See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324227255

Nahum’s Representation of and Response to Neo-

Assyria: Imperialism as a Multifaceted Point of Contact
in Nahum

Article · April 2014

DOI: 10.2307/26371181

CITATIONS READS

0 187

1 author:

Daniel Timmer
Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary
54 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Semantic Coherence, Textual Unity and Diversity, and Literary Themes View project

Religious violence View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Timmer on 05 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CONTENTS

ARTICLES
Environmental Law: Wisdom from the Ancients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Sandra Richter
Why the Danielic “Son of Man” Is a Divine Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
Markus Zehnder
Nahum’s Representation of and Response to Neo-Assyria:
Imperialism as a Multifaceted Point of Contact in Nahum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
Daniel C. Timmer
“So Was This People”: Translating Haggai 2:14 in the Past Tense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
Gregory Goswell
Magical Expectations and the Two-Stage Healing of Mark 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
Karelynne Gerber Ayayo

REVIEWS
Eugen J. Pentiuc, The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
Reviewed by Larisa Levicheva
Peter Fibiger Bang and Walter Scheidel, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the
State in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394
Reviewed by David B. Schreiner
Heike Wilde, Innovation und Tradition: Zur Herstellung und Verwendung von
Prestigegütern im pharaonischen Ägypten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
Reviewed by Gerald A. Klingbeil
Gary A. Long, Grammatical Concepts 101 for Biblical Hebrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
Stephen M. Coleman
Tomohisa Yamayoshi, Von der Auslösung zur Erlösung:
Studien zur Wurzel PDY im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
Reviewed by Tarsee Li
W. Edward Glenny, Hosea: A Commentary Based on Hosea in Codex Vaticanus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
Karen H. Jobes
J. Ross Wagner, Reading the Sealed Book:
Reading Old Greek Isaiah and the Problem of Septuagint Hermeneutics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405
Reviewed by William A. Ross
Bernard F. Batto, In the Beginning:
Essays on Creation Motifs in the Ancient Near East and the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
Reviewed by Matthew McAffee
Joshua G. Mathews, Melchizedek’s Alternative Priestly Order:
A Compositional Analysis of Genesis 14:18–20 and Its Echoes Throughout the Tanak . . . . . . . . . . . 409
Reviewed by Emmer Chacón
Helmut Utzschneider and Wolfgang Oswald, Exodus 1–15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410
Reviewed by August H. Konkel
Nicole J. Ruane, Sacrifice and Gender in Biblical Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412
Reviewed by Sung Jin Park
Katell Berthelot, Joseph E. David, and Marc Hirschman, eds., The Gift of the Land
and the Fate of the Canaanites in Jewish Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
Reviewed by Charlie Trimm
Hubert James Keener, A Canonical Exegesis of the Eighth Psalm:
Yhwh’s Maintenance of the Created Order through Divine Reversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
Reviewed by Leslie C. Allen
Daniel C. Owens, Portraits of the Righteous in the Psalms:
An Exploration of the Ethics of Book I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
Reviewed by Joshua E. Stewart
Daniel I. Block, By the River Chebar: Historical, Literary, and Theological Studies
in the Book of Ezekiel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
Reviewed by Andy R. Espinoza
Iain Provan and Mark J. Boda, eds., Let Us Go Up to Zion:
Essays in Honour of H. G. M. Williamson on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday .. . . . . . . . . 422
Reviewed by Ralph K. Hawkins
Nathan MacDonald and Izaak J. de Hulster, eds., Divine Presence and Absence
in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
Reviewed by Nathanael Warren
Matthias Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel:
Reading Second Baruch in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427
Reviewed by Matthew D. Jensen
Richard Bauckham, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov, eds., Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
Reviewed by Craig A. Evans
Jan Willem van Henten, Judean Antiquities 15: Translation and Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430
Reviewed by Eckhard J. Schnabel
A.-J. Levine and M. Z. Brettler, eds., The Jewish Annotated New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
Reviewed by Craig A. Evans
Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, eds., The Language of the New Testament:
Context, History, and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433
Reviewed by Heinrich von Siebenthal
Warren Carter, Seven Events that Shaped the New Testament World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435
Reviewed by James M. Howard
Hans F. Bayer, A Theology of Mark:
The Dynamic between Christology and Authentic Discipleship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436
Reviewed by James P. Sweeney
Steven A. Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann, eds., Character Studies
in the Fourth Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438
Reviewed by Timothy Wiarda
Eckhard J. Schnabel, Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
Reviewed by Craig L. Blomberg
Joshua W. Jipp, Divine Visitation and Hospitality to Strangers in Luke–Acts:
An Interpretation of the Malta Episode in Acts 28:1–10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
Reviewed by Craig Keener
Graham H. Twelftree, Paul and the Miraculous: A Historical Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
Reviewed by Elaine A. Philips
Mark Harding and Alanna Nobbs, eds., All Things to All Cultures:
Paul among Jews, Greeks, and Romans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446
Reviewed by Jarvis J. Williams
Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica, eds., Jesus Is Lord, Caesar Is Not:
Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448
Reviewed by Nicholas G. Piotrowski
Gary A. Anderson, Charity: The Place of the Poor in the Biblical Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
Reviewed by Nicholas G. Piotrowski
Michael F. Bird and Jason Maston, eds., Earliest Christian History:
History, Literature and Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
Reviewed by Eckhard J. Schnabel
Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae, vol. 1: Jerusalem, parts 1–2: 1–1120;
vol. 2: Caesarea and the Middle Coast: 1121–2160 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
Reviewed by Craig A. Evans

BOOKS RECEIVED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   455

Bulletin for Biblical Research 24.3 (2014) 349–362

Nahum’s Representation of and Response

to Neo-Assyria: Imperialism as a
Multifaceted Point of Contact in Nahum

daniel c. timmer
university of sudbury

Using an intertextual approach that focuses on the multifaceted transmission of

concepts in addition to textual transmission of discrete points of ideology, this
article examines how the biblical book of Nahum presents the Assyrian Empire
and how it responds to it. While Nahum’s categories nearly mirror those of the rel-
evant Neo-Assyrian sources, the response Nahum formulates to Assyrian imperi-
alism is radically different from the militarily-driven project of world domination
whose influence Nahum’s author so keenly felt. The nature of Nahum’s reaction
to Assyria also distinguishes it from some other responses to non-­Israelite na-
tions in the HB/OT.
Key Words: Nahum, Neo-Assyria, empire, violence, Judah, intertextuality, cross-
cultural influence

