LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

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

Скачать книгу