A Book Review on The Zealot by Reza Aslan

A Book Review on The Zealot by Reza Aslan

When it comes to Reza Aslan’s work “The Zealot” it has been at the center of quite a bit of criticism.  To some the work itself being completely of base and out of touch with reality.  No better example comes to mind than the Fox news interview with Lauren Green, Green frequently interjected, quoting critics who questioned Aslan's credibility as an author of such a work as Aslan is a prominent Muslim. Aslan noted he was "a scholar of religions with four degrees, including one in the New Testament, and is fluent in biblical Greek, and has been studying the origins of Christianity for two decades.  He also added that he also just happens to be a Muslim." The interview was criticized immediately after gaining notoriety on the Internet after a post on BuzzFeed headlined "Is This The Most Embarrassing Interview Fox News Has Ever Done?" Despite, however, the interview on Fox, many scholars have taken up issues with the Aslan’s work and thesis.   Aslan only holds to two truths or two hard historical facts about Jesus’ – he was a Jew who led a popular movement and Pilate crucified him for doing so.

The book is framed around the reader being a “non-scholar” on the matter of Christ and his life and ministry.  Aslan, being he is writing for non-scholars, also gives the reader background history of Israel and the Jewish people between the two testaments and explain zealotry.  He looks a number of people who sought to overthrow King Herod or the Roman presence. He places Jesus the Nazareth and his followers into this history and social setting. With this indulgent, Jesus' proclamation of the coming kingdom of God was a call for regime change, for ending Roman hegemony over Israel and ending a corrupt and oppressive aristocratic priesthood.  This being exactly what the zealot movement was about.  Aslan wants to date all four gospels later than most New Testament scholars. He does however keep the priority with Mark and it coming as one of the firsts gospels; but writes of the evangelist as simply ‘adding a chronological narrative’ to a ‘jumble of traditions’ (p. 26). Seeing Jesus as only a Zealot who is seeking a regime change, Aslan contends that the regime change that was sought after did not take place. Jesus was taken in to Roman custody and executed, along with two other rebels, I gathered being the two who hung with Christ.   Holding to the thesis that Jesus only being  ‘a revolutionary Jewish nationalist’ (p. 30), Aslan sites three further ‘hard historical facts’ (1) that he ‘cleansed’ the Temple, (2) that Aslan’s political interpretation of what Jesus meant by paying tribute to Caesar correctly reads what Jesus originally meant (pp. 73-78) and (3) that Jesus entered into Jerusalem gloriously.  As a way of making point that only certain truths can be held of Jesus; Aslan points out that “all of Jesus’” miracle stories were overstated overtime (p. 104).  Aslan also points out that “there are numerous passages in the gospels in which Jesus is accused of consorting with “loose women”’ (p. 246).

It was awhile later, after the crucifixion that the followers of Jesus became convinced that their Messiah was the God in which they thought and had been resurrected and his mission was no longer a failure.  This scene can be seen in the gospel, in sorts, with the road to Emmaus text.  The two walking and being depressed that what they had believed was not what was true and Jesus appearing to them in the breaking of the bread.  However, unlike other zealot movements that ceased after the deaths of their respective founders, the Jesus movement not only continued, even in the face of severe opposition. It flourished, soon reaching large numbers of non-Jews.

Here is where in the book that Paul, the apostle, is brought into the picture.  Aslan goes into explaining how Paul was the one who actually caused the rift between the Jewish tradition and the new face of Judaism. For Aslan, it was the new Judaism that won out and thus creating a new religion, one destined to have the most followers around the world, Christianity. However, Aslan contends the Christianity that was founded back then and has evolved into today is not what Jesus, the founder, wanted or intended for.

Aslan depicts a clash between James and Peter and the followers of Paul It was Paul who ‘transformed Jesus from a revolutionary zealot into a Romanized demigod’ (p. 171). Aslan also contends that  Paul thought of himself not merely as equal to the other apostles but even as ‘the first apostle’ (p. 186; emphasis original) which draws criticism and the other end of the argument stating 1 Corinthians 15:8-9 as a hole in this assumption of Asalan.  Aslan also states that, “in the letters of Paul Jesus is repeatedly described as “of the seed of David”’ (p. 227), and refers to Romans 1:3 and 2 Timothy 2:8; but he agrees that 2 Timothy is not a letter of Paul, so in fact he has only one example. Aslan asserts that the letters of Paul ‘make up the bulk of the New Testament’ (p. 29). But, even if we go beyond the seven letters that scholars normally acknowledge as authentic, Paul’s letters make up considerably less than one third of the New Testament.    

Given all of my personal, and non-scholarly, contentions with the work, I did find it to be well written and a work that can hold your attention even while stating things one might not agree with.  I say that to say he wrote his objections of the Jesus we know, eloquently and one that even if you disagree you can respect the work.  I can certainly see where some Christians might take aim at this, however we have to keep in mind that Aslan is writing this work as a historical theologian.  That in itself, we know going in the miracles and unproved stories are always going to be dismissed.  Even our Christian historical theologians do this, so the fact that he is Muslim means little to me on that note.  I found myself liking this work and am curious to read more of his works.  Overall I am happy with alternate picture Aslan allowed me to explore of the life and work of Jesus.

A Comparison of Two Films; The Son of God and The Last Temptation of Christ

A Comparison of Two Films; 

The Son of God and The Last Temptation of Christ

  

At first when watching The Son of God and The Last Temptation of Christ there seems to be very little to compare with both films.  However, a theme is present.

            The Son of God, a 2014, John, the last surviving disciple of Christ, is living in exile as he tells his story. Jesus was born to a virgin, and three visiting wise men declare Him the future King. Thirty-three years later, an adult Jesus travels to Galilee and begins recruiting followers, from James, to his brother John, to Peter the fisherman, to Matthew the tax collector. These men and women would become His disciples. Through His teachings and numerous miracles, Jesus builds a huge following, who begin to call Him the Messiah. He also draws the attention of the Pharisees, the Jewish religious leaders. The Pharisees claim Jesus is blaspheming God by forgiving sins, something only God can do. Jesus responds by saying he is the Son of God.

Jesus tells the disciples they are to travel to Jerusalem for the upcoming Passover holiday. He enters the city on the back of a donkey and is met by a huge crowd of supporters, who lay palm leaves in His path (this is celebrated today as Palm Sunday). Caiaphas, the head of the Pharisees, is afraid Jesus' presence in the city will further agitate the people, who are already in a near state of revolt against the oppressive Romans, led by Pontius Pilate. Upon entering the temple, Jesus sees the money changers and proceeds to upend their tables. This act draws cheers from the people and scorn from the Pharisees. Later, Jesus tells a little girl that every stone of the temple will soon fall. The Pharisees take this as a plan to destroy the temple and decide Jesus must be stopped.