Introduction
It is self-evident that the author of Nahum knows of Assyria and responds
to it in his book. This assertion tells us little about the book’s message,
however. To develop a contextual and critical understanding of Nahum
in relation to Assyria, we must consider at least two related questions:
what does Nahum know of Assyria, and how does the book respond to
Assyria as it portrays it? The issues raised by these questions move us
away from simple affirmations regarding Nahum’s context to the study of
cross-cultural influence in the Assyrian Empire and the interpretation of
diverse Hebrew and Assyrian literature, and promise to shed light on some
overlooked aspects of the book’s message. After a few words on method

Author’s note: An earlier form of this article was presented in the Israelite Prophetic Literature
section at the national meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, November 17, 2012, in Chi-
cago. I am grateful for a 2011–12 research expense grant from the Association of Theological
Schools that supported research on the role of non-Israelite nations in the Twelve, and to Daniel
Fleming of New York University and several members of BBR’s editorial board for their helpful
comments on an earlier draft.

Offprint from:
Bulletin for Biblical Research 24.3
© Copyright 2014 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.
350 Bulletin for Biblical Research 24.3

and Judah’s Assyrian context prior to and during the seventh century, this
study will take up several areas of contact between Judah and Assyria
with a focus on what the Judean author chose to present as characteristic
of Assyria and how he responds to the Assyrian Empire as he presents it. 1

Method
Guided by the comparative method, this study will consider Nahum’s
representation of Assyria alongside a representative selection of Assyrian
material in order to highlight the selectivity and emphases of Nahum’s
presentation. 2 This will in turn shed light on the ideology of Nahum’s
response to Assyria. Although the vast majority of sources for historical
knowledge of Assyria are the empire’s own documents, monuments, and
archaeological remains and are therefore robustly ideological, a compara-
tive undertaking remains possible. While large-scale dependence on such
sources would be problematic for a strictly historiographic project, our
interest in Nahum’s reaction to Assyrian ideology means that the avail-
able data suit this article’s focus on comparative ideology rather than on
historical description.
An important element in this comparative project is the adoption of
the wider, conceptual sense of intertextuality rather than a sense limited to
specific cases of lexical intertextuality (via allusion, etc.). 3 This in no way
diminishes the importance of discrete points of contact whose linguistic,
chronological and geographical contours can be sketched, such as Peter
Machinist’s well-argued position regarding the transmission of motifs and
language from Assyrian royal inscriptions to First Isaiah. 4 On the con-
trary, it complements them and raises the question of how the two kinds
of intertextuality might coexist. Still, since Nahum’s interaction with As-
syria goes well beyond the odd lexical link to the very stuff of Assyrian
ideology, a conceptual investigation is merited. 5 Furthermore, the presence
of Assyrian motifs on seventh century Judean material culture suggests

1.  Here I refer to the author(s) with masculine singular grammar only to lighten the
style, and I use the term empire as a convenient term for a political unit that integrates vari-
ous people groups rather than in an inherently ideological sense (e.g., M. Hardt and A. Negri,
Empire [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000] xi).
2.  W. W. Hallo, “Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Their Relevance for Biblical Exegesis,”
in The Context of Scripture, vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World (ed. W. W. Hallo
and K. L. Younger Jr.; Leiden: Brill, 1997) xxiii–xxviii; S. Talmon, “The ‘Comparative Method’ in
Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Problems,” in Congress Volume: Göttingen, 1977 (ed. J. A.
Emerton; VTSup 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 320–56.
3.  On conceptual intertextuality, see J. Sanders, Adaptation and Appropriation (New Criti-
cal Idiom; Oxford: Routledge, 2006). For examples of a narrower approach to intertextuality,
see G. H. Johnston, “Nahum’s Rhetorical Allusions to the Neo-Assyrian Lion Motif,” BSac 158
(2001) 287–307.
4.  P. Machinist, “Assyria and Its Image in First Isaiah,” JAOS 103 (1983) 719–37.
5.  The recent work of Carly Crouch is an excellent example of this sort of undertaking:
C. Crouch, War and Ethics in the Ancient Near East: Military Violence in Light of Cosmology and
History (BZAW 407; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009).
 Timmer: Nahum’s Representation of and Response to Neo-Assyria 351

that some awareness of Assyrian culture was probably commonplace in

the decades during which Nahum was likely written. 6 Accordingly, I will
make reference to a variety of Neo-Assyrian sources with reasonable con-
fidence that a sizable fraction of their ideological content made its way to
the Judean society of which Nahum’s author was part, or at least to the
author of Nahum. 7

The Historical Background:

Long-Term Subjugation to Assyria
The history of Judah, like that of Israel, reflects the presence of Assyria in
various ways. One need only consider Assyria’s collection of vassal pay-
ments and the related diplomatic activity to see that a very effective avenue
for the transmission of Assyrian ideology existed nearly uninterrupted
throughout much of the histories of both nations. 8 Judah began vassal
payments at least as early as the reign of Ahaz (2 Kgs 16:7–10), and apart
from Hezekiah’s abortive rebellion this pattern became the norm. 9 Indeed,
the Assyrian invasion that ended Hezekiah’s rebellion severely affected
Judah’s economic and military capacities, and she reverted to her role of
faithful vassal through at least some of the reign of Manasseh, who paid
tribute to Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. 10 As already noted, the pres-
ence in Judah of Assyrian “religious and ideological motifs . . . on locally
manufactured seals and cult objects” in the seventh century suggests that
Assyrian influence there only grew with time. 11 This brings the reality of
Judah’s existence as a client state down to the time of Nahum, if we date

