■iSfe.;.:^; 
 
 .'^'■.'■.' .f U 
 
 
 ,^;;;^.V^;..,u. 
 
 
 ^i?§5Mv,5/4&^^ii' 
 
 i-Vs.i5i/!l-..-Ji IL>4t ''.4-'c. 
 
//. ^. 2-2^ 
 
 3Frflm 11?^ ICtbrarg nf 
 
 Ifquratli^b htf l|im to 
 
 tl^p iCtbrarg of 
 
 Prtnr^tott Sli^ologtral g>fmt«ar^ 
 
 .4nP3b 
 
THE 
 
 PROPHECY OF JOEL: 
 
 ITS UNITY, ITS AIM AND THE AGE 
 OF ITS COMPOSITION. 
 
 BY 
 
 / 
 
 WILLIAM L. PEARSON, A. .AI, Ph. D. 
 
 LEIPZIG: 
 T H K O D O R S T A U F F K II. 
 
 188S. 
 
L.E1PSIC. 
 'rinted by Metzger & Wittig. 
 
TO PR0FKS80R 
 
 WILLIAM HENRY GREEN, D.D., LL.D., 
 
 OF PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW JERSEY, 
 
 IN GRATEFUL ACKNOWLKDGMENT OF KINDNESS AND DIRECTION 
 IN HIS SEMITIC STUDIES IS THIS BOOK DEUKATEU 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
Preface. 
 
 The present volume treats of a subject, which has re- 
 ceived an unusual amount of attention from recent scholars. 
 It is, therefore, offered to the public with some hesitation. 
 But when, in regard to a subject of such importance as the 
 character and age of the Book of the Prophet Joel, there 
 exist so many and so great differences of opinion, new efforts 
 must continue to be made, until the most difficult problems 
 are solved, or the limits between certaint}' and uncertainty 
 are clearly defined. It is therefore hoped, that this treatise, 
 which is a continuation of a dissertation, which received the 
 approval of the Philosophical Faculty of the University of 
 Leipzig, may promote the end in view, and so be a real contri- 
 l)ution to the study of the Prophets, and of Joel in particular. 
 The opinions, which are here advanced, and the conclusions, 
 which are reached, in many respects, differ materially from 
 those of previous writers, and some of the views, which are 
 expressed, are quite new. This need indicate, however, nei- 
 ther their correctness nor their incorrectness, but should 
 invite others to test them thoroughly in the interest of trutli. 
 Though it is often said, the old is not necessarily true and 
 the new is not necessarily false; it may just as correctly 
 be said, the old is not necessarily false and the new is not 
 necessarily true. Of the treatment of the question, and of 
 the results of his earnest endeavors, which are now sub- 
 mitted to the public, the author can, therefore, merely solicit 
 a careful consideration. 
 
VI 
 
 The subject-matter and the nature of the discussion 
 have usually rendered exactness in the headings of chapters 
 impossible. It was, therefore, deemed best to omit them. 
 But, since the short paragraph at the beginning of each 
 chapter indicates pretty clearly its contents and its purpose, 
 this omission will occasion no great inconvenience. It is 
 hoped that Professor Green may regard with pleasure the 
 high opinion of a pupil, which the dedication of this work 
 to him is intended to show. To Professor Dr. A. Dillmann, 
 of the University of Berlin, for the kind examination of the 
 manuscript and for a number of very valuable suggestions 
 the author desires to express his most hearty thanks. For 
 the views, however, which he here puts forward, as the 
 outcome of the arguments pursued and the expression of 
 the convictions formed, he alone must be held responsible. 
 To his friend. Professor G. C. Workman, A. M., of Victoria 
 University, Cobdurg, Canada, for his kind and valuable aid 
 during the pubhcation, the author must also acknowledge 
 his special obligations. 
 
 If this attempt to throw light upon one of the most 
 difficult questions of Old Testament interpretation shall, in 
 any way, advance the interests of biblical science, and thus 
 promote the truths of the pure religion, upon which the 
 faith of the Prophets was so firmly founded, the author's 
 most earnest wishes will be realized. 
 
 Leipzig, May 1st, 1885. W. L. P. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PREFACE pp. V. VI. 
 
 IXTRODUCTUEY. 
 Pages 1 — 2. 
 Widely different opinions, 1; Merx has increased the difficulties, and 
 what prompted this treatise, 2. 
 
 First Part. 
 
 THE C(JNTENTS, UNITY AND AIM OF JOEL. 
 
 Pages 2—41. 
 
 I. Joel gives us no sure marks of his exact age ; hence analysis and 
 a statement of relation to historical events necessary. Two inter- 
 pretations, literal, or figurative, 2; allegorists rely upon the posi- 
 tion in the Canon, which is conclusive only against a later com- 
 position, 3; arguments against the allegorical and against every 
 prophetic interpretation of the fir.st half of the book, 4 ft'.; these, 
 the reference to "the day of Jehovah", and parallel passages prove 
 the unity of the prophecy, 9ff.; Ch. 2, 17—19 to be understood 
 prophetically, 11 ff.; analysis of the book, 14; a single discourse, 15; 
 the book a product of fancy and confusion of ideas, 16; objection to 
 "the day of Jehovah" as future, 17; the meaning of the names of 
 locusts not clear, yet clearly not an allegory, but a single army of 
 locusts, 18 ff.; Joel's description corresponds to the reality of such 
 plagues in the East, only very figurative, 20 ff.; the locusts proba- 
 bly came from the Syrian Desert, 22. 
 
 II. Defence of Joel's unity and originality against objections by Mcrx 
 and others. M. rejects both the literal and the allegorical, and 
 proposes an apocalyptical interpretation, 24; Joel a Midrash-comitoser 
 of the fifth century. 2G; that he based his typology upon the Exodus 
 disproved by the dissimilarity, 26 tV.; Ex. 10 not his model nor 
 
— vin — 
 
 the source of his description (Hengst., Merx), 28; Merx's "cutting 
 judgment" of the Prophet, 29; Joel does not agree with his alleged 
 sources, 30; further analysis of Ch. 4 and its general intei-pretation, 
 32 ff.; "the day of Jehovah" in the widest sense, 37; Ch. 4, 18—21 
 a resume of the prophecy, 41. 
 
 Second Part. 
 
 DID JOEL LIVE BEFORE OE AFTER THE EXILE? 
 
 Pages 42—114. 
 
 I. Special objections to Joel's originality considered and arguments 
 against a post-exilic origin. A. Examination of passages, which 
 Joel is supposed to have used. Merx's program of eschatology 
 agrees with neither Isaiah, Micah nor Joel, and he interprets 
 Zech. 12, 9— 10 erroneously, 42; the so-called "Jesajanic dogma" — 
 Joel's purpose quite another than that of Isaiah and Micah, 43 ft'. ; 
 other passages compared, 45; not only the unity, but also the 
 logical connection and clearness in general proved, 46. B. Further 
 proofs of Joel's originality and special arguments against a post- 
 exilic origin. Ezekiel's prophecies against the nations supposed 
 to be the basis of Joel's eschatology, 47 ft".; refutation of this hy- 
 pothesis, 49 ff.: 1. Ezekiel's eschatology confined to Chs. 38. 39, which 
 Joel does not touch — the hypothesis based upon a few words; 
 2. argument from analogy; 3. from the puii)0se of the prophecy; 
 4. from want of harmony with post -exilic histoiy, — Stade's 
 view in connection with the Jonians, 53; — 5. Joel's reference to 
 the special foes inconsistent with the Persian period; 6. and his 
 political horizon too limited; 7. the prophecy not compiled from 
 oihers and his utterances incompatible with the hypothesis, that 
 it is a later composition. C, Examination of expressions upon which 
 Merx's hypothesis depends, msilj derived from :2W, and Jo. 4. 1 
 promises a restoration to a former state of prosperity, 58 ff.; ex- 
 planation of 'a )>'0^, 61; Merx's interpretation of the prayer, Jo. 2, 
 17, further erroneous, 62. 
 
 II. The institutions of Joel's time. Materials found in his book and 
 the objections from them, 64; the elders always influential in the 
 East, but Joel's representation suits the time of kings best, 65 ft".; 
 fasting an ancient custom, its meaning, not as such rejected by 
 the Prai)hets, 68 ff.; the Prophets rejected the offerings only on ac- 
 count of unbelief and immorality, 70 ft'.; Joel's attitude towards the 
 Temple and ordinances, 75; Wellh. and Kuenen recognize their 
 
— IX 
 
 antiquity, 76 rt'.; the prominence of the priests no evidence ot a 
 later age, 79 ft'.; the i)Osition of the i)re-exilic High-priest, 82; the 
 latest and the earliest Prophet, Joel excepted, magnify the office 
 of the priest most, 83; distinction between the Levites and other 
 priests, 84 ft'.; Wellh. and the Deuteromonic Code, 86 ft'. 
 
