Nahum’s Rhetorical Allusions To Neo-Assyrian Treaty Curses

Nahum’s Rhetorical Allusions
To Neo-Assyrian Treaty Curses*
—
Gordon H. Johnston

[Gordon H. Johnston is Associate Professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.

* This is part two in a three-part series, “The Rhetorical Use of Allusions in the Book of Nahum.”]

In May 672 B.C., Esarhaddon (681-669 B.C.), the Neo-Assyrian king, demanded that his Syro-Palestinian vassals appear before him.¹ Included in this assembly was Manasseh king of Judah (696-642 B.C.).² Esarhaddon, recognizing that his years were drawing to an end, wanted to ensure a peaceful succession to the throne for his sons, Ashurbanipal, the crown-prince of Assyria, and Shamash-shum-ukin, the crown-prince of Babylonia. To dissuade his vassals from rebelling at his death, Esarhaddon forced this assembly to submit to a suzerain-vassal treaty demanding continued allegiance to Assyria.³ To convince potentially recalcitrant vassals not to rebel, he threatened his audience with some of the most brutal treaty curses imaginable.⁴ Manasseh surely would have been

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 416

intimidated by the threat of bringing these curses on Judah.

Neo-Assyrian suzerain-vassal treaties were an international legal form disseminated outside the boundaries of the Assyrian homeland, as were all types of Assyrian statecraft.⁵ According to ancient Near Eastern suzerain-vassal custom, both suzerain and vassal possessed a copy of the treaty documents.⁶ Vassals were given a copy of the text and required to read its contents to the general populace. They were public documents distributed among the Syro-Palestine vassals and intended for public display and reading. Treaty stipulations were often so detailed that compliance would have been virtually impossible without having a copy of the requirements to consult. The primary purpose of the document, however, was to intimidate entire nations to submit to Assyrian suzerainty out of fear of reprisal. Treaty curses functioned as an important element in this aspect of Assyrian propaganda. Unless the vassal had a copy of the text to review, the threatened treaty curses would be muted.

In the case of the treaty between Esarhaddon and his Syro-Palestinian vassals, it is likely that each vassal state was given a copy of the treaty. So Manasseh may have brought back a copy of this document to Judah. (Unfortunately archaeology has failed to confirm whether he actually possessed a copy of this text. This is no surprise, of course, because no official documents from the preexilic period have been recovered from ancient Jerusalem).⁷ Since the Judean delegation, led by Manasseh, personally witnessed the enactment of the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon, it is virtually certain that Judean leaders would have been well aware of the contents of this document, including its treaty curses. Although the Judean populace as a whole would not have been familiar with its details, the leaders of Judah would undoubtedly have known its contents, including the threatening treaty curses.

Intimidated by the threat of Assyrian retaliation, Manasseh (696-642 B.C.) and his son Amon (642-640 B.C.) both remained

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 417

subject to Assyrian domination. However, after Josiah (640-609 B.C.) took the throne, things soon changed. In spite of the threat of incurring these brutal treaty curses, Josiah asserted Judean independence from Assyria around 632 B.C. (2 Chron. 34:3).⁸ What might have emboldened Josiah to throw caution to the wind and risk Assyrian retaliation? If Josiah was a keen observer of the political scene, he simply might have sensed a decline in Assyrian power. However, it is possible that Nahum, who prophesied sometime after 640 B.C.,⁹ may have played a role in encouraging Josiah to assert Judah’s independence.¹⁰

Several features in Nahum’s message might have encouraged Josiah to flaunt Judean independence in the face of the threatened Assyrian treaty curses. First, Nahum announced that Yahweh was about to break the power of the Assyrian tyrant and rescue Judah (Nah. 1:12–13). Second, Nahum encouraged Judah to reestablish its worship of Yahweh in independence from Assyria (v. 15). Third, Nahum announced that Yahweh would protect Judah from any Assyrian reprisals (vv. 7–8). Fourth, the prophet said that God would not allow Assyria to retaliate against Judah (1:9–2:1) because He would sovereignly orchestrate the imminent demise and ultimate destruction of the Assyrian Empire (2:1–3:19). Fifth, Nahum seems to have alluded to the Assyrian treaty curses in his announcements of judgment on Assyria. The Assyrians would not implement their treaty curses against Judah; rather, Yahweh would implement these curses against them! Josiah could assert political/religious independence without fear.

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 418

Distinctiveness Of Nahum’s Announcements Of Judgment

The prophetic maledictions in Nahum are stylistically and thematically distinct from typical announcements of judgment in other Hebrew prophets. Many scholars have demonstrated that most of the prophetic announcements of judgment against Judah or Israel allude to the covenant curses in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28–31.¹¹ In fact Stuart has categorized the Mosaic Covenant treaty curses and the corresponding announcements of judgment in the prophets into twenty-seven types of curses.¹² However, the prophetic maledictions in Nahum are more closely aligned to the Neo-Assyrian treaty curses than to the curses of the Mosaic Covenant.

Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Curses and
Announcements of Judgment in the Hebrew Prophets

Several scholars have demonstrated that the pronouncements of doom in the Hebrew prophets correspond to ancient Near Eastern curse material in general, and to treaty curses in particular. Curse imagery occurs in many ancient Near Eastern genres (e.g., suzerain-vassal treaties, law codes, building inscriptions, tomb inscriptions, border inscriptions, royal inscriptions, statue engravings, ritual incantations, and even on the disks of pegs).¹³ Although the pronouncements of doom in the Hebrew prophets correspond to ancient Semitic curse material in general, several writers have demonstrated that they correspond more closely to the curses in the ancient vassal treaties, and to seventh- and eighth-century B.C. Neo-Assyrian vassal treaties in particular.¹⁴

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 419

Mendenhall produced the original study on the relationship of the Hebrew prophetic announcements of judgment to ancient Near Eastern treaty curses.¹⁵ He concluded that there was a general resemblance between the kinds of doom the prophets foretold and the threats contained in treaty curses. It remained for other scholars to determine whether this resemblance went beyond a general similarity and included parallels in specific concepts and expressions.

Borger pointed out specific parallels between Assyrian treaty curses and announcements of judgment in the prophets.¹⁶ He argued that they were so close that the resemblance could not be accidental; he suggests that the Hebrew prophets probably drew on curse imagery from Neo-Assyrian treaties.