Judas, one of Jesus' disciples, approaches the Pharisees. He also believes Jesus is going too far and wants to help. They give him 30 pieces of silver for his assistance. That night (the night before Passover), Jesus tells the disciples this will be their last supper together and says that one of them will betray Him. Later, in the Garden of Gethsemane, Judas kisses Jesus' cheek, thereby identifying Jesus to the Pharisees and revealing Judas; betrayal, and Jesus is then arrested for blasphemy. The disciples then flee the garden to save themselves.

Caiaphas orders an immediate trial, even though it's late at night and not in public, which are violations of Jewish law. He is afraid an open trial on Passover will cause trouble, and Pilate will close the temple. Caiaphas asks Jesus if He is the Son of God, and He answers "I am". This is all the Pharisees need to hear, and they immediately find Him guilty of blasphemy.

That morning, to a growing crowd, Caiaphas announces Jesus' guilt and reveals the penalty for blasphemy is death. Judas, horrified by what he has done, throws the silver at the Pharisees and runs off; he later hangs himself. Caiaphas believes if the Pharisees killed Jesus on Passover, it would start a riot, so he turns him over to the Romans for the punishment. Pilate tells Caiaphas that Jesus didn't break any Roman laws, but orders him to be lashed 40 times. Since it's Passover, Pilate says he will follow tradition and free a prisoner of the people's choosing, and if they choose Jesus, He will be set free. By this time, Jesus' mother Mary has arrived in Jerusalem to see what is happening to her son.

Pilate orders the crowd to enter his courtyard to choose whether to release Jesus or Barabbas, a convicted murderer. Since none of Jesus' followers were allowed into the courtyard, Caiaphas easily sways the vote so that Barabbas is set free. Pilate then asks what he should do with Jesus, and again Caiaphas sways the crowd to have him executed by way of crucifixion. Fearing a riot among the hostile people, Pilate orders the crucifixion, then literally washes his hands of the situation. A battered and bloodied Jesus then carries His cross to Golgotha and is nailed to it by the mocking Roman guards, who earlier had placed a crown of thorns on His head. Before the cross is put into place, Pilate orders a sign attached to it, reading: "The King of the Jews", much to Caiaphas' dismay. With John, Mary, and Mary Magdalene watching in horror, Jesus hangs from the cross for several agonizing hours. After forgiving the Romans, asking why God has forsaken Him, and declaring "It is finished", Jesus dies. He is then lowered from the cross and placed into a tomb, which is sealed off with a large rock.

Three days later, Mary Magdalene goes to visit the tomb, but is shocked to see the rock broken into pieces and the tomb empty. She sees a man by the tomb's entrance and realizes He is Jesus; Jesus has been resurrected. Mary goes to the disciples' hiding place and tells them the good news, but they don't believe her. Jesus then appears to them, and they all now believe, except "Doubting" Thomas. Once Thomas touches Jesus, then he believes. Forty days later, Jesus is speaking to His disciples and tells them to travel the world to spread His message. He then ascends into Heaven, and the disciples go their separate ways.

The movie concludes with an elderly John saying that all of the disciples were eventually killed for their beliefs, except him. He has been exiled to live alone on a deserted island until he dies. John then sees Jesus, who tells him he will not die, but have everlasting life, and He will return one day.

Like Nikos Kazantzakis’ novel, Martin Scorsese’s film depicts the life of Jesus and his mortal like struggle with innumerable forms of temptation.  These include; fear, doubt, depression, reluctance and lust. The film portrays this by Jesus being tempted by visualizing himself betrothed in sexual activities, marriage, and child rearing.  The movie fully makes note that it departs from the typical Christian canonical portrayal of Jesus and those stories from the Gospels.

The plot covering more than just the last 12 hours of Jesus’ life is too much to get to here in its entirety.  The story opens with Jesus being tortured by this calling he is receiving.  It immediately shows a bond between Jesus and Judas and that of friends.  It then shows the two going to John the Baptist to be baptized and then it is off to the wilderness.  However the reason is for different reasons it looks to suggest there were certain nomadic peoples out there in which he needed to converse with about this calling he feels.  He then goes in to the wilderness alone for 40 days and nights where he is tempted by Satan in the form of a snake. 

After these events he and Judas go to find his disciples.   What is different from the Gospel telling is that Judas knows the others formally, and they are all depicted as members of the Jewish group the Zealots.  I say this because they all want a violent overthrow of the Government (Rome.)  We see Jesus perform his miracles, and even attempt to go through with an insurrection event upon Roman troops.  However, playing with the theme of Jesus not knowing of one event to the next as if there is a cloud of vagueness as if there is knowledge of what will happen next seconds before they play out. 

He then tells Judas what his mission is, and Judas is un-wanting of this call.  The last supper is held and Judas departs only to return with the guards in the garden to detain Jesus.  I must mention however the kiss given to Jesus is one of sincere and love.  The cautiousness to carry out the mission is displayed.  Jesus is then led away only to pick up with him carrying the cross.  He is hung on the cross and it is at this moment Jesus feeling alone, has a temptation that his mission is over.  He is shown what his life would be like if he came down; kids, a wife, and a normal life.  But in the end the mission is more important. 

  However the difference being that for about 45 minutes we see a vision that Jesus has while on the cross of him living a normal, fully human life.  This of course being the “last temptation” that Jesus is afflicted with.  The other major difference is the depiction of Judas.

             After close examination, what both films do have in common is the central saving act of the crucifixion and the choice Jesus, the God-man, had. Both films play heavy on the saving act of the crucifixion.  While both seem to highlight, in part at least, the choice Jesus made to stay on the cross.  We see this very clearly in The Last Temptation and more eluded to in The Son of God; the eluding act being Jesus being seen as fully God yet staying on the cross to die.  For both films the crucifixion was the defining act for God and Jesus.  The defining act of God giving up Gods elf and allowing Gods elf to suffer and die a embarrassing, godforsaken, loveless, and abandoned death. 

            In both films Jesus knows, at least by the time the crucifixion comes, why it is he is doing what he is doing.  Although it takes Jesus a bit longer to get there in The Last Temptation, he does in fact get to the conclusion that he is the son of God and this is God’s way of righting all of the wrongs. 

            If I had to pick one film in which I think the humanity and of Jesus is portrayed the best, it would have to be The Last Temptation of Christ.   For me this just seems to be more of a real approach to how the life of Christ is portrayed and would have lived out.  I think one can, like Kazantzakis did, make a great argument that Jesus did not know all along that he was the God-man.  I think a strong argument can be made that Jesus did not fully understand this until after the dessert experience. 

In any event, I felt that The Son of God played more to the traditional and sometimes unrealistic life of Christ.  I felt like it was another movie about the perfect man that lived and downplayed all of the humanistic experiences that Christ would have suffered and went through.  To me these depictions of Jesus, such as the one in The Son of God, are not ones that resonate with modern Christ followers or hold true to what the life of Christ would have been like.  To me it makes it seem that God suffered nothing and is still somehow discounted with the humanistic experience, and for me that is just not the point of the crucifixion. 

In closing, both movies were in some way following the gospel story; whether it be the more traditional Jesus or one that some can read and see in the gospel narratives. Jesus was fully human and we believe fully God and both films depict that in their own way.  

