Nahum 2:12

2:12 The lion tore apart as much prey as his cubs needed ¹ 

and strangled prey to provide food ²  for his lionesses;

he filled ³  his lairs with prey

and his dens with torn flesh.

Nahum 3:13

3:13 Your warriors will be like women in your midst;

the gates of your land will be wide open ⁴  to your enemies;

fire will consume ⁵  the bars of your gates. ⁶ 

Nahum 3:7

3:7 Everyone who sees you will turn away from you in disgust;

they will say, ‘Nineveh has been devastated!

Who will lament for her?’

There will be no one to comfort you!” ⁷ 

Nahum 3:19

3:19 Your destruction is like an incurable wound; ⁸ 

your demise is like a fatal injury! ⁹ 

All who hear what has happened to you ¹⁰  will clap their hands for joy, ¹¹ 

for no one ever escaped your endless cruelty! ¹² 

Nahum 1:14

Oracle of Judgment against the King of Nineveh

1:14 The Lord has issued a decree against you: ¹³ 

“Your dynasty will come to an end. ¹⁴ 

I will destroy the idols and images in the temples of your gods.

I will desecrate ¹⁵  your grave – because you are accursed!” ¹⁶ 

Nahum 3:1

Reason for Judgment: Sins of Nineveh

3:1 Woe to the city guilty of bloodshed! ¹⁷ 

She is full of lies; ¹⁸ 

she is filled with plunder; ¹⁹ 

she has hoarded her spoil! ²⁰ 

Nahum 1:2

God Takes Vengeance against His Enemies

1:2 The Lord is a zealous ²¹  and avenging ²²  God;

the Lord is avenging and very angry. ²³ 

The Lord takes vengeance ²⁴  against his foes;

he sustains his rage ²⁵  against his enemies.

Nahum 3:14

3:14 Draw yourselves water for a siege! ²⁶ 

Strengthen your fortifications!

Trample the mud ²⁷  and tread the clay!

Make mud bricks to strengthen your walls! ²⁸ 

Nahum 2:11

Taunt against the Once-Mighty Lion

2:11 Where now is the den of the lions, ²⁹ 

the feeding place ³⁰  of the young lions,

where ³¹  the lion, lioness, ³²  and lion cub once prowled ³³ 

and no one disturbed them? ³⁴ 

Nahum 3:10

3:10 Yet she went into captivity as an exile; ³⁵ 

even her infants were smashed to pieces ³⁶  at the head of every street.

They cast lots ³⁷  for her nobility; ³⁸ 

all her dignitaries were bound with chains.

[2:12]  ¹ tn Heb “as much as he needs.” The term בְּדי (bÿdi, “as much as he needs”; HALOT 219 s.v. 2a) is composed of the preposition בְּ (bet) and the noun דַּי (day, “enough, what is required”). This idiom means” to satisfy the hunger of [something]” (cf. Jer 51:58; Hab 2:13).

[2:12]  ² tn The words “to provide food” are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied in the translation for clarity.

[2:12]  ³ tn The Piel verb וַיְמַלֵּא (vayÿmalle’) is a preterite with vav (ו) consecutive which depicts a sequence of events.

[3:13]  ⁴ tn Or “have been opened wide.” The Niphal perfect נִפְתְּחוּ (niftÿkhu) from פָּתַח (patach, “to open”) may designate a past-time action (“have been opened wide”) or a present-time circumstance (“are wide open”). The present-time sense is preferred in vv. 13-14. When used in reference to present-time circumstances, the perfect tense represents a situation occurring at the very instant the expression is being uttered; this is the so-called “instantaneous perfect” (IBHS 488-89 §30.5.1). The root פָּתַח (“to open”) is repeated for emphasis to depict the helpless state of the Assyrian defenses: פָּתוֹחַ נִפְתְּחוּ (patoakh niftÿkhu, “wide open”).

