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 6th 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
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 4th 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 9th
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 9th
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 9th Century
The book of Joel was originally
thought to be written in with some of the early prophet, placing it in the 9th
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 7th
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 4th 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 4th 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 4th 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 9th 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 4th 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 4th 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 4th 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
