Unearthing Babel in Nahum

*Read the following article from Gregory Cook at Answers In Genesis through the prism of the Great Controversy Theme.
Think of the tie back to babel in genesis with the future Babylon (and Egypt) in Revelation. Picture the feminine reference to the whore of Babylon.

"Time after time, Nahum inserted a word that defies the assumed context. One such word points to Babel.

As the book turns to the battle for Nineveh, the text announces God’s principle weapon. The prophet envisioned one man coming against the Assyrian juggernaut and its fortified capital. Nahum called him מֵפִיץ.

Throughout the centuries, translators have struggled to identify this man. The word is a hiphil masculine singular participle of the verb פוץ (“to spread, disperse”). The solitary figure is named as a doer of the verb—he disperses. The King James Version translates מֵפִיץ as “He that dashes in pieces.” The New American Standard Bible calls him, “The one who scatters.” Others deem him “scatterer” (ESV), “shatterer” (NRSV), or “attacker” (NIV).
History records that Nineveh was destroyed in 612 BC.

Nebuchadnezzar led the assault of a combined force of Babylonians and Medes—both armies loathed the Assyrians—and took the city in a four-month siege (Cook 2016b, 4–6).

*The devastation was so total that before Austen Henry Layard uncovered the ruins in 1849, the biblical accounts of the city and empire were considered legendary—or at least exaggerated—by many. Therefore, the choice of a word that means “scatterer” strikes scholars as odd.

The confusion stems from misunderstanding Nahum’s purpose. The book is often read as “a violent, nationalistic book, one morally repugnant to modern persons” (O’Brien 2009, 105). Even those who defend the book believe that “God himself decreed the destruction of Assyria. He would make their grave. The whole people would be killed and buried together because they were ‘vile’” (Barker and Bailey 1998, 189).
This presupposition, however, is at odds with the text. Hebrew contains many words more suitable to describing the obliteration of a city than “scatterer.” Assuming Nahum chose מֵפִיץ because it most suited his purpose, the annihilation presumption has problems.

At this point a clarification is in order.
It is not the creature’s place to question the actions of the Creator. God does not need permission to exercise His judgment. 
The purpose of this article is not to re-read a prophecy in order to excise portions that disagree with modern sensibilities. Many other prophetic passages declare God’s violent judgment.
The question at hand is merely whether Nahum does as well.
The best proof of this comes from Nahum 3:17–18: Your courtiers are as locusts and your marshals are as swarms of locusts, camping in the walls in a cold day. The sun rises and they are chased away and no one knows where they are. Your shepherds sleep, O king of Assyria. Your nobles are lying down. Your people are scattered upon the mountains and no one gathers them.

As the book culminates, Nahum describes the fate of five groups: courtiers,

marshals,

shepherds,

nobles,

and people.

Note their state.
They either are scattered or sleeping.
In the Hebrew, the courtiers, marshals, and people are acted upon. The scatterer has done his job.
Not even the king of Assyria is killed. A careful reading of Nahum shows the enemies of God under judgment and crippled, with the exception of 2:14 (2:13 Eng.), where “a sword will devour your young lions.”
The most macabre passage, 3:1–3, depicts countless dead bodies, yet 3:4 demonstrates that the corpses were a result of Nineveh’s lust rather than God’s sword (Achtemeier 1986, 22–23).

As the city falls,

the population flees (2:9; 2:8 Eng.),

the gates are broken (3:13),

and the Assyrian sovereign no longer exercises any control over his wayward people (3:17–19).

 

Throughout the book, the military invasion and the resulting

destruction of Nineveh results in a scattering, not an obliteration (Cook 2016d, 195–206).

Why would God send מֵפִיץ against Nineveh?
Because God planned to redeem an Assyrian remnant.
As with Babel, redemption required scattering.

Variations on the Hebrew verb פוץ appear in Genesis 11:4 (נַיָּפֶץ), 11:8 (נָפוּץ), and 11:9 (הֱפִיצָם) where the people build the tower as a protection against scattering, yet God proceeds to scatter them. Nahum used one of the most conspicuous and repeated verbs from the Babel narrative to commence the downfall of Nineveh. As in the Babel account, a Mesopotamian people were united in rebellion against God and under the control of a despot.
Nahum declared that control shattered. God would liberate the Assyrians from their overlords and disperse them.
In Nahum, a single man would come to set Isaiah’s remnant free.

