⁷ sn The Hebrew term translated covered siege tower probably does not refer to a battering ram, but to a movable protective tower, used to cover the soldiers and the siege machinery. These are frequently depicted in Neo-Assyrian bas-reliefs, such as the relief of Sennacherib’s siege of Lachish. The Neo-Assyrians used both small, hut-like shelters that could be carried by a few men, as well as larger, tower-like structures rolled on wheels to the top of siege embankments. These mantelets protected the attackers while they built the embankments and undermined the foundations of the city walls to hasten their collapse. Siege towers were equipped with machines designed to hurl stones to smash the fortifications and firebrands to start conflagrations (see A. H. Layard, Nineveh and Its Remains, 2:281-86).

⁵ tc The MT reads אִם־שְׁלֵמִים וְכֵן רַבִּים (’im-sh^elemim v^ekhen rabbim, “Even though they are strong and numerous”). The complicated syntax of this line led to textual confusion and several textual variants among the versions. For example, the LXX’s κατάρξων ὑδάτων πολλῶν (katarxōn hudatōn pollōn, “ruler of many waters”) reflects מֹשֵׁל מַיִם רַבִּים (moshel mayim rabbim, “ruler of many waters”) which redivides the words, and omits the letter א (aleph) and the word וְכֵן (v^ekhen). Similarly, the Syriac reflects אֶל מֹשְׁלֵי מַיִם רַבִּים (ʾel mosh^ele mayim rabbim, “to the rulers of many waters”). The MT is the most difficult reading and therefore best explains the origin of these textual variants. Moreover, the LXX of Nahum is well-known for its unusual mistranslations of the Hebrew text of Nahum. The LXX butchers v. 12 in several other places (see below). All major English versions follow the MT here.

¹ tc Heb “Recently my people rise up as an enemy.” The MT is problematic in light of v. 9, where “my people” are the object of oppression, not the perpetrators of it. The form וְאֶתְמוּל (v^eʾetmul, “and recently”) is probably the product of fusion and subsequent suppression of an (ע) ʿayin. The translation assumes an emendation to וְאַתֶּם עַל (v^eʾattem ʿal, “and you against [my people]”). The second person plural pronoun fits well with the second plural verb forms of vv. 8b-10. If this emendation is accepted, then יְקוֹמֵם (y^eqomem, the Polel imperfect of קוּם [qum]) should be emended to קָמִים (qamim; a Qal participle from the same root).

⁵ tn Or “will be a deception.” The term אַכְזָב (ʾakhzav) is often translated “deception,” derived from the verb I כָּזָב (“to deceive, lie”; HALOT 467-68 s.v. I כזב). However, it probably means “what is dried up,” since (1) the noun elsewhere refers to an empty well or dried river in summer (Jer 15:18; cf. Job 6:15-20) (HALOT 45 s.v. אַכְזָב); (2) the place-name “Achzib” (אַכְזִיב) literally means “place on the אַכְזָב [dried up river]” (HALOT 45 s.v. אַכְזָב); and (3) it is derived from the verb II כָּזָב (“to dry up [brook]”; Isa 58:11), which also appears in Mishnaic Hebrew and Arabic. The point of the metaphor is that Achzib will be as disappointing to the kings of Israel as a dried up spring in the summer is to a thirsty traveler in the Jordanian desert.

² sn The first verse of the prayer summarizes the whole—“I was in trouble; I called to the Lord for help; he rescued me; I will give him thanks”—before elaborating on the nature and extent of the trouble (vv. 3-7a), mentioning the cry for help and the subsequent rescue (6b-7), and promising to give thanks (8-9). These elements, as well as much vocabulary and imagery found in Jonah’s prayer, appear also in other Hebrew psalms. With Jonah 2:1 compare, for example, Pss 18:6; 22:24; 81:7; 116:1-4; 120:1; 130:1-2; Lam 3:55-56. These references and others indicate that Jonah was familiar with prayers used in worship at the temple in Jerusalem; he knew “all the right words.” Cf. also Ps 107 with Jonah as a whole.