 III. The pre-exilic date confirmed by the importance of Zion and the 
 Temple as the only true Sanctuary. The historical books, the 
 Pro])hets and the Psalms. Why Wellh. et al. reject passages in 
 the historical books, particularly Chronicles, — Dillmann in de- 
 fence, 89; the Books of Kings less disturbed, but also not allowed 
 to testify to the Priest-code, 90; WeUh&usen's facfiim not histor- 
 ical , 91 ; the Temple itself a conclusive argument in favor of an 
 early cultus, 92; V'atke's "important observation" an imjioitant 
 argument against Wellhausen, 9.S; the historical books mutually 
 confirm each other without contradiction from the Prophets. 94; 
 the Levites, 9.5, note; Jereboam's demeanor a strong negative 
 testimony for the unity of the Sanctuary, 97; Zion the site of 
 the only true Sanctuary, 98; so regarded by the Prophets, 100; 
 objections answered, 102 ft'; arguments from recognized earlier 
 Psalms important, 104 ft". 
 
 IV. Joels style and choice of words. Style no more a sure criterion, 
 but Joel's an early one, 107; the mien of an earlier prophet, the 
 book an old classic from which others liked to quote, 109; mostly 
 old classic words, lOitfF. — Statement of arguments in the fore- 
 going chapters, 112; the im])ovtance of the subject in the opinion 
 of others, 114. 
 
 Third Part. 
 IX WHICH PKE-EXILIC AGE DID JoEE PKOPHESVr 
 Pages 115-154. 
 I. The errors of the new school partly excused on account of the 
 mistakes of previous interpretations. The destruction of Jerusalem 
 the turning point in this discussion, 116; imjiortant features of 
 the prophecy which do not indicate its date, 117 ft'.; the first gen- 
 eration after Solomon the probable age, — according to historical 
 evidences, 119; Shishak, Hadad and Jereboam, 120; the kingdom 
 divided, 122; the condition of things, 123; the Egyptians and 
 Edomites shed the "innocent blood", 125; the Philistines and 
 Phenicians not mentioned in the records of Shishak's conquest, — 
 the ])olitical events in Joel and .Amos compared. 126; the Phi- 
 
listines, 127; the cultus in our book suits anywhere in the early 
 history, 128; Bunsen's view, 129. 
 II. The different schools of Joel's critics, and the view of Credner 
 and his adherents. Five objections to this view: 1. Want of 
 historical data and the disharmony of those proposed, 131 ff. ; 
 a governing principle necessary, 136; the fourth chapter, 137; 
 2. too great importance attached to Joel's representation of the 
 priesthood, 138; 3. and to the want of any mention of the king, 
 139; 4. and of any mention of foreign worship, 140; 5. a period 
 of prosperity sought. 
 III. The views of Kuenen and others not yet considered. K. places 
 Joel in the beginning of the Exile; his chief support in Jo. 4, 
 1—3 inconsistent and erroneous, 143; — present methods of crit- 
 icism, 144 ff.; — Joel, Habakkuk and Zech. 10—12 associated 
 together by Kuenen, and their reference to the day of Jehovah, 
 147; Joel's style compared with that of Amos, 148; Joel's purpose 
 differs from that of Amos, and from that of Micah and Isaiah, 149; 
 the reign of Uzziah, 150 ff.; the historical data, their scantiness 
 and the probability that Joel's position in the Canon is the correct 
 one, 152—1.54. 
 
 CORRIGENDA. 
 
 Page 15, 1. 2i, for 40 read 38. 
 
 ,, 23, 1. 1, read driven. 
 
 „ 32, 1. 26, for 17 read 15. 
 
 „ 39, 1. 5, for 47 read 57. 
 
 „ 42, 1. 15, for 37 — 39 read 35—37. 
 
 „ GO, 1. 2, for the 2nd. r^2^ read ri: 
 
 „ 60, 1. 2, from below, read otherwise. 
 
 „ 110, 1. 7, read ",r. 
 
Introductory. 
 
 Til is little book has offered the commentators, from 
 the Fathers down to the present time, some puzzling ([ues- 
 tions, for wliich the critics of to-day iind no satisfactory 
 solution. This is not on account of the language, which is 
 flowing and easy, while the meaning of the words is only 
 here and there difticult to understand; but l)ecause the cir- 
 cumst^ances of its composition, the chief object of the pro- 
 phecy, the connection of the different parts and the meaning 
 of some passages have been matters of almost continual 
 dispute. This has all tended to make scholars more doubtful 
 in regard to the age of the book. Bunsen^) locates Joel 
 h(;tween the years 950 and 949 B. C, while others place 
 him differently in every century, indeed in nearly ever}'' 
 lialf century, down to the completion of the second Temple 
 in the year 445, as Duhm, Oort and Merx. The majority 
 of prominent critics since Gredner, however, have held that 
 J((el wrote in the early part of king Joash's reign when 
 the Priest Jehoiada w^as either regent or the king's chii^f 
 counsellor. Merx's interpretation 2) differs greatly from that 
 of most of his predecessors, of whose opinions some are 
 groundless, some little supported, and some also irrefutable. 
 His greatest merit is, that he has brought together in a 
 single volume the most valual)le materials from the early 
 critics and interpreters of Joel down to Calvin, so that one 
 
 1) Gott in dcr Geschichtc, 1, 321 IV. 
 
 2) Die Prophetic des Joel und ihie Ausleger, 1879. 
 
 1 
 
can easily survey the whole field. For Merx's arguments 
 for his peculiar hypothesis are less capable of undergoing 
 a thorough critical test than those of most of his prede- 
 cessors. In the beginning he tells us, that Joel has not 
 yet been understood, whereas it seems to me that in respect to 
 the age of the Prophet, he has greatly increased the previous 
 doubts and difficulties. The present treatise was there- 
 fore chiefly prompted in order to discuss and, if possible, 
 to settle the at present much disputed question, whether 
 Joel wrote before or after the Exile. 
 
 First Part. 
 
 The Contents, Unity and Aim of Joel. 
 
 Chapter I. 
 
 Since the Book of Joel gives us no sure and undisputed 
 marks of the exact age of its composition, the critic usually 
 seeks such evidences by means of an analysis and general 
 statement of the contents and their relation to other recorded 
 historical events. And this method is now rendered unavoid- 
 able since not only has the meaning been questioned, but 
 also the originality and clearness of the Prophet have of 
 late been seriously impeached. 
 
 To interpret the book throughout literally would be 
 impossible, since it would entirely destroy its unity. In 
 every chapter, especially in the first and second, are unmis- 
 takaljly figurative expressions which can not l)e disregarded, 
 nor in the literal sense can they possibly be harmonized 
 with other passages. And further, some of the ligures of 
 speech in each of these two chapters seem irreconcilably to 
 conflict with figures in the other. The perplexing ques- 
 tion is, whether the Prophet had in mind here an army of 
 
— 3 — 
 
 men, or an army of locusts, which left tho land dfsolate. 
 The interpreters have therel'iirc iisiuiilj sou^'ht to explain 
 the second cha[)ter tigiirativcl.v, according to the literal inter- 
 pretation of the first, or else inversely the latter liguratively 
 according to the literal interpretation of Ch. 2, 1 — 11. The 
 one class of interpreters finds a description of an army of 
 locusts in the first chapter, and most of them find in the 
 second a further figurative representation of the same, be- 
 cause 1, ()f. can be understood neither figuratively nor other- 
 wise of an army of men. The other class says: ^% I, 6, can 
 in no wise mean locusts, and therefore 1, 4 must be inter- 
 preted allegorically as one invading army, or better four, 
 the main description of which in the second chapter is in 
 part figuratively to be explained. There are divergences in 
 various directions from both of these methods of inter- 
 pretation. Thus one usunlly seeks to avoid difficulties. 
 Other unmistakably tigurative -expressions in both of these 
 chapters are Ijv some littUi noticed, or entirely unnoticed, 
 as 1, IS. 20 and 2, 10. 11, which can be understood liter- 
 ally with reference to an army neither of men nor of locusts. 
 Both ancient and modern interpreters, Jews as well as 
 Christians, have sought to escape these perplexing difficul- 
 ties by adopting an allegorical interpretation of the first 
 half of our book, or, as far as possible, of the whole. All 
 is figurative, and the description of the locusts is an alle- 
 gorical prophecy of armies, which shall invade and devastate 
 the land. As to just which armies are meant the allegorists 
 have not uniformil}' agreed. Hengstenberg understands the 
 four names of locusts to apply to the Assyrians together 
 with the Chaldeans, the Persians, the Creeks and the 
 Humans. A-W<>i*ding to this interpretation Joel must have 
 written before the first Assyrian invasion, concerning which 
 lie warns the people. Yet this interpretation is chiefly founded, 
 so far as the age of the book is concerned, upon the as- 
 
 1* 
 
sumption, that the Minor Prophets stand in strictly chrono- 
 logical order in the Cauon, And indeed this assumption 
 should not be underestimated; for although it Avould not 
 be a proof against strongly conflicting arguments, yet it can 
 not be denied that the collectors of the Canon • attempted 
 to arrange these books according to their respective ages, 
 and that they had excellent, although by no means in- 
 fallible, information, either oral traditions or historical re- 
 cords, or both, whose importance is now undervalued, just 
 as it has hitherto often been exaggerated. But this fact, 
 that the Minor Prophets are for the most part chronologi- 
 cally arranged in the Canon becomes a powerful argument 
 of refutation, as soon as it is attempted to set one of the 
 earlier of these books after the Exile, as some, on nearly 
 every convenient occasion, arbitrarily, indeed almost vio- 
 lently do. 
 