Fensham compared prophetic announcements of judgment in Amos and Isaiah with Syrian and Assyrian treaty curses, as well as Babylonian boundary-curses.¹⁷ He suggested that in some cases the Hebrew prophets and the ancient Near Eastern texts drew on a common source of stock Semitic curses. He also demonstrated that the prophetic judgments are generally closer to the more specific curses in the treaty texts than to the more general curses found in other genres. Although the Hebrew prophets and the ancient Near Eastern treaty curses drew on a common stock of general Semitic curses, their similarity reflects some kind of direct correspondence. He concluded that the Hebrew prophets drew on the ancient treaty-curse genre to express judgment. Treaty-curse imagery was an appropriate model for oracles of judgment: just as human suzerains cursed vassals who violated their treaties, Yahweh, the Divine Suzerain, judged His vassals when they violated His covenant.

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 420

Building on Fensham’s work, Hillers noted twenty parallels between maledictions in the Hebrew prophets and curses in ancient Near Eastern treaties.¹⁸ Three of the parallels are found in Nahum: the curse of being stripped like a prostitute (Nah. 3:5); warriors becoming like women (v. 13); and the incurable wound (v. 19). He concluded that the Hebrew prophets used the language and imagery of ancient Near Eastern treaty curses to announce judgment. Although there are parallels in other genres (e.g., kudurru-curses and ritual curses), he showed that the announcements of judgment in the Hebrew prophets more closely resemble in content and theme the Mesopotamian and Syrian treaty curses. He also noted that in some cases the prophets intentionally drew on specific ancient Near Eastern treaty curses.

Hillers concluded that the closest parallels to the maledictions of the Hebrew prophets are treaty curses of the eighth-century Aramaic Sefire treaties and seventh-century Neo-Assyrian treaties, particulary those of Ashurbanipal and Esarhaddon. He suggested that the Hebrew prophets were influenced greatly by the Aramaic Sefire treaty curses because of the linguistic affinities between Aramaic and Hebrew and the geographical proximity of the two. He also suggested that the Neo-Assyrian treaty curses influenced the language and imagery of the Hebrew prophets as a natural result of the great political/social influence of the Assyrians in the seventh and eighth centuries B.C.

Hillers also explained how the prophets would have been familiar with ancient Near Eastern treaty curses. First, the treaty was a legal form disseminated internationally and thus was well known. Second, treaty documents were publicly displayed and distributed for public reading. Third, all parties possessed a copy of the treaty and were required to read them. Fourth, the Sefire treaties indicate that Assyrian and Hittite treaties with Arameans and Canaanites were composed in Aramaic and Northwest Semitic dialects, so that language would not have been a barrier. Fifth, treaties were in widespread use from the early second millennium to the middle of the first millennium. Sixth, treaty curses were an important tool of Assyrian propaganda, designed to intimidate entire populations to submit to Assyrian rule. Therefore Hillers concluded that Assyrian treaty curses would have been well known to the Hebrew prophets.

As an outgrowth of Hillers’s work, Cathcart surfaced ten

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 421

parallels between the announcements of judgment in Nahum and ancient Near Eastern treaty curses.¹⁹ Seven of his parallels are these: burning of chariots (2:13a); silencing the enemy (v. 13b); public exposure of the prostitute (3:5); exile of population (v. 10); troops acting like women (v. 13); weapons burned in fire (vv. 13, 15); and the incurable wound (v. 19). The other three are based on textual emendations: breaking the scepter (1:13); desecration of the royal burial tomb (v. 14); and hiring oneself out as a prostitute (3:11).²⁰ Like Hillers, Cathcart noted that the closest parallels to Nahum’s announcements are curses in the Aramaic Sefire and Neo-Assyrian vassal treaties, particularly the treaty curses of Esarhaddon. He noted that the correspondence was natural since Nahum was a contemporary of Esarhaddon. Cathcart suggested that Nahum adopted stock seventh-to-eighth-century curse imagery, popularized in the Aramaic Sefire and Neo-Assyrian treaty curses.

Frankena surfaced several features that distinguish Neo-Assyrian treaty curses from Hittite, Syrian, and Mesopotamian treaty curses.²¹ The Neo-Assyrian treaty curses are generally more extensive and vivid than their ancient Near Eastern counterparts, featuring unique expressions and imagery. The most extensive, dramatic, and colorful treaty curses occur within two sets of treaties composed by Esarhaddon: the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and Esarhaddon’s Treaty with Baal of Tyre. Esarhaddon introduced new imagery and categories into his treaty curses, including novel simile-curses. Frankena also demonstrated that many treaty curses in Esarhaddon’s two texts are identical, indicating that Esarhaddon developed his own stereotypical curse imagery and idioms. Frankena concluded that the two treaty texts of Esarhaddon are so distinct that they can be classified as a separate subset within the genre of Neo-Assyrian vassal-treaty texts.

While noting that most ancient Near Eastern curse material is general and stereotypical, McCarthy also demonstrated that the Neo-Assyrian treaty curses, particularly those of Esarhaddon are unique, compared with curses in other ancient Near Eastern

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 422

texts.²² McCarthy identified five features that distinguish Neo-Assyrian treaty curses from general Semitic curse imagery. First, the curse material in Sumerian, Hittite, Aramaic, and Syrian texts tend to be nothing more than summary statements that the transgressor will be cursed. On the other hand curses in the Neo-Assyrian texts are extensive and specific. Second, the curse sections in Neo-Assyrian vassal treaties are much longer than in other ancient Near Eastern texts, which are relatively short, sometimes only a few lines long. The curse material in the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon contain hundreds of individual curses, spanning over 250 lines. Only the lengthy curse section in the Law Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1792-1750 B.C.) rivals this, containing twelve sets of multiple curses, spanning nearly three hundred lines. Third, the Neo-Assyrian curses are the most vivid and highly developed curses among the ancient texts. By comparison the Hittite and early Syrian treaty curses are less colorful and tend to be borrowed and reused again and again. Fourth, many of the motifs in the Neo-Assyrian treaty curses are unique and without parallel in the ancient Near East. Fifth, the content of Hittite, Ugaritic, and Syrian curses follows common stereotypical formulas; in contrast the Neo-Assyrian curses are framed in three distinctive types of formulaic expressions that are clearly unique.

In summary Borger and Fensham have shown that the prophetic maledictions are more closely associated with ancient Near Eastern treaty curses than more general curse material. McCarthy and Frankena have demonstrated that the Neo-Assyrian treaty curses are distinct from other ancient Near Eastern curse material in general, and even from other ancient Near Eastern treaty curses in particular. They also noted that the treaty texts of Esarhaddon feature curses that are so distinctive that they can be classified as a separate category even within Assyrian treaty curses. Hillers and Cathcart have shown that Nahum drew on the imagery of several ancient Near Eastern treaty curses in general and on imagery in the Aramaic Sefire and Neo-Assyrian vassal treaties, particularly the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon. This article proposes that Nahum may have intentionally alluded to well-known Neo-Assyrian treaty curses in general, and in particular to the treaty curses in the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon made with Manasseh and other Syro-Palestinian vassals in 672 B.C.