Genesis 10–11

Nahum invoked allusions from Genesis 10–11 throughout his text. He did this by mimicking syntax from Genesis 10:6, 11, 22, and 11:3–8.

Genesis 10:11

This task begins with Genesis 10:11 and the founding of Nineveh. Because of ambiguity in the Hebrew word אַשּׁוּר, this verse has two possible interpretations. In Hebrew, Genesis 10:11 reads,

מִן־הָאָ֥רֶץ הַהִ֖וא יָצָ֣א אַשּׁ֑וּר וַיִּ֙בֶן֙ אֶת־נִ֣ינְוֵ֔ה וְאֶת־רְחֹבֹ֥ת עִ֖יר וְאֶת־כָּֽלַח׃

In this context, the word אַשּׁוּר could mean either “Asshur,” the patriarch of the Assyrian people (Genesis 10:22), or “Assyria.” Therefore, the verse could be rendered either “Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah” (KJV) or “From that land he [Nimrod] went forth into Assyria, and built Nineveh and Rehoboth-Ir and Calah” (NASB). Both are perfectly valid grammatically. It is not clear whether Asshur the patriarch founded Nineveh or Nimrod did.
The principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture brings Micah 5:5 (5:6 Eng.) into the discussion. Here, a parallel construction seems to equate “Assyria” and “the land of Nimrod”:

And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof. (KJV)

By this logic, Micah declares Nimrod the founder of Nineveh (McKeating 1971, 179). 
*If Nimrod did found Nineveh, then the city began in rebellion, being fathered by an archetype of evil.
*However, Asshur—as patriarch of the Assyrians—also qualifies as an ancient adversary.
This leads to a connection between Nahum and Genesis 10:11. In Nahum 1:11, the prophet accuses, מִמֵּ֣ךְ יָצָ֔א חֹשֵ֥ב עַל־יְהָו֖ה רָעָ֑ה יֹעֵ֖ץ בְלִָיֽעַל׃ (“From you (feminine singular) went forth one (masculine) plotting evil against YHWH, a worthless counsellor”). The first two Hebrew words contain a form of the same construction of מִן. . . יצָָא. (“From . . . went forth”) that begins Genesis 10:11.

In Nahum 1:11, the identity of neither the feminine nor masculine malefactor is clear. Nahum makes extraordinary use of ambiguous pronouns.

When addressing an adversary, Nahum almost always fails to provide an antecedent.
In the Hebrew text of Nahum 2:9 (2:8 Eng.), however, a feminine singular pronoun is explicitly linked to Nineveh (Cook 2016c). Reading this back into 1:11, it is the city that spit forth an agent of evil. Notably, the text utilizes a word that could simply be the adjective “worthless” or it could invoke the proper name “Belial” (Eaton 1961, 60). This provides a grammatical tie to the founding of Nineveh and a possible link to Nimrod in the context of cosmic rebellion against God.

Genesis 10:6

The correspondences between Genesis 10:6 and Nahum are fewer, but easier to demonstrate. Throughout Nahum, the prophet taunts the usually unidentified female adversary. A passage in Nahum 3 compares her unfavorably to the city of Thebes (Cook 2016d, 181–186).

In 663 BC, Ashurbanipal marched his army to Egypt and then roughly 500 miles upriver before sacking Thebes. It seemed impossible, yet Assyria accomplished it. Nahum referred back to the event and mocked Nineveh. If Thebes had fallen so easily, Nineveh should fear.
Thebes had natural advantages that dwarfed Nineveh’s. Among these were friends. Assyria had none. All nations hated the empire. To demonstrate Nineveh’s inferiority, Nahum listed the Theban allies: “Cush (כּוּשׁ) was her strength, and Egypt (וּמִצִרַיִם) without end. Put (פּוּט) and Lybia were among her helpers” (3:9). The list corresponds to Ham’s offspring: “And the sons of Ham: Cush
(כּוּשׁ) and Mizraim (וּמִצִרַיִם) and Put (וּפוּט) and Canaan” (Genesis 10:6).
The repetition of these names, in identical order, recalls Genesis 10. ... the only possible allusion could be to the Table of Nations account.

