Bible in 90 Days

Footnotes

1. Amos 9:11 tn The phrase translated “collapsing hut” refers to a temporary shelter (cf. NASB, NRSV “booth”) in disrepair and emphasizes the relatively weakened condition of the once powerful Davidic dynasty. Others have suggested that the term refers to Jerusalem, while still others argue that it should be repointed to read “Sukkoth,” a garrison town in Transjordan. Its reconstruction would symbolize the rebirth of the Davidic empire and its return to power (e.g., M. E. Polley, Amos and the Davidic Empire, 71-74).
2. Amos 9:11 tc The MT reads a third feminine plural suffix, which could refer to the two kingdoms (Judah and Israel) or, more literally, to the breaches in the walls of the cities that are mentioned in v. 14 (cf. 4:3). Some emend to third feminine singular, since the “hut” of the preceding line (a feminine singular noun) might be the antecedent. In that case, the final nun (ן) is virtually dittographic with the vav (ו) that appears at the beginning of the following word.
3. Amos 9:11 tc The MT reads a third masculine singular suffix, which could refer back to David. However, it is possible that an original third feminine singular suffix (יה-, yod-he) has been misread as masculine (יו-, yod-vav). In later Hebrew script a ה (he) resembles a יו- (yod-vav) combination.
4. Amos 9:11 tn Heb “and I will rebuild as in days of antiquity.”
5. Amos 9:12 sn They probably refers to the Israelites or to the Davidic rulers of the future.
6. Amos 9:12 tn Heb “take possession of the remnant of Edom”; cf. NASB, NIV, NRSV “possess the remnant of Edom.”
7. Amos 9:12 tn Heb “nations over whom my name is proclaimed.” The Hebrew idiom indicates ownership, sometimes as a result of conquest. See 2 Sam 12:28.sn This verse envisions a new era of Israelite rule, perhaps patterned after David’s imperialistic successes (see 2 Sam 8-10). At the same time, however, the verse does not specify how this rule is to be accomplished. Note that the book ends with a description of peace and abundance, and its final reference to God (v. 15) does not include the epithet “the Lord who commands armies,” which has militaristic overtones. This is quite a different scene than what the book began with: nations at war and standing under the judgment of God.
8. Amos 9:13 tn Heb “behold” or “look.”
9. Amos 9:13 tn Heb “the days are.”
10. Amos 9:13 sn The plowman will catch up to the reaper. Plowing occurred in October-November, and harvesting in April-May (see P. King, Amos, Hosea, Micah, 109.) But in the future age of restored divine blessing, there will be so many crops the reapers will take all summer to harvest them, and it will be time for plowing again before the harvest is finished.
11. Amos 9:13 sn When the grapes had been harvested, they were placed in a press where workers would stomp on them with their feet and squeeze out the juice. For a discussion of grape-harvesting technique, see O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 110-12.
12. Amos 9:13 tn The verb is omitted here in the Hebrew text but has been supplied in the translation from the parallel line.
13. Amos 9:13 sn The grape harvest occurred in August-September, the planting in November-December (see P. King, Amos, Hosea, Micah, 109). But in the future age described here there will be so many grapes that the workers who stomp them will still be working when the next planting season arrives.
14. Amos 9:13 tn Or “hills,” where the vineyards were planted.
15. Amos 9:13 tn Heb “and all the hills will melt.”
16. Amos 9:14 tn This line can also be translated, “I will restore the fortunes of my people, Israel,” and is a common idiom (e.g., Deut 30:3; Jer 30:3; Hos 6:11; Zeph 3:20). This rendering is followed by several modern English versions (e.g., NEB, NRSV, NJPS).
17. Amos 9:14 tn Or “the ruined [or “desolate”] cities.”
18. Amos 9:14 tn Or “and live [in them].”
19. Amos 9:14 tn Heb “drink their wine.”
20. Amos 9:14 tn Or “gardens.”
21. Amos 9:14 tn Heb “eat their fruit.”
22. Amos 9:15 tn Heb “their.” The pronoun was replaced by the English definite article in the translation for stylistic reasons.
23. Obadiah 1:1 sn The date of the book of Obadiah is very difficult to determine. Since there is no direct indication of chronological setting clearly suggested by the book itself, and since the historical identity of the author is uncertain as well, a possible date for the book can be arrived at only on the basis of internal evidence. When did the hostile actions of Edom against Judah that are described in this book take place? Many nineteenth-century scholars linked the events of the book to a historical note found in 2 Kgs 8:20 (cf. 2 Chr 21:16-17): “In [Jehoram’s] days Edom rebelled from under the hand of Judah and established a king over themselves.” If this is the backdrop against which Obadiah should be read, it would suggest a ninth-century b.c. date for the book, since Jehoram reigned ca. 852-841 b.c. But the evidence presented for this view is not entirely convincing, and most contemporary Old Testament scholars reject a ninth-century scenario. A more popular view, held by many biblical scholars from Luther to the present, understands the historical situation presupposed in the book to be the Babylonian invasion of Judah in the sixth century (cf. Ps 137:7; Lam 4:18-22; Ezek 25:12-14; 35:1-15). Understood in this way, Obadiah would be describing a situation in which the Edomites assisted in the Babylonian sack of Jerusalem. Although it must be admitted that a sixth-century setting for the book of Obadiah cannot be proven, the details of the book fit reasonably well into such a context. Other views on the dating of the book, such as an eighth-century date in the time of Ahaz (ca. 732-716 b.c.) or a fifth-century date in the postexilic period, are less convincing. Parallels between the book of Obadiah and Jer 49:1-22 clearly suggest some kind of literary dependence, but it is not entirely clear whether Jeremiah drew on Obadiah or whether Obadiah drew upon Jeremiah, In any case, the close relationship between Obadiah and Jer 49 might suggest the sixth-century setting.
24. Obadiah 1:1 sn The name Obadiah in Hebrew means “servant of the Lord.” A dozen or so individuals in the OT have this name, none of whom may be safely identified with the author of this book. In reality we know very little about this prophet with regard to his exact identity or historical circumstances.
25. Obadiah 1:1 tn Heb “the vision of Obadiah” (so KJV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV); cf. TEV “This is the prophecy of Obadiah.”
26. Obadiah 1:1 tn Heb “Lord Yahweh.” The phrase אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה (ʾadonay y^ehvih) is customarily rendered by Jewish tradition as “Lord God” (cf. NIV, TEV, NLT “Sovereign Lord”).
27. Obadiah 1:1 tn The Hebrew preposition לְ (l^e) is better translated here as “concerning” (so KJV, ASV, NASB, NRSV, NLT) or “about” (so NIV, NCV, TEV, CEV) Edom than as “to” Edom, although much of the book does speak directly to Edom.
28. Obadiah 1:1 sn The name Edom derives from a Hebrew root that means “red.” Edom was located to the south of the Dead Sea in an area with numerous rocky crags that provided ideal military advantages for protection. Much of the sandstone of this area has a reddish color. The Edomites were descendants of Esau, the brother of Jacob (Gen 25:19-26).
29. Obadiah 1:1 tn Although the word “saying” is not in the Hebrew text, it has been supplied in the translation because what follows seems to be the content of the envoy’s message (cf. ASV, NASB, NCV “saying,” and NIV, NLT “to say.”
30. Obadiah 1:1 tn Heb “Arise, and let us arise against her in battle!” The term “Edom” is not in the Hebrew text, but has been supplied in the translation to specify the otherwise ambiguous referent of the term “her.”
31. Obadiah 1:2 tn The introductory phrase “the Lord says” is not in the Hebrew text, but has been supplied in the translation to clarify the identity of the speaker.
32. Obadiah 1:2 tn The Hebrew perfect verb form used here usually describes past events. However, here and several times in the following verses it is best understood as portraying certain fulfillment of events that at the time of writing were still future. It is the perfect of certitude. See GKC 312-13 §106.n; Joüon 2:363 §112.h.
33. Obadiah 1:2 sn Heb “I will make you small among the nations” (so NAB, NASB, NIV); cf. NRSV “least among the nations,” NCV “the smallest of nations.”
34. Obadiah 1:3 tn Heb “the presumption of your heart”; cf. NAB, NIV “the pride of your heart,” NASB “arrogance of your heart.”
35. Obadiah 1:3 tn Heb “in the concealed places of the rock”; cf. KJV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV “in the clefts of the rock”; NCV “the hollow places of the cliff”; CEV “a mountain fortress.” sn The word rock in Hebrew (סֶלַע, selaʿ) is a wordplay on Sela, the name of a prominent Edomite city. Its impregnability was a cause for arrogance on the part of its ancient inhabitants.
36. Obadiah 1:3 tn Heb “on high (is) his dwelling”; cf. NASB “in the loftiness of your dwelling place,” NRSV “whose dwelling (NAB “abode”) is in the heights.”
37. Obadiah 1:3 tn Heb “the one who says in his heart.”
38. Obadiah 1:3 tn The Hebrew imperfect verb used here is best understood in a modal sense (“Who can bring me down?”) rather than in the sense of a simple future (“Who will bring me down?”). So also in v. 4 (“I can bring you down”). The question is not so much whether this will happen at some time in the future, but whether it even lies in the realm of possible events. In their hubris the Edomites were boasting that no one had the capability of breaching their impregnable defenses. However, their pride caused them to fail to consider the vast capabilities of Yahweh as warrior.
39. Obadiah 1:3 tn Heb “Who can bring me down?” This rhetorical question implies a negative answer: “No one!”
40. Obadiah 1:4 sn The eagle was often used in the ancient Near East as a symbol of strength and swiftness.
41. Obadiah 1:4 tc The present translation follows the reading תָּשִׂים (tasim; active) rather than שִׁים (sim; passive) of the MT (cf. NAB “and your nest be set among the stars”). Cf. LXX, Syriac, and Vg.
42. Obadiah 1:5 sn Obadiah uses two illustrations to show the totality of Edom’s approaching destruction. Both robbers and harvesters would have left at least something behind. Such will not be the case, however, with the calamity that is about to befall Edom. A virtually identical saying appears in Jer 49:9-10.
43. Obadiah 1:5 tn Heb “If thieves came to you, or if plunderers of the night” (NRSV similar). The repetition here adds rhetorical emphasis.
44. Obadiah 1:5 tn Heb “Would they not have stolen only their sufficiency?” The rhetorical question is used to make an emphatic assertion, which is perhaps best represented by the indicative form in the translation.
45. Obadiah 1:5 tn Heb “If grape pickers came to you.” The phrase “to harvest your vineyards” does not appear in the Hebrew but is supplied in the translation to clarify the point of the entire simile that is assumed.
46. Obadiah 1:5 tn Heb “Would they not have left some gleanings?” The rhetorical question makes an emphatic assertion, which for the sake of clarity is represented by the indicative form in the translation. The implied answer to these rhetorical questions is “yes.” The fact that something would have remained after the imagined acts of theft or harvest stands in stark contrast to the totality of Edom’s destruction as predicted by Obadiah. Edom will be so decimated as a result of God’s judgment that nothing at all will be leftsn According to the Mosaic law, harvesters were required to leave some grain behind in the fields for the poor (Lev 19:9; 23:22; see also Ruth 2); there was a similar practice with grapes and olives (Lev 19:10; Deut 24:21). Regarding gleanings left behind from grapes, see Judg 8:2; Jer 6:9; 49:9; Mic 7:1.
47. Obadiah 1:5 tn Heb “O how you will be cut off.” This emotional interjection functions rhetorically as the prophet’s announcement of judgment on Edom. In Hebrew this statement actually appears between the first and second metaphors, that is, in the middle of this verse. As the point of the comparison, one would expect it to follow both of the two metaphors; however, Obadiah interrupts his own sentence to interject his emphatic exclamation that cannot wait until the end of the sentence. This emphatic sentence structure is eloquent in Hebrew but awkward in English. Since this emphatic assertion is the point of his comparison, it appears at the end of the sentence in this translation, where one normally expects to find the concluding point of a metaphorical comparison.
48. Obadiah 1:6 tn Heb “Esau.” The name Esau here is a synecdoche of part for whole referring to the Edomites. Cf. “Jacob” in v. 10, where the meaning is “Israelites.”
49. Obadiah 1:6 tn Heb “How Esau will be searched!”; cf. NAB “How they search Esau.” The Hebrew verb חָפַשׂ (khafas, “to search out”) is used metonymically here for plundering the hidden valuables of a conquered people (e.g., 1 Kgs 20:6).
50. Obadiah 1:6 tn Heb “his” (so KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV); this is singular agreeing with “Esau” in the previous line.
51. Obadiah 1:6 tn Heb “searched out” (so NASB, NRSV); cf. NIV “pillaged,” TEV “looted,” NLT “found and taken.” This pictures the violent action of conquering warriors ransacking the city in order to loot and plunder its valuables.
52. Obadiah 1:7 tn Heb “All the men of your covenant”; cf. KJV, ASV “the men of thy confederacy.” In Hebrew “they will send you unto the border” and “all the men of your covenant” appear in two separate poetic lines (cf. NAB “To the border they drive you—all your allies”). Since the second is a noun clause functioning as the subject of the first clause, the two are rendered as a single sentence in the translation.
53. Obadiah 1:7 tn Heb “send”; cf. NASB “send you forth,” NAB “drive,” NIV “force.”
54. Obadiah 1:7 tn Heb “to the border” (so NASB, NIV, NRSV).
55. Obadiah 1:7 tn Heb “the men of your peace.” This expression refers to a political/military alliance or covenant of friendship.
56. Obadiah 1:7 tn Heb “your bread,” which makes little sense in the context. The Hebrew word can be revocalized to read, “those who eat bread with you,” i.e., “your friends” (cf. KJV “they that eat thy bread,” NIV “those who eat your bread,” TEV “Those friends who ate with you”).
57. Obadiah 1:7 tn Heb “set a trap” (so NIV, NRSV). The meaning of the Hebrew word מָזוֹר (mazor; here translated “ambush”) is uncertain; it occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. The word probably refers to something “spread out” for purposes of entrapment, such as a net. Other possibilities include “trap,” “fetter,” or “stumbling block.”
58. Obadiah 1:7 tn Heb “beneath” (so NAB).
59. Obadiah 1:7 tn Heb “there is no understanding in him.”
60. Obadiah 1:8 tn Heb “in that day” (so KJV, NIV); cf. NAB, NASB, NRSV “on that day.”
61. Obadiah 1:8 tn Heb “Will I not destroy those who are wise from Edom?” The rhetorical question functions as an emphatic affirmation. For the sake of clarity this has been represented by the emphatic indicative in the translation.
62. Obadiah 1:8 tn Heb “understanding”; cf. NIV “men of understanding.” This undoubtedly refers to members of the royal court who offered political and military advice to the Edomite kings. In the ancient Near East, such men of wisdom were often associated with divination and occultic practices (cf. Isa 3:3; 47:10, 13). The Edomites were also renowned in the ancient Near East as a center of traditional sagacity and wisdom; perhaps that is referred to here (cf. Jer 49:7).
63. Obadiah 1:9 sn Teman, like Sela, was a prominent city of Edom. The name Teman is derived from the name of a grandson of Esau (cf. Gen 36:11). Here it is a synecdoche of part for whole, standing for all of Edom.
64. Obadiah 1:9 tn The Hebrew word used here (לְמַעַן, l^emaʿan) usually expresses purpose. The sense in this context, however, is more likely that of result.
65. Obadiah 1:9 tn Heb “a man,” meaning “every single person” here; cf. KJV “every one.”
66. Obadiah 1:9 tn Heb “cut off” (so KJV, NASB, NRSV); cf. NIV, NLT “cut down,” CEV “wiped out.”
67. Obadiah 1:10 tn Heb “from.” The preposition is used here with a causal sense.
68. Obadiah 1:10 tn Heb “because of the slaughter and because of the violence.” These two expressions form a hendiadys meaning “because of the violent slaughter.” Traditional understanding connects the first phrase “because of the slaughter” with the end of v. 9 (cf. KJV, NASB, NIV, NLT). It is preferable, however, to regard it as parallel to the reference to violence at the beginning of v. 11. Both the parallel linguistic structure of the two phrases and the metrical structure of the verse favor connecting this phrase with the beginning of v. 10 (cf. NRSV, TEV).
69. Obadiah 1:10 tn Heb “the violence of your brother.” The genitive construction is to be understood as an objective genitive. The meaning is not that Jacob has perpetrated violence (= subjective genitive) but that violence has been committed against him (= objective genitive).
70. Obadiah 1:10 tn Heb “your brother Jacob” (so NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV); cf. NCV “your relatives, the Israelites.”
71. Obadiah 1:10 tn Heb “be cut off” (so KJV, NASB, NRSV).
72. Obadiah 1:11 tn Heb “in the day of your standing”; cf. NAB “On the day when you stood by.”
73. Obadiah 1:11 tn Or perhaps, “wealth” (so NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT). The Hebrew word is somewhat ambiguous here. This word also appears in v. 13, where it clearly refers to wealth.
74. Obadiah 1:11 tc The present translation follows the Qere, which reads the plural (“gates”) rather than the singular.
75. Obadiah 1:11 sn Casting lots seems to be a way of deciding who would gain control over material possessions and enslaved peoples following a military victory.
76. Obadiah 1:11 tn Heb “like one from them”; cf. NASB “You too were as one of them.”
77. Obadiah 1:12 tn In vv. 12-14 there are eight prohibitions that summarize the nature of the Lord’s complaint against Edom. Each prohibition alludes to something Edom did to Judah that should not have been done by one “brother” to another. It is because of these violations that the Lord has initiated judgment against Edom. In the Hebrew text these prohibitions are expressed by אַל (ʾal, “not”) plus the jussive form of the verb, which is common in negative commands of immediate urgency. Such constructions would normally have the sense of prohibiting something either not yet begun (i.e., “do not start to…”) or something already in process at the time of speaking (i.e., “stop…”). Here, however, it seems more likely that the prohibitions refer to a situation in past rather than future time (i.e., “you should not have…”). If so, the verbs are being used in a rhetorical fashion, as though the prophet were vividly projecting himself back into the events that he is describing and urging the Edomites not to do what in fact they have already done.
78. Obadiah 1:12 tn The Hebrew expression “to look upon” often has the sense of “to feast the eyes upon” or “to gloat over” (cf. v. 13).
79. Obadiah 1:12 tn Heb “your brother” (so NAB, NIV, NRSV); cf. NCV “your brother Israel.”
80. Obadiah 1:12 tn Heb “in the day of your brother, in the day of his calamity.” This expression is probably a hendiadys meaning, “in the day of your brother’s calamity.” The Hebrew word נָכְרוֹ (nokhro, “his calamity”)_is probably a word-play on נָכְרִים (nokhrim, “foreigners”) in v. 11.
81. Obadiah 1:12 tn Heb “in the day of their destruction” (so KJV, NASB, NIV); cf. NAB, NRSV “on the day of their ruin.”
82. Obadiah 1:12 tn Or “boasted with your mouth.” The Hebrew text includes the phrase “with your mouth,” which is redundant in English and has been left untranslated.
83. Obadiah 1:12 tn Heb “in the day of adversity”; cf. NASB “in the day of their distress.”
84. Obadiah 1:13 tn Heb “the gate.” The term “gate” here functions as a synecdoche for the city as a whole, which the Edomites plundered.
85. Obadiah 1:13 tn Heb “in the day of their distress.” The phrase is used three times in this verse; the Hebrew word translated “distress” (אֵידָם, ʾedam) is a wordplay on the name Edom. For stylistic reasons and to avoid monotony, in the present translation this phrase is rendered, “when they experienced distress,” “when they suffered distress,” and “when they endured distress.”
86. Obadiah 1:13 tn Heb “you, also you.”
87. Obadiah 1:13 tn Heb “in the day of his distress.” In this and the following phrase at the end of v. 13 the suffix is third person masculine singular. As collective singulars both occurrences have been translated as plurals (“they suffered distress…endured distress,” rather than, “he suffered distress…endured distress”).
88. Obadiah 1:13 tc In the MT the verb is feminine plural, but the antecedent is unclear. The Hebrew phrase תִּשְׁלַחְנָה (tishlakhnah) here should probably be emended to read תִּשְׁלַח יָד (tishlakh yad), although yad (“hand”) is not absolutely essential to this idiom.
89. Obadiah 1:13 tn See the note on the phrase “suffered distress” in the previous line.
90. Obadiah 1:14 tn The meaning of the Hebrew word פֶּרֶק (pereq; here translated “fork in the road”) is uncertain. The word is found in the Hebrew Bible only here and in Nah 3:1, where it means “plunder.” In the present context it seems to refer to a strategic intersection or fork in a road where bands of Edomites apprehended Israelites who were fleeing from the attack on Jerusalem (cf. NAB, NIV, NLT “crossroads,” NRSV “crossings”).
91. Obadiah 1:14 tn Heb “to cut off” (so KJV, NRSV); cf. NASB, NIV “to cut down.”
92. Obadiah 1:14 tn Heb “his fugitives”; cf. NAB, CEV “refugees.”
93. Obadiah 1:14 tn Heb “in the day of distress” (so KJV, ASV).
94. Obadiah 1:15 sn The term יוֹם (yom, “day”) is repeated ten times in vv. 11-14, referring to the time period when Judah/Jerusalem suffered calamity that Edom exploited for its own sinful gain. In each of those cases יוֹם was qualified by a following genitive to describe Judah’s plight, e.g., “in the day of your brother’s calamity” (v. 12). Here it appears again but now followed by the divine name to describe the time of God’s judgment against Edom for its crimes against humanity: “the day of the Lord.” In the present translation, the expression בְּיוֹם (b^eyom; literally, “In the day of”) appears as “When…” in vv. 11-14. However, here it is translated more literally because the expression “the day of the Lord” is a well-known technical expression for a time of divine intervention in judgment. While this expression sometimes refers to the final eschatological day of God’s judgment, it may also refer occasionally to historical acts of judgment.
95. Obadiah 1:15 tn Heb “near” (so KJV, NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT); cf. NCV “is coming soon.”
96. Obadiah 1:15 sn God’s judgment would not be confined to Edom. Edom would certainly be punished in just measure for its wrongdoing, but “the day of the Lord” would also encompass judgment of the nations (v. 15).
97. Obadiah 1:15 tn Heb “your deed will return on your own head.” Verses 15 and 16 provide an example of ironic reversal, whereby the tables are turned and poetic justice is served. This is a motif that is common in prophetic oracles against foreign nations.
98. Obadiah 1:16 tn The identification of the referent of “you” in v. 16a is uncertain. There are three major options. First, on the surface, it would appear to be Edom, which is addressed in v. 15b and throughout the prophecy. However, when Edom is addressed, second person singular forms are normally used in the Hebrew. In v. 16a the Hebrew verb “you drank” is a plural form שְׁתִיתֶם (sh^etitem), perhaps suggesting that Edom is no longer addressed, at least solely. Perhaps Edom and the nations, mentioned in v. 15a, are both addressed in v. 16a. However, since the nations are referred to in the third person in v. 16b, it seems unlikely that they are addressed here. A second option is to take the final mem (ם) on the Hebrew verb form (שְׁתִיתֶם) as an enclitic particle and revocalize the form as a singular verb (שָׁתִיתָ, shatita) addressed to Edom. In this case v. 16a would allude to the time when Edom celebrated Jerusalem’s defeat on Mount Zion, God’s “holy hill.” Verse 16b would then make the ironic point that just as Edom once drank in victory, so the nations (Edom included) would someday drink the cup of judgment. However, this interpretation is problematic for it necessitates taking the drinking metaphor in different ways (as signifying celebration and then judgment) within the same verse. A third option is that the exiled people of Judah are addressed. Just as God’s people were forced to drink the intoxicating wine of divine judgment, so the nations, including those who humiliated Judah, would be forced to drink this same wine. However, the problem here is that God’s people are never addressed elsewhere in the prophecy, making this approach problematic as well.
99. Obadiah 1:16 sn This reference to drinking portrays the profane activities of those who had violated Jerusalem’s sanctity. The following reference to drinking on the part of the nations portrays God’s judgment upon them. They will drink, as it were, from the cup of divine retribution.
100. Obadiah 1:16 sn The judgment is compared here to intoxicating wine, which the nations are forced to keep drinking (v. 16). Just as an intoxicating beverage eventually causes the one drinking it to become disoriented and to stagger, so God’s judgment would cause the panic-stricken nations to stumble around in confusion. This extended metaphor is paralleled in Jer 49:12, which describes God’s imminent judgment on Edom, “If even those who did not deserve to drink from the cup of my wrath have to drink from it, do you think you will go unpunished? You will not go unpunished, but you also will certainly drink from the cup of my wrath.” There are numerous parallels between Obadiah and the oracle against Edom in Jer 49:1-22, so perhaps the latter should be used to help understand the enigmatic metaphor here in v. 16.
101. Obadiah 1:17 tn Heb “will be a fugitive.” This is a collective singular (cf. NCV “some will escape the judgment”).
102. Obadiah 1:17 tn Heb “house” (so most English versions); cf. NCV, TEV “the people of Jacob.” The word “house” also occurs four times in v. 18.
103. Obadiah 1:17 tn Heb “dispossess.” This root is repeated in the following line to emphasize poetic justice: The punishment will fit the crime.
104. Obadiah 1:17 tc The present translation follows the reading מוֹרִשֵׁיהֶם (morishehem; literally, “those dispossessing them”; cf. NAB, NRSV, CEV) rather than מוֹרָשֵׁיהֶם (morashehem, “their possessions”) of the MT (cf. LXX, Syriac, and Vg, followed by KJV, ASV, NASB).
105. Obadiah 1:18 tn Heb “will be no survivor”; cf. NAB “none shall survive.”
106. Obadiah 1:19 tn Heb “the Negev”; cf. ASV “the South,” NCV, TEV “southern Judah.” The Hebrew text does not have the words “the people of,” but these words have been supplied in the translation for clarity. The place name “the Negev” functions as a synecdoche (container for contents) for the people living in the Negev. sn The Negev is a dry, hot, arid region in the southern portion of Judah.
107. Obadiah 1:19 sn The verb יָרַשׁ (yarash, “to take possession of [something]”), which is repeated three times in vv. 19-20 for emphasis, often implies a violent means of acquisition, such as military conquest. Obadiah here pictures a dramatic reversal: Judah’s enemies, who conquered her then looted all her valuable possessions, will soon be conquered by the Judeans, who will in turn take possession of their valuables. The punishment will fit the crime.
108. Obadiah 1:19 tn The Hebrew text does not have the words “the people of,” but they are supplied in the translation since “the foothills” functions as a synecdoche referring to residents of this region.sn The foothills (שְׁפֵלָה, shephelah) are the region between the Judean hill country and the Mediterranean coastal plain. In much of Old Testament times they served as a divide between the people of Judah and the Philistines, who lived in the coastal plain.
109. Obadiah 1:19 tn The phrase “will take possession” does not appear in this clause but is implied from its previous use in this verse. It is supplied in the translation for the sake of smoothness.
110. Obadiah 1:19 tn The words “the land of” are not present in the Hebrew text. They are supplied in the translation for clarity.
111. Obadiah 1:19 tn The phrase “will take possession” does not appear in this clause but is implied from its previous use in this verse. It is supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.
112. Obadiah 1:19 sn Gilead is a mountainous region on the eastern side of the Jordan River in what is today the country of Jordan.
113. Obadiah 1:20 tn Or “army” (TEV); cf. KJV, NAB, NASB “host,” NIV “company.” Some text critics suggest revocalizing MT הַחֵל (hakhel, “the fortress”) to the place- name הָלָה (halah, “Halah”; so NRSV), the location to which many of the Israelite exiles were sent in the 8th century (2 Kgs 7:6; 18:11; 1 Chr 5:26). The MT form is from הַיִל (hayil, “strength”), which is used elsewhere to refer to an army (Exod 14:17; 1 Sam 17:20; 2 Sam 8:9), a military fortress (2 Sam 20:15; 22:33), leaders (Exod 18:21) and even wealth or possessions (Obad 1:11, 13).
114. Obadiah 1:20 tn The Hebrew text has no verb here. The words “will possess” have been supplied from the context.
115. Obadiah 1:20 sn Zarephath was a Phoenician coastal city located some ten miles south of Sidon.
116. Obadiah 1:20 sn The exact location of Sepharad is uncertain. Suggestions include a location in Spain, or perhaps Sparta in Greece, or perhaps Sardis in Asia Minor. For inscriptional evidence that bears on this question see E. LipinÃski, “Obadiah 20, ” VT 23 (1973): 368-70. The reason for mentioning this location in v. 20 seems to be that even though it was far removed from Jerusalem, the Lord will nonetheless enable the Jewish exiles there to return and participate in the restoration of Israel that Obadiah describes.
117. Obadiah 1:21 tc The present translation follows the reading מוּשָׁעִים (mushaʿim, “those who have been delivered”; cf. NRSV, CEV) rather than מוֹשִׁעִים (moshiʿim, “deliverers”; cf. NASB, NIV, NLT) of the MT (cf. LXX, Aquila, Theodotion, and Syriac).
118. Obadiah 1:21 tn Heb “to judge.” In this context the term does not mean “to render judgment on,” but “to rule over” (cf. NAB “to rule,” NIV “to govern”).
119. Obadiah 1:21 tn Heb “then the kingdom will belong to the Lord.”
120. Jonah 1:1 tn The Targum (Aramaic translation) of Jonah 1:1 interprets the Hebrew as, “There was a word of prophecy from the Lord” (cf. Tg. Hos 1:1).
121. Jonah 1:1 tn The infinitive לֵאמֹר (leʾmor, “saying”) introduces direct discourse and is untranslated in English.
122. Jonah 1:2 tn Heb “Arise, go.” The two imperatives without an intervening vav (קוּם לֵךְ, qum lekh; “Arise, go!”), form a verbal hendiadys in which the first verb functions adverbially and the second retains its full verbal force: “Go immediately.” This construction emphasizes the urgency of the command. The translations “Go at once” (NRSV, NJPS) or simply “Go!” (NIV) are better than the traditional “Arise, go” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, NASB) or “Get up and go” (NLT). For similar constructions with קוּם, see Gen 19:14-15; Judg 4:14; 8:20-21; 1 Sam 9:3.
123. Jonah 1:2 sn Nineveh was the last capital city of ancient Assyria. Occupying about 1800 acres, it was located on the east bank of the Tigris River across from the modern city of Mosul, Iraq. The site includes two tels, Nebi Yunus and Kouyunjik, which have been excavated on several occasions. See A. H. Layard, Nineveh and Its Remains; R. C. Thompson and R. W. Hutchinson, A Century of Exploration at Nineveh; G. Waterfield, Layard of Nineveh. Preliminary reports of limited excavations in 1987 and 1989 appear in Mar Šipri 1:2 (1988): 1-2; 2:2 (1989): 1-2; 4:1 (1991): 1-3. Also see D. J. Wiseman, “Jonah’s Nineveh,” TynBul 30 (1979): 29-51.
124. Jonah 1:2 tn Heb “the.” The article draws attention to a well-known fact and may function as a demonstrative pronoun: “that great city” (see IBHS 242 §13.5.1e).
