Ashurbanipal’s Peace And The Date Of Nahum

By Gregory D. Cook

[Gregory D. Cook received his PhD from Westminster Theological Seminary and is the author of Severe Compassion: The Gospel According to Nahum (Presbyterian & Reformed, 2016).]

Even though the book of Nahum baffles biblical scholars at numerous points, establishing the prophecy’s chronological setting has not proven difficult. The destruction of Thebes (663 BC) mentioned in Nah 3:8–10 along with the prediction of Nineveh’s destruction (612 BC) set firm limits for the book’s context.[1] The acknowledgement of these boundaries is so widespread that “hardly anybody doubts that the book of Nahum or part of it has to be dated” within this period.[2] However, scholars have come to no agreement on a more precise date.[3] This article proposes that the book does give a precise date through a subtle clue. The word שְׁלֵמִים (1:12) dates the book to 639 BC by alluding to Assyria’s destruction of Elam in that year and prophesying the peace of 639–627 BC.[4]

I. Elam

Ashurbanipal campaigned against Elam five times. The first of these occurred in 653 BC after Elam joined a rebellion begun by Ashurbanipal’s brother (Shamash-shum-ukin), who had been installed as king of Babylon. Ashurbanipal did not succeed in completely subduing Elam until his fifth campaign. The bitterness of the wars with Elam resulted in Assyrian barbarity toward the conquered nation:

The sanctuaries of Elam I destroyed totally (lit., to non-existence). Its gods (and) goddesses I scattered (lit., counted) to the wind(s). Their secret groves, into which no stranger (ever) penetrates, whose borders he never (over)steps—into these my soldiers entered, saw their mysteries, and set them on fire. The sepulchers of their earlier and later kings, who did not fear Assur and Ishtar, my lords, (and who) had plagued the kings, my fathers, I destroyed, I devastated, I exposed to the sun. Their bones (members) I carried off to Assyria. I laid restlessness upon their shades. I deprived them of food-offerings and libations of water. For a (distance) of a month of twenty-five days’ journey I devastated the provinces of Elam. Salt and silhu (some prickly plant) I scattered over them.[5]

This campaign served as the climax of Assyrian atrocities:

Earlier Assyrian kings had been harsh, yes, ruthless. Where there was rebellion, they crushed it; where opposition, they destroyed it. But only Ashurbanipal put vindictiveness on display; only he slashed the face of a dead enemy, desecrated tombs of the dead he had not been able to punish when living, spared the lives of captive kings that he might humiliate them better living than dead. It is not the historian’s part to lay blame, but the historian must record; and malice as a driving force behind the later Ashurbanipal is a fact of history.[6]

This most brutal campaign by the most bloodthirsty king of the ancient Near East’s most ruthless empire would prove to be the last one of consequence—the final victory that Nahum would allow.

II. The Problem With “Full Strength”

Even though the present article is the first proposal linking Nah 1:12 to the destruction of Elam, the word שְׁלֵמִים has long been used to date Nahum. Many commentators argue that Nahum prophesied before 627 BC since Nahum described Assyria as‎ אִמ־שְׁלֵמִים וְכֵן רַבִּים (“Though they are at peace and therefore many”; Nah 1:12).[7] Interpreters usually render שְׁלֵמִים as “full strength,” “strong,” or “intact”; it is argued that Nah 1:12 describes Assyria as a still-potent empire.[8] Since the death of Ashurbanipal in 627 BC initiated Assyria’s dramatic implosion, those who believe that Nahum foretold future events hold that Nahum must have prophesied during Ashurbanipal’s reign (668–627 BC).[9] Tremper Longman provides an example of this perspective: “One thing is certain: Nahum prophesied before Assyria began to show signs of permanent weakness. In 1:12 Assyria is described as ‘intact’ and with a large population. Apart from the book’s apparent writing during a time of Assyrian strength, we cannot determine the time of writing more precisely.”[10] According to this view, שְׁלֵמִים only narrows the fifty-one year period by fifteen years.

Interpreting שְׁלֵמִים merely as a reference to Assyrian military strength has two problems. First, Nah 1:12 is the only place in the OT where translators render the root שׁלם as “strength.” Second, the Hebrew language provides other root words more suitable to conveying military might: גבורה,עז ,כח ,חיל , and תקף. Since Nahum bypassed such words, it is likely that שְׁלֵמִים conveys more than just national power.