Genesis 11:3–8

Genesis 11:3 details the methods by which the builders erected the tower. In Hebrew, this includes two variations on the root חמר (“tar” and “mortar”). Late in the book, Nahum used the same root to taunt Nineveh to fortify its walls (בַחֹמֶר; 3:14). In both passages, Mesopotamians used local building materials in a futile attempt to withstand the will of God.
The motive for the rebellious building project includes the desire to “make to us a name (שֵׁם)” (Genesis 11:4). The Hebrew word for name is one of the most common in the Old Testament. Therefore, its occurrence in Nahum is not remarkable. The context in which it is placed, however, does suggest Babel. As Gordon Johnston (2002, 22) has observed, “Nahum’s allusions created an ironic reversal.” At Babel, God’s judgment thwarted self-exaltation; likewise, in Nahum. In the fourteenth verse of the book, the prophet informed an unidentified male enemy that “YHWH has commanded concerning you: no more shall your name (מִשִּׁמִךָ) be sown.”
At the end of the book, this figure is finally identified as the “king of Assyria”. The taunt that the name of אַשּׁוּר would fade may include wordplay on Genesis 10–11.

Shem (שֵׁם), whose name means “name,” is the father of Asshur
(אַשּׁוּר). These themes triangulate in Nahum. The curse against the Asshur figure in 1:14 recalls both his ancestry and the Babel rebellion.

The final parallel between Babel and Nahum also pertains to the scatterer.
In the Babel account, God “came down” (Genesis 11:5) and later declared, “let us go down” (11:7). The judgment against Babel entailed a visitation and a scattering.
Nahum copied this structure. The book begins with a theophany. Nahum 1:2–8 describes God’s dramatic descent to avenge Himself upon His enemies. This causes creation to come undone.
In Nahum 1:9–14, God incapacitates these enemies before announcing the scatterer.

Conclusion

The above evidence supports the article’s hypothesis that Nahum intentionally alluded to Genesis 10–11. 
Furthermore, links between Nahum and Babel include

building with mortar,

making a name,

God’s descent,

and God’s scattering.

Together, these similarities present strong evidence of purposeful literary allusions to Babel in Nahum.

With this established, the next question is “What was the purpose

of the allusions?”
Nahum does prophesy the destruction of Assyrian power—but not its people. The military machine that spread misery and death throughout the ancient Near East met its end. Assyria’s political and religious influence vanished. Still, a prophecy remained:

In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance. (Isaiah 19:23–25 KJV)

At the rebellion of Babel, God ...confused the language and dispersed the rebels. They went throughout world, spreading their counterfeit religions and building more towers. God’s purpose

remained: to gather “a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues” to stand “before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands” and cry “with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb” (Revelation 7:9–10 KJV).
A careful reading of Nahum demonstrates that God unleashed a similar judgment upon Nineveh so that Assyrians would be counted in that number."
AIG

Nahum's "Babel"

"The diminutive and oft-neglected book of Nahum prophesied the fall of the capital of the Assyrian Empire.

In Nahum, God revisited an ancient judgment upon an ancient city. What follows will contend that

the prophet framed the downfall of Nineveh using imagery from the Tower of Babel. Contrary to the understanding of most commentators, Nahum did not primarily prophesy the slaughter of the Assyrians—he promised their dispersion. This dispersion began the fulfilment of Isaiah’s Assyrian benediction: “Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance” (Isaiah 19:25 KJV).

Nahum wrote superb poetry. Even his most vocal twentieth-century critic admitted that he

has an unexcelled capacity to bring a situation vividly before the mind’s eye. His constructive imagination lays hold of the central elements of a scene and with realistic imagery and picturesque phraseology recreates it for his readers. Accurate and detailed observation assists in giving his pictures verisimilitude . . . . Through the whole scene there moves a mighty passion and a great joy which lift the narrative out of the commonplace into the majestic and make of it great literature. (Smith 1911, 273–274)

Proper understanding of Nahum depends upon this point.

Nahum’s abilities create a conundrum for modern scholars. Almost every verse contains confusing syntax. An interpreter of the Hebrew has two options: to come humbly before the words or to deem the text defective.