6.  See G. Ahlström, “An Archaeological Picture of Iron Age Religions in Ancient Pales-
tine,” SO 55 (1984) 1–31; and O. Keel and C. Uehlinger, Göttinen, Götter und Gottessymbole: Neue
Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ikonogra-
phischer Quellen (Qd 134; Freiburg: Herder, 1993) 327–429.
7.  This assumption is well-founded; to the studies mentioned above one should add
S. Aster, “Transmission of Neo-Assyrian Claims of Empire to Judah in the Late Eighth Century
b.c.e.,” HUCA 78 (2008) 1–44.
8.  Hagedorn judges the payment of tribute to be the most direct point of contact be-
tween the two states. A. Hagedorn, Die Anderen im Spiegel: Israels Auseinandersetzung mit den
Völkern in den Büchern Nahum, Zefanja, Obadja und Joel (BZAW 414; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011)
89–90. Many other avenues, often interrelated, also existed, especially treaties and the presence
of elites. See S. Parpola, “Assyria’s Expansion in the 8th and 7th Centuries and Its Long-Term
Repercussions in the West,” in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient
Israel, and Their Neighbors, from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palestina (ed. W. G. Dever and
S. Gitin; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003) 93–111 (esp. p. 101); K. L. Younger Jr., “Assyrian
Involvement in the Southern Levant at the End of the Eighth Century b.c.e.,” in Jerusalem in
Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (ed. A. Vaughn and A. Killebrew; SBLSymS 18;
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003) 235–63.
9.  See the convenient table covering roughly 750–650 b.c. in J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes,
A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1986) 318.
10.  For tribute paid to Esarhaddon, see Prism Nin. A V, 55ff.; Nin. F = Nin. S VI 7’; Ras-
sam Cylinder; for tribute paid to Ashurbanipal, see Prism C ii 27. On Assyrian control during
Manasseh’s reign, see R. Gane, “The Role of Assyria in the Ancient Near East during the Reign
of Manasseh,” AUSS 35 (1997) 21–32.
11.  Parpola, “Assyria’s Expansion,” 103–4.
352 Bulletin for Biblical Research 24.3

its composition to the period between 664/3 (the date of the fall of Thebes
to which Nahum refers as past, 3:8) and 612 (the date of the fall of Nineveh
that Nahum anticipates, 3:5–7). Because Assyria overextended itself in sup-
pressing the rebellion of Babylon (652–648 b.c.) and never recovered, the
book probably dates more precisely to about 664–650, because 1:12 repre-
sents Assyria as being at full strength. 12

Nahum and Assyria

We come now to this article’s focus: what Nahum says of Assyria, and how
it responds to the Assyrian Empire as depicted. Because we are interested
especially in issues related to ideology, we will explore the ideological ma-
trices to which Assyria’s imperial actions belong, these matrices being (I
hope to show) the most prominent elements of Nahum’s presentation of
Assyria.

The Deity Who Acts against His Enemies

Nahum’s opening hymn places the Assyria question in the context of

Yhwh’s vengeance against his enemies. The Assyrian royal inscriptions
show that the role of Assur and the various other gods who were members
of the Assyrian pantheon and were “at the side” of the king in battle is
quite similar. 13
Both Nahum and Assyrian sources also mention the gods of other
nations from time to time, although always (Nahum) or at least usually
(Assyrian sources) in a general way (Nah 1:14; COS 2:117C, 2:117E, 2:117F,
2:118A, 2:118D). 14 But while most Assyrian texts view the objectionable ac-
tions of other nations as being against Assyria’s king and god together, Na-
hum omits all reference to Judah’s king from its description of Assyria and
focuses almost entirely on a theological representation of Nineveh/Assyria.
Yhwh is opposed to Nineveh because of her “conspiracy” against Yahweh
(1:9–11; cf. 2 Kgs 18–19), her idolatry (1:14), 15 her assumed willingness to

12.  For a fairly complete survey of suggested dates, see J. P. Bosman, Social Identity in
Nahum: A Theological-ethical inquiry (Biblical Intersections 1; Piscataway: Gorgias, 2008) 102–6.
While many would date at least Nahum’s opening hymn later than the 7th century, the ra-
tionale used by some that the move from particular to general always happens in that order
(that is, chronologically) is faulty; see P. Raabe, “The Particularizing of Universal Judgment in
Prophetic Discourse,” CBQ 64 (2002) 652–74.
13.  See M. F. Fales, Guerre et Paix en Assyrie: Religion et Impérialisme (Les conférences de
l’École Pratique des Hautes Études; Paris: du Cerf, 2010) 18, 90, 91, noting that the order of
the gods in the Assyrian pantheon was fairly fixed even if local or occasional circumstances
permitted variations; cf. B. Pongratz-Leisten, “The Interplay of Military Strategy and Cultic
Practice in Assyrian Politics,” in Assyria 1995 (ed. S. Parpola and R. Whiting; Helsinki: Neo-
Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1997) 242–52.
14.  For discussion of the last text mentioned, the Nimrud Prism of Sargon II, see B. Beck-
ing, “ ‘The Gods, in Whom They Trusted . . .’ Assyrian Evidence for Iconic Polytheism in An-
cient Israel?” in Only One God? Monotheism in Ancient Israel and the Veneration of the Goddess
Asherah (ed. B. Becking et al.; London: Sheffield Academic, 2001) 151–63.
15.  This bears special notice due to the mention of Yahweh’s jealousy in 1:2 (‫ )קנוא‬and
in Exod 20:5 (‫)קנא‬.
 Timmer: Nahum’s Representation of and Response to Neo-Assyria 353

defend herself against God’s retribution (2:1; 3:14, 15d), her vampire-like
materialism (2:11–13; 3:16),and her religious-military-economic complex
(cf. 3:16–17).
A few other nuances should also be noted. First, Nahum’s opening
hymn mentions several facets of the divine character that reveal the pos-
sibility of escaping punishment, drawing selectively in 1:3 on Exod 20; 34
to affirm that Yhwh is angry with his enemies but also “slow to anger
and very strong.” 16 Similarly, 1:7 states that he is a “stronghold in the day
of trouble” for those who trust in him. While the Assyrian king “trusts”
in the gods as part of his successful implementation of their will in battle,
Assyrian sources do not present religious belief or conversion on the part
of those threatened by its violence as a way to escape the empire’s wrath. 17
Second, when the book first mentions the possibility of deliverance by
Yahweh, it does not explicitly connect it with Judah. Rather, it links it to
those who “take refuge in him” (1:7), connecting deliverance from divine
wrath with a religious rather than with a national qualifier. 18

