Читать книгу Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament, 6.1 - Группа авторов - Страница 5

Gregory D. Cook

Independent Scholar

kimngreg97@aol.com

Generations of Nahum scholars have accepted the view that the prophecy does not address Judah’s sin. These scholars proceed to debate whether this silence is a defect of the book. This article contends with the consensus. Nahum does not explicitly mention Judah’s sin, but the whole book is set in the context of Judah’s adulterous covenant with Assyria. The second verse uses three poetic devices—allusion, repetition, and wordplay—to establish the events of Nahum as a continuing chapter in YHWH’s restoration of his people. The first two words of Nah 1:2 allude to Joshua’s prophecy (24:19) that YHWH’s wrath would break forth when Israel consorted with foreign gods. Next, Nahum uses a threefold repetition to emphasize YHWH’s vengeful nature. Finally, the Hebrew word בעל uses wordplay to mark YHWH as a jealous husband and Judah as an idolatrous people. Through subtlety, this master poet/prophet linked YHWH’s affliction of Judah (Nah 1:12) and his destruction of Nineveh to Assyria’s seduction of YHWH’s adulterous people.

Keywords: Nahum 1:2, Covenant, Joshua 24:19, Allusion, Hebrew Poetry

Nahum may be the least-studied, least-taught book in the canon.1 While this claim is difficult to quantify, it is also difficult to contradict. If there are books in the Bible that have received less attention, their number is few. The underlying reasons that church, synagogue, and academy have deemphasized this Minor Prophet include the terse poetry, confusing language, and violent imagery in the vision. This article addresses a long-held view that has also contributed to the prophecy’s neglect: the belief that Nahum does not address the sin of YHWH’s covenant people.

The most famous proponent of this view was J. M. P. Smith, who in 1911 used this claim as evidence of Nahum’s inferiority: “The contrast between the message of Nahum and that of Jeremiah, his contemporary, is striking. . . . Instead of grieving over the sin of Judah and striving with might and main to warn her of the error of her ways that she herself, might turn and live, Nahum was apparently content to lead her in a jubilant celebration of the approaching death of Assyria.”2 Many commentators interact with Smith and grant that Nahum does not discuss Judah’s sin.3 Once granted, the discussion usually focuses on whether or not Smith drew the proper conclusion.4 Julia O’Brien, for instance, makes the perceptive point that scholars who share Smith’s opinion do not explain “why the call for the brutal destruction of one’s own people is morally superior to the call for the brutal destruction of the enemy or the call for the brutal destruction of them both. J. M. P. Smith’s preference for Jeremiah over Nahum, for example, focuses only on Jeremiah’s laments while ignoring Jeremiah’s insistence that Judah must be punished.”5 This article challenges that consensus. Nahum does address Judah’s sin. In fact, it begins by doing so.

While Nahum does not emphasize Judah’s sin, Nah 1:2 sets the events of the book in the context of Judah’s adulterous covenant with Assyria. The verse does this by using three poetic devices common in Hebrew poetry and common to Nahum: allusion, repetition, and wordplay.6 The verse begins by alluding to a warning against Israel forsaking YHWH for foreign gods. Then, the phrase נקם יהוה (“YHWH avenges”) occurs three times in the next eight words. Finally, the phrase that interrupts this rare repetition plays on the word בעל (“lord,” “master,” “husband,” or “Baʿal”) to refer to YHWH as a jealous husband. Together, these three aspects of Nah 1:2 introduce the prophecy as a declaration of vengeance against the nation that seduced YHWH’s adulterous people.

Joshua 24:19

In Hebrew, Nah 1:2 reads, אל קנוא ונקם יהוה נקם יהוה ובעל חמה נקם יהוה לצריו ונוטר הוא לאיביו (“YHWH is a jealous and avenging God. YHWH takes vengeance and is a husband of wrath. YHWH takes vengeance against his adversaries and he keeps wrath for his enemies”).7 The first two words deserve particular attention. While Nahum uses the tetragrammaton (יהוה) thirteen times, only here does the more generic title (אל) for God occur.8 The second word of verse 2 is an alternate form of “jealous.” The more common root קנא appears forty times in the OT, but apart from Nah 1:2, קנוא is unique to Josh 24:19.