III. A Mocking Judgment

Some Assyrian texts use the Akkadian root šlm in reference to successful campaigns. Many of the occurrences of this word—which CAD defines as “safe course, safe completion of a journey”—are found in divination tablets.[11] Assyrian kings commissioned diviners to petition the gods regarding the success of military ventures. Existing records contain the root šlm in either the king’s question to the god or the response received. For example: “Will they stay a[live and w]e[ll], will they be saved, will they [escape] and evade them? Will they [come out] safely fr[om the district] of Karkaššî?”[12] This type of prognostication increased during the reigns of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, who both had an “almost fanatical devotion to divination.”[13]

Royal inscriptions also used the root šlm to note the victorious return of Assyria’s soldiers. Sennacherib concluded one account by saying, “I returned safely to Assyria with 208,000 substantial captives, 7,200 horses (and) mules, 11,073 donkeys, 5,230 camels, 80,050 oxen, (and) 800,100 sheep and goats.”[14] Esarhaddon recorded a similar boast.[15] More significantly, the use of “returned in safety” occurs most frequently in Ashurbanipal’s inscriptions, in which the term marks the end of at least five campaigns. After the destruction of Thebes, Ashurbanipal remarked, “With much plunder and heavy spoil I returned in safety to Nineveh.”[16] Similarly, “Against Egypt and Ethiopia I waged bitter warfare and established my might. With a full hand I returned in safety to Nineveh, my royal city.”[17] The expression also appears in the conclusion of his victories against Tyre and the provinces of Arsianish.[18] Finally, in his destruction of Elam, Ashurbanipal declared, “With the help of Assur, Bêl, Nabû, the great gods, I pushed back my foes (and) returned to Nineveh in safety.”[19] Clearly, returning “in safety” had come to mean the termination of a victorious Assyrian campaign by the time Nahum wrote.

According to Robert Alter, “purposeful literary allusions” use “conspicuous similarity in phrasing, in motif, or in narrative situation.”[20] He also remarks that “the marker for the allusion may be as economical as a single unusual or strategically placed word.”[21] It has already been demonstrated that Nahum’s choice of שְׁלֵמִים qualifies as “unusual.” The question is whether the term was intended to create a “conspicuous similarity” with the Assyrian use of šlm. The appearance of such a common Hebrew word in a manner so contrary to expectations suggests this, as does the similarity between the Akkadian and Hebrew words.[22] A prophet skilled enough to be labeled “Poet Laureate of the Minor Prophets” was certainly capable of this literary subtlety.[23]

This theory requires that prophet and audience knew Assyrian propaganda. While the “many direct and indirect references to Assyrian treaty texts and royal annals show that the poet must have been familiar with this literature,”[24] little work regarding Nahum’s allusions to Assyrian inscriptions has been done beyond lion, treaty, and curse motifs.[25] Since nothing is known about the prophet besides what may be gleaned from his book, scholars have no additional information to judge the likelihood of Nahum’s familiarity with Assyrian propaganda than whether the text reflects that propaganda. Still, a peculiar word choice that matches an Akkadian military expression makes it likely that Nahum mocked Assyrian confidence. While this could be coincidence, David Noel Freedman argues that an author should receive credit for intricacies discovered in the text:

It is difficult if not impossible to draw the line between the conscious intention of the poet and what the attentive reader finds in a poem. On the whole, I think we have given insufficient credit to the poet for subtleties and intricacies in his artistic creation, and it is better to err on that side for a while. If we find some clever device or elaborate internal structure, why not assume that the poet’s ingenuity, rather than our own, is responsible?[26]

The translation of שְׁלֵמִים as “full strength” differs from the word’s usual meanings; if a subtle allusion offers a superior explanation, it should receive consideration. An intentional allusion to Assyria’s dramatic victory against Elam fits linguistically and befits Nahum’s poetic brilliance.[27]

IV. An Unexpected Peace

The word שְׁלֵמִים contains an allusion to a second—more remarkable—event from 639 BC. After Ashurbanipal’s victory in Elam, Assyrian records went silent and Assyrian armies became dormant. From this year until Ashurbanipal’s death, it seems that peace descended upon the empire. The lack of activity by Assyrian soldiers and scribes during these twelve years remains unexplained. Ashurbanipal had collected one of the ancient world’s largest libraries.[28] He boasted of advanced scholarly abilities.[29] He seemed obsessed with documenting the activities of his realm. Despite this, Assyriologists acknowledge that 639 BC provides the “latest precisely datable inscription from Ashurbanipal’s reign.”[30]

