[947]In the tenth month the siege of Jerusalem had begun (2 Kings xxv. 1); on the ninth of the fourth month Jerusalem was taken (Jer. xxxix. 2); on the seventh of the fifth City and Temple were burnt down (2 Kings xxv. 8); in the seventh month Gedaliah was assassinated and the poor relics of a Jewish state swept from the land (Jer. xli.). See above, pp.30ff.[948]LXX.the citizens of five cities will go to one.[949]מלאכיהorמלאכיהו. To judge from the analogy of other cases of the same formation (e.g.Abiyah = Jehovah is Father, and not Father of Jehovah), this name, if ever extant, could not have borne the meaning, which Robertson Smith, Cornill, Kirkpatrick, etc., suppose it must have done, ofAngel of Jehovah. These scholars, it should be added, oppose, for various reasons, the theory that it is a proper name.[950]Cf. the suggested meaning of Haggai, Festus. Above, p.231.[951]And added the words,layitto your hearts: ἐν χειρὶ ἀγγέλοῦ αὐτοῦ θέσθε δὴ ἐπὶ τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν. Bachmann (A. T. Untersuch., Berlin, 1894, pp. 109 ff.) takes this added clause as a translation ofוְשִׂימוּ בַלֵּב, and suggests that it may be a corruption of an originalוּשְׁמוֹ כָלֵב,and his name was Kaleb. But the readingוְשִׂימוּ בַלֵּבis not the exact equivalent of the Greek phrase.[952]מַלְאֲכִי דְיִתְקְרֵי שְׁמֵיהּ עֶזְרָא סָפְרָא.[953]See Stade,Z.A.T.W., 1881, p. 14; 1882, p. 308; Cornill,Einleitung, 4th ed., pp. 207 f.[954]So (besides Calvin, who takes it as a title) even Hengstenberg in hisChristology of the O. T., Ewald, Kuenen, Reuss, Stade, Rob. Smith, Cornill, Wellhausen, Kirkpatrick (probably), Wildeboer, Nowack. On the other side Hitzig, Vatke, Nägelsbach and Volck (in Herzog), Von Orelli, Pusey and Robertson hold it to be a personal name—Pusey with this qualification, “that the prophet may have framed it for himself,” similarly Orelli. They support their opinion by the fact that even the LXX. entitle the book Μαλαχιας; that the word was regarded as a proper name in the early Church, and that it is a possible name for a Hebrew. In opposition to the hypothesis that it was borrowed from chap. iii. 1, Hitzig suggests the converse that in the latter the prophet plays upon his own name. None of these critics, however, meets the objections to the name drawn from the peculiar character of the title and its relations to Zech. ix. 1, xii. 1. The supposed name of the prophet gave rise to the legend supported by many of the Fathers that Malachi, like Haggai and John the Baptist, was an incarnate angel. This is stated and condemned by Jerome,Comm. ad Hag.i. 13, but held by Origen, Tertullian and others. The existence of such an opinion is itself proof for the impersonal character of the name. As in the case of the rest of the prophets, Christian tradition furnishes the prophet with the outline of a biography. See (Pseud-)Epiphanius and other writers quoted above, p.232.[955]iii. 16 ff.[956]See above on Obadiah, p.169, and below on the passage itself.[957]i. 2–5.[958]i. 8.[959]i. 11: the verbs here are to be taken in the present, not as in A.V. in the future, tense.[960]Passim: especially iii. 13 ff., 24.[961]i. 10; iii. 1, 10.[962]ii. 1–9.[963]ii. 10–16.[964]iii. 7–12.[965]See above, pp.195f.[966]i. 2.[967]ii. 10.[968]ii. 17—iii. 12; iii. 22 f., Eng. iv. The above sentences are from Robertson Smith, art. “Malachi,”Encyc. Brit., 9th ed.[969]Above, p. 332, n.952.[970]“Mal.” i. 8; Neh. v.[971]Deut. xii. 11, xxvi. 12; “Mal.” iii. 8, 10; Num. xviii. 21 ff. (P).[972]Vatke (contemporaneous with Nehemiah), Schrader, Keil, Kuenen (perhaps in second governorship of Nehemiah, but see above, p.335, for a decisive reason against this), Köhler, Driver, Von Orelli (between Nehemiah’s first and second visit), Kirkpatrick, Robertson.[973]Deut. xii. 11. In P tĕrûmah is a due paid to priests as distinct from Levites.[974]ii. 4–8: cf. Deut. xxxiii. 8.[975]i. 8; Deut. xv. 21.[976]i. 14; Lev. iii. 1, 6.[977]iii. 5; Deut. v. 11 ff., xviii. 10, xxiv. 17 ff.; Lev. xix. 31, 33 f., xx. 6.[978]iii. 22 Heb., iv. 4 Eng.Law of MosesandMoses My servantare found only in the Deuteronomistic portions of the Hexateuch and historical books and here. In P Sinai is the Mount of the Law. To the above may be addedsegullah, iii. 17, which is found in the Pentateuch only outside P and in Psalm cxxxv. 4. All these resemblances between “Malachi” and Deuteronomy and “Malachi’s” divergences from P are given in Robertson Smith’sOld Test. in the Jewish Church, 2nd ed., 425 ff.: cf. 444 ff.[979]Lev. xvii.—xxvi. From this and Ezekiel he received the conception of the profanation of the sanctuary by the sins of the people—ii. 11: cf. also ii. 2, iii. 3, 4, for traces of Ezekiel’s influence.[980]ii. 6 ff.[981]See below, pp.340,363,365.[982]Herzfeld, Bleek, Stade, Kautzsch (probably), Wellhausen (Gesch., p. 125), Nowack before the arrival of Ezra, Cornill either soon before or soon after 458, Robertson Smith either before or soon after 445. Hitzig at first put it before 458, but was afterwards moved to date it after 358, as he took the overthrow of the Edomites described in chap. i. 2–5 to be due to a campaign in that year by Artaxerxes Ochus (cf. Euseb.,Chron., II. 221).[983]But see below, pp.340,365.[984]Z.A.T.W., 1887, 210 ff.[985]i. 11, forגדולδεδόξασται; perhaps ii. 12,עדforער; perhaps iii. 8 ff., forעקב קבע; 16, forאוταῦτα.[986]i. 11 ff.; ii. 3, and perhaps 12, 15.[987]Ezra iv. 6–23.[988]This is recorded in the Aramean document which has been incorporated in our Book of Ezra, and there is no reason to doubt its reality. In that document we have already found, in spite of its comparatively late date, much that is accurate history. See above, p.212. And it is clear that, the Temple being finished, the Jews must have drawn upon themselves the same religious envy of the Samaritans which had previously delayed the construction of the Temple. To meet it, what more natural than that the Jews should have attempted to raise the walls of their city? It is almost impossible to believe that they who had achieved the construction of the Temple in 516 should not, in the next fifty years, make some effort to raise their fallen walls. And indeed Nehemiah’s account of his own work almost necessarily implies that they had done so, for what he did after 445 was not to build new walls, but rather to repair shattered ones.[989]See above, p. 335, n.970, and below, p.354, on “Mal.” i. 8.[990]Cf. Stade,Gesch. des Volkes Israel, II., pp. 128–138, the best account of this period.[991]“Mal.” iii. 14.[992]“Mal.” i. 2, 6; iii. 8 f.[993]Id.i. 7 f., 12–14.[994]Id.i. 6 f., ii.[995]Id.ii, 10.[996]“Mal.” ii. 10–16.[997]For proof of this see above, pp.331f.[998]“Mal.” iii. 16.