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 423

Comparison Of Maledictions In Nahum
And The Treaty Curses Of Esarhaddon

Having indicated that the prophetic maledictions in Nahum are unique among the Hebrew prophets, and that the Neo-Assyrian treaty curses (and those of Esarhaddon in particular) are unique among ancient Near Eastern curse material, it now remains to compare Nahum’s judgment motifs with ancient Near Eastern curse materials. The closest parallels are in treaty curses in general, and Neo-Assyrian treaty curses in particular, especially those of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. Nearly twenty close parallels exist between Nahum’s expressions of judgment and curses in ancient Near Eastern texts; this study, however, discusses twelve of the closest parallels to the Neo-Assyrian treaty curses.²³

Curse of Darkness

This curse motif appears throughout ancient Near Eastern texts of all genres. For example Hammurabi’s law code threatens lawbreakers with these words: “May he [Enlil] determine as the fate for him a reign of woe, days few in number, years of famine, darkness without light, sudden death!” (CH, rev., 26, 61–70). Likewise a text from the second dynasty of Isin (eighteenth century B.C.) states that Shamash will hit the transgressor’s face so that his day will turn into darkness.²⁴ A Babylonian boundary text also threatens darkness against transgressors.²⁵ This motif also occurs in Neo-Assyrian treaty texts. For example Ashurbanipal’s Treaty with his Babylonian Allies reads, “May he remove our eyesight; may we wander about in darkness” (AshB, 2:10). It also appears twice in the Vassal treaties of Esarhaddon: “May Shamash, the light of heaven and earth, not give you a fair and equitable judgment; may he take away your eyesight; may you walk in darkness!” (VTE, 422–424) and “May your days be dark, your years be dim—may they [the gods] decree dimness without any brightness” (VTE, 485–486). Likewise Nahum announced that Yahweh would afflict

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 424

His enemies (the Assyrians) with darkness (Nah. 1:8). Other preexilic prophets also pictured judgment as darkness (e.g., Amos 5:18; Isa. 5:30; 13:10). This is common Semitic curse imagery, but it seems to have been used most extensively by the Neo-Assyrians as well as by contemporary Hebrew prophets.

Destruction of Seed and Name

The threatened extermination of an offender’s descendants (“seed” and “name”) occurs in a variety of genres. To have no progeny to continue one’s name, indeed one’s personal existence posthumously, was viewed as a terrible misfortune in the ancient Near East and was particularly distasteful to a king. This was one of the most common curses in the ancient Near East. For example Hammurabi threatened, “May he order by his forceful word the destruction of his city, the dispersion of his people, the transfer of his kingdom, the disappearance of his name and memory from the land” (CH, rev., 26, 71–80).

Similar curses are in five inscriptions from the Old Babylonian period: “May Ishtar, Dagan, and Enki, lord of the assembly, uproot his foundation and tear out his seed” (Statue Inscription of Puzur-Ishtar, 15–22); “May Ishtaran, the river-god, and Mashtaba, tear out his seed” (Inscription of Puzur-Ishtar’s son, 1–6); “May Ishtar tear out his seed!” (Inscription of Idilum, 9–10); “May Shamash, my lord, uproot his foundations, and tear out his seed!” (Yasmah-Adad Statue Inscription, 21–25); and “May Bunene, the great vizier of Shamash, cut his throat, and tear out his seed, so that his offspring and his progeny [literally, ‘name’] may not live under the sun [alternately, ‘walk in the presence of Shamash’]” (Foundation Inscription of Yahdun-Lim, iv., 29–33).

The Phoenician inscription of Tabnit reads, “May you not have any seed among the living under the sun or the resting-place with the shades!” (KAI, 13:7–8). The inscription of Eshmunazor reads, “May they not have a resting place with the shades, and may they not be buried in a grave, and may they not have son and seed in their place!” (KAI, 14:8–10). The Aramaic inscription of Nerab says, “May Shamash … tear out your name and your house from the living!” (KAI, 225:9–11). The Aramaic Inscription of Tema warns, “May the gods of Tema uproot him and his seed and his name from Tema” (KAI, 228:13–14). A similar curse appears once in the Aramaic Sefire treaties, “May his scion inherit no name!” (Sefire, 1:C:24–25).

While this is a common Semitic curse, it occurs most frequently in Neo-Assyrian literature. It appears dozens of times in Assyrian building inscriptions. It also occurs numerous times in

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 425

the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon made with Manasseh and other Syro-Palestinian vassals in 672 B.C. In this treaty Esarhaddon repeatedly commanded his vassals to eradicate the “name” and “seed” of insurrectionists, that is, to destroy all rebels including their heirs (VTE, 140–41, 161, 255–56, 315). Numerous times he personally threatened to destroy the “name” and “seed” of recalcitrant vassals. In each case Esarhaddon used the term “seed” in a mixed metaphor: the term “seed” is used both as a metonymy for one’s offspring (reproductive “seed” is the cause and “offspring” is the effect) and in a metaphor of agricultural destruction (their “seed” will never again be “sown” in the land, that is, they would have no future heirs). “May Sarpanitu who gives name and seed, destroy your name and seed from the land” (VTE, 435–36); “Just as a hinney is sterile, may your name, your seed and the seed of your sons and your daughters be destroyed from the land” (VTE, 537–39); “May your seed, the seed of your sons and daughters be destroyed from the land” (VTE 543–44); “May Nabu, the bearer of the tablet of Fates [ … ] erase your name, destroy your seed, [ … ], may he destroy your seed from the land” (VTE, 663–68).