This variant form occurs as Joshua warns “the people, ‘You are not able to serve YHWH, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God [אל־קנוא]; he will not suffer your transgressions and sins.’” The “blunt character” of these words from Joshua comes in response to the people of Israel swearing that they will serve YHWH.9 As Gordon McConville and Stephen Williams note, “If we expected Joshua to welcome this, his response is astonishing, with its fierce assertion that they ‘are not able to serve the Lord.’”10 The covenant united a jealous God who would not tolerate adultery with a people who could not remain faithful.11 Joshua’s speech continues in the next verse: “If you leave YHWH and serve foreign gods, then he will turn and do evil to you and destroy you after doing good to you.”

The uncharacteristic use of אל in Nahum and the absence of קנוא in any other Old Testament text suggests that Nahum begins by alluding to the only other occurrence of this phrase. While not conclusive in itself, “Shared language that is rare or distinctive suggests a stronger connection than does language that is widely used.”12 The prophets were “subtle and artful interpreters of their times and cultures, they wove into their words countless allusions to the literary texts and the sociohistorical ‘texts’ of their worlds.”13 As Robert Alter shows, “purposeful literary allusions” are “a pointed activation of one text by another, conveying a connection in difference or a difference in connection through some conspicuous similarity in phrasing, in motif, or in narrative situation.”14 Though scholarly literature has not discussed this allusion, Nah 1:2 pointedly activates Josh 24:19 through a conspicuous similarity in phrasing and narrative situation. If it is presupposed that Nahum is unconcerned with Judah’s sin, the correspondence between Nahum and Joshua would seem insignificant and coincidental. The verse in Joshua indicts Israel as incapable of spiritual faithfulness—a theme seemingly of minor importance amongst Oracles against the Nations texts.

The assertion of allusion depends upon the book of Joshua predating Nahum and also Nahum’s audience being able to recognize the allusion. Fixing a date for Nahum does not prove difficult. In 663 bc the Assyrians did what seemed impossible and sacked Thebes. The prophet refers to this as a past event in Nah 3:8–10. Likewise, the book prophesies that Nineveh will meet a similar, yet more brutal, demise—and this occurred in 612 bc. In light of these markers, “hardly anybody doubts that the book of Nahum or part of it has to be dated” within this fifty-one year period.15

The question of Joshua’s dating does not enjoy the same consensus: “Experts are divided about few books in the OT as they are about the book of Joshua. Both date and the authorship (editing) of the book are subjects of continuing controversy.”16 Those who favor a late date for Joshua will therefore deem the correspondence between Joshua and Nahum of no significance. For those who believe that Josh 24 faithfully records Joshua’s words, there will be no problem in accepting that Nahum and his contemporaries were familiar with it.17 This article agrees with those who believe that Josh 24 significantly predates Nahum.

The next question is whether an additional‎ ו provides sufficient cause to anchor one prophecy in the context of another. Literature dedicated to allusions in Hebrew poetry suggests that it is since ancient societies proved superior to modern ones in attention to detail.

Again and again, a revelation of a shift in attitude, perspective, or situation is introduced through the alternation of a single word, the deletion of a phrase, the addition of a word, a switch in the order of items, as statements are repeated; it is a technique with a power and subtlety that could have worked only on an audience accustomed to retain minute textual details as it listened and thus to recognize the small but crucial changes introduced in repetition. A listener who could in this way detect close recurrence and difference within the frame of a single episode might reasonably have been expected to pick up a good many verbal echoes and situational correspondences between far-flung episodes.18

Although Alter emphasizes oral transmission, the identification of Nahum as a “book” (1:1) marks the prophecy as a literary text. As Alter goes on to say, such allusions occur frequently in “biblical poetry, which often depends on a minute phrasal recall of earlier poems and narrative texts.”19 The universal acclaim of Nahum as an extraordinary poet places such subtlety well within his abilities.

Fortunately for this argument, even though an ancient audience would have been capable of recognizing the significance of Nahum’s ו, it is not essential that they did. All of the occurrences of either אל קנוא or אל קנא in the OT support the article’s hypothesis. The more common form of the phrase is only found in Exod 20:5; 34:14; Deut 4:24; 5:9; 6:15. As with Josh 24:19, each passage also refers to YHWH’s jealous desire for faithful worship. Like Josh 24:19, each prophesies that YHWH’s wrath will come against his people when they forsake him for foreign gods.