Negative Religious Characterization of the Enemy

In Nahum and contemporary Assyrian royal literature alike, the enemy

has acted culpably and so merits judgment. Still, several differences should
be noted.
In the Assyrian sources, enemies are typically portrayed as nonsub-
missive, bad, arrogant, and proud; 19 only hubris or wickedness can ex-
plain their actions. While over the centuries the justifications for punitive

16.  The phrase ‫ כח גדול‬appears with reference to God in Exod 32:11; Deut 4:37; 9:29; 2 Kgs
17:36; Neh 1:10 (Yahweh’s actions against Egypt); Ps 147:5 (Yahweh’s creation and deliver-
ance of those who fear him, cf. Nah 1:7); and Jer 27:5; 32:17 (Yahweh’s acts of creation). The
identical syntax of 3a–b (subject-adjective-noun-[ellipsis]-adjective-noun) suggests that these
two characteristics are to be taken side by side as complementary or analogous: “on the one
hand, Yahweh is patient and has great power to deliver his people”; R. Scoralick, Gottes Güte
und Gottes Zorn: Die Gottesprädikationen in Exodus 34,6f und ihre intertextuellen Beziehungen zum
Zwölfprophetenbuch (Herders Biblische Studien 33; Freiburg: Herder, 2002) 195.
17.  “Ashur and the great gods, my lords, commanded me to march over distant moun-
tains and mighty (desert) sands, thirsty regions—with trusting heart I marched in safety.”
B. Oded, “ ‘The Command of God’ as a Reason for Going to War in the Assyrian Royal In-
scriptions,” in Ah, Assyria: Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography
Presented to Hayim Tadmor (ed. M. Cogan and I. Eph’al; ScrHier 33; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991)
223–32 (esp. p. 228). For the essentially nonreligious nature of the commitment made by the
Assyrian Empire’s subjects, see Fales, Guerre et paix, 17, 19. But note Esarhaddon’s letter to the
god Assur, translated by M. Fales, “The Enemy in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: The Moral
Judgment,” in Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn (ed. H. Nissen and J. Renger; Berlin: Reimer,
1982) 425–35 (esp. p. 432), in which a rebellious vassal-king prays (to Esarhaddon and/or As-
sur, perhaps interchangeably): “I am a thief, and for the sin I have committed, fifty times will
I make good what was carried off. . . . Spare my life, and let me magnify the god Assur, let me
extol thy valor. . . . Let me quiet thy angry heart. Have mercy upon me, and absolve my guilt.”
18.  The idiom “trust in” (‫ ב‬+ ‫ )חסה‬with God as its object consistently denotes those (in
Israel or outside it) who seek refuge in him from the threat of the wicked; cf. 2 Sam 22 // Ps 18;
Ps 2:12; 5:11; 31:19; 37:40; 64:10.
19.  These characterizations come from Zehnder’s “nicht unterwürfig,” “böse,” “hoch-
mütig,” and “stolz,” on which I draw here. See M. Zehnder, Umgang mit Fremden in Israel und
354 Bulletin for Biblical Research 24.3

violence against Assyria’s rebellious vassals show some variety, 20 Assyrian

royal inscriptions from the seventh century make use of nearly all pos-
sible justifications, notably the vassal’s rebellion against Assyria’s gods,
their misplaced trust in other powers, and their lack of obeisance to the
Assyrian monarch. 21 Esarhaddon takes up arms against those who have
“sinned against the god Assur,” including Nabu-zer-kitti-lisir, “governor
of the sea-land . . . [who] did not keep his treaty nor remember the agree-
ment of Assyria, forgot the good relations of my father” and took up arms
against Assyria. He also “was not respectful, did not stop (his evil deeds),
and would not leave my servant alone. Moreover, he did not send his mes-
senger before me and did not ask after the well-being of my kingship.” 22
Similarly, Esarhaddon states that Abdi-Milkuti, king of Sidon, “did not
fear my lordship (and) did not listen to the words of my lips . . . trusted in
the rolling sea and threw off the yoke of the god Assur.” In another case,
Sanda-uarri, king of the cities Kundi and Sissu, is presented as “a dan-
gerous enemy, who did not fear my lordship (and) abandoned the gods,
trusted in the impregnable mountains;” he and an ally “swore an oath by
their gods with one another, and trusted in their own strength.” By con-
trast, Esarhaddon “trusted in the gods Assur, Sin,” and so on. 23
A decade or two later, Assurbanipal launches his Egyptian campaign
because Taharqa “forgot the might of Ashur and Ishtar and the great gods,
my lords, and trusted in his own strength.” 24 In response, Assurbanipal first
prays to Assur and Ishtar, then gathers his troops, takes Thebes, and installs
vassal kings in Taharqa’s stead. But these vassals later “sinned against my
oath. They did not preserve the oath of the great gods, forgot the good
deeds I did for them and their hearts plotted evil,” eventually establishing
a coalition against Assyria. As a result, “the curse of Ashur, king of the
gods, came over them for they sinned against the oath of the great gods.” 25
When we turn to Nahum, we find a predictable change in perspective:
it is Assyria’s behavior that constitutes “conspiracy,” in this case against
Yhwh (1:9, 11). This may imply that Nahum presents Assyria as Yhwh’s