A Book Report on;

The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1

By Mark Smith

By Adam Cook

The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1

“Do you believe in creation?”  A question I often get when I tell people I am a Seminary student, studying to be a Pastor.  The question is raised as if it is some litmus test that all pastors must partake of and have the same views and answers on.  Being the sarcastic person I am my response is to answer their question with a question “..which one?”  In Mark Smith’s book “The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1” he gets straight to this point of “which one” and explores three creation themes that the Ancient Israelites had floating around in the time of and before the writing of Genesis 1.  Smith seeks to assert creation isn’t the telling of the order in which things came into being, but rather a telling of who did what according to the understanding of God at that time.  This is to say, there certainly was an agenda and how things came to be scientifically was not it.

These three creation themes he works with are: creation as the activity of divine wisdom; creation as a temple filled with the divine presence where the  שכינה of God dwells.  This demonstrated by an assertion for the view that the light on Day One was not part of creation but was the light of God's divine glory.  Also Smith asserts creation as a divine victory over cosmic enemies.  These three themes were not hermetically impenetrable traditions and often blurred into each other.  Smith asserts that Genesis 1 employs insights from all three themes.  Smith also would stand in line with modern scholars who assert Genesis 1 is a later addition to Genesis, by its name, a priestly author.  In this book Smith asserts this and other points that are often, in his and others who stand with his opinions, misconstrued about the creation narratives.  Smith, and his colleges would assert that none of the creation themes in Genesis or in the Ancient Israelite tradition were meant to be understood as an exact science; rather he would assert that these themes had agendas to seek out and prove about the power and deity of Yahweh.   

Smith also seeks to assert that Genesis 1 does not teach  creation out of nothing.  That is, the message is not to inform the reader that out of nothing all of the sudden came something,  but rather  the focus is rather on God's forming a inhabitable location for life out of uninhabitable “chaos”.   He does this in a few different ways, the first being God creates not out of nothing, but by the separation of chaotic elements and setting them to order and operate in such a way that in conducive for life.  He also shows this by stating that the watery chaos from which God creates is not, as it is in other texts, a symbol of evil, but rather a sign of God creating order out of chaos. It obeys God and therefore is used for life.

Another way in which Smith shows this creation out of what is in existence is his exploration of the Hebrew word רוח  or breath or spirit of God that moved over the surface of the deep. He asserts that it conveys both the idea of divine breath as well as a natural wind. This gives introduction to the divine speech aspect he explores as well.  Divine speech is central to Gen 1. Smith seems to see this as precisely linked to the priestly focus on divine speech as expressing divine revelation and authority.  This signifying the author and that of a priest would see his role as a way of speaking the divine words.  God’s divine words created life and a habitat for life to abide, and this would be the role the Priest would see in his preaching of the word.  A priest word preach with the divine authority in which he could declare the divine word and therefore profess to the authority that word has, it created life.  Smith also makes mention to the often debated theory of Humans being created in the image of God in the temple creation theme that spilled over to Genesis 1.  

Smith also asserts time and placement of Genesis 1.  He asserts  that the Genesis 1 creation story was written after the Genesis 2 creation story.  He makes mention that  it was written as a preface to Genesis and as an implicit commentary on the Genesis 2 account, framing it in ways that made it more conducive to priestly interpretation. He explores several aspects of the Gen 1 account which seem to be deliberate references to parts of the Gen 2 account. By being placed at the start of the Bible Gen 1 becomes the master account of creation within the light of which all other creation accounts are interpreted.  Genesis 1 provides the cosmological context for the priestly worldview. He makes mention to the 7 day order and how it coincides with the festival week for Judaism.  This 7 day order also gives proof to a priestly author due to its seemed link to temple life.

In all the case is clearly made that the author of Genesis 1 is a well-educated priest and was written with an agenda.  It was not written with the intent to prove a scientific way in which the world came to be, but rather in a way that attests to the themes that speak to the ethos of God, the pathos and logos of the author.  Genesis 1 is a message of the portrayal of the Israelite God Yahweh that we now know as the triune God.

The Love Solution

The problem is not love; the problem is our understanding of love.  Throughout this course we have looked at love and what it perpetuates; sexual attractions, marriage, and children and not necessarily in that order.  We have seen authors blame the breakdown in unions as love and friendship not being able to coincide.  We have also seen them blame polygamy as the culprit of the failings of love.  However, I believe the real underlying problem to be our understanding of love.  We in the Christian realm base love on the atonement, that is to say we think of love as sacrifice and as death to ourselves.  We see evidence of this theology of love first in the writings of Paul and throughout most Christian writings.  However, a better understanding of the atonement may bring new and refreshing light to love.

            We see the language of sacrifice and love in the early writings of Paul.  In Ephesians 5 Paul calls all wives to submit to their husbands.  He then calls all Husbands to treat them as the Lord Christ treated the church and was the savior of the body.  In this Paul implies love is a

Fixing     2

sacrifice.  By Paul implying the husband should be submitted to as we submit to Christ our crucified savior in inevitably calls us to sacrifice in marriage.   It is this language of sacrifice and this expectation that creates the problem with love.  If we base love on sacrifice and death our view of love from the start is one of gloom.  It is for this reason we change or explanation of love; thus changing the way we look at the atonement. For this new view we look first to creation.

In the beginning God created, this we can all agree.  But why did he create man?  If we understand this first we can see His motives that explain best love.  SO why did God create us?  Revelation says “for His pleasure.”(Revelation 4:11)  “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” Colossians 1:16 echoes the theme: “All things were created by him and for him.” Being created for God’s pleasure does not mean humanity was made to entertain God or provide Him with amusement. God is a creative Being, and it gives Him pleasure to create. God is a personal Being, and it gives Him pleasure to have other beings He can have a genuine relationship with. Thus it is safe to conclude he did it out of Loneliness.

Being made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27), mankind has the ability to know God and therefore love Him, worship Him, serve Him, and fellowship with Him. God did not create human beings because He needed them.  He created them to cure his loneliness.  We all feel the loneliness he felt.  Of course, this feeling stretches back from when I was young.

Fixing     3

When I was younger I would sigh, think I think that the loneliness that we all feel at times -- that searing pain, that sense of abandonment, the sense that you're alone in this world and nothing is worth living for, that silent spread of snow in a dark and bitter land -- is but a pale reflection of the searing longing He feels during every single living second. He was lonely in turn. It's hard to imagine the all-powerful being as lonely.  "Loneliness" is closely associated with "loner," and "loners" are often regarded as lost creatures deserving pity and no respect. Loneliness also has the concept of being alone all the time. God does not fit either of these descriptions he is too great and too merciful to be pitied.  We see in both accounts of creation (that is chapter 1 and 2) that God looks at all he has created and at the end of the day feels loneliness.    He was lonely in the beginning. That's why He created Adam.   Since He had no equal, He wanted to create someone in His "own image", someone who could talk and converse with Him, and share His days in happy communion.  He then seen Adam was equally lonely and gave him Eve.   It was tranquil, a bond that was supposed to last for life. The love God had for Adam and Adam for Eve was what the Greeks termed Agape.