While historians can only guess why a king so obsessed with literature and conquest suddenly abandoned both activities, Nahum offers insight. In fact, the book foretold such an occurrence. It does so most clearly through a verse deemed “one of the most difficult texts in the Old Testament.”[31] Nahum 1:10 uses three metaphors to describe the Assyrian Empire: tangled thorns, drunken drunkards, and dried stubble. Each metaphor indicates a judgment of incapacitation. Tangled thorns suggest an agricultural area no longer cultivated.[32] Drunkards use alcohol to intoxicate themselves—and 1:10 implies continuous alcoholism.[33] Dried stubble results when vegetation is severed from its roots and left to wither. While the book of Nahum is often characterized as violent, commentators rarely mention that much of the judgment prophesied in the book entails incapacitation. The “peace” in the empire mentioned in Nah 1:12 came about because God’s judgment “cut off” Assyria’s power. For over a hundred years, the Assyrian Empire had ruthlessly overpowered and destroyed all enemies. Inexplicably, the Assyrian Empire ceased being a military juggernaut after the destruction of Elam and proved incapable of quelling rebellion after Ashurbanipal’s death in 627.[34] In three decades, Assyria went from the greatest empire in the ancient Near East to total extinction.[35] Nahum prophesied this downfall.

Three other verses provide textual support for this hypothesis. Nahum 2:1 [Eng. 1:15], declares that the “worthless one will never again pass through you; he is completely cut off.” In Nah 2:14 [Eng. 2:13], Yhwh promises to burn Nineveh’s chariot and that “the voice of your messengers will never again be heard.” The final verse of the prophecy taunts the king of Assyria about his mortal wound. Each of these verses portrays the Assyrian military as incapacitated. Judah need not fear the reappearance of Assyria’s armies or the taunting demands of its heralds. The destruction of Nineveh’s chariot symbolizes sudden Assyrian immobility.[36] In Nah 3:19, the king has suffered a “fracture” that crippled him. These interspersed pronouncements of debilitation match the mysterious inaction of Assyria during 639–627 BC. From this perspective, שְׁלֵמִים ceases to be an awkwardly chosen word and becomes a brilliantly crafted two-sided allusion—it referred back to Assyria’s brutality against Elam and prophesied the otherwise inexplicable passivity of Assyria’s most notorious monarch.

V. Conclusion

Nahum is a book noted for its “opaque vocabulary.”[37] This article has argued that one of the prophet’s peculiar word choices marks an allusion to Assyria’s final defeat of Elam, while also prophesying Assyria’s coming “peace.” The word שְׁלֵמִים (1:12) mimics an Assyrian term for military victory. The word שְׁלֵמִים also perfectly explains Ashurbanipal’s lapse into passive silence for the final twelve years of his life. In 639 BC—the year that Ashurbanipal returned “in safety” from Elam—a Judean prophet proclaimed the power of the world’s most-feared monarch fractured and the ancient Near East enjoyed a brief era of peace.[38] In addition to offering an explanation for a difficult phrase, this theory links the book of Nahum to documented events in Assyrian history, thereby providing a precise date for the prophecy.