Assyrien: Ein Beitrag zur Anthropologie des ‘Fremden’ im Licht antiker Quellen (Stuttgart: Kohlham-
mer, 2005).
20.  As early as Adad-Nerari I, the motive for war is the enemy’s treaty-breaking (even if
there was not an actual treaty in existence). The oldest motive, present in the Middle Assyrian
period, is profoundly religious: the enemy has trusted in human and natural agents rather than
in the gods. Ibid., 67; Fales, “The Enemy,” 427.
21.  See Younger, “Assyrian Involvement,” 242, 250–52; and especially M. Liverani, “Kitru,
Katâru,” Mesopotamia 17 (1982) 43–66.
22.  E. Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 bc) (Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011) 15.
23. Leichty, Inscriptions, 17.
24.  S. C. Melville, “Apology and Egyptian Campaigns,” in The Ancient Near East: Historical
Sources in Translation (ed. M. Chavalas; Blackwell Sourcebooks in Ancient History; Oxford:
Blackwell, 2006) 364.
25. Melville, “Apology,” 364. In the case of Babylon’s rebellion, Shamash-shum-ukin
“plots evil” and interrupts Assurbanipal’s worship at Babylon’s temples, so the gods destroyed
him by fire. Assurbanipal’s gruesome response to this rebellion “calmed the hearts of the great
gods, my lords” (ibid., 366–67).
 Timmer: Nahum’s Representation of and Response to Neo-Assyria 355

vassal (without suggesting that Nahum is consciously echoing the lan-

guage of Assyrian diplomacy). Be that as it may, Assyria is characterized
as wicked (‫בליעל‬, 1:15), vile (1:14), bloody (3:1), deceitful (3:1), murderous
(3:1–4), and a practitioner of divination (3:4). 26 In a word, Assyria’s impe-
rialism is “evil” (3:19), and Nahum’s characterization of her is essentially
the inverse of the moral and religious characterization Assyria made of her
opponents, even if in both corpora the roles of Judah and Assyria remain
the same—Judah as vassal, Assyria as suzerain.

The Deities Act to Establish Justice and Eliminate Chaos

Our observations on the deities involved and the negative characterization

of their enemies allow us, next, to consider what happens when the deities
take up arms against their culpable enemies. Carly Crouch is surely correct
that the “ideological polarization of indigenous order over and against en-
emy chaos is germane to our understanding of Assyrian foreign affairs.” 27
As she puts it, “The universe as a whole is correctly ordered when its en-
tirety is orientated toward the centre, which in the Assyrian case comprises
the Assyrian heartland and its capital cities.” 28
Crouch, with others, follows Weissert in linking this chaos-order op-
position in Neo-Assyrian sources to the creation myths, especially Enuma
Elish. 29 In Enuma Elish, order is established through violent combat, and
Marduk becomes king of the gods only after dispatching his enemies,
Tiamat in particular. The text thus emphasizes the sequence “warfare,
kingship, order.” 30 These facets of divine activity have a bearing on the
Assyrian king due to a royal ideology that established a definitive analogy
between divine and human behavior. As war is inseparable from kingship
as exercised by Anshar/Assur (Marduk having been replaced by the pri-
mordial Babylonian god in the Assyrianized version of Enuma Elish), 31 so
too for the human king, who thereby establishes order.

26.  Divination is defined by the one using the term; here, it probably refers to Assyria’s
habitual reference to its gods and supernatural beings in its diplomacy, as K. Spronk suggests,
Nahum (HCOT; Kampen: Kok Phraos, 1997) 122–23. Note also E. Fuchs, “Assyria at War: Strat-
egy and Conduct,” in The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture (ed. K. Radner and E. Robson;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) 380–401: “Scholars who specialized in a bewildering
range of highly diversified magical practices accompanied the king on his campaigns” (p. 386);
and Beaulieu, who judges that Esarhaddon’s reign provides “the most extensive evidence for
the excessive popularity of divination, especially astrology, at the court” (P.-A. Beaulieu, “Mes-
opotamia,” in Religions of the Ancient World [ed. S. I. Johnston; Cambridge: Belknap, 2004] 171).
27. Crouch, War and Ethics, 21.
28. Ibid.
29.  Ibid., 22. See, e.g., Younger’s adoption (“Assyrian Involvement,” 254–55) of Weissert’s
conclusions with respect to Sennacherib’s eighth campaign prism and his adoption of Renger’s
arguments to the same effect regarding Sargon II’s inscriptions; cf. J. Renger, “Neuassyrische
Königsinschriften als Genre der Keilschriftliteratur—Zum Stil und zur Kompositionstechnik
der Inschriften Sargons II. von Assyrien,” in Keilschfiftliche Literaturen (ed. K. Hecker and W.
Sommerfeld; RAI 32; BBVO 6; Berlin: Reimar, 1986) 109–28.
30. Crouch, War and Ethics, 27.
31.  Younger, “Assyrian Involvement,” 255.
356 Bulletin for Biblical Research 24.3

Given our interest in differences and similarities between Nahum’s

and Assyria’s ideologies, Crouch’s affirmation that the same ideology domi-
nated Israelite thinking bears close examination:
The [Assyrian] military ideology which pits the king as the defender
of cosmic order by means of military action against the chaotic enemy
was closely paralleled in Israel and Judah. As in Assyria, the human
king’s role as a defender of order on earth is closely connected to the
god’s defence of order at creation. 32
Crouch takes as her point of departure John Day’s argument for the
influence of Canaanite myths on the Hebrew Bible. 33 She also asserts that
the Psalms, where that Canaanite tradition is most evident, have “a social
provenance most closely mirroring the provenance of the royal Assyrian
material.” 34 On these two bases she concludes that Judah and Israel “knew
of a cosmological account in which it was Yahweh’s victory over the forces
of chaos, embodied as watery sea creatures, which enabled the establish-
ment of an ordered world.” This background, Crouch admits, was “delib-
erately obscured in the priestly account of creation,” 35 but she argues that
in Nahum the frequent collocation of the sea, the wicked, and the nations
in contexts using ‫סוף‬, ‫ים‬, ‫נהר‬, and ‫ סער‬language shows that the description
of Yhwh in the opening verses of the book “is a clear allusion to Yahweh’s
battle against chaos at creation.” 36
While the Chaoskampf motif is indeed present at a number of points
across the HB/OT, Crouch’s claim that it is present in Nahum, and that
it includes the agency of a Judean royal figure, merits scrutiny. 37 First,
with respect to the presence of a well-developed Chaoskampf ideology in
Nahum, the language of sea and river to which Crouch refers appears in a
variety of HB contexts that present us with several options for identifying
the referent of Nahum’s opening references to God’s relation to water- and
storm-imagery. These include creation (Ps 24:2; 89:9), the exodus (Ps 66:6;
77:16–19), or the present or future victory of Yhwh over the nations
(Ps 18:4, 15–19; Isa 11:15; 19:5). Although these passages share imagery, it
is not necessarily the case that the imagery invariably refers to the same
conceptual matrix. Accordingly, while the imagery of whirlwind and storm
is indeed typical of theophanies that involve the judgement of the wicked, 38
I agree with Day and Spronk that 1:4 likely refers to Yahweh’s “present
power over that chaotic sea” rather than to a past, mythical combat (cf. the
collocation of ‫ גער‬with ‫ ים‬and the verb ‫ חרב‬in Ps 106:9). 39

