² tc The Hebrew appears to read literally, “and the violence against the animals [which] he terrified.” The verb form יְחִיתַן (y^ekhitan) appears to be a Hiphil imperfect third masculine singular with third feminine plural suffix (the antecedent being the animals) from חָתַת (khatat, “be terrified”). The translation above follows the LXX and assumes a reading יְחִתֶּךָ (y^ekhittekha, “[the violence against the animals] will terrify you”; cf. NRSV “the destruction of the animals will terrify you”; NIV “and your destruction of animals will terrify you”). In this case the verb is a Hiphil imperfect third masculine singular with second masculine singular suffix (the antecedent being Babylon). This provides better symmetry with the preceding line, where Babylon’s violence is the subject of the verb “cover.”

² tn Heb “and a witness to the end and it does not lie.” The Hebrew term יָפֵחַ (yafeakh) has been traditionally understood as a verb form from the root פּוּחַ (puakh, “puff, blow”; cf. NEB “it will come in breathless haste”; NASB “it hastens toward the goal”) but recent scholarship has demonstrated that it is actually a noun meaning “witness” (cf. NIV “it speaks of the end / and will not prove false”; NRSV “it speaks of the end, and does not lie”). See J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL), 106. “The end” corresponds to “the appointed time” of the preceding line and refers to the time when the prophecy to follow will be fulfilled.

¹ tn The precise meaning of v. 11a is uncertain. The present translation assumes the first line further describes the Babylonian hordes, comparing them to a destructive wind. Another option is to understand רוּחַ (ruakh) as “spirit,” rather than “wind,” and take the form וְאָשֵׁם (v^eʾashem) with what precedes (as suggested by the scribal punctuation). Repointing this form as a geminate verb from שָׁמַם (shamam, “be astonished”), one could then translate the line, “The spirit passed on and departed, and I was astonished.” In this case the line would describe the cessation of the divine revelation which began in v. 5. For a detailed defense of this view, see J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL), 97-100.

¹ tn Or “Increase!” or “You have increased.” The form and meaning of the MT perfect tense verb הִרְבֵּית (hirbet; from רָבָה [ravah], “to increase”) is debated. The LXX translated it as a simple past meaning. However, some scholars argue for an imperatival form or an imperatival nuance due to the presence of the two preceding volitive forms: הִתְכַּבֵּד (hitkabbed) and הִתְכַּבְּדִי (hitkabb^edi, “Multiply…multiply!”). For example, the editors of BHS propose emending the perfect tense הִרְבֵּית to the imperative form הַרְבִי (harvi, “multiply!”). K. J. Cathcart (Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic [BibOr], 145) retains the MT perfect form but classifies it as a precative perfect with an imperatival nuance (“increase!”). Some scholars deny the existence of the precative perfect in Hebrew (G. R. Driver, Tenses in Hebrew, 25-26); however, others argue for its existence (IBHS 494-95 §30.5.4).

² tc The Masoretic form וּמִרְעֶה (umirʿeh, “the feeding ground”) is supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls with ומרעה in 4QpNah. It is also reflected in the LXX reading ἡ νομή (hē nomē, “the pasture”). The BHS editors suggest emending to וּמְעָרָה (um^eʿarah, “the cave”), which involves the metathesis of ר (resh) and ע (ʿayin). This proposed emendation is designed to create a tighter parallelism with מְעוֹן (m^eʿon, “the den”) in the preceding line. However, this emendation has no textual support and conflicts with the grammar of the rest of the line. The feminine noun וּמְעָרָה (um^eʿarah, “the cave”) would demand a feminine independent pronoun instead of the masculine independent pronoun הוּא which follows. Nevertheless, several English versions adopt the emendation (NJB, NEB, RSV, NRSV), while others follow the reading of the MT (KJV, NASB, NIV, NJPS).

⁵ tn Heb “Do not my words accomplish good for the one who walks uprightly?” The rhetorical question expects the answer, “Of course they do!” The Lord begins his response to the claim of the house of Jacob that they are immune to judgment (see v. 7a). He points out that the godly are indeed rewarded, but then he goes on to show that those in the house of Jacob are not godly and can expect divine judgment, not blessing (vv. 8-11). Some emend “my words” to “his words.” In this case, v. 7b is a continuation of the immediately preceding quotation. The people, thinking they are godly, confidently ask, “Do not his [God’s] words accomplish good for the one who walks uprightly?”