Notes

1. Nah 3:8 compares Nineveh to‎ נֹא אָמוֹן (“No-Amon”). While there has been past debate over the identification of Thebes, “with one or two exceptions, modern scholarship has associated the toponym, and the event referred to in 3:8-9, with the Egyptian Thebes of Upper or southern Egypt and its sack by the Assyrians in ca. 663 b.c.e.” (John R. Huddlestun, “Nahum, Nineveh, and the Nile: The Description of Thebes in Nahum 3:8-9, ” JNES 62 [2003]: 97-98).
2. Klaas Spronk, Nahum, HCOT (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1997), 12. Likewise, Michael Weigl, “Current Research on the Book of Nahum: Exegetical Methodologies in Turmoil?,” CurBS 9 (2001): 82.
3. For a recent and thorough summary of proposed dates for Nahum, see Duane L. Christensen, Nahum: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 24f (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 52-58. Christensen notes that these theories tend to support one of “six options: (1) soon after the fall of Thebes to Ashurbanipal in 663 b.c.e.; (2) around the time of Ashurbanipal’s death (ca. 630 b.c.e.); (3) just before the fall of Nineveh in 612 b.c.e.; (4) shortly after the fall of Assyria; (5) after the fall of Assyria in the exilic and/or postexilic period; (6) the Maccabean period (ca. 175-165 b.c.e.)” (ibid., 54). A seventh theory comes from those (e.g., O. Palmer Robertson and Wilhelm Rudolph) who see a link between Nahum and the repentance of Manasseh (2 Chr 33:12-19) near his death in 642. A scholar’s view of the date of Nahum is heavily influenced by his or her presuppositions regarding whether Nahum’s oracle foretold future events, discerned current events, or retold past events as well as whether or not the book underwent a redactional process. As Christensen notes, “Within critical scholarship, most scholars tend to date the book of Nahum just prior to 612 b.c.e., because the historical situation would have been clear by then. In short, they tend to see Nahum’s ‘prophecy’ as political-military insight” (ibid., 53). The most recognized proponents of a late exilic or postexilic redaction of Nahum are Jörg Jeremias, Hermann Schultz, Klaus Seybold, and James Nogalski. Heinz-Josef Fabry observes that English language scholars tend to have a higher view of the literary cohesiveness of Nahum than their German counterparts (Nahum, HTKAT [Freiburg: Herder, 2006], 35).
4. Gordon H. Johnston, who has written more about allusions in Nahum than any other scholar, lists the following criteria for recognizing an allusion: “Successful allusions are characterized by six elements. (1) The author must have a literary or cultural tradition from which to derive source material. (2) The audience, or at least a portion of it, must be aware of the source material so that it can recognize the allusion made by the author. (3) The author must ‘echo’ enough familiar elements from the source material for the audience to pick up on, that is, the allusion must contain a ‘signal’ that ‘points’ to the source material. (4) The allusion must ‘activate’ the source material in a way that creates some kind of rhetorical effect. (5) The alluding text must make a subtle change in meaning or referent from the source material to create some kind of rhetorical effect. (6) The allusion must be subtle enough to surprise an unsuspecting audience—if it is too explicit, it will lose its rhetorical impact (just as a joke falls flat if the punch line is too obvious)” (Gordon H. Johnson, “Nahum’s Rhetorical Allusions to the Neo-Assyrian Lion Motif,” BSac 158 [2001]: 288). This standard is similar to the widely accepted tests for allusion found in Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 29-32. Johnston’s standard is used here since it is adapted for OT texts and has been used to test allusions in Nahum.
5. Daniel D. Luckenbill, Historical Records of Assyria from Sargon to the End, vol. 2 of Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927), 310; parentheses in the original.
6. H. W. F. Saggs, The Might That Was Assyria (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1984), 116.
7. Unless otherwise noted, all translations are mine.
8. A sampling of commentators and popular English translations provides the following proposals for שְׁלֵמִים: “full strength” (Roberston, Elizabeth R. Achtemeier, ESV, NASB, NRSV), “strong” (Christensen, J. J. M. Roberts, RSV), “intact” (James D. Nogalski, Tremper Longman), “well-equipped” (Marvin A. Sweeney), “complete” (Spronk), “full” (NJPS), and “safe” (NKJV).
9. Assyria’s total collapse began as soon as Ashurbanipal died. Johnston explains, “The last years of the empire were marked by rapid decline. Assur-etil-ilani (627-623) was plagued by revolts in Assyria and rebellion among the remaining vassal states. Assyrian power plummeted under Sin-shar-ishkun (623-612), who made a fatal strategic error when he attacked Babylonia. The Babylon king Nabopolassar (626-605) created a coalition with the Medes and retaliated against Sin-shar-ishkun in a series of campaigns that dismantled the empire city by city, beginning in 616, and climaxing in the destruction of Nineveh in 612 after a three-month siege. The remnants of the Assyrian army fled to Haran, crowned Ashur-uballit II king, and made a final stand until the last vestige of the Assyrian army was crushed in 609” (“Nahum’s Rhetorical Allusions to the Neo-Assyrian Lion Motif,” 304).