Nahum 1:14 combines the motif of the destruction of the “name” and “seed” of a rebellious vassal. Just as Esarhaddon used the mixed metaphor of destruction of the “seed” of the vassal “from the land,” Nahum announced that the “name” of the Assyrian king would never again be “sown” in the land.²⁶ Unfortunately this mixed metaphor is somewhat obscured in several translations: “your name will not be perpetuated any longer” (e.g., KJV, NKJV, NASB, NRSV). Nahum’s use of this mixed metaphor is the closest parallel to the Assyrian treaty curse of any example of this motif in the entire Old Testament. The threat of the destruction of one’s “name” occurs eleven times in the Old Testament (Deut. 9:14; 29:20; Josh. 7:9; Ruth 4:5, 10; 1 Sam. 24:21; Ps. 9:5; Isa. 48:19; 66:22; Jer. 11:19; Nah. 1:14), and the word-pair “name” and “seed” occurs four times (1 Sam. 24:21; Isa. 48:19; 66:22; Nah. 1:14). However, Nahum 1:14 is the only biblical parallel to Esarhaddon’s mixed metaphor of the destruction of the vassal’s “seed” in which the destruction of his offspring (“seed”) is compared to destruction of agricultural seed from the land (as in VTE, 435–36, 537–39, 543–44, 663–68). Although Nahum 1:14 clearly reflects a common Semitic curse, it corresponds most closely to the Neo-Assyrian

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 426

treaty curses, particularly the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon.

Destruction of Chariots

One of the most common ancient Near Eastern curses is the breaking of the warrior’s weapon on the field of battle, rendering him defenseless and impotent.²⁷ The most general variety of this curse appears in an Old Babylonian temple inscription of Yahdun-Lim, the Old Babylonian king of Mari: “May Nergal, lord of the weapon, break his weapon, so that he may not be able to withstand his opponents” (Foundation Inscription of Yahdun-Lim, iv., 20–22). In another inscription Yahdun-Lim warned, “May Shamash break his weapon and the weapons of his troops!” (Disk of Yahdun-Lim, iii., 12–15).²⁸ Hammurabi also invoked his gods to punish lawbreakers in this manner: “May Zababa, the mighty warrior, the first-born son of Ekur, who marches at my right hand, shatter his weapons on the field of battle! May Inanna, the lady of battle and conflict, who bares my weapons, my gracious protecting genius, the admirer of my reign, curse his rule with her great fury in her wrathful heart! May she turn his good into evil; may she shatter his weapons on the field of battle and conflict!” (CH, rev., xxvii 90-xxviii 3).

The most common variety of this motif is the breaking of the warrior’s bow. Several ritual curses involved breaking a bow, as in the Hittite Soldiers’ Oath.²⁹ An Aramaic Sefire treaty featured a similar ritual: “Just as this bow and these arrows are broken, so may Anahita and Hadad break the bow of Mati’el and the bow of his nobles” (Sefire, I:A:38–39). Esarhaddon employed this curse on several occasions: “May Astarte break your bow in the thick of battle, and have you crouch at the feet of your enemy” (Baal, rev., iv. 18–20); “May Ishtar, lady of battle, break your bow in a heavy battle, tie your arms, and have you crouch at the feet of your enemy” (VTE, 453). The Bible includes numerous examples of the breaking of a warrior’s bow in battle as a motif of judgment (e.g., 1 Sam. 2:4; Pss. 46:9; 76:3; Jer. 49:35; 51:56; Ezek. 39:3; Hos. 1:5; 2:18; Zech. 9:10).

Related to the breaking of the warrior’s bow in battle is the destruction of the warrior’s chariot. This variation on the more

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 427

common theme is rare; however, it appears frequently in the treaty curses of Esarhaddon: “May they break your bow and make you crouch at the feet of your enemies, may they make the bow refuse to bend in your hands; may they turn your chariots upside down” (VTE, 573–75); and in a ritual curse, “Just as this chariot is spattered with blood up to its running board, so may they spatter your chariots in the midst of your enemy with your own blood” (VTE, 612–16). Of interest is the fact that Nahum did not use the more common imagery of the breaking of the warrior’s bow but the rarer motif of the destruction of the warrior’s chariot: “I will burn her chariots with fire” (Nah. 2:13).³⁰ Rather than using the more common Semitic curse imagery here, Nahum used the more particularly Neo-Assyrian imagery popularized by Esarhaddon.

Punishment of Prostitutes

Prostitutes were punished severely in the ancient Near East; they were often held up to shame by the public exposure of their nakedness as an act of poetic justice. This motif is employed as a curse in the Aramaic and Neo-Assyrian treaties of the seventh and eighth centuries B.C. For example in an Aramaic Sefire treaty, Bar-Ga’ayah warns, “Just as a prostitute is stripped naked, so may the wives of Mati’ilu be stripped naked, and the wives of his offspring and the wives of his nobles” (Sefire IA, 40–41). In a similar tone the Neo-Assyrian treaty of Ashurnirari V with Mati’ilu of Arpad reads, “If Mati’ilu sins against this treaty with Ashurnirari, king of Assyria, may Mati’ilu become a prostitute, his soldiers like women, may they receive a gift in the square of their cities like any prostitute” (AshN, rev., 5:8–12). Esarhaddon warned his vassals that if they would revolt, they would be treated like a prostitute: “May they treat you like a woman in the presence of your enemy” (VTE, 617). Similarly Nahum announced that the people of Nineveh would be punished like a prostitute: “I will lift your skirts up over your face, the nations will see your nakedness, and the kingdoms your pudenda” (Nah. 3:5–7). According to Hillers this is one of five Old Testament texts that parallel a treaty curse concerned with the punishment of a prostitute by stripping.³¹

Warriors Acting Like Fearful Women

Another common Semitic curse is the motif of brave warriors becoming like fearful women. For example the Hittite Soldiers’ Oath

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 428

states, “Whoever breaks these oaths and does evil to the king, the queen, and the princes, let these oaths change him from a man into a woman! Let them change his troops into women, let them dress them in the fashion of women and cover their heads with a length of cloth!” (KUB, vii.59.47-55). This motif is also reflected in an Old Babylonian prayer to Ishtar: “It is within your power, O Ishtar, to turn men into women!” (CAD, Z:110b).

Hillers notes that this was a common Neo-Assyrian curse.³² For example the vassal treaty between Ashurnirari V and Mati’ilu of Arpad reads, “May his warriors become women” (AshN, 5:9). It also occurs in an inscription of Esarhaddon: “May Ishtar, Mistress of battle and conflict, turn his masculinity into femininity and set him bound at the feet of his enemy.”³³ Similarly Nahum stated that the Assyrians will lose their virility in battle and act like fearful women: “Behold! Your troops are like women in the presence of your enemies!” (Nah. 3:13).³⁴ This motif occurs in other seventh- and eighth-century prophets, who also probably reflected this contemporary Neo-Assyrian treaty curse (Isa. 19:16; Jer. 50:37).³⁵

Locust Plague

Crop-consuming insects, such as locusts, often threatened the agriculture of the Fertile Crescent, so it is not surprising that the curse of the locust plague would be seen in Near Eastern writing. This curse appears most frequently in seventh- and eighth-century B.C. Aramaic and Neo-Assyrian vassal treaties.³⁶ For example an Aramaic Sefire treaty threatens Mat’ilu: “For seven years may the locust devour; for seven years may the worm eat; for seven years may [ … ] come upon the face of its land. May the grass not come forth; may no green be seen; may its vegetation not be seen. May the gods unleash the caterpillar, lice, and crop-consuming devourer against Arpad and its people” (Sefire, IA, 27–32).