Now it may seem strange that a divine love is one that is required to help us fix the problem.  However love itself in the beginning was thought of as mysterious force. See we know love is to be eternal it says so in Jeremiah 31.  Now I know saying the word is illogical due to we only live a set amount of years.  But step outside this relam and see that if your love inspires your kids to love the same and their kids to then it does last forever.  Now the question

Fixing    4

always arises why do we need God to understand love. II Thessalonians says: “ lets us know that love is divine thing we cannot fully understand on our own”  That divine love is Agape.

Agape is love which is of and from God, whose very nature is love itself. However this is the love we must feel for our spouse. (Lewis 2005) The apostle John affirms this in (1 John 4:8): “God is love.” God does not merely love; He is love itself. Everything God does flows from His love. But it is important to remember that God’s love is not a sappy, sentimental love such as we often hear portrayed. God loves because that is His nature and the expression of His being. The object of God’s agape love never does anything to merit His love. We are the undeserving recipients upon whom He lavishes that love. His love was demonstrated when He sent His Son into the world to “seek and save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10) and to provide eternal life to those He sought and saved. (Lewis 2005) He paid the sacrifice for those He loves.  However Agape love does not require sacrifice it in turns requires a love that is so deep it disregards the need for one individual and accepts the union as a whole.  This is to say that love in the same way, we are to love others sacrificially. Jesus gave the parable of the Good Samaritan as an example of sacrifice for the sake of others, even for those who may care nothing at all for us, or even hate us, as the Jews did the Samaritans. Sacrificial love is not based on a feeling, but a determined act of the will, a joyful resolve to put the welfare of others above our own. But this type of love does not come naturally to humans. Because of our fallen nature, we are incapable of producing such a love. If we are to love as God loves, that love that agape can only come from its true Source. (Lewis 205) This is the love which “has been poured out in our hearts

Fixing    5

through the Holy Spirit given to us” when we became His children (Romans 5:5). Because that love is now in our hearts, we can obey Jesus who said, “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. As I have loved you, you should also love one another” (John 13:34). This new commandment involves loving one another as He loved us sacrificially, even to the point of death. But, again, it is clear that only God can generate within us the kind of self-sacrificing love which is the proof that we are His children. “By this we have known the love of God, because He laid down His life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers” (1 John 3:16). Because of God’s love toward us, we are now able to love one another.

           

            So God was lonely and created man, then he seen man’s loneliness and created a coequal, how does this relate to love and fixing marriage.  Then there came the fall.         Because of this disconnection, this break in the love man and God shared he reinitiated the connection through the cross.  There was a barrier that separated man and God a void that needed to be filled.  In this God sent his son to be bore by his greatest creation; mankind.  Through this the creator made a way for the creation to find its way back by innocent blood being shed for the sake of loneness.  However to look past the sacrifice and blood, and to carefully trot away from this very significant event, we look at the love behind God’s motive.  His notion to once again cure loneliness by love and a reestablishment of the union between man and God and therefor set a standard for love and union. (Lewis 2001)  The question this rises how does this apply to marriage and love and this notion of taking the original view of

Fixing     6

sacrifice out of the atonement?  Christ on the cross took on all of humanity’s sufferings, failures, sin, and loneliness and made the connection of love one in one rather than one and one. He did this by reconnecting or filling In the void that’s was left after the fall.  Thus eliminating the need for sacrifice and its language.  It is this language of sacrifice that is separated by millennia’s of its use that deters marriage and breaks love.  To fix this we look to Eve and her roll.

            So we understand Agape love and the loneliness of God and his cure for that a companion.  We also understand the need for companionship in order to cure the original problem.  However, who does understanding this entire idea can fix our current situation of a decaying love and broken marriages?  For this we look to a retelling of the narrative of the cross.  We all know Christ died for our sins and that God loved us so much he sent his son to die for us and our salvation.  Moreover, we get the sense that love equals sacrifice.  However, this is a misunderstanding of Agape love.  We can turn away from sacrifice when relating love and marriage in Christianity and point to the underlying message of the cross.  The cross was set out to to bring about divide but to fill a void.  He set out in his infinite plan cure his loneliness and he did so with creation.  We do the same when we look for a partner.  We set out to fill a empty part of ourselves. And just like God did with Christ on the cross we throw ourselves out to be the initial filler of the void. We we set out to find our “other half” we do so in a way that allows us to communion on a regular basis with someone.  We can look to the cross, not as an example of sacrifice but one of going all the way to be with that person.  Allowing you to freely

Fixing    7

give and receive what happens.    The act of the cross reestablished a basis for love.  It was not the sacrifice itself, however, it was the willingness to make the connection that was important.   On the cross Christ undid all the wrong that severed one in one relationship between God and man; and we harness that in our personal relationship between the one we love and convey that through the commitment through marriage we allow ourselves to then make that same connection.  When we enter a union it is done so on the basis of accepting that person for who they are.  When we better oneself in the relationship; both in turn our bettered. 

 Love should not be modeled on death and sacrificing; but rather life and a gaining of sense of completion.  Let us set aside logic and math and for a moment and imagine love in a different realm.  A realm that defies laws of physics, human logic, mathematics, and even what we think we know about the human experience and creation.  What if all that was needed to fix love and marriage in this country and more so in our faith was a new understanding of what the creation story is telling us and how that helps to explain the atonement?  We have to allow ourselves to know love in a realm that is unfamiliar to reality.  Love is brought to Earth by God and understanding it will never be easy.  But if we allow ourselves to imagine it as coequals coming together to serve a purpose of curing loneliness all will be better in turn.  Fixing love comes down to understanding what love was when it came from Heaven and that is one and one becoming one. Love is not something that can be measured and quantified; it is an independent, transcendent of all inside.

Fixing    8

References

Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York NY: Harper One, 2001.

Lewis, C.S. Four Kinds of Love. New York NY: Harper One, 2005.

Joel: The Prophet with the Hellenistic Vision

Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos, and Jeremiah those names are notorious in Judaism and Christianity.  Those very names conjure up images of men calling out to crowds proclaiming warnings from God for future sieges that Judah and Israel would face.  Isaiah warns to trust in Yahweh and the Assyrians would not be a threat.  There was Jeremiah and his warning of the Babylonians invading the kingdom of Judah in the 6^th century.  He then calls for repenting and coming back to Yahweh to stop the oncoming slaughter. Second Isaiah and that Prophet, whoever he be, warning the Babylonians that Cyrus the Great of Persia is coming.  Even the prophet Ezekiel and his theological explanation of why the Babylonians were able to conquer Jerusalem his attempt to answer the question; where is Yahweh?