32. Crouch, War and Ethics, 29.

33.  J. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old
Testament (Cambridge Oriental Publications 35; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).
34. Crouch, War and Ethics, 30.
35. Ibid.
36.  Ibid., 158.
37.  Ibid., 166–67.
38.  A. Luc, “Storm and the Message of Job,” JSOT 87 (2000) 111–23 (esp. pp. 113–14).
39.  If not, we must account for the swift transition to descriptions of Carmel and Bashan
in 1:4b.
 Timmer: Nahum’s Representation of and Response to Neo-Assyria 357

Related to this point is the question whether these texts are echo-
ing, adapting, or borrowing wholesale (with the attendant world view),
whether from other ancient Near Eastern texts or from elsewhere in the
Hebrew Bible/OT. 40 What the comparative method proposes for evaluating
the influence of discrete elements becomes critically important at the level
of semantic content. One must consider the various options (echo, adapta-
tion, borrowing) and eliminate the semantically less significant possibilities
in order to establish the more significant possibility. In other words, to
establish that Nahum is borrowing in toto an ideology of kingship from
another source, one must also demonstrate why it is inadequate to treat the
chaos-related elements in Nahum as metaphorical echoes or adaptations
of other literature. 41 This Crouch has not done. 42
Rather, it seems that Crouch has assumed the holistic importation of
conceptual clusters from elsewhere in the ANE, or from earlier portions of
the Hebrew Bible/OT, without exploring the possibility that in adapting
the material in question, Nahum has modified or even eliminated one or
more of the cluster’s elements. Crouch’s concession that the Chaoskampf
background is “deliberately obscured” by the P source simultaneously
raises the question of how that Tendenz can coexist with her argument that
wholesale borrowing was normative elsewhere in the HB. 43
If Crouch’s argument that Yhwh’s activity in Nahum 1 is ultimately
indebted to an element of a widespread ancient Near Eastern world view
is to be retained, the above considerations suggest that it is best to describe
the relationship between the two as adaptation. Notably, this adaptation

40.  See further references to theophanies in Spronk, Nahum, 38–39; J. M. Roberts, Nahum,
Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991) 50–51, who judges the
origin of much of the language to be mythological but seems to make theophany the dominant
category in Nahum all the same; and H.-J. Fabry, Nahum (HThKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2006)
135–36, whose position is much like Roberts’ but who also affirms that the link with the exodus
is more solid.
41.  For a definition of metaphor, see A. Gibson, Biblical Semantic Logic: A Preliminary
Analysis (Biblical Seminar; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001) 27. The HB’s consistent empha-
sis on Yhwh as the only creator deity, who creates without opposition, also merits attention
in light of the comparative method’s insistence on the priority of inner-biblical parallels and
the holistic approach to texts.
42.  Tsumura argues that only Enuma Elish combines creation and Chaoskampf and that
biblical language that refers to an ancient Chaoskampf does not necessarily locate that struggle
at the time of creation. See D. Tsumura, Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf
Theory in the Old Testament (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), esp. p. 190. This is probably
claiming too much, mainly because the various texts one must consider seem to refer to a
variety of precosmic circumstances; see J. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old
Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2006) 184–88.
43.  The assertion that the Priestly account (Gen 1:1–2:3) “obscured” or “was stripped
of” an element of Chaoskampf is difficult to establish methodologically (there being no earlier
versions of it) and semantically, because the account is dominated by order and creation by
word and contains what some recognize as a polemical tone against alterative cosmologies
from elsewhere in the ANE; see G. Hasel, “The Significance of the Cosmology in Genesis 1 in
Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Parallels,” AUSS 10 (1972) 1–20; but contrast M. Smith, The
Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 (Minneapolis; Fortress, 2009).
358 Bulletin for Biblical Research 24.3

preserves elements of the source while placing them in a new matrix and
thus changing their significance:
The writers of the Hebrew Bible used the repertoire of ancient Near
Eastern cosmic battle motifs and patterns to articulate certain aspects
of faith and commitment to God/Yahweh in ancient Israel. They used
them precisely because these stories were powerful in the conceptual
world of the ancient Israelites and, therefore, provided a set of motifs
that could be used to speak powerfully about Yahweh. 44
This is hardly to deny that this motif is more clearly present elsewhere
in the OT, however. Indeed, granting that in at least some of the literature
produced “In Israel and Judah as well as Assyria . . . there was a tradi-
tion linking the motifs of war, kingship and the establishment of order
at creation,” 45 the more prominent such a tradition is elsewhere in the
Hebrew Bible, the more striking is Nahum’s nonimperial tone.