125. Jonah 1:2 tn Heb “great city.” The adjective גָּדוֹל (gadol, “great”) can refer to a wide variety of qualities: (1) size: “large,” (2) height: “tall,” (3) magnitude: “great,” (4) number: “populous,” (5) power: “mighty,” (6) influence: “powerful,” (8) significance: “important,” (7) finance: “wealthy,” (8) intensity: “fierce,” (9) sound: “loud,” (10) age: “oldest,” (11) importance: “distinguished,” and (12) position: “chief, leading, head” (HALOT 177-78 s.v. גָּדוֹל; BDB 152-53 s.v. גָּדוֹל). The phrase עִיר־גְּדוֹלָה (’ir g^edolah, “city”) may designate a city that is (1) large in size (Josh 10:2; Neh 4:7) or (2) great in power: (a) important city-state (Gen 10:12) or (b) prominent capital city (Jer 22:8). The phrase עִיר־גְּדוֹלָה (both with and without the article) is used four times in Jonah (1:2; 3:2, 3; 4:11). This phrase is twice qualified by a statement about its immense dimensions (3:3) or large population (4:11), so גָּדוֹל might denote size. However, size is not the issue in 1:2. At this time in history, Nineveh was the most powerful city in the ancient Near East as the capital of the mighty Neo-Assyrian Empire. It is likely that עִיר־גְּדוֹלָה here is the Hebrew equivalent of the Assyrian ālu rabu (“the important city” = capital city of the empire), just as מַלְכִּי רַב (malki rav, “great king”; Hos 5:13; 10:6) is the equivalent of the Assyrian malku rabu (“great king” = ruler of the empire; D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah [WBC], 448). Perhaps the closest West Semitic parallel to הָעִיר הָגְּדוֹלָה (haʿir hagg^edolah) is in an Amarna letter from King Abimilki of Tyre to Amenhotep IV: “Behold, I protect Tyre, the capital city (^uruSurri uru rabitu) for the king my lord” (EA 147:61-63). Hebrew constructions in which a determined noun is modified by the determined adjective הָגְּדוֹלָה (“the great…”) often denote singular, unique greatness, e.g., הַנָּהָר הָגָּדֹל (hannahar haggadol, “the great river”) = the Euphrates (Deut 1:7); הַיָּם הַגָּדוֹל (hayyam haggadol, “the great sea”) = the Mediterranean (Josh 1:4); הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל (hakkohen haggadol, “the great priest”) = the chief priest (Lev 21:10); and לָעִיר הַגְּדוֹלָה הַזֹּאת (laʿir hagg^edolah hazzo’t, “[to] this great city”) = this capital city (Jer 22:8). So הָעִיר הָגְּדוֹלָה may well connote “the capital city” here.
126. Jonah 1:2 tn Heb “Nineveh, the great city.” The description “the great city” stands in apposition to “Nineveh.”
127. Jonah 1:2 tn Heb “cry out against it.” The basic meaning of קָרָא (qaraʾ) is “to call out; to cry out; to shout out,” but here it is a technical term referring to what a prophet has to say: “to announce” (e.g., 1 Kgs 13:32; Isa 40:2, 6; Jer 3:12; see HALOT 1129 s.v. קרא 8). When used with the preposition עַל (ʿal, “against” [in a hostile sense]; 826 s.v. עַל 5.a), it refers to an oracle announcing or threatening judgment (e.g., 1 Kgs 13:2, 4, 32; BDB 895 s.v. עַל 3.a). This nuance is reflected in several English versions: “Announce my judgment against it” (NLT) and “proclaim judgment upon it” (JPS, NJPS). Other translations are less precise: “cry out against it” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV) and “denounce it” (NEB, REB). Some are even misleading: “preach against it” (NAB, NIV) and “preach in it” (Douay). Tg. Jonah 1:2 nuances this interpretively as “prophesy against.”
128. Jonah 1:2 tn Heb “it.” The pronoun functions as a synecdoche of container for contents, referring to the people of Nineveh.
129. Jonah 1:2 sn The term wickedness is personified here; it is pictured as ascending heavenward into the very presence of God. This figuratively depicts how God became aware of their evil—it had ascended into heaven right into his presence.
130. Jonah 1:2 tn Heb “has come up before me.” The term לְפָנָי (l^efanay, “before me”) often connotes “in the full cognitive knowledge of” or “in the full mental view” of someone (BDB 817 s.v. פָּנֶה II.4.a.[c]; e.g., Gen 6:13; Isa 65:6; Jer 2:22; Lam 1:22). The use of the verb עָלָה (ʿalah, “to ascend”) complements this idea; it is sometimes used to describe actions or situations on earth that have “come up” into heaven to God’s attention, so to speak (e.g., Exod 2:23; 1 Sam 5:12; 2 Kgs 19:28; Ps 74:23; Isa 37:29; Jer 14:2; see BDB 749 s.v. עָלָה 8). The point is that God was fully aware of the evil of the Ninevites.
131. Jonah 1:3 tn Heb “he arose to flee.” The phrase וַיָּקָם לִבְרֹחַ (vayyaqam livroakh, “he arose to flee”) is a wordplay on the Lord’s command (קוּם לֵךְ, qum lekh; “Arise! Go!”) in v. 2. By repeating the first verb קוּם the narrator sets up the reader to expect that Jonah was intending to obey God. But Jonah did not “arise to go” to Nineveh; he “arose to flee” to Tarshish. Jonah looks as though he was about to obey, but he does not. This unexpected turn of events creates strong irony. The narrator does not reveal Jonah’s motivation to the reader at this point. He delays this revelation for rhetorical effect until 4:2-3.
132. Jonah 1:3 tn The place name תַּרְשִׁישׁ (tarshish, “Tarshish”) refers to a distant port city or region (Isa 23:6; Jer 10:9; Ezek 27:12; 38:13; 2 Chr 9:21; 20:36, 37) located on the coastlands in the Mediterranean west of Palestine (Ps 72:10; Isa 23:6, 10; 66:19; Jonah 1:3; see BDB 1076 s.v. תַּרְשִׁישׁ; HALOT 1798 s.v. תַּרְשִׁישׁ E.a). Scholars have not established its actual location (HALOT 1797 s.v. B). It has been variously identified with Tartessos in southwest Spain (Herodotus, Histories 1.163; 4.152; cf. Gen 10:4), Carthage (LXX of Isa 23:1, 14 and Ezek 27:25), and Sardinia (F. M. Cross, “An Interpretation of the Nora Stone,” BASOR 208 [1972]: 13-19). The ancient versions handle it variously. The LXX identifies תַּרְשִׁישׁ with Carthage/Καρχηδών (karchēdōn; Isa 23:1, 6, 10, 14; Ezek 27:12; 38:13). The place name תַּרְשִׁישׁ is rendered “Africa” in the Targums in some passages (Tg. 1 Kgs 10:22; 22:49; Tg. Jer 10:9) and elsewhere as “sea” (Isa 2:16; 23:1, 14; 50:9; 66:19; Ezek 27:12, 25; 38:13; Jonah 4:2). The Jewish Midrash Canticles Rabbah 5:14.2 cites Jonah 1:3 as support for the view that Tarshish = “the Great Sea” (the Mediterranean). It is possible that תַּרְשִׁישׁ does not refer to one specific port but is a general term for the distant Mediterranean coastlands (Ps 72:10; Isa 23:6, 10; 66:19). In some cases it seems to mean simply “the open sea”: (1) the Tg. Jonah 1:3 translates תַּרְשִׁישׁ as “[he arose to flee] to the sea”; (2) Jerome’s commentary on Isa 2:16 states that Hebrew scholars in his age defined תַּרְשִׁישׁ as “sea”; and (3) the gem called II תַּרְשִׁישׁ, “topaz” (BDB 1076 s.v.; HALOT 1798 s.v.), in Exod 28:20 and 39:13 is rendered “the color of the sea” in Tg. Onq. (see D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah [WBC], 451). The designation אֳנִיּוֹת תַּרְשִׁישׁ (ʾoniyyot tarshish, “Tarshish-ships”) referred to large oceangoing vessels equipped for the high seas (2 Chr 9:21; Ps 48:8; Isa 2:16; 23:1, 14; 60:9; Ezek 27:25) or large merchant ships designed for international trade (1 Kgs 10:22; 22:49; 2 Chr 9:21; 20:36; Isa 23:10; HALOT 1798 s.v. E.b). The term תַּרְשִׁישׁ is derived from the Iberian tart[uli] with the Anatolian suffix —issos/essos, resulting in Tartessos (BRL2 332a); however, the etymological meaning of תַּרְשִׁישׁ is uncertain (see W. F. Albright, “New Light on the Early History of Phoenician Colonization,” BASOR 83 [1941]: 21-22 and note 29; HALOT 1797 s.v. I תַּרְשִׁישׁ A). The name תַּרְשִׁישׁ appears in sources outside the Hebrew Bible in Neo-Assyrian ^kurTar-si-si (R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons [AfO], 86, §57 line 10) and Greek Ταρτησσος (tartēssos; HALOT 1797 s.v. C). Most English versions render תַּרְשִׁישׁ as “Tarshish” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NIV, NEB, NJB, JPS, NJPS), but TEV and CEV render it more generally as “to Spain.” NLT emphasizes the rhetorical point: “in the opposite direction,” though “Tarshish” is mentioned later in the verse.
133. Jonah 1:3 tn Heb “Jonah arose to flee to Tarshish away from the Lord.”
134. Jonah 1:3 tn Heb “away from the presence of the Lord.” The term מִלִּפְנֵי (millifne, “away from the presence of”) is composed of the preposition לְפָנָי (l^efanay, “in front of, before the presence of”) and מִן (min, “away from”). The term מִלִּפְנֵי is used with בָּרַח (barakh, “to flee”) only here in biblical Hebrew, so it is difficult to determine its exact meaning (HALOT 942 s.v. פָּנֶה 4.h.ii; see E. Jenni, “‘Fliehen’ im akkadischen und im hebräischen Sprachgebrauch,” Or 47 [1978]: 357). There are four most likely options. First, Jonah simply fled from the Lord’s presence manifested in the temple (for mention of the temple elsewhere in Jonah, see 2:5, 8). This is reflected in Jerome’s rendering fugeret in Tharsis a facie Domini (“he fled to Tarshish away from the face/presence of the Lord”). The term מִלִּפְנֵי is used in this sense with יָצָא (yatsaʾ, “to go out”) to depict someone or something physically leaving the manifested presence of the Lord (Lev 9:24; Num 17:11 HT [16:46 ET]; 17:24 [17:9 ET]; cf. Gen 4:16). This is reflected in several English versions: “from the presence of the Lord” (KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ASV, NASB) and “out of the reach of the Lord” (REB). Second, Jonah was fleeing to a distant place outside the land of Israel (D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah [WBC], 450). The term לְפָנָי is used in various constructions with מִן to describe locations outside the land of Israel where Yahweh was not worshiped (1 Sam 26:19-20; 2 Kgs 13:23; 17:20, 23; Jer 23:39). This would be the equivalent of a self-imposed exile. Third, the term מִלִּפְנֵי can mean “out of sight” (Gen 23:4, 8), so perhaps Jonah was trying to escape from the Lord’s active awareness—out of the Lord’s sight. The idea would either be an anthropomorphism (standing for a distance out of the sight of God), or it would reflect an inadequate theology of the limited omniscience and presence of God. This is reflected in some English versions: “ran away from the Lord” (NIV), “running away from Yahweh” (NJB), “to get away from the Lord” (NLT), “to escape from the Lord” (NEB) and “to escape” (CEV). Fourth, the term לְפָנָי can mean “in front of someone in power” (Gen 43:33; HALOT 942 s.v. c.i) and “at the disposal of” a king (Gen 13:9; 24:51; 34:10; 2 Chr 14:6; Jer 40:4; HALOT 942 s.v. 4.f). The expression would be a metonymy: Jonah was trying to escape from his commission (effect) ordered by God (cause). This is reflected in several English versions: “to flee from the Lord’s service” (JPS, NJPS). Jonah confesses in 4:2-3 that he fled to avoid carrying out his commission—lest God relent from judging Nineveh if its populace might repent. But it is also clear in chs. 1-2 that Jonah could not escape from the Lord himself.sn Three times in chap. 1 (in vv. 3 and 10) Jonah’s voyage is described as an attempt to escape away from the Lord—from the Lord’s presence (and therefore his active awareness; compare v. 2). On one level, Jonah was attempting to avoid a disagreeable task, but the narrator’s description personalizes Jonah’s rejection of the task. Jonah’s issue is with the Lord himself, not just his commission. The narrator’s description is also highly ironic, as the rest of the book shows. Jonah tries to sail to Tarshish, in the opposite direction from Nineveh, as if by doing that he could escape from the Lord, when the Lord is the one who knows all about Nineveh’s wickedness and is involved in all that happens to Jonah throughout the book. Compare Jonah’s explanation when talking with the Lord (see 4:2).
135. Jonah 1:3 tn Heb “he went down.” The verb יָרַד (yarad, “to go down”) can refer to a journey that is physically downhill. This suggests that Jonah had started out from Jerusalem, which is at a higher elevation. He probably received his commission in the temple (see 2:4, 7 for mention of the temple). sn The verb יָרַד (yarad, “to go down”) is repeated four times in chs. 1-2 for rhetorical effect (1:3a, 3b, 5; 2:7). Jonah’s “downward” journey from Jerusalem down to Joppa (1:3a) down into the ship (1:3b) down into the cargo hold (1:5) and ultimately down into the bottom of the sea, pictured as down to the very gates of the netherworld (2:7), does not end until he turns back to God who brings him “up” from the brink of death (2:6-7).
136. Jonah 1:3 sn Joppa was a small harbor town on the Palestinian coast known as Yepu in the Amarna Letters (14^th century b.c.) and Yapu in Neo-Assyrian inscriptions (9th-8th centuries b.c.). It was a port through which imported goods could flow into the Levant (Josh 19:46; 2 Chr 2:15 [16]; Ezra 3:7). It was never annexed by Israel until the Maccabean period (ca. 148 b.c.; 1 Macc 10:76). Jonah chose a port where the people he would meet and the ships he could take were not likely to be Israelite. Once in Joppa he was already partly “away from the Lord” as he conceived it.
137. Jonah 1:3 tn Heb “going to” (so KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV); cf. NIV “bound for,” NLT “leaving for.”
138. Jonah 1:3 tn See note on the phrase “to Tarshish” at the beginning of the verse.
139. Jonah 1:3 tn Heb “its fare.” The third person feminine singular suffix on the noun probably functions as a genitive of worth or value: “the fare due it.” However, it is translated here simply as “the fare” for the sake of readability. On the other hand, “bought a ticket” (CEV, NLT) is somewhat overtranslated, since the expression “paid the fare” is still understandable to most English readers.
140. Jonah 1:3 tn Heb “he went down into it.” The verb יָרַד (yarad, “to go down”) is repeated for rhetorical effect in v. 3a, 3b, 5. See note on the word “traveled” in v. 3a.
141. Jonah 1:3 tn “Them” refers to the other passengers and sailors in the ship.
142. Jonah 1:3 tn See note on the phrase “to Tarshish” at the beginning of the verse.
143. Jonah 1:3 tn Heb “away from the presence of the Lord.” See note on the phrase “from the commission of the Lord” in v. 3a.
144. Jonah 1:4 tn The disjunctive construction of vav + a non-verb then a verb (that is not preterite conjugation) marks a contrast in the narrative action.
145. Jonah 1:4 tn The Hiphil of טוּל (tul, “to hurl”) is used here and several times in this episode for rhetorical emphasis (see vv. 5 and 15).
146. Jonah 1:4 tn Heb “great.” Typically English versions vary the adjective here and before “tempest” to avoid redundancy: e.g., KJV, ASV, and NRSV “great…mighty”; NAB “violent…furious”; NIV “great…violent”; and NLT “powerful…violent.”
147. Jonah 1:4 tn Heb “great.”
148. Jonah 1:4 tn The nonconsecutive construction of vav + a non-verb then a perfect verb is used to emphasize this result clause.
149. Jonah 1:4 tn Heb “the ship considered breaking apart.” The use of חָשַׁב (khashav, “think”) in the Piel (“to think about; to seriously consider”) personifies the ship to emphasize the ferocity of the storm. The lexicons render the clause idiomatically: “the ship was about to be broken up” (BDB 363 s.v. חָשַׁב 2; HALOT 360 s.v. חשׁב).
150. Jonah 1:5 tn Heb “they cried out, each one.” The shift from the plural verb וַיִּזְעֲקוּ (vayyizʿaqu, “they cried out to”) to the singular subject אִישׁ (ʾish, “each one”) is a rhetorical device used to emphasize that each one of the sailors individually cried out. In contrast, Jonah slept.
151. Jonah 1:5 tn Or “gods” (CEV, NLT). The plural noun אֱלֹהִים (ʾelohim) might be functioning either as a plural of number (“gods”) or a plural of majesty (“god”) – the form would allow for either. As members of a polytheistic culture, each sailor might appeal to several gods. However, individuals could also look to a particular god for help in trouble. Tg. Jonah 1:5 interpretively renders the line, “Each man prayed to his idols, but they saw that they were useless.”
152. Jonah 1:5 tn Heb “hurled.” The Hiphil of טוּל (tul, “to hurl”) is again used, repeated from v. 4.
153. Jonah 1:5 tn The plural word rendered “cargo” (כֵּלִים, kelim) is variously translated “articles, vessels, objects, baggage, instruments” (see 1 Sam 17:22; 1 Kgs 10:21; 1 Chr 15:16; Isa 18:2; Jer 22:7). As a general term, it fits here to describe the sailors throwing overboard whatever they could. The English word “cargo” should be taken generally to include the ship’s payload and whatever else could be dispensed with.
154. Jonah 1:5 tn Heb “into the sea.”
155. Jonah 1:5 tn Heb “to lighten it from them.”
156. Jonah 1:5 tn Heb “but Jonah.” The disjunctive construction of vav + a non-verb then a perfect verb introduces a parenthetical description of Jonah’s earlier actions before the onset of the storm.
157. Jonah 1:5 tn Or “stern.” There is some question whether the term יַרְכָה (yarkhah) refers to the ship’s hold below deck (R. S. Hess, NIDOTTE 3:282) or to the stern in the back of the ship (HALOT 439 s.v. *יְרֵכָה 2.b). This is the only use of this term in reference to a ship in biblical Hebrew. When used elsewhere, this term has a twofold range of meanings: (1) “rear,” such as rear of a building (Exod 26:22, 27; 36:27, 32; Ezek 46:19), back room of a house (1 Kgs 6:16; Ps 128:3; Amos 6:10), flank of a person’s body (figurative for rear border; Gen 49:13); and (2) “far part” that is remote, such as the back of a cave (1 Sam 24:4), the bottom of a cistern (Isa 14:15), the lower recesses of Sheol (Ezek 32:23), the remotest part of a mountain range (Judg 19:1, 18; 2 Kgs 19:23; Isa 37:24), the highest summit of a mountain (Ps 48:3), and the north – viewed as the remotest part of the earth (Isa 14:13; Ezek 38:6, 15; 39:2). So the term could refer to the “back” (stern) or “remote part” (lower cargo hold) of the ship. The related Akkadian expression arkat eleppi, “stern of a ship” (HALOT 439 s.v. 2.b) seems to suggest that יַרְכָה means “stern” (HALOT 439 s.v. 2.b). However, the preceding יָרַד אֶל (yarad ʾel, “he went down into”) suggests a location below deck. Also the genitive noun סְפִינָה (s^efinah) refers to a “ship” with a deck (BDB 706 s.v. סְפִינָה; HALOT 764 s.v. סְפִינָה; R. S. Hess, NIDOTTE 3:282).
158. Jonah 1:5 tn Or “of the ship.” The noun סְפִינָה (s^efinah) refers to a “ship” with a deck (HALOT 764 s.v. סְפִינָה). The term is a hapax legomenon in Hebrew and is probably an Aramaic loanword. The term is used frequently in the related Semitic languages to refer to ships with multiple decks. Here the term probably functions as a synecdoche of whole for the part, referring to the “lower deck” rather than to the ship as a whole (R. S. Hess, NIDOTTE 3:282). An outdated approach related the noun to the verb סָפַן (safan, “to cover”) and suggested that סְפִינָה describes a ship covered with sheathing (BDB 706 s.v. סְפִינָה).
159. Jonah 1:5 tn The a-class theme vowel of וַיֵּרָדַם (vayyeradam) indicates that this is a stative verb, describing the resultant condition of falling asleep: “was sound asleep.”
160. Jonah 1:6 tn Heb “What to you sleeping?” The Niphal participle נִרְדָּם (nirdam) from רָדַם (radam, “to sleep”) functions here not as a vocative use of the noun (so KJV, NKJV, ASV “O sleeper”; RSV “you sleeper”) but as a verbal use to depict uninterrupted sleep up to this point. The expression מַה־לְּךָ (mah l^ekha, “what to you?”) can express surprise (BDB 552 s.v. מָה 1.a; e.g., Job 9:12; 22:12; Eccl 8:4; Isa 45:9, 10) or indignation and contempt (BDB 552 s.v. מָה 1.c; e.g., 1 Kgs 19:9, 13). Accordingly, the captain is either surprised that Jonah is able to sleep so soundly through the storm (NIV “How can you sleep?”; JPS, NJPS: “How can you be sleeping so soundly?”; NEB, REB “What, sound asleep?”), or he is indignant that Jonah would sleep in a life-threatening situation when he should be praying (CEV “How can you sleep at a time like this?”; NAB “What are you doing [+ sound NRSV] asleep?”; NJB “What do you mean by sleeping?”).
161. Jonah 1:6 tn Heb “cry out” or “call upon.” The verb קָרָא (qaraʾ, “to call out, to cry out”) + the preposition אֶל (ʾel, “to”) often depicts a loud, audible cry of prayer to God for help in the midst of trouble: “to call on, to shout to” (HALOT 1129 s.v. קרא 9.b; BDB 895 s.v. קָרָא 2.a; e.g., Judg 15:18; 1 Sam 12:17, 18; 2 Sam 22:7; Hos 7:7; Pss 3:4 [5 HT]; 4:3 [4 HT]). Jonker notes, “The basic meaning of qrʾ is to draw attention to oneself by the audible use of one’s voice in order to establish contact with someone else. The reaction of the called person is normally expressed by the verbs…‘answer’ and…‘hear’” (L. Jonker, NIDOTTE 3:971).sn The imperatives “arise!” and “cry out!” are repeated from v. 2 for ironic effect. The captain’s words would have rung in Jonah’s ears as a stinging reminder that the Lord had uttered them once before. Jonah was hearing them again because he had disobeyed them before.
162. Jonah 1:6 tn Heb “the god.” The article on הָאֱלֹהִים (haʾelohim) denotes previous reference to אֱלֹהֶיךָ (ʾelohekha, “your god”; see IBHS 242-43 §13.5.1d). The captain refers here to the “god” just mentioned, that is, whatever god Jonah might pray to (“your god”).
163. Jonah 1:6 tn Or “give thought to us.” The verb is found only here in the OT. Related nouns are in Job 12:5 and Ps 146:4. The captain hopes for some favorable attention from a god who might act on behalf of his endangered crewmen.
164. Jonah 1:7 tn Heb “And they said, a man to his companion.” The plural verb is individualized by “a man.”
165. Jonah 1:7 sn The English word lots is a generic term. In some cultures the procedure for “casting lots” is to “draw straws” so that the person who receives the short straw is chosen. In other situations a colored stone or a designated playing card might be picked at random. In Jonah’s case, small stones were probably used.
166. Jonah 1:7 sn In the ancient Near East, casting lots was a custom used to try to receive a revelation from the gods about a particular situation. The Phoenician sailors here cried out to their gods and cast lots in the hope that one of their gods might reveal the identity of the person with whom he was angry. The CEV has well captured the sentiment of v.7b: “‘Let’s ask our gods to show us who caused all this trouble.’ It turned out to be Jonah.”
167. Jonah 1:7 tn Heb “On whose account this calamity is upon us.”
168. Jonah 1:7 tn Heb “the lot fell on Jonah.” From their questions posed to Jonah, it does not appear that the sailors immediately realize that Jonah was the one responsible for the storm. Instead, they seem to think that he is the one chosen by their gods to reveal to them the one responsible for their plight. It is only after he admits in vv. 9-10 that he was fleeing from the God whom he served that they realize that Jonah was in fact the cause of their trouble.
169. Jonah 1:8 sn Heb “on whose account.” Jonah and the sailors appear to show dialectical sensitivity to each other in how they say this. To each other, the Phoenician sailors say בְּשֶׁלְּמִי (b^eshell^emi) in vs 7. To Jonah, they say ‏בַּאֲשֶׁר לְמִי (baʾasher l^emi) in vs 8. But Jonah says בְּשֶׁלִּי (beshelli) to the sailors in vs 12. The two forms, including שֶׁ (she) vs. אֲשֶׁר (ʾasher) mean the same thing, but the form with שֶׁ is expected for the Phoenicians. אֲשֶׁר is far more common in Hebrew, while the more rare שֶׁ is often considered a northern or late feature when it occurs.
170. Jonah 1:8 tn Heb “On whose account is this calamity upon us?”
171. Jonah 1:8 tn Heb “And from what people are you?”sn Whose fault…What’s…Where…What’s… The questions delivered in rapid succession in this verse indicate the sailors’ urgency to learn quickly the reason for the unusual storm.
172. Jonah 1:9 tn Or “fear.” The verb יָרֵא (yareʾ) has a broad range of meanings, including “to fear, to worship, to revere, to respect” (BDB 431 s.v.). When God is the object, it normally means “to fear” (leading to obedience; BDB 431 s.v. 1) or “to worship” (= to stand in awe of; BDB 431 s.v. 2). Because the fear of God leads to wisdom and obedience, that is probably not the sense here. Instead Jonah professes to be a loyal Yahwist—in contrast to the pagan Phoenician sailors who worshiped false gods, he worshiped the one true God. Unfortunately, his worship of the Lord lacked the necessary moral prerequisite.
173. Jonah 1:9 tn Heb “The Lord, the God of heaven, I fear.” The Hebrew word order is unusual. Normally the verb appears first, but here the direct object, “the Lord, the God of heaven,” precedes the verb. Jonah emphasizes the object of his worship. In contrast to the Phoenician sailors who worship pagan polytheistic gods, Jonah took pride in his theological orthodoxy. Ironically, his “fear” of the Lord in this case was limited to this profession of theological orthodoxy, because his actions betrayed his refusal to truly “fear” God by obeying him.sn The word fear appears in v. 5, here in v. 9, and later in vv. 10 and 16. Except for this use in v. 9, every other use describes the sailors’ response (emotional fear prompting physical actions) to the storm or to the Lord. By contrast, Jonah claims to fear God, but his attitude and actions do not reflect this. It is clear that Jonah does not “fear” in the same way that they do.
174. Jonah 1:9 tn Heb “the God of the heavens.” The noun שָׁמַיִם (shamayim, “heavens”) always appears in the dual form. Although the dual form sometimes refers to things that exist in pairs, the dual is often used to refer to geographical locations, e.g., יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (y^erushalayim, “Jerusalem”), אֶפְרַיִם (ʾefrayim, “Ephraim”), and מִצְרַיִם (mitsrayim, “Egypt,” but see IBHS 118 §7.3d). The dual form of שָׁמַיִם does not refer to two different kinds of heavens or to two levels of heaven; it simply refers to “heaven” as a location—the dwelling place of God. Jonah’s point is that he worships the High God of heaven—the one enthroned over all creation.
175. Jonah 1:10 tn Heb “Then the men feared…” The vav-consecutive describes the consequence of Jonah’s statement. The phrase “Hearing this” does not appear in the Hebrew text but is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity.
176. Jonah 1:10 tn Heb “The men feared a great fear.” The cognate accusative construction using the verb יָרֵא (yareʾ, “to fear”) and the noun יִרְאָה (yirʾah, “fear”) from the same root (ירא, yrʾ) emphasizes the sailors’ escalating fright: “they became very afraid” (see IBHS 167 §10.2.1g).
177. Jonah 1:10 tn Heb “fleeing.”
178. Jonah 1:10 sn The first two times that Jonah is said to be running away from the Lord (1:3), Hebrew word order puts this phrase last. Now in the third occurrence (1:10), it comes emphatically before the verb that describes Jonah’s action. The sailors were even more afraid once they had heard who it was that Jonah had offended.
179. Jonah 1:10 tn Heb “because he had told them.” The verb הִגִּיד (higgid, “he had told”) functions as a past perfect, referring to a previous event.
180. Jonah 1:11 tn Heb “the sea was going and storming.” The two participles הוֹלֵךְ וְסֹעֵר (holekh v^esoʿer, “going and storming”) form an idiom that means “the storm was growing worse and worse.” When the participle הוֹלֵךְ precedes another participle with vav, it often denotes the idea of “growing, increasing” (BDB 233 s.v. הָלַךְ 4.d; e.g., Exod 19:19; 1 Sam 2:26; 2 Sam 3:1; 15:12; 2 Chr 17:12; Esth 9:4; Prov 4:18; Eccl 1:6). For example, “the power of David grew stronger and stronger (הֹלֵךְ וְחָזֵק, holekh v^ekhazeq; “was going and becoming strong”), while the dynasty of Saul grew weaker and weaker (הֹלְכִים וְדַלִּים, hol^ekhim v^edallim; “was going and becoming weak”)” (2 Sam 3:1; see IBHS 625-26 §37.6d).
181. Jonah 1:11 tn The vav plus the imperfect conjugation verb וְיִשְׁתֹּק (v^eyishtoq, “to be quiet”) here denotes purpose/result (see IBHS 638-40 §38.3).
182. Jonah 1:12 tn Heb “quiet for you”; cf. NAB “that it may quiet down for you.”
183. Jonah 1:12 sn Heb “on my account.” Jonah and the sailors appear to show dialectical sensitivity to each other in how they say this. See the note at v. 8.
184. Jonah 1:13 sn The word translated row is used in Ezekiel to describe digging through a wall (Ezek 8:8; 12:5, 7, 12). Its use in Jonah pictures the sailors digging into the water with their oars as hard as they could.
185. Jonah 1:13 sn The word for land here is associated with a Hebrew verb meaning “to be dry” and is the same noun used in v. 9 of dry ground in contrast with the sea, both made by the Lord (see also Gen 1:9-10; Exod 4:9; 14:16, 22, 29; Jonah 2:10).
186. Jonah 1:13 tn Heb “but they were not able.” The phrase “to do so” does not appear in the Hebrew text but is supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.
187. Jonah 1:13 tn Heb “the sea was going and storming.” See the note on the same idiom in v. 11.
188. Jonah 1:14 tn Heb “Do not put against us innocent blood,” that is, “Do not assign innocent blood to our account.” It seems that the sailors were afraid that they would die if they kept Jonah in the ship and also that they might be punished with death if they threw him overboard.
189. Jonah 1:14 tn Pss 115:3 and 135:6 likewise use these verbs (חָפֵץ and עָשָׂה, khafets and ʿasah; “to delight” and “to do, make”) in speaking of the Lord as characteristically doing what he wishes to do.
