Nahum

← Encyclopedia

A single line of Hebrew is all the record offers of the man: the burden of Nineveh; the book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite. Everything else in the three chapters that follow concerns a city on the Tigris and its undoing. Nahum himself appears only in that superscription, fixed there by a name and a gentilic and then gone. The Bible attaches to him one of its fiercest poems and not a sentence of biography — no father named, no king in whose reign he spoke, no call by which a god turned an ordinary life toward prophecy. He is, almost uniquely among the named prophets, a voice with no story attached to it.

A name and a place that cannot be found

The name itself is legible enough. Nahum is built from the Hebrew root n-ḥ-m, “to comfort,” and means something like consolation — an irony noted since antiquity, since the consolation the book delivers is the destruction of an enemy. The gentilic Elkoshite should anchor him to a town, Elkosh, in the ordinary way that prophets are placed: as Amos comes from Tekoa, as Micah comes from Moresheth. But Elkosh has never been located with any confidence, and the absence has generated, rather than a biography, a small catalog of competing claims.

Four traditions contend. Jerome, writing his commentary on Nahum at the end of the fourth century, placed Elkosh in Galilee, at a village he had been shown there. A second view, internal to the book’s own concerns and favored by many, sets it in southern Judah — an Elcesi between Jerusalem and Gaza — which would make Nahum a Judahite addressing the empire that loomed over his kingdom. A third notices that Capernaum, the lakeside town of Galilee, carries in its Hebrew name Kfar Nahum the meaning village of Nahum, and wonders whether the two names mark the same place. A fourth, and the most striking, points far to the northeast: the town of Alqosh in northern Iraq, on the plain above the ruins of Nineveh itself, where a tomb has long been venerated as the prophet’s. That last identification cannot be traced earlier than the sixteenth century, and the shrine that stands over the supposed grave — a synagogue around the tomb, its present fabric dated by tradition to 1173 — became a pilgrimage destination for the Jews of Kurdistan and is honored also by local Christians and Muslims. The Jewish community that tended it left, in the main, after 1948; the surrounding town is now Chaldean Christian, and the structure was rescued from collapse only by a restoration completed in the last several years. The geography splits the prophet between the land that feared Nineveh and the land in which Nineveh stood. No site has the decisive evidence, and the most honest conclusion is that Elkosh is simply lost.

A minor prophet, minor only in length

The book belongs to the collection that Jewish and Christian editors gathered as the Twelve — the Minor Prophets, minor by the brevity of their books and not by any lesser standing in the canon. In the received order of the Tanakh Nahum stands seventh among them, set between Micah and the prophets who close the run before the exile. Counting him among the Twelve places him in a particular company: eighth-century voices like Micah who indicted Judah’s own injustices, and the late-seventh-century prophets — Zephaniah and, above all, Jeremiah — who spoke into the long crisis of Assyrian decline and Babylonian rise. Nahum’s neighbors in the scroll matter to how he is read: copied alongside the Book of Jonah, whose Nineveh repents and is spared, and the Book of Hosea, whose subject is Israel’s own faithlessness, Nahum’s single-minded oracle against a foreign capital reads as a deliberate counterweight.

The stakes: an empire and its capital

To understand why a prophet’s whole surviving voice should be spent on one foreign city, the political weight of Nineveh has to be felt. Assyria was the great terror of the ancient Near East across two centuries, the power whose armies broke the northern kingdom of Israel in the eighth century and carried its population into the deportations from which it never returned, and whose kings later marched on Judah and besieged Jerusalem. Nineveh, on the east bank of the Tigris, was its capital under the last great Assyrian rulers — a city of walls and palaces and the famous library of cuneiform tablets, sitting at the heart of the world of Ashur, the national god whose name the Assyrians bore, and of the wider Mesopotamian order of astral cult and royal divination. In 612 BCE that city fell, stormed by a coalition of Medes and Babylonians, and Assyria as a power effectively ended; within a generation the rising house of Babylon would take Assyria’s place as the empire to fear, and would itself march on Jerusalem.

Nahum’s oracle sits inside this turning of the wheel. The book refers to the sack of the Egyptian city of Thebes — No-Amon — as an accomplished fact, and that fall is dated to 663 BCE; it anticipates the destruction of Nineveh, which came in 612. The composition therefore belongs to the late seventh century, within those five decades, though whether the prophet wrote in the confidence of faith before the event or in the relief of its aftermath is disputed and cannot be settled from the text. What is not disputed is the position from which he speaks: a small kingdom, long ground under the heel of the empire, watching the unthinkable become possible — that Nineveh might fall.

