaldeans asa nation that traversed the breadth of the earth to occupy dwelling-places that were not his own(i. 6). This suits better after the battle of Carchemish.
[325]See above, p. 121, n.322.
[326]See above, pp.114ff.
[327]Pages 49 and 50.
[328]See above, pp.118f.
[329]Wellhausen in 1873 (see p. 661); Giesebrecht in 1890; Budde in 1892, before he had seen the opinions of either of the others (seeStud. und Krit., 1893, p. 386, n. 2).
[330]Cornill quotes a rearrangement of chaps, i., ii., by Rothstein, who takes i. 2–4, 12a, 13, ii. 1–3, 4, 5a, i. 6–10, 14, 15a, ii. 6b, 7, 9, 10abβ, 11, 15, 16, 19, 18, as an oracle against Jehoiakim and the godless in Israel about 605, which during the Exile was worked up into the present oracle against Babylon. Cornill esteems it “too complicated.” Budde (Expositor, 1895, pp. 372 ff.) and Nowack hold it untenable.
[331]As of course was universally supposed according to either of the other two interpretations given above.
[332]Z.A.T.W., 1884, p. 154.
[333]Cf. Isa. v. 8 ff. (x. 1–4), etc.
[334]So LXX.
[335]Cf. Davidson, p. 56, and Budde, p. 391, who allows 9–11 and 15–17.
[336]E.g.Isa. xl. 18 ff., xliv. 9 ff., xlvi. 5 ff., etc. On this ground it is condemned by Stade, Kuenen and Budde. Davidson finds this not a serious difficulty, for, he points out, Habakkuk anticipates several later lines of thought.
[337]See above, p. 39, n.84.
[338]A. T. Religionsgeschichte, p. 229, n. 2.
[339]Cf. the ascription by the LXX. of Psalms cxlvi.-cl. to the prophets Haggai and Zechariah.
[340]Cf. Kuenen, who conceives it to have been taken from a post-exilic collection of Psalms. See also Cheyne,The Origin of the Psalter: “exilic or more probably post-exilic” (p. 125). “The most natural position for it is in the Persian period. It was doubtless appended to Habakkuk, for the same reason for which Isa. lxiii. 7—lxiv. was attached to the great prophecy of Restoration, viz. that the earlier national troubles seemed to the Jewish Church to be typical of its own sore troubles after the Return. … The lovely closing verses of Hab. iii. are also in a tone congenial to the later religion” (p. 156). Much less certain is the assertion that the language is imitative and artificial (ibid.); while the statement that in ver. 3—cf. with Deut. xxxiii. 2—we have an instance of the effort to avoid the personal name of the Deity (p. 287) is disproved by the use of the latter in ver. 2 and other verses.
[341]ישע את, ver. 13, cannot be taken as a proof of lateness; read probablyהושיע את.
[342]Pusey, Ewald, König, Sinker (The Psalm of Habakkuk, Cambridge, 1890), Kirkpatrick (Smith’sBible Dict., art. “Habakkuk”), Von Orelli.
[343]חֲבַקּוּק(the Greek Ἁμβακουμ, LXX. version of the title of this book, and again the inscription toBel and the Dragon, suggests the pointingחַבַּקוּק; Epiph.,De Vitis Proph.—see next note—spells it Ἁββακουμ), fromחבק,to embrace. Jerome: “He is called ‘embrace’ either because of his love to the Lord, or because he wrestles with God.” Luther: “Habakkuk means one who comforts and holds up his people as one embraces a weeping person.”
[344]See above, pp.126ff. The title to the Greek version ofBel and the Dragonbears that the latter was taken from the prophecy of Hambakoum, son of Jesus, of the tribe of Levi. Further details are offered in theDe Vitis Prophetarumof (Pseud-) Epiphanius,Epiph. Opera, ed. Paris, 1622, Vol. II., p. 147, according to which Habakkuk belonged to Βεθζοχηρ, which is probably Βεθζαχαριας of 1 Macc. vi. 32, the modern Beit-Zakaryeh, a little to the north of Hebron, and placed by this notice, as Nahum’s Elkosh is placed, in the tribe of Simeon. His grave was shown in the neighbouring Keilah. The notice further alleges that when Nebuchadrezzar came up to Jerusalem Habakkuk fled to Ostracine, where he travelled in the country of the Ishmaelites; but he returned after the fall of Jerusalem, and died in 538, two years before the return of the exiles.Bel and the Dragontells an extraordinary story of his miraculous carriage of food to Daniel in the lions’ den soon after Cyrus had taken Babylon.