 If one gives more careful attention to the allegorical 
 interpretation of Joel, which in itself would not be impossible, 
 providing other circumstances did not forbid it, it appears 
 to be a refuge for its defenders from that which seemed 
 otherwise inexplicable. Against the allegorical, and against 
 every prophetic, interpretation of Chs. 1 — 2, 16, a few phrases 
 excepted, the following arguments may be considered valid: 
 1. The words, "13.1 n«T nrj^nn, "has this (such a thing) 
 been in your days, or in the days of your fathers"? 1, 2, 
 fix the attention of the hearers at once upon something 
 extraordinary, which, if no longer exactly present, is well 
 known and on account of its rarity and importance is worthy 
 of being handed down to children's children. Here is not 
 the slightest indication of a future event. 2. Then follows 
 1, 4 — 2, 10: a) a highly rhetorical description of a terrible 
 devastation of the land by locusts, 1, 4 — 20, and there- 
 upon b) a further description either of a pillaging army, 
 or more proljaljly of the same army of locusts with an 
 
— 5 — 
 
 inviision and jiluiidcring- of the city of Jerusalpm constaiitl}' 
 so fresh and painfully in the memory that it gives color 
 somewhat to the description. 
 
 8. Since tliis description, extending nearly throughout 
 the lirst half of the l)ook is, with few exceptions, in past 
 time, it should he interpreted prophetically only as a last 
 resort. The ([uestion here is not, as Hengstenherg seems 
 U> suppose, whether we can locate this calamity in history — 
 many historical events can not be exactly located, — but 
 whether or not this description in past time, 1 — 2, IG. 
 can possibly refer to the future. The arguments for such 
 an interpretiition are either wanting or very weak. On the 
 contrary the following may be offered : a) The few verbs in 
 the future tense, most of them in 2, 3 — 9, serve simply 
 to render the description of past events lively and present, 
 and can apply to any time which the context may demand. 
 1») AVhile prophecies may indeed begin with pure preterites, 
 i. e., not praet. vav cousec, there usually stands lirst an 
 exclamatory particle, a present participle or an expression 
 in tlie future in order to direct the attention to the future 
 before the prophecy itself begins. Compare Ob, 2; Is. 28, IG; 
 Ez. 25, 7, where nan, as a particle of asseveration, precedes 
 tlie ]»raet. proph.^) Prophecies frequently begin with nan 
 followed by a present participle, as "ir^'i nbtj "^zzn, Jo. 2, 19. 
 So this expression and the following futures, as also certain 
 verbs in the following verses, clearly point to the future 
 and show, as we shall further see (pp. 12 f.), that the 
 praeterita vav consec. in 2, 18 — 21 should be understood 
 
 1) Nearly related to tliis is tlic use of tlic particles of asseveration 
 ^I iind J in Arabic. Conip. Wright's (irani. II. 19. a. und ^G. ^j 
 ofcurs osi)eciiilly in the Koran very similarly to nsn in the (Md 
 Testanicnt before prophetical and other exi>ressions, whoso credibility 
 init,'ht otherwise be (luestioned. When j follows ^^ the correctness of 
 tile thin*,' asst-rted is still better assured against possible doubts. 
 
— 6 — 
 
 prophetically. But to begiu with preterites and continue 
 with the same through twenty or thirty verses, when the 
 future is constantly in view, occurs exceedingly seldom, if 
 indeed at all. Hengstenberg's assumption that "we are 
 upon prophetic gTOund" in the first part of the book is no 
 proof to the contrary, until there has been some indication shown 
 in the text, that we have reached such ground. It is in 
 vain to point us to Ch. 4, which probably every one in- 
 terprets prophetically. This chapter refers especially to the 
 future judgment of the nations; but the preterites, the praet- 
 erita vav consec. and those in vs. 13 ff. excepted, undoubt- 
 edly describe past events. And if the preterites in these 
 verses are to be understood prophetically, like the somewhat 
 similar ones in 2, 22 ff'., particularly in v. 24, it is only 
 because we have in both these cases, without doubt reached 
 prophetic ground. There remain now only the preterites 
 in 2, 10. 11a, which point back to ''the day of Jehovah" in 
 vs. 1 — 2a, and stand in close connection with v. lib, where 
 that day is mentioned again as ''great and terrible". And 
 the striking similarity between 2, 10. 1 1 and 3, 3, 4; 4, 14 — 16a 
 proves the near relation of these passages. We shall have 
 occasion further on to see, that "the day of Jehovah" here 
 is in the future. 
 
 4. While it w(juld l)e entirely unusual and even peculiar 
 to begin a prophecy in forms of the past and at the same 
 time to call upon the memory of -the hearers or readers to 
 witness to the truth of the narration as in 1, 2. 3, when 
 the future is meant, it would be quite awkward and almost un- 
 heard of to begin one without some historical basis or pre- 
 sent motive. The prophecy, like the sermon in general, 
 applies especially to the condition of the hearers, indeed, 
 has its origin in their material and moral necessities, and 
 coiitinu(^s with encouragement and promises, or with ad- 
 monitions, warnings and even theatenings of punishnieiit. 
 
- 7 — 
 
 But to interpret the first half of our book as a prophec}', 
 without first indicating some present cause for the fearful 
 devastation threatened, would be to neglect every satisfactory 
 inducement to gain the attention of the hearers and every 
 motive to the desired fasting and repentance, 1, 13. 14; 
 2, 12 If., and to render the prophecy ineffective and rather 
 meaningless, lint it appears that tlie people heard and 
 heeded the Proi)het, or he had the assurance that they soon 
 would do it, 2, 17. 
 
 5. The objections made to the figurative interpretation 
 of "^ia, 1, 6, and ay, 2, 2, and to other expressions in 2, 2 — 9 
 as referring to the locusts, seem to me rather captious. 
 How tiien could b'^n, 2, 11. 25, be applied to the locusts, 
 as it assuredly is? Must the metaphor even in highly figur- 
 ative language l)e so restricted that an army of locusts shall 
 not be called simply an army, a people, a nation? How 
 then would poetry be possible? Hiivernick^) rightly supposed. 
 
 that -lEDia i^si D^sy ^ia, 1, 6, and u'^:^S'\ nn nr, 
 
 2, 2, siiow the identity of lia and ny. Comp. Prv. 30, 25 f. 
 with b"^n, 2, 11. 25. Yet this by no means proves, as 
 Hiivcrnick supposed, that these words refer to men and that 
 therefore the entire description is an allegory; but rather 
 being in a figurative description of a devastation by locusts, 
 they must refer to the latter. And further, if ""la and 07 
 really referred to an army of soldiers, Joel could scarcely' 
 have said: "His teeth are like the teeth of a lion", 1, (5, and 
 niuch less: "It is like a mighty people arrayed for battle", 
 2, 5, or : "They run like valiant men, like warriors they climb 
 the wall", etc. An army is like an army, or soldiers are like 
 men of war, would be rather ridiculous expressions even in 
 figurative language. 
 
 6. When Heugstenberg^) says: "Th(^ presupposed re- 
 
 1) Einloituiifj in das alte Tostainent., II. 
 
 2) ('liristnloj,'ie ties Alton 'I't'stanionts. 2. Autl. I. :?3. 1 11'. 
 
— 8 — 
 
 pentance belongs to the future", he runs counter to every 
 clear meaning of the words. For Joel could not have chosen 
 more suitable expressions than his forcible imperatives, if 
 he had earnestly striven to urge the people immediately to 
 repentance. Again says Hengstenberg:^) ''Outside of the 
 devastation by the locusts there is not the slightest trace of 
 another judgment". But according to Jo. 2, 20 these 
 devastators of the land, i. e., the hostile armies (Heugstenberg) 
 perish in two different seas and in the desert, a fate which 
 met none of the supposed armies, much less all four of 
 them; while Joel indicates, that these enemies should after- 
 wards be gathered at Jerusalem to be destroyed by Jehovah. 
 Are these not very different events and circumstances? 
 