[999]iii. 2, 19 ff. Heb., iv. 1 ff. Eng.[1000]iii. 6.[1001]i. 11.[1002]See above, p.343.[1003]See above,Chapter XIV.on “Edom and Israel.”[1004]Heb. xii. 16.[1005]Romans ix. 13. The citation is from the LXX.: τὸν Ἰακὼβ ἠγάπησα, τὸν δὲ Ἠσαῦ ἐμίσησα.[1006]This was mainlyafterthe beginning of exile. Shortly before that Deut. xxiii. 7 says:Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother.[1007]So even so recently as 1888, Stade,Gesch. des Volkes Israel, II., p. 112.[1008]See above, p.169. This interpretation is there said to be Wellhausen’s; but Cheyne, in a note contributed to theZ.A.T.W., 1894, p. 142, points out that Grätz, in an article “Die Anfänge der Nabatäer-Herrschaft” in theMonatschrift für Wissenschaft u. Geschichte des Judenthums, 1875, pp. 60–66, had already explained “Mal.” i. 1–5 as describing the conquest of Edom by the Nabateans. This is adopted by Buhl in hisGesch. der Edomiter, p. 79.[1009]The verb in the feminine indicates that the population of Edom is meant.[1010]i. 6.[1011]Psalm ciii. 9. In Psalm lxxiii. 15 believers are calledHis children; but elsewhere sonship is claimed only for the king—ii. 7, lxxxix. 27 f.[1012]Hosea xi. 1 ff. (though even here the idea of discipline is present) and Isa. lxiii. 16.[1013]iii. 4.[1014]Isa. lxiv. 8, cf. Deut. xxxii. 11 where the discipline of Israel by Jehovah, shaking them out of their desert circumstance and tempting them to their great career in Palestine, is likened to the father-eagle’s training of his new-fledged brood to fly: A.V. mother-eagle.[1015]Cf. Cheyne,Origin of the Psalter, p. 305, n. O.[1016]Vol. I., Chap.IX.[1017]Or used polluted things with respect to Thee. For similar construction see Zech. vii. 5:צמתוני. This in answer to Wellhausen, who, on the ground that the phrase givesגאלa wrong object and destroys the connection, deletes it. Further he takesמגאל, not in the sense of pollution, but as equivalent toנבזה,despised.[1018]Obviouslyin their hearts = thinking.[1019]LXX.is there no harm?[1020]Pacify the face of, as in Zechariah.[1021]So LXX. Heb.is great, but the phrase is probably written by mistake from the instance further on:is glorifiedcould scarcely have been used in the very literal version of the LXX. unless it had been found in the original.[1022]מקום, here to be taken in the sense it bears in Arabic ofsacred place. See on Zeph. ii. 11: above, p. 64, n.159.[1023]Wellhausen deletesמגשas a gloss onמקטר, and the vau beforeמנחה.[1024]Heb.say.[1025]Heb. also hasניבו, found besides only in Keri of Isa. lvii. 19. But Robertson Smith (O.T.J.C., 2, p. 444) is probably right in considering this an error forנבזה, which has kept its place after the correction was inserted.[1026]This clause is obscure, and comes in awkwardly before that which follows it. Wellhausen omits.[1027]גָּזוּל. Wellhausen emendsאֶת־הָעִוֵּרborrowing the first three letters from the previous word. LXX. ἁρπάγματα.[1028]LXX.[1029]Cf. Lev. iii. 1, 6.[1030]Quoted by Pusey,in loco.[1031]See Cheyne,Origin of the Psalter, 292 and 305 f.[1032]Isaiah i.—xxxix.(Expositor’s Bible), p.188.[1033]See most admirable remarks on this subject in Archdeacon Wilson’sEssays and Addresses, No. III. “The Need of giving Higher Biblical Teaching, and Instruction on the Fundamental Questions of Religion and Christianity.” London: Macmillan, 1887.[1034]Doubtful. LXX. adds καὶ διεσκεδάσω τῆν εὐλόγιαν ὑμῶν κὰι οὐκ ἔσται ἐν ὑμῖν: obvious redundancy, if not mere dittography.[1035]An obscure phrase,הִנְנִי גֹּעֵר לָכֶם אֶת־הַזֶרַע,Behold, I rebuke you the seed. LXX.Behold,I separate from you the armorshoulder, readingזְרֹעַforזֶרַעand perhapsגֹּדֵעַforגֹּעֵר, both of which readings Wellhausen adopts, and Ewald the former. The reference may be to the arm of the priest raised in blessing. Orelli readsseed = posterity. It may mean the wholeseedorclassorkindof the priests. The next clause tempts one to suppose thatאת־הזרעcontains the verb of this one, as if scattering something.[1036]Heb.וְנָשָׂא אֶתְכֶם אֵלָיו,and one shall bear you to it. Hitzig: filth shall be cast on them, and they on the filth.[1037]Others would renderMy covenant being with Levi. Wellhausen:for My covenant was with Levi. But this new Charge or covenant seems contrasted with a former covenant in the next verse.[1038]Num. xxv. 12.[1039]This sentence is a literal translation of the Hebrew. With other punctuation Wellhausen rendersMy covenant was with him, life and peace I gave them to him, fear...[1040]Orpeace,שָׁלוֹם.[1041]Orrevelation, Torah.[1042]וְנַם־אֲנִי: cf. Amos iv.[1043]See above, p.344.[1044]Here occur the two verses and a clause, 11–13a, upon the foreign marriages, which seem to be an intrusion.[1045]See Vol. I., p.259.[1046]Heb. literally:And not one did, and a remnant of spirit was his; which (1) A.V. renders:And did not he make one? Yet he had the residue of the spirit, which Pusey accepts and applies to Adam and Eve, interpreting the second clause asthe breath of life, by which Adambecame a living soul(Gen. ii. 7). In Gen. i. 27 Adam and Eve are called one. In that case the meaning would be that the law of marriage was prior to that of divorce, as in the words of our Lord, Matt. xix. 4–6. (2) The Hebrew might be rendered,Not one has done this who had any spirit left in him. So Hitzig and Orelli. In that case the following clauses of the verse are referred to Abraham.“But what about the One?”(LXX. insertye sayafterBut)—the one who did put away his wife. Answer:He was seeking a Divine seed. The objection to this interpretation is that Abraham did not cast off the wife of his youth, Sarah, but the foreigner Hagar. (3) Ewald made a very different proposal:And has not One created them, and all the Spirit(cf. Zeph. i. 4)is His? And what doth the One seek? A Divine seed.So Reinke. Similarly Kirkpatrick (Doct. of the Proph., p. 502):And did not One make[you both]? And why[did]the One[do so]? Seeking a goodly seed. (4) Wellhausen goes further along the same line. Readingהלאforולא, andוישארforושאר, andלנוforלו, he translates:Hath not the same God created and sustained your (? our) breath? And what does He desire? A seed of God.[1047]Literally:let none be unfaithful to the wife of thy youth, a curious instance of the Hebrew habit of mixing the pronominal references. Wellhausen’s emendation is unnecessary.[1048]See Gesenius and Ewald for Arabic analogies for the use of clothing = wife.[1049]See above, p.340.[1050]Wellhausen omits.[1051]Heb.עֵר וְעֹנֶה,caller and answerer. But LXX. readעד,witness(see iii. 5), though it pointed it differently.[1052]13a,But secondly ye do this, is the obvious addition of the editor in order to connect his intrusion with what follows.[1053]See above, pp.311,313f.[1054]Deletesilver: the longer LXX. text shows how easily it was added.