Nahum
A Trauma for a Trauma
PAYBACK Punkte
40 °P sammeln!
In this first volume of our Trauma Bible Commentary series, Bob Becking encourages attention to Nahum as a text that could-or probably should-be read as a reflection to trauma. The text sits within a history of humankind that is full of traumatising events, which may be experienced on an almost daily basis.The small Book of Nahum saw the light of day in times of trouble. Samaria was reduced to an Assyrian province; Judah to a vassal-state-both suffered from the presence of the Assyrian yoke, including loss of independence, deportations and paying of tribute. This commentary re-considers the au...
In this first volume of our Trauma Bible Commentary series, Bob Becking encourages attention to Nahum as a text that could-or probably should-be read as a reflection to trauma. The text sits within a history of humankind that is full of traumatising events, which may be experienced on an almost daily basis.The small Book of Nahum saw the light of day in times of trouble. Samaria was reduced to an Assyrian province; Judah to a vassal-state-both suffered from the presence of the Assyrian yoke, including loss of independence, deportations and paying of tribute. This commentary re-considers the author, noting he was a person who had inside knowledge of Assyrian culture and language. This anonymous author was veiled behind the name Nahum, meaning consolation. What kind of consolation is promised in this pamphlet and at what price? In what way is the book of Nahum to be seen as a consoling reaction to this trauma? ¿¿Becking provides a contemporary trauma informed critique of the book's approach-and by reading against the grain explains Nahum's way out of trauma is not the only route; rather another pathway of mourning, coping and healing could be taken. The God of Nahum has two faces: one compassionate and one full of wrath. Using close textual analysis, Becking argues that the Assyrians will be defeated by divine wrath leading to an end of Israel's trauma. Reading Nahum conceptually, reveals that the book is based on the idea of retribution: 'an eye for an eye'. Theologically this raises big questions when appropriating the 'message' of Nahum to our times: Is it not against humanitarianism to believe in such a revengeful God? Or is it perhaps worse: to adopt this idea to justify human acts in the many traumatising conflicts that determine our age?