Nahum opened his prophecy with a phrase that occurs in only six places. Each passage is a foundational OT text. Each text uses the strongest possible terms to condemn worship of other gods. Each promises YHWH’s wrath against his people should they commit this sin. In the case of Josh 24:19, such a covenant—with the accompanying wrath—is declared inevitable. The allusion in Nahum activates each text. It shows that the “affliction” (Nah 1:12) that Judah endured from Assyrian chariots came as the judgment of an angry and jealous God.

YHWH Avenges

It is well known that Hebrew intensifies a word or phrase through repetition. It is also well known that a threefold repetition indicates extreme emphasis—but occurs rarely. The statement ונקם יהוה נקם יהוה ובעל חמה נקם יהוה is therefore striking. A more extreme declaration of YHWH’s vengeance is hardly possible. All commentators recognize this. At issue is the motive for the vengeance. There is no debate that the Neo-Assyrian Empire committed atrocities. Usually though, Assyrian cruelty is deemed sufficient reason for the invective of the prophet. Nahum points to a more grievous offense. YHWH intended to avenge his honor against the nation who superseded his mandate and seduced his promiscuous people.

Nahum contributes a chapter to a larger story. In recent decades scholars have made important progress in examining the Minor Prophets as a unified whole. Numerous ancient sources refer to the Twelve as one book.20 The overarching unity has implications for interpretation and is relevant here. Hosea begins the book of the Twelve with judgment meted out by YHWH against his covenant people for their spiritual adultery. As noted by Smith, the prophets gave the majority of their attention to the sins of Israel and Judah. Nahum, however, shows that once YHWH has thoroughly chastised his people, he will avenge himself on his rival (Nah 1:12–14).

For this reason, recognizing the allusion to Josh 24:19; Exod 20:5; 34:14; Deut 4:24; 5:9; 6:15 proves important to proper interpretation. The allusion sets the context for the words that follow. Nahum acknowledges the faithlessness that has gone before. The prophecy establishes that YHWH has punished Judah. The threefold declaration of vengeance, therefore, refers back to this adultery as well as forward to the coming desecration of Nineveh. YHWH avenges himself on his wayward bride—and also upon those who seduced her.

בעל

The above explanation adds a dimension to the wordplay evident in the phrase ובעל חמה. “Wordplay is based on lexical ambiguity which is simply a way of saying that words can be polyvalent (i.e., have multiple meanings).”21 Such wordplay is a “dominant feature of Hebrew poetry.”22

The word בעל may be used to mean “master,” “lord,” or “husband,” or it could name the god Baʿal. The duality has received much comment. Kevin Cathcart’s work comparing Nah 1:2–8 and Canaanite myth has been particularly helpful. He makes a strong case that “the language of this theophany of Yahweh is borrowed to a large extent from the Canaanite descriptions of the theophany of the storm god Baʿal.”23 As Laurel Lanner points out, “Scholars have been finding ‘pagan’ or mythological allusions . . . in the book of Nahum, for centuries.”24

What seemingly has not entered into the scholarly discussion is the possibility that בעל חמה describes YHWH as a jealous and avenging husband of wrath.25 The presupposition that Nahum does not address Judah’s sin precludes such an interpretation; yet the recognition that the phrase comes within the context of YHWH’s all-encompassing judgment for Judah’s adultery makes the interpretation likely. As Gerlinde Baumann points out, through the study of the prophets “a kind of ‘story’ of the wife of YHWH can be reconstructed.”26 According to Nah 1:2, Nahum is part of that story.

Conclusion

Traditionally, scholars have viewed Nahum as a statement of YHWH’s judgment against Assyria—and a more general assertion that YHWH will hold violent nations accountable for their sins. Some scholars have linked this judgment to Assyria’s crimes against YHWH’s covenant people. No commentary I am aware of, however, has noted that Nahum begins with an allusion to Josh 24:19. This article has presented evidence for this allusion and argued that its rhetorical effect sets the entire vision in the context of Judah’s adulterous covenant with Assyria. Additional poetic devices in Nah 1:2—repetition and wordplay—support this theory. The verse makes a threefold assertion of YHWH’s vengeful character. It interrupts the repetition to name YHWH as a “husband of wrath”—using the Hebrew word בעל. While some scholars have correctly identified this as a polemic against Canaanite religion, none have discussed how the word contributes to the idea of YHWH as a wronged husband bent on avenging his honor against those who seduced his beloved. The cumulative effect of the poetic devices in Nah 1:2 is to identify the past judgment against Judah and the coming judgment against Nineveh as YHWH’s response to Judah’s spiritual adultery with Assyria.