² tc The MT לְקִצְבֵי הָרִים (l^eqitsve harim, “to the extremities [i.e., very bottoms] of the mountains”) is a bit unusual, appearing only here in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, the BHS editors suggest a conjectural emendation of the MT’s לְקִצְבֵי (“to the extremities”) to לְקַצְוֵי (l^eqatswey, “to the ends [of the mountains])” that is based on orthographic confusion between vav (ו) and bet (ב). However, the phrase קצבי הרים does appear in the OT Apocrypha in Sir 16:19; therefore, it is not without precedent. Since Jonah emphasizes that he descended, as it were, to the very gates of the netherworld in the second half of this verse, it would be appropriate for Jonah to say that he went down “to the extremities [i.e., very bottoms] of the mountains” (לְקִצְבֵי הָרִים). Therefore, the MT may be retained with confidence.

¹ tn Heb “the sea was going and storming.” The two participles הוֹלֵךְ וְסֹעֵר (holekh v^esoʿer, “going and storming”) form an idiom that means “the storm was growing worse and worse.” When the participle הוֹלֵךְ precedes another participle with vav, it often denotes the idea of “growing, increasing” (BDB 233 s.v. הָלַךְ 4.d; e.g., Exod 19:19; 1 Sam 2:26; 2 Sam 3:1; 15:12; 2 Chr 17:12; Esth 9:4; Prov 4:18; Eccl 1:6). For example, “the power of David grew stronger and stronger (הֹלֵךְ וְחָזֵק, holekh v^ekhazeq; “was going and becoming strong”), while the dynasty of Saul grew weaker and weaker (הֹלְכִים וְדַלִּים, hol^ekhim v^edallim; “was going and becoming weak”)” (2 Sam 3:1; see IBHS 625-26 §37.6d).

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 The compound conjunction כִּי אִם (ki ʾim) functions to limit the preceding clause: “unless, or…” (e.g., Ruth 3:18; Isa 65:6; Amos 3:7) (BDB 474 s.v. 2.a): “Bring us back to yourself…unless you have utterly rejected us” (as in the present translation), or “Bring us back to yourself…Or have you utterly rejected us?” It is Jeremiah’s plea that the Lord be willing to relent of his anger and restore a repentant nation to himself. However, Jeremiah acknowledges that this wished-for restoration might not be possible if the Lord has become so angry with Jerusalem/Judah that he is determined to reject the nation once and for all. Then, Jerusalem/Judah’s restoration would be impossible.

⁵ tn Heb “there is no torah,” or “there is no Torah” (אֵין תּוֹרָה, ʾen torah). Depending on whether תּוֹרָה (torah, “instruction, law”) is used in parallelism with the preceding or following line, it refers to (1) political guidance that the now-exiled king had formerly provided or (2) prophetic instruction that the now-ineffective prophets had formerly provided (BDB 434 s.v. תּוֹרָה 1.b). It is plausible that the three lines are arranged in an ABA chiastic structure, exploiting the semantic ambiguity of the term תּוֹרָה (torah, “instruction”). Conceivably it is an oblique reference to the priests’ duties of teaching, thus introducing a third group of the countries leaders. It is possible to hear in this a lament in reference to the destruction of Torah scrolls that may have been at the temple when it was destroyed.

² tc The MT reads וַיִּרְדֶּנָּה (vayyirdennah, “it prevailed against them”), representing a vav (ו) consecutive + Qal preterite third person masculine singular + third person feminine plural suffix from רָדָה (radah, “to prevail”). The LXX form κατήγαγεν αὐτό (katēgagen auto, “it descended”) reflects an alternate vocalization tradition of וַיֹּרִדֶנָּה (vayyoridennah, “it descended against them”), representing a vav (ו) consecutive + Hiphil preterite third person masculine singular + third person feminine plural suffix from יָרָד (yarad, “to go down”), or הֹרִידָהּ (horidah, “it descended against her”), a Hiphil perfect ms + third person feminine singular suffix from from יָרָד (yarad, “to go down”). Internal evidence favors the MT. The origin of the LXX vocalization can be explained by the influence of the preceding line: “He sent down fire from on high.”

¹ tn Heb “And I will punish Bel in Babylon…And the nations will not come streaming to him anymore. Yea, the walls of Babylon have fallen.” The verbs in the first two lines are vav consecutive perfects, and the verb in the third line is an imperfect, all looking at the future. That indicates that the perfect that follows and the perfects that precede are all prophetic perfects. The translation adopted seemed to be the best way to make the transition from the pasts, which were adopted in conjunction with the taunting use of אֵיךְ (ʾekh) in v. 41, to the futures in v. 44. For the usage of גַּם (gam) to indicate a climax, “yea” or “indeed,” see BDB 169 s.v. גַּם 3. It seemed to be impossible to render the meaning of v. 44 in any comprehensible way, even in a paraphrase.

