[199] In the English version, but in the Hebrew chap. ii. vv. 1 and 3; for the Hebrew text divides chap. i. from chap. ii. differently from the English, which follows the Greek. The Hebrew begins chap. ii. with what in the English and Greek is the fifteenth verse of chap. i.: _Behold, upon the mountains_, etc.
[200] In the English text, but in the Hebrew with the omission of vv. 1 and 3: see previous note.
[201] Other meanings have been suggested, but are impossible.
[202] So it lies on Billerbeck’s map in Delitzsch and Haupt’s _Beiträge zur Assyr._, III. Smith’s _Bible Dictionary_ puts it at only 2 m. N. of Mosul.
[203] Layard, _Niniveh and its Remains_, I. 233, 3rd ed., 1849.
[204] Bohn’s _Early Travels in Palestine_, p. 102.
[205] Just as they show Jonah’s tomb at Niniveh itself.
[206] See above, p. 18.
[207] Just as in Micah’s case Jerome calls his birthplace Moresheth by the adjective Morasthi, so with equal carelessness he calls Elḳosh by the adjective with the article Ha-elḳoshi, the Elḳoshite. Jerome’s words are: “Quum Elcese usque hodie in Galilea viculus sit, parvus quidem et vix ruinis veterum ædificiorum indicans vestigia, sed tamen notus Judæis et mihi quoque a circumducente monstratus” (in _Prol. ad Prophetiam Nachumi_). In the _Onomasticon_ Jerome gives the name as Elcese, Eusebius as Ἐλκεσέ, but without defining the position.
[208] This Elkese has been identified, though not conclusively, with the modern El Kauze near Ramieh, some seven miles W. of Tibnin.
[209] Cf. Kuenen, § 75, n. 5; Davidson, p. 12 (2).
Capernaum, which the Textus Receptus gives as Καπερναούμ, but most authorities as Καφαρναούμ and the Peshitto as Kaphar Nahum, obviously means Village of Nahum, and both Hitzig and Knobel looked for Elḳôsh in it. See _Hist. Geog._, p. 456.
Against the Galilean origin of Nahum it is usual to appeal to John vii. 52: _Search and see that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet_; but this is not decisive, for Jonah came out of Galilee.
[210] Though perhaps falsely.
[211] This occurs in the Syriac translation of the Old Testament by Paul of Tella, 617 A.D., in which the notices of Epiphanius (Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus A.D. 367) or Pseudepiphanius are attached to their respective prophets. It was first communicated to the _Z.D.P.V._, I. 122 ff., by Dr. Nestle: cf. _Hist. Geog._, p. 231, n. 1. The previously known readings of the passage were either geographically impossible, as “He came from Elkesei beyond Jordan, towards Begabar of the tribe of Simeon” (so in Paris edition, 1622, of the works of St. Epiphanius, Vol. II., p. 147: cf. Migne, _Patr. Gr._, XLIII. 409); or based on a misreading of the title of the book: “Nahum son of Elkesaios was of Jesbe of the tribe of Simeon”; or indefinable: “Nahum was of Elkesem beyond Betabarem of the tribe of Simeon”; these last two from recensions of Epiphanius published in 1855 by Tischendorf (quoted by Davidson, p. 13). In the Στιχηρὸν τῶν ΙΒ´ Προφητῶν καὶ Ἰσαιοῦ, attributed to Hesychius, Presbyter of Jerusalem, who died 428 of 433 (Migne, _Patrologia Gr._, XCIII. 1357), it is said that Nahum was ἀπὸ Ἑλκεσεὶν (Helcesin) πέραν τοῦ τηνβαρεὶν ἐκ φυλῆς Συμεών; to which has been added a note from Theophylact, Ἑλκασαΐ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου εἰς Βιγαβρὶ.
[212] Ad Nahum i. I (Migne, _Patr. Gr._, LXXI. 780): Κώμη δὲ αὕτη πάντως ποῦ τῆς Ἰουδαίων χώρας.
[213] The selection Bashan, Carmel and Lebanon (i. 4), does not prove northern authorship.
[214] אֶלְקוֹשׁ may be (1) a theophoric name = Ḳosh is God; and Ḳosh might then be the Edomite deity קוֹס whose name is spelt with a Shin on the Assyrian monuments (Baethgen, _Beiträge z. Semit. Religionsgeschichte_, p. 11; Schrader, _K.A.T._², pp. 150, 613), and who is probably the same as the Arab deity Ḳais (Baethgen, _id._, p. 108); and this would suit a position in the south of Judah, in which region we find the majority of place-names compounded with אל. Or else (2) the א is prosthetic, as in the place-names אכזיב on the Phœnician coast, אכשׁף in Southern Canaan, אשדוד, etc. In this case we might find its equivalent in the form לְקוֹש (cf. כזיב אכזיב); but no such form is now extant or recorded at any previous period. The form Lâḳis would not suit. On Bir el Ḳûs see Robinson, _B.R._, III., p. 14, and Guérin, _Judée_, III., p. 341. Bir el Ḳûs means Well of the Bow, or, according to Guérin, of the Arch, from ruins that stand by it. The position, _east_ of Beit-Jibrin, is unsuitable; for the early Christian texts quoted in the previous note fix it _beyond_, presumably south or south-west of Beit-Jibrin, and in the tribe of Simeon. The error “tribe of Simeon” does not matter, for the same fathers place Bethzecharias, the alleged birthplace of Habakkuk, there.