[345]See above, pp.119ff.
[346]Heb.saw.
[347]Text uncertain. Perhaps we should read,Why make me look upon sorrow and trouble? why fill mine eyes with violence and wrong? Strife is come before me, and quarrel arises.
[348]Never gets away, to use a colloquial expression.
[349]Here vv. 5–11 come in the original.
[350]ver. 12b:We shall not die(many Jewish authorities readThou shalt not die).O Jehovah, for judgment hast Thou set him, and, O my Rock, for punishment hast Thou appointed him.
[351]Wellhausen:on the robbery of robbers.
[352]LXX.devoureth the righteous.
[353]LiterallyThou hast made men.
[354]Wellhausen: cf. Jer. xviii. 1, xix. 1.
[355]So Giesebrecht (see above, p. 119, n.318), readingהעולם יריק חרבוforהעל־כן יריק חרמו,shall he therefore empty his net?
[356]Wellhausen, readingיהרגforלהרג:should he therefore be emptying his net continually, and slaughtering the nations without pity?
[357]מצור. But Wellhausen takes it as fromנצרand =wardorwatch-tower. So Nowack.
[358]So Heb. and LXX.; but Syr.he: so Wellhausen,what answer He returns to my plea.
[359]Bredenkamp (Stud. u. Krit., 1889, pp. 161 ff.) suggests that the writing on the tablets begins here and goes on to ver. 5a. Budde (Z.A.T.W., 1889, pp. 155 f.) takes the כי which opens it as simply equivalent to the Greek ὅτι, introducing, like our marks of quotation, the writing itself.
[360]וְיָפֵחַ: cf. Psalm xxvii. 12. Bredenkamp emends toוְיִפְרַח.
[361]Not be late, or past its fixed time.
[362]So literally the Heb.עֻפְּלָה, i.e.arrogant,false: cf. the colloquial expressionswollen-head= conceit, as opposed to level-headed. Bredenkamp,Stud. u. Krit., 1889, 121, readsהַנֶעֱלָףforהִנֵּה עֻפְּלָה. Wellhausen suggestsהִנֵּה הֶעַוָל,Lo, the sinner, in contrast toצדיקof next clause. Nowack prefers this.
[363]LXX. wronglymy.
[364]LXX. πίδτις,faith, and so in N. T.
[365]Chap. i. 5–11.
[366]So to bring out the assonance, readingהִתְמַהְמְהוּ וּתִמָהוּ.
[367]So LXX.
[368]Or Chaldeans; on the name and people see above, p.19.
[369]Heb. singular.
[370]Omitופרשיו(evidently a dittography) and the lameיבאוwhich is omitted by LXX. and was probably inserted to afford a verb for the secondפרשיו.
[371]Heb. sing., and so in all the clauses here except the next.
[372]A problematical rendering.מגמהis found only here, and probably meansdirection. Hitzig translatesdesire,effort,striving.קדימה,towards the frontorforward; but elsewhere it means onlyeastward:קדים,the east wind. Cf. Judg. v. 21,נחל קדומים נחל קישון,a river of spates or rushes is the river Kishon(Hist. Geog., p. 395). Perhaps we should changeפניהיםto a singular suffix, as in the clauses before and after, and this would leaveמto form withקדימהa participle fromהקדים(cf. Amos ix. 10).
[373]Ortheir spirit changes, orthey change like the wind(Wellhausen suggestsכרוח). Grätz readsכֺּחַandיַחֲלִיף,he renews his strength.
[374]Von Orelli. ForאשׁםWellhausen proposesוְיָשִׂם,and sets.
[375]The wickedof chap. i. 4 must, as we have seen, be the same asthe wickedof chap. i. 13—a heathen oppressor ofthe righteous,i.e.the people of God.
[376]i. 3.
[377]i. 4.
[378]i. 13–17.
[379]Amos iii. 6. See Vol. I., p.90.
[380]See above, pp.119ff.
[381]Its proper place in Budde’s re-arrangement is after chap. ii. 4.