Introduction

The Book of the Prophet Nahum occupies the seventh place in the section of sacred books called the Minor Prophets, after the Book of the Prophet Micah or, as in many editions of the LXX text, after the Book of the Prophet Jonah, and before the Book of the Prophet Habakkuk in the sacred Old Testament canon. The Hebrew name is Nakhum, נחום, Greek Naoum, Ναουμ, Latin Nahum. The proper name of the prophet has a descriptive meaning from Hebrew: “full of consolation” (nakhum, passive participle), and also “comforter” (“consolator,” according to the explanation of blessed Jerome), which perfectly marks the content, character, and significance of his prophetic book. The content of the book, as shown already by the first half of its superscription, is “a prophecy concerning Nineveh,” from Hebrew “the burden of Nineveh” (massa—Ninwe), that is, the foretelling and depiction of the final destruction, the ultimate ruin of the city of Nineveh, and together with it the whole Assyrian kingdom. And this world event will bring joy to all peoples and kingdoms oppressed by Assyria (cf. Nah 3:19), including the kingdom of Judah (Nah 1:15; Heb. 2:1). “The Ten Tribes,” says blessed Jerome in the prologue to his commentary on the Book of the Prophet Nahum, “were already led away captive by the Assyrians under Hezekiah, king of Judah, in whose reign this vision now appears (that is, described in the Book of the Prophet Nahum) against Nineveh for the consolation of the transplanted people. And it was no small consolation both for those who had already been enslaved by the Assyrians and for the rest, belonging to the tribe of Judah and Benjamin and subjected under Hezekiah to siege from those same enemies, to hear that the Assyrians, in their turn, would themselves be taken captive by the Chaldeans, as will be shown further in this book.” (Blessed Jerome, one book of commentaries on the Prophet Nahum. Works in Russian translation, vol. 13. Kiev, 1896, p. 254).