1. See Duane L. Christensen, Nahum: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 24F (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009) 17–25. According to Christensen, “Among the church Fathers, the book is cited infrequently: by Tertullian (twice), Clement of Alexandria (once), Eusebius (eight times), Epiphanius (ca. 315–403; five times), Cyril (twice), Hippolytus Romanus (ca. 170–ca. 236; twice), Melito of Sardis (once), and John Chrysostom (twice). Jerome presents a spiritual interpretation in which the book speaks of the certain destruction of those who oppose God and reject the church” (Christensen, Nahum, 18). Elizabeth R. Achtemeier observes that Nahum “has been almost totally ignored in the modern church. No lectionary reading is taken from it and no hymn suggests its words, other than the one line from William Cowper’s poem set to music in ‘God Moves in a Mysterious Way.’ (‘He plants his footsteps in the sea and rides upon the storm,’ cf. Nahum 1:3c.)” (Nahum—Malachi, IBC [Louisville: John Knox, 1986], 5). Aron Pinker makes a similar observation regarding Nahum’s role in the synagogue. “It is interesting to note that no lectionary reading has been taken from the Book of Nahum, as if implying that it does not have anything ethical or theological to offer of the same caliber as the other prophets” (“Nahum’s Theological Perspectives,” JBQ 32 [2004]: 148). According to James D. Nogalski, “Nahum is not a prominent figure in rabbinic tradition” (The Book of the Twelve: Micah–Malachi, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary [Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011], 601).

2. J. M. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Micah, Zephaniah, and Nahum, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark/New York: Scribner, 1911), 281.

3. For example, Simon J. De Vries: “Here is a strange book—one filled with fierce denunciations of Judah’s enemy but strikingly wanting in many elements commonly ascribed to the Hebrew prophets, most particularly in any declaration of Judah’s sin as seen in the light of covenant obligations” (“Acrostic of Nahum in the Jerusalem Liturgy,” VT 16 [1966]: 476). Because of the perceived lack of criticism against Judah, some commentators, such as Giuseppe Bernini, consider Nahum a nationalistic prophet (Osea, Michea, Naum, Abacuc, Nuovissima Versione della Bibbia dai Testi Originali 30 [Milan: Edizioni San Paolo, 1997], 361; 366.

4. An example of how scholars reorient the discussion is seen in Joseph L. Mihelic: “The chief criticism of the man Nahum is centered on the fact that in his savage joy over the prostrate foe, he does not condemn the sins of his own people. Yet, granting that this is a valid criticism of the prophet, still the question arises, when is one justified in voicing criticism of the evil of another individual or nation?” (“The Concept of God in the Book of Nahum,” Int 2 [1948]: 199).

5. Julia M. O’Brien, Nahum, 2nd ed. (Readings; London: Sheffield Academic, 2009), 107. Later in her book O’Brien writes, “Nahum never gives any hints as to the nature of Judah’s sin or what changed attitudes or behaviors now invite a turn in Yahweh’s favor” (ibid., 134). While not all commentators make this statement, I have found no denial of it.

6. Oswald T. Allis wrote an excellent article, which is still frequently cited, reviewing Nahum’s use of poetic devices: “Nahum, Nineveh, Elkosh,” EvQ 27 (1955): 67–80. See also Richard D. Patterson and Michael E. Travers, “Nahum: Poet Laureate of the Minor Prophets,” JETS 33 (1990): 437–444.

7. All translations are mine.

8. The uniqueness of the term in Nahum is often noted by commentators and various theories are given for Nahum’s deviation. For instance, Ralph L. Smith opines, “אל is used only here in Nahum and may indicate that the hymn is from an independent source” (Micah–Malachi, WBC 32 [Waco, TX: Word, 1984], 73). The partial acrostic found in Nah 1:2–8 has consumed far more scholarly ink in the last century than any other issue in Nahum studies. Often it is assumed that Nahum used אל instead of יהוה because he needed an א for the acrostic.