All of these prophets proclaim messages from God that in turn will force the Hebrew people not only to go through hard times; but alter their own understanding of God and theology to explain away the events taking place.  However, there is one event that would have triggered the same kind of response one that would have altered the Jewish theological thought. I will set out to demonstrate that we cannot simply play this book off as a simple and mere destruction by natural elements¹.   I will seek

1. This is a theory  F. W. Farrar came to conclude, and has since been expanded upon, in his book, The Minor Prophets, Their Lives and Times, in Men of the Bible series, 1890

Joel     2

to prove that the book of Joel can be dated accurately and be dated to reflect a time in which Joel and his people will see Alexander and the Hellenes invade the home land.  In this dating I will seek to place Joel in the 4^th Century BCE.     It becomes evident the first question that comes to mind is why this topic is of such importance?  That is to say why do we need a warning about this time period?  My response to that is simply why wouldn’t we?  Would that not need an explanation?  Where is the reasoning for this destruction that will ensue? For we know after the Hellenes conquered the land they made Hebrew an illegal language.  Does this not need an answer as to why².  Where is the new theology that explains the shift change in empirical rule?  Prophetic texts as a whole in the Old Testament have explained away other events, so where is the book for this one?  However, there is another Prophet who foretold of destruction and times of great pearl.  A Prophet that because of the things foretold and the lack of relatable time placers his book is hard to date.  Scholars place this book being written in 9^th century BCE to as late as 100 AD.  That man and the book that bears his name is the prophet Joel, son of Pethuel .

The book of Joel tells of a time in which great famine will plague the land.  A time in which locusts will be so numerous they will black out the sun. (Joel 1:4) A day and time when fire will consume the country side and destroy the fields of harvest causing no food to harvest in the land.  (Joel1:19)   A day and time in which water is no longer in the brooks and the animals have nowhere to drink. (Joel 1:20) A day that will be so devastating that the only reason conceivable for it happening is it is the day of Yahweh³.  (Joel 1:15)

2.  This is not to say that the language issue itself needs a “why” but rather the invasion of the Hellenes need a reason why, which has been dismissed by Scholars following Farrar’s theory.

3.  All scriptures our NRSV (Harper Collins)

Joel     3

With events so troubling and devastating the question has to be asked; what is the day of the Lord as described by Joel?  Is it simply a day of destruction by natural elements and creatures of destruction?  Or is it an apocalyptic text that describes the future of the world? Or is it as Joel in the first chapter (1:6) hints at and an invasion by an army?  Could Joel be prophesying a vision of the Greeks?  It is here I will begin my analysis of Joel and set out to prove Joel is the prophet with the Hellenistic Vision. 

Why dating is so important.

Whether one labels the prophets in titles of minor and major or former and later, we can all agree in a scholarly sense that the minor or later prophets have, what I have come to call a Theo-Historical understanding.  That is to say given all we know about the history of Judah and the theological implications of invasions, exiles, famine, social issues, et cetera.  We begin to understand through their messages what the people thought, problems in the kingdom, theological reasoning et cetera.  It seems to be getting easier to see why dating is so important.  And some texts are easier than other to date. We see those mentioning Kings and great events are easier to date for obvious reasons. 

At the same time Joel is becoming harder to date textually by itself.  There is no mention of Kings by name, or great events that history had recorded4.  There are no mention of specific events in which one can look at and say this happened here at this time and place. In fact we know little of what Joel is speaking of, are they simply metaphors, is there a literal famine happing, or is this a warning of a coming invasion. The dating of Joel is to be quintessential for this reason. By dating Joel, this will be no

4.  These “non-mentioning” have multiple theories that will be expanded upon later in the paper. One of the most common reason for the lack of Kings being named is in the dating of Joel to the 9^th Century BCE started by W. W. L. Pearson, The Prophecy of Joel: Its Unity, Its Aim, and the Age of Its Composition 1872. This is later expanded on by William Prinsloo in The Unity of the Book of Joel.

Joel     4

easy task demonstrated by the numerous dates that have been given and no real sense of acceptance for any, we will be able to place the oracles and visions of the prophet Joel to a understanding of the theology that the prophet is conveying for the time in which he was trying to convey it.  And if we do not have any of this about Joel all we have is a book foretelling of prophecy that is in the future; and with this we have a prophet acting outside of how prophets traditionally act in this time.

What is a Prophet?

Everyone in the Ancient world had magicians, physics, spiritual advisers; but only Israel and later Judah had prophets.  It is important to ask what are prophets? What is the role of a prophetic figure; to curse, to heal, to bless, to advise, to make aware, to summon all of this in some form or fashion, or is more than just a message? Moreover, what is a prophetic ministry? Walter Brueggemann’s⁵  takes hold to these questions and help to explain just what a prophet is⁶.   Brueggemann, walks the reader through this notion of a “royal consciousness” a phrase he uses to describe the issue of numbness in society. It is this need to understand the numbness or complacency factor in a society that Brueggemann makes a critical issue in his work. He argues in order to understand how a Monarchical figure or the people in a society act, think or even view the current situation they are placed and how prophets come about and delivers their message; one must grab hold to the idea set fourth of royal consciousness⁷ and replace it with an alternative one. He goes onto explain the need of an atmosphere in a society conducive to the prophetic figure to come about. Brueggemann goes on to speak about the three societal have to’s for a

5.  W. Bruggemann is an Old Testament Scholar specializing in Prophetic studies.

6. W. Brueggemann’s The Prophetic Imagination

7.  This theory that would play heavily in Farrar’s theory, later on by other scholars,  in such a way that if the mere non-mentioning of the King (Joash) is because of his seemingly minority position to his High Priest thus saying the royal consciousness in the land was one of the King having very little power.

Joel     5

prophet to exist as well as how the prophetic figure operates in the forces around him/her in order to pierce the royal veil by evoking, nurturing, or nourishing the status quo so that the message sent from a deity can penetrate to the heart of the people and the situation.

Through this notion of piercing and breaking the complacency factor that the prophetic figure has to sever Brueggemann reveals factors such as the following to examine the ministry of an intermediary.

1) Central/peripheral intermediaries are the first genre to be explained.  Central intermediaries are ones close to the central government.  These are the ones whose stories tell of them in direct contact with the leaders. Peripheral prophets are ones outside the normal mode of governing.    However, this classification can depend upon the circumstance.  For example so prophets were central in some instances and peripheral⁸.

2) Bringing about an alternative consciousness is the second duty of most of the prophets of the old.  All the Prophets in the Old Testament are making a point.  Whether that point be a social issue, religious, or spiritual advice the prophet is the one to make those proclamations. 

 3)Energizing/criticizing techniques are used in every aspect.  Prophets will either criticize to bring the issues to light or energize.  This is to say the words will be one of encouragement or demise.

The way in which the intermediary does this is relied upon the prophet’s prophetic imagination as is pointed out time and time again in this scholarly examination into the prophets of old and a foreshadowing of today’s complacency. It is through this imagination the prophet takes you out of you

8.  This theory was originally Robert R. Wilson’s asserted in his work, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel.

Joel     6

zone of comfort that the kingdom has invoked and inserts an alternative consciousness of viewing the current situation at hand.