Thus, if in the Old Testament proper names at all times served as expressions of hope and religious expectations of God’s people, and in great God-chosen representatives of that people frequently appeared as a living and constant preaching for their contemporaries about God and His deeds, about the proper relation of Israel to Him, then the name of the Prophet Nahum too appeared as an expression of hope in God’s mercy, “the expectation of Israel’s Comforter” (Luke 2:25) amid all the troubles that Assyrian dominion had brought upon Israel. Another witness about him, besides the meaning of the prophet’s name, is the epithet “the Elkoshite” applied to him in the superscription itself, LXX: tou Elkesaiou. Elkesaei—Slavonic: “of the Elkeshites,” Russian: “the Elkoshite.” As is evident from comparing different renderings of this epithet by various translations, and likewise from comparing different ancient and modern commentaries, two different understandings of the word Elkosh have been proposed at different times: 1) patronymic—in the sense of indicating the father or patronymic of the prophet, and 2) geographic—in the sense of designating the locality of his birth. But against the first interpretation already speaks the absence in the Hebrew text and in most manuscripts of the LXX translation of the usual expression in such cases: “son,” Hebrew ben, בן (cf. Isa 1:1; Jer 1:1; Ezek 1:3; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jonah 1:1; Zeph 1:1; Zech 1:1), and also the complete obscurity of the prophet’s father not only in the Bible but also in tradition. In favor of the second understanding, on the contrary, speaks this very circumstance: ordinarily in the Bible such expressions as the one in question are used to indicate the place of birth of persons of humble origin, for example: Ahijah the Shilonite (Heb. ha-Shiloni, 1 Sam 11:29), Micah of Moresheth (Heb. ha-Morashtite, Mic 1:1), Jeremiah of Anathoth (ha-Anathothi, Jer 19:27), and others. The high authority of blessed Jerome compels us without hesitation to recognize in the expression under consideration an indication of the prophet’s birthplace. “Concerning the words of the Prophet Nahum the Elkoshite (elcesaei),” says blessed Jerome, “some suppose that Elkosh was the father of Nahum and that he, according to Hebrew tradition, was himself also a prophet, whereas in Galilee to this day there exists a village Elkesi (Elesi); although it is small, and ruins barely indicate the ruins of ancient buildings, yet it is known to the Jews and was also pointed out to me by a guide.” (Prologue, p. 255). In the sense of a Palestinian, more particularly Galilean, locality blessed Jerome understands the word Elkosh, Elkesh, and in another place in his Onomasticon, in agreement with Eusebius of Caesarea (Onomast. 418). Other ancient commentators as well—for instance, Cyril of Alexandria and blessed Theophylact—consider the word in question to be the name of the native city of the Prophet Nahum, placing it in Palestine; only some of them, such as blessed Theophylact, Pseudo-Epiphanius, Pseudo-Dorotheus, and Isidore of Seville, in distinction from blessed Jerome, asserted that Elkesh lay beyond the Jordan, in the region of Bethavara (Judg 7:24; John 1:28, Onomast. 233), and that the Prophet Nahum came from the tribe of Simeon. This opinion is difficult to reconcile with the direct and clear testimony of blessed Jerome, but here the indication of Palestinian origin of the Prophet Nahum is important. This latter in recent times has been more than once disputed: some commentators (Ewald, Kleinert, and others) considered the village of Elkush or Alkosh on the eastern side of the Tigris, north of Mosul (which, together with Kunjik and Nebi-Yunus, marks the position of ancient Nineveh) to be the birthplace and also the burial place of the Prophet Nahum—on the grounds that 1st, the prophet’s close acquaintance with the locality of Nineveh and Assyria in general (see for example Nah 2:5-7; Nah 3:12-14 of his book) and the extraordinary vividness of depiction would seem to require recognition of indigenous, Assyrian origin for the prophet, and 2nd on account of the circumstance that local tradition near this village in a Roman Catholic monastery of Saint Anthony indicates the grave of the prophet, venerated among Christians, Muslims, and Jews and attracting thousands of pilgrims to itself (of this Assemani, Niebuhr, Layard, and others testify). But this tradition concerning Assyrian Elkosh is very late: it does not go back earlier than the sixteenth century; the renowned Hebrew traveler of the twelfth century Benjamin of Tudela, who visited the territory of ancient Assyria and in particular Nineveh, mentions nothing of Elkosh or Alkush as the homeland of the Prophet Nahum. This locality shows no marks of antiquity, and the very house in which the tomb is housed is of modern architecture. The very content of the book contains nothing that would necessarily require its composition in Assyria: the prophet’s familiarity with the nature and culture of the latter in the seventh century before the Common Era could have been accessible to any Hebrew living in Palestine, as the frequent destructive campaigns of the Assyrian kings in Palestine could not fail to acquaint its inhabitants with features of Assyrian culture; in the same way one can explain the presence in the Prophet’s book of two undoubtedly Assyrian root words (minnezer and tiphsar in Nah 3:17). Thus, in the tradition under consideration we have an example of the not infrequent materialization in the East of beliefs and traditions by attaching them to one or another locality; an analogy to this is presented by the naming of another village in the south of the ancient Nineveh territory bearing the name Nebi Yunus, that is, “Prophet Jonah,” where they point out the grave of the Prophet Jonah. On the contrary, all the content and the whole character of the book point to Palestine as the place of origin of the prophet and his book; in particular, the prophet’s speech, generally pure and elegant, bears the imprint of the northern part of Palestinian territory, and this confirms the thought of blessed Jerome concerning the Galilean origin and dwelling place of the Prophet Nahum. We may here mention the opinion of Strauss, Hitzig, Knobel, and others that Elkosh, the prophet’s homeland, is identical with Capernaum, whose name in translation from Hebrew means: “village of Nahum.” This opinion is confirmed by neither Scripture nor historical evidence nor philology, but it may have some significance—as indirect confirmation of Jerome’s testimony concerning the Galilean location of Elkosh—the homeland of the Prophet Nahum.