 7. If the four kinds of locusts, 1, 4; 2, 25, are so many 
 invading armies, then not the Greeks but the Romans, as 
 Heugstenberg observed,^) must be the last army, which 
 should drive out and exterminate the Jews, as the locusts 
 in our book completely devour the nourishment of man and 
 beast. But when, according to these interpreters, did the 
 return, which Jo. 4, 1 mentions, take place after the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem by the Romans? And again, when 
 did the Persians, one of the four amiies, conquer Judah or 
 plunder Jerusalem? But Hilgenfeld^) will apply the allegory 
 to the four Persian armies, that marched through the land 
 against the Egyptians between 525 and 455 B. C. Yet aside 
 from other political relations, which make that age an im- 
 possible one for Joel, as we shall yet see, Hilgenfeld does 
 not infoim us, why the Persians so cruell}^ treated this 
 harmless little colony of their subjects, and four times in 
 
 1) Christologie, I. 345. 
 
 2) (!hristol()g'ie, I. 370 f. 
 
 3) Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftl. Tlie()l()<ne, IX. S. 412 t\'. 
 
— 9 — 
 
 succession, or h<t\v the Jerusalem of that da} lying, for the 
 most part, in waste and without walls, answers to Joel's 
 description. (!omp. Jo. 2, 9. 
 
 Hengstenberg's ^) ohjection, that locusts never attack a 
 city in the way Joel describes, can have little weight; because 
 reports from various eye-witnesses of different dates confirm 
 a similar pressing in and through the cities and houses, 
 where the locust-armies pass. On the other hand tliis can not 
 be an army of soldiers; for such a description of men breaking 
 in and rushing through the city, could not have failed to 
 mention pillaging and bloodshed. And here is neither mention 
 of injury to the wall nor of a plundering of the city and 
 'i'emple, both of which notably took place by the hands of 
 the (Jhaldeans and the llonians. 
 
 8. As opposed to those who insist that "the day oi" 
 Jehovah", 1, 15; 2, 2. 11, applies in part to the time of the 
 Prophet, that the calamity, which he descri])es, was the 
 beginning of that day, (Credner, Ewald, Hitzig, Keil), I hold 
 with Hiivernick, that that day here refers entirely to the 
 future. (Grammatically the expression, nin"' ui"^ l^Tj? "^S, could 
 apply to the present; but the fact that substantially the 
 same expression in 3, 4; 4, 14 admittedly refers to the future 
 judgment, proves that Joel must have had the same in view 
 in the former passages, that is, he used this exjjressioii 
 prophetically. But this does not necessitate the conclusion, 
 that the entire description of the locusts points to a future 
 calamity, as the allegorists assume. ''The day of Jehovah" 
 in the Old Testament particularly when it is said: "It is 
 nigh," i. c, in a threatening manner, is always future. Tlie 
 allegorists find "the day of Jehovah" in a future calamity, 
 or rather divide it into several after the four kinds of locusts. 
 'IMiat is. Joel bad a \isiun of a devastation nf the land l>y 
 
 1) Christologit". 1. .^90 f. 
 
— 10 — 
 
 locusts, which does not occur iu his time or generation, but 
 in the distant future, and the locusts are after all not locusts, 
 hut sokliers, which devastate the land, — rather a complex 
 kind of typology, repeating itself. The anti-type is type to 
 another anti-type. How could a vision of a future desolation 
 of the land by an army of locusts, which turns out to he 
 an army or armies of men, possibly be a sign of ''the fearful 
 day of Jehovah", which the hearers or readers could under- 
 stand without further explanation? The desolation itself 
 by real locusts, which has every sign of being present in 
 the description, would be an easih'^ conceivable sign of another 
 trying ordeal. Morover, the citations. Is. 13, 6; Ez. 30, 2, 
 usually employed to show that Joel's description is prophetic, 
 want the force of conviction. For the context of the former 
 citation clearly applies to the future, and the very form of 
 the latter shows that it is prophetic. With Joel it is quite 
 different. The whole context is in past time; while we 
 know on the other hand that he refers to the future in 1, 15, 
 because he says, "the day" is near, not present, and he 
 seems to cite the mournful state of things in v. 16 as a 
 sign of its approach ; but we also know that that momentous 
 occasion is in the indefinite future, because he afterwards 
 connects it with the judgment upon all nations, 3, 4; 4, 14, 
 where the context is unmistakably future. Thus in the 
 midst of a sermon based upon the deplorable condition of 
 things calling the people to repentance with almost threaten- 
 ing admonitions, he suddenly points to the future: "Alas 
 for the day! for the day of Jehovah is near". Such rhetor- 
 ical and exclamatory expressions are common in all languages. 
 The day of Jehovah was truly i)resent in the plague of 
 locusts, yet not as the beginning of the last judgment 
 (Ewald, Hitzig, et al.), but this judgment upon Judali in 
 comparison with that one tt) come upon all nations is only a 
 signilicant omen of the hitter. Thus the proclamation of "tln' 
 
— 11 — 
 
 day of Jehovali" in tlm fonuer half of the book points to 
 the lattei- lialf, where it is more fully desuribed, and also 
 shows the unity of the book. 
 
 Because these references in tlie early part of the book 
 to expressions in the latter half have been so little heeded, 
 critics have often failed to recognize the uuity of the pro- 
 |)hecy; and some (Kwald,^) Delitzsch^) et al.) liave felt 
 themselves obliged to bridge over the supposed break be- 
 tween the two halves by intervening remarks, 2, 17 — 18 
 (or some: 18 — 19), where the Prophet ceased to speak and 
 waited for the asseml)ly to repent, while the priests i)ra3ed 
 V, 17; whereupon Jehovah answered their petition, vs. 20 ff. 
 Ewald supposed that it rained in the meantime, wliich was 
 the sign of returning fruitfulness of the soil, which Joel 
 could then promise, liut if the interpretation already given 
 lie correct, namely, that the plague of locusts was a present 
 event and its descrii)tion gives only figurative hints of a 
 ])i('vions hostile invasion, ami that Joel recognized in these 
 an omen of the judgment, not only of his own, but of all 
 peojile, with the most of which the above critics agree, 
 then the supjiosed break in the discourse would not only 
 have been unnatural, but awkward and a i)ositive hindrance 
 to the main ol)ject in view. 
 
 It Avas therefore not without cause, that (Jraet/,^) 
 |)rotested against this mechanical division of the discourse 
 just where the increasing interest positively forbids it. After 
 the Projiliet had clearly indicated, that he meant re])entan('e 
 of the heart and not merely the rending of garments, which 
 seems to have been the custom during the great calamity, 
 he calls upon the peojde once more to humble themselves 
 
 1) Die Propliotcn dcs Alton Bundos. 2. Aus<j. 1. lOf) 1". 
 
 2) In Riuk'lb. u. ({u.'i-'s Zeitscliria, 1851, S. .WG IF. 
 
 .S) Der einht'itliclu! Cliiiniktfr .Icr ri()|.li<'tie .Iiu'ls, 1H73. 
 
— 12 — 
 
 before Jehovah, and not to be misunderstood, he names the 
 different ages and classes, 2, 12 — 16. 
 