[1055]Made an end of, reading the verb as Piel (Orelli). LXX.refrain from.Your sinsare understood, the sins which have always characterised the people. LXX. connects the opening of the next verse with this, and with a different reading of the first word translatesfrom the sins of your fathers.[1056]Heb.קבע, only here and Prov. xxii. 32. LXX. readעקב,supplant,cheat, which Wellhausen adopts.[1057]תְּרוּמָה,the heave offering, the tax or tribute given to the sanctuary or priests and associates with the tithes, as here in Deut. xii. 11, to be eaten by the offerer (ib.17), but in Ezekiel by the priests (xliv. 30); taken by the people and the Levites to the Temple treasury for the priests (Neh. x. 38, xii. 44): corn, wine and oil. In the Priestly Writing it signifies the part of each sacrifice which was the priests’ due. Ezekiel also uses it of the part of the Holy Land that fell to the prince and priests.[1058]טֵרֶףin its later meaning: cf. Job xxiv. 5; Prov. xxxi. 15.[1059]I.e.locust.[1060]A dew of lights.SeeIsaiah i.—xxxix.(Expositor’s Bible), pp.448f.[1061]So LXX.; Heb.then.[1062]Ezek. xiii. 9.[1063]חשב,to think,plan, has much the same meaning as here in Isa. xiii. 17, xxxiii. 8, liii. 3.[1064]Heb.when I am doing; but in the sense in which the word is used of Jehovah’s decisive and final doing, Psalms xx., xxxii., etc.[1065]Hab. i. 8.[1066]See note to Amos vi. 4: Vol. I., p. 174, n.326.[1067]Ordust.[1068]See above, Chap.XIII.[1069]See Vol.I.The Assyria of “Zech.” x. 11 is Syria. See below.[1070]The two exceptions, Nahum and Habakkuk, are not relevant to this question. Their dates are fixed by their references to Assyria and Babylon.[1071]See Rob. Smith, art. “Joel,”Encyc. Brit.[1072]So obvious is this alternative that all critics may be said to grant it, except König (Einl.), on whose reasons for placing Joel in the end of the seventh century see below, p. 386, n.1130. Kessner (Das Zeitalter der Proph. Joel, 1888) deems the date unprovable.[1073]SeeThe Religion of Israel, Vol. I., pp. 86 f.[1074]The O.T. and its Contents, p. 105.[1075]Lex Mosaica, pp. 422, 450.[1076]See especially Ewald on Joel in hisProphets of the O.T., and Kirkpatrick’s very fair argument inDoctrine of the Prophets, pp. 57 ff.[1077]On Joel’s picture of the Day of Jehovah Ewald says: “We have it here in its first simple and clear form, nor has it become a subject of ridicule as in Amos.”[1078]i. 9, 13, 16, ii. 14.[1079]So Ewald.[1080]2 Kings xi. 4–21.[1081]1 Kings xiv. 25 f.: cf. Joel iii. 17b, 19.[1082]2 Kings viii. 20–22: cf. Joel iii. 19.[1083]2 Chron. xxi. 16, 17, xxii. 1: cf. Joel iii. 4–6.[1084]Amos i.: cf. Joel iii. 4–6.[1085]2 Chron. xx., especially 26: cf. Joel iii. 2.[1086]Joel iii. (Eng.; iv. Heb.) 16; Amos i. 2. For a list of the various periods to which Joel has been assigned by supporters of this early date see Kuenen, § 68.[1087]The reference of Egypt in iii. 19 to Shishak’s invasion appears particularly weak.[1088]Cf. Robertson,O. T. and its Contents, 105, and Kirkpatrick’s cautious, though convinced, statement of the reasons for an early date.[1089]iii. 6 (Heb. iv. 6).[1090]Amos i. 9.[1091]Bibl. Theol., I., p. 462;Einl., pp. 675 ff.[1092]Ztschr. f. wissensch. Theol., X., Heft 4.[1093]Theol. der Proph., pp. 275 ff.[1094]Theol. Tijd., 1876, pp. 362 ff. (not seen).[1095]Onderz., § 68.[1096]Expositor, 1888, Jan.—June, pp. 198 ff.[1097]See Cheyne,Origin of Psalter, xx.; Driver,Introd., in the sixth edition of which, 1897, he supports the late date of Joel more strongly than in the first edition, 1892.[1098]Wellhausen allowed the theory of the early date of Joel to stand in his edition of Bleek’sEinleitung, but adopts the late date in his ownKleine Propheten.[1099]Die Prophetie des Joels u. ihre Ausleger, 1879.[1100]Encyc. Brit., art. “Joel,” 1881.[1101]Gesch., II. 207.[1102]Theol. Tijdschr., 1885, p. 151;Comm., 1885 (neither seen).[1103]“Sprachcharakter u. Abfassungszeit des B. Joels” inZ.A.T.W., 1889, pp. 89 ff.[1104]Minor Prophets.[1105]Bibel.[1106]Einleit.[1107]Litteratur des A. T.[1108]Expositor, September 1893.[1109]Comm., 1897.[1110]iv. (Heb.; iii. Eng.) 1. For this may only meanturn again the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem.[1111]iv. (Heb.; iii. Eng.) 2. The supporters of a pre-exilic date either passed this over or understood it of incursions by the heathen into Israel’s territories in the ninth century. It is, however, too universal to suit these.[1112]iv. (Heb.; iii. Eng.) 5.[1113]Kautzsch dates after Artaxerxes Ochus, andc.350.[1114]Ezekiel (xxvii. 13, 19) is the first to give the name Javan,i.e.ΙαϜων, or Ionian (earlier writers name Egypt, Edom, Arabia and Phœnicia as the great slave-markets: Amos i.; Isa. xi. 11; Deut. xxviii. 68); and Greeks are also mentioned in Isa. lxvi. 19 (a post-exilic passage); Zech. ix. 13; Dan. viii. 21, x. 20, xi. 2; 1 Chron. i. 5, 7, and Gen. x. 2. See below, Chap.XXXI.[1115]בני היוניםinstead ofבני יון, just as the Chronicler givesבני הקרחיםforבני קרח: see Wildeboer, p. 348, and Matthes, quoted by Holzinger, p. 94.[1116]Movers,Phön. Alterthum., II. 1, pp. 70sqq.: which reference I owe to R. Smith’s art. in theEncyc. Brit.[1117]With these might be taken the use ofקהל(ii. 16) in its sense of a gathering for public worship. The word itself was old in Hebrew, but as time went on it came more and more to mean the convocation of the nation for worship or deliberation. Holzinger, pp. 105 f.[1118]Cf. Neh. x. 33; Dan. viii. 11, xi. 31, xii. 11. Also Acts xxvi. 7: τὸ δωδεκάφυλον ἡμῶν ἐν ἐκτενεία νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν λατρεύον. Also the passages in Jos., XIV.Ant.iv. 3, xvi. 2, in which Josephus mentions the horror caused by the interruption of the daily sacrifice by famine in the last siege of Jerusalem, and adds that it had happened in no previous siege of the city.[1119]Cf. Jer. xiv. 12; Isa. lviii. 6; Zech. vii. 5, vi. 11, 19, with Neh. i. 4, ix. 1; Ezra viii. 21; Jonah iii. 5, 7; Esther iv. 3, 16, ix. 31; Dan. ix. 3.[1120]The gathering of the Gentiles to judgment, Zeph. iii. 8 (see above, p.69) and Ezek. xxxviii. 22; the stream issuing from the Temple to fill the Wady ha-Shittim, Ezek. xlvii. 1 ff., cf. Zech. xiv. 8; the outpouring of the Spirit, Ezek. xxxix. 29.[1121]Z.A.T.W., 1889, pp. 89–136. Holzinger’s own conclusion is stated more emphatically than above.[1122]For an exhaustive list the reader must be referred to Holzinger’s article (cf. Driver,Introd., sixth edition;Joel and Amos, p. 24; G. B. Gray,Expositor, September 1893, p. 212). But the following (a few of which are not given by Holzinger) are sufficient to prove the conclusion come to above: i. 2, iv. 4,וְאִם…הֲ—this is the form of the disjunctive interrogative in later O. T. writings, replacing the earlierאִם…הֲ; i. 8,אליonly here in O. T., but frequent in Aram.; 13,נמנעin Ni. only from Jeremiah onwards, Qal only in two passages before Jeremiah and in a number after him; 18,נאנחה, if the correct reading, occurs only in the latest O. T. writings, the Qal only in these and Aram.; ii. 2, iv. (Heb.; iii. Eng.) 20,דור ודורfirst in Deut. xxxii. 