⁵ tn Lexicographers debate whether there are two roots אָבַל (ʾaval), one signifying “mourn” and the other “be dry,” or simply one (“mourn”). The parallel verb (“withers”) might favor the second option and have the meaning “wilt away.” It is interesting to note, however, that the root appears later in the book in the context of lament (5:16; 8:8, 10; 9:5). Either 1:2 is a possible wordplay to alert the reader to the death that will accompany the judgment (the option of two roots), or perhaps the translation “mourns” is appropriate here as well (cf. KJV, NASB, NKJV, NJPS; see also D. J. A. Clines, “Was There an ’BL II ‘Be Dry’ in Classical Hebrew?” VT 42 [1992]: 1-10).

³ tc The meaning and syntax of the MT is enigmatic: וְאֶל־עַל יִקְרָאֻהוּ (v^eʾel ʾal yiqraʾuhu, “they call upwards to him”). Many English versions, including KJV, NIV, NRSV, and NLT, take the referent of “him” as the “most High.” The BHS editors suggest reading וְאֶל־בַּעַל יִקְרָא וְהוּא (v^eʾel baʿal yiqraʾ vehuʾ, “one calls to Baal, but he…”), connecting the third person masculine singular independent personal pronoun וְהוּא (v^ehuʾ, “but he…”) with the following clause. The early Greek recensions (Aquila and Symmachus), as well as the Aramaic Targum and the Vulgate, vocalized עֹל (ʿol) as “yoke” (as in 11:4): “they cry out because of [their] yoke” (a reading followed by TEV).

² tc The MT reads יָגוּרוּ (yaguru, Qal imperfect third person common plural from III גוּר, gur, “to dread”; see BDB 159 s.v. III גוּר 1). This reading is followed by most English versions but is syntactically awkward because III גוּר (“to dread”) is used nowhere else with the preposition לְ (lamed, “they are in dread for…”?). BDB suggests reading יָנוּדוּ (yanudu, Qal imperfect third person common plural from נוּד, nud, “to lament”; BDB 626 s.v. נוּד 2.a), which harmonizes better in the parallelism with אָבַל (ʾaval, “to mourn”) in the following line. The verb נוּד (“to lament”) is used with the preposition לְ in the idiom “to lament for” (e.g., Isa 51:19; Jer 15:5; 16:5; 48:17; Nah 3:7). This involves simple orthographic confusion between ג (gimel) and נ (nun), as well as ר (resh) and ד (dalet), which were often confused by the scribes.

¹ tc The MT reads מְנָאֲפִים (m^enaʾafim, “adulterers”; Piel participle masculine plural from נָאַף, naʾaf, “to commit adultery”), which does not seem to fit the context. The original reading was probably אוֹפִים (ʾofim, “bakers”; Qal participle masculine plural from אָפַה, ʾafah, “to bake”), which harmonizes well with the baker/oven/fire motif in 7:4-7. The textual deviation was caused by: (1) confusion of נ (nun) and ו (vav), (2) metathesis of נ/ו (nun/vav) and א (alef), and (3) dittography of מ (mem) from the preceding word. Original כֻּלָּם אוֹפִים (kullam ʾofim, “all of them are bakers”) was confused for כֻּלָּם מְנָאֲפִים (“all of them are adulterers”). In spite of this most English versions follow the reading of the MT here.

¹ tn Lexical and syntactical questions create three possibilities for understanding this verb. The verb form וְנֵדְעָה (v^ened^eʿah) is a vav plus first plural cohortative either from יָדַע (yadaʿ, “to know”) or דָּעָה (daʿah, “to seek”). If from יָדַע (yadaʿ), it could be finishing v. 2: “so that we may live before him and know him.” The object (“him”) is understood from the previous clause, or perhaps the object may be added to the verb by emending it to וְנֵדָעֵהוּ (v^enedaʿehu). Most translations treat it as beginning v. 3 and from יָדַע (yadaʿ), either “Let us know” (e.g. NASB, ESV, NKJV, NRSV) or “Let us acknowledge” (e.g. NIV). Several dictionaries (HALOT 228, NIDOTTE 959, and Concise DCH 81) treat it as from דָּעָה (daʿah). The idea of seeking or requesting fits well with the following verb, רָדַף (radaf, “to pursue”).