[3:13]  ⁵ tn Or “has consumed.” The Qal perfect אָכְלָה (’okhlah) from אָכַל (’akhal, “to consume”) refers either to a past-time action (“has consumed”) or a present-time action (“consumes”). The context suggests the present-time sense is preferable here. This is an example of the “instantaneous perfect” which represents a situation occurring at the very instant the expression is being uttered (see IBHS 488-89 §30.5.1).

[3:13]  ⁶ tn Heb “your bars.”

[3:7]  ⁷ tc While the MT reads 2nd person feminine singular לָךְ (lakh, “for you”), the LXX reads αὔτή (Jauth, “for her”). The Dead Sea Scrolls from Wadi Murabba’at read לך (“for you”). The MT reading is preferred for several reasons: (1) it is supported by the scrolls from Wadi Murabba’at; (2) it is the most difficult reading; and (3) it explains the origin of the LXX which probably harmonized this with the preceding 3rd person feminine singular pronoun. Abrupt switches from third to second person are commonly found in poetic and prophetic literature (e.g., Deut 32:15; Isa 5:8; Jer 29:19; Job 16:7) as well as in Northwest Semitic curses (see S. Gevirtz, “West-Semitic Curses and the Problem of the Origins of Hebrew Law,” VT 11 [1961]: 147, n. 4).

[3:7]  tn Heb “From whence shall I find comforters for you?”

[3:19]  ⁸ tc The MT reads the hapax legomenon כֵּהָה (kehah, “relief, alleviation”). On the other hand, the LXX reads ἴασις (iasi", “healing”) which seems to reflect a reading of גֵּהָה (gehah, “cure, healing”). In the light of the LXX, the BHS editors suggest emending the MT to גֵּהָה (gehah) – which occurs only once elsewhere (Prov 17:22) – on the basis of orthographic and phonological confusion between Hebrew כ (kaf) and ג (gimel). This emendation would produce the common ancient Near Eastern treaty-curse: “there is no cure for your wound” (e.g., Hos 5:13); see HALOT 461 s.v. כֵּהָה; K. J. Cathcart, “Treaty-Curses and the Book of Nahum,” CBQ 35 (1973): 186; D. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, 64-66.

[3:19]  tn Heb “There is no relief of your fracture.”

[3:19]  ⁹ tn Heb “your injury is fatal.”

[3:19]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “the report of you.”

[3:19]  ¹¹ tn Heb “will clap their hands over you.”

[3:19]  ¹² tn Heb “For who ever escaped…?”

[1:14]  ¹³ tn 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.”

[1:14]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “from your name there will no longer be sown.”

[1:14]  ¹⁵ tn 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).

[1:14]  ¹⁶ tn 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).

[3:1]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “of bloods.” The plural noun דָּמִים (damim, “bloods”) connotes “bloodshed” or “blood guilt” (BDB 196-97 s.v. דָּם 2.f; HALOT 224-25 s.v. דָּם 5; DCH 2:443-47 s.v. דָּם). Human blood in its natural state in the body is generally designated by the singular form דָּם (dam, “blood”); after it has been spilled, the plural form is used to denote the abundance of blood in quantity (IBHS 119-20 §7.4.1; BDB 196-97 s.v. דָּם 2.f). The plural is often used with the verb שָׁפַךְ (shafakh, “to spill, to shed”) to connote bloodshed (Gen 9:6; 37:22; Lev 17:4; Num 35:33; Deut 21:7; 1 Sam 25:31; 1 Kgs 18:28; 2 Kgs 21:16; 24:4; 1 Chr 22:8; Ezek 16:38; 22:4, 6, 9, 12, 27; 23:45; 33:25; 36:18; Prov 1:16). The plural often denotes bloodshed (Gen 4:10; 2 Sam 3:27, 28; 16:8; 20:12; 1 Kgs 2:5; 2 Kgs 9:7, 26, 33; 2 Chr 24:25; Job 16:18; Isa 1:15; 4:4; 9:4; 26:21; 33:15; 34:3, 6, 7; Ezek 7:23; 16:6, 9, 36; 21:37; 22:13; 24:8; Hos 1:4; 4:2; Hab 2:8, 12, 17; Mic 3:10; Zech 9:7) or blood-guilt (Exod 22:1; Lev 20:9; Num 35:27; Deut 19:10; 22:8; Judg 9:24; 1 Sam 25:26, 33; 2 Sam 21:1; Isa 33:15; Ezek 9:9). The term can refer to murder (2 Sam 16:7, 8; Pss 5:7; 26:9; 55:24; 59:3; 139:10; Prov 29:10) or more generally, connote social injustice, cruelty, and oppression (Deut 21:8, 9; 1 Sam 19:5; 2 Kgs 21:6; 24:4; Pss 94:21; 106:38; Prov 6:17; Isa 59:7; Jer 7:6; 22:3; Joel 4:19; Jonah 1:14). The term may refer to blood that has been shed in war (1 Kgs 2:5) and the unnecessary shedding of blood of one’s enemy (1 Kgs 2:31), which is probably the intended meaning here. The phrase “city of bloodshed” (עִיר דָּמִים [’ir damim], “city of bloods”) is used elsewhere to describe a city held guilty before God of blood-guilt and about to be judged by God (Ezek 22:2; 24:6).