190. Jonah 1:16 tc The editors of BHS suggest that the direct object אֶת־יְהוָה (ʾet-y^ehvah, “the Lord”) might be a scribal addition, and that the original text simply read, “The men became greatly afraid…” However, there is no shred of external evidence to support this conjectural emendation. Admittedly, the apparent “conversion” of these Phoenician sailors to Yahwism is a surprising development. But two literary features support the Hebrew text as it stands. First, it is not altogether clear whether or not the sailors actually converted to faith in the Lord. They might have simply incorporated him into their polytheistic religion. Second, the narrator has taken pains to portray the pagan sailors as a literary foil to Jonah by contrasting Jonah’s hypocritical profession to fear the Lord (v. 9) with the sailors’ actions that reveal an authentic fear of God (v. 10, 14, 16).
191. Jonah 1:16 tn Heb “they feared the Lord with a great fear.” The root ירא (yrʾ, “fear”) is repeated in the verb and accusative noun, forming a cognate accusative construction that is used for emphasis (see IBHS 167 §10.2.1g). The idea is that they greatly feared the Lord or were terrified of him.
192. Jonah 1:16 tn Heb “they vowed vows.” The root נדר (ndr, “vow”) is repeated in the verb and accusative noun, forming an emphatic effected accusative construction in which the verbal action produces the object specified by the accusative (see IBHS 166-67 §10.2.1f). Their act of vowing produced the vows. This construction is used to emphasize their earnestness and zeal in making vows to worship the God who had just spared their lives from certain death.
193. Jonah 1:16 tn Heb “they sacrificed sacrifices.” The root זבח (zbkh, “sacrifice”) is repeated in the verb and accusative noun, forming an emphatic effected accusative construction in which the verbal action produces the object (see IBHS 166-67 §10.2.1f). Their act of sacrificing would produce the sacrifices. It is likely that the two sets of effected accusative constructions here (“they vowed vows and sacrificed sacrifices”) form a hendiadys; the two phrases connote one idea: “they earnestly vowed to sacrifice lavishly.” It is unlikely that they offered animal sacrifices at this exact moment on the boat—they had already thrown their cargo overboard, presumably leaving no animals to sacrifice. Instead, they probably vowed that they would sacrifice to the Lord when—and if—they reached dry ground. Tg. Jonah 1:16 also takes this as a vow to sacrifice but for a different reason. According to Jewish tradition, the heathen are not allowed to make sacrifice to the God of Israel outside Jerusalem, so the Targum modified the text by making it a promise to sacrifice: “they promised to offer a sacrifice before the Lord and they made vows” (see B. Levine, The Aramaic Version of Jonah, 70; K. Cathcart and R. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets [ArBib], 14:106, n. 29).
194. Jonah 1:16 tn Heb “The men feared the Lord [with] a great fear, they sacrificed sacrifices, and they vowed vows” (cf. v. 10). By pairing verbs with related nouns as direct objects, the account draws attention to the sailors’ response and its thoroughness.
195. Jonah 1:17 sn Beginning with 1:17, the verse numbers through 2:10 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text (BHS), with 1:17 ET = 2:1 HT, 2:1 ET = 2:2 HT, etc., through 2:10 ET = 2:11 HT.
196. Jonah 1:17 tn Or “appointed” (NASB); cf. NLT “had arranged for.” The Piel verb מִנָּה (minnah) means “to send, to appoint” (Ps 61:8; Jonah 2:1; 4:6-8; Dan 1:5, 10-11; HALOT 599 s.v. מנה 2; BDB 584 s.v. מָנָה). Joyce Baldwin notes, “Here, with YHWH as the subject, the verb stresses God’s sovereign rule over events for the accomplishment of his purpose (as in 4:6-8, where the verb recurs in each verse). The ‘great fish’ is in exactly the right place at the right time by God’s command, in order to swallow Jonah and enclose him safely” (Joyce Baldwin, “Jonah,” The Minor Prophets, 2:566).
197. Jonah 1:17 tn Heb “great.”
198. Jonah 2:2 sn The eight verses of Jonah’s prayer in Hebrew contain twenty-seven first person pronominal references to himself. There are fifteen second- or third person references to the Lord.
199. Jonah 2:2 tn Tg. Jonah 2:2 renders this interpretively: “and he heard my prayer.”sn The first verse of the prayer summarizes the whole—“I was in trouble; I called to the Lord for help; he rescued me; I will give him thanks”—before elaborating on the nature and extent of the trouble (vv. 3-7a), mentioning the cry for help and the subsequent rescue (6b-7), and promising to give thanks (8-9). These elements, as well as much vocabulary and imagery found in Jonah’s prayer, appear also in other Hebrew psalms. With Jonah 2:1 compare, for example, Pss 18:6; 22:24; 81:7; 116:1-4; 120:1; 130:1-2; Lam 3:55-56. These references and others indicate that Jonah was familiar with prayers used in worship at the temple in Jerusalem; he knew “all the right words.” Cf. also Ps 107 with Jonah as a whole.
200. Jonah 2:2 sn Sheol was a name for the place of residence of the dead, the underworld (see Job 7:9-10; Isa 38:17-18). Jonah pictures himself in the belly of Sheol, its very center—in other words, he is as good as dead.
201. Jonah 2:2 tn Heb “voice” (so KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV); cf. NIV “my cry.” The term קוֹל (qol, “voice”) functions as a metonymy for the content of what is uttered: cry for help in prayer.
202. Jonah 2:3 tn Or “You had thrown me.” Verse 3 begins the detailed description of Jonah’s plight, which resulted from being thrown into the sea.
203. Jonah 2:3 tn Heb “the deep” (so KJV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV); cf. NLT “into the ocean depths.”
204. Jonah 2:3 tn Heb “heart” (so many English versions); cf. CEV “to the (TEV adds “very”) bottom of the sea.”
205. Jonah 2:3 tc The BHS editors suggest deleting either מְצוּלָה (m^etsulah, “into the deep”) or בִּלְבַב יַמִּים (bilvav yammim, “into the heart of the sea”). They propose that one or the other is a scribal gloss on the remaining term. However, the use of an appositional phrase within a poetic colon is not unprecedented in Hebrew poetry. The MT is therefore best retained.
206. Jonah 2:3 tn Or “the stream”; cf. KJV, ASV, NRSV “the flood.” The Hebrew word נָהָר (nahar) is used in parallel with יַם (yam, “sea”) in Ps 24:2 (both are plural) to describe the oceans of the world, and in Ps 66:6 to speak of the sea crossed by Israel in the exodus from Egypt.
207. Jonah 2:3 tn Heb “surrounded” (so NRSV); cf. NAB “enveloped.”
208. Jonah 2:3 tn Heb “your breakers and your waves.” This phrase is a nominal hendiadys; the first noun functions as an attributive adjective modifying the second noun: “your breaking waves.”
209. Jonah 2:3 tn Heb “your…your…” The second person masculine singular suffixes on מִשְׁבָּרֶיךָ וְגַלֶּיךָ (mishbarekha v^egallekha, “your breakers and your waves”) function as genitives of source. Just as God had hurled a violent wind upon the sea (1:4) and had sovereignly sent the large fish to swallow him (1:17 [2:1 HT]), Jonah viewed God as sovereignly responsible for afflicting him with sea waves that were crashing upon his head, threatening to drown him. Tg. Jonah 2:3 alters the second person masculine singular suffixes to third person masculine singular suffixes to make them refer to the sea and not to God, for the sake of smoothness: “all the gales of the sea and its billows.”
210. Jonah 2:3 tn Heb “crossed”; cf. KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV “passed.”
211. Jonah 2:3 sn Verses 3 and 5 multiply terms describing Jonah’s watery plight. The images used in v. 3 appear also in 2 Sam 22:5-6; Pss 42:7; 51:11; 69:1-2, 14-15; 88:6-7; 102:10.
212. Jonah 2:4 tn Heb “And I said.” The verb אָמַר (ʾamar, “to say”) is sometimes used to depict inner speech and thoughts of a character (HALOT 66 s.v. אמר 4; BDB 56 s.v. אָמַר 2; e.g., Gen 17:17; Ruth 4:4; 1 Sam 20:26; Esth 6:6). While many English versions render this “I said” (KJV, NKJV, NAB, ASV, NASB, NIV, NLT), several nuance it as “I thought” (JPS, NJPS, NEB, REB, NJB, TEV, CEV).
213. Jonah 2:4 tn Or “I have been expelled from your attention”; Heb “from in front of your eyes.” See also Ps 31:22 and Lam 3:54-56.
214. Jonah 2:4 tc Or “Yet I will look again to your holy temple,” or “Surely I will look again to your holy temple.” The MT and the vast majority of ancient textual witnesses vocalize consonantal אך (ʾkh) as the adverb אַךְ (ʾakh), which functions as an emphatic asseverative like “surely” (BDB 36 s.v. אַךְ 1) or an adversative like “yet, nevertheless” (BDB 36 s.v. אַךְ 2; so Tg. Jonah 2:4: “However, I shall look again upon your holy temple”). These options understand the line as expressing hopeful piety in a positive statement about surviving to worship again in Jerusalem. It may be a way of saying, “I will pray for help, even though I have been banished” (see v. 8; cf. Dan 6:10). The sole dissenter is the Greek recension of Theodotion. It reads the interrogative πῶς (pōs, “how?”), which reflects an alternate vocalization tradition of אֵךְ (ʾekh)—a defectively written form of אֵיךְ (ʾekh, “how?”; BDB 32 s.v. אֵיךְ 1). This would be translated, “How shall I again look at your holy temple?” (cf. NRSV). Jonah laments that he will not be able to worship at the temple in Jerusalem again—this is a metonymical statement (effect for cause) that he feels certain he is about to die. It continues the expression of Jonah’s distress and separation from the Lord, begun in v. 2 and continued without relief in vv. 3-7a. The external evidence favors the MT; however, internal evidence seems to favor the alternate vocalization tradition reflected in Theodotion for four reasons. First, the form of the psalm is a declarative praise in which Jonah begins with a summary praise (v. 2), continues by recounting his past plight (vv. 3-6a) and the Lord’s intervention (vv. 6b-7), and concludes with a lesson (v. 8) and vow to praise (v. 9). So the statement with אֵךְ in v. 4 falls within the plight—not within a declaration of confidence. Second, while the poetic parallelism of v. 4 could be antithetical (“I have been banished from your sight, yet I will again look to your holy temple”), synonymous parallelism fits the context of the lament better (“I have been banished from your sight; will I ever again see your holy temple?”). Third, אֵךְ is the more difficult vocalization because it is a defectively written form of אֵיךְ (“how?”) and therefore easily confused with אַךְ (“surely” or “yet, nevertheless”). Fourth, nothing in the first half of the psalm reflects any inkling of confidence on the part of Jonah that he would be delivered from imminent death. In fact, Jonah states in v. 7 that he did not turn to God in prayer until some time later when he was on the very brink of death.sn Both options for the start of the line (“how?” and “yet” or “surely”) fit the ironic portrayal of Jonah in the prayer (see also vv. 8-9). Jonah, who had been trying to escape the Lord’s attention, here appears remarkably fond of worshiping him. Is there perhaps also a hint of motivation for the Lord to rescue this eager worshiper? Confession of disobedience, on the other hand, is absent. Cf. Ps 31:22, where the first half (describing the plight) is very similar to the first half of Jonah 2:3, and the second half starts with “nevertheless” (אָכֵן, ʾakhen) and is a positive contrast, a report that God heard, using four words that appear in Jonah 2:2 (cf. Job 32:7-8; Ps 82:6-7; Isa 49:4; Zeph 3:7).
215. Jonah 2:4 tn Heb “Will I ever see your holy temple again?” The rhetorical question expresses denial: Jonah despaired of ever seeing the temple again.
216. Jonah 2:5 tn Heb “as far as the throat.” The noun נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh) refers sometimes to the throat or neck (Pss 69:1 [2]; 105:18; 124:4, 5; Isa 5:14; HALOT 712 s.v. נֶפֶשׁ 2). The water was up to Jonah’s neck (and beyond), so that his life was in great danger (cf. Ps 69:1).
217. Jonah 2:5 tn Or “the deep; the abyss” (תְּהוֹם, t^ehom). The simple “ocean” is perhaps too prosaic, since this Hebrew word has primeval connections (Gen 1:2; 7:11; 8:2; Prov 8:27-28) and speaks of the sea at its vastest (Job 38:16-18; Pss 36:6; 104:5-9).
218. Jonah 2:5 tc The consonantal form סוף (svf) is vocalized by the MT as סוּף (suf, “reed”), but the LXX’s ἐσχάτη (eschatē, “end”) reflects a vocalization of סוֹף (sof, “end”). The reading in Tg. Jonah 2:5 interpreted this as a reference to the Reed Sea (also known as the Red Sea). In fact, the Jewish Midrash known as Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 10 states that God showed Jonah the way by which the Israelites had passed through the Red Sea. The MT vocalization tradition is preferred.tn The noun סוּף (suf) normally refers to “reeds,” freshwater plants that grow in Egyptian rivers and marshes (Exod 2:3, 5; Isa 10:19), but here it refers to “seaweed” (HALOT 747 s.v. סוּף 1). Though the same freshwater plants do not grow in the Mediterranean, the name may be seen to fit similarly long plants growing in seawater.
219. Jonah 2:6 tn Jonah began going “down” (יָרַד, yarad) in chap. 1 (vv. 3, 5; see also 1:15; 2:2-3).
220. Jonah 2:6 tc The MT לְקִצְבֵי הָרִים (l^eqitsve harim, “to the extremities [i.e., very bottoms] of the mountains”) is a bit unusual, appearing only here in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, the BHS editors suggest a conjectural emendation of the MT’s לְקִצְבֵי (“to the extremities”) to לְקַצְוֵי (l^eqatswey, “to the ends [of the mountains])” that is based on orthographic confusion between vav (ו) and bet (ב). However, the phrase קצבי הרים does appear in the OT Apocrypha in Sir 16:19; therefore, it is not without precedent. Since Jonah emphasizes that he descended, as it were, to the very gates of the netherworld in the second half of this verse, it would be appropriate for Jonah to say that he went down “to the extremities [i.e., very bottoms] of the mountains” (לְקִצְבֵי הָרִים). Therefore, the MT may be retained with confidence.tn The noun קֶצֶב (qetseb) is used only three times in the Hebrew Bible, and this is the only usage in which it means “extremity; bottom” (BDB 891 s.v. קֶצֶב 2). The exact phrase קצבי הרים (“the extremities [bottoms] of the mountains”) is used in the OT Apocrypha once in Sir 16:19.
221. Jonah 2:6 tn Some English versions (e.g., NEB, NRSV) connect the “bottoms of the mountains” with the preceding phrase: “weeds were wrapped around my head at the bottoms of the mountains.” They then connect “I went down” with “the earth.” The latter connection is difficult to accept. It would be more normal in Hebrew to express “I went down to the earth” with a directive ending (אַרְצָה, ʾartsah), with a Hebrew preposition before “earth,” or without the definite article. The Masoretic accents, in addition, connect “ends of the mountains” with the verb “I went down” and call for a break between the verb and “earth.”
222. Jonah 2:6 tn Heb “As for the earth, its bars…” This phrase is a rhetorical nominative construction (also known as casus pendens) in which the noun הָאָרֶץ (haʾarets, “the earth”) stands grammatically isolated and in an emphatic position prior to the third feminine singular suffix that picks up on it in בְּרִחֶיהָ (b^erikheha, “its bars”; see IBHS 128-30 §8.3). This construction is used to emphasize the subject, in this case, the “bars of the netherworld.” The word translated “bars” appears elsewhere to speak of bars used in constructing the sides of the tabernacle and often of crossbars (made of wood or metal) associated with the gates of fortified cities (cf. Exod 36:31-34; Judg 16:3; 1 Kgs 4:13; Neh 3:3; Pss 107:16; 147:13; Isa 45:1-2).
223. Jonah 2:6 tn Heb “the earth.” The noun אֶרֶץ (ʾerets) usually refers to the “earth” but here refers to the “netherworld” (e.g., Job 10:21, 22; Ps 139:15; Isa 26:19; 44:23; BDB 76 s.v. אֶרֶץ 2.g). This is parallel to the related Akkadian term irsitu used in the phrase, “the land of no return,” that is, the netherworld. This refers to the place of the dead (along with “belly of Sheol” [v. 2] and “the grave” [v. 6]), which is sometimes described as having “gates” (Job 38:17; Ps 107:18).
224. Jonah 2:6 tn Heb “behind me.” The preposition בַּעַד (baʿad) with a pronominal suffix and with the meaning “behind” is found also in Judg 3:23. Jonah pictures himself as closed in and so unable to escape death. Having described how far he had come (totally under water and “to the bases of mountains”), Jonah describes the way back as permanently closed against him. Just as it was impossible for a lone individual to walk through the barred gates of a walled city, so Jonah expected it was impossible for him to escape death.
225. Jonah 2:6 tn Heb “As for the earth, its bars [were] against me forever.” This line is a verbless clause. The verb in the translation has been supplied for the sake of clarity and smoothness. The rhetorical nominative construction (see the note on the word “gates” earlier in this verse) has also been smoothed out in the translation.
226. Jonah 2:6 tn Heb “my life.” The term חַיַּי (khayyay, “my life”) functions metonymically as a first common singular pronoun (“me”).
227. Jonah 2:6 sn Jonah pictures himself as being at the very gates of the netherworld (v. 6b) and now within the Pit itself (v. 6c). He is speaking rhetorically, for he had not actually died. His point is that he was as good as dead if God did not intervene immediately. See Pss 7:15; 30:3; 103:4; Ezek 19:3-4, 8.
228. Jonah 2:7 tn Heb “my soul.” The term נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh, “soul”) is often used as a metonymy for the life and the animating vitality in the body: “my life” (BDB 659 s.v. נֶפֶשׁ 3.c).
229. Jonah 2:7 tn Heb “fainting away from me.” The verb הִתְעַטֵּף (hitʿattef, “to faint away”) is used elsewhere to describe (1) the onset of death when a person’s life begins to slip away (Lam 2:12), (2) the loss of one’s senses due to turmoil (Ps 107:5), and (3) the loss of all hope of surviving calamity (Pss 77:4; 142:4; 143:4; BDB 742 s.v. עַטֵף). All three options are reflected in various English versions: “when my life was ebbing away” (JPS, NJPS), “when my life was slipping away” (CEV), “when I felt my life slipping away” (TEV), “as my senses failed me” (NEB), and “when I had lost all hope” (NLT).
230. Jonah 2:7 tn Heb “remembered.” The verb זָכַר (zakhar) usually means “to remember, to call to mind,” but it can also mean “to call out” (e.g., Nah 2:6), as in the related Akkadian verb zikaru, “to name, to mention.” The idiom “to remember the Lord” here encompasses calling to mind his character and past actions and appealing to him for help (Deut 8:18-19; Ps 42:6-8; Isa 64:4-5; Zech 10:9). Tg. Jonah 2:7 glosses the verb as, “I remembered the worship of the Lord,” which somewhat misses the point.
231. Jonah 2:7 sn For similar ideas see 2 Chr 30:27; Pss 77:3; 142:3; 143:4-5.
232. Jonah 2:8 tn Heb “those who pay regard to.” The verbal root שָׁמַר (shamar, “to keep, to watch”) appears in the Piel stem only here in biblical Hebrew, meaning “to pay regard to” (BDB 1037 s.v. שָׁמַר). This is metonymical for the act of worship (e.g., Qal “to observe” = to worship, Ps 31:7).
233. Jonah 2:8 tn Heb “worthlessnesses of nothingness” or “vanities of emptiness.” The genitive construct הַבְלֵי־שָׁוְא (havle-shavʾ) forms an attributive adjective expression: “empty worthlessness” or “worthless vanities.” This ironic reference to false gods is doubly insulting (e.g., Ps 31:7). The noun הֶבֶל (hevel, “vapor, breath”) is often used figuratively to describe what is insubstantial, empty, and futile (31 times in Eccl; see also, e.g., Pss 39:4-6, 11; 144:4; Prov 13:11; 21:6; Isa 30:7; 49:4). It often refers to idols—the epitome of emptiness, nothingness, and worthlessness (Deut 32:21; 1 Kgs 16:13, 26; Ps 31:7; Jer 8:19; 10:8, 15; 14:22; 16:19; 51:18). The noun שָׁוְא (“worthlessness, emptiness, nothingness”) describes what is ineffective and lacking reality (BDB 996 s.v. שָׁוְא; e.g., Exod 20:7; Pss 60:11; 127:1; Ezek 22:28). It is also often used to refer to idols (e.g., Ps 31:7; Jer 18:15; Hos 5:11).
234. Jonah 2:8 tn Heb “abandon their mercy/loyalty.” The meaning of חַסְדָּם יַעֲזֹבוּ (khasdam yaʿazovu, “forsake their mercy/loyalty”) is greatly debated. There are two exegetical issues that are mutually related. First, does the noun חֶסֶד (khesed) here mean (1) “mercy, kindness” that man receives from God or (2) “loyalty, faithfulness” that man must give to God (see BDB 338-39 s.v חֶסֶד; HALOT 336-37 s.v. חֶסֶד)? Second, does the third masculine plural suffix on חַסְדָּם (“their loyalty/mercy”) imply subjective or objective genitive? The subjective sense would refer to the loyal allegiance they ought to display to the true God: “they abandon the loyalty they should show.” An example of a subjective genitive is, “This is your kindness (חַסְדֵּךְ, khasdek) that you must do for me: every place to which we come, say of me, ‘He is my brother’” (Gen 20:13; also cf. Gen 40:14; 1 Sam 20:14-15). Several English versions take this approach: “forsake their faithfulness” (NASB), “abandon their faithful love” (NJB), “abandon their loyalty” (NEB, REB), “forsake their true loyalty” (RSV, NRSV), and “have abandoned their loyalty to you” (TEV). In contrast, the phrase has also been taken as an objective genitive, referring to the mercy they might have received from God: “they forfeit the mercy that could be theirs.” The ancient versions interpret חַסְדָּם in this sense: “they do not know the source of their welfare” (Tg. Jonah 2:8), “forsake the source of their welfare” (Vulgate), and “abandon their own mercy” (LXX). Several English versions follow this approach: “forsake their source of mercy” (NAB); “forfeit the grace that could be theirs” (NIV), “forsake their own welfare” (JPS, NJPS), “forsake their own mercy” (KJV, ASV), “forsake their own Mercy” (NKJV), “turn from the God who offers them mercy” (CEV), and “turn their backs on all God’s mercies” (NLT). This is a difficult lexical/syntactical problem. On the one hand, the next line contrasts their failure with Jonah’s boast of loyalty to the true God—demonstrating that he, unlike pagan idolaters, deserves to be delivered. On the other hand, the only other use of חֶסֶד in the book refers to “mercy” God bestows (4:2)—something that Jonah did not believe the (repentant) pagan idolaters had a right to receive. BDB 339 s.v. I חֶסֶד II takes this approach (“He is חַסְדָּם their goodness, favour Jonah 2:9”) and cites other examples of חֶסֶד with suffixes referring to God: חַסְדִּי (khasdi), “my kindness” = he shows kindness to me (Ps 144:2); and אֱלֹהֵי חַסְדִּי (ʾelohe khasdi), “the God of my kindness” = the God who shows kindness to me (Ps 59:18 HT [59:17 ET]).
235. Jonah 2:9 tn Heb “voice” or “sound.”
236. Jonah 2:9 tc The MT reads בְּקוֹל תּוֹדָה (b^eqol todah, “with a voice of thanksgiving”). Some mss of Tg. Jonah read here, “with the sound of hymns of thanksgiving”; the longer reading probably reflects an editorial gloss, explaining תּוֹדָה (“thanksgiving”) as “hymns of thanksgiving.”tn Heb “voice/sound of thanksgiving.” The genitive תּוֹדָה (todah, “thanksgiving”) specifies the kind of public statement that will accompany the sacrifice. The construct noun קוֹל (qol, “voice, sound”) functions as a metonymy of cause for effect, referring to the content of what the voice/sound produces: hymns of praise or declarative praise testimony.
237. Jonah 2:9 tn The verbs translated “I will sacrifice” and “I will pay” are Hebrew cohortatives, expressing Jonah’s resolve and firm intention.
238. Jonah 2:9 tn Heb “what I have vowed I will pay.” Jonah promises to offer a sacrifice and publicly announce why he is thankful. For similar pledges, see Pss 22:25-26; 50:14-15; 56:12; 69:29-33; 71:14-16, 22-24; 86:12-13; 116:12-19.
239. Jonah 2:9 tn Or “deliverance” (NAB, NRSV).
240. Jonah 2:9 tn Or “comes from the Lord.” For similar uses of the preposition lamed (לְ, l^e) to convey a sort of ownership in which the owner does, or may by right do, something, see Lev 25:48; Deut 1:17; 1 Sam 17:47; Jer 32:7-8.
241. Jonah 2:10 tn Heb “spoke to.” The fish functions as a literary foil to highlight Jonah’s hesitancy to obey God up to this point. In contrast to Jonah, who immediately fled when God commanded him, the fish immediately obeyed.
242. Jonah 3:2 sn The commands of 1:2 are repeated here. See the note there on the combination of “arise” and “go.”
243. Jonah 3:2 tn Heb “Nineveh, the great city.”
244. Jonah 3:2 tn The verb קָרָא (qaraʾ, “proclaim”) is repeated from 1:2 but with a significant variation. The phrase in 1:2 was the adversative קְרָא עָל (q^eraʾ ʿal, “proclaim against”), which often designates an announcement of threatened judgment (1 Kgs 13:4, 32; Jer 49:29; Lam 1:15). However, here the phrase is the more positive קְרָא אֶל (q^eraʾ ʿel, “proclaim to”), which often indicates an oracle of deliverance or a call to repentance with an accompanying offer of deliverance either stated or implied (Deut 20:10; Isa 40:2; Zech 1:4; HALOT 1129 s.v. קרא 8; BDB 895 s.v. קָרָא 3.a). This shift from the adversative preposition עַל (“against”) to the more positive preposition אֶל (“to”) might signal a shift in God’s intentions, or perhaps it simply makes his original intention more clear. While God threatened to judge Nineveh, he was very willing to relent and forgive when the people repented from their sins (3:8-10). Jonah later complains that he knew all along that God was likely to relent from the threatened judgment (4:2).
245. Jonah 3:3 tn Heb “was a great city to God/gods.” The greatness of Nineveh has been mentioned already in 1:2 and 3:2. What is being added now? Does the term לֵאלֹהִים (leʾlohim, “to God/gods”) (1) refer to the Lord’s personal estimate of the city, (2) speak of the city as “belonging to” God, (3) refer to Nineveh as a city with many shrines and gods, or (4) or simply reinforce idiomatically the city’s size? Interpreters do not agree on the answer. To introduce ideas either of God’s ownership or of dedication to idolatry, though not impossible, would be unexpected here, having no parallel or further development elsewhere in the book. The alternatives “great/large/important in God’s estimation” and “exceptionally great/large/important” could both be amplified by focus on physical size in the following phrase and are both consistent with emphases elsewhere in the book (Jonah 4:11 again puts attention on size—of population). If “great” is best understood as a reference primarily to size here, in view of the following phrase and v. 4a (Jonah went “one day’s walk”), rather than to importance, this might weigh slightly in favor of an idiomatic “very great/large,” though no example with “God” used idiomatically to indicate superlative (Gen 23:6; 30:8; Exod 9:28; 1 Sam 14:15; Pss 36:6; 80:10) has exactly the same construction as the wording in Jonah 3:3.
246. Jonah 3:3 tn Heb “a three-day walk.” The term “required” is supplied in the translation for the sake of smoothness and clarity.sn Required three days to walk through it. Although this phrase is one of the several indications in the book of Jonah of Nineveh’s impressive size, interpreters are not precisely sure what “a three-day walk” means. In light of the existing archaeological remains, the phrase does not describe the length of time it would have taken a person to walk around the walls of the city or to walk from one end of the walled city to the other. Other suggestions are that it may indicate the time required to walk from one edge of Nineveh’s environs to the other (in other words, including outlying regions), or that it indicates the time required to arrive, do business, and leave. More information might also show that the phrase involved an idiomatic description (consider Gen 30:36 and Exod 3:18; a three-day-journey would be different for families than for soldiers, for example), rather than a precise measurement of distance, for which terms were available (Ezek 45:1-6; 48:8-35). With twenty miles as quite a full day’s walk, it seems possible and simplest, however, to take the phrase as including an outlying region associated with Nineveh, about sixty miles in length.
247. Jonah 3:4 tn Heb “Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown!” The adverbial use of עוֹד (ʿod, “yet”) denotes limited temporal continuation (BDB 728 s.v. עוֹד 1.a; Gen 29:7; Isa 10:32). Tg. Jonah 3:4 rendered it as, “at the end of [forty days, Nineveh will be overthrown].”
248. Jonah 3:4 tn Heb “be overturned.” The Niphal נֶהְפָּכֶת (nehpakhet, “be overturned”) refers to a city being overthrown and destroyed (BDB 246 s.v. הָפַךְ 2.d). The related Qal form refers to the destruction of a city by military conquest (Judg 7:3; 2 Sam 10:3; 2 Kgs 21:13; Amos 4:11) or divine intervention, as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:21, 25, 29; Deut 29:22; Jer 20:16; Lam 4:6; BDB 245 s.v. 1.b). The participle form used here depicts an imminent future action (see IBHS 627-28 §37.6f) that is specified as only “forty days” away.
249. Jonah 3:5 tn Heb “men.” The term is used generically here for “people” (so KJV, ASV, and many other English versions); cf. NIV “the Ninevites.”
250. Jonah 3:5 sn The people of Nineveh believed in God…. Verse 5 provides a summary of the response in Nineveh; the people of all ranks believed and gave evidence of contrition by fasting and wearing sackcloth (2 Sam 12:16, 19-23; 1 Kgs 21:27-29; Neh 9:1-2). Then vv. 6-9 provide specific details, focusing on the king’s reaction. The Ninevites’ response parallels the response of the pagan sailors in 1:6 and 13-16.
251. Jonah 3:5 tn Heb “from the greatest of them to the least of them.”
252. Jonah 3:6 tn Heb “word” or “matter.”
253. Jonah 3:7 tn Contrary to many modern English versions, the present translation understands the king’s proclamation to begin after the phrase “and he said” (rather than after “in Nineveh”), as do quotations in 1:14; 2:2, 4; 4:2, 8, 9. Where a quotation in Jonah does not begin immediately after “said” (אָמַר, ʾamar), it is only the speaker, the addressee, or both that come between “said” and the start of the quotation (1:6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12; 4:4, 9, 10; cf. 1:1; 3:1).
254. Jonah 3:8 tn Heb “with strength”; cf. KJV, NRSV “mightily,” NAB, NCV “loudly,” NIV “urgently.”
255. Jonah 3:8 tn Heb “let them turn, a man from his evil way.” The shift from the plural verb וְיָשֻׁבוּ (v^eyashuvu, “and let them turn”) to the singular noun אִישׁ (ʾish, “a man, each one”) and the singular suffix on מִדַּרְכּוֹ (middarko, “from his way”) emphasizes that each and every person in the collective unity is called to repent.