 But it is not so certain as is sometimes supposed, that 
 the people proceeded directly after the suggestion in 1, 13 f. to 
 the Temple, — that would be a little hurried in the midst of 
 a spirited discourse. Yet we may possibly have an assembly 
 before us. It is also probable that Joel here presupposes 
 what shall soon take place: ''The priests, the servants of 
 Jehovah, shall (not let them, as many translate) weep be- 
 tween the porch and the altar . . . and shall say," etc. We 
 might also suppose that this zealous prophet during, and, 
 perhaps before the plague, had often itinerated the land call- 
 ing the people to repentance, that this little book is one, 
 or contains the substance of more than one prophecy, and 
 that its composition was prompted l)y the desire to keep 
 the people in remembrance of the calamity, which they had 
 experienced as an omen of the more terrible judgment to 
 come. Conjecture what we may, there is no positive proof, 
 whether or not exactly this book was ever delivered as a 
 discourse in the court of the Temple or even in Jerusalem, 
 nor that it contains the Prophet's ''activity as a whole" 
 (Hiivernick). It would seem venturesome even to assume, 
 that a proi)het so poetically and rhetorically endowed, should 
 conline his activity to the few years during the plague. 
 Tlie form of address, however, renders it highly i)robable 
 that this is a discourse held in Jerusalem, and if 2, 1 7 de- 
 scribes what the author sees, of course he was in an assem- 
 bly in the court of the Temple. For our purpose this view 
 may be accepted as conclusive. Yet we can at most conclude 
 with certainty that Jo. 2, 17 ff. either Avitnesses to an 
 assembly in the court of the Temple, or presui)poses one 
 soon to take place, in which the priests earnestl}' pray for 
 the people. And the penitence of this assembly furnished 
 him sufficient grotind to answer bis suggested "Who 
 
— 13 -^ 
 
 kiiowetir"? 2, 14, with the certainty of a praeter. propb., 
 as 1 uiiderstaiul the fiitiira vav cuusec. in vs. IH. 19 a: "And 
 Jehovah will (not as an exercise of the will, but simply future) 
 be jealous fur His land, He will spare His people and will 
 answer and will say unto His people: Behold I send (not 
 have sent, as some render it) you corn . . . and I will no 
 more make you a reproach among the heathen," continuinfJ: 
 the promises to the end of the third chapter.^) 
 
 Thus with Merx (p. 8) I understand the verbs in 2, 18. 10 
 (beginning of the verse) as futures, without supporting him 
 in regarding them, contrary to the punctuation, as jussives. 
 Wiinsche,-) who with Credner and others explains them as 
 Int. vav consec, admits that they might be rendered as praet. 
 pnijdi.' He renders them in the past apparently to combat 
 the allegorists, who will push every tbing possible into the 
 future. But this is unnecessary as there are sufficient other 
 refutory arguments against their interpretation. And it is 
 also incorrect; tor since the foregoing verbs are plainly fut- 
 ures, or at most presents, and that which immediately 
 follows i)asses ])y means of '1^1 nb© iDpn^ v. 19, into proph- 
 ecy, these fut. vav consec. should certainly be regarded 
 as praeterita propb. If one regard this as arbitrary, these 
 verbs may be understood as so-called futura exacta. Or if 
 the verbs in v. 17 be considered as a continuation of tht' 
 foregoing Imperatives, they must nevertheless, from their 
 nature and the context, point to future events, and in 
 no case be referred to the past; which is all that is here in- 
 sisted upon. Then no one will feel obliged violently to rend 
 this proithecy, which is a logical unity, asunder exactly in 
 the middle. 
 
 1) It will liavc been observed that the citations are according to 
 the Hebrew text, wliicli ^'ives five verses to Cli. 3. 
 
 2) Die WeissaKunfren des Proi.lietcn Joel, 187:^. S. 205— 20«. 
 
 3) Sec Gesen. — Kautzsch's (iram. 129, 2, b. 
 
— 14 — 
 
 As I analyse the contents of the book, the first main 
 section ends with Ch. 3. This section contains three 
 minor sections: 1) Ch. 1 — 2, 16, a description of the de- 
 vastation of the land by locusts and drought with references 
 to ''the day of Jehovah" and to fasting and repentance. 
 2) Ch. 2, 17 — 27, the appearance of the priests at prayer 
 in the Temple and the outward blessings following. 3) Ch. 3, 
 the outpouring of the Spirit accompanied by signs and the 
 results of the same. Only the first minor section needs 
 further analj^sis, as follows: a. Ch. 1, 4 — 12, the devastation 
 of the land by locusts; b. vs. 13 — 20: a call to repentance 
 and fasting in view of the coming day of Jehovah, vs. 13 — 15, 
 before which the present drought is a warning, vs. 16 — 20; 
 and c. Ch. 2, 1 — 16 : in which is a highly figurative represen- 
 tation of the locusts, pressing their way unhindered through 
 the city, such as is frequently known in the East, in which 
 there seem to be hints of a ravaging army, 2, 2 b — 9 ; then 
 vs. 1 — 2 a and 10 — 16 give another proclamation of the day 
 of Jehovah with signs in the heavens and on earth and a 
 more urgent call to repentance and fasting. As already 
 observed, vs. 10—11 point unmistakably to the time when 
 the Spirit shall be poured out, and to the judgment of all 
 nations, 3, 4; 4, 15. These verses describe, therefore, 
 neither a storm (Credner), nor have we here signs accom- 
 panying a siege and the taking of the city by an army 
 (Hengstenberg) ; nor need we assume an earthquake here, as 
 some do. Wiinsche (p. 1 78) rightly remarks, that the sudden 
 change from the singular to the plural, v. 10, proves the 
 appearance of a new moment here. The suffix of T'lBb 
 points back to nin'' oi'^, v. 1. That the same suffix occurs 
 repeatedly in the intermediate passages and in v. 11 (1^'^n) 
 referring to the army of locusts, only shows how difficult 
 it sometimes is to distinguish between parallel figures 
 in metaphorical and syml)olical language. Of course the 
 
— 15 — 
 
 alh'gurists take advaiitiigi' of such ligurative language. But 
 they ought first to show how such signs of nature with some 
 probability should occur at the same time with the destruc- 
 tion of a city, and in which of the conquests of Judea like 
 phenomena appeared. To meet the demands of the allegory 
 completely they should have accompanied all four of the con- 
 (juestsof Judea according to the four names of locusts. Hengsten- 
 berg^) is reminded of the destruction of Jerusalem by the 
 Romans and cites Josephus-) as evidence. But were it certain 
 that Josephus did not exaggerate the phenomena, which 
 then occurred, the event would still be incompatible with 
 Joel's account. For according to Jo. 4, 9 — 16 a the people 
 who shall assemble at Jerusalem shall be destroyed, and 
 apparently in connection with the appearance of these signs, 
 while the inhabitants of Zion shall be spared, 3, 5; 4, 17. 
 The second main section of the book is Ch. 4. Verses 
 1 — 3 announce the restoration of Israel, and vs. — 16a the 
 assembling of all nations to judgment and destructive retri- 
 bution before Jehovah, who will also protect his own people — 
 those who call ui)on him, 3, 5, — upon Zion 16b — 17. 
 Vs. 4 — 8 constitute a parenthesis, in which particular enemies 
 are specified, because they have robbed the Temple and sold 
 the children of Judah into slavery, to which, with vs. 18 — 21, 
 the discussion will return. (8ee pp. 40 ff.). 
 
 The contents and connection of these different sections 
 and minor sections admit only of very slight breaks as turn- 
 ing points in the earnest, enthusiastic discourse. But there 
 is nowhere a real pause, and certainly none in 2, 16—20. 
 We have he^'e no puzzling problem proposed, which should 
 HMiuire patient tliouglit to solve it, but a short, lively rehearsal 
 of the niounilui circumstances as a sign and fearful I'ore- 
 
 1) Christologie. I. 300 f. 
 
 2) De bell. Jud. 4, 4. §. 5; 6, 5, §. 3. 
 
— 16 — 
 
 boding of a worse judgment; so that neither speaker nor 
 audience could here pause, all the less because it had been 
 announced, that ''the great and terrible day of Jehovah" 
 was near! The results of that dreadful ordeal must be 
 announced immediately and follow as a logical necessity of 
 the discourse, if only in the form of promises. And again, 
 after the protection from enemies, the fruitfulness of the 
 soil and the removal of the plague were promised, the 
 spiritual blessing logically and almost necessarily follows, 
 particularly , since this is an assembly of pious worshippers 
 resting their hope upon the Prophet's promised blessings, 
 of which the material ones above mentioned, can not be at 
 once realized. Thus the first three chapters, whose contents 
 have already been mentioned, constitute a single unbroken 
 discourse, which seems at lirst sight complete in itself. 
 But it is not complete, for we have already in 2, 2 — 9. 17 — 19 
 hints of the existing enemies, and of the announcement of 
 the day of Jehovah, 1, 15; 2, 11, which are further noticed 
 in Ch. 4. Neither can Ch. 4, wliich declares that these 
 enemies shall be brought to judgment and announces resto- 
 ration and security to Israel, be separated from the foregoing, 
 to which it clearly makes reference. Hence Graetz aptly 
 cites the parallel passages between tliis and the foregoing 
 chapters to prove the unity of Joel. And because the ene- 
 mies here mentioned remained hostile and threatening, 2, 
 17 — 19, the discourse could not iittiugly close without the 
 l)r()mise of the restoration of Israel's prosperity and security 
 on the one hand and the punishment of the enemies of his 
 peuple on the other. 
 