³ tc Or “Why has that famous city not been abandoned, that city I once took delight in?” The translation follows the majority of modern commentaries in understanding לֹא (loʾ, “not”) before “abandoned” as a misunderstanding of the emphatic ל (lamed; so J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah [NICOT], 723, n. 3, and J. Bright, Jeremiah [AB], 333, n. c; see also IBHS 211-12 §11.2.10i and HALOT 485-86 s.v. II לְ for the phenomenon). The particle is missing from the Vulgate. The translation also follows the versions in omitting the suffix on the word “joy” that is found in the Hebrew text (see BHS note b for a listing of the versions). This gives a better connection with the preceding and the following verse than the alternate translation.

² tn The tense and nuance of the verb translated “pillage” are different from those of the verb in Obad 5. There the verb is the imperfect of גָּנַב (ganav, “to steal”). Here the verb is the perfect of a verb meaning “ruin” or “spoil.” The English versions and commentaries, however, almost all render the verb here much the same way as in Obad 5. The nuance must mean they “ruin, destroy” (by stealing) only as much as they need (Heb “their sufficiency”), and the verb is used as metonymical substitute, effect for cause. The perfect must be some kind of a future perfect: “would they not have destroyed only…” The negative question is carried over by ellipsis from the preceding lines.

¹ tn Heb “Therefore, behold, the days are coming, oracle of Yahweh, when I will send against him decanters [those who pour from one vessel to another], and they will decant him [pour him out], and they will empty his vessels and break their jars in pieces.” The verse continues the metaphor from the preceding verse, where Moab/the people of Moab are like wine left undisturbed in a jar, i.e., in their native land. In this verse the picture is that of the decanter emptying the wine from the vessels and then breaking the jars. The wine represents the people and the vessels the cities and towns where the people lived. The verse speaks of the exile of the people and the devastation of the land. The metaphor has been interpreted so it conveys meaning to the average reader.

¹ tn Or “Indeed her fugitives will…” It is unclear what the subject of the verbs are in this verse. The verb in the first two lines, “climb” (יַעֲלֶה, yaʿaleh), is third masculine singular, and the verb in the second two lines, “will hear” (שָׁמֵעוּ, shameʿu), is third common plural. The causal particles at the beginning of the two halves of the verse can indicate some connection with the preceding, so the translation assumes that the children are still the subject. In this case, the singular verb would be an example of the distributive singular already referred to in the translator’s note on 46:15. The parallel passage in Isa 15:5 refers to the “fugitives” (בְּרִיחֶהָ, b^erikheha) with the same singular verb as here, and that may be the implied subject here.

² tn Heb “This will be to you the sign, oracle of the Lord, that I will punish you in this place, in order that you may know that my threats against you for evil/disaster/harm will certainly stand [see the translator’s note on the preceding verse for the meaning of this word here].” The word “sign” refers to an event that is an omen or portent of something that will happen later (see BDB 16 s.v. אוֹת 2 and compare usage in 1 Sam 14:10 and 2 Kgs 19:29). The best way to carry that idea across in this context seems to be, “I will make something happen to prove [or portend].” Another possibility would be, “I will give you an omen that,” but many readers would probably not be familiar with “omen.” Again, the sentence has been broken in two and restructured to better conform with English style.

² tn Or “When we sacrificed and poured out drink offering to the Queen of Heaven and made cakes in her image, wasn’t it with the knowledge and approval of our husbands?” Heb “When we sacrificed to the Queen of Heaven and poured out drink offerings [for the use of ל (lamed) + the infinitive construct to carry on the tense of the preceding verb, see BDB 518 s.v. לְ 7.b(h)] to her, did we make cakes to make an image of her and pour out drink offerings apart from [i.e., “without the knowledge and consent of,” so BDB 116 s.v. בִּלְעֲדֵי b(a)] our husbands?” The question expects a positive answer and has been rendered as an affirmation in the translation. The long, complex Hebrew sentence has again been broken in two and restructured to better conform with contemporary English style.

¹ tn Heb “went into the palace to under the treasury.” Several of the commentaries (e.g., J. Bright, Jeremiah [AB], 227; J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah [NICOT], 639, n. 6) emend the prepositional phrase “to under” (אֶל תַּחַת, ʾel takhat) to the noun “wardrobe” plus the preposition “to” (אֶל מֶלְתַחַת, ʾel meltakhat). This is a plausible emendation, which would suggest an historical loss of מֶל (mel) due to its similarity with the אֶל (ʾel) that precedes it. However, no textual or versional evidence supports such a reading, and the compound preposition is not in itself objectionable (cf. BDB 1066 s.v. תַּחַת III.1.a). The Greek version reads “the part underground” (representing a Hebrew Vorlage of אֶל תַּחַת הָאָרֶץ, ʾel takhat haʾarets) in place of אֶל תַּחַת הָאוֹצָר (ʾel takhat haʾotsar). The translation follows the Hebrew text but adds the word “room” for the sake of English style.