LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

. . . 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

Скачать книгу