 But this interesting little book and prophecy has re- 
 cently been considered a product of lancy and a confusion 
 of ideas. When Graetz (|uestions Joel's earnestness in regard 
 to fasting and repentance, one is almost led to question the 
 earnestness of Graetz. But when Mcrx, following Oort, 
 
17 — 
 
 decliirKS,^) that Joel has neither ;i clear mcimiii;^ iinr jirecisiuu, 
 one must at least cousider Imu' liu arrives at such a con- 
 elusi(tii. He (iiids neither the literal nur the allegorical 
 inter})retatiun possible, but Joel offers us an awkward, iu- 
 consistant coml)ination oi' passages from his predecessors. 
 He says: ''Interi)ret and analyse as one will, there appears 
 no clearness" (p. 16). Before entering properly upon the 
 time of composition, it will be necessary thoroughly to test 
 the views of Merx, as chiefly representing the conclusions of 
 the newest school of critics, in order to establish Joel's origi- 
 nality and further to defend the unity of his i)rophecy. 
 For this pur])osi' tlif foregoing analysis will be useful. 
 
 Jiike the defenders of the allegorical interpretation, 
 Merx can not conceive how '"the day of Jeh(jvab" in the 
 lirst and second chapters can apply to any other time than 
 tliat of the desolation of the land, i. e., to the future, as 
 he understands it, without applying the whole book to the 
 future, or else making it meaningless (See pp. 5 f. 12 f.). Yet 
 it has been shown tliat there is nothing unnatural or illogical 
 in such an interi)retation. On the contrary, the references 
 to the future in these two chapters prepare the way nicely 
 for tiu^ further depicting of the scenes of that day, to which 
 the enthusiastic discourse must soon lead. And why not? 
 F<)r painful as the present condition of things was, "'t In- 
 day of Jehovah" was, in the opinion of the Prophet, far more 
 important. And he brings it into his descri|»tion of the plague 
 very skilfully, hy regarding the latter as an omen of that 
 <lay, which is near, and as destruction from the Almighty, 
 
 1, 15. The same is twice repeated in the further description, 
 each time with I'uller details in regard to its oniinousness. 
 
 2, 1 — 2a. 10 — 11. And thus oin^ sees that the declaration 
 of "the day of Jehovah", as it ai)pears in the fonith chapter. 
 
 I) Die Proplictio des Joel uml ilire Auslef,'cr, S. 14 fV. 
 
 2 
 
— 18 — 
 
 was presupposed in the beginning of the prophecy as its 
 chief purpose. And certain other expressions, repeated in 
 connection with ''the day of Jehovah", confirm this view, 
 as: ''Zion", "my holy Mountain", 2, 1, and ''Zion", 2, 16; 
 3, 5, which shall remain an impregnable fortress of strength 
 as the dwelling of Jehovah and His rescued people, 4, 16. 
 17. 21, after all the concisions of heaven and earth, which 
 shall take place on that day, 2, 10. 11; 3, 3 — 4; 4, 15—16. 
 IJut this is not a generalization of the picture of desolation 
 by the locusts so as to represent "the temble day of Je- 
 hovah" (Hitzig, Wiinsche) ; for they are very different things 
 ;iud are related to each other only as type and anti-type. 
 
 Merx takes exception also to the kinds of locusts, which 
 Joel mentions in 1, 4, And I confess myself unable to explain 
 □Ta, ri^nx, pb^ and biprj beyond doubt; nor have I seen 
 a satisfactory explanation. Creduer's^) attempt is somewhat 
 incomplete as a whole and in detail. That the order of the 
 names in 2, 25 is changed, appears suspicious, if one adopts 
 his view, that oTa is the specific name and the other three 
 are metamorphoses; to which Credner is obliged to mar- 
 shal in nia from Nah. 3, 17 to describe the state before 
 the first metamorphosis — why this one was omitted is not 
 so clear, although nT5 takes its place in 1 , 4 — of this 
 single species of army locusts, which in itself appears to l)e 
 too artificial. Credner thinks that because n3"ii< is the general 
 name for locusts in any state, it can therefore mean any 
 particular state of locusts, e. g., the first metamorphosis. 
 A strange sort of /reasoning! His conclusions in respect to 
 the other names, except pb;^, are equally unsatisfactory. 
 For only one of the four names is specifically used, and 
 this one is not always so employed, viz., nans, which is 
 derived from rai, and seems to have been applied to the 
 
 1) Der Prophet Juol iibcraetzt uiid orkljirt, 1831. S, 295 ft'. 
 
— 19 — 
 
 locusts ou account ol' the size ur streiigth ut' the one or 
 more species so named, or yet more probably ou account 
 (if their muUitude. And il' nais is sometimes a specific 
 name — anil neither of the others has the probability ac- 
 cordinj< to linguistic usage (as against Credner) — from 
 uiiicli the other three might mark metamorphoses, such is 
 not the case in this book. For in that case it should stand 
 lirst in 1, 4, where the order is exact. That is, the species 
 must precede the metamorphosis. The other names describe 
 characteristics of these insects, which are too similar to one 
 another to be clearly distinguished, where the context lends 
 no further aid. ^) 'J'herefore, say the allegorists ou the other 
 hand, these names are used poetically for military trains 
 and not scientihcally. And in their favor is the fact, that 
 probably formerly even as now, among several existing 
 species, whose names are not everywhere the same, there is 
 only one species of army locusts. Jiut oji the contrary the 
 number of hostile armies, which in that case must all have 
 come from the North ("'pBJjn 2, 20), is not always reck- 
 oned as exactly four, nor the same ones by all this class 
 of interpreters. Joel should certainly have l)een more exact, 
 inasmuch as he mentions these names twice, if he would 
 teach the reader concerning the future. '*An allegory", 
 says Delitzsch truly, ''must, by signilicant hints, make itself 
 unmistakabl}' recognized as such. Where these are wanting, 
 its assumption is lU'bitrary."^) 
 
 Hitzig understands the names of tlut locusts as simply 
 poetic, as also Keil, who rightly thinks: the characteristics 
 indicated by these names can be elt'ai'ly distinguished neither 
 
 1) The same is also true of the five other names of locusts: aa. 
 35n, bsnn. tsrbo ami b:ib:i, which occur in the O. Testament. 
 
 2) Die Kud.'il.. u. iJucr.'s Zeitschrift, 1851. S. 309. 
 
 2* 
 
— 20 — 
 
 lexicographically nor by consistent usage; ^) and the mean- 
 ing is only, "one army of locusts after another had en- 
 tered the land and eaten up its fruits". Yet it would be 
 peculiar, if the Hebrews had several different names for the 
 same thing without intending any distinction between them 
 (Wiinsche). That the names indicate different metamor- 
 phoses (Credner), may therefore be coiTect; but the inexact 
 differences of meaning between them and their generally 
 poetical usage afford us insufficient support for such a hypoth- 
 esis; which, aside from its incompleteness and incongruity, 
 Credner's attempt itself best shows. But such support and 
 confirmation are quite necessary, since there is nowhere else 
 in the Old Testament so full a description of an army of 
 locusts to confirm it, as the names also are nowhere else 
 used with even so much precision as here. All this indi- 
 cates that the names are not scientifically employed by Joel, 
 but not that they were not common names among the 
 Hebrews. For truly we may not conclude, that the Prophet 
 stooped to teach us Natural History (Hengstenberg) ; but 
 rather, therefore, may we expect of him, as of every one 
 not scientifically informed, the usual names of the land, be 
 they those of a species or of the metamorphoses of a species. 
 Finally, in favor of the single species of army locusts and 
 the single army witnesses the passage, 2, 20, where "'2iS2stn 
 can only be a collective name, because the following suffixes 
 are all in the singular, as also ib^n, 2, 11; ib'^n, 2, 25; 
 ■>ia, 1, (i; oy, 2, 2, are only collective terms for the single 
 army. 
 
 That Joel's description of the desolation of the land 
 and the extreme want of man and beast Ijrought al)out by 
 the locusts and drought is true to the reality of such plagues. 
 
 1) Instructive in this connection is the passage, Dent. 28, 38, 
 where the verh bon denotes the action o! the locust called nsix. 
 
— 21 — 
 
 is confirmod hy various orioiital travellers and bj residents 
 in Pak'stinc. who have witnessed them.^) Sufficient fur the 
 present purpose will l)e a few sentences from a description^) 
 of the plague of locusts in the Summer of 1865, which 
 indicates the utter desolation of the land after these avari- 
 cious insects had entered it. The}' devoured every trace of 
 vegetation in a few days, so that the country bore the as- 
 pect of A\'inter and the orange-trees and vineyards were, in 
 the opinion of those who had previously witnessed such 
 l)Iiigues, rendered unfruitful for six or seven years to come. 
 They pressed straight forward like marching soldiers and 
 found tlieir way into the houses through every opening, so 
 that the inlial)itants could do nothing l)ut attempt to ward 
 ofif the hopping, tlying multitudes of insects. They perish- 
 ed finally in the Sea of Tiberias and in the Jordan, so 
 that in the month of August the shores of the Dead Sea 
 were lined with them three or four feet tliick, which the 
 waves had thrown out. ''Read," says the writer, "the first 
 and second chapters of Joel and you have a complete de- 
 scription of this frightful spectacle We can com- 
 
 ])reliend the despair of the Egyptians in the time of Moses''. 
 Tlien the drought is mentioned, which is a natural conse- 
 ([uence of the destruction of the vegetation, and the attend- 
 ing plague among the herds, ^) and how the people suffered 
 for want of food and water, although they received aid from 
 other lands. In a later letter"*) the same writer gives an 
 int*>resting account of the three metamorphoses, which tliis 
 
 1) Comp. Robinson, Bibl. Kes. in Palestine, as also tlie works 
 of Niebuhr, Shaw and others. 
 