This curse occurs most frequently in Neo-Assyrian vassal treaties. For example Ashurnirari V warned, “If Mati’ilu violates this

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 429

treaty … may locusts appear and devour his land” (AshN, 5:24–6:1). And Esarhaddon threatened his Syro-Palestinian vassals: “May the locust who diminishes the land devour your harvest” (VTE, 442–43), and “May they (the gods) let lice, caterpillars, and crop-consuming devourers consume your cities, country and provinces, like locusts” (VTE, 599–600). Although the locust curse was not limited to Neo-Assyrian texts, Hillers and Cathcart both note that it was not used elsewhere to the same extent.³⁷ This makes it all the more ironic that Nahum, who was prophesying about the imminent destruction of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, would employ the well-known Assyrian locust curse (Nah. 3:15–17). Just as locusts devour crops, so the sword would devour the Ninevites (v. 15). The Assyrians might increase their allies like a swarm of locusts, but their allies would turn on them and plunder the land like devouring locusts (v. 16). The Assyrian guards might be numerous as locusts, but they would desert the city like locusts taking to flight (v. 17). This locust curse is also reflected in several other biblical announcements of judgment (Deut. 28:38; Joel 1:4; 2:25; Amos 4:9).

Incurable Wound and Fatal Disease

The curse of the incurable wound was a common Semitic theme. It is documented as early as the Law Code of Hammurabi: “May Ninkarrak, daughter of Anum, who speaks well of me in Ekur, bring on his limbs a severe malady, an evil plague, a festering wound, which does not get better, which no physician understands or can cure by bandages, and which, like the sting of death, he cannot get rid of. May he continue to lament over his lost manhood until his life is extinguished” (CH, rev., xxvii 50–69).

Although this curse was not exclusive to the Neo-Assyrians, it was used most frequently by them in seventh- and eighth-century treaties.³⁸ For example it appears in the treaty between Shamshi-Adad V and Marduk-zakir-shumi: “May Sin, the lord of heaven, whose punishment is renowned among the gods, inflict upon him a severe punishment which cannot be removed from his body” (SA, lines 11–12).

Esarhaddon was particularly fond of this curse, using it no less than five times in his various vassal treaties. It occurs once in his vassal treaty with Baal of Tyre: “May Gula, the great physician put

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 430

illness and weariness in your hearts and an unhealing sore in your body; may you bathe in blood and pus as if in water!” (Baal, rev., 4:3–4). It occurs no less than five times in his vassal treaty with his Syro-Palestinian vassals, which included Manasseh: “May Marduk, the oldest son, assign you a serious punishment (and) an incurable wound” (VTE, 433–34). “May Gula, the great physician, put sickness and weariness in your hearts and an unhealing wound in your body; may you bathe in blood and pus as if in water!” (VTE, 461–62). “May Ishtar [of … ], Ishtar [ … of] Carchemish, put a severe wound into your heart, so that your blood dribbles down to the ground like rain” (VTE, 469–71). “May the great gods of heaven and earth, as many as are named in this tablet, strike you down, look (fiercely) upon you, and curse you with an incurable wound” (VTE, 472–75). “When your enemy runs you through, may there be no honey, oil, zinzaru or cedar-resin available to put on your wound” (VTE, 643–45).

The curse of an incurable wound also appears in Nahum: “Your wound is fatal; there is no healing for your disease” (Nah. 3:19). The curse that Esarhaddon frequently boasted his gods would inflict on Judah would in fact be inflicted on Assyria. The curse of an incurable wound appears in the seventh- and eighth-century Hebrew prophets, reflecting contemporary Neo-Assyrian treaty curses (Isa. 1:5–6; Jer. 8:22; 10:19; 14:17, 19; 15:18; 30:12–15; 46:11; 51:8–9; Ezek. 20:31; Hos. 5:13; Mic. 1:9). This curse is reversed in announcements of deliverance by Isaiah and Jeremiah (Isa. 58:8; Jer. 30:17; 33:6).

Overwhelming Flood

In this curse the suzerain invoked the appropriate storm god to inundate the city of the offender with an overwhelming flood. This curse is found in the Law Code of Hammurabi: “May Adad, the lord of abundance, the irrigator of heaven and earth, my helper, deprive him of the rains from heaven and the floodwaters from the springs! May he bring his land to destruction through want and hunger; may he thunder furiously over his city, and turn his land into the desolation of a flood!” (CH, rev., xxvii 62–70). Although this curse appears in this Old Babylonian law code, it was used most frequently in Neo-Assyrian treaty curses. For example Shamshi-Adad V threatened Marduk-zakir-shumi: “May Adad, the canal inspector of heaven and earth … turn his land into ruins by means of a flood” (ShA, rev., 15). Esarhaddon twice threatened his Syro-Palestinian vassals with this curse: “With a great flood, may he (Adad) submerge your land” (VTE, 442); and “May an irresistible flood come up from the earth and devastate you” (VTE, 448–49).

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 431

The motif of the overwhelming flood also occurs frequently in the royal annals of the Neo-Assyrian kings, who frequently boasted that they came on their enemies like an overwhelming flood. This is probably one of the most distinctly “Assyrian” curses. This is undoubtedly reflected in Isaiah 8:7, which depicts the king of Assyria as a mighty flood overwhelming Judah. It is therefore more than ironic that Nahum used this curse when He announced that Yahweh would destroy His enemies—the Assyrians—with an overwhelming flood (Nah. 1:8). In fact the walls of Nineveh actually were destroyed by a flood that allowed the Medo-Babylonian coalition to enter and conquer the city (2:8–9).

Drying Up Of Water Sources

The drying of water sources is threatened in the Law Code of Hammurabi: “May Enki, the mighty prince whose decrees take precedence, the wisest of the gods who knows every sort of thing, who prolongs the days of my life, deprive him of knowledge and understanding, and constantly lead him astray! May he dam up his rivers at the source; may he not let there be grain, the life of the people, in his land!” (CH, rev., xxvi 98-xxvii 10). “May Adad, the lord of abundance, the irrigator of heaven and earth, my helper, deprive him of the rains from heaven and the floodwaters from the springs! May he bring his land to destruction through want and hunger!” (CH, rev., xxvii 64–76).