Brueggemann takes the reader through the Hebrew children coming out of Egypt with Moses and the exodus to the rise of the Solomonic period in Israel. He then takes the reader through the fall of the United Kingdom of Israel all the way to the life and ministry of Christ, and how he resembles a prophet in his daily life and messages. After much examination it is clear to see that Joel is a criticizing prophet.  However we do not know if he is central of peripheral prophet.  We do not know because we do not have any themes of advice to kings being given.   All we have in Joel is a warning of this day of Yahweh.

The Book Of Joel

                The prophecies of the Book of Joel are divided into two parts⁹.  The subjects of the first half can be briefly summarized as the prophet at the beginning calls the attention of the elders and of all the populace of the land to a coming event the like of which has never been seen, a terrible visitation by locusts which will be coincident with a famine, and which will together reduce the entire land to the bitterest misery Joel then urges the people to fast and to pray, and to mourn. In this double examination Joel observes the approach of the "day of the Lord", which is to be accompanied in by an awful affliction.  The only thing that will help is to repent .  Repent not to save them as in prophets before had

9. Wolf Commentary Joel and Amos 1977

                                                                                                                                                                                               

Joel     7

taught, but rather to ensure Yahweh would see them through.  This says that Joel see’s the events as things that cannot be avoided.

In the second half it is first related how the people did actually bring about a gracious change in God's plans by obeying the prophet's injunctions; this is followed by God’s answer to the prayer

of the people; then there is the promise of relief from famine through abundant rains and through a marvelous fruitfulness, after which the spirit of prophecy is to be poured out over all flesh, and the day of the Lord will draw near, accompanied by terrifying signs in heaven and earth. These terrors, however, are not for the Jews, who will be rescued in the day of the lord because they called on the Lord, but for their enemies. At the time of the change in the fate of Judah and Jerusalem the Lord will gather all nations into the valley of Jehoshaphat there to be destroyed through the fulfillment of the divine judgment of wrath, because they have plundered the treasuries of the Lord and have sold the sons of Judah and of Jerusalem to the sons of the Grecians. God will be a refuge for His people; strangers will no longer pass through Jerusalem; the soil of Judah will become exceedingly fruitful, and a fountain will even water the valley of Shittim, whereas Egypt and Edom will be changed into a wilderness on account of the evil they have done to Judah.

Dating Joel 9^th Century

The book of Joel was originally thought to be written in with some of the early prophet, placing it in the 9^th century.  This was mostly based on its place in the canon.  This view was traditionally held until the time of Karl August Credner¹⁰.  Credner held to this practice in some form.  His argument for

10.  Credner, a scholar working off of Farrar’s theory. (Wollf, 1977)  

Joel     8

placing Joel earlier than the twelve prophets was not so much to do with its place in the canon, but moreover it was based upon the content of Joel and the books following in actual time.  Credner argues that Joel came before Amos and the others.  His basis for this assumption is based upon the notion that Amos and the other eleven are basing their prophecy off of Joel’s well known proclamations.  This is to say that Joel came before them and sent a message of future destruction.  A message that Credner suggests is picked up on by prophets such as Amos and Hosea.  But this is to go against what scholars such as Bruggermann suggest about the mission of a prophet.    To say the prophet is speaking of an event to happen a century before it does is not the work of a prophet but rather the work of a psychic.  We know based on modern explorations of the texts of the prophets that they in fact do not do this.  Prophets in their original meaning of their words are predicting the near and concise events set to take place within that generation or the next, not ones so far away that the prophet could not be held accountable.  Accountability of the words of the prophet is exactly how the Hebrew people know who is and is not a real prophet. (Deut 18:22).   So not to have that accountability with in the immediate passing of that prophet simply does not make any sense and therefore cannot be what the book of Joel is at all.  I say this because if his book was considered not to be prophecy it would not be in the canon itself, and in order to be a prophet his words must have seen from God and had to have come true.  

 In Joel we have a few items of concern with not what is expressed in the text but for what is not expressed in the text¹¹.  Examples of this range from the lack of no King being named to the Assyrians not being mentioned. According to the generally accepted opinion, Joel writes in the beginning of the

11.  Farrar’s Theory of things that are not mentioned expanded up by Prinsloo.

Joel     9

reign of King Joash (836-797 B.C.), and was therefore the oldest prophet to leave a book of prophecies.  This would also make him the author of this day of Yahweh that is expressed.   This theory of an early date of composition was strongly supported by the fact that no mention is made of the Assyrians who in II Kings are a perceived enemy.  However, the lack of mentioning could assume they are no longer a threat placing Joel later than Joash’s reign.   Also support for the theory of a date placing Joel as the earliest writer finds flaw when no King is mentioned.  Now this is countered by the idea that the lack of naming Joash as King is that this period of writing was when Joash was in the minority allowing his High Priest Jehoiada influencing him in every way.   While the prevalence of the priestly influence led to the conclusion that Joash, at the beginning of his reign, was under the influence of the high priest, there would still be the expectation that Joel would mention the High Priests name.  There would be an expectant in the section of the text where Joel calls on the priest by name¹².   However the problem with this evidence is that the lack of mentioning a King could be for the simple reason there being no King to mention.  

Dating Joel in the 7^th Century

With these flaws in hand this of course led some scholars to perceived evidence of a latter dating of Joel and places it considerably later than his neighbors in the biblical canon.  Farrar placed the composition of the book at a much later date, but still in the pre-exilic period; more specifically in the time of King Josiah, or in the period immediately following his regin. The reasons are these: The form of the

12.  J. Linville in his work The Day of Yahweh and the Priest in Joel, states that if there was a message being delivered in a time of a King someone would want to be pointed out just as the authority that can fix the current outcry.  That is to say that if Joel is truly calling for a lamenting the land; he would want to address the person who would be able to initiate the change whether this be the King or the High Priest.  This therefore may conclude there was no King in the time when Joel writes.  By just the mere general calling on the priests Linville argues that Joel is calling out to many seeking a leader to start the lamenting process.

Joel    10

prophecies is too finished to date from the beginning of the prophetic style of writing; indeed, the linguistic character is that of about the seventh century B.C. Moreover, the contents reflect the time of Josiah, because it was then that the great famine occurred which Jeremiah describes in a similar way to Joel. Finally, the mention of the Egyptians points to the last years of Josiah (or else those immediately following), referring to Josiah's campaign against the Egyptians. The fact that neither the Assyrians nor the Babylonians are alluded to militates against King dating, since all the other pre-exilic prophets, from Amos to Jeremiah, recognize God's judgment, which is to fall on His people precisely in the extension of the Assyrian and, later, of the Babylonian empire.

Another argument for a later dating is found in the second half of the book, after chapter3, This is assumed on the following grounds: Only Judah is expressly mentioned.  Also in the description of the approaching day of judgment for the nations and the glorification of God's people there is no reference to Ephraim.  Finally because the dispersion of God's people, Israel, among the nations, and the division of Israel's land. All of these seem to point to a later dating of the book.