10. Tremper Longman III, “Nahum,” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, ed. T. McComiskey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 2:767. Adam S. Van der Woude contends that the Assyrian Empire had deteriorated during the latter years of Ashurbanipal’s reign, and therefore the strength portrayed in Nahum would have to pre-date 627 BC (Jona, Nahum, POuT [Nijerk: G. F. Callenbach, 1978], 67-69).
11. CAD 17:206.
12. SAA 04 062; brackets in the original. Other examples may be found in SAA 04 064, 79, 80, 85, 87.
13. A. K. Grayson, “Assyria: Sennacherib and Esarhaddon (704-669 B.C.),” in The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C., ed. John Boardman et al., CAH 3/2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 141. In another article, Grayson reiterates that “the almost fanatical devotion of Esarhaddon to divination is also a characteristic of Ashurbanipal. Like his father, Ashurbanipal constantly sought prognostic reports and submitted requests for oracular decisions on state matters” (“Assyria 668-635 B.C.: The Reign of Ashurbanipal,” in Assyrian and Babylonian Empires, 160).
14. RINAP 3 001; parentheses in the original.
15. RINAP 4 098.
16. Luckenbill, Ancient Records, 294.
17. Ibid., 296.
18. Ibid., 325, 329.
19. Ibid., 334. Another campaign against Elam also concludes with the words: “On my return (march), unharmed (lit., in safety) and with full hands, I turned the front of my yoke toward Assyria” (ibid., 307; parentheses in the original).
20. Robert Alter, The World of Biblical Literature (New York: Basic Books, 1992), 110-11.
21. Ibid., 111.
22. The correlation between the words merits mention in HALOT, which includes “Akk. šalmu(m) unharmed, sound, in good condition, healthy, entire, proper, safe” in the entry for שָׁלֵם.
23. Richard D. Patterson and Michael E. Travers, “Nahum: Poet Laureate of the Minor Prophets,” JETS 33 (1990): 437-44.
24. Spronk, Nahum, 6.
25. See Gordon H. Johnston, “Nahum’s Rhetorical Allusions to Neo-Assyrian Treaty Curses,” BSac 158 (2001): 415-36; Gordon H. Johnston, “Nahum’s Rhetorical Allusions to Neo-Assyrian Conquest Metaphors,” BSac 159 (2002): 21-45; Johnston, “Nahum’s Rhetorical Allusions to the Neo-Assyrian Lion Motif,” 287-307; Gordon H. Johnston, “A Rhetorical Analysis of the Book of Nahum” (Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1992), 290-398; Kevin J. Cathcart, “Treaty-Curses and the Book of Nahum,” CBQ 35 (1973): 179-87; Delbert R. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, BibOr 16 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964). For an argument against Nahum’s knowledge of Assyrian dogma, see Mordechai Cogan, “The Lions of Ninevah (Nahum 2:12-14): A Check on Nahum’s Familiarity with Assyria,” in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Chaim Cohen (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 433-39. Peter Machinist, “Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah,” JAOS 103 (1983): 719-37, argues that Assyrian propaganda would have been known by the prophet Isaiah.
26. David N. Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980), 8.
27. Commentators universally praise Nahum’s literary ability. Robert Lowth’s comment—originally penned over 200 years ago—still reflects scholarly opinion of Nahum’s poetic skill: “None of the minor prophets, however, seem to equal Nahum in boldness, ardour and sublimity. His prophecy, too, forms a regular and perfect poem: the exordium is not merely magnificent, it is truly majestic; the preparation for the destruction of Nineveh, and the description of its downfall and desolation, are expressed in the most vivid colours, and are bold and luminous in the highest degree” (Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, trans. G. Gregory [Boston: Crocker & Brewer 1829], 180). Even Nahum’s harshest critics acknowledge that he was a gifted poet.
28. “Ashurbanipal’s huge library of twenty-two thousand clay tablets … now serves as the chief archaeological source for our knowledge of the life and thought of ancient Mesopotamia” (Elizabeth R. Achtemeier, Nahum–Malachi, IBC [Louisville: John Knox, 1986], 19). The massive library came about through Ashurbanipal’s systematic efforts, involving “commissioned labour alongside involuntary labour and other types of coercion” to amass literary texts (Grant Frame and A. R. George, “The Royal Libraries of Nineveh: New Evidence for King Ashurbanipal’s Tablet Collecting,” Iraq 67 [2005]: 277).