[3:1]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “All of her [is] lying.”

[3:1]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “full of plunder.”

[3:1]  ²⁰ tn Heb “prey does not depart.”

[1:2]  ²¹ tn 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.

[1:2]  ²² tn 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.

[1:2]  ²³ tn 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.

[1:2]  ²⁴ tn 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).

[1:2]  ²⁵ tn 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.

[3:14]  ²⁶ tn Heb “waters of siege.”

[3:14]  ²⁷ tn Heb “go into the mud.”

[3:14]  ²⁸ tn Heb “Take hold of the mud-brick mold!”

[2:11]  ²⁹ tn Or “What has become of the den of the lions?”

[2:11]  ³⁰ tc The Masoretic form וּמִרְעֶה (umir’eh, “the feeding ground”) is supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls: ומרעה (4QpNah). It is also reflected in the LXX reading ἡ νομή (Je nomh, “the pasture”). The BHS editors suggest emending to וּמְעָרָה (umÿ’arah, “the cave”), which involves the metathesis of ר (resh) and ע (ayin). This proposed emendation is designed to create a tighter parallelism with מְעוֹן (mÿ’on, “the den”) in the preceding line. However, this emendation has no textual support and conflicts with the grammar of the rest of the line: the feminine noun וּמְעָרָה (umÿ’arah, “the cave”) would demand a feminine independent pronoun instead of the masculine independent pronoun הוּא which follows. Nevertheless, several English versions adopt the emendation (NJB, NEB, RSV, NRSV), while others follow the reading of the MT (KJV, NASB, NIV, NJPS).

[2:11]  ³¹ tn Alternately, “the lion…[once] prowled there.” The construction שָׁם…אֲשֶׁר (’asher...sham) denotes “where…there” (BDB 81 s.v. אֲשֶׁר). This locative construction is approximately reflected in the LXX interrogative ποῦ (pou, “where?”).