7, and then exilic and post-exilic frequently; 8,שלח, a late word, only in Job xxxiii. 18, xxxvi. 12, 2 Chron. xxiii. 10, xxxii. 5, Neh. iii. 15, iv. 11, 17; 20,סוֹף,end, only in 2 Chron. xx. 16 and Eccles., Aram. of Daniel, and post Bibl. Aram. and Heb.; iv. (Heb.; iii. Eng.) 4,נמל על, cf. 2 Chron. xx. 11; 10,רמח, see below on this verse; 11,הנחת, Aram.; 13,בשׁל, in Hebrew to cook (cf. Ezek. xxiv. 5), and in other forms always with that meaning down to the Priestly Writing and “Zech.” ix.—xiv., is used here in the sense ofripen, which is frequent in Aram., but does not occur elsewhere in O. T. Besides, Joel uses for the first personal pronounאני—ii. 27 (bis), iv. 10, 17—which is by far the most usual form with later writers, and notאנכי, preferred by pre-exilic writers. (See below on the language of Jonah.)[1123]G. B. Gray,Expositor, September 1893, pp. 213 f. For the above conclusions ample proof is given in Mr. Gray’s detailed examination of the parallels: pp. 214 ff.[1124]Driver,Joel and Amos, p. 27.[1125]Scholz and Rosenzweig (not seen).[1126]Hilgenfeld, Duhm, Oort. Driver puts it “most safely shortly after Haggai and Zechariah i.—viii.,c.500B.C.”[1127]Vernes, Robertson Smith, Kuenen, Matthes, Cornill, Nowack, etc.[1128]Joel iii. 4 (Heb.; Eng. ii. 31); “Mal.” iv. 5.[1129]iii. (Eng.; iv. Heb.) 17.[1130]Perhaps this is the most convenient place to refer to König’s proposal to place Joel in the last years of Josiah. Some of his arguments (e.g.that Joel is placed among the first of the Twelve) we have already answered. He thinks that i. 17–20 suit the great drought in Josiah’s reign (Jer. xiv. 2–6), that the name given to the locusts,הצפוני, ii. 20, is due to Jeremiah’s enemyfrom the north, and that the phrasesreturn with all your heart, ii. 12, andreturn to Jehovah your God, 13, imply a period of apostasy. None of these conclusions is necessary. The absence of reference to thehigh placesfinds an analogy in Isa. i. 13; theמנחהis mentioned in Isa. i. 13: if Amos viii. 5 testifies to observance of the Sabbath, and Nahum ii. 1 to other festivals, who can say a pre-exilic prophet would not be interested in the meal and drink offerings? But surely no pre-exilic prophet would have so emphasised these as Joel has done. Nor is König’s explanation of iv. 2 as of the Assyrian and Egyptian invasion of Judah so probable as that which refers the verse to the Babylonian exile. Nor are König’s objections to a date after “Malachi” convincing. They are that a prophet near “Malachi’s” time must have specified as “Malachi” did the reasons for the repentance to which he summoned the people, while Joel gives none, but is quite general (ii. 13a). But the change of attitude may be accounted for by the covenant and Law of 444. “Malachi” i. 11 speaks of the Gentiles worshipping Jehovah, but not even in Jonah iii. 5 is any relation of the Gentiles to Jehovah predicated. Again, the greater exclusiveness of Ezra and his Law may be the cause. Joel, it is true, as König says, does not mention the Law, while “Malachi” does (ii. 8, etc.); but this was not necessary if the people had accepted it in 444. Professor Ryle (Canon of O.T., 106 n.) leaves the question of Joel’s date open.[1131]Pages 333 f. n.[1132]Vernes,Histoire des Idées Messianiques depuis Alexandre, pp. 13 ff., had already asserted that chaps. i. and ii. must be by a different author from chaps. iii. and iv., because the former has to do wholly with the writer’s present, with which the latter has no connection whatever, but it is entirely eschatological. But in hisMélanges de Crit. Relig., pp. 218 ff., Vernes allows that his arguments are not conclusive, and that all four chapters may have come from the same hand.[1133]I.e.Hitzig, Vatke, Ewald, Robertson Smith, Kuenen, Kirkpatrick, Driver, Davidson, Nowack, etc.[1134]This allegorical interpretation was a favourite one with the early Christian Fathers: cf. Jerome.[1135]Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theologie, 1860, pp. 412 ff.[1136]Cambyses 525, Xerxes 484, Artaxerxes Ochus 460 and 458.[1137]In Germany, among other representatives of this opinion, are Bertholdt (Einl.) and Hengstenberg (Christol., III. 352 ff.), the latter of whom saw in the four kinds of locusts the Assyrian-Babylonian, the Persian, the Greek and the Roman tyrants of Israel.[1138]ii. 17.[1139]ii. 20.[1140]i. 19, 20.[1141]Plur. ii. 6.[1142]ii. 20.[1143]iii. (Heb. iv.) 1 f., 17.[1144]i. 16.[1145]i. 2 f.[1146]i. 3.[1147]i. 17 ff.[1148]ii. 17, ii. 9 ff.[1149]למשל בם[1150]A. B. Davidson,Expos., 1888, pp. 200 f.[1151]ii. 4 ff.[1152]Eng. ii. 28 ff., Heb. iii.[1153]Eng. iii., Heb. iv.[1154]Die Prophetie des Joel u. ihre Ausleger, 1879. The following summary and criticism of Merx’s views I take from an (unpublished) review of his work which I wrote in 1881.[1155]Forוַיְקַנֵּאetc. he readsוִיקַנֵּאetc.[1156]“The proposal of Merx, to change the pointing so as to transform the perfects into futures, ... is an exegetical monstrosity.”—Robertson Smith, art. “Joel,”Encyc. Brit.[1157]i. 16.[1158]Even the comparison of the ravages of the locusts to burning by fire. But probably also Joel means that they were accompanied by drought and forest fires. See below.[1159]ii. 20.[1160]Arabia Deserta, p. 307.[1161]Arabia Deserta, p. 335.[1162]Id., 396.[1163]Id., 335.[1164]Barrow,South Africa, p. 257, quoted by Pusey.[1165]Impressions of South Africa, by James Bryce: Macmillans, 1897.[1166]Volney,Voyage en Syrie, I. 277, quoted by Pusey.[1167]Lebanon.[1168]Abridged from Thomson’sThe Land and the Book, ed. 1877, Northern Palestine, pp. 416 ff.[1169]From Driver’s abridgment (Joel and Amos, p. 90) of an account in theJourn. of Sacred Lit., October 1865, pp. 235 f.[1170]Morier,A Second Journey through Persia, p. 99, quoted by Pusey, from whose notes and Driver’s excursus upon locusts inJoel and Amosthe following quotations have been borrowed.[1171]Shaw’sTravels in Barbary, 1738, pp. 236–8; Jackson’sTravels to Morocco.[1172]Adansson,Voyage au Sénegal, p. 88.
[947]In the tenth month the siege of Jerusalem had begun (2 Kings xxv. 1); on the ninth of the fourth month Jerusalem was taken (Jer. xxxix. 2); on the seventh of the fifth City and Temple were burnt down (2 Kings xxv. 8); in the seventh month Gedaliah was assassinated and the poor relics of a Jewish state swept from the land (Jer. xli.). See above, pp.30ff.