Understanding the Hellenes and the Persians Conflicts

When we look at all this devastation and the fact that most of the horrific events of the Babylonians are over with and Persia is now here on the scene; it begs the question who is the immediate destructor of the land?  Babylonia has fallen, Persia’s take over is for the most part uneventful and Rome will come in as an ally and never leave; why all the warnings of destruction?  The Hellenes of course would be the next victor of the land.  Before we further the argument that Joel is speaking of a 4^th century invasion from the Greeks we have to first understand why these things were

Joel     11

common practice in the time of Alexander the Great during his campaign in Persia we have it understand the war itself. 

The series of conflicts between the ancient Hellenes and the Persian Empire, the Greco-Persian wars, began in about 499 B.C. and lasted until 448 B.C. These times were marked by Persian incursions into the Greek mainland which were met with varied levels of resistance. Persian tyrants ruled over Greek regions during the 6th century B.C. provoking revolts by the subjugated Greek cities. In 499 B.C. the Ionians rose up against the Persians in a war that lasted till 493 B.C. The Persian invasion was finally defeated at the battle of Marathon in 490 B.C. The Persians, intent on expanding their empire invaded again in 486 B.C. 

The years of Persian dominance did not diminish until the Hellespont was crossed by Alexander the Great of Macedon's army of Macedonians, Greeks, Thracians, Paionians, and Illyrians. About 40,000 soldiers fought and were victorious against Persian forces at the Battle of Granicus, leading to Alexander's acceptance of the surrender of the Persian provincial capital Sardis. Alexander I successfully waged the first of many sieges, eventually forcing his opponents, the mercenary captain Memnon of

Rhodes and the Persian satrap of Caria, Orontobates, to withdraw by sea at Halicarnassus. Alexander would eventually route the Persians and with the death of their ruler, Darius, declare the war of vengeance over and release his Greek and other allies from service in the league campaign. He allowed those who wished to, to re-enlist as mercenaries in his imperial army¹³.

13.  Dr. R. Gabreial Ancient Israel

Joel     12

By the time of Alexander the Great's rule in 336 B.C. Macedonia, thanks to the efforts of his father, was the supreme Greek power with dominance over the other Greek city-states. After his father's death, Alexander had to secure his hold over the region, as his youth made him vulnerable to dissent by the Greek city-states. Nonetheless, he successfully stopped revolts in the larger cities of Athens and Thebes and was able to consolidate enough power to eventually expand his empire into Persia. In 334 B.C., Alexander the Great crossed the Hellespont into Persia with 35,000 Macedonians and 7,600 Greeks and began what would be a tremendous expansion of his empire. By 331 B.C. the Persian Empire was defeated, Alexander the Great having conquered lands as far as the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and driven the Persian King Darius to his ultimate demise.

4th Century Joel

                In taking the views of all the flaws and what we know about the warfare type of the Hellenes I will begin to layout the argument for a 4^th century dating of Joel.  It is traditional view, as we have read, that Joel is the predecessor to most if not all the prophets; especially the ones known as the twelve in which he is a part of.  The number one issue here is that Joel sees the event known as the exile under the rule of Nebuchadnezzer II as a past event rather than one of the future (Joel 4:1-3).  This event is one of great sorrow in the history of Judah.  With this the Babylonians do not even get mentioned as future aggressors. To further the argument of 4^th century we look at the mention of Jerusalem’s walls.  The prophet refers to looking at the walls of Jerusalem which had been breached and destroyed by the

Joel     13

Babylonians in there siege on Judah.  They were not rebuilt until 445 BCE under the direction of Nehemiah¹⁴. 

We know from the prophet asking us to look literally on the walls that they had been rebuilt thus placing Joel no earlier than 445BCE.  Up until this point we have evidence supporting a date for Joel somewhere in between 445 and 343 BCE.  However this still puts Joel, at best, eleven years before the invasion of Alexander the Great in 332 BCE.  This date also helps to explain why there is no mention of a King (if 9^th Century was correct) there was no King to speak of.  How do we make up for this time textually to place Joel as the prophet with the Hellenistic vision?

                Up until here we have a span of about 100 years.  However the mention in Joel of a well-organized priest hood, the walls, and the order of government and how set up everything is along with the traditions in which Ezra set up are in full swing; Joel seems to be closer to the second half of the time frame putting it somewhere in about the first half of the 4^th century.  Again how do we make the correlation that Joel is the Prophet with the Hellenistic vision?  For this we will look to the overall message of the text.  In Joel we see great destruction being had.  Fields are burning, crops are destroyed, waters are dammed up, and a mighty people have come upon the land.  Now it goes without saying I and others are putting great emphasis on the literal words of Joel.  That is to say that we hold great stock in what he is stating and hold that to be mostly literal.

                 Also here we are seeing the prophet mention a time in which Yahweh has brought back his people to the land of promise, all of this thus eliminating the placement of Joel anywhere before 539 BCE, the year in which Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylon.   The statement, "Then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her anymore," indicates a city that had been destroyed, a fate that befell Jerusalem only under Nebuchadnezzar.  If this had been done for Joel

14.  This is expanded upon in the Wolff commentary on Joel and Amos 1977.

           Joel     14

already then a date before the exile is not possible. This distancing of Joel form the exile is also seen in passages where Joel refers to a temple.  This language of Temple is hold to the idea that the temple has been rebuilt.    

To further the argument that Joel speaks of an army advancing we look at the locusts¹⁵.  It is indeed most natural to think of an army coming from the north, because locusts in Palestine always come from the south.  Therefore arguing that locusts are not a metaphor for an army does not make sense unless you assume the prophet is speaking of an event (one of a northeasterly wind) carrying the swarm into Judah from the north which rarely happens.   This also would negate the prophet speaking of a human army in Chap. 1:6.  This verse literally mentions a people coming upon the land.  This not only negates the argument made by Farrar that the locusts are locusts; moreover, it furthers the claim why Joel would later use the metaphor of locusts.  In many ancient writings, including other prophetic writings, when the prophet attempts to explain the number of something he often does so in a metaphor.  To further this looking at historical data it is believed the numbering of the army of Alexander the Great was well in the 40,000 range.  This staggering number as well as the way the devoured the land would have been best represented in the metaphor of locusts

Alexander the great and his great campaign to take over the known world would have been the last big time for Judah to suffer.  All these things are to be the everyday occurrences of the Greeks when they invade.  The Greeks under Alexander were known to cut off the water supplies by damning up the rivers upstream from the land they had acquired.  They were known to burn the grasslands and destroy and take the harvest of the conquered.  The weapons in which they used were known to the time of

               

15.  Dramatic Rhetoric, Metaphoric Imagery and Discoure Structure in Joel.  Ernst Wendland.

Joel     15

their great raid.  The numbers of the Macedonians were great and were described by other conquered peoples as so numerous they blacked out the sun when the crossed over tall hills and great mountains. Looking at the text and it’s mention of fires in the fields and waters being damned, we can look the raid on the Persian capital as a reference of Alexander’s raids when conquering a land.  After invading Persia, Alexander the Great sent the main force of his army to Persepolis in the year 330 BC by the Royal Road. Alexander stormed the Persian Gates, then quickly captured Persepolis. After several months Alexander allowed his troops to loot Persepolis. A fire broke out in the eastern palace of Xerxes and spread to the rest of the city. Many historians argue that while Alexander's army celebrated with a symposium they decided to take revenge against Persians. Therefore burning the city prior to leaving, as was done to the city of Athens.  Also in taking the city a scribe of Alexander the Great writes of the water to the city being cut off.  This was common practice to armies in this day.  We see this type of warfare being used in many of the raid on Jerusalem.  Also we know from historical accounts that many times lands who resisted and did not go peacefully to the Hellenes found there lands burned.  Thus leading us to the events described in Joel.