256. Jonah 3:8 tn Heb “his.” See the preceding note on “one.”
257. Jonah 3:8 tn Heb “evil way.” For other examples of “way” as “way of living,” see Judg 2:17; Ps 107:17-22; Prov 4:25-27; 5:21.
258. Jonah 3:8 tn Heb “that is in their hands.” By speaking of the harm they did as “in their hands,” the king recognized the Ninevites’ personal awareness and immediate responsibility. The term “hands” is either a synecdoche of instrument (e.g., “Is not the hand of Joab in all this?” [2 Sam 14:19]) or a synecdoche of part for the whole. The king’s descriptive figure of speech reinforces their guilt.
259. Jonah 3:9 sn The king expresses his uncertainty whether Jonah’s message constituted a conditional announcement or an unconditional decree. Jeremiah 18 emphasizes that God sometimes gives people an opportunity to repent when they hear an announcement of judgment. However, as Amos and Isaiah learned, if a people refused to repent over a period of time, the patience of God could be exhausted. The offer of repentance in a conditional announcement of judgment can be withdrawn and in its place an unconditional decree of judgment issued. The initial difficulty, in many cases, of determining whether a prophecy of coming judgment is conditional or unconditional explains the king’s uncertainty.
260. Jonah 3:9 tn “he might turn and relent.” The two verbs יָשׁוּב וְנִחַם (yashub v^enikham) may function independently (“turn and repent”) or form a verbal hendiadys (“be willing to turn”; see IBHS 540 §32.3b). The imperfect יָשׁוּב and the perfect with prefixed vav וְנִחַם form a future-time narrative sequence. Both verbs function in a modal sense, denoting possibility, as the introductory interrogative suggests (“Who knows…?”). When used in reference to past actions, שׁוּב (shub) can mean “to be sorry” or “to regret” doing something in the past. Regarding the future, it can mean “to change one’s mind” about doing something or “to relent” from sending judgment (BDB 997 s.v. שׁוּב 6). The verb נִחַם (nikham) can mean “to be sorry” about past actions (e.g., Gen 6:6, 7; 1 Sam 15:11, 35) or “to change one’s mind” about future actions (BDB 637 s.v. נחם 2). These two verbs are used together elsewhere in passages that consider whether or not God will change his mind and relent from judgment he has threatened (e.g., Jer 4:28). The verbal root שׁוּב is used four times in vv. 8-10, twice of the Ninevites “repenting” from their moral evil, and twice of God “relenting” from his threatened calamity. This repetition creates a wordplay that emphasizes the appropriateness of God’s response: if the people repent, God might relent.
261. Jonah 3:9 tn Heb “from the burning of his nose/face.” See Exod 4:14; 22:24; 32:12; Num 25:4; 32:14; Deut 9:19.
262. Jonah 3:9 tn The imperfect verb נֹאבֵד (noʾved, “we might die”) functions in a modal sense, denoting possibility. The king’s hope parallels that of the ship’s captain in 1:6. See also Exod 32:7-14; 2 Sam 12:14-22; 1 Kgs 8:33-43; 21:17-29; Jer 18:6-8; Joel 2:11-15.
263. Jonah 3:10 tn Heb “from their evil way” (so KJV, ASV, NAB); cf. NASB “wicked way.”
264. Jonah 3:10 tn Heb “calamity” or “disaster.” The noun רָעָה (raʿah, “calamity, disaster”) functions as a metonymy of result—the cause being the threatened judgment (e.g., Exod 32:12, 14; 2 Sam 24:16; Jer 18:8; 26:13, 19; 42:10; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; HALOT 1263 s.v. רָעָה 6). The root רָעָה is repeated three times in vv. 8 and 10. Twice it refers to the Ninevites’ moral “evil” (vv. 8 and 10a), and here it refers to the “calamity” or “disaster” that the Lord had threatened (v. 10b). This repetition of the root forms a polysemantic wordplay that exploits this broad range of meanings of the noun. The wordplay emphasizes that God’s response was appropriate: because the Ninevites repented from their moral “evil,” God relented from the “calamity” he had threatened.
265. Jonah 3:10 tn Heb “the disaster that he had spoken to do to them.”
266. Jonah 3:10 tn Heb “and he did not do it.” See notes on 3:8-9.
267. Jonah 4:1 tn Heb “It was evil to Jonah, a great evil.” The cognate accusative construction וַיֵּרע...רָעָה (vayyeraʿ…raʿah) emphasizes the great magnitude of his displeasure (e.g., Neh 2:10 for the identical construction; see IBHS 167 §10.2.1g). The verb רָעַע (raʿaʿ) means “to be displeasing” (BDB 949 s.v. רָעַע 1; e.g., Gen 21:11, 12; 48:17; Num 11:16; 22:34; Josh 24:15; 1 Sam 8:6; 2 Sam 11:25; Neh 2:10; 13:8; Prov 24:18; Jer 40:4). The use of the verb רָעַע (“to be evil, bad”) and the noun רָעָה (“evil, bad, calamity”) here in 4:1 creates a wordplay with the use of רָעָה in 3:8-10. When God saw that the Ninevites repented from their moral evil (רָעָה), he relented from the calamity (רָעָה) that he had threatened—and this development greatly displeased (רָעָה) Jonah.
268. Jonah 4:1 tn Heb “it burned to him.” The verb חָרָה (kharah, “to burn”) functions figuratively here (hypocatastasis) referring to anger (BDB 354 s.v. חָרָה). It is related to the noun חֲרוֹן (kharon, “heat/burning”) in the phrase “the heat of his anger” in 3:9. The repetition of the root highlights the contrast in attitudes between Jonah and God: God’s burning anger “cooled off” when the Ninevites repented, but Jonah’s anger was “kindled” when God did not destroy Nineveh.
269. Jonah 4:2 tn Heb “my saying?” The first common singular suffix on דְבָרִי (d^evari, “my saying”) functions as a subjective genitive: “I said.” The verb אָמַר (ʾamar, “to say”) here refers to the inner speech and thoughts of Jonah (see HALOT 66 s.v. אמר 4; BDB 56 s.v. אָמַר 2; e.g., Gen 17:17; Ruth 4:4; 1 Sam 20:26; Esth 6:6; Jonah 2:4). There is no hint anywhere else in the book that Jonah had argued with God when he was originally commissioned. While most English versions render it “I said” or “my saying,” a few take it as inner speech: “This is what I feared” (NEB), “It is just as I feared” (REB), and “I knew from the very beginning” (CEV).
270. Jonah 4:2 tn The phrase “would happen” does not appear in the Hebrew text but is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity and smoothness.
271. Jonah 4:2 tn Heb “Is this not my saying while I was in my own country?” The rhetorical question implies a positive answer (“Yes, this was the very thing that Jonah had anticipated would happen all along!”), so it is rendered as an emphatic declaration in the translation.
272. Jonah 4:2 tn Or “This is why I originally fled to Tarshish.” The verb קָדַם (qadam) in the Piel stem has a broad range of meanings and here could mean (1) “to go before, be in front of” (1 Sam 20:25; Ps 68:26); (2) “to do [something] beforehand,” (Ps 119:147); or (3) “to anticipate, to do [something] early, forestall [something]” (Ps 119:148). The lexicons nuance Jonah 4:2 as “to do [something] for the first time” (HALOT 1069 s.v. קדם 4) or “to do [something] beforehand” (BDB 870 s.v. קָדַם 3). The phrase קִדַּמְתִּי לִבְרֹחַ (qiddamti livroakh, “I did the first time to flee”) is an idiom that probably means, “I originally fled,” or, “I fled the first time.” The infinitive construct לִבְרֹחַ (“to flee”) functions as an object complement. This phrase is translated variously by English versions, depending on the category of meaning chosen for קָדַם: (1) to do [something] for the first time, beforehand: “That is why I fled beforehand” (JPS, NJPS), “I fled before” (KJV), “I fled previously” (NKJV), “I fled at the beginning” (NRSV), “I first tried to flee” (NJB), and “I fled at first” (NAB); (2) to do [something] early, to hasten to do [something]: “That is why I was so quick to flee” (NIV), “I hastened to flee” (ASV), “I made haste to flee” (RSV), and “I did my best to run away” (TEV); and (3) to anticipate, forestall [something]: “it was to forestall this that I tried to escape to Tarshish” (REB), “to forestall it I tried to escape to Tarshish” (NEB), and “in order to forestall this I fled” (NASB). The ancient versions also handle it variously: (1) to do [something] early, to hasten to do [something]: “Therefore I made haste to flee” (LXX), “That is why I hastened to run away” (Tg. Jonah 4:2); and (2) to go before, to be in front: “Therefore I went before to flee to Tarshish” (Vulgate). The two most likely options are (1) to do [something] the first time = “This is why I originally fled to Tarshish” and (2) to anticipate, forestall [something] = “This is what I tried to forestall [= prevent] by fleeing to Tarshish.”
273. Jonah 4:2 tn See note on the phrase “to Tarshish” in 1:3.sn The narrator skillfully withheld Jonah’s motivations from the reader up to this point for rhetorical effect—to build suspense and to create a shocking, surprising effect. Now, for the first time, the narrator reveals why Jonah fled from the commission of God in 1:3—he had not wanted to give God the opportunity to relent from judging Nineveh! Jonah knew that if he preached in Nineveh, the people might repent, and consequently God more than likely would relent from sending judgment. Hoping to seal their fate, Jonah had originally refused to preach so the Ninevites would not have an opportunity to repent. Apparently Jonah hoped that God would therefore judge them without advance warning. Or perhaps he was afraid he would betray his nationalistic self-interests by functioning as the instrument through which the Lord would spare Israel’s main and cruel enemy. Jonah probably wanted God to destroy Nineveh for three reasons: (1) as a loyal nationalist, he despised non-Israelites (cf. 1:9); (2) he believed that idolaters had forfeited any opportunity to be shown mercy (cf. 2:9-10); and (3) the prophets Amos and Hosea had recently announced that God would sovereignly use the Assyrians to judge unrepentant Israel (Hos 9:3; 11:5) and take them into exile (Amos 5:27). If God destroyed Nineveh, the Assyrians would not be able to destroy Israel. The better solution would have been for Jonah to work for the repentance of Nineveh and Israel.
274. Jonah 4:2 tn Or “know.” What Jonah knew then he still knows about the Lord’s character, which is being demonstrated in his dealings with both Nineveh and Jonah. The Hebrew suffixed tense accommodates both times here.
275. Jonah 4:2 tn Heb “long of nostrils.” Because the nose often expresses anger through flared nostrils, it became the source of this idiom meaning “slow to anger” (e.g., Exod 34:6; Num 14:18; Neh 9:17; Pss 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Jer 15:15; Nah 1:3; BDB 74 s.v. אָרֵךְ).
276. Jonah 4:2 tn Heb “great” (so KJV); cf. ASV, NASB “abundant,” NAB “rich in clemency.”
277. Jonah 4:2 tn Heb “calamity.” The noun רָעָה (raʿah, “calamity, disaster”) functions as a metonymy of result—the cause being the threatened judgment (e.g., Exod 32:12, 14; 2 Sam 24:16; Jer 18:8; 26:13, 19; 42:10; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2). The classic statement of God’s willingness to relent from judgment when a sinful people repent is Jer 18:1-11.sn Jonah is precisely correct in his listing of the Lord’s attributes. See Exod 34:6-7; Num 14:18-19; 2 Chr 30:9; Neh 9:17, 31-32; Pss 86:3-8, 15; 103:2-13; 116:5 (note the parallels to Jonah 2 in Ps 116:1-4); 145:8; Neh 9:17; Joel 2:13.
278. Jonah 4:3 tn Heb “take my life from me.”
279. Jonah 4:3 tn Heb “better my death than my life.”
280. Jonah 4:4 tn Heb “Rightly/thoroughly does it burn to you?” This same question occurs again in v. 9 concerning the withered plant. The Hiphil of יָטַב (yatav, “to do good”) here may have one of two meanings. First, it may mean “to do [something] rightly” in terms of ethical right and wrong (BDB 406 s.v. יָטַב 5.b; HALOT 408 s.v. יטב 3.c; e.g., Gen 4:7; Lev 5:4; Pss 36:4; 119:68; Isa 1:17; Jer 4:22; 13:23). This approach is adopted by many English versions: “Do you have any right to be angry?” (NIV); “Are you right to be angry?” (REB, NJB); “Is it right for you to be angry?” (NRSV, NLT); “Do you have good reason to be angry?” (NASB); “Do you do well to be angry?” (cf. KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV); “What right do you have to be angry?” (cf. TEV, CEV). Second, it may mean “well, utterly, thoroughly,” as an adverb (BDB 405 s.v. 3; HALOT 408 s.v. 5; e.g., Deut 9:21; 13:15; 17:4; 19:18; 27:8; 1 Sam 16:17; 2 Kgs 11:18; Prov 15:2; Isa 23:16; Jer 1:12; Ezek 33:32; Mic 7:3). This view is adopted by other English versions: “Are you that deeply grieved?” (JPS, NJPS); “Are you so angry?” (NEB). This is also the approach of the Tg. Jonah 4:4: “Are you that greatly angered?” The first interpretation can say such anger reflected the lack of submission to God’s sovereignty that caused Jonah to disobey initially. If God wanted to show mercy or wanted the plant to die, who was Jonah to get angry? But the rightness or wrongness of anger over plant death can seem a trivial question, and the later dialogue may focus on the depth of Jonah’s anger: He would rather be dead than alive (vv. 3, 8), and he concludes by saying that he was as angry as he could possibly be (v. 9; see note on עַד־מָוֶת [ʿad mavet, “to death”] in v. 9). The Lord then uses an a fortiori argument (from lesser to greater): Jonah was very upset that the plant had died (v. 10); likewise, God was very concerned about averting the destruction of Nineveh (v. 11).sn The use of the term יָטַב (yatab, “rightly, good”) creates a wordplay with its antonym רָעָה (raʿah, “evil, wrong”), which is used in 4:1 of Jonah’s bad attitude.
281. Jonah 4:4 tn Heb “Does it burn to you?” The verb חָרָה (kharah, “to burn”) functions figuratively here (hypocatastasis) to refer to strong anger (BDB 354 s.v. חָרָה). The verb is repeated from v. 1 and will be used again in v. 9.
282. Jonah 4:5 tn Heb “from the east” or “from the front.” When used to designate a location, the noun קֶדֶם (qedem) may mean “front” (BDB 869 s.v. קֶדֶם 1.a) or “east” (BDB 869 s.v. 1.b). The construction קֶדֶם + preposition מִן (min, “from”) means “from the front” = “in front of” (Job 23:8; Ps 139:5; Isa 9:11) or “from the east” = “eastward, on the east side” (Gen 3:21; 12:8; Num 34:11; Josh 7:2; Ezek 11:23). Because the morning sunrise beat down upon Jonah (v. 8) and the main city gate of Nineveh opened to the east, the term probably means “on the east side” of the city. But “in front of” the city would mean the same in this case.
283. Jonah 4:5 tn Heb “of the city.” For stylistic reasons, to avoid redundancy, the noun “city” has been replaced here by the pronoun (“it”) in the translation.
284. Jonah 4:5 sn Apparently Jonah hoped that he might have persuaded the Lord to “change his mind” again (see 3:8-10) and to judge Nineveh after all.
285. Jonah 4:6 tn The verb מָנָה (manah) in the Piel stem is used elsewhere in Jonah meaning “to send, to appoint” (Jonah 2:1; 4:6-8; HALOT 599 s.v. מנה 2; BDB 584 s.v. מָנָה).
286. Jonah 4:6 tn The noun קִיקָיוֹן (qiqayon, “plant”) has the suffixed ending וֹן- which denotes a diminutive (see IBHS 92 §5.7b), so it can be nuanced “little plant.” For the probable reason that the narrator used the diminutive form here, see the note on “little” in v. 10.
287. Jonah 4:6 tc The consonantal form להציל is vocalized by the MT as לִהַצִּיל (l^ehatsil), a Hiphil infinitive construct from נָצַל (natsal, “to deliver, rescue”; BDB 664-65 s.v. נָצַל). However, the LXX’s τοῦ σκιάζειν (tou skiazein, “to shade”) reflects an alternate vocalization tradition of לְהָצֵיל (l^ehatsel), a Niphal infinitive construct from צָלַל (tsalal, “to shade”; see BDB 853 s.v. צָלַל). The MT vocalization is preferred for several reasons. First, it is the more difficult form with the assimilated nun. Second, the presence of the noun צֵל (tsel, “shadow”) just two words before helps to explain the origin of the LXX vocalization, which was influenced by this noun in the immediate context. Third, God’s primary motivation in giving the plant to Jonah was not simply to provide shade for him, because the next day the Lord killed the plant (v. 7). God’s primary motivation was to create a situation to “rescue” Jonah from his bad attitude. Nevertheless, the narrator’s choice of the somewhat ambiguous consonantal form להציל might have been done to create a wordplay on נָצַל (“to rescue, deliver”) and צָלַל (“to shade”). Jonah thought that God was providing him shade, but God was really working to deliver him from his evil attitude, as the ensuing dialogue indicates.
288. Jonah 4:6 tn Or “evil attitude.” The meaning of the noun רָעָה (raʿah) is intentionally ambiguous; the author puns on its broad range of meanings to create a polysemantic wordplay. It can signify (1) “distress, misery, discomfort,” (2) “misfortune, injury,” (3) “calamity, disaster,” (4) “moral evil,” and (5) “ill-disposed, evil attitude” (see BDB 949 s.v. רָעָה; HALOT 1262-63 s.v. רָעָה). The narrator has used several meanings of רָעָה in 3:8-4:2, namely, “moral evil” (3:8, 10) and “calamity, disaster” (3:9, 10; 4:2), as well as the related verb רָעַע (raʿaʿ, “to be displeasing”; see 4:1). Here the narrator puns on the meaning “discomfort” created by the scorching desert heat, but God’s primary motivation is to “deliver” Jonah, not from something as trivial as physical discomfort from heat, but from his sinful attitude about God’s willingness to spare Nineveh. This gives the term an especially ironic twist: Jonah is only concerned about being delivered from his physical “discomfort,” while God wants to deliver him from his “evil attitude.”
289. Jonah 4:6 tn Heb “he rejoiced with great joy.” The cognate accusative construction repeats the verb and noun of the consonantal root שׂמח (smkh, “rejoice”) for emphasis; it means, “he rejoiced with great joy,” or, “he was greatly delighted” (see IBHS 167 §10.2.1g). This cognate accusative construction ironically mirrors the identical syntax of v. 1: “he was angry with great anger.” The narrator repeated this construction to emphasize the contrast between Jonah’s anger that Nineveh was spared and his joy that his discomfort was relieved.
290. Jonah 4:7 tn Or “appointed.” The verb מָנָה (manah) in the Piel stem means “to send, to appoint” (Ps 61:8; Jonah 2:1; 4:6-8; Dan 1:5, 10-11; HALOT 599 s.v. מנה 2; BDB 584 s.v. מָנָה).
291. Jonah 4:8 tn Or “appointed.” See preceding note on v. 7.
292. Jonah 4:8 tc The MT adjective חֲרִישִׁית (kharishit, “autumnal”) is a hapax legomenon with an unclear meaning (BDB 362 s.v. חֲרִישִׁי). Therefore, the BHS editors propose a conjectural emendation to the adjective, חֲרִיפִית (kharifit, “autumnal”), from the noun חֹרֶף (khoref, “autumn”; see BDB 358 s.v. חרֶף). However, this emendation would also create a hapax legomenon, and it would be no more clear than relating the MT’s חֲרִישִׁית to I חָרַשׁ (kharash, “to plough” [in autumn harvest]).tn Heb “autumnal” or “sultry.” The adjective חֲרִישִׁית is a hapax legomenon whose meaning is unclear. It might mean “autumnal” (from I חָרַשׁ, kharash; “to plough” [in the autumn harvest-time]). BDB 362 s.v. חֲרִישִׁי considers it mere conjecture that it means “silent” = “sultry” (from IV. חרשׁ, “to be silent.” The form חֲרִישִׁית might be a misspelling (שׁ for שׂ) of an alternate spelling (שׂ can replace ס) of חֲרִיסִית (kharisit) from the noun חֶרֶס (kheres, “sun”) and so mean “hot” (BDB 362 s.v.).
293. Jonah 4:8 tn Heb “attacked” or “smote.”
294. Jonah 4:8 tn Heb “he asked his soul to die.”
295. Jonah 4:8 tn Heb “better my death than my life.”sn Jonah repeats his assessment, found also in 4:3.
296. Jonah 4:9 tn Heb “Does it burn so thoroughly to you?”; or “Does it burn rightly to you?” See note on this expression in v. 4.
297. Jonah 4:9 tn Heb “It thoroughly burns to me”; or “It rightly burns to me.”
298. Jonah 4:9 tn Heb “unto death.” The phrase עַד־מָוֶת (ʿad mavet, “unto death”) is an idiomatic expression meaning “to the extreme” or simply “extremely [angry]” (HALOT 563 s.v. מָוֶת 1.c). The noun מָוֶת (“death”) is often used as an absolute superlative with a negative sense, similar to the English expression “bored to death” (IBHS 267-69 §14.5). For example, “his soul was vexed to death” (לָמוּת, lamut) means that he could no longer endure it (Judg 16:16), and “love is as strong as death” (כַמָּוֶת, kammavet) means love is irresistible or exceedingly strong (Song 8:6). Here the expression “I am angry unto death” (עַד־מָוֶת) means that Jonah could not be more angry. Unfortunately, this idiomatic expression has gone undetected by virtually every other major English version to date (KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NJB, JPS, NJPS). The only English version that comes close to representing the idiom correctly is BBE: “I have a right to be truly angry.”
299. Jonah 4:10 tn Heb “were troubled.” The verb חוּס (khus) has a basic threefold range of meanings: (1) “to be troubled about,” (2) “to look with compassion upon,” and (3) “to show pity, to spare [someone from death/judgment]” (HALOT 298 s.v. חוס; BDB 299 s.v. חוּס). Clearly, here God is referring to Jonah’s remorse and anger when the plant died (vv. 7-9), so here it probably means “to be troubled about” (HALOT 298 s.v. 1.c) rather than “to pity” (BDB 299 s.v. c). Elsewhere חוּס describes emotional grief caused by the loss of property (Gen 45:20) and the death of family members (Deut 13:9 [ET 13:8]). The verb חוּס is derived from a common Semitic root with a basic meaning, “to pour out; to flow,” that is used in reference to emotion and tears in particular. This is seen in the Hebrew expression תָחוּס עֵין (takhus ʿen, “the eyes flow”), picturing tears of concern and grief (cf., Gen 45:20; Deut 13:9 [ET 13:8]). The verb חוּס will be used again in v. 11 but in a different sense (see note on v. 11).
300. Jonah 4:10 tn The noun קִיקָיוֹן (qiqayon, “plant”) has the suffixed ending וֹן- that denotes a diminutive (see IBHS 92 §5.7b); so it can be nuanced “little plant.” The contrast between Jonah’s concern for his “little” plant (v. 10) and God’s concern about this “enormous” city (v. 11) could not be greater! Jonah’s misplaced priorities look exceedingly foolish and self-centered in comparison to God’s global concern about the fate of 120,000 pagans.
301. Jonah 4:10 tn Heb “which was a son of a night and perished [as] a son of a night.”
302. Jonah 4:11 tn The emphatic use of the independent pronouns “you” and “I” (אַתָּה, ʾattah, and אֲנִי, ʾani) in vv. 10 and 11 creates an ironic comparison and emphasizes the strong contrast between the attitudes of Jonah and the Lord.
303. Jonah 4:11 tn Heb “You…Should I not spare…?” This is an a fortiori argument from lesser to greater. Since Jonah was “upset” (חוּס, khus) about such a trivial matter as the death of a little plant (the lesser), God had every right to “spare” (חוּס) the enormously populated city of Nineveh (the greater). The phrase “even more” does not appear in Hebrew but is implied by this a fortiori argument.
304. Jonah 4:11 tn Heb “Should I not spare?”; or “Should I not show compassion?” The verb חוּס (khus) has a basic threefold range of meanings: (1) “to be troubled about”; (2) “to look with compassion upon”; and (3) “to show pity, to spare,” with respect to death/judgment (HALOT 298 s.v. חוס; BDB 299 s.v. חוּס). In v. 10 it refers to Jonah’s lament over the death of his plant, meaning “to be upset about” or “to be troubled about” (HALOT 298 s.v. 1.c). However, here in v. 11 it means, regarding judgment, “to show pity, spare” (BDB 298 s.v. b; HALOT 298 s.v. 2, 3; e.g., 1 Sam 24:11; Jer 21:7; Ezek 24:14). It is often used in contexts which contemplate whether God will or will not spare a sinful people from judgment (Ezek 5:11; 7:4, 9; 8:18; 9:5, 10; 20:17). So this repetition of the same verb but in a different sense creates a polysemantic wordplay in vv. 10-11. However, the wordplay is obscured by the appropriate translation for each usage—“be upset about” in v. 10 and “to spare” in v. 11—therefore, the translation above attempts to bring out the wordplay in English: “to be [even more] concerned about.”
305. Jonah 4:11 tn Heb “the great city.”
306. Jonah 4:11 tn Heb “their right from their left.” Interpreters wonder exactly what deficiency is meant by the phrase “do not know their right from their left.” The expression does not appear elsewhere in biblical Hebrew. It probably does not mean, as sometimes suggested, that Nineveh had 120,000 small children (the term אָדָם, ʾadam, “people,” does not seem to be used of children alone). In any case, it refers to a deficiency in discernment of which Jonah and the initial readers of Jonah would no doubt have considered themselves free. For partial parallels see 2 Sam 19:35; Eccl 10:2; Ezek 22:26; 44:23.
307. Jonah 4:11 tn Heb “and many animals.”
308. Micah 1:1 tn Heb “in the days of” (so KJV, NASB, NRSV).
309. Micah 1:2 tn Heb “O peoples, all of them.”
310. Micah 1:2 tn Heb “O earth and that which fills it”; cf. KJV “and all that therein is.”
311. Micah 1:2 tc The MT has the jussive form verb וִיהִי (vihi, “may he be”), while the Dead Sea Scrolls have the imperfect form יהיה (yihyeh, “he will be”). The LXX uses a future indicative. On the basis of distance from the primary accent, GKC 325-26 §109.k attempts to explain the form as a rhythmical shortening of the imperfect rather than a true jussive. Some of the examples in GKC may now be explained as preterites, while others are text-critical problems. And some may have other modal explanations. But other examples are not readily explained by these considerations. The text-critical decision and the grammatical explanation in GKC would both lead to translating as an imperfect. Some translations render it in a jussive sense, either as request: “And let my Lord God be your accuser” (NJPS), or as dependent purpose/result: “that the Sovereign Lord may witness against you” (NIV).
312. Micah 1:2 tn Heb “the Lord from his majestic palace.” The verb is supplied from the previous line by the convention of ellipsis and double duty. Cf. CEV “the Lord God accuses you from his holy temple,” TEV “He speaks from his holy temple.”
313. Micah 1:2 tn Or “his holy temple” (KJV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT). This refers to the Lord’s dwelling in heaven, however, rather than the temple in Jerusalem (note the following verse, which describes a theophany).
314. Micah 1:3 tn Or “For look.” The expression כִּי־הִנֵּה (ki-hinneh) may function as an explanatory introduction (“For look!”; Isa 26:21; 60:2; 65:17, 18: 66:15; Jer 1:15; 25:29; 30:10; 45:5; 46:27; 50:9; Ezek 30:9; 36:9; Zech 2:10; 3:8), or as an emphatic introduction (“Look!”; Jdgs 3:15; Isa 3:1; Jer 8:17; 30:3; 49:15; Hos 9:6; Joel 3:1 [4:1 HT]; Amos 4:2, 13; 6:11, 14; 9:9; Hab 1:6; Zech 2:9 [2:13 HT]; Zech 3:9; 11:16).
315. Micah 1:3 tn Or “high places” (KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT).
316. Micah 1:4 tn Or “melt” (NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT). This is a figurative description of earthquakes, landslides, and collapse of the mountains, rather than some sort of volcanic activity (note the remainder of the verse).
317. Micah 1:4 tn Or “rupture.” This may refer to the appearance of a valley after the blockage of a landslide has effectively divided it.
318. Micah 1:5 sn Jacob is an alternate name for Israel (see Gen 32:28).
319. Micah 1:5 tn Heb “and because of.”
320. Micah 1:5 tn Heb “house.”
321. Micah 1:5 tn Heb “Is it not Samaria?” The capital city, Samaria, represents the policies of the government and trend-setting behaviors of her people. The rhetorical question expects a positive answer, “Yes, it is.”
322. Micah 1:5 tc The MT reads, “What are Judah’s high places?” while the LXX, Syriac, and Targum read, “What is Judah’s sin?” Whether or not the original text was “sin,” the passage certainly alludes to Judah’s sin as a complement to Samaria’s. “High places” are where people worshiped idols; they could, by metonymy, represent pagan worship. Smith notes, however, that, “Jerusalem was not known for its high places,” and so follows the LXX as representing the original text (R. Smith, Micah [WBC], 16). Given the warning in v. 3 that the Lord will march on the land’s high places (“mountain tops,” based on the same word but a different plural form), this may be a way of referring to that threat while evoking the notion of idolatry.
323. Micah 1:5 tn Jerusalem, the capital of Judah, represents the nation’s behavior. The rhetorical question expects an affirmative answer.sn In vv. 2-5 Micah narrows the scope of God’s judgment from the nations (vv. 2-4) to his covenant people (v. 5). Universal judgment is coming, but ironically Israel is the focal point of God’s anger. In v. 5c the prophet includes Judah within the scope of divine judgment, for Judah has followed in the pagan steps of the northern kingdom. He accomplishes this with rhetorical skill. In v. 5b he develops the first assertion of v. 5a (“All of this is because of Jacob’s rebellion”). One expects in v. 5c an elaboration of the second assertion in v. 5a (“and the sins of the nation of Israel”), which one assumes, in light of v. 5b, pertains to the northern kingdom. But the prophet makes it clear that “the nation of Israel” includes Judah. Verses 6-7 further develop v. 5b (judgment on the northern kingdom), while vv. 8-16 expand on v. 5c (judgment on Judah).
324. Micah 1:6 tn Heb “her stones.” The term “stones” is a metonymy for the city walls whose foundations were constructed of stone masonry.
325. Micah 1:6 tn Heb “I will uncover her foundations.” The term “foundations” refers to the lower courses of the stones of the city’s outer fortification walls.
326. Micah 1:7 tn Heb “and all her prostitute’s wages will be burned with fire.”sn The precious metal used by Samaria’s pagan worship centers to make idols is compared to a prostitute’s wages because Samaria had been unfaithful to the Lord and prostituted herself to pagan gods such as Baal.
327. Micah 1:7 tn Heb “I will make desolate” (so NASB).
328. Micah 1:7 tn Or “for” (KJV, NASB, NRSV).
329. Micah 1:7 tn No object is specified in the Hebrew text; the words “the metal” are supplied from the context.
330. Micah 1:7 tn Heb “for from a prostitute’s wages she gathered, and to a prostitute’s wages they will return.” When the metal was first collected it was comparable to the coins a prostitute would receive for her services. The metal was then formed into idols, but now the Lord’s fiery judgment would reduce the metal images to their original condition.