Time after time, Nahum inserted a word that defies the assumed context. One such word points to Babel.
As the book turns to the battle for Nineveh, the text announces God’s principle weapon. The prophet envisioned one man coming against the Assyrian juggernaut and its fortified capital. Nahum called him מֵפִיץ.
Throughout the centuries, translators have struggled to identify this man. The word is a hiphil masculine singular participle of the verb פוץ (“to spread, disperse”). The solitary figure is named as a doer of the verb—he disperses. The King James Version translates מֵפִיץ as “He that dashes in pieces.” The New American Standard Bible calls him, “The one who scatters.” Others deem him “scatterer” (ESV), “shatterer” (NRSV), or “attacker” (NIV).

As the book culminates, Nahum describes the fate of five groups:

--courtiers,

--marshals,

--shepherds,

--nobles, and

--people.

Note their state. They either are scattered or sleeping. In the Hebrew, the courtiers, marshals, and people are acted upon. The scatterer has done his job.

Why would God send מֵפִיץ against Nineveh? Because God planned to redeem an Assyrian remnant.

As with Babel, redemption required scattering. Variations on the Hebrew verb פוץ appear in Genesis 11:4 (נַיָּפֶץ), 11:8 (נָפוּץ), and 11:9 (הֱפִיצָם) where the people build the tower as a protection against scattering, yet God proceeds to scatter them. Nahum used one of the most conspicuous and repeated verbs from the Babel narrative to commence the downfall of Nineveh. As in the Babel account, a Mesopotamian people were united in rebellion against God and under the control of a despot. Nahum declared that control shattered. God would liberate the Assyrians from their overlords and disperse them. In Nahum, a single man would come to set Isaiah’s remnant free.


It is not clear whether Asshur the patriarch founded Nineveh or Nimrod did. The principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture brings Micah 5:5 into the discussion. Here, a parallel construction seems to equate “Assyria” and “the land of Nimrod”:

And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof. (KJV)

By this logic, Micah declares Nimrod the founder of Nineveh (McKeating 1971, 179). Even this, though, is based on interpretation of poetic conventions. It is not certain. Possibly Micah does not equate Assyria with Nimrod. Rather the text could be saying that the Israelite shepherds would destroy both Assyria and Babylon, with Babylon being “the land of Nimrod” (Kaiser 1992, lxxii)."
AIG

Nahum & Manasseh Connection?

"A case can be made for the proclamation of the message, and writing of the book, about 650 BC. If this is the correct date, the Spirit of God used this book to put King Manasseh into a position where

he could come to faith and bring Judah back to the LORD. Up until this point in the reign of King Manasseh, the kingdom, led by the king, was “more evil than the nations whom the LORD had destroyed before the children of Israel” (2 Chr 33:9).

The LORD sent seers (prophets) to speak to the nation, but the nation would not listen to the Word of God (33:10, 18). While not named, one of the seers was probably Nahum. His vision concerning the total destruction of Nineveh would be seen by the Assyrian overlords as fomenting rebellion and insurrection, and possibly seen as support for Shamash-shum-ukin, the king of Babylon, in his current civil war with his brother Ashurbanipal II. If a copy of the book of Nahum fell into the hands of the Assyrian intelligence community stationed at the Assyrian administrative centers of Samaria, Dor, Megiddo or Hazor, King Manasseh would have had to give account for this book. The Biblical record states,

the LORD brought upon them [Judah] the captains of the army of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh with hooks, bound him with bronze fetters, and carried him off to Babylon (2 Chr 33:11).

 
This event would have transpired in 648 BC, the year that Ashurbanipal II temporarily ruled Babylon after he eliminated his brother as a result of the four-year civil war (Rainey 1993:160).
Dragging someone off with hooks in their nose would be in keeping with Ashurbanipal’s character. In the excavations of Sam’al (Zincirli, in southern Turkey) a stela was found depicting Esarhaddon holding two leashes attached to the nose-rings of Baal of Tyre and Usanahuru, a crown prince of Egypt. Flanking the stela, watching intently, is Esarhaddon’s son Ashurbanipal on the left and his brother Samas-sumu-ukin on the right. Ashurbanipal observed his father’s brutality and followed his example (Parpola and Watanabe 1988:20, 21).

During Manasseh’s interrogation by Ashurbanipal II (and it must have been a brutal one—the text used the word “afflicted”).

He implored the LORD his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, and prayed to Him; and He received his entreaty, heard his supplication, and brought him back to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD was God (2 Chr 33:12–13).