Thus the opinion concerning the Prophet Nahum’s presence in Assyria and his composition of his book there must be abandoned. On the contrary, in the Prophet’s book there are quite clear indications that he prophesied in Judah (Nah 1:15; Heb. 2:1) and among the Judeans, to whom he directs his speech (Nah 1:7). Finally, the Prophet Nahum’s close acquaintance with the preaching and writings of other prophets (cf. for example Nah 1:4 and Amos 1:3), especially the Prophet Isaiah (cf. Nah 1:13 and Isa 10:27; Nah 3:5 and Isa 47:2-3; Nah 1:4-5 and Isa 24:1; Nah 3:7 and Isa 51:19; Nah 1:15 [Heb. 2:1] and Isa 52:7)—the closest similarity of the turns of speech and images he employed, the similarity of language—all of this was the consequence of his constant intercourse with his native Judean environment and his study of the sacred-national writings of biblical Israel.

Concerning the time of life and activity of the Prophet Nahum and the time of writing his prophetic book, in view of the absence of direct testimony about this in the Bible and tradition, we must judge only by indirect, internal data contained in the book itself. The indications of the book serving to determine its chronological date are as follows. The prophet presupposes the accomplished fact of the fall of the northern or Israelite kingdom (Nah 2:2), which took place in the sixth year of the reign of the Judean king Hezekiah 2 Sam 18:10 or, according to the accepted biblical chronology, around 722 before the Common Era (cf. “Commentary on the Bible”, vol. II, p. 537 and 544), and also the invasion of Judea by the Assyrian king Sennacherib and his devastation of this land (Nah 1:9-11), which occurred in the fourteenth year of the reign of the same Judean king (2 Sam 18:13), that is, around 714 years before the Common Era (Commentary on the Bible, vol. II, p. 544), and this latter calamity has passed (Nah 1:15), and serves only as a subject of a terrible but also comforting (cf. 2 Kings 19:35-37) memory for the people (Nah 1:12). Thus, the terminus a quo of the prophet’s activity and the writing of the book cannot be placed earlier than the last event, and, for example, the opinion of Josephus, according to which the Prophet Nahum prophesied under the Judean king Jotham (Jewish Antiquities 9:11, 3), must be rejected. As for the other boundary—the terminus ad quem, it is absolutely evident that the prophecy concerning Nineveh was uttered by the Prophet Nahum no later than the very event of the fall of Nineveh—according to the chronology accepted in scholarship in 607-606 years before the Common Era (following the example of Clement of Alexandria, Nahum prophesied under Zedekiah), but much earlier than this event. Nineveh still exists, its ruin is only foretold (Nah 2:9 and many others), nay more, the power, glory, and wealth of the Assyrians are at the very highest degree of their development, and Nineveh is completely prosperous (Nah 1:12; Nah 2:1; Nah 3:8). The prophet does not name the future perpetrators of the fall of Assyria and Nineveh, and the fall itself appears as a deed of the distant future, and moreover (in view of the prosperity of Assyria and Nineveh) so little probable from the human point of view that the prophet needed to bring concrete examples of the fall of the political power of the great Egyptian city No-Ammon (Nah 3:8 v.) or (by the most probable explanation) the great Diospolis or hundred-gated Thebes in Upper Egypt. This historical evidence at the same time furnishes a solid foundation for establishing the chronological date of the prophecy and writing of the book with which we are concerned. The historical fact of the destruction of No-Ammon or Thebes, according to the testimony of Schrader, is firmly attested by Assyrian cuneiform inscriptions, according to which this was accomplished by Ashurbanipal, son and successor of Esarhaddon, during his second Egyptian campaign against Urḏamani, the successor of Pharaoh Tirhakah. The Assyrian annals date this event to the time shortly after the death of the latter, which occurred in 664 years before the Common Era. In the following year 663, the destruction of Thebes or No-Ammon may have taken place. And since the Prophet Nahum threatens Nineveh with the fate of No-Ammon, clearly under the fresh impression of the ruin of this city, both the uttering of the prophecy concerning Nineveh and the writing of his prophetic book must be referred approximately to 662-660 years before the Common Era, that is, to the time of the reign of Manasseh, according to the accepted chronology reigning from 698 to 643 (see in detail about this “Commentary on the Bible”, vol. II, p. 443-444). With this supposition some features of the book’s content become more comprehensible than in the case of referring the prophecy of Nahum to the second half of the reign of Hezekiah, as many researchers and commentators assert. But it is quite possible to see in the words of the prophet Nah 1:13: “Now I will break his yoke (the enemy’s, Assyria’s) lying upon you, and your bonds I will tear apart” an indication of the chained and led into captivity by Assyrian commanders king Manasseh (2 Chr 33:11). And the Prophet Nahum’s acquaintance with the prophetic books of Isaiah and Micah in this case becomes much more understandable. The Talmudists not without reason affirmed, on the basis of ancient tradition, that the Prophet Nahum lived until the time of Manasseh (as did Isaiah, who suffered, according to tradition, from this king), and that it was precisely the captivity of this king by the Assyrians (2 Chr 33:11) that was the occasion for the utterance of the prophecy concerning the fall of Nineveh, in consolation of the subjects left by the king, whose name the prophet omitted in the superscription of his book, as unworthy of memory (Seder Olam rabba, p. 55).