331. Micah 1:8 tn The prophet is probably the speaker here.
332. Micah 1:8 tn Or “stripped.” The precise meaning of this Hebrew word is unclear. It may refer to walking barefoot (see 2 Sam 15:30) or to partially stripping oneself (see Job 12:17-19).
333. Micah 1:8 tn Heb “naked.” This probably does not refer to complete nudity, but to stripping off one’s outer garments as an outward sign of the destitution felt by the mourner.
334. Micah 1:8 tn Heb “I will make lamentation.”
335. Micah 1:8 tn Or “a jackal”; CEV “howling wolves.”
336. Micah 1:8 tn Heb “[make] a mourning.”
337. Micah 1:8 tn Or perhaps “ostrich” (cf. ASV, NAB, NASB, NRSV, NLT).
338. Micah 1:9 tn Heb “her.”
339. Micah 1:9 tc The MT reads the plural “wounds/plagues”; the singular is read by the LXX, Syriac, and Vg.
340. Micah 1:9 tn Heb “come to.”
341. Micah 1:9 tn Or “reached.”
342. Micah 1:9 tn Heb “the gate.” Kings and civic leaders typically conducted important business at the city gate (see 1 Kgs 22:10 for an example), and the term is understood here to refer by metonymy to the leadership who would be present at the gate.
343. Micah 1:10 tn Heb “Tell it not in Gath.” The Hebrew word for “tell” (נָגַד, nagad) sounds like the name of the city, Gath (גַּת, gat).
344. Micah 1:10 tn The Hebrew infinitive absolute before the negated jussive emphasizes the prohibition.
345. Micah 1:10 tc The translation assumes a masculine plural imperative. If one were to emend בְּבֵית (b^evet) to בֵית (vet), Beth Leaphrah would then be the addressee and the feminine singular imperative (see Qere) could be retained, “O Beth Leaphrah, sit in the dust.”tn Or “wallow.” The verb פָּלַשׁ (palash, “roll about [in dust])” refers to a cultural behavior associated with mourning.sn The name Beth Leaphrah means “house of dust.”
346. Micah 1:11 tn The feminine singular participle is here used in a collective sense for all the residents of the town. See GKC 394 §122.s.
347. Micah 1:11 sn The place name Shaphir means “pleasant” in Hebrew.
348. Micah 1:11 tn Heb “have not gone out.” NIV “will not come out”; NLT “dare not come outside.” sn The place name Zaanan sounds like the verb “go out” in Hebrew.
349. Micah 1:11 sn The place name Beth Ezel means “house of nearness” or “house of proximity” in Hebrew.
350. Micah 1:11 tn Heb “the lamentation of Beth Ezel.” The following words could be the lamentation offered up by Beth Ezel (subjective genitive) or the mourning song sung over it (objective genitive).
351. Micah 1:11 tc The form עֶמְדָּתוֹ (ʿemdato) should be emended to חֲמַדְּתוֹ (khamadto, “his (the conqueror’s) desire”).tn The precise meaning of the line is uncertain. The translation assumes: (a) the subject of the third masculine singular verb יִקַּח (yiqqakh, “he/it takes”) is the conqueror, (b) the second masculine plural suffix (“you”) on the preposition מִן (min, “from”) refers to the residents of Shaphir and Zaanan, (c) the final form עֶמְדָּתוֹ should be emended to חֲמַדְּתוֹ, “his (the conqueror’s) desire.”
352. Micah 1:12 sn The place name Maroth sounds like the Hebrew word for “bitter.”
353. Micah 1:12 tc The translation assumes an emendation of חָלָה (khalah; from חִיל, khil, “to writhe”) to יִחֲלָה (yikhalah; from יָחַל, yakhal, “to wait”).tn Heb “[the residents of Maroth] writhe [= “anxiously long for”?] good.”
354. Micah 1:12 tn Heb “though disaster has come down from the Lord to the gate of Jerusalem.”
355. Micah 1:13 sn The place name Lachish sounds like the Hebrew word for “team [of horses].”
356. Micah 1:13 tn Heb “she”; this has been translated as second person (“you”) in keeping with the direct address to the residents of Lachish in the previous line.
357. Micah 1:13 sn The epithet Daughter Zion pictures the city of Jerusalem as a young lady.
358. Micah 1:13 tn Heb “She was the beginning of sin for Daughter Zion.”
359. Micah 1:13 tn Heb “for in you was found the transgressions of Israel.”
360. Micah 1:14 tn The subject of the feminine singular verb is probably Lachish.
361. Micah 1:14 tn Heb “you will give a dowry to”; NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV “give parting gifts to.” Lachish is compared to a father who presents wedding gifts to his daughter as she leaves her father’s home to take up residence with her husband. In similar fashion Lachish will bid farewell to Moresheth Gath, for the latter will be taken by the invader.
362. Micah 1:14 tn Heb “houses.” By metonymy this refers to the people who live in them.
363. Micah 1:14 sn The place name Achzib (אַכְזִיב, ʾakhziv, “place on the dried up river”; see HALOT 45 s.v. אַכְזָב) creates a word play on the similar sounding term כָּזָב (kazav, “lie, deception”; HALOT 468 s.v. כָּזָב). Like the dried up river upon which its name was based, the city of Achzib would fail to help the kings of Israel in their time of need.
364. Micah 1:14 tn Or “will be a deception.” The term אַכְזָב (ʾakhzav) is often translated “deception,” derived from the verb I כָּזָב (“to deceive, lie”; HALOT 467-68 s.v. I כזב). However, it probably means “what is dried up,” since (1) the noun elsewhere refers to an empty well or dried river in summer (Jer 15:18; cf. Job 6:15-20) (HALOT 45 s.v. אַכְזָב); (2) the place-name “Achzib” (אַכְזִיב) literally means “place on the אַכְזָב [dried up river]” (HALOT 45 s.v. אַכְזָב); and (3) it is derived from the verb II כָּזָב (“to dry up [brook]”; Isa 58:11), which also appears in Mishnaic Hebrew and Arabic. The point of the metaphor is that Achzib will be as disappointing to the kings of Israel as a dried up spring in the summer is to a thirsty traveler in the Jordanian desert.
365. Micah 1:14 sn Because of the enemy invasion, Achzib would not be able to deliver soldiers for the army and/or services normally rendered to the crown.
366. Micah 1:15 sn The place name Mareshah sounds like the Hebrew word for “conqueror.”
367. Micah 1:15 tn Heb “Again a conqueror I will bring to you, residents of Mareshah.” The first person verb is problematic, for the Lord would have to be the subject (cf. NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT). But the prophet appears to be delivering this lament and the Lord is referred to in the third person in v. 12. Consequently many emend the verb to a third person form (יָבוֹא, yavoʾ) and understand the “conqueror” as subject.
368. Micah 1:15 tn Heb “to Adullam the glory of Israel will go.” This probably means that the nation’s leadership will run for their lives and, like David of old, hide from their enemy in the caves of Adullam. Cf. NIV’s “He who is the glory of Israel will come to Adullam,” which sounds as if an individual is in view, and could be understood as a messianic reference.
369. Micah 1:16 tn Heb “over the sons of your delight.”
370. Micah 1:16 tn Heb “make wide your baldness.”
371. Micah 1:16 tn Or “a vulture” (cf. NIV, TEV); CEV “a buzzard.” The Hebrew term נֶשֶׁר (nesher) refers to the griffon vulture or eagle.
372. Micah 2:1 tn Heb “those who think up evil.”
373. Micah 2:1 tn Heb “upon their beds.”
374. Micah 2:1 tn Heb “at the light of morning they do it.”
375. Micah 2:2 tn Heb “they desire fields and rob [them], and houses and take [them] away.”
376. Micah 2:2 tn Heb “and they oppress a man and his home.”
377. Micah 2:2 tn Heb “and a man and his inheritance.” The verb עָשַׁק (ʿashaq, “to oppress”; “to wrong”) does double duty in the parallel structure and is understood by ellipsis in the second line.
378. Micah 2:3 tn Heb “clan” or “extended family.”
379. Micah 2:3 tn Heb “from which you will not remove your neck.” The words “It will be like a yoke” are supplied in the translation for clarification.
380. Micah 2:3 tn Or “you will not.”
381. Micah 2:4 tc The form נִהְיָה (nihyah) should be omitted as dittographic (note the preceding וְנָהָה נְהִי v^enahah n^ehi).tn Heb “one will lament [with] a lamentation [and] say.”
382. Micah 2:4 tn Or “exchange.” The LXX suggests a reading יִמַּד (yimmad) from מָדַד (madad, “to measure”). In this case one could translate, “the property of my people is measured out [i.e., for resale].”
383. Micah 2:4 tn Heb “how one removes for me.” Apparently the preposition has the nuance “from” here (cf. KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT).
384. Micah 2:4 tc 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.”
385. Micah 2:5 tn 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.
386. Micah 2:6 tn 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.”
387. Micah 2:6 tc 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.”
388. Micah 2:7 tn Heb “house” (so many English versions); CEV “descendants.’
389. Micah 2:7 tc The MT has אָמוּר (ʾamur), an otherwise unattested passive participle, which is better emended to אָמוֹר (ʾamor), an infinitive absolute functioning as a finite verb (see BDB 55 s.v. אָמַר).
390. Micah 2:7 tn The Hebrew word רוּחַ (ruakh) 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.
391. Micah 2:7 tn 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.
392. Micah 2:7 tn 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. 7a). 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. 7b 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?”
393. Micah 2:8 tc 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 (v^eʾetmul, “and recently”) is probably the product of fusion and subsequent suppression of an (ע) ʿayin. The translation assumes an emendation to וְאַתֶּם עַל (v^eʾattem ʿal, “and you against [my people]”). The second person plural pronoun fits well with the second plural verb forms of vv. 8b-10. If this emendation is accepted, then יְקוֹמֵם (y^eqomem, the Polel imperfect of קוּם [qum]) should be emended to קָמִים (qamim; a Qal participle from the same root).
394. Micah 2:8 tc 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 (ʿayin). The translation assumes an emendation to מֵעַל (meʿal, “from upon”). The translation also assumes an emendation of שַׂלְמָה אֶדֶר (salmah ʾeder, “a garment, glory [or robe]”) to שֹׁלְמִים אֲדֶרֶת (shol^emim ʾaderet, “[from] a friend the robe [you strip off]”). The MT’s אֶדֶר (ʾeder) is the result of improper division (the article has erroneously been attached to the preceding word) and haplography (of the final tav, which also begins the following word).
395. Micah 2:8 tc The passive participle שׁוּבֵי (shuve) 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.
396. Micah 2:9 tn Heb “women.” This may be a synecdoche of the whole (women) for the part (widows).
397. Micah 2:9 tn Heb “her little children” or “her infants”; ASV, NRSV “young children.”
398. Micah 2:9 tn Heb “from their children you take my glory forever.” The yod (י) ending on הֲדָרִי (hadari) 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).
399. Micah 2:10 tn 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.
400. Micah 2:10 tn Heb “for this is no resting place.” The Lord speaks to the oppressors.
401. Micah 2:10 tn Heb “uncleanness will destroy, and destruction will be severe.”
402. Micah 2:11 tn Heb “if a man, coming [as] wind and falsehood, should lie”; NASB “walking after wind and falsehood”; NIV “a liar and a deceiver.”
403. Micah 2:11 tn Heb “I will foam at the mouth concerning wine and beer.”
404. Micah 2:11 tn Heb “he would be the foamer at the mouth for this people.”
405. Micah 2:12 tn Heb “the remnant of Israel.”
406. Micah 2:12 tc 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.
407. Micah 2:12 tc The MT reads “its pasture,” but the final vav (ו) belongs with the following verb. See GKC 413 §127.i.
408. Micah 2:12 tn Heb “and they will be noisy [or perhaps, “excited”] from men.” The subject of the third feminine plural verb תְּהִימֶנָה (t^ehimenah, “they will be noisy”) is probably the feminine singular צֹאן (tsoʾn, “flock”). (For another example of this collective singular noun with a feminine plural verb, see Gen 30:38.) In the construction מֵאָדָם (meʾadam, “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.
409. Micah 2:13 tn 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.
410. Micah 2:13 tn 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.
411. Micah 2:13 tn The verb form (a preterite with vav [ו] consecutive) indicates certitude.
412. Micah 2:13 tn Heb “the Lord [will be] at their head.”
413. Micah 3:1 tn Heb “heads.”
414. Micah 3:1 tn Heb “house.”
415. Micah 3:1 tn Heb “Should you not know justice?” The rhetorical question expects the answer, “Of course you should!”
416. Micah 3:2 tn Heb “the ones who.”
417. Micah 3:2 tn Or “good.”
418. Micah 3:2 tn Or “evil.”
419. Micah 3:2 tn 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.
420. Micah 3:2 tn 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.
421. Micah 3:3 tn Heb “who.”
422. Micah 3:3 tc The MT reads “and they chop up as in a pot.” The translation assumes an emendation of כַּאֲשֶׁר (ka’asher, “as”) to כִּשְׁאֵר (kishʾer, “like flesh”).
423. Micah 3:4 tn Heb “they,” referring to the indicted leaders in vv. 1-3.
424. Micah 3:5 tn Heb “concerning the prophets, those who mislead my people.” Some prefer to begin the quotation after “the Lord has said” (cf. NIV). But when the preposition עַל (ʿal, “about”) occurs with this introductory formula it regularly indicates who is being spoken about. (When a person is not the object of the preposition, it may begin the quote, meaning “because.”) Including the first person pronominal suffix (in “my people”) after a third person introduction may sound awkward, but also occurs in Jer 14:15; 23:2 (and perhaps Jer 12:14, a text critical question). Hillers prefers to add הוֹי (hoy, “woe, ah”) at the beginning of the quotation, after the graphically similar יְהוָה (y^ehvah; see D. R. Hillers, Micah [Hermeneia], 44). The phrase הוֹי עַל (hoy ʿal, “woe upon”) occurs in Jer 50:27 and Ezek 13:3 (with “the prophets” following the preposition in the latter instance).
425. Micah 3:5 tn 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.
426. Micah 3:5 tn Heb “but [as for the one] who does not place [food] in their mouths, they prepare for war against him.”
427. Micah 3:6 tn 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.
428. Micah 3:6 tn 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.
429. Micah 3:6 tn Heb “and the day will be dark over them.”
430. Micah 3:7 tn Or “seers.”
431. Micah 3:7 tn Or “the mustache,” or perhaps “the beard.” Cf. KJV, NAB, NRSV “cover their lips.”
432. Micah 3:7 tn Heb “no divine response” or “no answer from God.”
433. Micah 3:8 sn The prophet Micah speaks here and contrasts himself with the mercenaries just denounced by the Lord in the preceding verses.
434. Micah 3:8 tn 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.
435. Micah 3:8 tn Heb “to declare to Jacob his rebellion and to Israel his sin.” The words “this enables me” are supplied in the translation for clarification.
436. Micah 3:9 tn Heb “house.”
437. Micah 3:9 tn Heb “house.”
438. Micah 3:9 tn Heb “who.” A new sentence was begun here in the translation for stylistic reasons (also at the beginning of v. 10).
439. Micah 3:10 tn Heb “who.”
440. Micah 3:10 tn Heb “bloodshed” (so NAB, NASB, NIV); NLT “murder.”
441. Micah 3:11 sn The pronoun Her refers to Jerusalem (note the previous line).
442. Micah 3:11 tn Heb “judge for a bribe.”
443. Micah 3:11 tn Heb “they lean upon” (so KJV, NIV, NRSV); NAB “rely on.”
444. Micah 3:11 tn Heb “Is not the Lord in our midst?” The rhetorical question expects the answer, “Of course he is!”
445. Micah 3:11 tn Or “come upon” (so many English versions); NCV “happen to us”; CEV “come to us.”
446. Micah 3:12 tn The plural pronoun refers to the leaders, priests, and prophets mentioned in the preceding verse.
447. Micah 3:12 tn Or “into” (an adverbial accusative of result).
448. Micah 3:12 tn Heb “the mountain of the house” (so KJV, ASV, NRSV).
449. Micah 3:12 tn Heb “a high place of overgrowth.”
450. Micah 4:1 sn Cf. Isa 2:2. See the note at Gen 49:1.
451. Micah 4:1 tn Heb “will be established as the head of the mountains.”
452. Micah 4:1 tn Heb “it will be lifted up above the hills.”
453. Micah 4:2 tn Heb “and we can walk in his paths.”
454. Micah 4:3 tn Or “judge.”
455. Micah 4:3 tn Or “mighty” (NASB); KJV, NAB, NIV, NRSV “strong”; TEV “among the great powers.”
456. Micah 4:3 tn Heb “[for many nations] to a distance.”
457. Micah 4:3 sn Instead of referring to the large plow as a whole, the plowshare is simply the metal tip which actually breaks the earth and cuts the furrow.
458. Micah 4:3 sn This implement was used to prune the vines, i.e., to cut off extra leaves and young shoots (M. Klingbeil, NIDOTTE 1:1117-18). It was a short knife with a curved hook at the end sharpened on the inside like a sickle.
459. Micah 4:3 tn Heb “take up the sword.”
460. Micah 4:4 tn Heb “and there will be no one making [him] afraid.”
461. Micah 4:4 tn Heb “for the mouth of the Lord…has spoken.”
462. Micah 4:5 tn 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.
463. Micah 4:5 tn Heb “walk in the name of.”
464. Micah 4:6 sn The exiles of the nation are compared to lame and injured sheep.
465. Micah 4:7 tn Heb “make the lame into a remnant.”
466. Micah 4:7 tn 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 (halaʾ, “to be far off”; see BDB 229 s.v.), but attractive emendations include הַנַּחֲלָה (hannakhalah, “the sick one[s]”) from חָלָה (khalah) and הַנִּלְאָה (hannilʾah, “the weary one[s]”) from לָאָה (laʾah).
467. Micah 4:7 tn Heb “from now until forever.”
468. Micah 4:8 tn Heb “Migdal Eder.” Some English versions transliterate this phrase, apparently because they view it as a place name (cf. NAB).
469. Micah 4:8 sn The city of David, located within Jerusalem, is addressed as Daughter Zion. As the home of the Davidic king, who was Israel’s shepherd (Ps 78:70-72), the royal citadel could be viewed metaphorically as the watchtower of the flock.
470. Micah 4:8 tn Heb “to you it will come, the former dominion will arrive.”
471. Micah 4:9 tn 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.
472. Micah 4:9 tn Heb “Now why are you shouting [with] a shout.”
473. Micah 4:9 tn Heb “Is there no king over you?”
474. Micah 4:9 tn 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.
475. Micah 4:9 tn 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.
476. Micah 4:9 tn Heb “grabs hold of, seizes.”
477. Micah 4:10 tn Or perhaps “scream”; NRSV, TEV, NLT “groan.”
478. Micah 4:10 tn Or “redeem” (KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT).
479. Micah 4:10 tn Heb “hand.” The Hebrew idiom is a metonymy for power or control.
480. Micah 4:11 tn Heb “let her be desecrated.” The referent (Jerusalem) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
481. Micah 4:11 tn Heb “and let our eye look upon Zion.” This is a Hebrew idiom for a typically smug or condescending look by someone in a superior position.
482. Micah 4:12 tn 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.
483. Micah 4:13 tn Heb “I will make your horn iron.”
484. Micah 4:13 sn Jerusalem (Daughter Zion at the beginning of the verse; cf. 4:8) is here compared to a powerful ox which crushes the grain on the threshing floor with its hooves.
485. Micah 4:13 tn Or “the Lord” (so many English versions); Heb “the master.”
486. Micah 4:13 tn 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.
487. Micah 5:1 sn Beginning with 5:1, the verse numbers through 5:15 in the English Bible differ by one from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text (BHS), with 5:1 ET = 4:14 HT, 5:2 ET = 5:1 HT, 5:3 ET = 5:2 HT, etc., through 5:15 ET = 5:14 HT. From 6:1 the verse numbers in the English Bible and the Hebrew Bible are again the same.
488. Micah 5:1 tn 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.
489. Micah 5:1 tn 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).
490. Micah 5:1 tn 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.
491. Micah 5:1 tn Traditionally, “the judge of Israel” (so KJV, NASB).
492. Micah 5:2 sn Ephrathah is either an alternate name for Bethlehem or the name of the district in which Bethlehem was located. See Ruth 4:11.
493. Micah 5:2 tn Heb “being small.” Some omit לִהְיוֹת (lih^eyot, “being”) because it fits awkwardly and appears again in the next line.
494. Micah 5:2 tn Heb “from you for me one will go out to be a ruler over Israel.”
495. Micah 5:2 tn Heb “his goings out.” The term may refer to the ruler’s origins (cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT) or to his activities.
496. Micah 5:2 tn 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 (mime ʿolam, “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).
497. Micah 5:3 tn Heb “he”; the referent (the Lord) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
498. Micah 5:3 tn Heb “them”; the referent (the people of Israel) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
499. Micah 5:3 tn The words “to their enemies” are supplied in the translation for clarification.
500. Micah 5:3 sn The woman in labor. Personified, suffering Jerusalem is the referent. See 4:9-10.
501. Micah 5:3 sn Gives birth. The point of the figurative language is that Jerusalem finally finds relief from her suffering. See 4:10.
502. Micah 5:3 tn Heb “his”; the referent (the king) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
503. Micah 5:3 tn 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 countrymen are the coming king’s fellow Judahites, while the people 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; Ezek 37; Hos 1:11; 3:5.
504. Micah 5:4 tn Heb “stand up”; NAB “stand firm”; NASB “will arise.”
505. Micah 5:4 tn The words “the people” are supplied in the translation for clarification.
506. Micah 5:4 tn Heb “by the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.”
507. Micah 5:4 tn The words “in peace” are supplied in the translation for clarification. Perhaps וְיָשָׁבוּ (v^eyashavu, “and they will live”) should be emended to וְשָׁבוּ (v^eshavu, “and they will return”).
508. Micah 5:4 tn Heb “be great.”
509. Micah 5:4 tn Or “to the ends of.”
510. Micah 5:5 tn Heb “and this one will be peace”; ASV “and this man shall be our peace” (cf. Eph 2:14).
511. Micah 5:5 tc Some prefer to read “in our land,” emending the text to בְּאַדְמָתֵנוּ (b^eʾadmatenu).
512. Micah 5:5 tn Heb “raise up.”
513. Micah 5:5 sn The numbers seven and eight here symbolize completeness and emphasize that Israel will have more than enough military leadership and strength to withstand the Assyrian advance.
514. Micah 5:5 tn Heb “shepherds.”
515. Micah 5:5 tn Heb “and eight leaders of men.”
516. Micah 5:6 tn Or perhaps “break”; or “defeat.”
517. Micah 5:6 sn According to Gen 10:8-12, Nimrod, who was famous as a warrior and hunter, founded Assyria.
518. Micah 5:6 tc The MT reads בִּפְתָחֶיהָ (biftakheha) “in her gates,” but the text should be emended to בַּפְּתִיחָה (bapp^etikhah) “with a drawn sword.”
519. Micah 5:6 tn Heb “he”; the referent (the coming king) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
520. Micah 5:7 tn Heb “the remnant of” (also in v. 8).
521. Micah 5:7 tn Heb “will be.”
522. Micah 5:7 tn This could mean “(scattered) among the nations” (cf. CEV, NLT) or “surrounded by many nations” (cf. NRSV).
523. Micah 5:7 tn 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.
524. Micah 5:8 tn The words “its prey” are supplied in the translation for clarification.
525. Micah 5:8 tn Heb “and there is no deliverer.”
526. Micah 5:9 tn Heb “let your hand be lifted against your adversaries.”
527. Micah 5:9 tn Heb “be cut off.”
528. Micah 5:10 tn Heb “cut off” (also in the following verse).
529. Micah 5:12 tn 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.
530. Micah 5:12 tn Heb “from your hands.”
531. Micah 5:12 tn Heb “and you will not have omen-readers.”
532. Micah 5:14 tn 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.
533. Micah 5:14 tn The MT reads “your cities,” but many emend the text to צִרֶיךָ (tsirekha, “your images”) or עֲצַבֶּיךָ (ʿatsbbekha, “your idols”).
534. Micah 6:1 tn 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.
535. Micah 6:1 sn As in some ancient Near Eastern treaties, the mountains are personified as legal witnesses that will settle the dispute between God and Israel.
536. Micah 6:1 tn Heb “let the hills hear your voice.”
537. Micah 6:2 tn The prophet briefly interrupts the Lord’s statement (see vv. 1, 3) to summon the mountains as witnesses. Though the prophet speaks, the quotation marks have been omitted to clarify that it is not the Lord still speaking.
538. Micah 6:3 tn Heb “My people, what have I done to you?”
539. Micah 6:4 tn Heb “before you.”
540. Micah 6:5 tn Heb “remember what Balak…planned.”
541. Micah 6:5 tn 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).
542. Micah 6:6 sn With what should I enter the Lord’s presence? The prophet speaks again, playing the role of an inquisitive worshiper who wants to know what God really desires from his followers.
543. Micah 6:6 tn The words “with what” do double duty in the parallelism and are supplied in the second line of the translation for clarification.
544. Micah 6:6 tn Or “the exalted God.”
545. Micah 6:7 tn 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.” sn Since child sacrifice is forbidden in scripture (Deut 12:31; 18:10), the speaker is revealed to not be in earnest but perhaps sarcastic.
546. Micah 6:8 sn Now the prophet switches roles and answers the question of the hypothetical worshiper. He rebukes the extravagant surface remark by pointing to general character qualities that are lacking in Israel.
547. Micah 6:8 tn Heb “is seeking from you.”
548. Micah 6:8 tn Heb “except.” This statement is actually linked with what precedes, “What does he want from you except….”
549. Micah 6:8 tn Or “to act justly.”
550. Micah 6:8 tn Or “to love faithfully.” The Hebrew word חֶסֶד (khesed) is complex, sometimes translated “lovingkindness,” faithfulness,” or “loyal love.” It has also been understood as covenant loyalty. חֶסֶד is either the object or the manner of the infinitive “to love.”
551. Micah 6:8 tn Heb “to walk humbly [or perhaps, “carefully”] with.”
552. Micah 6:9 tn Or “the voice of the Lord is calling.” The translation understands קוֹל (qol, “voice”) as equivalent to an imperative.
553. Micah 6:9 tn Heb “one who sees your name is wisdom.” It is probably better to emend יִרְאֶה (yirʾeh, “he sees”) to יִרְאָה (yirʾah, “fearing”). One may then translate, “fearing your name is wisdom.” The Lord’s “name” here stands by metonymy for his authority.
554. Micah 6:9 tc The MT reads, “Listen, tribe (or staff) and who appointed it.” Verse 10 then begins with עוֹד (ʿod, “still” or “again”). The LXX reads, “who will set the city in order?” The translation assumes an emendation of וּמִי יְעָדָהּ. עוֹד (umi y^eʿadah. ʿod…, “and who appointed it. Still…”) to וּמוֹעֵד הָעִיר(umoʿed haʿir, “and the assembly of the city”).
555. Micah 6:10 tn The meaning of the first Hebrew word in the line is unclear. Possibly it is a combination of the interrogative particle and אִשׁ (ʾish), 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 (haʾesheh, from נָשָׁא, nashaʾ, “to forget”), “Will I forget?” The rhetorical question expects an answer, “No, I will not forget.”
556. Micah 6:10 tn Heb “the treasures of sin”; NASB “treasures of wickedness”; NIV “ill-gotten treasures.”
557. Micah 6:10 tn 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.
558. Micah 6:11 tn 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.
559. Micah 6:12 tn Heb “are full of violence.”
560. Micah 6:12 tn Heb “and their tongue is deceptive in their mouth.”
561. Micah 6:13 tn Heb “and I, even I, will make you sick, [by] striking you.”
562. Micah 6:14 tc The first Hebrew term in the line (וְיֶשְׁחֲךָ, v^eyeshkhakha) 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 כֹּחַוְיֶשׁ (v^eyesh koakh, “and [if] there is strength inside you”).
563. Micah 6:14 tn The meaning of the Hebrew term וְתַסֵּג (v^etasseg) 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.
564. Micah 6:14 tn The Hiphal of פָּלַט (palat) is used in Isa 5:29 of an animal carrying its prey to a secure place.
565. Micah 6:15 tn 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.
566. Micah 6:15 tn Heb “but you will not rub yourselves with oil.”
567. Micah 6:15 tn Heb “and juice, but you will not drink wine.” The verb תִדְרֹךְ (tidrokh, “you will tread”) must be supplied from the preceding line.
568. Micah 6:16 tn Heb “the edicts of Omri are kept.”
569. Micah 6:16 tn Heb “the house of Ahab.”
570. Micah 6:16 tn 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 1 Kgs 21.
571. Micah 6:16 tn The Hebrew term שַׁמָּה (shammah) can refer to “destruction; ruin,” or to the reaction it produces in those who witness the destruction.
572. Micah 6:16 tn Heb “her.”
573. Micah 6:16 tn Heb “[an object] of hissing,” which was a way of taunting someone.
574. Micah 6:16 tc The translation assumes an emendation of the MT’s עַמִּי (ʿammi, “my people”) to עַמִּים (ʿammim, “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.
575. Micah 7:1 tn Heb “appetite, soul.”
576. Micah 7:2 tn Or “have perished.”
577. Micah 7:2 tn Heb “and an upright one among men there is not.”
578. Micah 7:2 tn Heb “for bloodshed” (so NASB); TEV “for a chance to commit murder.”
579. Micah 7:3 tn Heb “their hands [reach] to evil to do [it] well,” or with slight emendation “their hands are skillful at doing evil.”
580. Micah 7:3 tn Heb “the official asks—and the judge—for a bribe.”
581. Micah 7:3 tn 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.
582. Micah 7:4 tc The MT reads יָשָׁר מִמְּסוּכָה (yashar mimm^esukhah) “a godly [person] from a thorn bush.” Theoretically the preposition מִן (min, “from”) could be comparative (“more than”), but it would need an attributive adjective for this meaning. Most likely this is a case of wrong word division, where the מ (mem) is not מִן (min, “from”), but is actually a third masculine plural pronominal suffix, similar to the first clause (“their best”). The line would read יְשָׁרָם מְסוּכָה (y^esharam m^esukhah) “their upright person is a thorn bush.”
583. Micah 7:4 tc The text is uncertain at several points. Where the MT reads יוֹם (yom, “day [of]”), the LXX reads οὐαὶ (ouai, “woe”) implying הוֹי (hoi, “woe”). The watchmen may be actual sentries or symbolic of true of false prophets. If reading with the MT, the “day of your watchmen,” might be the day they are on the lookout for, or the day they have announced. Reading “woe” either warns the sentries on the lookout or rebukes false prophets.