29. As Eckart Frahm writes, Ashurbanipal was “a man deeply interested in the scribal arts of ancient Mesopotamia…. His enthusiasm for reading and writing, which he seems to have shared with his wife, Libbāli-karrat, can be traced back to his youth. From an autobiographical sketch about his intellectual socialization, we know that Ashurbanipal had received the education of a future scholar” (“Royal Hermeneutics: Observations on the Commentaries from Ashurbanipal’s Libraries at Nineveh,” Iraq 66 [2004]: 45). It is difficult to determine the extent of hyperbole in this boast. Later in the article, Frahm mentions a letter written by a scribe to a king who may have been Ashurbanipal: “If the king who received the letter was indeed Ashurbanipal, his scholarly knowledge was far more modest that he claims in his autobiography” (ibid., 46). Philippe Talon conjectures that Esarhaddon—seasoned by intrigue—wanted Ashurbanipal educated as a means of keeping court scribes and diviners accountable (“La parole et l’écrit dans l’idéologie assyrienne,” Civ 46 [1998]: 52-56).
30. Joan Oates, “The Fall of Assyria (635-609 BC),” in Assyrian and Babylonian Empires, 165.
31. Kevin J. Cathcart, Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic, BibOr 26 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1973), 60.
32. One fascinating interpretation of the thorn imagery relates to Ashurbanipal’s devastation of Elam. Assyriologists often consider the obliteration as a critical strategic error, since the Medes and the Persians—who joined with the Babylonians in destroying Assyria—filled the geographical vacuum. For instance, Saggs writes, “His devastation of Elam was worse than brutal; it was bad statecraft. It was not only the wild animals Ashurbanipal mentions that were lurking to enter the wilderness he had left behind” (Saggs, Might That Was Syria, 115).
33. Commentators often struggle with how the three metaphors in 1:10 relate together. For instance, David J. Clark and Howard A. Hatton conclude that “the basic problem in this verse is that the two words translated ‘and be drenched as it were in their drink’ have no apparent connection with the rest of the verse” (A Translator’s Handbook on the Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, Helps for Translators [New York: United Bible Societies, 1989], 16). The best explanation comes from Carl Armerding: “Drunkenness reiterates these varied associations: a drunkard is good for nothing useful, and drunkenness is both a cause and consequence of judgment. The keynote of both lines, however, is helplessness. Like Abraham’s ram entangled in the thorns (Gen 22:13), a drunkard is incapacitated from defending himself (cf. 1 Sam 25:36; Isa 28:7); the Assyrians would be no less vulnerable before the wrath of God. These ideas are resumed in the concluding line: like thorns, stubble is without intrinsic value and is subject to be burnt; being ‘dry,’ it is an easy prey for the flames by which it is ‘consumed.’ The concomitant themes are similarly expressive. Nineveh’s destruction by fire is rooted in her helplessness to avert the disaster (cf. 2:9-10; 3:11-13)” (Carl A. Armerding, “Nahum,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985], 7:466).
34. The lack of source material leaves much uncertainty about the end of Ashurbanipal’s reign. After 639 BC, piecing together Assyrian history proves difficult and the process of dating events becomes tenuous. Saggs describes this process as “an elaborate chronological jigsaw puzzle, which—in view of the large number of pieces missing—scholarly ingenuity may assemble in various ways” (Saggs, Might That Was Syria, 118). The date of 627 is widely accepted for Ashurbanipal’s death, but not universally so. Because of the scarcity of Assyrian records during this period, the only firm evidence for this date comes from an inscription on the tomb of Nabonidus’s mother.
35. “Just a dozen years after Ashurbanipal’s death, the Assyrian empire collapsed, almost abruptly, under the attack of old rivals defeated many times before” (Mario Liverani, “The Fall of the Assyrian Empire: Ancient and Modern Perspectives,” in Empires: Perspectives in History, ed. Susan E. Alcock et al. [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001], 374).
36. Per Danna N. Fewell: “With its chariots burned, Nineveh lacks all means of conducting distant expeditions or offensives far removed from the city” (“Sennacherib’s Defeat: Words at War in 2 Kings 18:13-19:37, ” JSOT 34 [1986]: 286). The chariot had been Assyria’s most potent and symbolic weapon: “They were beside themselves (lit., their hearts were torn) they held back (?) their urine, but let their dung go into their chariots. In pursuit of them I dispatched my chariots and horses after them. Those among them who had escaped, who had fled for their lives, wherever they (my charioteers) met them, they cut them down with the sword” (Luckenbill, Ancient Records, 128).
37. Julia M. O’Brien, Nahum, 2nd ed. (London: Sheffield Academic, 2009), 10.
38. Augustin George, Michée, Sophonie, Nahum, 2nd ed. (Paris: Cerf, 1958), 78.