Hillers notes that the curse of dammed-up rivers and dried-up water sources occurs in ancient Near Eastern treaty curses, particularly Neo-Assyrian.³⁹ The treaty of Ashurnirari V reads, “May Adad, the canal inspector of heaven and earth, put an end to Mati’ilu, his land and the people of his land through hunger, want, and famine, so that they eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and it taste as good to them as the flesh of spring lambs. May they be deprived of Adad’s thunder so that rain be denied them. Let dust be their food, pitch their ointment, donkey’s urine their drink, rushes their clothing, let their sleeping place be in the corners (of walls)” (AshN, rev., iv:10–16).

Similarly the Treaty of Shamshi-Adad V with Marduk-zakir-shumi of Babylon, reads, “May Ea, the sage of the gods who knows everything, dam his rivers in their sources” (SA, rev., 7); and “May Adad, the canal inspector of heaven and earth, deprive him of rain from the heaven, and of seasonal flooding from the underground river; may he destroy his land through famine,

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 432

roar fiercely at his city, and turn his land into ruins by means of a flood” (SA, rev., 13–15). This topic also appears twice in the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon: “May Adad, the controller of the waters of heaven and earth, dry up your ponds” (VTE, 440–41) and “Just as you can blow water out of a tube, so may they blow you away, your women, your sons, your daughters; may they make your rivers, your springs, and their wells flow backward” (VTE, 563–66).

Similarly Nahum 1:4 depicts the divine Warrior uttering a battle cry that “dries up the water and makes the rivers run dry.” While this might simply reflect the motif of God’s cosmological battle against chaotic waters, which He defeated at Creation and holds in check throughout history (Pss. 18:15; 29:10; 46:3; 77:16; Isa. 51:10; Hab. 3:10), the prevalence of the Neo-Assyrian treaty curse of drying up water sources might be present here.

Skin Color Changed

One of the more unusual ancient Semitic curse motifs is the changing of the color of the skin due to loss of blood. The only example that has been found occurs in the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon: “May they [the gods] make your skin and the skin of your women, your sons and your daughters—dark. May they be as black as pitch and crude oil” (VTE, 585–87). This probably depicts the sickly palour that occurs when the life blood flows out of a person’s face at death. Like most Assyrian treaty curses the imagery portends the threat of death. Nahum annouced that a similar fate would overtake the Assyrians when Nineveh was destroyed: “Every face will grow pale” (Nah. 2:10). The image is similar to Esarhaddon’s treaty curse: the loss of blood causes the face to grow deathly pale, then eventually dark at death.⁴⁰ Nahum’s expression of judgment is without parallel in the Old Testament, and its only ancient Near Eastern parallel appears in the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon with Manasseh and other Syro-Palestinian states.

Silencing of One’s Voice

Other ancient Near Eastern treaty curses threatened the removal of joy and singing as the result of experiencing woe and lamentation. One of the Aramaic Sefire treaty curses reads, “May the sound of the lyre not be heard in Arpad; but among its people let there rather be the din of affliction and the noise of crying and

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 433

lamentation!” (Sefire, I:A:29–30). This treaty curse motif is undoubtedly reflected in Ezekiel’s announcement, “The sound of your lyres will not be heard again!” (Ezek. 26:13). The motif of silencing one’s enemies is reflected in the Neo-Assyrian treaty of Ashur-Nirari V: “If Mati’ilu, his sons, or his nobles, who sin against this treaty—let the farmers of his land not sing the harvest song in the fields!” (AshN, rev., iv:18–19). It is also reflected in the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon: “May Belet-ili, the Lady of all creatures, put an end to birth-giving in your land, so the nurses among you shall miss the cry of babies in the streets” (VTE, 437–39). Comparison of the Aramaic and Neo-Assyrian examples indicates that the motif of silencing one’s enemies could encompass a wide spectrum of activities. This motif may be reflected in Nahum 2:13: “The voice of your messengers will be heard no more.” The destruction of Nineveh and the downfall of the empire would automatically silence its ambassadors.

Retaliation by the Avenger

One of the most distinctive treaty curses of Esarhaddon is the threat that vassals who conspire against the empire would be punished by the “avenger.” For example, “As a stag is overtaken and killed, so may the Avenger overtake and kill you” (VTE, 576–77); and “Just as one seizes a bird in a trap, so may your brothers and your sons place you in the hands of the Avenger” (VTE, 582–84). It is ironic that Nahum emphatically repeats נֹקֵם three times in 1:2 to portray Yahweh as the “Avenger” who retaliates against vassals who rebel against His suzerainty.⁴¹

Intentional Allusion or Stereotypical Imagery?

Is the imagery that the Book of Nahum shares with the Neo-Assyrian treaty curses of Esarhaddon a matter of stereotypical imagery or intentional allusion? Nahum clearly drew on curse imagery that is not unique to Neo-Assyrian treaty curses, so it may be viewed simply as stock Semitic curse imagery. The Book of Nahum features repeated parallels not only with the curses of Esarhaddon, but also with other Neo-Assyrian treaty curses (e.g., Ashurbanipal and Ashurnirari), the Aramaic Sefire treaty curses, as well as curses in the Law Code of Hammurabi and other Old Babylonian texts. As Hillers and Cathcart noted, the closest parallels occur in the Aramaic Sefire and Neo-Assyrian treaty curses. They suggest

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 434

this is best explained by the linguistic similarity and geographical proximity to Aramaic and the political influence of the contemporary Neo-Assyrians.

Nevertheless the possibility of intentional rhetorical allusion to the treaty curses of Esarhaddon remains a viable possibility for several reasons. First, the parallels between Nahum and the ancient Near Eastern treaty curses tend to occur in the domain of curse motifs that are more frequent in Esarhaddon treaty texts than in any other exemplar. Parallels are consistently found in the Esarhaddon texts in every example given, whereas parallels to other texts were less consistent. Simply from a statistical standpoint Nahum is more closely related to Esarhaddon’s treaty curses than to those in other ancient Near Eastern texts.

Second, Nahum used allusion as a rhetorical device throughout his book. In 3:8–13 he alluded to Assyria’s recent destruction of Thebes, announcing that Yahweh would destroy Nineveh in similar manner. Assyria’s treatment of Thebes would serve as a pattern of Yahweh’s treatment of the Assyrians. In 2:11–13 Nahum alluded to the Assyrian lion motif, which was a well-known tool of Assyrian propaganda. And Nahum 1:2–3a alludes to Exodus 34:6–7, while 1:15 alludes to Isaiah 52:7. Since Nahum used allusion as a prominent rhetorical device in other areas, it should not be surprising that he employed allusion here also.