584. Micah 7:4 tn Or “has come.”
585. Micah 7:4 tn Heb “Now will be their confusion.”
586. Micah 7:5 tn Heb “guard the doors of your mouth.”
587. Micah 7:6 tn Heb “rises up against.”
588. Micah 7:6 tn Heb “his house.” Household may include servants as well as family.
589. Micah 7:8 tn The singular form is understood as collective.
590. Micah 7:8 tn Or “rejoice” (KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV); NCV “don’t laugh at me.”
591. Micah 7:8 sn Darkness represents judgment; light (also in v. 9) symbolizes deliverance.
592. Micah 7:9 tn Heb “bear, carry.”
593. Micah 7:9 tn Heb “until.”
594. Micah 7:9 tn Or “plead my case” (NASB and NIV both similar); NRSV “until he takes my side.”
595. Micah 7:9 tn Or “justice, vindication.”
596. Micah 7:10 tn Heb “who say.” A new sentence was begun here in the translation for stylistic reasons.
597. Micah 7:10 tn Heb “My eyes will look on them.”
598. Micah 7:10 tn Heb “a trampled-down place.”
599. Micah 7:11 sn Personified Jerusalem declares her confidence in vv. 8-10; in this verse she is assured that she will indeed be vindicated.
600. Micah 7:12 tn Heb “he.” 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).
601. Micah 7:12 tn The masculine pronominal suffix suggests the Lord is addressed. Some emend to a feminine form and take Jerusalem as the addressee.
602. Micah 7:12 tc The MT reads וְעָרֵי (v^eʿarey, “and the cities [of Egypt]”), but the parallel line indicates this needs emendation to וְעַד (v^eʿad, “even to”).
603. Micah 7:12 tn Heb “the River,” referring to the Euphrates River (so also NASB, NIV).
604. Micah 7:12 tn Heb “and sea from sea.” Many prefer to emend this to מִיָּם עַד יָם (miyyam ʿad yam, “from sea to sea”).
605. Micah 7:12 tn Heb “and mountain of the mountain.” Many prefer to emend this to וּמֵהַר עַד הַר (umehar ʿad har, “and mountain to mountain”).
606. Micah 7:13 tn Heb “on account of its inhabitants, because of the fruit of their deeds.”
607. Micah 7:14 tn The Hebrew term שֵׁבֶט (shevet) can refer to a rod, such as a ṣhepherd’s rod, or a “scepter.”
608. Micah 7:14 tn Heb “the flock of your inheritance.”
609. Micah 7:14 tn 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.
610. Micah 7:14 sn The regions of Bashan and Gilead, located in Transjordan, were noted for their rich grazing lands.
611. Micah 7:14 tn Heb “as in the days of antiquity.”
612. Micah 7:15 tn 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.
613. Micah 7:15 sn I will show you miraculous deeds. In this verse the Lord responds to the petition of v. 14 with a brief promise of deliverance.
614. Micah 7:16 tn Or “be ashamed of.”
615. Micah 7:16 tn 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.
616. Micah 7:17 tn Heb “like crawling things on the ground.” The parallelism suggests snakes are in view.
617. Micah 7:17 tn The translation assumes that the phrase אֶל־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ (ʾel y^ehvah ʾelohenu, “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.”
618. Micah 7:17 tn Heb “they will be in dread and afraid.”
619. Micah 7:17 tn The Lord is addressed directly using the second person.
620. Micah 7:18 sn The rhetorical question expects the answer, “No one!” The claim is supported by the following description.
621. Micah 7:18 tn Heb “one who,” a substantival participle. The descriptions in the rest of vv. 18-19 fill out the rhetorical question, “Who is a God like you?” That is, they provide descriptions of God as reasons that make him without equal. This context uses two participles, e.g. “who forgives” and “who pardons,” and then independent clauses with third person verbs. A similar construction occurs in Ps 113:5-9, with participles and a third person finite verb in v. 7. Here, making the two participles grammatically dependent on the rhetorical question and then switching to the third person is confusing English style. It masks that all these descriptions are serving the same function as a list of unique qualities of God, who is addressed in the second person. To tie these together in English, all the descriptions can be made into second person statements (so NIV), though this does not clarify the distinction of when the original text deliberately switches back to second person in v. 20. Another approach would be to translate the third person clauses as indefinite and dependent, e.g. “Who is…like you, someone who does X, someone who does Y?” Or the interrogative force can be be extended, e.g. “Who is the one who does not stay angry?”
622. Micah 7:18 tn Heb “passes over.”
623. Micah 7:18 tn Heb “of the remnant of his inheritance.”
624. Micah 7:19 tn The interrogative force of the previous verse is continued here, part of a list of attributes reinforcing the question, “Who is like God?”
625. Micah 7:19 tn 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.
626. Micah 7:19 tn 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.
627. Micah 7:19 tc The MT reads וְתַשְׁלִיך (v^etashlik, “and you will throw”), while the LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate read “he will throw,” implying וְהַשְׁלִיך (v^ehashlik). Being conceptually tied to the previous verb, this one should be part of the list begun in v. 18, so the third person form is expected. Also the vav plus perfect consecutive is more typical than vav plus imperfect in this setting.
628. Micah 7:19 tc Heb “their sins.” The LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate read “our sins.” The shape of the letters in the first person plural suffix נו (nun and vav) look very much like ם (a final mem), which makes the third person plural suffix. Confusing the two is not an uncommon copying error. It may also be an enclitic ם rather than a pronominal suffix. In that case the suffix from the preceding line (“our”) may be understood as doing double duty.
629. Micah 7:19 sn In this metaphor the Lord disposes of Israel’s sins by throwing them into the waters of the sea (here symbolic of chaos).
630. Micah 7:20 tn More literally, “You will extend loyalty to Jacob, and loyal love to Abraham.”
631. Micah 7:20 tn Heb “our fathers,” meaning “our forefathers.”
632. Micah 7:20 tn Heb “from days of old.”
633. Nahum 1:1 tn See note at Isa 13:1.
634. Nahum 1:1 tn Or “Nahum of Elkosh” (NAB, NRSV).
635. Nahum 1:2 tn Heb “jealous.” The Hebrew term קַנּוֹא (qannoʾ, “jealous, zealous”) refers to God’s zealous protection of his people and his furious judgment against his enemies. The root קָנָא (qanaʾ) 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.
636. Nahum 1:2 tn The syntax of this line has been understood both as a single clause (NRSV, NASB, NIV) and as two parallel clauses (KJV). The LXX reflects the latter, “God is jealous, and the Lord avenges.” Masoretic accentuation and Hebrew syntax support the former, that is, the accentuation links קַנּוֹא וְנֹקֵם (qannoʾ v^enoqem, “jealous and avenging”) together. Normal word order suggests that קַנּוֹא וְנֹקֵם (“jealous and avenging”) are attributive adjectives modifying אֵל (ʾel, “God”) and that the Lord is the subject. Another possibility is that the adjectives are a case of hendiadys and should be understood as “The Lord is a zealously avenging God.”
637. Nahum 1:2 tn Or “exceedingly wrathful”; Heb “a lord of wrath.” The idiom “lord of wrath” (וּבַעַל חֵמָה, uvaʿal 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.
638. Nahum 1:2 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).
639. Nahum 1:2 tn The verb נָטַר (natar) is a synonym of נָצַר (natsar) andשָׁמַר (shamar), each including a meaning “to keep, guard.” נָטַר (natar) is used elsewhere of keeping a vineyard (Song 1:6; 8:11-12) and guarding a secret (Dan 7:28). It describes a person bearing a grudge, seeking revenge, and refusing to forgive (Lev 19:18). It is also used in collocation with לְעוֹלָם (l^eʿolam, “forever, always”) and לָעַד (laʿad, “continually”) to picture God harboring rage against his enemies forever (Jer 3:5, 12; Amos 1:11; Ps 103:9). Contra HALOT (695 s.v.), it does not mean “to control anger” or “to be slow to anger” and is not collocated with אָף (ʾaf, “anger”) as the entry implies (see TWOT 2:576 and NIDOTTE 1581, s.v.). 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.
640. Nahum 1:3 tn Heb “long of nose.” The nose, specifically the flaring of the nostrils, represents anger. “Long of nose” means “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.”
641. Nahum 1:3 tc 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.
642. Nahum 1:3 tn Or “he will certainly not acquit [the wicked],” or “he certainly will not declare [them] to be free from punishment.” The accompanying infinitive absolute strengthens the modality of the finite verb making it a stronger assurance, hence “certainly will not.”
643. Nahum 1:3 tn 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.
644. Nahum 1:3 tn 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).
645. Nahum 1:3 tn Heb “clouds are the dust of his feet.”
646. Nahum 1:4 tn The term גָּעַר (gaʿar) 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 gʿr,” VT 14 (1969): 474; P. J. van Zijl, “A Consideration of the root gaʿar (“rebuke”),” OTWSA 12 (1969): 56-63; A. Caquot, TDOT 3:49-53.
647. Nahum 1:4 sn The “sea” is personified as an antagonistic enemy, representing the wicked forces of chaos (Pss 66:6; 72:8; 80:12; 89:26; 93:3-4; Isa 50:2; Mic 7:12; Hab 3:8; Zech 9:10).
648. Nahum 1:4 tn This somewhat unusual use of the preterite 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).
649. Nahum 1:4 sn The Assyrians waged war every spring after the Tigris and Euphrates rivers dried up, allowing them to cross. As the Mighty Warrior par excellence, the Lord is able to part the rivers to attack Assyria.
650. Nahum 1:4 tn The term אֻמְלַל (ʾumlal, “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 (dal^elu, “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 Nahum 1, 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.
651. Nahum 1:5 tn Or “because of him.” The Hebrew preposition מִמֶּנּוּ (mimmennu) 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 1:5a and 1:5b seems to favor the locative nuance: “The mountains quake before him (מִמֶּנּוּ), the earth is laid waste before him (מִפָּנָיו, mifanayv).”
652. Nahum 1:5 tn Traditionally, “the hills melt.” English versions typically render הִתְמֹגָגוּ (hitmogagu) as “melt” (KJV, NRSV, NIV, NJPS) or “dissolve” (NASB). The LXX renders it ἐσαλεύθησαν (esaleuthēsan, “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).
653. Nahum 1:5 tn Or “is upheaved”; or “heaves.” There is debate whether the originally unpointed Hebrew verb וַתִּשָּׂא (vattissaʾ) should be vocalized as וְתִּשָּׂא (v^ettissaʾ; NASB “is upheaved”; NRSV, NJPS “heaves”) from the root נָשָׂא (nasaʾ, “to lift up”) or as וַתִּשָּׁא (vattishaʾ, “is devastated, laid waste”) from the root שָׁאָה (shaʾah, “to devastate, lay waste,” see HALOT 1367 s.v. 1 שׁאה). 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.
654. Nahum 1:5 sn The phrase “the world and all its inhabitants” is used to stress the universal dimensions of God’s revelation of his glory and his acts of judgment (e.g., Pss 33:8; 98:7; Isa 18:3; 26:9, 18; Lam 4:12).
655. Nahum 1:5 tn The words “are laid waste” are not in the Hebrew text, but are an implied repetition from the previous line.
656. Nahum 1:6 tn Heb “stand before” (so KJV, NASB, NRSV, NLT). The Hebrew verb עָמַד (ʿamad, “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).
657. Nahum 1:6 tn 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 (zaʿam, “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 HT [21:31 ET]; 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).
658. Nahum 1:6 tn Heb “Who can rise up against…?” The verb יָקוּם (yaqum, “arise”) is here a figurative expression connoting resistance.
659. Nahum 1:6 tn 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.
660. Nahum 1:6 tn Or “burst into flames.” The Niphal perfect נִתְּצוּ (nitt^etsu) 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 (nitt^etsu) to נִצְּתוּ (nits^etu, 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.
661. Nahum 1:6 tn Heb “before him” (so NAB, NIV, TEV).
662. Nahum 1:7 tn 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.
663. Nahum 1:7 tn 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 (1:7a) because—like a fortress—he protects them in time of distress (1:7b).
664. Nahum 1:7 tc Some ancient versions read, “The Lord is good to those who trust him.” The MT reads לְמָעוֹז (l^emaʿoz, “a fortress”): the noun מָעוֹז (maʿoz, “fortress”) with the preposition לְ (l^e, see below). However, the LXX reflects the reading לְמֵעִיז (l^emeʿiz, “to those who trust [him]”): the Hiphil participle from עוּז (ʿuz, “seek refuge”) with the preposition לְ. The variants involve only different vocalizations and the common confusion of vav (ו) with yod (י). 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 HT [3:16 ET]; Jer 16:19; Neh 8:10; Prov 10:29).
665. Nahum 1:7 sn The phrase “time of distress” (בְּיוֹם צָרָה, b^eyom tsarah) refers to situations in which God’s people are oppressed by enemy armies (Isa 33:2; Jer 14:8; 15:11; 16:19; Obad 12; Pss 20:2; 37:39). Nahum may be alluding to recent Assyrian invasions of Judah, such as Sennacherib’s devastating invasion in 701 b.c., in which the Lord protected the remnant within the fortress walls of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 18-19; 2 Chr 32; Isa 36-37).
666. Nahum 1:7 tn Heb “he knows” or “he recognizes.” The basic meaning of the verb יָדַע (yadaʿ) 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 YADAʿ,” BASOR 184 (1966): 36-38.
667. Nahum 1:7 tn Or “those who trust in him” (NIV); NAB “those who have recourse to him.”
668. Nahum 1:8 tn Some scholars connect “in an overwhelming flood” (וּבְשֶׁטֶף עֹבֵר, uv^eshetef ʿover) 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.
669. Nahum 1:8 tc Heb “her place.” Alternately, some ancient versions read “his adversaries.” The MT reads מְקוֹמָהּ (m^eqomah, “her place”). This is supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls (מקומה, “her place,” found in 4QpNah) and Symmachus (τῆς τόποῦ αὐτοῦ, tēs topou autou, “her place”). The reading of the LXX (τούς ἐπεγειρουμένους, tous epegeiroumenous, “those who rise up [against Him]”) and Aquila (ἀντισταμενῶν, antistamenōn, “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, v^eʾoy^evayv) 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.
670. Nahum 1:8 tc The BHS editors propose emending the Masoretic reading יְרַדֶּף (y^eraddef, Piel imperfect of רָדַף [radaf], “to chase”) to יֶהְדֹּף (yehdof, 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.
671. Nahum 1:9 tn 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 (ti, “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 HT [42:5, 11 ET]; 43:5; 52:3 HT [52:1 ET]; 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).
672. Nahum 1:9 tn Less likely, “[What are you] thinking about.” When used with אֶל (ʾel) 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 (raʿah, “evil”; Zech 7:10; 8:17; Pss 35:4; 140:3; Prov 16:9) or when it is followed by the preposition עַל (ʿal; 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; Ps 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.
673. Nahum 1:9 tn 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.”
674. Nahum 1:9 tc 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).
675. Nahum 1:9 tn 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 (tiqqom, “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.
676. Nahum 1:10 tn The verb אֻכְּלוּ (ʾukk^elu, “they will be consumed”) is an example of the old Qal passive perfect third person common plural which was erroneously pointed by the Masoretes as Pual perfect third person common plural. The Qal passive of אָכַל (ʾakhal) 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).
677. Nahum 1:10 tn The particle עַד (ʿad) 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 (hoti heōs themeliou autou xersōthēsetai, “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 (ʿod, “again”); (2) The BHS editors suggest emending the MT’s כִּי עַד (ki ʿad) to הוֹי עִיר (hoy ʿir, “woe to the city!”) which appears in Nah 3:1; (3) The BHS editors suggest the alternate conjectural emendation of יִבְעֲרוּ כְ (yivʿaru k^e, “they will burn like…”); (4) H. Junker (Die zwolf kleinen Propheten, 175) suggests emending כִּי עַד (ki ʿad) to כְּיַעַד (k^eyaʿad, “like a forest”). Although the Masoretic reading is difficult, it is more plausible than any conjectural emendation.
678. Nahum 1:10 tc The MT reads סִירִים סְבֻכִים (sirim s^evukhim, “entangled thorn bushes”), and is supported by the Dead Sea text from Murabba`at: סירים סבכים (see DJD 2:197). The noun סִירִים (“thorn bushes”) is from סִיר (sir, “thorn, thorn bush,” BDB 696 s.v. II סִיר; HALOT 752 s.v. *סִירָה), e.g., Isa 34:13; Hos 2:8; Eccl 7:6. The Qal passive participle סְבֻכִים (s^evukhim) is from סָבַךְ (savakh, “to interweave,” BDB 687 s.v. סָבַךְ; HALOT 740 s.v. סבך), e.g., Job 8:17, which is related to Assyrian sabaku (“to entwine,” AHw 2:999.a) and Arabic sabaka (“to entwine”; Leslau, 51). The MT is supported by several LXX translators, e.g., Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion. It is also reflected in Vulgate’s spinarum perplexi (“thorn bushes entangled”). On the other hand, the Syriac Peshitta reflects סָרִים סוֹרְרִים (sarim sor^erim, “your princes are rebels”) which points to orthographic confusion and a different vocalization. Similar textual confusion is apparent in Origen: θεμελίου αὐτοῦ ξερσωθήσεται (themeliou autou xersōthēsetai, “his foundation shall be laid bare”) seems to reflect יְסֹדָם יְכָבֵּס (y^esodam y^ekhabbes, “their foundation shall be washed away”) which was caused by orthographic confusion and transposition of consonants. The MT should be retained.sn This simile compares the imminent destruction of Nineveh to the burning of a mass of entangled thorn bushes (Job 8:17). When thorn bushes are entangled they burn quickly and completely ( Eccl 7:6; Isa 34:13).
679. Nahum 1:10 tc The MT reading וּכְסָבְאָם סְבוּאִים (ukh^esavʾam s^evuʾim, “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 (ukh^esov^eʾim s^evuʾim, “and like drunkards sodden with drink”; Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic [BibOr], 61). Haldar equates Hebrew סָבָא (savaʾ) with Ugaritic spʾ (“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 (ukh^esovʾam) 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 (s^evuʾim) is the passive participle from סָבָא (savaʾ, “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 (’ukk^elu, “they will be consumed”) appears. The verb אֻכְּלוּ is frequently used in comparisons of consuming liquor and being consumed like chaff.
680. Nahum 1:10 tc The BHS editors propose emending the MT’s מָלֵא (maleʾ, “fully”) to the negative interrogative הֲלֹא (haloʾ, “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 (k^eqash yavesh, “like fully dried stubble”) or (2) an adverb modifying אֻכְּלוּ (ʾukk^elu, “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 (k^eqash yavesh) rather than אֻכְּלוּ.
681. Nahum 1:11 tn 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).
682. Nahum 1:11 tn Heb “a counselor of wickedness”; NASB “a wicked counselor”; NAB “the scoundrel planner.”
683. Nahum 1:12 sn Verse 12 begins with a typical prophetic introduction (“This is what the Lord says”) in language similar to the typical ancient Near Eastern messenger formula (see C. Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speeches, 100-115). This formula is frequently used to introduce prophetic speeches (e.g., Jer 2:5; Ezek 2:4; Amos 1:3). The messenger formula indicates that the prophet’s message is not his own, but is a revelatory and prophetic oracle from the Lord. It confirms the authenticity of the message.
684. Nahum 1:12 tn 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 (v^ekhen, “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).
685. Nahum 1:12 tn 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 (sh^elemim, 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).
686. Nahum 1:12 tn The particle וְכֵן (v^ekhen, “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 (sh^elemim, “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!”
687. Nahum 1:12 tc The MT reads אִם־שְׁלֵמִים וְכֵן רַבִּים (’im-sh^elemim v^ekhen 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 (katarxōn hudatōn pollōn, “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 (v^ekhen). Similarly, the Syriac reflects אֶל מֹשְׁלֵי מַיִם רַבִּים (ʾel mosh^ele mayim 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.
688. Nahum 1:12 tn The particle וְכֵן (v^ekhen, “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).
689. Nahum 1:12 tn Heb “they will be sheared.” The term “cut off” (גָּזָז, gazaz) is ordinarily used to describe the literal actions of “shearing” sheep (Gen 31:19; 38:12-13; Deut 15:19; 18:4; 1 Sam 25:2, 4, 7, 11; 2 Sam 13:23-24; Job 31:20; Isa 53:7) and “cutting” hair (Jer 7:29; Mic 1:16; Job 1:20). It is used figuratively here to describe the destruction of the Assyrian army (BDB 159 s.v. גָּזַז; HALOT 186 s.v. גזז).sn The expression they will be cut off is an example of a hypocatastasis (implied comparison); Nahum intentionally chose this term to compare the destruction of the Assyrians to the shearing of sheep. This word-play has great rhetorical impact because the Assyrians frequently used sheep imagery when boasting of the ease and brutality with which they defeated their enemies (see D. Marcus, “Animal Similes in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” Or 46 [1977]: 92-93). It is both appropriate (poetic justice) and ironic (reversal of situation) that the Assyrians themselves should suffer a fate which they boasted of inflicting upon others. They will be an easy, helpless prey for the Divine Warrior. Their punishment will fit their crimes.
690. Nahum 1:12 tc In v. 12 the MT preserves a string of plural forms followed by a seemingly anomalous singular form: וְעָבָר…נָגֹזּוּ…רַבִּים…שְׁלֵמִים (sh^elemim…rabbim…nagozzu…v^eʿavar, “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 (v^eʿavaru, “and they will pass away”). Several scholars emend the MT to the plural form, noting that the next word (וְעִנִּתִךְ, v^eʿinnitikh) 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 (ʿavar, “to pass through”) is a key word in Nahum 1; 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).
691. Nahum 1:12 tn The terms אֲעַנֵּךְ (ʾaʿannekh, “I will [no longer] afflict you”) and וְעִנִּתִךְ (v^eʿinnitikh, “I afflicted you”) are both derived from the root II עָנָה (ʿanah, “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 (v^eʿinnitikh loʾ ʾaʿannekh, “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.
692. Nahum 1:13 tn The particle וְעַתָּה (v^eʿattah, “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 weʿattah im Alten Testament,” VT 15 (1965): 289-99.
693. Nahum 1:13 tn Heb “his”; the referent (Assyria) has been supplied from context.
694. Nahum 1:13 tc 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 מַטֶּה 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).
695. Nahum 1:13 tn 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).
696. Nahum 1:13 sn The phrase the shackles that are on you draws an implied comparison between the chains and stocks of prisoners or slaves with the burden of international vassaldom to a tyrannical suzerain who demands absolute obedience and requires annual tributary offerings (e.g., Ps 2:3; Isa 52:2; Jer 27:2; 30:8). “Shackles” were the agent of covenantal discipline (e.g., Deut 28:48). Isaiah stated that the Assyrian “yoke” was the Lord’s instrument of discipline (Isa 28:22). The phrase I will tear apart the shackles that are on you draws an implied comparison (hypocatastasis) between removing the iron chains from a prisoner/slave and freeing a vassal from the oppression of a tyrannical suzerain through military conquest (Ps 2:3; Isa 52:2).
697. Nahum 1:13 tn Heb “your shackles.”
698. Nahum 1:14 tn Heb “has commanded concerning you.” The referent of the second 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.”
699. Nahum 1:14 tn Heb “from your name there will no longer be sown.”
700. Nahum 1:14 tn The MT reading אָשִׂים קִבְרֶךָ (ʾasim 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 ʾelohekha, “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 (ʾashiyim) 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).
701. Nahum 1:14 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).
702. Nahum 1:15 sn Beginning with 1:15, the verse numbers through 2:13 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text (BHS), with 1:15 ET = 2:1 HT, 2:1 ET = 2:2 HT, etc., through 2:13 ET = 2:14 HT. Beginning with 3:1, the verse numbers in the English Bible and the Hebrew Bible are again the same.
703. Nahum 1:15 tn Heb “the feet of a herald.”
704. Nahum 1:15 tn 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).
705. Nahum 1:15 sn The sacred vows to praise God were often made by Israelites as a pledge to proclaim the mercy of the Lord if he would be gracious to deliver (e.g., Gen 28:20; 31:13; Lev 7:16; Judg 11:30, 39; 1 Sam 1:11, 21; 2 Sam 15:7-8; Pss 22:25 [26]; 50:14; 56:12 [13]; 61:5 [6], 8 [9]; 65:1 [2]; 66:13; 116:14, 18; Eccl 5:4 [3]; Jonah 1:16; 2:9 [10]). The words “to praise God” are not in the Hebrew, but are added in the translation for clarification.
706. Nahum 1:15 tc 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 (b^eliyya’al, “the wicked one”) which is also misunderstood by the LXX (see below).
707. Nahum 1:15 tc The MT reads בְּלִיַּעַל (b^eliyya’al, “the wicked one”; so ASV, NASB). The LXX reading εἰς παλαίωσιν (eis palaiōsin, “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.
708. Nahum 1:15 tn 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.”
709. Nahum 1:15 tn Or “pass through you” (NASB); or “march against you”; NCV “attack you.”
710. Nahum 1:15 tn Heb “he.” This is in agreement with the singular “wicked one” in the previous line.
711. Nahum 1:15 tn Heb “he is completely cut off.”
712. Nahum 2:1 tc 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 (emphusōn, “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 seems to be accepted by NRSV, “a shatterer,” NLT “coming to crush,” and perhaps NIV, “an attacker.” However, 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)
713. Nahum 2:1 tn The word “Nineveh” does not occur in the text but has been added to clarify who is being addressed.
714. Nahum 2:1 tn Or “has come up.” Used in reference to an army, the verb עָלָה (ʿalah, “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 (perfect) conjugation can denote a future action, but it is reported from the point of view of the vision in which it has been seen, thus the perspective is past.
715. Nahum 2:1 tn Heb “against your face”; NASB, NRSV “against you.”
716. Nahum 2:1 tn The Qal infinitive absolute נָצוֹר (natsor, from נָצַר [natsar], “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.
717. Nahum 2:1 tc The BHS editors suggest revocalizing the Masoretic noun מְצֻרָה (m^etsurah, “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 (mits^erah, “from distress”).
718. Nahum 2:1 tn 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”).
719. Nahum 2:1 tn Heb “Make [your] strength exceedingly firm.”
720. Nahum 2:2 tn The verb form שָׁב (shav) may be a perfect or a participle, probably based on the root שׁוּב (shuv, “return, restore”). It has been understood in many ways: “hath turned away” (KJV), “will restore” (NASB, NIV), “is restoring” (NRSV, ESV), or “is about to restore” (R. Smith, Micah–Malachi [WBC] 79). The past and future tense translations both treat the Hebrew form as a perfect, the past tense being the most common for the Hebrew perfect and the future tense based on an understanding of the Hebrew as a “prophetic perfect.” Typically a “prophetic perfect” is part of a report from a point of view after the events have taken place, such as a prophet reporting a vision that he has seen or is unfolding (Num 24:17). From the speaker’s perspective the events of the vision are in the past, though the corresponding events of human history will be in the future. The present tense and near future renderings are common for the participle, the latter especially true in prophecy. The Qal form of the verb is normally intransitive (“return”), but occurs here with the direct object marker. This occurs elsewhere 14 times meaning “restore,” but always with שְׁבוּת or שְׁבִית (sh^evut or sh^evit, “fortune” or “captivity”) as in Deut 30:3; Jer 29:14; Ezek 16:53; Joel 3:1; Amos 9:14; Zeph 3:20. This would be the sole example meaning “restore” without the apparently cognate direct object. Still, most scholars derive שָׁב from the root שׁוּב (shuv). W. A. Maier (Nahum, 232) contends, however, that שָׁב is derived from I שָׁבַב (shavav, “to cut off, to destroy, to smite”) which is related to Arabic sabba (“to cut”), Aramaic sibbaʾ (“splinter”), and New Hebrew. Maier admits that this would be the only occurrence of a verb from I שָׁבָב in the OT, but he argues that the appearance of the plural noun שְׁבָבִים (sh^evavim, “splinters”) in Hos 8:6 provides adequate support. While worth investigating, Maier’s proposal is problematic in relying on cognate evidence that is all late and proposing a rare word to replace a well-known Hebrew term which frequently appears in climactic contexts in prophetic speeches. On the other hand, it is easy to believe that a common word might be misunderstood in place of a rare term. And in this case either the verb or the syntax is rare, though an attested meaning of שׁוּב (shuv, “to restore”) makes good sense in this context. The LXX took it in a 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 (geʾon) 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 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.
721. Nahum 2:2 tc The BHS editors propose emending the MT reading גְּאוֹן (g^eʾon, “majesty; pride”) to גֶּפֶן (gefen, “vineyard”) due to the mention of “their branches” (וּזְמֹרֵיהֶם, uz^emorehem) in the following line (so HALOT 169 s.v. גָּאוֹן [2.b]). However, the LXX supports the MT.tn While גְּאוֹן (geʾon) 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).
722. Nahum 2:2 tn The preposition כְּ (kaf) on כִּגְאוֹן (kigʾon, “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.
723. Nahum 2:2 tn 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.
724. Nahum 2:2 tn Heb “plunderers have plundered them.” The Hebrew root בָּקַק (baqaq, “to lay waste, to empty”) is repeated for emphasis: בְקָקוּם בֹּקְקִים (v^eqaqum boq^eqim, “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).
725. Nahum 2:2 tn 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.
726. Nahum 2:3 tc The MT reads מְאָדָּם (m^eʾoddam, “reddened”) from אָדֹם (ʾadom, “red”). The LXX read the text as מֵאָדָם (meʾadam, “from man”) confusing the roots אָדָם (“man”) and אָדֹם (“red”).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 (m^etullaʿim, “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).
727. Nahum 2:3 tn The Pual participle מְתֻלָּעִים (m^etullaʿim, “dressed in scarlet”) from תָּלָע (talaʿ, “scarlet”) is used elsewhere of clothing dyed red or purple (Isa 1:18; Lam 4:5).
728. Nahum 2:3 tn 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, yithol^elu) 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).
729. Nahum 2:3 tc The MT reads the preposition בְּ (bet, “in, at, with”), but several Hebrew mss read the comparative preposition כְּ (kaf, “like”). The LXX seems to have read the בְּ (bet) but reads the opening clauses differently. Instead of מְתֻלָּעִים (metullaʿim, “those clothed in scarlet”) the LXX probably read מִתְעַלְּלִים (mitʿall^elim, “those making sport [with fire],”) which, as here, is typically translated in the LXX with ἐμπαίζω (empaizō, “mock, make sport”). The two prepositions are easily confused visually and the scribe’s understanding of how the object of the preposition functions in the clause could affect which preposition the scribe favored. The MT is the more difficult reading and better explains the origin of the variant since it easier to postulate the scribe would consider the בְּ (bet) to be a mistake. The use of the preposition בְּ is difficult to identify in this case, especially since it is a verbless clause. The KJV accepts the earlier emendation of לַפִּדוֹת (lappidot, “torches”) and renders “the chariots [shall be] with flaming torches.” The NRSV and NIV omit the prepositional phrase, giving “the metal on the chariots flashes.” The NASB supplies a verb “the chariots are enveloped in flashing steel.” It is unlikely to be a bet essentiae, as that use is not metaphorically comparative but points out a quality that the noun it modifies also has. Since the previous two lines describe the adornment of objects, the translation takes this phrase similarly and understands אֵשׁ (ʾesh, “fire”) metaphorically.