¹ tn Heb “Jezreel.” The use of the name יִזְרְעֶאל (yizr^eʿeʾl, “Jezreel”) creates a powerful threefold wordplay: (1) The proper name יִזְרְעֶאל (“Jezreel”) is a phonetic wordplay on the similar sounding name יִשְׂרָאֵל (yisraʾel, “Israel”): God will answer Israel, that is, Jezreel. (2) The name יִזְרְעֶאל (“Jezreel”) plays on the verb זָרַע (zaraʿ, “to sow, plant”), the immediately following word: וּזְרַעְתִּיהָ (uz^eraʿtiha, vav + Qal perfect first person common singular + third person feminine singular suffix: “I will sow/plant her”). This wordplay creates a popular etymology for יִזְרְעֶאל meaning, “God sows/plants,” which fits well into the agricultural fertility imagery in 2:21-23 [2:23-25]. (3) This positive connotation of יִזְרְעֶאל (“Jezreel”) in 2:21-23 [23-25] reverses the negative connotation of יִזְרְעֶאל (“Jezreel”) in 1:4-5 (bloodshed of Jehu in the Jezreel Valley).

¹ tc The MT reads וְיִרְאָה לָהֶם (v^eyirʾah lahem, “and fear belonged to them”). In a similar vision in 10:12 the wheels are described as having spokes (יְדֵיהֶם, y^edehem). That parallel would suggest יָדוֹת (yadot) here (written יָדֹת without the mater lectionis). By positing both a ד/ר (dalet/resh) confusion and a ה/ת (hey/tav) confusion, the form was read as וְיָרֵה (v^eyareh) and was then misunderstood and subsequently written as וְיִרְאָה (v^eyirʾah) in the MT. The reading וְיִרְאָה does not seem to fit the context well, though in English it can be made to sound as if it does. See W. H. Brownlee, Ezekiel 1-19 (WBC), 8-9. The LXX reads καὶ εἶδον αὐτά (kai eidon auta, “and I saw”), which assumes וָאֵרֶא (vaʾereʾ). The existing consonants of the MT may also be read as “it was visible to them.”

⁴ tn Heb “by the terrors.” However, as HALOT 40 s.v. אֵימָה indicates, these are “images that cause terror” (a substitution of the effect for the cause). The translation of this line follows the interpretation of the majority of modern English versions and all the commentaries consulted. NIV, NCV, and God’s Word reflect a different syntax, understanding the subject to be the idols just mentioned rather than “her people,” which is supplied here for the sake of clarity (the Hebrew text merely says “they.”) Following that lead, one could render “but those idols will go mad with terror.” This makes excellent sense in the context, which often refers to effects (vv. 36b, d, 37c, 38b) of the war that is coming. However, that interpretation does not fit as well with the following “therefore/so,” which basically introduces a judgment or consequence after an accusation of sin.

³ tn Heb “and this is with regard to the whole earth.” The feminine pronoun הִיא (hiʾ) at the end refers to the verbal concepts just mentioned, i.e., this process (cf. GKC 459 §144.b and compare the use of the feminine singular suffix in the same function at GKC 440-41 §135.p). The particle אֶת (ʾet) is here functioning to introduce emphatically the object of the action (cf. BDB 85 s.v. I אֵת 3.α). There is some debate whether אֶרֶץ (ʾerets) here applies to the whole land of Israel or to the whole earth. However, the reference to “all mankind” (Heb “all flesh”) in the next verse as well as “anywhere you go” points to “the whole earth” as the referent.

