036. I. The Prophet Of Nineveh’s Fall

I THE PROPHET OF NINEVEH’S FALL The prophecy of Nahum the Elkoshite is notable in many ways. It is a poem of great vividness and force; it portrays with the touch of an eye-witness the horrors of offensive warfare in ancient times; it sets forth the consciousness of a nation rather than the counsel of a prophet; it breathes out bitter vengeance rather than hopefulness. Whatever it utters after the manner of the other prophets is a sort of foil which adds to the impressiveness of the denunciations. Of the author we know practically nothing. Even his name, “Consolation,” may be merely a suggestion of the character of his message to Israel. The village, Elkosh, has been variously identified with Al-Kush, somewhat north of the site of ancient Nineveh; with Elkese, a village of Galilee, mentioned by Jerome; and as a village of Southern Judah. The first-mentioned locality is attractive in its suggestion that Nahum was an Israelite, expatriated a century before, but still loyal to his ancestral ideals, and that, as an eye-witness, he described with faithfulness the closing scenes in the career of fated Nineveh. Much, however, can be urged to break the force of these reasons, and, in fact, the question is unimportant and indeterminable. The utterances preserved in the Book of Nahum are not easily adjustable to a particular time. They represent the feelings of nearly a century. When Sennacherib, in 701 B. C., suddenly returned to Assyria, he did not leave behind him an independent Judah. Jerusalem was inviolate, but the nation was a vassal, and so remained for three-quarters of a century. The prophecy was not delivered earlier than 660, for Nahum uses as an illustration the case of Thebes (No-amon, Nahum 3:8), which was captured, in spite of her fancied strength, by Asurbanipal in 663 B. C. On the other hand, it cannot be later than 606, the year of Nineveh’s destruction. Between these dates the prophet must have lived. The only clue to the exact date of the predictions is their contents, which describe a hopeless outlook for haughty Nineveh.

Such an outlook could hardly have been imagined before the closing years of Asurbanipal’s long (668–625) and brilliant reign. Egypt then successfully revolted. The resolute and hardy mountaineers, the Medes, became dangerous foes. The Scythians swept down from the distant north, spreading unparalleled desolation through the wide and fertile Mesopotamian plains. While none of these foes ventured to attack the capital city, they robbed it of much of its prestige. When the great king died, his nation came to an end as speedily as did Northern Israel after the death of Jeroboam II. Almost at once, according to Herodotus, the Medes attempted an assault of Nineveh, but were obliged to abandon the attempt because they were summoned back to defend their own homes. Nearly eighteen years later, about 608 B. C., they tried again, and within three years captured the city, and put an end to the Assyrian empire.

It seems probable that the words of Nahum were called forth by one of these two crises. Scholars are fairly divided upon this point. In either case, they were probably antedated by the sermons of Zephaniah; but, since Nahum’s theme “expresses the feelings not of this or that decade in Josiah’s reign, but the whole volume of hope, wrath, and just passion of vengeance which had been gathering for more than a century, and which at last broke out into exultation when it became certain that Nineveh was falling,”^[57] it may with propriety be read in immediate connection with the great crisis in Judah’s relation to Assyria.

[57] George Adam Smith, in “The Book of the Twelve,” II, 88. The Book of Nahum contains two prophecies of Nineveh’s downfall, introduced by an impressive portrayal of Jehovah’s attributes. The attempt has been recently made^[58] to show that the introductory portion (Nahum 1:1-15; Nahum 2:2) is, in its present form, a rearrangement of what was originally an alphabetical acrostic poem. This is interesting, if proved to be true. Since, however, the rearrangement did not seriously affect the course of thought, the whole question will be ignored in the paraphrase. It may be added that Nahum delights in imitative words and in paranomasia which baffle reproduction.

[58] The work of Gunkel and Bickell is clearly set forth in “The Book of the Twelve,” II, 81–84. Their results are accepted in the main by Nowack and Cornill. Is the short prophecy but a wild cry for vengeance? Must we pity, or honor, a prophet of Israel for giving expression to it? The answer is not difficult when we remember that, to a devout man of Judah, eager to promote God’s will as taught by the earlier prophets, Assyria was the one great obstacle in the way. Before Israel could accomplish any service for God, her oppressor must cease. The glow from her burning palaces became the rosy dawn of a new day. From only a superficial point of view was his message one of vengeance. To Judah it carried comfort, encouragement, and confidence.