730. Nahum 2:3 tc The MT reads פְּלָדוֹת (p^eladot, “steel”; see the following note). The LXX’s αἱ ἡνιάι (hai hēniai, “the reins, bridle”) and Vulgate’s habenai (“reins”) may have confused פְּלָדוֹת (peladot) with כְּלָיוֹת (k^elayot, “kidneys, reins[?]”). The BHS editors suggest emending the MT’s פְּלָדוֹת (p^eladot) to לַפִּדוֹת (lappidot, “torches”) to create the simile כְּאֵשׁ לַפִּדוֹת (keʾesh 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 (k^eʾesh d^elafot) 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).tn Heb “the steel.” The Hebrew term פְּלָדוֹת is a hapax legomenon. The corresponding noun פְּלָדָה (p^eladah) probably means “metal, steel” (BDB 811 s.v. פְּלָדָה; HALOT 761 s.v. פְּלָדָה), and it is probably related to Arabic puladu, Syriac pldʾ, 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 (peladot 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.
731. Nahum 2:3 tn 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; Pss 7:13 [7:14 HT]; 57:6 [57:7 HT]). The third person masculine singular suffix (“its preparation”) is a collective singular, referring to the chariotry as a whole.
732. Nahum 2:3 tc Some scholars adopt the variant reading הַפְּרֹשִׁים (happ^eroshim, “the horses”) and relate הָרְעָלוּ (horʿalu) to Arabic raʿala (“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 (horʿalu, “are made to quiver”) is from רָעַל (raʿal, “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 (r^eʿal, “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.
733. Nahum 2:3 tc The MT reads הַבְּרֹשִׁים (habb^eroshim, “the cypresses”). A variant textual tradition (preserved in several Hebrew mss) reads הַפְּרֹשִׁים (happ^eroshim, “spears, horses, horsemen”) which is reflected in the LXX and Syriac. The variant noun הַפְּרֹשִׁים is derived either from IV פָּרַשׁ (“horse, horseman”; see BDB 831 s.v. פָּרַשׁ; HALOT 977 s.v. פָּרָשׁ) or II פָּרַשׁ (“spear, staff”) which is related to Akkadian parussu (“spear-staff”; see BDB 831 II פָּרַשׁ). The LXX connects הַבְּרֹשִׁים to IV פָּרַשׁ (“horsemen”) as indicated by its translation οἱ ἱππεῖς (hoi hippeis, “the horsemen”). While some English versions follow the MT (KJV, NASB, NIV, NJPS), others adopt the alternate textual tradition (RSV, NEB, NJB, NRSV).tn Heb “the cypresses”; alternately, “the horses.” The Hebrew noun הַבְּרֹשִׁים (habb^eroshim, “the cypresses”) is probably from the root בְּרוֹשׁ (b^erosh, “cypress, fir”) and is a figure of speech (synecdoche of material) in which the thing made (spear-shafts) is intended by the use of the term for the material out of which it is made (cypress wood). See K. J. Cathcart, Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic (BibOr), 89.
734. Nahum 2:4 tn Heb “the chariot.” This is a collective use of the singular, as indicated by the plural verb “[they] race madly” (see GKC 462 §145.b).
735. Nahum 2:4 tn The Hitpolel imperfect יִתְהוֹלְלוּ (yithol^elu, “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).
736. Nahum 2:4 tn The Hitpalpel imperfect יִשְׁתַּקְשְׁקוּן (yishtaqsh^equn, “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).
737. Nahum 2:4 tn Heb “Their appearance is like.”
738. Nahum 2:4 tn Or “like torches” or “flickering flames.” The Hebrew term לַפִּיד (lappid) occurs 12 times and usually 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 refers to “lightning bolts” in Exod 20:18 (see HALOT 533 s.v. לַפִּיד; BDB 542 s.v. לַפִּיד). Perhaps the term is a broad reference to shining objects, like torches, flames, and lightning, with the movement of light as part of the word also. Most English versions render this usage as “torches” (KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NJPS). But the parallelism with כַּבְּרָקִים (kabb^eraqim, “like lightning flashes”) suggests it may be nuanced “like lightning bolts.”
739. Nahum 2:4 tn 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).
740. Nahum 2:4 tn 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. 4b) and the speed of the chariots as suggested by the verb “they dash here and there” (יְרוֹצֵצוּ, y^erotsetsu, v. 5b).
741. Nahum 2:5 tn Heb “he”; the referent (the commander) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
742. Nahum 2:5 tn A Hebrew verb זָכַר (zakar) is likely related to Akkadian zakāru (“to declare, mention, give an order”; see CAD Z 17 s.v. zakāru A 1.c “to give an order”). While the West Semitic zakāru B (“to remember”) appears in Amarna Akkadian documents (CAD Z 22 s.v. zakāru B), the relation of Hebrew cases of זָכַר to Akkadian zakāru A is not entirely clear. The most common gloss for the Hebrew verb is “to remember,” but the dictionaries include meanings like “to mention” (HALOT 270 s.v. זָכַר 1, Concise DCH 100 s.v. זָכַר 1) which appear connected to Akkadian zakāru A. However the root is classified in Hebrew, whether one root, homonyms, or a loan word, this occurrence of זָכַר is well explained by the attested meaning of the cognate verb in Akkadian. The English versions are split regarding how to view the root: “he commands” (NJPS), “he summons” (NIV), “he recounts” (KJV), “he remembers” (NASB), and “he calls” (NRSV).tc The MT reads the Qal imperfect third person masculine singular יִזְכֹּר (yizkor) from זָכַר (zakar); see above note on its meaning. The rarity of this meaning for זָכַר in Hebrew has led to textual variants and several proposed emendations. The LXX reflects the Niphal imperfect third person masculine plural יִזָּכְרוּ (yizzakh^eru): καὶ μνησθνήσονται οἱ μεγιστᾶντες (kai mnēsthnēsontai hoi megistantes, “And their mighty men will be remembered”; or “will remember themselves”). The BHS editors suggest emending to יִזָּכְרוּ on the basis of the LXX. The BHK editors proposed emending to Pilpel imperfect third person common plural יְכַרְכְרוּ (y^ekharkh^eru, “they prance, they whirl”) from II כָּרַר (karar, “to dance”). None of the emendations are necessary once the existence of the homonym (or additional meaning) for זָכַר (“to order”) is recognized.
743. Nahum 2:5 tc The MT reads the Niphal imperfect third person masculine plural יִכָּשְׁלוּ (yikkash^elu, “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 (yishal^ekhu, Niphal from שָׁלַךְ [shalakh, “to cast forth”]) which also appears in 1 Kgs 13:24, 25, 28 (“hurled himself,” i.e., rushed headlong). Driver suggests that this is related to Arabic salaka VII (“to rush in”). He notes that the emendation would produce a tighter parallelism with the following noun: יְמַהֲרוּ (y^emaharu, “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.”
744. Nahum 2:5 tn 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.”
745. Nahum 2:5 tc The MT reads חוֹמָתָהּ (khomatah, “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).tn Heb “to her wall,” referring to Nineveh.
746. Nahum 2:5 tc The MT reads the Hophal perfect third person masculine singular וְהֻכַן (v^ehukhan, “and [it] is prepared”). On the other hand, the LXX reading reflects the Hiphil perfect third person common plural וְהֵכִינּוּ (v^ehekhinnu, “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 (v^ehakhin, “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.tn Heb “the mantelet is prepared.”
747. Nahum 2:5 tn 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 (סַכֹּתָה, sakkotah) 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).
748. Nahum 2:6 tn 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).
749. Nahum 2:6 tn Heb “and the palace melts.” The Niphal perfect נָמוֹג (namog, “is undulated”) from מוּג (mug, “to melt, to soften, to dissolve”) is sometimes used of material objects (earth, hills) being softened or eroded by water (Ps 65:11; Amos 9:13). Nahum pictures the river banks inside Nineveh overflowing in a torrent, crashing into the royal palace and eroding its limestone slab foundations.sn Ironically, a few decades earlier, Sennacherib engaged in a program of flood control because the Tebiltu River often flooded its banks inside Nineveh and undermined the palace foundations. Sennacherib also had to strengthen the foundations of his palace with “mighty slabs of limestone” so that “its foundation would not be weakened by the flood of high water” (D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon, 99-100). At the time of the fall of Nineveh, the Palace of Ashurbanipal was located on the edge of the sharpest bend of the Khoser River as it flowed through the city; when the Khoser overflowed its banks, the palace foundation was weakened (J. Reade, “Studies in Assyrian Geography, Part I: Sennacherib and the Waters of Nineveh,” RA 72 [1978]: 51).
750. Nahum 2:6 tn Or “the palace collapses and crumbles.” The Hophal perfect third person masculine singular וְהֻצַּב (v^ehutsav) is from either I נָצַב (natsav, “to stand”; HALOT 715 s.v. I נצב; BDB 662 s.v. נָצַב) or II נָצַב (“to dissolve, weaken”; HALOT 715 s.v. II נצב). Many scholars who take וְהֻצַּב from I נָצָב (“to stand”) suggest that the meaning is “it is fixed; it is determined” (BDB 662 s.v. נָצַב). This is followed by several English versions: “it is decreed” (NIV, NRSV) and “it is fixed” (NASB). This is a rather awkward idea and does not seem to fit the context of the description of the destruction of the palace or the exile of the Ninevites. On the other hand, several scholars suggest that וְהֻצַּב is derived from נָצָב II (“to be weak”; cf. Ps 39:6; Zech 11:16) which is related to Arabic nasiba (“to be weak”) or Arabic nasaba (“to suck out, to dissolve”) and Assyrian natsabu (“to suck out”); see W. H. F. Saggs, “Nahum and the Fall of Nineveh,” JTS 20 (1969): 220-21; R. D. Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (WEC), 69-70. As a parallel word to נָמוֹג (namog, “is deluged” or “melts”), וְהֻצַּב (“is weakened” or “is dissolved”) describes the destructive effect of the flood waters on the limestone foundations of the palace. The verse divisions in the MT place וְהֻצַּב at the beginning of v. 7 ET [v. 8 HT]; however, it probably should be placed at the end of v. 6 ET [v. 7 HT] and connected with the last two words of the line: וְהַהֵיכָל נָמוֹג וְהֻצַּב (v^ehahekhal namog v^ehutsav, “the palace is deluged and dissolved”; see Patterson, 69-70). This is supported by several factors: (1) the gender of וְהֻצַּב is masculine, while the verbs in v. 7 are feminine: גֻּלְּתָה הֹעֲלָתָה (gull^etah hoʿalatah, “she is led into exile and taken away”); (2) the gender of the final verb in v. 6 is masculine: נָמוֹג (“[the palace] is deluged”); (3) both וְהֻצַּב and נָמוֹג are passive verbs (Niphal and Hophal); (4) both נָמוֹג (“is deluged”) and וְהֻצַּב (“is dissolved/weakened”) are parallel in meaning, describing the effects of flood waters on the limestone foundation of the royal palace; (5) this redivision of the lines produces a balanced 3+3 and 2+2 colon count in these two lines; and (6) this produces a balance of two verbs each in each colon. The meaning of וְהֻצַּב is notoriously difficult. Scholars offer over a dozen different proposals but only the most important are summarized here: (1) Most scholars take וְהֻצַּב as Hophal perfect third person masculine singular with vav (ו) conjunction from I נָצַב (“to stand”), meaning “it is fixed; it is determined” (BDB 662 s.v. נָצַב). This is followed by several English versions: “it is decreed” (NIV, NRSV) and “it is fixed” (NASB). The LXX translation καὶ ἡ ὑπόστασις (kai hē hupostasis, “and the foundation”) reflects a reading of וְהֻצַּב with a meaning similar to its use in Gen 28:12 (“a stairway resting on the earth”) or a reading of וְהַמַּצָּב (v^ehammatsav) from the noun מַצָּב (matsav, “place of standing”; cf. BDB 662 s.v. מַצָּב; HALOT 620 s.v. מַצָּב). (2) The BHS editors suggest emending to Hophal perfect third person feminine singular וְהֻצְאָה (v^ehutsʾah) from יָצָא (yatsaʾ, “to go out”), meaning “she is led out into exile” or “she is led out to be executed” (HALOT 427 s.v. יצא; see, e.g., Gen 38:25; Jer 38:22; Ezek 14:22; 38:8; 44:5; Amos 4:3). (3) Early Jewish interpreters (Targum Jonathan, Kimchi, Rashi) and modern Christian interpreters (e.g., W. A. Maier, Nahum, 259-62) view וְהֻצַּב as the proper name of an Assyrian queen, “Huzzab.” This is adopted by several English versions: “And Huzzab is exiled” (cf. KJV, RV, NJPS). However, this view has been severely criticized by several scholars because no queen in Assyrian history is known by this name (G. R. Driver, “Farewell to Queen Huzzab!” JTS 16 [1965]: 296-98; W. H. F. Saggs, “Nahum and the Fall of Nineveh,” JTS 20 [1969]: 220). (4) Several scholars suggest that וְהֻצַּב is the Hophal perfect of II נָצַב which is related to Assyrian nasabu (“to suck out”) and Arabic nasaba (“to suck out; to dissolve”), as in Ps 39:6 and Zech 11:16. Taking גֻּלְּתָה (gull^etah) as the noun “column-base” (see translator’s note on the word “exile” in this verse), Saggs translates the line as: “its column-base is dissolved” (W. H. F. Saggs, “Nahum and the Fall of Nineveh,” JTS 20 [1969]: 220-21). Patterson connects it to the last two words of the previous line: וְהַהֵיכָל נָמוֹג וְהֻצַּב, “The palace collapses and crumbles” (Patterson, 69-70). (5) Driver revocalizes it as the noun וְהַצֹּב (v^ekhatsov, “and the [captive] train”) which he relates to the Arabic noun sub (“train”): “the train of captives goes into exile” (so NEB). This is reflected in the Greek text of the Minor Prophets from Nahal Heber which took וְהֻצַּב as “wagon, chariot.” (6) Cathcart suggests that the MT’s וְהֻצַּב may be repointed as וְהַצַּב which is related to Assyrian hassabu (“goddess”). (7) Several scholars emend to וְהַצְּבִי (v^ehats^evi, “the Beauty”) from צְבִי (ts^evi, “beauty”) and take this as a reference to the statue of Ishtar in Nineveh (K. J. Cathcart, Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic [BibOr], 96-98; M. Delcor, “Allusions à la déesse Istar en Nahum 2, 8?” Bib 58 [1977]: 73-83; T. Longman, “Nahum,” The Minor Prophets, 2:806). (8) R. L. Smith (Micah-Malachi [WBC], 82) derives consonantal והצב from נְצִיב (n^etsiv, “pillar”; HALOT 716-17 s.v. נְצִיב) which is related to Assyrian nisibi which refers to the statue of a goddess.
751. Nahum 2:7 tn The term “Nineveh” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied from context.
752. Nahum 2:7 tn The MT reads the Pual perfect third person feminine singular גֻּלְּתָה (gull^etah) from גָלָה (galah, “to uncover, to go into exile”; BDB 162-63 s.v. גָלָה; HALOT 191-92 s.v. גלה). There are two basic views of the meaning of גֻּלְּתָה in this verse. One view is that “She is stripped” (see R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi [WBC], 81). This may describe the exposure of the foundation of a building (Ezek 13:14) or the uncovering of intimate parts of the body (Exod 20:26; Isa 47:3; Ezek 16:36, 57; 23:29; ). This is reflected in the LXX reading ἀπεκαλύφθη (apekaluphthē, “she has been exposed”). This approach is followed by NASB (“she is stripped”). A second view is that “She is taken into exile” (KJV, NIV, NRSV, NJPS). The Qal stem of גָלָה often means “to go into exile” (Judg 18:30; 2 Kgs 24:14; Isa 5:13; 49:21; Jer 1:3; Ezek 39:23; Amos 1:5; 5:5; 6:7; Lam 1:3); the Hiphil often means “to deport exiles” (2 Kgs 15:20; 16:9; 17:6, 11, 26, 28, 33; 18:11; 24:14-15; 25:11; Jer 20:4; 22:12; 24:1; 27:20; 29:1, 4, 7, 14; 39:9; 43:3; 52:15, 28, 30; Ezek 39:28; Amos 1:6; 5:27; Lam 4:22; Esth 2:6; Ezra 2:1; Neh 7:6; 1 Chr 5:6, 26; 1 Chr 5:41 HT [6:15 ET]; 8:6; 2 Chr 36:20); and the Hophal stem always means “to be deported; to be taken into exile” (Jer 40:1, 7; Esth 2:6; 1 Chr 9:1). This makes the best sense in the light of the parallel verb הֹעֲלָתָה (hoʿalatah, “she is led away”) in v. 7 [8 HT] and the description of the fleeing Ninevites in v. 8 [9 HT]. The BHS editors and HALOT suggest that consonantal גלתה be vocalized as Qal perfect third person feminine singular גָּלְתָה (gal^etah, “she went into exile”) from גָלָה (Qal: “go into exile”). R. D. Patterson suggests vocalizing consonantal גלתה as the noun with third person feminine singular suffix גָּלְתָהּ for גּוֹלְתָהּ (gol^etah, “her exiles/captives”) and taking the singular form as collective in meaning: “her exiles/captives are carried away” (Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah [WEC], 70). W. H. F. Saggs suggests that גֻלְּתָה is the noun גֻּלָּה (gullah, “column-base”) as in 1 Kgs 7:41-42; 2 Chr 4:12-13 (BDB 165 s.v. גֻּלָּה 2.b; HALOT 192 s.v. גֻּלָּה 1.b) which is related to Assyrian gullatu (“column-base”; CAD 5:128). He renders the phrase וְהֻצַּב גֻּלְּתָה (v^ehutsav gull^etah) as “its column-base[s] is/are dissolved” (see above). He suggests that this provides an excellent parallel to “the palace begins to melt” (וְהַהֵיכָל נָמוֹג, v^ehahekhal namog). W. H. F. Saggs also proposes that the LXX reflects this picture (“Nahum and the Fall of Nineveh,” JTS 20 [1969]: 220-25).
753. Nahum 2:7 tn Or “And its column-bases collapse and it goes up [in smoke].” The MT reads the Hophal perfect third person feminine singular הֹעֲלָתָה (hoʿalatah, “she is carried away”) from עָלָה (ʿalah, “to go up”). The Hiphil stem of עָלָה often describes a military commander leading a group of forced workers out of a town (1 Kgs 5:13 [5:27 HT]; 9:15, 21; 2 Chr 8:8); likewise, the Hophal stem may denote “to be led away into exile” (HALOT 830 s.v.; BDB 748 s.v. עָלָה).
754. Nahum 2:7 tc The MT reads the Piel participle מְנַהֲגוֹת (m^enahagot, “sobbing, moaning”) from II נָהַג (nahag, “to moan, to lament”; HALOT 675 s.v.; BDB 624 s.v. II נָהַג). This root is related to Assyrian nagagu (“to cry”; AHw 2:709.b). This harmonizes well with the following cola: “Her maidservants moan like doves, they beat upon their breasts.” This is adopted by several English versions (NASB, NIV, NRSV). On the other hand, an alternate vocalization tradition (represented by several Hebrew mss, Targum Jonathan, LXX, and Vulgate) reads the Pual participle מְנֹהֲגוֹת (m^enohagot, “forcibly removed”) from the more common root I נָהַג (“to drive away, to lead away”; HALOT 675 s.v. נהג). This root is often used of conquerors leading away exiles or prisoners of war (Gen 31:26; Deut 4:27; 28:37; Isa 20:4; Lam 3:2). This picture is clearly seen in the LXX reading καὶ αἱ δοῦλαι αὐτῆς ἤγοντο (kai hai doulai autēs hēgonto, “and her maidservants were led away”). This textual tradition harmonizes with the imagery of exile in the preceding colon (see translator’s note on the word “exile” in this verse). This approach is adopted by several English versions (KJV, NJPS).tn Or “her maidservants are led away [into exile].”
755. Nahum 2:7 tn Heb “like the sound of doves.”
756. Nahum 2:7 tn The Poel participle מְתֹפְפֹת (m^etof^efot, “beating continuously”) is from תָּפַף (tafaf, “to beat”; HALOT 1037-38 s.v. תֹּף; BDB 1074 s.v. תָּפַף). Elsewhere it is used of beating timbrels (Ps 68:26; 1 Sam 21:14). The participle describes a circumstance accompanying the main action (“her maidservants moan”) and functions in a continual, repetitive manner (see IBHS 625-26 §37.6; R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 43, §221).
757. Nahum 2:7 tc The MT reads מְתֹפְפֹת עַל לִבְבֵהֶן (m^etof^efot ’al liv^evehen, “beating upon their hearts [= breasts]”). The LXX reading φθεγγόμεναι ἐν καρδίαις αὐτῶν (phthengomenai en kardiais autōn, “moaning in their hearts”) reflects either an alternate textual tradition or simple textual confusion. The Greek participle φθεγγόμεναι seems to reflect either: (1) the Qal participle הֹגוֹת (hogot) from הָגָה (hagah, “to moan”) as reflected in Targum Jonathan and Vulgate or (2) the Poel participle מְנֹהֲגוֹת (m^enohagot, “moaning”) from II נָהַג (“to moan”) which appears in the previous line, pointing to a transposition of words between the two lines.tn Heb “upon their heart.” The term “their heart” (לִבְבֵהֶן, liv^evehen) is a figure of speech (synecdoche of the inner organ for the outer body part) representing their breasts/chests (e.g., Dan 4:16 [13]; see HALOT 516 s.v. לֵבָב; BDB 523 s.v. לֵבָב II.1). The singular noun is used collectively for all the maidservants as a whole, as the plural suffix indicates (see IBHS 113 §7.2.1; R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 7, §2).
758. Nahum 2:8 tn Or “is.”
759. Nahum 2:8 tn The term “pool” (בְּרֵכָה, b^erekhah) usually refers to a man-made artificial water reservoir fed by water aqueducts rather than to a natural pond (HALOT 161 s.v.). For example, it is used in reference to man-made water reservoirs for the royal gardens (Eccl 2:6; Neh 2:14); man-made water reservoirs in Jerusalem, some of which were fed by aqueducts (2 Kgs 18:17; 20:20; Isa 7:3; 22:9, 11; 36:2; Neh 3:15, 16); the pool of Gibeon (2 Sam 2:13); the pool of Hebron (2 Sam 4:12); the pool of Samaria (1 Kgs 22:38); and the pools of Heshbon (Song 7:5). The pool of Siloam, built by Hezekiah and fed by the underground aqueduct known as Hezekiah’s Tunnel, is designated by the term בְּרֵכָה in 2 Kgs 20:20 and the Siloam Inscription (line 5).sn Nineveh was like a pool of water. This is an appropriate simile because Nineveh was famous for its artificial pools, many of which serviced the royal gardens. Two rivers also flowed through the city: the Tebiltu and the Khoser.
760. Nahum 2:8 tc The MT reads מִימֵי הִיא (mime hiʾ, “from her days”). The form מִימֵי combines the preposition מִן (min, “from”) and the plural construct of יוֹם (yom, “day”). The preposition מִן, used temporally, marks the beginning of a continuous period (“since, from”; see HALOT 597 s.v. מִן 2; BDB 581 s.v. מִן 4.a). The plural of יוֹם (“day”) here denotes “lifetime” (HALOT 400 s.v. יוֹם 6.c). Several scholars suggest that the third person independent pronoun הִיא (hiʾ) functions as a possessive genitive (“her”), a usage attested in Ugaritic, Akkadian, and elsewhere in Hebrew (2 Kgs 9:18; Isa 18:2; Nah 2:12). See K. J. Cathcart, Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic (BibOr), 100-101; IBHS 291 §16.2 n. 9; T. Longman, “Nahum,” The Minor Prophets, 2:807. So the phrase מִימֵי הִיא probably means “from the beginning of her days” or “throughout her lifetime” (cf. 1 Sam 25:28; Job 38:12; see HALOT 400 s.v. יוֹם 6.c; 597 s.v. מִן 2.a; BDB 581 s.v. מִן 4.a). Several English versions adopt this: “throughout her days” (NASB), “from earliest times” (NJPS), and “[Nineveh] of old” (KJV). In contrast to the Masoretic vocalization, the consonantal text מִימֵי הִיא is rendered “her waters” by the LXX and critical scholars. The LXX reading (τὰ ὕδατα αὐτῆς, ta hudata autēs, “her waters”) reflects the alternate vocalization מֵימֶיהָ (memeha, “her waters”). Saggs suggests that the original form was מֵימֶיהָא (memeha’, “her waters”) which he explains as מִימֶי, the plural construct of מָיִם (mayim, “waters”) plus הָא, the third person feminine singular suffix (cf. Ezek 41:15; GKC 107 §32.l); the yod (י) of Masoretic הִיא (hiʾ) is a secondary matres lectionis inserted into wrongly-divided and misunderstood ־הָא (W. H. F. Saggs, “Nahum and the Fall of Nineveh,” JTS 20 [1969]: 220-25). These alternative approaches are followed by several English versions: “its water is draining away” (NIV); “whose waters run away” (NRSV); and “its waters are fleeing” (NJB).
761. Nahum 2:8 tn This clause is understood as a contrast to the previous and adds “now” to help mark that contrast (cf. NJPS “Now they flee”).
762. Nahum 2:8 tn Heb “they”; the referent (the people of Nineveh) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
763. Nahum 2:8 tn Or “fleeing away”; or (maintaining the imagery of the pool of water) “draining away.”
764. Nahum 2:8 tn The introductory phrase “she cries out” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
765. Nahum 2:8 tn Or “can turn [them] back.” The Hebrew verb פָּנָה (panah, “to turn”) often describes the fearful flight from an attacking enemy army (Josh 7:12; Judg 20:42, 45, 47; Jer 46:5, 21; 47:3; 48:39; 49:8, 24). Nahum pictures the people of Nineveh fleeing from their attackers; nothing can be done to stop their fearful flight. The Hiphil participle מַפְנֶה (mafneh) may be taken in an intransitive (Jer 46:5, 21; 47:3; 49:24) or transitive sense (Judg 15:4; 1 Sam 10:9; Jer 48:39), i.e., “no one turns back” or “no one can turn [them] back,” respectively (see IBHS 436-43 §27.2).
766. Nahum 2:9 tn The phrase “Her conquerors cry out” has been supplied from context.
767. Nahum 2:10 tn Heb “Emptiness and devastation and being laid waste.” Several English versions attempt to reproduce the assonance, alliteration, and paronomasia of three similarly sounding Hebrew words: בּוּקַָה וּמְבוּקָה וּמְבֻלָּקָה (buqah um^evuqah um^evullaqah; NJPS “Desolation, devastation, and destruction!”; NRSV “Devastation, desolation, and destruction!”).sn Destruction, devastation, and desolation. The feminine form of each of these terms is used, referring to Nineveh (e.g., NASB “She is emptied! Yes, she is desolate and laid waste!”). Conquered cities are often personified as a desolated woman (e.g., Isa 47:1; 54:1).
768. Nahum 2:10 tn Heb “and shaking in all of the loins.”
769. Nahum 2:10 tn Heb “gathered.” The Piel perfect קִבְּצוּ (qibb^etsu) from קָבַץ (qavats, “to gather”) may be nuanced as gathering something together at a place (HALOT 1063 s.v. קבץ pi. 4) or the privative sense of gathering something away from a place, i.e., “to take away, withdraw” (BDB 868 s.v. קָבַץ Pi.3). Here then (and in Joel 2:6) it means either gathering redness in the face (“every face flushes red [in fear]”) or gathering redness away from the face (“every face grows pale”).
770. Nahum 2:10 tn The Hebrew term פָּארוּר (paʾrur) occurs only here and in Joel 2:6 where it also describes a fearful facial reaction. The meaning of פָּארוּר is debated and numerous etymologies have been suggested: (1) From פָּרוּר (parur, “cooking pot”; HALOT 964 s.v. פָּרוּר): LXX τὸ πρόσωπον πάντων ὡς πρόσκαυμα ξύτρας (to prosōpon pantōn hōs proskauma xutras, “all their faces are like a blackened/burned pot”); Vulgate et facies omnium sicut nigredo ollae (“all their faces are like a black pot”); Targum Jonathan (“covered with black like a pot”). This approach is adopted by the KJV “the faces of them all gather blackness.” (2) From פְּאֵר (p^eʾer, “beauty”). Taking קָבַץ (qavats) in a private sense (“gather in”), several scholars propose: “to draw in beauty, withdraw color,” hence: “their faces grow pale” (NASB, NIV); see K&D 26:192-93; A. Haldar, Studies in the Book of Nahum, 59. (3) From פָּרַר (parar, “break in pieces”). Due to fear, their faces have gathered wrinkles. (4) From IV פּרר (“to boil”), related to Arabic ʿpr and Syriac npr (“to boil”): “their faces glow red in excitement” (HALOT 860 s.v.). (5) From פּאר (“grey, ash grey”): “their faces turn grey” (J. J. Gluck, “parur—paʾrur: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia,” OTWSA 12 [1969]: 21-26). The NJPS translation appears to adopt this approach: “all faces turn ashen.”
771. Nahum 2:11 tn Or “What has become of the den of the lions?”
772. Nahum 2:11 tc The Masoretic form וּמִרְעֶה (umirʿeh, “the feeding ground”) is supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls with ומרעה in 4QpNah. It is also reflected in the LXX reading ἡ νομή (hē nomē, “the pasture”). The BHS editors suggest emending to וּמְעָרָה (um^eʿarah, “the cave”), which involves the metathesis of ר (resh) and ע (ʿayin). This proposed emendation is designed to create a tighter parallelism with מְעוֹן (m^eʿon, “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 (um^eʿarah, “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).
773. Nahum 2:11 tn The meaning of the term לָבִיא (laviʾ) is debated. There are three basic approaches: (1) the noun “lioness,” (2) the Hiphil infinitive construct of בּוֹא (boʾ), “to bring,” shortened from לְהָבִיא (lehaviʾ) to לָבִיא (cf. Jer 39:7; 2 Chr 31:10) and (3) as לבוא, “to enter,” the Qal infinitive construct of בּוֹא (boʾ). The first option has the support of the consonantal text of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 4QpNah and Mur88. Most English versions render לָבִיא as “lioness,” the parallel term for אַרְיֵה (ʾaryeh, “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). However if lion and lioness are the subjects of the verb, one would expect the nouns to be joined by the conjunction vav (ו) and the verb to be plural rather than singular. The line, as is, would read “where lion prowled, lioness there cub of a lion”). Furthermore, the term for “lioness” differs in form in the following verse: לִבְאָה (livʾah; see HALOT 515 s.v. *לִבְאָה) not לָבִיא (laviʾ). The grammatical, syntactical, and lexical difficulties of the first approach have led several scholars to the second approach. Because the Hiphil of בּוֹא (boʾ) can depict an animal bringing food to its dependents (cf. 1 Kgs 17:6), they treat the line thus: “where the lion went to bring [food to his] lion cub” (Ehrlich, Haldar, Maier). While the picture of a male lion bringing food to its cubs seems odd zoologically, the next verse presents that exact picture clearly (it is a metaphor). The third approach involves a small change of the consonantal text, from י (yod) to ו (vav) and has the support of the LXX which renders τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν (tou eiselthein) “where the lion went to enter there.” The pesher of 4QpNah employs לבוא (laboʾ) 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). The approach of the LXX is followed by the NRSV “where the lion goes, and the lion’s cubs, with no one to disturb them.”