Upon his return to Jerusalem, Manasseh began building projects in the city as well as elsewhere in Judah and removed the idols and altars he had placed in the Temple (2 Chr 33:14–15).

He also repaired the altar of the LORD, sacrificed peace offerings and thanks offerings on it, and commanded Judah to serve the LORD God of Israel (33:16).

This activity was in accord with what Nahum had challenged the people to do.

Behold, on the mountains, the feet of him who brings good tidings, who proclaims peace! O Judah, keep your appointed feast, perform your vows. For the wicked one shall no more pass through; he is utterly cut off (1:15).

The challenge was for Judeans to renew their pilgrimages to Jerusalem for the thrice-yearly feasts of Pesach (Passover), Shav’uot (Pentecost) and Succoth (Tabernacles) (Ex 23:14–17; 34:22–24; Dt 16:16, 17). There was also a command for the remnant that faithfully prayed to the LORD desiring to bring the nation back to Biblical worship and to bring the king to the LORD.

Nahum was from Elkosh (Na 1:1).
Some scholars have suggested Elkosk was located at the village of Al-Qush, 25 mi north of modern day Mosul, a city that is across the Tigris River from Nineveh. These scholars take this position because:
(1) the names are similar,
(2) the local Christian tradition holds that Nahum was from there and his tomb was there, and
(3) Nahum’s writings show his familiarity with the city of Nineveh.
Some speculate that Nahum was an Israelite captive who lived in the area and was an eyewitness to the city.

There is, however, the possibility that Elkosh was in southern Judah and Nahum was part of the Judean emissary that brought the yearly tribute from King Manasseh to Nineveh.

While in Nineveh, he would have observed the broad roads (Na 2:4), walls (2:5), gates (2:6), temples and idols (1:14), and its vast wealth (2:9). I’m sure the minister of propaganda would have shown him the wall reliefs in Ashurbanipal’s residence! These reliefs were intended “as propaganda to impress, intimidate and instigate by representing the might of Assyrian power and the harsh punishment of rebels” (Comelius 1989:56). Or, as Esarhaddon would say, “For the gaze of all my foes, to the end of days, I set it [stela] up” (Luckenbill 1989:2:227).

In 650 BC, Nahum would have seen the newly opened Room 33 in the Southwest Palace of Nineveh (Sennacherib’s “palace without rival”) with the reliefs depicting the campaign against Teumman of Elam and Dunanu of Gambula in 633 BC. One Particular relief would have caught his attention. On it, Elamite captives are shown being tortured. The caption above stated, “Mr. (blank) and Mr. (blank) spoke great insults against Assur, the god, my creator. Their tongues I tore out, their skins I flayed” (Russell 1999:180; Gerardi 1988:31). These two individuals are identified in Ashurbanipal’s annals as Mannu-ki-ahhe and Nabuusalli (Russell 1999:163).

It was with great boldness that Nahum proclaimed,

The LORD has given a command concerning you [the king of Assyria]: “Your name shall be perpetuated no longer. Out of the house of your gods I will cut off the carved image and molded image. I will dig your grave, for you are vile” (1:14).

 The second chapter of Nahum describes the fall of the city of Nineveh to the Babylonians and Medes in 612 BC. He describes in detail the shields, chariots and spears of the Assyrian foes."
AssociatesForBiblicalResearch
  "From the reign of Shalmaneser III, Ashurnasirpal II’s son, we also have some bronze bands that decorated a massive pair of wooden gates of a temple (and possibly a palace) at Balawat, near modern Mosul. These bronze bands display unusually fine examples of bronze repousse (a relief created by hammering on the opposite side).
In a detail, we see an Assyrian soldier grasping the hand and arm of a captured enemy whose other hand and both feet have already been cut off. Dismembered hands and feet fly through the scene. Severed enemy heads hang

from the conquered city’s walls. Another captive is impaled on a stake, his hands and feet already having been cut off.
In another detail, we see three stakes, each driven through eight severed heads, set up outside the conquered city.
A third detail shows a row of impaled captives lined up on stakes set up on a hill outside the captured city. In an inscription from Shalmaneser Ill’s father, Ashurnasirpal II, the latter tells us, “I captured soldiers alive [and] erected [them] on stakes before their cities.”
Full text of "CP 6.0 Assyrian Torture"