This research uses the Hebrew text as its source text and other ancient translations (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia [BHS] 2000; Cathcart & Gordon 1989; ed. Peshitta Institute Leiden 1980:58–59; eds. Rahlfs & Hanhart 2006; eds. Weber & Gryson 2007:1453).

Table 1 indicates that the translation technique employed by the Targum is best characterised as an instance of dynamic equivalence; in that it prioritises the communicative impact of the message upon the target audience. Rather than adhering strictly to the formal features of the source text, this approach seeks to render meaning in a manner that is both natural and intelligible within the linguistic and cultural framework of the receptor audience. Such a strategy frequently entails processes of rephrasing, structural reconfiguration, and, where necessary, expansion, in order to convey the intended sense with clarity and effectiveness.

The Septuagint (LXX), Peshitta and Vulgate generally preserve a more literal rendering of the Hebrew text in this passage. Their translations closely follow the structure and imagery of the source text with relatively little interpretive expansion. A notable point of divergence, however, concerns the Hebrew term ‘’. Rather than interpreting the word in its usual lexical sense as ‘lioness’, these versions appear to reflect an alternative reading associated with the verbal root meaning ‘to enter’ or ‘to go in’. Consequently, the ancient translators render the clause in a way that emphasises movement into the den (‘to enter there’) instead of introducing a separate reference to a lioness. This translational choice suggests that the versions may preserve either a different textual tradition or an exegetical attempt to smooth the syntax of the passage.

These ancient translations appear to interpret the Hebrew word ‘’ or ‘lioness’ as ‘’ or ‘to enter’ (cf. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament [HALOT]). This reading is likely explained by the orthographic similarity between the consonants ‘י’ or yod and ‘ו’ or waw (vav) in early Hebrew script, where the two letters could easily be confused in manuscript transmission. As a result, the Masoretic text preserves the reading ‘’ [lioness], whereas the Septuagint, Peshitta and Vulgate reflect a Vorlage or interpretive tradition that understood the form as ‘’ [to enter].

Within the framework of Chesterman’s causal model, the translation event constitutes the stage at which the conditions surrounding the translational act are examined, including the identity and status of the source text and the potential influence of ancillary sources. According to this model, noticeable translational shifts may arise from three general causes. Firstly, translators may introduce shifts independently as a deliberate strategy to enhance communicative clarity or textual coherence. Such shifts manifest as consistent patterns that can be systematically classified and that reflect the translator’s default decision-making preferences and overarching translational tendencies. Secondly, shifts may result from secondary influences exerted upon the translator by various external sources, including intermediary translations, parallel textual traditions or interpretive frameworks inherited from the broader scribal culture. Thirdly, certain observable shifts are not generated during the translation process itself but instead correspond to alternative readings present in the translator’s source text, reflecting differing interpretations embedded within the Vorlage rather than any active intervention by the translator (Tully 2015:282).

Applying this model to the case at hand, this article argues that the textual variants arose from the orthographic similarity between the consonants ‘י’ or yod and ‘ו’ or waw (vav) in early Hebrew script. Because these two letters were graphically similar in ancient manuscript traditions, scribes or translators could easily confuse one for the other, resulting in divergent readings and subsequent translational differences.

Within Chesterman’s causal model, the final stage of analysis situates translational phenomena within their broader socio-cultural milieu, thereby accounting for the external forces – often the most fundamental yet least explicit – that shape translators’ decisions (Tully 2015:36). In the case of the LXX’s translation of Nahum, understanding the socio-cultural resonance of the verb ‘τῆς φυγῆς’ in Nahum 2:12 requires an examination of how historical and socio-cultural background may have informed the translator’s lexical choices (cf. Chia 2025a:415–428; Radner 2015:34).

Nineveh, as the capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, occupied a central position not only in the political administration of the empire, but also in the ideological construction of imperial power. Nineveh functioned as the symbolic and operational nucleus of a vast imperial system that extended across the ancient Near East. This system was characterised by a complex hierarchy of authority in which the Assyrian monarch exercised sovereignty over a wide array of subordinate territories (Chia 2026:1–16). From an administrative standpoint, the Neo-Assyrian Empire developed a highly organised system of governance that integrated conquered territories into a centralised imperial framework. This system comprised both directly administered provinces and indirectly controlled vassal states. Provinces were governed by Assyrian officials appointed by the king, who were responsible for taxation, military conscription and the maintenance of order. By contrast, vassal states retained a degree of local autonomy under their indigenous rulers, provided they remained loyal to Assyria, paid tribute and rendered military assistance when required (Grayson & Novotny 2012:17–19, 2014:45–47). This dual governance structure enabled the Assyrian state to exert control over a vast and heterogeneous territory while simultaneously reducing administrative burdens (Van De Mieroop 2016:236–238). Consequently, Nineveh is not just a physical place but a symbolic entity that embodies the accumulation and distribution of imperial authority (Liverani 2014:188–192; Van De Mieroop 2016:235–240).

Within the socio-cultural context of ‘’ or ‘lioness’ in Nahum 2:12, the triadic imagery of the lion, lioness and lion’s cub conveys a complete representation of power, stability and dynastic continuity within the symbolic ‘lions’ den’. In the prophetic context, the lion imagery most likely symbolises the ruling structure of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, especially its kings, royal household and successive generations. The progression from lion to lioness to cub creates the image of a complete and thriving pride living in apparent safety and dominance (cf. ed. Christensen 2009:229–231).