[948]LXX.the citizens of five cities will go to one.
[949]מלאכיהorמלאכיהו. To judge from the analogy of other cases of the same formation (e.g.Abiyah = Jehovah is Father, and not Father of Jehovah), this name, if ever extant, could not have borne the meaning, which Robertson Smith, Cornill, Kirkpatrick, etc., suppose it must have done, ofAngel of Jehovah. These scholars, it should be added, oppose, for various reasons, the theory that it is a proper name.
[950]Cf. the suggested meaning of Haggai, Festus. Above, p.231.
[951]And added the words,layitto your hearts: ἐν χειρὶ ἀγγέλοῦ αὐτοῦ θέσθε δὴ ἐπὶ τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν. Bachmann (A. T. Untersuch., Berlin, 1894, pp. 109 ff.) takes this added clause as a translation ofוְשִׂימוּ בַלֵּב, and suggests that it may be a corruption of an originalוּשְׁמוֹ כָלֵב,and his name was Kaleb. But the readingוְשִׂימוּ בַלֵּבis not the exact equivalent of the Greek phrase.
[952]מַלְאֲכִי דְיִתְקְרֵי שְׁמֵיהּ עֶזְרָא סָפְרָא.
[953]See Stade,Z.A.T.W., 1881, p. 14; 1882, p. 308; Cornill,Einleitung, 4th ed., pp. 207 f.
[954]So (besides Calvin, who takes it as a title) even Hengstenberg in hisChristology of the O. T., Ewald, Kuenen, Reuss, Stade, Rob. Smith, Cornill, Wellhausen, Kirkpatrick (probably), Wildeboer, Nowack. On the other side Hitzig, Vatke, Nägelsbach and Volck (in Herzog), Von Orelli, Pusey and Robertson hold it to be a personal name—Pusey with this qualification, “that the prophet may have framed it for himself,” similarly Orelli. They support their opinion by the fact that even the LXX. entitle the book Μαλαχιας; that the word was regarded as a proper name in the early Church, and that it is a possible name for a Hebrew. In opposition to the hypothesis that it was borrowed from chap. iii. 1, Hitzig suggests the converse that in the latter the prophet plays upon his own name. None of these critics, however, meets the objections to the name drawn from the peculiar character of the title and its relations to Zech. ix. 1, xii. 1. The supposed name of the prophet gave rise to the legend supported by many of the Fathers that Malachi, like Haggai and John the Baptist, was an incarnate angel. This is stated and condemned by Jerome,Comm. ad Hag.i. 13, but held by Origen, Tertullian and others. The existence of such an opinion is itself proof for the impersonal character of the name. As in the case of the rest of the prophets, Christian tradition furnishes the prophet with the outline of a biography. See (Pseud-)Epiphanius and other writers quoted above, p.232.
[955]iii. 16 ff.
[956]See above on Obadiah, p.169, and below on the passage itself.
[957]i. 2–5.
[958]i. 8.
[959]i. 11: the verbs here are to be taken in the present, not as in A.V. in the future, tense.
[960]Passim: especially iii. 13 ff., 24.
[961]i. 10; iii. 1, 10.
[962]ii. 1–9.
[963]ii. 10–16.
[964]iii. 7–12.
[965]See above, pp.195f.
[966]i. 2.
[967]ii. 10.
[968]ii. 17—iii. 12; iii. 22 f., Eng. iv. The above sentences are from Robertson Smith, art. “Malachi,”Encyc. Brit., 9th ed.
[969]Above, p. 332, n.952.
[970]“Mal.” i. 8; Neh. v.
[971]Deut. xii. 11, xxvi. 12; “Mal.” iii. 8, 10; Num. xviii. 21 ff. (P).
[972]Vatke (contemporaneous with Nehemiah), Schrader, Keil, Kuenen (perhaps in second governorship of Nehemiah, but see above, p.335, for a decisive reason against this), Köhler, Driver, Von Orelli (between Nehemiah’s first and second visit), Kirkpatrick, Robertson.
[973]Deut. xii. 11. In P tĕrûmah is a due paid to priests as distinct from Levites.
[974]ii. 4–8: cf. Deut. xxxiii. 8.
[975]i. 8; Deut. xv. 21.
[976]i. 14; Lev. iii. 1, 6.
[977]iii. 5; Deut. v. 11 ff., xviii. 10, xxiv. 17 ff.; Lev. xix. 31, 33 f., xx. 6.
[978]iii. 22 Heb., iv. 4 Eng.Law of MosesandMoses My servantare found only in the Deuteronomistic portions of the Hexateuch and historical books and here. In P Sinai is the Mount of the Law. To the above may be addedsegullah, iii. 17, which is found in the Pentateuch only outside P and in Psalm cxxxv. 4. All these resemblances between “Malachi” and Deuteronomy and “Malachi’s” divergences from P are given in Robertson Smith’sOld Test. in the Jewish Church, 2nd ed., 425 ff.: cf. 444 ff.
[979]Lev. xvii.—xxvi. From this and Ezekiel he received the conception of the profanation of the sanctuary by the sins of the people—ii. 11: cf. also ii. 2, iii. 3, 4, for traces of Ezekiel’s influence.
[980]ii. 6 ff.
[981]See below, pp.340,363,365.
[982]Herzfeld, Bleek, Stade, Kautzsch (probably), Wellhausen (Gesch., p. 125), Nowack before the arrival of Ezra, Cornill either soon before or soon after 458, Robertson Smith either before or soon after 445. Hitzig at first put it before 458, but was afterwards moved to date it after 358, as he took the overthrow of the Edomites described in chap. i. 2–5 to be due to a campaign in that year by Artaxerxes Ochus (cf. Euseb.,Chron., II. 221).
[983]But see below, pp.340,365.
[984]Z.A.T.W., 1887, 210 ff.
[985]i. 11, forגדולδεδόξασται; perhaps ii. 12,עדforער; perhaps iii. 8 ff., forעקב קבע; 16, forאוταῦτα.
[986]i. 11 ff.; ii. 3, and perhaps 12, 15.
[987]Ezra iv. 6–23.
[988]This is recorded in the Aramean document which has been incorporated in our Book of Ezra, and there is no reason to doubt its reality. In that document we have already found, in spite of its comparatively late date, much that is accurate history. See above, p.212. And it is clear that, the Temple being finished, the Jews must have drawn upon themselves the same religious envy of the Samaritans which had previously delayed the construction of the Temple. To meet it, what more natural than that the Jews should have attempted to raise the walls of their city? It is almost impossible to believe that they who had achieved the construction of the Temple in 516 should not, in the next fifty years, make some effort to raise their fallen walls. And indeed Nehemiah’s account of his own work almost necessarily implies that they had done so, for what he did after 445 was not to build new walls, but rather to repair shattered ones.
[989]See above, p. 335, n.970, and below, p.354, on “Mal.” i. 8.
[990]Cf. Stade,Gesch. des Volkes Israel, II., pp. 128–138, the best account of this period.
[991]“Mal.” iii. 14.
[992]“Mal.” i. 2, 6; iii. 8 f.
[993]Id.i. 7 f., 12–14.
[994]Id.i. 6 f., ii.
[995]Id.ii, 10.
[996]“Mal.” ii. 10–16.
[997]For proof of this see above, pp.331f.
[998]“Mal.” iii. 16.
[999]iii. 2, 19 ff. Heb., iv. 1 ff. Eng.
[1000]iii. 6.
[1001]i. 11.
[1002]See above, p.343.
[1003]See above,Chapter XIV.on “Edom and Israel.”
[1004]Heb. xii. 16.