774. Nahum 2:11 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.
775. Nahum 2:11 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].”
776. Nahum 2:13 tn The term נְאֻם (n^eʾum) is a fixed formulaic term meaning “oracle” (Isa 14:22-23; 17:3; 22:25; Jer 8:3; 25:29; 31:38; 49:26; Zech 13:2, 7).
777. Nahum 2:13 tn Traditionally, “the Lord of hosts” an abbreviation of a longer title “Yahweh, the God of Armies.” The title pictures God as the sovereign king who has at his disposal a multitude of attendants, messengers, and warriors to do his bidding. In some contexts, like this one, the military dimension of his rulership is highlighted. In this case, the title pictures him as one who leads armies into battle against his enemies.
778. Nahum 2:13 tc The MT reads the third person feminine singular suffix on a singular noun: רִכְבָּהּ (rikhbah, “her chariot”). However, the BHS editors suggest emending to the second person feminine singular suffix on a plural noun: רִכְבֵּךְ (rikhbekh, “your chariots”) due to the use of second person feminine singular suffixes throughout this verse and the anomaly of the singular noun. On the other hand, the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah) read רובכה (“your abundance”) which is the plene spelling of רֹבְכָה (rov^ekhah). This reflects the transposition (metathesis) of כ (kaf) and ב (bet) in the consonantal forms רכבה and רבכה. The textual tradition attested at Qumran is reflected in the LXX’s πλῆθος σου (plēthos sou, “your abundance”) which reflects a reading of רֹבְכָה (“your abundance”) as well. It should be noted that the plene form of the second person feminine singular suffix appears elsewhere in the MT of this verse: מַלְאָכֵכֵה (malʾakhekheh, “your messenger”). Although there is good evidence for the alternate traditions, the MT reading may be retained for three reasons: (1) The burning of enemy chariots was a common threat in ancient Near Eastern warfare (see D. R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, 60; K. J. Cathcart, “Treaty-Curses and the Book of Nahum,” CBQ 35 [1973]: 182). (2) The singular רֶכֶב (rekhev, “chariot”) is often used collectively to refer to all the chariots of a nation (Exod 14:7; Josh 11:4; 24:6; Judg 4:7, 13; 5:28). (3) The abrupt shift from the second person feminine singular suffix on אֵלַיִךְ (ʾelayikh, “I am against you!”) to the third person feminine singular suffix on רִכְבָּהּ (“her chariot”) is an example of a common poetic/stylistic device: heterosis of second to third person (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 525 [4.5]). The second person feminine singular suffix in the translation above is used simply for smooth literary style. This is a good example of how sensitivity to figures of speech, ancient Near Eastern backgrounds, and syntax can prevent unnecessary textual emendations.
779. Nahum 2:13 tn Heb “with smoke.” The term “smoke” (עָשָׁן, ʿashan) is a figure of speech (metonymy of effect for the cause) representing the fire which produces the smoke (Josh 8:19-20; Isa 65:5; cf. Rev 14:11). In the translation this has been replaced with “fire” since most English readers would find the expression “to burn [something] with smoke” unfamiliar.
780. Nahum 2:13 tc The MT reads וּכְפִירַיִךְ (ukh^efirayikh, “and your young lions”), as reflected by the LXX. The BHS editors emend to וּגִיבֹּרַיִךְ (ugibborayikh, “and your warriors”); this lacks textual support and is unnecessary.sn The Assyrian warriors are pictured as young lions in Nah 2:11-13. The Assyrians often pictured themselves with lion imagery (see D. Marcus, “Animal Similes in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” Or 46 [1977]: 87).
781. Nahum 2:13 tn Heb “I will cut off your prey from the land.”
782. Nahum 2:13 tc The MT reading מַלְאָכֵכֵה (malʾakhekheh, “your messengers”) has a very unusual ending: the plural ending of the noun is spelled defectively (short spelling), while the second person feminine singular pronominal suffix is spelled plene (long spelling); see GKC 258 §91.l. It is possible that the final ה (hey) is due to dittography with the first letter of the first word of the next verse, הוֹי (hoy, “Woe!”). On the other hand, the LXX reads τὰ ἔργα σου (ta erga sou, “your deeds”) which reflects מַלְאֲכַיִךְ (malʾakhayikh, “your deeds”)—a confusion of מַלְאָךְ (malʾakh, “messenger”) for מְלָאכָה (m^elaʾkhah, “deed”) due to the unusual Hebrew ending here.
783. Nahum 3:1 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 HT [21:32 ET]; 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 HT [5:6 ET]; 26:9; 55:24 HT [55:23 ET]; 59:3 HT [59:2 ET]; 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 HT [3:19 ET]; 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 [ʿir 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).
784. Nahum 3:1 tn Heb “All of her [is] lying.”
785. Nahum 3:1 tn Heb “full of plunder.”
786. Nahum 3:1 tn Heb “prey does not depart.”
787. Nahum 3:2 tn Heb “the sound of a whip.”
788. Nahum 3:2 tn Heb “the shaking of a chariot wheel.”
789. Nahum 3:2 tn Heb “a horse.”
790. Nahum 3:2 tn Albright argues that the term דֹּהֵר (doher) should be translated as “chariot driver” (W. F. Albright, “The Song of Deborah in Light of Archaeology,” BASOR 62 [1936]: 30). More recent research indicates that this term denotes “to dash” (HALOT 215 s.v.) or “to gallop, neigh” (DCH 2:417 s.v. דהר I). It is used as a synonym for רָקַד (raqad, “to skip”). This Hebrew verb is related to Egyptian thr (“to travel by chariot”) and Arabic dahara VII (“to hurry”). The related noun דַּהֲרָה (daharah) means “dashing, galloping” (Judg 5:22; HALOT 215 s.v.; DCH 2:417 s.v. דַּהֲרָה I).
791. Nahum 3:2 tn Heb “a chariot.”
792. Nahum 3:2 tn The Piel participle מְרַקֵּדָה (m^eraqqedah, “jolting”) is from רַקַד (raqad); this verb means “to dance, to leap” (of children, Job 21:11), “to skip about, to dance” (Eccl 3:4), and “to leap” (of chariots, Joel 2:5). In related Semitic languages (Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Arabic) the root raqad means “to dance, to skip about.” Here, the verb is used as a figurative expression (hypocatastasis) to describe the jostling of the madly rushing war-chariots.
793. Nahum 3:3 tn Heb “a horseman.” While the Hebrew term פָּרָס (paras) can also denote “horse” (1 Sam 8:11; Joel 2:4; Hab 1:8; Jer 46:4), the Hiphil participle מַעֲלֶה (maʾaleh, “cause to charge”) requires a human agent, clarifying that here פָּרָס refers here to “horsemen” charging their horses (2 Sam 1:6; 1 Kgs 20:20; Jer 4:29; 46:4) cf. HALOT 830 s.v. עָלָה.
794. Nahum 3:3 tn The term מַעֲלֶה (maʿaleh; the Hiphil participle “cause to charge”) refers to charioteers bringing war-horses up to a charge or attack (e.g., Jer 46:9; 51:27). The ASV renders as the “[the horseman] mounting,” but this should be the Qal, while the KJV views the horseman as raising the sword and the spear, for which one would not expect the conjunction vav (ו) to begin the first direct object.
795. Nahum 3:3 tn Heb “a sword.”
796. Nahum 3:3 tn Heb “flash of a sword.” Alternately, “swords flash.” Although לַהַב (lahav) can mean “blade” (Judg 3:22; 1 Sam 17:7), it means “flash [of the sword]” here (e.g., Hab 3:11; see HALOT 520 s.v.) as suggested by its parallelism with וּבְרַק (uv^eraq, “flashing, gleaming point [of the spear]”); cf. Job 20:25; Deut 32:41; Hab 3:11; Ezek 21:15.
797. Nahum 3:3 tn Heb “a spear.”
798. Nahum 3:3 tn Heb “and flash of a spear.” Alternately, “spears glimmer” (HALOT 162 s.v. בָּרָק).
799. Nahum 3:3 tn Heb “many slain.”
800. Nahum 3:3 tc The MT reads לַגְּוִיָּה (lagg^eviyyah, “to the dead bodies”). The LXX reflects לְגוֹיָה (l^egoyah, “to her nations”) which arose due to confusion between the consonant ו (vav) and the vowel וֹ (holem-vav) in an unpointed text.tn Heb “There is no end to the dead bodies.”
801. Nahum 3:3 tn Heb “they.”
802. Nahum 3:4 tn The preposition מִן (min) on מֵרֹב (merov; Heb “from the abundance of harlotries”) is causal: “because of; in consequence of” (HALOT 598 מִן 6; BDB 579-80 s.v. מִן 2.e). See, e.g., Exod 2:23; 15:23; Deut 7:7; 2 Sam 3:11, 37; Job 22:4; Isa 6:4; 43:4; 53:5; Ezek 28:5, 18; Nah 1:5; Zech 2:8; see also IBHS 213 §11.2.11.d; R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 58, §319. The causal sense is supported by the LXX’s ἀπό (apo, “from, because of”). Most English versions adopt the causal sense (KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NJPS).
803. Nahum 3:4 tn Heb “Because of the many harlotries of the harlot.” The MT connects v. 4 with vv. 5-6; however, the LXX connects v. 4 with vv. 1-3. The Masoretic division is followed by NRSV and NJPS; the LXX division is followed by KJV and NIV; and the NASB division equivocates on the issue. It is best to connect v. 4 with vv. 5-6 (following the MT) because: (1) vv. 1-3 constitute a self-contained woe-oracle; and (2) the theme of the harlot unifies vv. 4-6: the accusation against the harlot (v. 4) and the stereotypical punishment of the harlot (vv. 5-6).
804. Nahum 3:4 tn Heb “fair of form, a mistress of sorceries.”
805. Nahum 3:4 tn Heb “she.” This has been translated as a relative pronoun for stylistic reasons. The shift from second person feminine singular (“you”) to third person feminine singular (“she”) is an example of heterosis of persons, a common literary/poetic device used in Hebrew poetry and prophetic literature.
806. Nahum 3:4 tc The MT reads the Qal participle הַמֹּכֶרֶת (hammokheret) which is derived from מָכַר (makhar, “to sell, to betray”): “the one who sells/betrays [nations].” The MT is supported by the LXX. The Dead Sea Scrolls read הממכרת (4QpNah 2:7): “the one who sells/betrays [nations]” (see DJD 5:38). Dahood repoints the MT as a Hophal participle, הַמֻּכֶּרֶת (hammukkeret) from נָכַר (nakhar, “to know, to recognize”): “the one who is known [by the nations for her harlotries]” (M. Dahood, “Causal Beth and the Root NKR in Nahum 3.4,” Bib 52 [1971]: 395-96). The BHS editors suggest emending the MT, due to metathesis, to הַכֹּמֶרֶת (hakkomeret) from II כמר (“to ensnare”; HALOT 482 s.v. II כמר) which is related to Assyrian kamaru [A] (“to ensnare”): “The one who ensnares [nations].” The related nouns “snare; net” (מִכְמָר, mikhmar) and “net” (מִכְמֶרֶת, mikhmeret) are used as metaphors of the wicked destroying their victims (Ps 141:10; Isa 51:20; Hab 1:15, 16). This approach is adopted by NJPS: “who ensnared nations.” Others suggest emending to the Qal participle הַכֹּמֶרֶת from III כמר (“to destroy, to overthrow”; BDB 485 s.v. III כמר) related to Assyrian kamaru [B] (“to destroy; to annihilate”): “the one who destroys nations.” The MT may be retained due to strong external support (LXX and 4QpNah) and adequate internal support; the conjectural emendations are unnecessary.tn Heb “sells.” Alternately, “enslaves”; or perhaps “deceives.” Most scholars derive the Qal participle הַמֹּכֶרֶת from מָכַר (makhar, “to sell, to betray”): “who sells nations.” When used in reference to people, this verb may denote three things: (1) to sell slaves or prisoners of war (Exod 21:8; Deut 21:14; 24:7; Joel 4:3, 6 HT [3:3, 6 ET]); (2) to sell off someone into the hands of the enemy, that is, to give someone entirely into their power (Exod 21:7; 22:2; Deut 32:30; Judg 2:14; 3:8; 4:2; 10:7; 1 Sam 12:9; Isa 50:1; Joel 4:8 HT [3:8 ET]; Ps 44:13); and (3) to betray someone (possibly the meaning here in Nah 3:4?); see HALOT 581-82 s.v. I מכר; BDB 569 s.v. מָכַר. This is related to Assyrian makara (“to carry out trade; to make merchandise of”). Some English versions nuance הַמֹּכֶרֶת as “who sells nations” (KJV, NASB); others nuance it metonymically, “who enslaves nations” (NIV, NRSV). Thomas derives הַמֹּכֶרֶת from II מָכַר (“to deceive, to beguile, to betray”) which is related to Arabic makara (“to betray”): “who deceives the nations” (D. W. Thomas, “The Root mkr in Hebrew,” JTS 37 [1936]: 388-89; idem, “A Further Note on the Root mkr in Hebrew,” JTS 3 [1952]: 214).
807. Nahum 3:4 tn Heb “the one who sells nations by her harlotries.”
808. Nahum 3:4 tn Heb “and clans by her sorceries.”
809. Nahum 3:5 tn Traditionally, “the Lord of hosts.” See the note at 2:13.
810. Nahum 3:5 tn Heb “I will uncover your skirts over your face.”sn Strip off your clothes. In the ancient Near East, the typical punishment for a prostitute was to strip her of her clothes publicly to expose her to open shame, embarrassment, and public ridicule. Because Nineveh had acted like a prostitute, the Lord would punish her as a prostitute.
811. Nahum 3:6 tn Heb “detestable things”; KJV, ASV “abominable filth”; NCV “filthy garbage.”
812. Nahum 3:7 tc While the MT reads second person feminine singular לָךְ (lakh, “for you”), the LXX reads αὔτή (autē, “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 more difficult reading; and (3) it explains the origin of the LXX which probably harmonized this with the preceding third 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). The LXX treats the final phrase as part of the onlookers’ quote while the MT treats it as part of the Lord’s address.tn Heb “From whence shall I find comforters for you?”
813. Nahum 3:8 tn Heb “Are you better than Thebes?”
814. Nahum 3:8 tn Heb “No-Amon.” The name is transliterated by NAB, NASB; many other English versions employ the equivalent “Thebes.”
815. Nahum 3:8 tn The relative pronoun אֲשֶׁר (ʾasher) is functioning in a possessive sense: “whose” (Job 37:17; Ps 95:5; Isa 5:28; 49:23; Jer 31:32; see HALOT 98 s.v. 4).
816. Nahum 3:8 tn The consonantal form חיל is vocalized in the MT as חֵיל (khel, “rampart”). The LXX translation ἡ ἀρξή (hē arxē, “strength”) reflects confusion between the relatively rare חֵיל and the more common חַיִל (khayil, “strength”); see HALOT 310-12.
817. Nahum 3:8 tn Heb “from (the) sea.” The form should be emended to מַיִם (mayim, “water”). This is a figurative description of the Nile River: It functioned like a fortress wall for Thebes.
818. Nahum 3:9 sn Cush is the Hebrew name for the ancient kingdom of Ethiopia (also known as Nubia) along the Nile valley south of Aswan in Egypt. Many modern English versions render this “Ethiopia,” but this area is not to be confused with modern Ethiopia (i.e., Abyssinia).
819. Nahum 3:9 tn Or “Cush was limitless and Egypt was strong.” The NIV treats the two nations (“Cush and Egypt”) as a hendiadys of the predicate and translates them as one clause. On the other hand, NJPS treats them separately and translates them in two different clauses.
820. Nahum 3:9 tn Heb “Lubim.” Most modern English versions render this as “Libya” or “the Libyans.”
821. Nahum 3:9 tn The preposition בְּ (bet) in בְּעֶזְרָתֵךְ (b^eʿezratekh) should probably be taken as a bet of identity rather than in a locative sense (DCH 2:84 s.v. בְּ 7; HALOT 104 s.v. בְּ 3).
822. Nahum 3:9 tc The MT, supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls 4QpNah and Mur88, reads “your help.” The LXX and Syriac read “her help.” While the MT has strong external support, the internal evidence supports the LXX. The speaker is still speaking about Thebes to Nineveh and a shift to second person would imply a brief direct address to Nineveh, for whom the named nations were not allies.tn The noun עֶזְרָה (ʿezrah) means “help, assistance, strength” (HALOT 812, s.v.). Nations named as help would either be allies or vassals responsible to give support.
823. Nahum 3:9 tn The Hebrew noun עָזָר (ʿazar) has been understood in two ways: (1) In the light of the Ugaritic root ǵzr (“hero, valiant one, warrior”), several scholars posit the existence of the Hebrew root II עָזַר (“warrior”), and translate בְּעֶזְרָתֵךְ (b^eʿezratekh) as “in your army” (M. Dahood, Psalms, 1:210; P. Miller, “Ugaritic ǴZR and Hebrew ʿZR II,” UF 2 [1970]: 168). (2) It is better to relate the Hebrew עָזָר to Canaanite izirtu (“military help”) which appears several times in the El-Amarna correspondence: “Let him give you soldiers and chariots as help for you so that they may protect the city” (EA 87:13) and “I have provided help for Tyre” (EA 89:18); see K. J. Cathcart, “More Philological Studies in Nahum,” JNWSL 7 (1979): 11.
824. Nahum 3:10 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 (aixmalōtos, “as a prisoner”) does not reveal which preposition was the original.
825. Nahum 3:10 tc The past-time reference of the context indicates that the Pual verb יְרֻטְּשׁוּ (y^erutt^eshu) 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 (rutt^eshu, “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).
826. Nahum 3:10 tc The MT reads יַדּוּ (yaddu, “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.
827. Nahum 3:10 tc The MT and Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah) read ועל נכבדיה (“for her nobles”). The LXX reflects וְעַל כָּל נִכְבַּדֶּיהָ (v^eʿal 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.
828. Nahum 3:11 tc The MT reads תִּשְׁכְּרִי (tishk^eri, “you will become drunk”), the Qal imperfect from שָׁכַר (shakhar, “to become drunk”; HALOT 1501 s.v. שׁכר). The editors of BHS suggest emending the MT to read the תִּשָּׁבְרִי (tishav^eri, “you will be broken”), the Niphal imperfect from שָׁבַר (shavar, “to break”; HALOT 1402 s.v. שׁבר). However, there is no external textual support for the emendation. The imagery of drunkenness is a common figure for defeat in battle.tn Heb “you will be drunken.”sn You…will act like drunkards. The imagery of drunkenness is frequently used to describe defeat in battle (Isa 49:26; Jer 25:27; 51:21). It is an appropriate use of imagery: Drunkards frequently pass out and wine drools out of their mouth; likewise, slain warriors lie fallen and their blood flows out of their mouths.
829. Nahum 3:11 tc The MT reads the Niphal participle נַעֲלָמָה (naʿalamah) from I עָלַם (ʿalam, “to conceal”). This is supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls with נעלמה in (4QpNah 3:11) and is reflected by the LXX. Several scholars suggest nuancing the Niphal in a passive sense: “you will be concealed” or “you will be obscured” (BDB 761 s.v. I עָלַם Niphal 2). However, the reflexive sense “you will conceal yourself; you will hide yourself” (e.g., Ps 26:4) is better (HALOT 835 s.v. עלם). On the other hand, the BHS editors suggest emending to the Niphal participle נֶעֱלָפָה (neʿelafah) from עָלַף (ʿalaf, “become faint”): “you will become faint,” “you will pass out,” or “you will swoon” (HALOT 836 s.v. עלף; BDB 761 s.v. I. עָלַם 2). This is unnecessary and lacks textual support.tn Heb “you will hide yourself.”
830. Nahum 3:12 sn Ironically, Sennacherib had recently planted fig trees along all the major avenues in Nineveh to help beautify the city, and had encouraged the citizens of Nineveh to eat from these fruit trees. How appropriate that Nineveh’s defenses would now be compared to fig trees whose fruit would be eaten by its enemies.
831. Nahum 3:12 sn This extended simile compares the siege of Nineveh with reapers shaking a tree to harvest the “first-ripe fruit.” Fruit that matured quickly and ripened early in the season dropped from the trees more easily than the later crop which developed more slowly (Isa 28:4). To harvest the later crop the worker had to climb the tree (16 to 20 feet tall) and pick the figs by hand from each branch. On the other hand, the fruit from the early harvest could be gathered quickly and with a minimum of effort by simply shaking the trunk of the tree (G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palestina, 1:378-80). The point of this simile is that Nineveh would fall easily and quickly.
832. Nahum 3:12 tn This conditional sentence expresses a real anticipated situation expected to occur in the future, rather than an unreal completely hypothetical situation. The particle אִם (ʾim, “if”) introduces real conditions (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 75, §453). The imperfect tense verb יִנּוֹעוּ (yinnoʿu, “they are shaken”) depicts a future-time action conceived as a real situation expected to occur (see Joüon 2:629 §167.c; IBHS 510-11 §31.6.1).
833. Nahum 3:12 tn Heb “they”; the referent (the first ripe fruit of the previous line, rendered here as “their figs”) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
834. Nahum 3:12 tn The syntax of the concluding clause (apodosis) emphasizes that this action is expected and certain to occur. This clause is introduced by vav conjunction and the perfect tense verb וְנָפְלוּ (v^enaf^elu, “they will fall”) which emphasizes the expected certainty of the action (see Joüon 2:627-33 §167; IBHS 526-29 §32.2.1).
835. Nahum 3:12 sn This is appropriate imagery and highly ironic. After defeating their enemies, the Assyrian kings often encouraged their troops to consume the fruit of the conquered city’s fruit trees.
836. Nahum 3:13 tn Or “have been opened wide.” The Niphal perfect נִפְתְּחוּ (nift^ekhu) 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 nift^ekhu, “wide open”).
837. Nahum 3:13 tn Or “has consumed.” The Qal perfect אָכְלָה (ʾokhlah) from אָכַל (ʾakhal, “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).
838. Nahum 3:13 tn Heb “your bars.”
839. Nahum 3:14 tn Heb “waters of siege.”
840. Nahum 3:14 tn Heb “go into the mud.”
841. Nahum 3:14 tn Heb “Take hold of the mud-brick mold!”
842. Nahum 3:15 sn The expression the fire will consume you is an example of personification. Fire is often portrayed consuming an object like a person might consume food (Lev 6:3; 10:2; 16:25; Num 16:35; Deut 4:24; 5:22; Judg 9:15; 1 Kgs 18:38; 2 Kgs 1:10, 12, 14; 2 Chr 7:1; Isa 5:24; 10:17; 30:27, 30; 33:14; Amos 1:4, 7, 10, 12, 14; 2:2, 5; 5:6).
843. Nahum 3:15 tn The verb אָכַל (ʾakhal, “to consume, to devour”) is used twice for emphasis: “the fire will consume you, the sword…will devour you.”sn The expression the sword…will devour you is an example of personification; the sword is frequently portrayed as consuming or devouring a defeated enemy (Deut 32:42; 2 Sam 2:26; 11:25; 18:8; Hos 11:6; Jer 2:30; 12:12); see BDB 37 s.v. אָכַל 4; HALOT 46 s.v. אכל.
844. Nahum 3:15 tc The root כָּבֵד (kaved, “be heavy”) is repeated for emphasis: the forms are the Hitpael infinitive absolute הִתְכַּבֵּד (hitkabbed) and Hitpael imperative הִתְכַּבְּדִי (hitkabb^edi), both translated here as “Multiply yourself”). The infinitive absolute functions as an imperative (GKC §113.bb, 346). The BHS editors suggest emending the infinitive absolute to another imperative in order to have a finite verb in each line. But perhaps the infinitive absolute functions as an imperative (GKC §113.bb, 346). The LXX omits the first clause suggesting dittography in the Hebrew text.
845. Nahum 3:16 tn Or “Increase!” or “You have increased.” The form and meaning of the MT perfect tense verb הִרְבֵּית (hirbet; from רָבָה [ravah], “to increase”) is debated. The LXX translated it as a simple past meaning. However, some scholars argue for an imperatival form or an imperatival nuance due to the presence of the two preceding volitive forms: הִתְכַּבֵּד (hitkabbed) and הִתְכַּבְּדִי (hitkabb^edi, “Multiply…multiply!”). For example, the editors of BHS propose emending the perfect tense הִרְבֵּית to the imperative form הַרְבִי (harvi, “multiply!”). K. J. Cathcart (Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic [BibOr], 145) retains the MT perfect form but classifies it as a precative perfect with an imperatival nuance (“increase!”). Some scholars deny the existence of the precative perfect in Hebrew (G. R. Driver, Tenses in Hebrew, 25-26); however, others argue for its existence (IBHS 494-95 §30.5.4).
846. Nahum 3:16 tn The words “they are like” are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied in the translation for clarity.
847. Nahum 3:16 tn The verb פָּשַׁט (pashat, “to strip off”) refers to the action of the locust shedding its outer layer of skin or sheaths of wings while in the larval stage (BDB 833 s.v.). In a similar sense, this verb is normally used of a person stripping off garments (Gen 37:23; Lev 6:4; 16:23; Num 20:26, 28; 1 Sam 18:4; 19:24; 31:8, 9; 2 Sam 23:10; 1 Chr 10:8, 9; Neh 4:17; Job 19:9; 22:6; Ezek 16:39; 23:26; 26:16; 44:19; Hos 2:5; Mic 2:8; 3:3).
848. Nahum 3:17 tn Or “your guards.” The noun מִגְּזָרַיִךְ (migg^ezarayikh, “your courtiers”) is related to Assyrian manzazu (“courtier”; AHw 2:639.a) or massaru (“guard”; AHw 2:621.a); see HALOT 601 s.v. *מִגְּזָר). The nuance “princes,” suggested by older lexicographers (BDB 634 s.v. מִנְזַר), is no longer considered valid.
849. Nahum 3:17 tn The noun טַפְסְרַיִךְ (tafs^erayikh, “your scribes”) from טִפְסָר (tifsar, “scribe, marshal”) is a loanword from Assyrian tupsarru and Sumerian DUB.SAR (“tablet-writer; scribe; official”); see BDB 381 s.v. טִפְסָר; HALOT 379 s.v. This term is also attested in Ugaritic tupsarru and in Phoenician dpsr. As in Jer 51:27, it is used of military and administrative officials. This term designated military officials who recorded the names of recruits and the military activities of Assyrian kings (see P. Machinist, “Assyria and its Image in the First Isaiah,” JAOS 103 [1983]: 736).
850. Nahum 3:17 tn Heb “it flees.”
851. Nahum 3:17 tc The BHS editors propose redividing the singular MT reading וְנוֹדַד (v^enodad, “and it flees”) to the plural וְנוֹדְדוּ (v^enod^edu, “and they flee”) due to the difficulty of a singular verb. However, the LXX supports the singular MT reading. The subject is גוֹב (gov, “swarm”), not individual locusts.
852. Nahum 3:17 tc The MT reads the noun with third person masculine singular suffix מְקוֹמוֹ (m^eqomo, “its place”). The BHS editors suggest emending to third person masculine plural suffix מְקוֹמָם (m^eqomam, “their place”). The MT is supported by the LXX reading, which has a singular suffix. The third person masculine singular suffix is not as awkward as the BHS editors claim—its antecedent is the singular אַרְבֶּה (ʾarbeh, “locust”) and גוֹב גֹבָי (gov govay, “a swarm of locusts”), as reflected by the third person masculine singular verb וְנוֹדַד (translated “it flies away”).
853. Nahum 3:17 tc The MT reads אַיָּם (ʾayyam, “Where are they?”); see, e.g., Isa 19:12; DCH 1:202-3 s.v. אֵי; HALOT 40 s.v.). On the other hand, the LXX’s οὐαί αὐτοῖς (ouai autois, “Woe to them!”) seems to reflect a reading of אֶיָּם (ʾeyyam, “Alas to them!”). The BHS editors suggest emending to אֵיכָה (ʾekhah, “Alas!” or “How?”) and join it to v. 18, or אוֹי מַה (ʾoy mah, “Woe! Why…?”) joined to v. 18. HALOT (40 s.v.) suggests the emendation אֵיךָ (ʾekha, “Alas to you!”).tn Heb “Its place is not known—where are they?” The form אַיָּם has been taken in various ways: (1) an interrogative adverb with third person masculine plural suffix (“where are they?”; GKC 296-97 §100.o; BDB 32 s.v. אַי 1.a); (2) an interrogative particle אֵי (ʾey, “where?”) lengthened to אַיָּה (ʾayyah) and written with the enclitic particle ־ם (mem; GKC 295 §100.g), similar to ayyami (“where?”) in Assyrian (CAD 1.1.220); see W. A. Maier, Nahum, 356; R. D. Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (WEC), 111; T. Longman, “Nahum,” The Minor Prophets, 2:826.
854. Nahum 3:18 sn The term shepherd was frequently used in the ancient Near East in reference to kings and other leaders (royal, political, military). Here, the expression your shepherds is an implied comparison (hypocatastasis) referring to the royal/military leadership of Assyria.
855. Nahum 3:18 tn The Hebrew term אַדִּירֶיךָ (ʾaddirekha, “your officers”) from the root אַדִּיר (ʾaddir, “high noble, majestic one”) designates “prominent people” in society (Judg 5:13, 25; Jer 14:3; Ps 16:3; Neh 3:5; 10:30; 2 Chr 23:20) and prominent “officers” in the military (Nah 2:6; 3:18); see HALOT 14 s.v.; BDB 12 s.v. אַדִּיר. This is related to Assyrian adaru (“high noble official”).
856. Nahum 3:18 tn The MT reads יִשְׁכְּנוּ (yishk^enu, “they are settling down; they are lying down”) from שָׁכַן (shakhan, “to settle down, to lie down”). The BHS editors suggest emending to יָשְׁנוּ (yash^enu, “they are slumbering”) in order to produce a tighter parallelism with the parallel verb נָמוּ (namu, “they are sleeping”). However, the MT has an adequate parallelism because the verb שָׁכַן is often used in reference to the dead lying down in the grave (Job 4:19; 26:5; Ps 94:17; Isa 26:19; see BDB 1015 s.v. שָׁכַן Qal.2.b). This is a figurative expression (hypocatastasis) for someone dying. Although the LXX misunderstood the syntax of this line, the LXX translation ἐκοίμισε (ekoimise, “he has laid low”) points to a form of the Masoretic verbal root שָׁכַן.
857. Nahum 3:18 tn The words “like sheep” are not in the Hebrew text; they are added for clarification of the imagery. The previous line compares Assyria’s leaders to shepherds.
858. Nahum 3:19 tc The MT reads the hapax legomenon כֵּהָה (kehah, “relief, alleviation”). On the other hand, the LXX reads ἴασις (iasis, “healing”) which seems to reflect a reading of גֵּהָה (gehah, “cure, healing”). In 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.tn Heb “There is no relief of your fracture.”
859. Nahum 3:19 tn Heb “your injury is fatal.”
860. Nahum 3:19 tn Heb “the report of you.”
861. Nahum 3:19 tn Heb “will clap their hands over you.”
862. Nahum 3:19 tn Heb “For who ever escaped…?”