Third, Nahum 1:2–3 emphasizes that God would avenge His enemies in a way that the punishment would fit the crime. It seems more than coincidental that the treaty curses that the Assyrians threatened to invoke on Judah would be the very judgments Yahweh would invoke on the Assyrians. With so much stock curse imagery available, it is remarkable that Nahum drew so frequently from the curse motifs most prevalent in Esarhaddon’s treaty texts. Since it is clear that much of Nahum’s imagery drew directly from treaty curse motifs in the vassal treaty that Esarhaddon imposed on Judah, it is natural to conclude that Nahum’s allusions may have been rhetorically motivated and not just coincidental. While other Hebrew prophets may have drawn on Neo-Assyrian imagery with no rhetorical intent in view, Nahum as the prophet of Assyria’s doom had a unique message: The very curses that the Assyrians threatened to implement on Judah would in fact be implemented on them!

The Rhetorical Effect of Nahum’s Allusions

This article has recounted striking similarities between the announcements of judgment in Nahum and Neo-Assyrian treaty

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 435

curses in general, and the treaty curses of Esarhaddon in particular. Although it cannot be proved with absolute certainty, it is highly possible that the similarity between Esarhaddon’s treaty curses and Nahum’s maledictions was intentional, not coincidental.

Primary Purpose: Poetic Justice

The Hebrew prophets frequently emphasized the theme of poetic justice when they described Yahweh’s judgment.⁴² They used a variety of rhetorical techniques and stylistic devices to create a literary correspondence between sin and judgment.⁴³ When the correspondence between a sin and its judgment would not be readily obvious to empirical observation of the historical events, they made the correspondence explicit through literary devices.

The theme of poetic justice appears quite often in Nahum. For example poetic justice is implicit in Nahum’s comparison of Ashurbanipal’s past destruction of Thebes and Yahweh’s future destruction of Nineveh (Nah. 3:8–11). Similarly Nahum’s allusions to typical Assyrian treaty curses would have been an appropriate vehicle by which to depict poetic justice. By evoking typical Assyrian treaty curses against the Assyrians, Nahum suggested that Yahweh’s judgment would be appropriate. The curses the Assyrians threatened to implement against Judah would be the very calamities that would fall on them. The Assyrians would not implement their treaty curses against Judah; rather, Yahweh would implement these very curses against them.

In threatening treaty curses against Judah and the other Syro-Palestinian states, Esarhaddon was functioning in his self-appointed role as the sovereign ruler (suzerain) over subordinate vassals. Nahum, however, asserted that the Assyrian king would not implement these treaty curses against Judah; instead, Yahweh would implement these curses against Assyria. The God of Judah is the true Sovereign Ruler and Great King, and Assyria was nothing more than a lowly vassal in rebellion against Him. By proclaiming that Yahweh rather than the Assyrians would implement the treaty curses, Nahum reversed the role of the Assyrians, placing

BSac 158:632 (Oct 01) p. 436

them in a different position than the Assyrian kings liked to think of themselves as having. By turning the tables on Assyria, so to speak, Nahum dramatically portrayed an ironic reversal and put the prideful Assyrians in their place.

Secondary Purpose: Polemic against Assyrian Gods

The Assyrians claimed that the treaty curses were implemented by the appropriate Assyrian gods. For example Shamash the sun god would smite rebels with darkness (VTE, 414–16); Adad, controller of the rain waters, would send a destructive flood on the city (VTE, 440–42); and Sarpanitu, the progenitor god, would destroy one’s descendants (VTE, 435–36). Nahum simply announced that the Assyrian gods would be impotent to implement these treaty curses on Judah. On the other hand Yahweh would demonstrate that He alone is the sovereign, living God by exposing the Assyrian gods and also by implementing these very curses against Assyria.

Contribution to Biblical Theology

Nahum’s ironic allusions to Neo-Assyrian treaty curses in his maledictions are not simply a matter of historical interest. They form the basis of profound theological insights about God.

First, as a just God, Yahweh will eventually intervene on behalf of His people who suffer under the threats of wicked oppressors. Just as God eventually delivered Judah from the threat of the treaty curses of the Assyrians, so God may be trusted to deliver His people from the threats of those who afflict or persecute them today. Second, when God does intervene in judgment against the wicked, the punishment will fit the crime. Just as God judged the Assyrians with the very curses that they had threatened to mete out on Judah, so the people of God today may count on Him to intervene eventually to balance the scales of justice. Third, the people of God should not be intimidated by threats of the wicked but should boldly worship God. Just as Josiah spurned the threats of the Assyrian treaty curses by his pro-Yahwistic break from Assyria, so the people of God today should embolden their resolve to worship the Lord even in the face of threatened opposition and persecution from the world.

^[1]

---

¹ 1. D. J. Wiseman, The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon (London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1958), 3.

² 2. As Wiseman notes, the Prism B inscription states that Manasseh and other Syro-Palestinian vassals appeared before Esarhaddon (ibid., 4). See Reginald Campbell Thompson, The Prisms of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal Found at Nineveh, 1927-28 (London: British Museum Library, 1931), 55:25. For translation see James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 291.

³ 3. For a convenient translation of this text see Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 34–54. The standard critical translation and commentary is in D. J. Wiseman, The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon. The text has been retranslated by Simo Parpola and Kazuko Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, State Archives of Assyria 2 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988).

⁴ 4. For a translation of the treaty curses, see Wiseman, The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon, 60–80 (lines 414–668).

⁵ 5. John Holladay Jr., “Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel,” Harvard Theological Review 63 (1970): 29-51.

⁶ 6. Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1972), 55–57.

⁷ 7. For a relatively up-to-date summary of the archaeological excavations of Jerusalem, see “Jerusalem,” in Michael Avi-Yonah et al., The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Jerusalem: Carta, 1993), 2:698–804, esp. 702–16.

⁸ 8. For a discussion of Josiah’s reforms in 632 and 622 B.C., which were as anti-Assyrian in nature as they were pro-Yahwistic, see Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 442–46.

⁹ 9. For a discussion of the date of Nahum see Gordon H. Johnston, “Nahum’s Rhetorical Allusions to the Neo-Assyrian Lion Motif,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (July-September 2001): 301-2.