[1005]Romans ix. 13. The citation is from the LXX.: τὸν Ἰακὼβ ἠγάπησα, τὸν δὲ Ἠσαῦ ἐμίσησα.
[1006]This was mainlyafterthe beginning of exile. Shortly before that Deut. xxiii. 7 says:Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother.
[1007]So even so recently as 1888, Stade,Gesch. des Volkes Israel, II., p. 112.
[1008]See above, p.169. This interpretation is there said to be Wellhausen’s; but Cheyne, in a note contributed to theZ.A.T.W., 1894, p. 142, points out that Grätz, in an article “Die Anfänge der Nabatäer-Herrschaft” in theMonatschrift für Wissenschaft u. Geschichte des Judenthums, 1875, pp. 60–66, had already explained “Mal.” i. 1–5 as describing the conquest of Edom by the Nabateans. This is adopted by Buhl in hisGesch. der Edomiter, p. 79.
[1009]The verb in the feminine indicates that the population of Edom is meant.
[1010]i. 6.
[1011]Psalm ciii. 9. In Psalm lxxiii. 15 believers are calledHis children; but elsewhere sonship is claimed only for the king—ii. 7, lxxxix. 27 f.
[1012]Hosea xi. 1 ff. (though even here the idea of discipline is present) and Isa. lxiii. 16.
[1013]iii. 4.
[1014]Isa. lxiv. 8, cf. Deut. xxxii. 11 where the discipline of Israel by Jehovah, shaking them out of their desert circumstance and tempting them to their great career in Palestine, is likened to the father-eagle’s training of his new-fledged brood to fly: A.V. mother-eagle.
[1015]Cf. Cheyne,Origin of the Psalter, p. 305, n. O.
[1016]Vol. I., Chap.IX.
[1017]Or used polluted things with respect to Thee. For similar construction see Zech. vii. 5:צמתוני. This in answer to Wellhausen, who, on the ground that the phrase givesגאלa wrong object and destroys the connection, deletes it. Further he takesמגאל, not in the sense of pollution, but as equivalent toנבזה,despised.
[1018]Obviouslyin their hearts = thinking.
[1019]LXX.is there no harm?
[1020]Pacify the face of, as in Zechariah.
[1021]So LXX. Heb.is great, but the phrase is probably written by mistake from the instance further on:is glorifiedcould scarcely have been used in the very literal version of the LXX. unless it had been found in the original.
[1022]מקום, here to be taken in the sense it bears in Arabic ofsacred place. See on Zeph. ii. 11: above, p. 64, n.159.
[1023]Wellhausen deletesמגשas a gloss onמקטר, and the vau beforeמנחה.
[1024]Heb.say.
[1025]Heb. also hasניבו, found besides only in Keri of Isa. lvii. 19. But Robertson Smith (O.T.J.C., 2, p. 444) is probably right in considering this an error forנבזה, which has kept its place after the correction was inserted.
[1026]This clause is obscure, and comes in awkwardly before that which follows it. Wellhausen omits.
[1027]גָּזוּל. Wellhausen emendsאֶת־הָעִוֵּרborrowing the first three letters from the previous word. LXX. ἁρπάγματα.
[1028]LXX.
[1029]Cf. Lev. iii. 1, 6.
[1030]Quoted by Pusey,in loco.
[1031]See Cheyne,Origin of the Psalter, 292 and 305 f.
[1032]Isaiah i.—xxxix.(Expositor’s Bible), p.188.
[1033]See most admirable remarks on this subject in Archdeacon Wilson’sEssays and Addresses, No. III. “The Need of giving Higher Biblical Teaching, and Instruction on the Fundamental Questions of Religion and Christianity.” London: Macmillan, 1887.
[1034]Doubtful. LXX. adds καὶ διεσκεδάσω τῆν εὐλόγιαν ὑμῶν κὰι οὐκ ἔσται ἐν ὑμῖν: obvious redundancy, if not mere dittography.
[1035]An obscure phrase,הִנְנִי גֹּעֵר לָכֶם אֶת־הַזֶרַע,Behold, I rebuke you the seed. LXX.Behold,I separate from you the armorshoulder, readingזְרֹעַforזֶרַעand perhapsגֹּדֵעַforגֹּעֵר, both of which readings Wellhausen adopts, and Ewald the former. The reference may be to the arm of the priest raised in blessing. Orelli readsseed = posterity. It may mean the wholeseedorclassorkindof the priests. The next clause tempts one to suppose thatאת־הזרעcontains the verb of this one, as if scattering something.
[1036]Heb.וְנָשָׂא אֶתְכֶם אֵלָיו,and one shall bear you to it. Hitzig: filth shall be cast on them, and they on the filth.
[1037]Others would renderMy covenant being with Levi. Wellhausen:for My covenant was with Levi. But this new Charge or covenant seems contrasted with a former covenant in the next verse.
[1038]Num. xxv. 12.
[1039]This sentence is a literal translation of the Hebrew. With other punctuation Wellhausen rendersMy covenant was with him, life and peace I gave them to him, fear...
[1040]Orpeace,שָׁלוֹם.
[1041]Orrevelation, Torah.
[1042]וְנַם־אֲנִי: cf. Amos iv.
[1043]See above, p.344.
[1044]Here occur the two verses and a clause, 11–13a, upon the foreign marriages, which seem to be an intrusion.
[1045]See Vol. I., p.259.
[1046]Heb. literally:And not one did, and a remnant of spirit was his; which (1) A.V. renders:And did not he make one? Yet he had the residue of the spirit, which Pusey accepts and applies to Adam and Eve, interpreting the second clause asthe breath of life, by which Adambecame a living soul(Gen. ii. 7). In Gen. i. 27 Adam and Eve are called one. In that case the meaning would be that the law of marriage was prior to that of divorce, as in the words of our Lord, Matt. xix. 4–6. (2) The Hebrew might be rendered,Not one has done this who had any spirit left in him. So Hitzig and Orelli. In that case the following clauses of the verse are referred to Abraham.“But what about the One?”(LXX. insertye sayafterBut)—the one who did put away his wife. Answer:He was seeking a Divine seed. The objection to this interpretation is that Abraham did not cast off the wife of his youth, Sarah, but the foreigner Hagar. (3) Ewald made a very different proposal:And has not One created them, and all the Spirit(cf. Zeph. i. 4)is His? And what doth the One seek? A Divine seed.So Reinke. Similarly Kirkpatrick (Doct. of the Proph., p. 502):And did not One make[you both]? And why[did]the One[do so]? Seeking a goodly seed. (4) Wellhausen goes further along the same line. Readingהלאforולא, andוישארforושאר, andלנוforלו, he translates:Hath not the same God created and sustained your (? our) breath? And what does He desire? A seed of God.
[1047]Literally:let none be unfaithful to the wife of thy youth, a curious instance of the Hebrew habit of mixing the pronominal references. Wellhausen’s emendation is unnecessary.
[1048]See Gesenius and Ewald for Arabic analogies for the use of clothing = wife.
[1049]See above, p.340.
[1050]Wellhausen omits.
[1051]Heb.עֵר וְעֹנֶה,caller and answerer. But LXX. readעד,witness(see iii. 5), though it pointed it differently.
[1052]13a,But secondly ye do this, is the obvious addition of the editor in order to connect his intrusion with what follows.
[1053]See above, pp.311,313f.
[1054]Deletesilver: the longer LXX. text shows how easily it was added.
[1055]Made an end of, reading the verb as Piel (Orelli). LXX.refrain from.Your sinsare understood, the sins which have always characterised the people. LXX. connects the opening of the next verse with this, and with a different reading of the first word translatesfrom the sins of your fathers.
[1056]Heb.קבע, only here and Prov. xxii. 32. LXX. readעקב,supplant,cheat, which Wellhausen adopts.