The oracle: two faces of one God

The poem opens not with the city but with a hymn. The God it invokes is slow to anger and great in power, who keeps wrath for his enemies and is a stronghold in the day of trouble — and who will not at all acquit the wicked. From that double portrait the book turns its full force on Nineveh: chariots flashing in the streets, the crack of the whip and the rumble of wheels, heaps of the slain, the river-gates thrown open, the city stripped and emptied. The imagery is among the most violent in the whole prophetic corpus, and the craft that shapes it — the broken acrostic underlying the first chapter, the hammering battle scenes — is the proper subject of the Book of Nahum as a literary work. What concerns the prophet as a figure is the logic by which those two faces belong to one God: the patience celebrated in the hymn and the ruin pronounced on the city are not in tension but in sequence. Mercy that has a limit, reaching that limit, becomes judgment. The empire that crushed nations is itself a nation under judgment, and the same divine slowness that once spared Nineveh in Jonah has, in Nahum, run out.

A prophet who is only a verdict

This is what makes Nahum singular and, for many readers, difficult. The classic prophets of Israel and Judah turned their hardest words inward — against their own kings, their own cult, their own people’s injustice. Nahum does not. His indictment falls entirely on the foreign oppressor, and the comfort his name promises is the comfort of an enemy’s annihilation. He names no sin in Judah, no call to repentance, no remedy; he records only that the reckoning has arrived. The consequence is that the man dissolves almost completely into his message. Where another prophet is known by a confrontation with a king or a vision in a temple, Nahum is known by a verdict and nothing else — a voice without a biography, identifiable only by the sentence it pronounces.

That has divided his readers along a single fault line. One way of hearing the book finds in it little more than nationalist triumph, a vengeance song with a god enlisted on one side, the cruelty of empire answered by an equal relish in its downfall. The other hears a statement about justice in history: that no power built on terror endures, that the deportations and the sieges are entered in a ledger, and that the fall of the cruel is not vengeance but the closing of an account. Richard Coggins, in the standard commentary, presses on exactly this point — that the wholesale focus on the foreign enemy, with no word of reproach for Judah, is what makes Nahum both theologically narrow and, read against the experience of a small people under an unfriendly empire, intelligible: the book is one of the Bible’s hardest tests of how the people of God are to live, and to think about God, when the boot on their neck belongs to someone else. Jewish tradition set Nahum beside Jonah, one city twice judged, and read the pair as the two ends of divine patience; Christian commentators, who placed the prophets within the Old Testament as witnesses leading toward the Gospel, wrestled with a book of pure judgment and tended to allegorize Nineveh into the type of every power that sets itself against God. Neither reading domesticates the violence; both take the book at its word, that a god great in power is also a god who does not finally acquit.

The afterlife of an absence

For the wider history of esoteric and Hermetic thought, Nahum is a slender presence by design. No school of hidden teaching gathered around him; he is not a figure the later occult and theosophical writers adopted, as they adopted Enoch or Hermes or Solomon. His interest lies elsewhere — at the seam where the Hebrew prophetic tradition presses directly against the Mesopotamian world it condemned. Nahum’s whole oracle is aimed at the capital of Ashur, the city that housed the lore of Mesopotamia: the astral divination, the creation epics, the royal libraries from which so much of the ancient Near Eastern imagination descends. The prophet who pronounced that city’s end stood at the boundary between two ways of reading the heavens and history, and chose, in the name of one god, against the empire of many.

What remains, then, is not a life but a function. The other prophets are people who prophesied; Nahum is, almost wholly, the sentence itself — a name meaning comfort fixed to the harshest of consolations, a town no map can place, and a single judgment that outran the empire it named. To read him is to meet a prophet reduced to the one thing prophecy finally is: a verdict spoken aloud and left to stand.

Texts and scholarship

The primary text is the three-chapter book of the Tanakh in its Hebrew (Masoretic) form, with ancient witnesses in the Greek Septuagint and a Qumran commentary (Pesher Nahum, 4QpNah) that reads the oracle as a cipher for first-century-BCE Judean politics.

• The standard critical commentary treating the prophet as a figure is Richard J. Coggins and S. Paul Re’emi, Israel Among the Nations: A Commentary on the Books of Nahum, Obadiah, Esther (International Theological Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Edinburgh: Handsel, 1985), which reads Nahum’s exclusive indictment of the foreign oppressor as a sustained problem about faith under hostile empire. See the publisher record at Christianbook.
• J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary (Old Testament Library; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), is the standard philological and historical treatment of the book and its setting.
• For the dating, name, gentilic, and the four competing locations of Elkosh, see the survey in the EBSCO Research Starters entry on Nahum.
• On the venerated tomb at Alqosh and the late, sixteenth-century tradition tying Elkosh to that site, see the report on the shrine’s rescue at the Biblical Archaeology Society.

In the Christian liturgical year Nahum is commemorated as a prophet on December 1 in the Eastern Orthodox calendar, where the synaxarion preserves the Galilean tradition of his origin and renders his name God consoles.

→ Related: Micah · Mesopotamia · Ashur · Book Of Nahum · Bible · Tanakh · Prophecy · Babylon · Zephaniah · Jeremiah · Book Of Jonah · Book Of Hosea