In respect to the order and sequence in the unfolding of content, the book of the Prophet Nahum presents a remarkably coherent whole. The division of the book into three chapters corresponds entirely to three stages in the unfolding of the prophet’s thought. In the first chapter, which represents as it were an introduction to the whole book, the theme of the entire book is indicated: the all-holy, all-powerful, all-righteous God always brings His determinations into fulfillment, both merciful toward the God-fearing and terrible toward the impious and ungodly; therefore the final lot awaiting the haughty, ungodly Assyrians is destruction, and salvation awaits those faithful to the Lord—the Jews. The second chapter already depicts the fulfillment of God’s judgment over Assyria and Nineveh, as seen by the prophet’s spiritual eyes: complete and final fall of their power and termination of their very existence. The third chapter, answering the naturally arising question about the causes and very possibility of the ruin of the all-world monarchy with its wonderful capital, points to these causes in the vices that nested in Assyria and Nineveh, as well as in Divine Justice, which embraces the whole world. Thus, the entire book of the Prophet Nahum represents one perfectly properly arranged and completely finished poem. According to the judgment of experts in the Hebrew language (for example, Lota, De s. poes. Hebr. p. 216 sq.), the language and style of the book of the Prophet Nahum is classical in all respects, and in height of fiery inspiration and boldness of thought, in vividness of colors and liveliness of exposition the Prophet Nahum appears first among all the minor prophets. The scenes he describes he depicts with extraordinary vividness, draws them as an eyewitness. His speech is like a swift stream in its rapid and unexpected transitions with frequent conciseness and harshness (meanwhile frequent alternation of singular with plural, masculine with feminine, singular and plural numbers (Nah 1:10-12; Nah 2:9; Nah 3:7-10) and the like).

The significance of the prophetic book of Nahum in the general organism of sacred biblical books must be determined from two points of view: historical and theological (including specially the messianic). In the first respect the prophecy in question belongs, by its origin, to the so-called “Assyrian period” of biblical history and sacred literature of the Old Testament, that is, to the time of the predominance of Assyria over other peoples and kingdoms. The prophets of the Assyrian period include partly the most ancient—Jonah, Joel, Amos, and chiefly those following them: Hosea, Isaiah, Micah; Nahum, however, closes the series of prophets of the named period, as his book contains the last prophecy concerning Nineveh (it is true that later the prophet Zeph 2:13-15 also speaks of the ruin of Nineveh, but he was already almost a contemporary of the very event of the destruction of Nineveh and spoke as it were of the fulfillment upon it of the prophecy of Nahum), announcing, of course, the triumph of the world-ruling righteousness of God over the unrighteousness of Assyria (Nah 2:13, Heb. 14; Nah 3:19). Blessed Theodoret says: “The Ninevites, fearing God’s threat proclaimed to them by the God-wise Jonah, resorted to earnest repentance and found salvation for themselves; instead of the threatened final ruin they received God’s mercy. But after a short time, they forgot this unspeakable mercy, returning to their former vices, committed thousands of new transgressions and dared to march with an army against Israel... But subsequently, after the royal throne was transferred to Babylon, the whole race of these kings perished; the city of Nineveh was destroyed and given over to complete desolation. This very ruin of Nineveh the blessed prophet Nahum foretells, receiving the power of God’s spirit, and by what is foretold he teaches that the Almighty God leaves nothing without His care and providence, but according to His righteous determination requires an account from each one of all that he has done in his life” (Works in Russian translation, vol. V, p. 5-6). In these last words the theological significance of the content of the book of the Prophet Nahum is also indicated—it is precisely this, common to him with other prophets, teaching about the world-ruling providence of God who is Holy, Almighty, and Righteous, appearing at one and the same time as both a consuming fire for the impious and an unshakeable refuge for the pious and those who hope in Him. At the foundation of this relation of God to the world and to people lies His plan of universal salvation, the foretaste of which is heard also in the utterances of the Prophet Nahum (Nah 1:15; Heb. 2:1), as in similar expressions in the Prophet Isaiah (Isa 3:7), and then after the accomplishment of the work of our salvation it is reproduced in the apostle (Rom 10:15).