9. William T. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative (Sheffield: JSOT, 2010), 132.

10. J. Gordon McConville and Stephen N. Williams, Joshua, Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 90.

11. Bernini, Bernard Renaud, and Carl E. Armerding do recognize the covenantal nature of the book. None argues that Nahum addresses Judah’s sin, though Armerding may be hinting at it. Bernini roots the judgment against Assyria in the context of Assyria’s oppression of YHWH’s covenant people (Nahum, 361). Renaud likewise interprets Nahum as a statement of YHWH’s jealousy without linking it to spiritual adultery (“La Composition du Livre de Nahum: Une Proposition,” ZAW 99 (1987): 217–18. Armerding correctly observes that “The adjective ‘jealous’ is used solely of God, primarily in his self-revelation at Sinai (Exod 25:5; 34:14). Against the covenantal background it denotes the Lord’s deep, indeed, fiercely protective commitment to his people and his exclusive claim to obedience and reciprocal commitment (cf. Deut 4:24; 5:9). Where this relationship of mutual commitment is threatened, either by Israel’s unfaithfulness or by foreign oppression, the inevitable expressions of such jealousy are ‘vengeance’ and ‘wrath,’ directed to restoring that relationship” (“Nahum,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985], 7:461).

12. Jeffery M. Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case,” JBL 127 (2008): 251.

13. Christopher B. Hays, “Echoes of the Ancient Near East? Intertextuality and the Comparative Study of the Old Testament,” in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays, ed. J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 21.

14. Robert Alter, The World of Biblical Literature (New York: Basic, 1992), 110–11.

15. Klaas Spronk, Nahum, HCOT (Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1997), 12. Also Michael Weigl, “Current Research on the Book of Nahum: Exegetical Methodologies in Turmoil?” CurBS 9 (2001): 82.

16. Marten H. Woudstra, The Book of Joshua, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 5.

17. Woudstra discusses various theories and defends an early date in Joshua, 9–16.

18. Alter, World, 113. Also see Jean Koenig, “L’allusion Inexpliquée au Roseau et à la Mèche, Isaïe 42:3,” VT 18 (1968): 159.

19. Alter, World, 128.

20. Ancient evidence from scribes, Second Temple literature, the Talmud, the New Testament, Josephus, and the early church attest to the unity of the Twelve. Unfortunately, these sources give no commentary on the nature of this unity. Marvin A. Sweeney provides an excellent overview of the topic in The Twelve Prophets, Berit Olam (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2000), 1:xv–xxxix.

21. Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 2nd. ed., JSOTSup 26 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986), 237; italics original.

22. Lynell Zogbo and Ernst R. Wendland, Hebrew Poetry in the Bible: A Guide for Understanding and Translating, Helps for Translators (New York: United Bible Societies, 2000), 40.

23. Kevin J. Cathcart, “The Divine Warrior and the War of Yahweh in Nahum,” in Biblical Studies in Contemporary Thought, ed. Miriam Ward (Somerville, MA: Greeno, Hadden & Co., 1975), 69–70.

24. Laurel Lanner, “Who Will Lament Her?”: The Feminine and Fantastic in the Book of Nahum, LHOTS 434 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 17.

25. While my research has not been exhaustive, I have written a dissertation and a number of articles on Nahum. Throughout, I have searched for any scholar who read Nahum as YHWH exercising vengeance as a wronged husband but have found none.

26. Gerlinde Baumann, “Prophetic Objections to YHWH as the Violent Husband of Israel: Reinterpretations of the Prophetic Marriage Metaphor in Second Isaiah (Isaiah 40–55),” in Prophets and Daniel, ed. Athalya Brenner, FCB Second Series 8 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 558. Similarly, Renita Weems: “[T]he earliest days of God and Israel’s relationship were cast as a period of courtship; the covenant in the wilderness became a marriage; Israel’s idolatry was interpreted as betrayal and adultery; Israel’s estrangement was divorce; and the reunion of God and Israel was reconciliation” (Battered Love: Marriage, Sex and Violence in the Hebrew Prophets [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1995], 26).