n this inscription it is expressly stated that ‘the aid of the king of the Umman-manda folk’—that is, either the Medes alone, or a mixed folk of which the Medes were the predominant constituent *— was invoked by Marduk, the great god of Babylon, in order to avenge the insults offered to him by the ΞΕΕΥ̓ΤΙΒΙΒ in the days of Sennacherib. The Medes alone are credited with the destruction of the cities and temples of Assyria (column ii.), which agrees with the well-known statement of Herodotus (i. 103 ff.).
The date of the fall of Nineveh is also, for the first time, fixed for us within narrow limits. In col. x. Nabonidus informs us that the temple of the moon-god Sin at Harran (which had been destroyed by the Medes about the same time as Nineveh) was restored by him fifty-four years after its destruction. This restoration, as we know from another inscription, took place in the third year of Nabonidus’ reign (B.C. 553). Hence we obtain 607 as the date of the destruction of Harran and—since Nineveh was doubtless the last to fall before the Medes—B.c. 606 as the nearest ap- proach to the date of the fall of Nineveh.
These, then, are the two fixed points, viz. B.c. 664-663 and B.C. 606, between Sey the prophecy of Nahum must be placed. The upper limit, it will be seen, is fatal both to the ἘΠ tradition known to us, according to which Nahum prophe- sied 115 years before the fall of δ το (Jos. Ant. IX. xi. 3), and to the conclusions of older scholars, such as Pusey, Niigelsbach, etc., who placed the epee απ the reign of Hezekiah or the earlier years of Manasseh.
Another factor, which was of the greatest moment in former attempts to fix more definitely the date of our prophecy, must now be set aside, namely, the supposed references in ch. 1 to the political and religious condition of Judah under the later Assyrian kings.t This chapter, we have seen reason to believe, is no part of the genuine prophecy of Nahum—a conclusion which disposes
* See Messerschmidt, p. 71 iG pene term for northern peoples, including the Medes); Del. ΓΒ p. 87>. According to Ball, op. cit. p. 208 n., the Umman-manda are the ‘ Medes’ of Astyages, who appear, he adds, ‘to have been Iranian Scythians’ (7).
+ Such references were found in vy.% 11 (re “wicked coun-
sellor’), 13 (the heavy yoke [of Assyria?]), 15 (the religious zeal of the Jews [under Josiah ?]), etc., see the commentaries,
at once of the views of two groups of schulars— (a) those who, like Kuenen (Onderzoek?, § 75), Cornill (Hinleit.? 188), and Wildeboer (Die Littera- tur d. AT, 1895, pp. 194, 197), lay stress on the fact that the yoke of Assyria was still heavy on the neck of Judah (118), and are therefore com- pelled to postulate a date c. 624, after which time the power of Assyria rapidly decayed, and Josiah was able to extend his borders at her expense ; and (4) those who, like Robertson Smith (art. ‘Nahum’ in ELncyc. Brit.*), basing too exclusively on ch. 1, consider that the prophet had in his eye no particular assailant of Nineveh, but based his prophesy solely on the general principles of the
ivine moral government. With ch. 1 falls also the hypothesis advanced by the present writer in 1891 (‘The Burden of Nineveh’ in Good Words, 1891, 741 ff.)—and by H. Winckler independently in 1892 (Altest. Untersuch. 1892, 124 ff.)—based ona study of the relations between Assyria and Judah during the period in question, that the prophecy is to be placed c. 645 B.C., near the close of the rebellion of Samas-sum-ukin, viceroy of Babylon, against his brother Assurbanipal.
If, then, as we believe, chs. 2 and 3 alone con- stitute the genuine prophecy of Nahum, th- task of determining its date is very materially simpli- fied, for the situation portrayed in these chapters is scarcely open to doubt. It is the moment between the actual invasion of Assyria by a hostile force and the commencement of the attack on its capital. The ‘mauler’ or destroyer (adopting with most moderns Michaelis’ reading ΓΞ for 58} is already on the march (21 (#e».*)) ; the frontier fortresses have opened their gates to the foe (3%, where note the tenses). The latter, it is clear (3 15), has not yet begun to invest the city. Such was the situation when Nahum received the srophetic impulse to proclaim to the ‘city of blood? (3!) that the cup of her iniquities was full to overflowing. It is needless to attempt to dis- entangle the statements of classical historians as to the various attacks which Nineveh had to meet during the last years of her existence. The whole of the genuine prophecy palpitates with the con- viction that the ‘utter end’ of the Assyrian is at hand. ‘The closing verses of the prophecy, in ern era are strangely out of place, if the writer nas in view any other but the final attack by the Umman-manda of Nabonidus’ stele. B.C. 608-607, therefore, we consider to be the date of the vision of Nahum, an approximation as close as is attain- able in the case of any book of the OT.
Nothing in these chapters, we may add, compels us to believe that NEBGA was himself an eye- witness of the scenes he so vividly portrays. Com- munication, easy and frequent, had long existed between Nineveh and the tributa: est-land, whose inhabitants were therefore well acquainted with her situation and defences. Such an 80- quaintance, joined to a poet’s intuition and a seer’s prophetic insight, is sufficient for all the facts.