The ancient Hebrew tradition concerning the life and activity of the Prophet Nahum has been preserved in a peculiar form in our Menologia. In the Life of the holy prophet Nahum here (on the first of December), among other things, we read: “The Holy Prophet Nahum, not from Elkesh beyond the Jordan, opposite Bethavara, from the tribe of Simeon. This one after the holy prophet Jonah prophesied to the Ninevites, that their city would perish by water and fire, which came to pass... Their ruin therefore came to pass thus: near Nineveh there was a great lake of water surrounding the city, and when there occurred a great earthquake, the city sank in that lake; a part of it remaining on the mountain fire issued from the wilderness and burned it. And so the prophecy of Nahum was fulfilled, God punishing sinful people with His righteous judgment... And the holy prophet also prophesied other future things, and died in peace in his forty-fifth year from his birth, and was buried honorably in his land.” It is difficult to say to what extent these pieces of information are reliable; but the report of the ruin of Nineveh by water and fire is clearly attached to the data of the prophetic book itself (Nah 1:10; Nah 3:13-15).

The memory of the holy prophet Nahum is celebrated in the Christian Orthodox Church on December first.

Holy Father commentaries on the book of the Prophet Nahum: Cyril of Alexandria, blessed Theodoret, blessed Jerome, blessed Theophylact. Among rabbinical commentaries on this book the most remarkable is R. Abarbanel In Nahum commentarius, Latin donation by I. D. Sprechero 1703. Of the very numerous works in the west we will name a few of the most recent: Strauss, Nahumi de Nino vaticinium explicavit ex assyris monuments illustravit 0. Sir. 1853; Breiteneicher, Ninive und Nahum. Mit Beiziehund der Resultate der neuesten Entdeckungen histor. - exeget. beabeit 1861; Reinke, To more or less brief general remarks about the book of the Prophet Nahum in such guides as: Priest V. Smaragdov (SPB. 1869), H. Ordy (Bishop Irenaeus, Kiev 1871), Metropolitan Arseny (Kiev 1873), A. Hergoserskoi (SPB. 1885), Prof. A. A. Olesnitsky (SPB. 1894), D. N. Narcissov (Guide to the study of the prophetic books of the Old Testament. Poltava 1904. p. 193-200, as well as articles from Sunday Reading 1854/55 (vol. XVIII) “Memory of the holy prophets: Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah” (p. 321 et seq.) there are several special works specifically on the book of the Prophet Nahum. These are: 1) I. Smirnov (now Bishop John), The Prophet Nahum from Aug. book “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1876); 2) Prof. M. A. Golubev, The Holy Prophet Nahum and his book (Christian Reading 1852, part I, p. 518-562). and 3)—surpassing both the first in volume and thoroughness—the book of M. Simashkevich (now Bishop Mitrophan). The Prophecy of Nahum concerning Nineveh. An Exegetical Investigation, with an outline of the history of the Assyrian state and a historico-critical solution of the question about the origin of the book of the Prophet Nahum SPB. 1875, p. 342.

* * *

In the opinion of Strauss and others, the name of the Palestinian locality serving as the homeland of the Prophet Nahum has been preserved in the name of the Elkesaites, one of the most ancient sects that appeared in Palestine in the time of Trajan (according to the testimony of Epiphanius cited by Eusebius, Church History VI, 38). But this circumstance, of course, adds nothing essentially new to the already known arguments for the Palestinian origin of the Prophet Nahum and his book.