Other Arguments for Later Composition

In sorting through the textual arguments for both the pre- and post-exilic views, an early pre-exilic date seems likely based on textual arguments oftentimes ignored or forgotten by those who take a late post-exilic view. Sometimes forgotten is Joel’s textual relationship with Deuteronomy, an important argument for a post-exilic date for the book. A locust plague was promised as a curse for covenantal disobedience (Deut. 28:42), and moreover as a precursor to the final judgment of exile (Deut. 28:48). Deuteronomy 28-30 is thus seen as a context for the book of Joel, because Joel clearly sees the current situation of the locust plague through a Deuteronomic lens¹⁶. This understanding of Deuteronomy and

Joel     16

its connection with Joel not only advances weight to a Post- exilic dating of Joel, but it also helps one to understand Joel’s argument, the structure of the book, and its route in liberating history.  The reason this puts Joel as a post-exilic writer is the loosely based theory that Joel was written after much refining to the Deuteronomic text at the star of the faith we know as Judaism under Ezra.  I stress the fallibility here this claim in language and texts.   

Joel also has strong textual tie with the book of Amos  (Joel 3:18 with Amos 9:13; Joel 3:16 with Amos 1:2). The question now becomes, “Who quoted who?” “Amos appears to be quoting from Joel in an effort to show his hearers that he is continuing the work of his predecessor.”¹⁷     Joel 3:16 is obviously prior to Amos 1:2 because in Joel it is the climax of a revelation; whereas Amos starts out with it, taking it, as it were, for his text. Finally, the concept of the Day of the Lord had not yet fallen into misconception and misinterpretation as it did in the days of Amos (5:18) It could be said that Amos prophesied in order to bring Israel back to the true definition of the Day of the Lord defined in Joel. With this it is argues that Joel must precede Amos.  However, the crucial part ignored here is that in ancient writings pieces were not given a “readers digest version in later forms” this is to say that Amos would not have come after Joel and shortened the prophecies as Busenitz suggests.  What happened commonly in ancient writings when one text was referencing another was a long expanded version vice a shortened one.  This is reason is the same on used to place the Gospel of Mark as the first Gospel to be written. Similar prophecies in both passages, when compared, are found to be more contextually appropriate to Joel than to Amos. When Joel is compared with other Old Testament prophets, they

16.  This thought was expanded upon in Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., "Joel," in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1985), 1412.

17. Irvin Busenitz, Commentary on Joel and Obadiah (Geanies House Fearn Ross-shire Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2003), 33.

Joel     17

appear to be dependent on, expand upon, or presuppose the work of Either Joel is a patchwork of other prophets or he came first. Based on this knowledge, it makes more sense to place Joel as a pre-exilic book before Amos, narrowing the date down even further. At first glance a pre-exilic view is the constellation of foreign nations mentioned in chapter 3 with the history of Judah. After the reign of Joash Judah was never again faced by this assortment of enemies. Yet Thomas Finley argues that this evidence does not rule out the possibility of a post-exilic date.  Babylon and Assyria may have already fallen by the time of the Persian period, that being the reason they were not mentioned.¹⁸

The absence of the mention of Persia could simply reflect the generally positives relations with that the post-exilic period. However, the books of Haggai and Zechariah refer to Zerubabbel of the royal line (Zechariah 4:6; Haggai 1:1). The non-mentioning in the text of the Kingdom of Judah could be simply argued that the text is post-exilic and there was no Kingdom of Judah. Also, Joel seems to be quoting Obadiah, thus leading many scholars who propose a postexilic date for Obadiah insist that Joel also must be post-exilic.  Again the quoting of Obadiah would make Joel later than Obadiah furthering the argument for a 400 BCE or after dating.

 Although it can be said many armies in the ancient world, based upon the evidence that these things happened after other invasions had been had.  And it can also be said that language and later editing could have happened.  It seems a completely scholarly finding to date Joel in the 4^th Century BCE.  With all the textual examples it becomes clearer that Joel may have had only had one thing meant for his words; for them to be a warning of the Hellenes and the destruction that would come to the land. 

18. Thomas Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah : An Exegetical Commentary ([Dallas TX?]: Biblical Studies Press, 2003), 22.

Joel     18

Maybe, given the way that the Hellenes where wiping out mass civilizations this was seen by Joel as this “Day of Yahweh.” We cannot say with certainty, as I hoped that Joel was speaking of an oncoming invasion by the Hellenes.  However, I do feel it is safe to conclude that a 4^th century dating of Joel is the only logical conclusion based on the facts presented. The words in Joel are to be heard as ones trying to prepare a people for an event so catastrophic that repenting and believing Yahweh would see you through is the only way to get through it.  In Joel’s eyes nothing could save them from this day, however, understanding that this will happen and that Yahweh will still be there sets to stage a theological statement that had never been conceived by the Hebrews.  For before this time when they (the Hebrew people) lost so did Yahweh.  Joel and his radical message help to preserve a culture, a theology, and a faith in Yahweh that will never be broken.  Joel was the last Hebrew prophet to predict the invasion of a foreign army.  He is the Prophet with the Hellenistic vision and can be dated according to that period.

Joel     19

Bibliography

F. W. Farrar The Minor Prophets, Their Lives and Times, in Men of the Bible series, 1890

W. W. L. Pearson, The Prophecy of Joel: Its Unity, Its Aim, and the Age of Its Composition 1872. William

W. Brueggemann’s The Prophetic Imagination

R.  R. Wilson’s asserted in his work, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel.

Wolf Commentary Joel and Amos 1977

J. Linville in his work The Day of Yahweh and the Priest in Joel, 1970

Gabreial, R. (2003). The military history of ancient Egypt. Westport CT: Praeger

E. Wendland Dramatic Rhetoric, Metaphoric Imagery and Discoure Structure in Joel. 

R. B. Chisholm, Jr., "Joel," in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1985), 1412

I.  Busenitz, Commentary on Joel and Obadiah (Geanies House Fearn Ross-shire Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2003), 33

T. Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah : An Exegetical Commentary ([Dallas TX?]: Biblical Studies Press, 2003), 22.

W. W. L. Pearson, The Prophecy of Joel: Its Unity, Its Aim, and the Age of Its Composition, i. 885;

Grätz, Joel, Breslau, 1872;

Crenshaw Bible Commentary on Joel, 1990