¹⁰ 10. Several scholars suggest that Nahum played a role in encouraging Josiah to assert Judean independence: W. C. Graham, “The Interpretation of Nahum 1:9–2:3, ” American Journal of Semitic Literature and Languages 44 (1927–1928): 40; Alfred Haldars, Studies in the Book of Nahum (Uppsala: B. Lundequistska Bokhandeh, 1946), 149; H. L. Ginsberg, “Judah and the Transjordan States from 734 to 582 B.C.E.,” in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950), 354; I. H. Eybers, “A Note Concerning the Date of Nahum’s Prophecy,” Die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika 12 (1969): 10; and Duane Christensen, “The Acrostic of Nahum Reconsidered,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 87 (1975): 28.

¹¹ 11. See Richard V. Bergren, The Prophets and the Law, Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 4 (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College/Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974), 182–83; George M. Harton, “Fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28–30 in History and in Eschatology” (Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1981); Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “A Theology of the Minor Prophets,” in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Chicago: Moody, 1991), 404.

¹² 12. Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, Word Biblical Commentary 31 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), xxxi-xl.

¹³ 13. For a foundational discussion of curse motifs see Stanley Gevirtz, “Curse Motifs in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1959); and idem, “West-Semitic Curses and the Problem of the Origins of Hebrew Law,” Vetus Testamentum 11 (1961): 137-58.

¹⁴ 14. For a relatively up-to-date and convenient list of the extant covenants and treaties that have been published to date, see John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 95–100. For translations see Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament; Donald J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets (London: British Institute of Archaeology, 1953); idem, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon (London: British School of Archaeology, 1958); H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaanaische und aramaische Inschriften, 3 vols. (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1962–1964); John A. Fitzmeyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, Biblica et Orientalia 19 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967); Klaus Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 180–88; E. Laroche, Catalogue des Textes Hittites (Paris: Klincksieck, 1971); A. Lemaire and J.-M. Durand, Les Inscriptions Araméennes de Sfiré et l’Assyrie de Shamshi-ilu (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1984); and Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths.

¹⁵ 15. George E. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” Biblical Archaeologist 17 (1954): 50-76; and idem, “Covenant,” in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. George A. Buttrick (Nashville: Abingdon, 1986), 1:720.

¹⁶ 16. Riekele Borger, “Zu den Asarhaddon-Vertagen,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 54 (1961): 173-96.

¹⁷ 17. F. C. Fensham, “Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and Kudurru-Inscriptions Compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 75 (1963): 155-75. See also Fensham’s earlier study, “Maledictions and Benedictions in Ancient Near Eastern Vassal Treaties and the Old Testament,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 74 (1962): 1-9.

¹⁸ 18. Delbert R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, Biblica et Orientalia 16 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964), 43–79.

¹⁹ 19. Kevin J. Cathcart, “Treaty-Curses and the Book of Nahum,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 35 (1973): 179-87.

²⁰ 20. Cathcart’s proposed emendations are based primarily on his desire to produce close parallels to ancient Near Eastern treaty curses rather than simply on external or internal textual evidence. However, the textual evidence does not demand his proposed emendations.

²¹ 21. R. Frankena, “The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Date of Deuteronomy,” in Oudtestamentische Studien, Deel XIV, ed. A. H. de Boer (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 130–31.

²² 22. Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981), 67.

²³ 23. The following standard abbreviations will be used: VTE = Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon; Baal = Esarhaddon’s Treaty with Baal of Tyre; AshB = The Ashurbanipal Treaty with His Babylonian Allies; AshN = Vassal Treaty of Ashurnirari V with Mati’ilu of Arpad; SA = Vassal Treaty of Shamshi-Adad V and Marduk-zakir-shumi; Sefire = Aramaic Sefire Vassal Treaties; CH = Codex Hammurabi (Law Code of Hammurabi); KAI = Canaanite and Aramaic Inscriptions; and KUB = Old Hittite Soldiers’ Oath.

²⁴ 24. Fensham, “Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties,” 170–71.

²⁵ 25. Ibid., 171.

²⁶ 26. The motif of the destruction of the vassal’s “name” and “seed” is clearly present in 1:14, “Your name (שִׁםְ) will never again be sown (יִזָּרַע).” Although Nahum does not use the noun “seed” (זֶוֹרעַ), he does use the cognate verb “sow” (יִזָּרַע).

²⁷ 27. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, 60; and Cathcart, “Treaty Curses and the Book of Nahum,” 182.

²⁸ 28. A. Marzal, “Mari Clauses in ‘Casuistic’ and ‘Apodictic’ Styles,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971): 341.

²⁹ 29. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 354.

³⁰ 30. All translations from the Book of Nahum are those of the author.

³¹ 31. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, 58–60.

³² 32. Ibid., 66-68.

³³ 33. Ibid., 67.

³⁴ 34. Cathcart, “More Phonological Notes on the Book of Nahum,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 7 (1979): 137-38.

³⁵ 35. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, 66–68; and Cathcart, “Treaty Curses and the Book of Nahum,” 187.

³⁶ 36. See Hayim Tawil, “A Curse concerning Crop-Consuming Insects in the Sefire Treaty and in Akkadian: A New Interpretation,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 225 (1977): 59-62.

³⁷ 37. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, 54–56; and Cathcart, “Treaty Curses and the Book of Nahum,” 185–86.

³⁸ 38. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, 64–66.

³⁹ 39. Ibid., 70-71.

⁴⁰ 40. J. J. Gluck, “parur-pa’rur: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia,” in Proceedings of the Twelfth Meeting of Die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika, ed. A. H. van Zyl (Potchefstroom: Pro Rege-Pers, 1969), 21–26.

⁴¹ 41. See George Mendenhall, “The Vengeance of Yahweh,” in The Tenth Generation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), 69–104, esp. 78–82.

⁴² 42. Some of the classic studies on poetic justice include A. S. Diamond, “An Eye for an Eye,” Iran 19 (1957): 151-55; Murray H. Lichtenstein, “The Poetry of Poetic Justice: A Comparative Study in Biblical Imagery,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies 5 (1973): 255-65; John Barton, “Natural Law and Poetic Justice in the Old Testament,” Journal of Theological Studies 30 (1979): 1-13; and Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “Tit for Tat,” Biblical Archaeologist 43 (1980): 230-34.

⁴³ 43. Patrick D. Miller Jr., Sin and Judgment in the Prophets: A Stylistic and Theological Analysis, SBL Monograph Series 27 (Chico, CA: Scholar’s, 1982), 134.

^[1]Dallas Theological Seminary: Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 158. Dallas Theological Seminary, 2001; 2002, S. 158:415-436