[1057]תְּרוּמָה,the heave offering, the tax or tribute given to the sanctuary or priests and associates with the tithes, as here in Deut. xii. 11, to be eaten by the offerer (ib.17), but in Ezekiel by the priests (xliv. 30); taken by the people and the Levites to the Temple treasury for the priests (Neh. x. 38, xii. 44): corn, wine and oil. In the Priestly Writing it signifies the part of each sacrifice which was the priests’ due. Ezekiel also uses it of the part of the Holy Land that fell to the prince and priests.
[1058]טֵרֶףin its later meaning: cf. Job xxiv. 5; Prov. xxxi. 15.
[1059]I.e.locust.
[1060]A dew of lights.SeeIsaiah i.—xxxix.(Expositor’s Bible), pp.448f.
[1061]So LXX.; Heb.then.
[1062]Ezek. xiii. 9.
[1063]חשב,to think,plan, has much the same meaning as here in Isa. xiii. 17, xxxiii. 8, liii. 3.
[1064]Heb.when I am doing; but in the sense in which the word is used of Jehovah’s decisive and final doing, Psalms xx., xxxii., etc.
[1065]Hab. i. 8.
[1066]See note to Amos vi. 4: Vol. I., p. 174, n.326.
[1067]Ordust.
[1068]See above, Chap.XIII.
[1069]See Vol.I.The Assyria of “Zech.” x. 11 is Syria. See below.
[1070]The two exceptions, Nahum and Habakkuk, are not relevant to this question. Their dates are fixed by their references to Assyria and Babylon.
[1071]See Rob. Smith, art. “Joel,”Encyc. Brit.
[1072]So obvious is this alternative that all critics may be said to grant it, except König (Einl.), on whose reasons for placing Joel in the end of the seventh century see below, p. 386, n.1130. Kessner (Das Zeitalter der Proph. Joel, 1888) deems the date unprovable.
[1073]SeeThe Religion of Israel, Vol. I., pp. 86 f.
[1074]The O.T. and its Contents, p. 105.
[1075]Lex Mosaica, pp. 422, 450.
[1076]See especially Ewald on Joel in hisProphets of the O.T., and Kirkpatrick’s very fair argument inDoctrine of the Prophets, pp. 57 ff.
[1077]On Joel’s picture of the Day of Jehovah Ewald says: “We have it here in its first simple and clear form, nor has it become a subject of ridicule as in Amos.”
[1078]i. 9, 13, 16, ii. 14.
[1079]So Ewald.
[1080]2 Kings xi. 4–21.
[1081]1 Kings xiv. 25 f.: cf. Joel iii. 17b, 19.
[1082]2 Kings viii. 20–22: cf. Joel iii. 19.
[1083]2 Chron. xxi. 16, 17, xxii. 1: cf. Joel iii. 4–6.
[1084]Amos i.: cf. Joel iii. 4–6.
[1085]2 Chron. xx., especially 26: cf. Joel iii. 2.
[1086]Joel iii. (Eng.; iv. Heb.) 16; Amos i. 2. For a list of the various periods to which Joel has been assigned by supporters of this early date see Kuenen, § 68.
[1087]The reference of Egypt in iii. 19 to Shishak’s invasion appears particularly weak.
[1088]Cf. Robertson,O. T. and its Contents, 105, and Kirkpatrick’s cautious, though convinced, statement of the reasons for an early date.
[1089]iii. 6 (Heb. iv. 6).
[1090]Amos i. 9.
[1091]Bibl. Theol., I., p. 462;Einl., pp. 675 ff.
[1092]Ztschr. f. wissensch. Theol., X., Heft 4.
[1093]Theol. der Proph., pp. 275 ff.
[1094]Theol. Tijd., 1876, pp. 362 ff. (not seen).
[1095]Onderz., § 68.
[1096]Expositor, 1888, Jan.—June, pp. 198 ff.
[1097]See Cheyne,Origin of Psalter, xx.; Driver,Introd., in the sixth edition of which, 1897, he supports the late date of Joel more strongly than in the first edition, 1892.
[1098]Wellhausen allowed the theory of the early date of Joel to stand in his edition of Bleek’sEinleitung, but adopts the late date in his ownKleine Propheten.
[1099]Die Prophetie des Joels u. ihre Ausleger, 1879.
[1100]Encyc. Brit., art. “Joel,” 1881.
[1101]Gesch., II. 207.
[1102]Theol. Tijdschr., 1885, p. 151;Comm., 1885 (neither seen).
[1103]“Sprachcharakter u. Abfassungszeit des B. Joels” inZ.A.T.W., 1889, pp. 89 ff.
[1104]Minor Prophets.
[1105]Bibel.
[1106]Einleit.
[1107]Litteratur des A. T.
[1108]Expositor, September 1893.
[1109]Comm., 1897.
[1110]iv. (Heb.; iii. Eng.) 1. For this may only meanturn again the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem.
[1111]iv. (Heb.; iii. Eng.) 2. The supporters of a pre-exilic date either passed this over or understood it of incursions by the heathen into Israel’s territories in the ninth century. It is, however, too universal to suit these.
[1112]iv. (Heb.; iii. Eng.) 5.
[1113]Kautzsch dates after Artaxerxes Ochus, andc.350.
[1114]Ezekiel (xxvii. 13, 19) is the first to give the name Javan,i.e.ΙαϜων, or Ionian (earlier writers name Egypt, Edom, Arabia and Phœnicia as the great slave-markets: Amos i.; Isa. xi. 11; Deut. xxviii. 68); and Greeks are also mentioned in Isa. lxvi. 19 (a post-exilic passage); Zech. ix. 13; Dan. viii. 21, x. 20, xi. 2; 1 Chron. i. 5, 7, and Gen. x. 2. See below, Chap.XXXI.
[1115]בני היוניםinstead ofבני יון, just as the Chronicler givesבני הקרחיםforבני קרח: see Wildeboer, p. 348, and Matthes, quoted by Holzinger, p. 94.
[1116]Movers,Phön. Alterthum., II. 1, pp. 70sqq.: which reference I owe to R. Smith’s art. in theEncyc. Brit.
[1117]With these might be taken the use ofקהל(ii. 16) in its sense of a gathering for public worship. The word itself was old in Hebrew, but as time went on it came more and more to mean the convocation of the nation for worship or deliberation. Holzinger, pp. 105 f.
[1118]Cf. Neh. x. 33; Dan. viii. 11, xi. 31, xii. 11. Also Acts xxvi. 7: τὸ δωδεκάφυλον ἡμῶν ἐν ἐκτενεία νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν λατρεύον. Also the passages in Jos., XIV.Ant.iv. 3, xvi. 2, in which Josephus mentions the horror caused by the interruption of the daily sacrifice by famine in the last siege of Jerusalem, and adds that it had happened in no previous siege of the city.
[1119]Cf. Jer. xiv. 12; Isa. lviii. 6; Zech. vii. 5, vi. 11, 19, with Neh. i. 4, ix. 1; Ezra viii. 21; Jonah iii. 5, 7; Esther iv. 3, 16, ix. 31; Dan. ix. 3.
[1120]The gathering of the Gentiles to judgment, Zeph. iii. 8 (see above, p.69) and Ezek. xxxviii. 22; the stream issuing from the Temple to fill the Wady ha-Shittim, Ezek. xlvii. 1 ff., cf. Zech. xiv. 8; the outpouring of the Spirit, Ezek. xxxix. 29.
[1121]Z.A.T.W., 1889, pp. 89–136. Holzinger’s own conclusion is stated more emphatically than above.