The King

If, rather than echoing directly an element of extrabiblical ancient Near

Eastern thought, Nahum’s allusions reach only as far as other passages in
the Hebrew Bible (although themselves reflecting the influence of Canaan-
ite or other traditions), it is still necessary to critique Crouch’s argument
that the Judean king is inevitably involved in the military action Nahum
foresees against Assyria (the same is true in the case of adaptation from
non-Judean sources, of course). If “the human king’s role as a defender of
order on earth is closely connected to the god’s defence of order at cre-
ation,” what are we to make of the complete absence of the human Judean
king in Nahum? 46 This question is particularly pressing in what is certainly
a post-Hezekiah text, and one probably written in close proximity to Jo-
siah’s reign. The issue of adaptation or selective borrowing is thus central
regardless of whether Nahum is drawing on Judean or foreign material. 47
This question can be clarified by noting that it is impossible to imagine
Assyrian imperialism apart from the ideology of the Assyrian monarch.
Parpola notes that in some Assyrian reliefs the king is replaced by the tree
of life, suggesting that “the king himself represented the realization of
[the ideal] order in man, in other words, a true image of God, the Perfect
Man.” 48 It is the king who leads the army into battle, and once in battle is

44.  R. E. Averbeck, “Ancient Near Eastern Mythography as It Relates to Historiography

in the Hebrew Bible: Genesis 3 and the Cosmic Battle,” in The Future of Biblical Archaeology:
Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions (ed. J. K. Hoffmeier and A. R. Millard; Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2004) 328–56 (345).
45. Crouch, War and Ethics, 31.
46.  Ibid., 29.
47.  Crouch’s argument (ibid., 166–67) that a human king must be in view in 2:3[2] is
not convincing, because Yhwh elsewhere derives glory from military interventions led by
other nations that benefit his people, the fall of Babylon in Habakkuk being the most relevant
example.
48.  S. Parpola, “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and
Greek Philosophy,” JNES 52 (1993) 161–208 (pp. 167–68).
 Timmer: Nahum’s Representation of and Response to Neo-Assyria 359

accompanied by the gods (as numerous inscriptions affirm) and boasts a

divine aura (melammu). Indeed, all that the Assyrian king does is done by,
with, and for the god, as appears from an inscription of Ashur-nasir-apli II
that opens in typical fashion by describing him as “king of the universe,
unrivaled king, king of all the four quarters . . . destructive weapon of
the great gods.”  49 Similarly, a well-known royal hymn for Assurbanipal
begins with the exclamation “Ashur is king! Ashur is king!” 50 It is also
notable that many characteristics of the Assyrian monarch are his exclusive
possession: “the Assyrian kingship is the only one to legitimately exercise
universal dominion,” is without equal, and “is the only one endowed with
those qualities which render legitimate the exercise of power.” 51 All this
makes for a monarch with unlimited power and unquestionable authority.
Even prophetic texts that appear to ascribe passivity to the Assyrian king
do so without denying that he is active in battle, so that the king’s passiv-
ity is a trope for divine enabling or superintendence rather than outright
nonparticipation. 52
Over against the Assyrian literature’s monarch-led march toward
world domination stands the complete silence of Nahum with respect to
any Judean king, past, present, or future. Where is the hope of the Da-
vidide’s worldwide dominion expressed in Psalm 2, or the focus on the
Davidide even when he is completely passive before Yhwh’s deliverance,
as was Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 18–19? Rather than appealing to these currents
in Israel’s theology, Nahum moves in a very different direction: the book
ignores the Judean king; it does not promote the worldwide extension of
Judah’s or any other state’s borders; and it does not envision the elimination
of all nations that are “other.” 53 This silence removes a key element from

49.  K. Grayson, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, vol. 2: From Tiglath-Pileser I to Ashur-nasir-

apli II (Weisbaden: Harrassowitz, 1976) 119 (from the Ninurta temple at Kalach, i 9).
50. A. Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literature Miscellanea (SAA 3; Helsinki: Helsinki
University Press, 1989) no. 11; see on the circumstances of its use P. Garelli, “Le temple et le
pouvoir royal en Assyrie du XIVe au VIIIe siècle,” in Le temple et le culte: Compte rendu de la
XXe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (ed. Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten;
Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Institut te Istambul, 1975) 116–24 (pp. 116–17).
51.  M. Liverani, “The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire,” in Power and Propaganda: A Sym-
posium on Ancient Empires (ed. M. T. Larsen; Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 7; Copenhagen:
Akademisk Forlag, 1979) 297–317 (p. 310).
52.  For example, Ishtar of Arbela tells Esarhaddon, “I will flay your enemies and give
them to you. . . . I will go before you and behind you,” effectively integrating assertions of di-
vine monergism and divine assistance. S. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies (SAA 9; Helsinki: Helsinki
University Press, 1997) 4–5. The same cooperation appears in statements by Ishtar of Arbela to
Esarhaddon that “I will deliver up the enemy of the king of Assyria for slaughter” (idem, 5),
and by Mullissu to Assurbanipal that “[You shall reig]n over [the kings] of the countries! . . . I
will finish off the land of the Cimmerians!” M. Nissinen, “A Report of Prophecies,” in Prophets
and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (ed. M. Nissinen and P. Machinist; SBLWAW 12; Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2003) 127. See further Crouch’s insightful comments, War and
Ethics, 26–27.
53.  This despite Crouch’s suggestion that “the Judahite king is implied as the royal agent”
of Nineveh’s destruction, a proposal that is required by her argument but that is supported
only obliquely by 2:13’s assertion that Yhwh will restore the majesty of Jacob and Israel (War
and Ethics, 166–68).
360 Bulletin for Biblical Research 24.3

the ideology of empire, leaving Nahum’s audience to look for the fulfill-
ment of his message by other means and inviting the reader to search for
an ideology that is not global in scope—that is, an ideology other than
Neo-Assyrian—in order to understand Nahum. 54

The Empire’s Extent

The contrast between Nahum and royal Assyrian sources is again strik-
ing when we consider the extent of the empire or nation concerned. In
Assyria, “It was the king’s duty to explore, overcome, and incorporate
[all non-­Assyrian territories] into the realm of Ashur.” 55 To give but one
example, the titles taken by Assyrian monarchs routinely ascribe to them
sovereignty over the whole world, while they refer to other kings only by
means of their limited territory. 56
Nahum’s perspective is quite different on this point, as it contains no
program for Judean imperialism. It is possible that Nah 2:3[2] affirms that
Yhwh will restore the splendor of Jacob, meaning (part of?) the original,
undivided kingdom, but even then the limits of the land in Nahum never
exceed the relatively tiny area promised to Abram. 57