 2) By tile tlau^^'hter of the late Bishoii Gobat of Ji-nisalt'in, 
 written from Xazaretli in "Die Neue Evantjel. Kirclirnzoitiiii;:". .Ian. 
 27, 186G. 
 
 3) One is rnnindeil of .Tuol 1. 17—20. 
 
 4) In the .-aiiif imiiilicr of "l>ie Nene Evan;,'. Kireln-nz." 
 
— 22 — 
 
 single sp(?cies of army locusts imdervveiit in a short time. 
 This supports the view that Jo. 1,4 mentions only one 
 species, hut militates effectually against Creel ner's argument, 
 that the metamorphoses continued into the second year, as 
 he explains □'^Dlijn, 2, 25. This plural, not dual, form can 
 he hetter explained with Hitzig, who applies it to the years 
 of want, which followed the plague. Or Joel may refer to 
 the last of several successive yearly plagues. 
 
 I also cite a few sentences, in part verbally, from a 
 letter recently received from J. L. Schneller in Jerusalem, 
 who has resided in, and frequently journeyed in all directions 
 through, Palestine for some thirty years. Out of "twenty- 
 four" kinds ^) of locusts, with which he is acquainted, there 
 is only one species of army locusts, which "comes from the 
 North-east or East in the end of April, hut mostly in May, 
 or yet in June", — one is naturally reminded here of ''SiDSZn, 
 Jo. 2, 20, which gives the exegetes so much trouble, while 
 many deny that the locusts ever come from the North-east 
 or East into Palestine. The araiy of locusts is "often 
 several hours long and wide and several hundred feet deep. 
 These billions of insects darken the sky", while they pro- 
 duce a rumbling noise by rubbing their wings with their 
 hindmost legs. "The people think the day of judgment must 
 be at hand. All kinds of vegetation even to the tenderer 
 bark on the trees and the roots is soon eaten up. Trade 
 of all kinds ceases. Whole families leave their houses and 
 homes in despair." Further: "If there is an east-wind, the 
 locusts are driven by this into the Mediterranc^an Sea, where 
 they receive the reward of the evil they have done. If 
 the wind turns in the opposite direction, the}' are then 
 
 1) Of course "kinds" liere can scarc(sly nioan upecies scientif- 
 ically understood. Yet J saw twelve or tliirtecn kinds in Herr 
 iSclineller's collection in Jerusalem last Wjirinj^-, the most of which 
 are certainly real si)ecics and am(tn<,'' them the army locust. 
 
— 23 - 
 
 priviui towards the Eiist. But thej- lay under tlie stones 
 millions of eggs, from which the .young ones eat the tender 
 grass which, in the meantime, has sprung up. The plaguf 
 always lasts three or four years." 
 
 If we sup])ose that thre(! or four such years had flapsed 
 during the plague with lirst the sudden alarm and then 
 the continued misery, which it brought to the peo])le, we 
 have th(( mournful event,') from which the highly ligurativc 
 ])ortraiture hy an enthusiastic prophet like Joel could have 
 oi-iginated, and especially if we consider, that his military 
 ligui-(?s may have been suggested by the yet fresh remem- 
 brance of a destructive invasion by an enraged and plundering 
 army of men.^) 
 
 It is well known that the army locusts frequently lay their 
 eggs in Autumn a few inches underneath the soil and after 
 the brooding in the Sjtring the young feed upon the tender 
 roots and kernels. It is therefore quite possible, tliat they 
 ivniaiiiod in the country several years, if tho winters were 
 mild enough. asa''3T2Jn, 2,25, and the unusual destructiveness 
 (»f this plague in particular, 1, 2, 3 flf., seem to require. 
 Sucli an arniv of locusts coming out of Samaria might litlv 
 
 1) In roganl to plagues from the army locusts (Acridium migra- 
 torinm) in Eurojie as also in Africa last century, some features of 
 which forcibly reniind one of Joel's (lescri])fcion, conijiare Oken's All- 
 gemeine Naturgesdiichte, V. 3. Abtheilung S. 1514 IV. 
 
 2) My interpretation floes not necessitate the assuni]>tion. that 
 an enemy is thought of anywhere in the former half of the book, but 
 since Ch. 4. as we shall yet more fully sec, has miu-h to say about 
 enemies, who had pillaged the land and })lundered the city, and siiu-i- 
 we have a significant hint of thiMn in 2. 17—10, this assumption is 
 certainly admissible and apparently intended. Merx says therefore 
 ((uite correctly (p. GG): "(Mir di'srrijition. 2. 2— 10, follows tin- sharj) 
 lino between metaphor and real descriptidu of tlu' locusts, but linally 
 j)a.s.ses over into metajdior." 
 
— 24 — 
 
 be called, ''the Northerner"^), and its different broods, or the 
 different branches of the one onward marching insect-army 
 spread out over the mountains and valleys, may easily have 
 been driven by different winds — or, as is sometimes the 
 case, have proceeded of themselves — some into the Dead 
 Sea, some into the Mediterranean and some into the desert 
 to the South, and thus have perished, Jo. 2, 20. Yet it 
 seems to me most propable, that this army originated in 
 the Syrian or Palmy renian Desert, say south of Damascus, 
 and was driven ))y the mm\ south-westward o\'er the moun- 
 tains into Judea and, after it had devastated the land one 
 or more years, perished as described above. This subject 
 of the locusts has been specially dwelt upon in order to 
 remove every inducement to interpret the first half of the 
 book prophetically, allegorically, or typically as Merx at- 
 tempts, by showing that, with few exceptions, it gives a 
 clear sense in the true meaning of the words, making due 
 allowance of course for figurative expressions. 
 
 Chapter II. 
 
 Thus it has seemed necessary by a detailed statement of the 
 contents and connection of the parts of our book to prepare the 
 way before entering the contest with Merx, Oort and Duhm, 
 particularly the first, in defence of Joel's unity and orig- 
 inality; and this defines the scope of the present chapter. 
 
 As we have seen, Merx rejects both the literal and the 
 allegorical interpretation and proposes his own apocalyptical, 
 as a third and only possible, interpretation, without observing 
 that every prophecy of the last judgment is, at least, partly 
 
 1) other ('X])liiTiatioiis of "i5issn_ and clia,n,<?(^s in its form by 
 Hitzig, Ewald, Meier and otliers are mere conjectures, which need 
 not detain us here. 
 
— 25 — 
 
 apocalyptic and may contain types, or even an allei^rory. Both 
 Merx and the allegorical interi)reters understand Joel to be 
 ti typical pioplR'cy; and neither party accepts a historical 
 basis for the lirst two chapters. But Merx has one ad- 
 vantat^e — an advantage in respect to his interi)retation, 
 if, indeed, not to science — over the allegorists, namely, 
 that they feel obliged to find a suitable fullilment of their 
 prophetic allegory in tlie history, while thi-y hesitate and 
 disagree as to the exact application, and each accepts what 
 seems to him most i)roi)able; whereas Merx, in that he })re- 
 supposes Joel's complete want of clearness and (triginality, 
 on the one hand, and on the other adopts the ai»ocaly|)tical 
 interpretation, is relieved of all obligations to explain tho 
 bodk clearly. Tliiis he severs it almost entirely from liistor- 
 iral events, which are prominent features of the book, and 
 undertakes to account for its origin on other grounds. 
 
 According to Merx, Joel is not a Prophet at all but 
 a Midrash-composer of the lifth century, B. C. He was 
 a man learned in the Scriptures, who had studied his pred- 
 ecessors, especially the Prophets carefully. Ezra and Nehe- 
 miah had rebuilt the Temple, and reorganized the jiriesthood 
 and a more complete Temple -service than existed Ixdbre 
 the Exile, which cultus was obliged to give ami)le room 
 to the ])owerfnl and united Levitism of that time. Since 
 the city wall, which was comi)leted alter the year 445, is 
 mentioned by Joel, he mnst> have written after that date, 
 (pp. ;31 — HH)^). The peo]tle, like Joel himself, bad, in this 
 Persian period, ))egun to despair both of the re-establisbnient 
 of the kingdom and of the judgment of God npon the 
 enemies of Israel, which the Prophets liad so often foietold 
 (|)|). 35. 42). In that discouraging age they were obliged 
 to give uj) all liope, or else trust to the fnllilnient of these 
 
 1) Merx. Dii- I'mphetic dcs .loi-I \iii(l ilnf AiisK-iffr. 
 