[1122]For an exhaustive list the reader must be referred to Holzinger’s article (cf. Driver,Introd., sixth edition;Joel and Amos, p. 24; G. B. Gray,Expositor, September 1893, p. 212). But the following (a few of which are not given by Holzinger) are sufficient to prove the conclusion come to above: i. 2, iv. 4,וְאִם…הֲ—this is the form of the disjunctive interrogative in later O. T. writings, replacing the earlierאִם…הֲ; i. 8,אליonly here in O. T., but frequent in Aram.; 13,נמנעin Ni. only from Jeremiah onwards, Qal only in two passages before Jeremiah and in a number after him; 18,נאנחה, if the correct reading, occurs only in the latest O. T. writings, the Qal only in these and Aram.; ii. 2, iv. (Heb.; iii. Eng.) 20,דור ודורfirst in Deut. xxxii. 7, and then exilic and post-exilic frequently; 8,שלח, a late word, only in Job xxxiii. 18, xxxvi. 12, 2 Chron. xxiii. 10, xxxii. 5, Neh. iii. 15, iv. 11, 17; 20,סוֹף,end, only in 2 Chron. xx. 16 and Eccles., Aram. of Daniel, and post Bibl. Aram. and Heb.; iv. (Heb.; iii. Eng.) 4,נמל על, cf. 2 Chron. xx. 11; 10,רמח, see below on this verse; 11,הנחת, Aram.; 13,בשׁל, in Hebrew to cook (cf. Ezek. xxiv. 5), and in other forms always with that meaning down to the Priestly Writing and “Zech.” ix.—xiv., is used here in the sense ofripen, which is frequent in Aram., but does not occur elsewhere in O. T. Besides, Joel uses for the first personal pronounאני—ii. 27 (bis), iv. 10, 17—which is by far the most usual form with later writers, and notאנכי, preferred by pre-exilic writers. (See below on the language of Jonah.)
[1123]G. B. Gray,Expositor, September 1893, pp. 213 f. For the above conclusions ample proof is given in Mr. Gray’s detailed examination of the parallels: pp. 214 ff.
[1124]Driver,Joel and Amos, p. 27.
[1125]Scholz and Rosenzweig (not seen).
[1126]Hilgenfeld, Duhm, Oort. Driver puts it “most safely shortly after Haggai and Zechariah i.—viii.,c.500B.C.”
[1127]Vernes, Robertson Smith, Kuenen, Matthes, Cornill, Nowack, etc.
[1128]Joel iii. 4 (Heb.; Eng. ii. 31); “Mal.” iv. 5.
[1129]iii. (Eng.; iv. Heb.) 17.
[1130]Perhaps this is the most convenient place to refer to König’s proposal to place Joel in the last years of Josiah. Some of his arguments (e.g.that Joel is placed among the first of the Twelve) we have already answered. He thinks that i. 17–20 suit the great drought in Josiah’s reign (Jer. xiv. 2–6), that the name given to the locusts,הצפוני, ii. 20, is due to Jeremiah’s enemyfrom the north, and that the phrasesreturn with all your heart, ii. 12, andreturn to Jehovah your God, 13, imply a period of apostasy. None of these conclusions is necessary. The absence of reference to thehigh placesfinds an analogy in Isa. i. 13; theמנחהis mentioned in Isa. i. 13: if Amos viii. 5 testifies to observance of the Sabbath, and Nahum ii. 1 to other festivals, who can say a pre-exilic prophet would not be interested in the meal and drink offerings? But surely no pre-exilic prophet would have so emphasised these as Joel has done. Nor is König’s explanation of iv. 2 as of the Assyrian and Egyptian invasion of Judah so probable as that which refers the verse to the Babylonian exile. Nor are König’s objections to a date after “Malachi” convincing. They are that a prophet near “Malachi’s” time must have specified as “Malachi” did the reasons for the repentance to which he summoned the people, while Joel gives none, but is quite general (ii. 13a). But the change of attitude may be accounted for by the covenant and Law of 444. “Malachi” i. 11 speaks of the Gentiles worshipping Jehovah, but not even in Jonah iii. 5 is any relation of the Gentiles to Jehovah predicated. Again, the greater exclusiveness of Ezra and his Law may be the cause. Joel, it is true, as König says, does not mention the Law, while “Malachi” does (ii. 8, etc.); but this was not necessary if the people had accepted it in 444. Professor Ryle (Canon of O.T., 106 n.) leaves the question of Joel’s date open.
[1131]Pages 333 f. n.
[1132]Vernes,Histoire des Idées Messianiques depuis Alexandre, pp. 13 ff., had already asserted that chaps. i. and ii. must be by a different author from chaps. iii. and iv., because the former has to do wholly with the writer’s present, with which the latter has no connection whatever, but it is entirely eschatological. But in hisMélanges de Crit. Relig., pp. 218 ff., Vernes allows that his arguments are not conclusive, and that all four chapters may have come from the same hand.
[1133]I.e.Hitzig, Vatke, Ewald, Robertson Smith, Kuenen, Kirkpatrick, Driver, Davidson, Nowack, etc.
[1134]This allegorical interpretation was a favourite one with the early Christian Fathers: cf. Jerome.
[1135]Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theologie, 1860, pp. 412 ff.
[1136]Cambyses 525, Xerxes 484, Artaxerxes Ochus 460 and 458.
[1137]In Germany, among other representatives of this opinion, are Bertholdt (Einl.) and Hengstenberg (Christol., III. 352 ff.), the latter of whom saw in the four kinds of locusts the Assyrian-Babylonian, the Persian, the Greek and the Roman tyrants of Israel.
[1138]ii. 17.
[1139]ii. 20.
[1140]i. 19, 20.
[1141]Plur. ii. 6.
[1142]ii. 20.
[1143]iii. (Heb. iv.) 1 f., 17.
[1144]i. 16.
[1145]i. 2 f.
[1146]i. 3.
[1147]i. 17 ff.
[1148]ii. 17, ii. 9 ff.
[1149]למשל בם
[1150]A. B. Davidson,Expos., 1888, pp. 200 f.
[1151]ii. 4 ff.
[1152]Eng. ii. 28 ff., Heb. iii.
[1153]Eng. iii., Heb. iv.
[1154]Die Prophetie des Joel u. ihre Ausleger, 1879. The following summary and criticism of Merx’s views I take from an (unpublished) review of his work which I wrote in 1881.
[1155]Forוַיְקַנֵּאetc. he readsוִיקַנֵּאetc.
[1156]“The proposal of Merx, to change the pointing so as to transform the perfects into futures, ... is an exegetical monstrosity.”—Robertson Smith, art. “Joel,”Encyc. Brit.
[1157]i. 16.
[1158]Even the comparison of the ravages of the locusts to burning by fire. But probably also Joel means that they were accompanied by drought and forest fires. See below.
[1159]ii. 20.
[1160]Arabia Deserta, p. 307.
[1161]Arabia Deserta, p. 335.
[1162]Id., 396.
[1163]Id., 335.
[1164]Barrow,South Africa, p. 257, quoted by Pusey.
[1165]Impressions of South Africa, by James Bryce: Macmillans, 1897.
[1166]Volney,Voyage en Syrie, I. 277, quoted by Pusey.
[1167]Lebanon.
[1168]Abridged from Thomson’sThe Land and the Book, ed. 1877, Northern Palestine, pp. 416 ff.
[1169]From Driver’s abridgment (Joel and Amos, p. 90) of an account in theJourn. of Sacred Lit., October 1865, pp. 235 f.
[1170]Morier,A Second Journey through Persia, p. 99, quoted by Pusey, from whose notes and Driver’s excursus upon locusts inJoel and Amosthe following quotations have been borrowed.
[1171]Shaw’sTravels in Barbary, 1738, pp. 236–8; Jackson’sTravels to Morocco.
[1172]Adansson,Voyage au Sénegal, p. 88.