¹ tn Heb “Whether good or whether evil, we will hearken to the voice of the Lord our God, to whom we are sending you, in order that it may go well for us because/when we hearken to the voice of the Lord our God.” The phrase “whether good or whether evil” is an abbreviated form of the idiomatic expressions “to be good in the eyes of” = “to be pleasing to” (BDB 374 s.v. טוֹב 2.f and see 1 Kgs 21:2) and “to be bad in the eyes of” = “to be displeasing to” (BDB 948 s.v. רַע 3 and see Num 22:34). The longer Hebrew sentence has been broken down and restructured to better conform with contemporary English style.

² sn Hezekiah was co-regent with his father Ahaz from 729-715 b.c. and sole ruler from 715-686 b.c. His father was a wicked king who was responsible for the incursions of the Assyrians (2 Kgs 16; 2 Chr 28). Hezekiah was a godly king, noted for his religious reforms and for his faith in the Lord in the face of the Assyrian threat (2 Kgs 18-19; 2 Chr 32:1-23). The deliverance of Jerusalem in response to his prayers of faith (2 Kgs 19:14-19, 29-36) was undoubtedly well-known to the people of Jerusalem and Judah and may have been one of the prime reasons for their misplaced trust in the inviolability of Zion/Jerusalem (see Ps 46; 76), though the people of Micah’s day already believed it too (Mic 3:11).

⁴ tn The word used here was used in the early years of Israel’s conquest for the action of killing all the men, women, and children in the cities of Canaan, destroying all their livestock, and burning their cities down. This policy was intended to prevent Israel from being corrupted by paganism (Deut 7:2; 20:17-18; Josh 6:18, 21). It was to be extended to any city that led Israel away from worshiping God (Deut 13:15) and any Israelite who brought an idol into his house (Deut 7:26). Here the policy is being directed against Judah as well as against her neighbors because of her persistent failure to heed God’s warnings through the prophets. For further usage of this term in application to foreign nations in the book of Jeremiah, see 50:21, 26 and 51:3.

² tn Heb “Your father, did he not eat and drink and do justice and right?” The copulative vav in front of the verbs here (all Hebrew perfects) shows that these actions are all coordinate, not sequential. The contrast drawn between the actions of Jehoiakim and Josiah show that the phrase about eating and drinking should be read in light of the same contrasts in Eccl 2, which ends with the note of contentment in Eccl 2:24 (see also Eccl 3:13; 5:18 [5:17 HT]; 8:15). The question is, of course, rhetorical, setting forth the positive role model against which Jehoiakim’s actions are to be condemned. The key phrase is, “then things went well with him,” which is repeated in the next verse after the reiteration of Josiah’s practice of justice.

³ sn All of the burnt offering, including the meat, was to be consumed on the altar (e.g., Lev 1:6-9). The meat of the other sacrifices could be eaten by the priest who offered the sacrifice and the person who brought it (e.g., Lev 7:16-18, 32). Since, however, the people of Judah were making a mockery of the sacrificial system by offering sacrifices while disobeying the law, the Lord rejected the sacrifices (cf. 6:20). Since they were violating the moral law, they might as well go ahead and violate the cultic law by eating the meat dedicated to God because he rejected it anyway.

² tn Many translations say “pleads the cause of his people” (KJV, NRSV, ESV) or similarly (NASB, NIV). The verb רִיב (riv, “to contend, dispute, conduct a law suit”) normally conveys that notion with the cognate direct object רִיב (riv, “cause, dispute, legal case”), but that is lacking here. Instead “his people” are the direct object, an unusual construction. The verb רִיב typically uses a preposition to indicate whether the action is done for or against someone. The syntax here may reflect Isa 3:13 where God is said to judge his people. There רִיב occurs without a direct object, but “his people” are supplied by parallelism in the second half of the line. The immediate context here is about the reversal of judgment, so referring to God as the one who judges his people but now takes his cup of judgement away would fit well.