The “Other” Nations

As we have seen, in the Assyrian perspective all nations other than Assyria
are evaluated negatively and so must be integrated in the empire as part
of the extension of Assur’s reign. Among other reasons, those outside As-
syria are the enemy simply because they are non-Assyrian. 58 Accordingly,
they must capitulate and be absorbed by the empire as a client state or
province, or face destruction. This absorption was accomplished by a very
intentional, multifaceted process of “assimilation and integration” that
replaced the new citizen’s previous identity with an Assyrian identity. 59
Nahum, by contrast, presents all nations other than Assyria as being
victims of Assyria, like Judah. It attributes culpable behavior neither to
Judah (except indirectly in 1:12) nor to the other nations who have fallen
under the Assyrian scourge, thus putting Assyria in a class of its own.
Given that Judah was not without potential enemies other than Assyria
in the seventh century (for example, Edom, who at least in the eighth

54.  Nahum does not state that Yhwh would accomplish the defeat of Assyria directly;
on the contrary, it clearly anticipates the use of military force. But beyond the extreme improb-
ability of Judah giving Nineveh her due, this radical departure from the standard god-king-
violence-empire constellation means that Judah, and her king in particular, cannot lay claim
to the glory, spoils, or other benefits enjoyed by the victor.
55.  B. J. Parker, “The Construction and Performance of Kingship in the Neo-Assyrian
Empire,” Journal of Anthropological Research 67 (2011) 357–86 (esp. p. 363).
56.  As noted by Fales, Guerre et paix, 83.
57.  The following comparison with Israel makes the verse’s sense uncertain.
58. Crouch, War and Ethics, 21; Zehnder, Umfang, passim.
59.  S. Parpola, “Assyrian Identity in Ancient Times and Today,” Journal of Assyrian Aca-
demic Studies 18 (2004) 5–40 (esp. pp. 7–8).
 Timmer: Nahum’s Representation of and Response to Neo-Assyria 361

century was still a thorn in Judah’s side [2 Chr 28:16–17], and would soon
be so again [Obadiah]; Egypt, whose interests toward the end of the sev-
enth century clearly diverged from those of Judah [2 Kgs 23:28–30]), this
perspective is remarkable. 60 Together with the absence of any role for the
Judahite king and the modest limits for Judah’s territory, Nahum’s implicit
tolerance of the non-Assyrian nations constitutes a third nonimperial ele-
ment in its response to empire. 61

Summary
Nahum’s interaction with Neo-Assyrian imperialism is multifaceted and
complex. The two corpora share nearly every important subject and prior-
ity: king, god, empire, enemies, and the concern to see justice and order
established. At the same time, each corpus fills these categories with very
different content. While the scope of this article requires that we refrain
from any far-reaching claims about the relationship of the world views or
ideological complexes of each (for a good example of a more comprehensive
study, see Zehnder’s Umgang mit Fremden), it is clear that Nahum, even
though much of the “matter” of its conceptual world is identical to the
“matter” of its Assyrian counterpart, builds with that matter a very dif-
ferent world with unique molecules, organisms, and structures. 62 Nahum
departs from the Assyrian ethos that bore down on its author, or from
some important currents in traditional Judahite theology, in at least three
ways: (1) Nahum sees Assyria within the frame that the empire had set
for itself, attesting the effectiveness of the empire’s propaganda and ideol­
ogy. 63 (2) Nahum nonetheless responds to Assyria in a way that differs in
significant ways from the ideology of the empire by eliminating the role of

60.  It is difficult to explain this perspective. Nahum is not too focused on Assyria to spend
any time looking elsewhere, because Judah’s past and present enemies are numerous and
frequently powerful. While Assyria’s behavior was significantly worse than that of the other
nations, this point seems unable by itself to account for Nahum’s radical focus on Assyria. Much
of the answer probably lies in the strongly idolatrous nature (from a Hebrew Bible perspec-
tive) of Assyrian warfare (Nah 1:9–11, 14) and Assyria’s long-standing hegemony over Judah.
61.  See my “Boundaries without Judah, Boundaries within Judah: Hybridity and Identity
in Nahum,” HBT 34 (2012) 1–17. If Assyria and Judah legitimized war for the same reason,
namely, that it brought order to chaos, one is hard-pressed to explain how Nahum can exempt
from his prediction of divine retribution all other nations except Assyria. Michael Hasel argues
that if the ideological background of the two corpora is largely identical, it is also difficult to
account for the clear differences that exist between Judean and Assyrian military ethics. See his
review of Crouch’s War and Ethics in the Ancient Near East: Military Violence in Light of Cosmology
and History, BBR 22 (2012) 115–16; and his Military Practice and Polemic: Israel’s Laws of Warfare
in Near Eastern Perspective (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 2005).
62.  W. G. Lambert recognizes that “differences in tone, details, and purpose between [the
sources being compared, if significant, rule] direct borrowing . . . out of the question” (“Inter-
change of Ideas between Southern Mesopotamia and Syria-Palestine as Seen in Literature,”
in Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn [ed. H. Nissen and J. Renger; Berlin: Reimer, 1982] 311–16,
esp. p. 315).
63.  Note the similar conclusion drawn by Machinist in “Assyria and Its Image in First
Isaiah,” 737.
 362 Bulletin for Biblical Research 24.3

the king (especially in relation to the national deity’s original victory over
chaos), leaving aside any program of territorial expansion and tolerating
nations other than his own. (3) Despite much continuity with the rest of
the Hebrew Scriptures, Nahum offers a response to empire that is mark-
edly different from a number of other writings that are now its canonical
neighbors, especially those that reflect the Zion tradition, in bypassing any
involvement of a Davidide in Judah’s deliverance (contrast Amos 9) and
by separating the fates of most nations from that of Assyria (contrast the
movement in Habakkuk from Babylon in chaps. 1–2 to the “nations,” Hab
3:6, 12).

View publication stats