[2:11]  ³² tn The meaning of the term לָבִיא (lavi’) is debated. There are three basic approaches: (1) The MT reads לָבִיא, which is supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah) which preserves the consonantal form לביא (see DJD 5:38). Most English versions render לָבִיא as “lioness,” the parallel term for אַרְיֵה (’aryeh, “lion”); so RSV, NASB, NIV, NJPS; in contrast, KJV has “old lion.” Indeed, the noun לָבִיא (“lioness” or “lion”; BDB 522 s.v. לָבִיא) occurs frequently in poetic texts (Gen 49:9; Num 23:24; 24:9; Deut 33:20; Isa 5:29; 30:6; Joel 1:6; Job 4:11; 38:39). The problem is the absence of a vav (ו) conjunction between the two nouns and the presence of a singular rather than plural verb: הָלַךְ אַרְיֵה לָבִיא (halakh ’aryeh lavi’, “lion [and] lioness prowled”). Furthermore, the term for “lioness” in the following verse is not לָבִיא but לִבְאָה (liv’ah; see HALOT 515 s.v. *לִבְאָה; BDB 522 s.v. לָבִיא). (2) Due to the grammatical, syntactical, and lexical difficulties of the previous approach, several scholars propose that the MT’s לָבִיא is a Hiphil infinitive construct form shortened from לְהָבִיא (lÿhavi’, “to bring”); cf. Jer 27:7; 39:7; 2 Chr 31:10; HALOT 114 s.v. בוא. Because the Hiphil of בּוֹא (bo’) can depict an animal bringing food to its dependents (cf. 1 Kgs 17:6), they treat the line thus: “where the lion prowled to bring [food]” (Ehrlich, Haldar, Maier). The Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah) reading לביא does not solve the problem because the pesher to this line uses לבוא (“to enter”), and it is not clear whether this is a literal translation or creative word-play: “Its pesher concerns Demetrius, king of Greece, who sought to enter (לבוא) Jerusalem” (col. 1, line 4). (3) The LXX translation τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν (tou eiselqein, “would enter”) seems to have confused the consonantal form לביא with לבוא which it viewed as Qal infinitive construct לָבוֹא from בּוֹא (“to enter”). This approach is followed by at least one modern translation: “where the lion goes” (NRSV).

[2:11]  ³³ tn The verb הָלַךְ (halakh, “to go, to walk”) is occasionally used of animals (1 Sam 6:12). Here it is nuanced “prowled” in the light of the hunting or stalking imagery in vv. 12-13.

[2:11]  ³⁴ tn Or “and no one frightened [them].” Alternately, reflecting a different division of the lines, “Where the lion [and] lioness [once] prowled // the lion-cub – and no one disturbed [them].”

[3:10]  ³⁵ tc The MT reads לַגֹּלָה (laggolah, “as a captive”) with the preposition לְ (lamed) denoting essence/identity. On the other hand, 4QpNah reads בגולה (“as a captive”) with the preposition בְּ (bet) denoting essence/identity (“as a captive”). The LXX’s αἰξμάλωτος (aixmalwto", “as a prisoner”) does not reveal which preposition was the original.

[3:10]  ³⁶ tc The past-time reference of the context indicates that the Pual verb יְרֻטְּשׁוּ (yÿruttÿshu) is a preterite describing past action (“they were smashed to pieces”) rather than an imperfect describing future action (“they will be smashed to pieces”). The past-time sense is supported by the Syriac and Vulgate. The LXX, however, misunderstood the form as an imperfect. Not recognizing that the form is a preterite, the BHS editors suggest emending to Pual perfect רֻטְּשׁוּ (ruttÿshu, “they were smashed to pieces”). This emendation is unnecessary once the possibility of a preterite is recognized. The Masoretic reading is supported by the reading ירוטשו found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah 3:10).

[3:10]  ³⁷ tc The MT reads יַדּוּ (yadu, “they cast [lots]”) from יָדַד (yadad, “to cast [lots]”). On the other hand, the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah) read ירו (“they threw, cast [lots]”) from יָרָה (yarah, “to throw, cast [lots]”) (e.g., Josh 18:6). The textual variant arose due to orthographic confusion between ד (dalet) and ר (resh) – two Hebrew letters very similar in appearance. The root יָדַד is relatively rare – it occurs only two other times (Obad 11; Joel 4:3 [3:3 ET]) – therefore, it might have been confused with יָרָה which appears more frequently.

[3:10]  ³⁸ tc The MT and Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah) read ועל נכבדיה (“for her nobles”). The LXX reflects וְעַל כָּל נִכְבַּדֶּיהָ (vÿ’al kol nikhbaddeha, “for all her nobles”), adding כָּל (“all”). The LXX addition probably was caused by the influence of the repetition of כָּל in the preceding and following lines.