The ‘lion’ primarily symbolises the Assyrian king as conqueror and predator. In the ancient Near East, lions regularly functioned as royal metaphors for strength, domination and military superiority. Assyrian kings frequently identified themselves with lions in royal inscriptions and palace art, while lion-hunting scenes became a visual expression of kingly authority and control over chaos. The biblical prophet appropriates this same imagery ironically, transforming the imperial symbol of power into an image of coming destruction (cf. Radner 2015:62–65).

The ‘lioness’ broadens the metaphor beyond military aggression to include preservation, fertility and dynastic continuity. In the natural world, lionesses protect and nourish the cubs, and in prophetic symbolism, the figure may therefore represent the sustaining structures of empire, including the royal household and mechanisms of succession. The inclusion of the lioness creates the image of a complete and secure pride, emphasising that Assyria’s dominance extended not merely through a single ruler but through an enduring imperial system (Spronk 1997:86–88).

The ‘lion’s cub’ or ‘young lion’ points to future generations and the continuation of imperial authority. In biblical and ancient Near Eastern symbolism, young lions often represent princes, heirs or emerging rulers who inherit the violent character and ambitions of their predecessors. The imagery therefore depicts an empire confident in its future stability, where even the vulnerable cubs dwell undisturbed. Yet the prophet’s taunt exposes the irony of that confidence: The seemingly permanent dynasty has vanished under divine judgement (Robertson 1990:91–93).

Thus, this portrayal is deeply ironic theologically and rhetorically. The prophet asks, ‘Where is the den of the lions?’ precisely because that seemingly invulnerable order has disappeared. The empire that once provided safety for its rulers, queens and heirs has collapsed under divine judgement. The complete leonine family – lion, lioness and cub – therefore emphasises the totality of the downfall: not only the king, but the entire structure of imperial continuity has been destroyed. The imagery transforms what once symbolised permanence and fearlessness into a memory of vanished power.

In the socio-cultural context of ‘’ in Nahum 2:12, the passage employs the imagery of lions and their den as a metaphor for power, security and imperial dominance. Within the literary context, the ‘the lions’ symbolises the once-secure realm of a conquering empire, most likely Nineveh and, by extension, the Neo-Assyrian Empire (cf. Brown, Driver & Briggs 1906 [BDB] and HALOT). This lion, a common royal symbol in ancient Near Eastern iconography, represents the ruling power that formerly terrorised surrounding nations yet dwelt confidently in its own stronghold. The metaphor draws upon ancient Near Eastern royal ideology, in which kings frequently identified themselves with lions because of their strength, ferocity and dominance in battle. Assyrian royal inscriptions and palace reliefs regularly portray kings hunting lions or comparing themselves to them. The biblical author appropriates this imagery ironically: The empire that once behaved like an untouchable lion has itself become prey to destruction (Chia 2025b:1–13). Thus, the passage functions both as political satire and theological proclamation, asserting that even the mightiest earthly powers cannot escape divine judgement.

The rhetorical question, ‘Where is the abode of the lions and the feeding ground for the whelps?’ functions as a prophetic taunt against Nineveh and the Neo-Assyrian Empire. The lion imagery reflects the well-known ancient Near Eastern association between lions and royal power, particularly Assyrian kingship. The ‘abode’ or ‘den’ symbolises the empire’s sphere of security and dominance, while the ‘feeding ground’ evokes a place where the empire nourished itself through conquest and plunder. The verse recalls a time when Assyria appeared invulnerable and unchallenged, only for the prophet to expose the fragility of that apparent permanence through ironic questioning (ed. Christensen 2009:229–231).

The phrase ‘where the lion went to enter there’ carries important literary and theological implications. In biblical imagery, entering one’s den signifies rest, possession and secure habitation after predatory activity. The lion returns unhindered to its dwelling place because no rival or enemy exists to challenge its authority. Within the context of Nahum’s oracle, however, this image becomes deeply ironic: The empire that once moved freely and fearlessly within its realm now faces destruction and exile. The prophet contrasts former confidence with present ruin, demonstrating that Assyria’s security was ultimately temporary and subject to divine judgement (Chia 2025b:1–13). The emphasis therefore shifts from identifying another member of the pride to highlighting the lion’s unrestricted movement and complete security within its territory. The imagery portrays the imperial ruler as one who could enter and inhabit his domain without fear of resistance or disturbance (cf. HALOT).

Theological Implication of the translations of ‘’ and ‘’ in Nahum 2:12.

Within the context of the LXX’s translation of Nahum, the Hebrew prophet’s pronouncements against Nineveh – including the divine judgement articulated in Nahum 2:12 – would have been received and rendered by a translator situated within a later historical and cultural framework. The Masoretic text reading ‘’ in Nahum 2:12 underscores the comprehensive destruction of Nineveh. By depicting the full leonine group – lion, lioness and cub – the text portrays not merely the fall of an individual ruler, but the collapse of the entire imperial order and its dynastic continuity. What once symbolised enduring strength, stability and fearlessness is transformed into an image of complete desolation and extinguished power. On the other hand, the reading ‘’ (Peshitta, LXX, and Vulgate) emphasises on the lion’s act of entering its den. In this interpretation, entering the den symbolises rest, possession and secure habitation following predatory activity. The lion moves freely back into its dwelling place without obstruction, indicating that no rival or enemy is capable of challenging its authority. Consequently, the focus shifts away from identifying another member of the leonine family and instead highlights the lion’s unrestricted access to and complete control over its territory. The imagery thus portrays the imperial ruler as one who could confidently enter, occupy and govern his domain without fear of resistance or disturbance.