— 26 — 
 
 prophecies in the distant future. Under the circumstances 
 Joel made the attempt to comfort his despondent people 
 with the correct interpretation of the Prophets. He sought 
 in history a type for his eschatologieal views and found it 
 in the emancipation from the Egyptian yoke (p. 44.), while 
 he chose passages from Isaiah, Ezekiel and other Prophets 
 wherewith to proclaim ''the day of Jehovah", the last 
 judgment, and the deliverance (not of helievers, but) of the 
 Judeans only, Merx sets forth at length this typological 
 hypothesis apologetically — for he is conscious of his "retro- 
 gression into the unscientific typology" — and then adds 
 (p. 45): "The question to be answered is no other than this, 
 whether or not, in that time, a typology, like the one de- 
 scribed is conceivable and probable. To this I answer de- 
 cidedly. Yes; and on the other hand, with the further 
 <|uestiou. Where then sbould one expect to find the be- 
 ginning of the Midrash and the Haggada, if not in this 
 peri!Td?" 
 
 Our next exercise will be to examine the grounds upon 
 which this singular hypothesis is based, and then the pas- 
 sages from wbich Joel is supposed to have drawn so large- 
 ly for his Midrash. But the question just when the 
 Midrash and the Haggada had their ])eginning, can not 
 interest us much, since we shall have occasion to see, 
 that they are methods unknown to Joel. And this in- 
 different question should not turn us aside from the at 
 present more important one concerning Joel's typology. 
 The deliverance from Egypt is found, it is true, throughout 
 the Old Testament as the type of that which elehovah can 
 and will do for His convenant-people. And some passages 
 referring to it can lightly be r(^gard(Ml as typical. But it 
 is not nuumt thereby, that a sinipUi i-oference to the Exo- 
 dus and to events connected witli it suffice for a typical 
 interpretation. Without a tyjie and an anti-type together 
 
— 27 
 
 with a comj)arisnn, either mentiuiied or easily to be rec- 
 ognized, between the two, a passage should never be typi- 
 cally interpreted; that is, there must be an unmistakable 
 outward similarity between the supposed type and anti-type. 
 Instances of such a typology occur frequently in the Old 
 Testament, and to every reader of the same there is hardl}^ 
 another event so well known as the deliverance out of 
 Egyptian bondage, which serves almost every author as a 
 token of Jehovah's good will towards His chosen peijple. 
 Aside from the age of the Pentateuch which contains the 
 record of it, it is undeniable that the j)rincij)al details of 
 that emancipation remained in the constant rem(;mlirance 
 of the Israelites, This event could serve as the tyjte of 
 every deliverance fVom o]>|)ression and even S(j of moral de- 
 liverance down to the time of the Apostles, Acts 7, 34 ff. ; 
 l:{, 17 If., a figure, with which every one was familiar and 
 of wliicli the Pr(»i)hets were particularly fond. 
 
 if then Joel had chosen this ligure, or even had had this 
 historical event in mind, it would be hardly credible to suppose, 
 that he would have hesitated on such a favorable occasion 
 to mention the impressive and instructive type, as other 
 authors under like circumstances invariably did, Put Merx 
 (pp, 44—47) is certain that Joel chose Ez. 20, 5— 8H fl'.; 
 Pss. 78 and 105; Num. 14, 32, passage's whicJi relate to 
 the deliverance out of Egypt together with the destruction 
 of the disobedient, as models of his Midrasli, just as Daniel 
 iM.rrowed •^^^T] yns, 11, 1(}. 41; 8, 9, from Ez. 20. 6. 15. 
 It deserves here to l)e emphasized again, that the mere 
 citiition of similar jiassages lioni two autlntrs is no i)roof 
 of the })riority of eillier (»f them. This kind of argument, 
 as also the (/rf/iinin/f/n/i c silnilio, was once much em- 
 |)loye(| to pi-ove the early age of -loel. .Merx observes 
 tlieir weakness, but makes frecpieiit use of the former, 
 supjiosing the ''inverted spear" to lie quite as useful. The 
 
— 28 — 
 
 cited authors may he quite independent of each other, or 
 both may have drawn from the same source, whether 
 it he written or oral tradition. The argument under con- 
 sideration is valid, only when it is certain that an author 
 quotes another, who is recognized to he older, and applies 
 the same expression similarly. Of the passages, which Merx 
 names, only one can l)eyond a douht he called a Midrash 
 ("eine Studie, tjn'lip") after an earlier author, viz. Dan. 9, 
 where the author himself informs us of his purpose and at 
 once begins to comment upon Jer. 29, 10 — 14. Pss. 78 
 and 105, it is true, relate to the earliest history of the 
 covenant-people, yet not in order to teach the people, hut 
 rather forcibly to remind them, especially of the deliverance 
 from bondage. For the same purpose Ezelriel goes through 
 the history, 20, 5 ff. But Joel offers us nothing of that kind. 
 Now, whether Joel had the plague of locusts, Ex. 10, 
 (Heugstenberg, Merx et al.) specially in view or not, con- 
 cerns me little ; but it is certain that he did not model his 
 prophecy after that account.^) That plague Avas sent from 
 God both as a terror and a punishment to force the Egyp- 
 tians to set the Israelites free; but the apparently accidental 
 calamity, which Joel describes, causes such terror and misery, 
 that it is regarded as a chastisement. The two plagues 
 were also quite as unlike in their results as in their purpose. 
 The Egyptian plague did not eifect the deli\eranc(», while the 
 one recorded by Joel led to the desired fasting and repentance. 
 But how is it with Merx's further comparisons? Does the 
 darkening of the sky in our book represent the plague of 
 darkness? Ex. 20, 21 — 23. The latter seems to have done 
 the Egyptians no special injury, nor did it secure the liber- 
 ation of the Israelites. The former was only one of the 
 
 1) Merx thinks tlierc was time enougli for Joel after tlie later 
 origin of the Pentateuch aceording to the liyjiothesis of ({raf. 
 
20 — 
 
 signs that sliould accunipuny the iuiiiuuiiced jiidgiueut of 
 the world, whose object was not the deliverance of those 
 who called upon Jehovah, Jo, 3, 5, — their deliverance is 
 already eftected, and they only need protection here, 4, 16b. 17, 
 — but the object is to judge and to punish the enemies of God 
 and His people. Finally, the parallel between the slaying 
 of the lirst-born in P^gypt and the destructive judgment 
 proclaimed by Joel is equidly unhappy. For the former 
 caused the liberation of the Israelites, whereas the latter 
 only destroyed, and liberated no one, as Merx himself 
 observes (pp. 46. 47). Granted that our author on account 
 of his "uon-originality" must have taken ''the basis of his 
 representation" from Ex. 10, where did he get the material 
 for the magnilicent structure':' and who put it all so nicely 
 together, that the discourse should be quite rhetorical?') 
 The Prophet seems rather to have borroAved from Vj\. 10 
 only that which was familiar to every Israelite. And our 
 "Midrash" must have had other sources for the description of 
 the plague of locusts, since the one discovered by the critics 
 is wholly insufhcient. 
 
 But what shall we say of the latter half of our book? 
 Merx follows the order of presentation through step by step 
 from 2, 18 to the end and adds (pj). 20 f.): *'! am entirely 
 unable to discover full consistency and clearness in this 
 gradation, much less grandeur and animated contemplation. 
 
 1) Merx finds fault, wliLTovor the description ascends above out- 
 ward, material thinj,'s. He says ironically (pp. 9 f.)-. "One should 
 reiueniher the army of locusts liave been jiresent, and all have seen it. 
 Why dues he descrihe its ajjpniach in many Wfirds, unless the pleas- 
 ure he takes in the words themselves urges him t<i it?" - as if the 
 earnest eloijueiit speaker of every time might not stir up the in- 
 <litVerent people from their lethargy to regret, resolution and action 
 by illustrations from their deeper experiences. Of an "approach" of 
 another army of locusts there is not a trace in the book. 
 
— 30 — 
 
 or deep religious penetration into the design of God with 
 His peo])le. Every thing here is external; it is circum- 
 stantially painted and in its conception fleshly ; it is partic- 
 ulary Jewish, the meditating of a man of narrow views, 
 who is^^et much entangled in the axoi/sTa too xoa[jiou(l, 13.)". 
 He further adds: "So cuttung a judgment must he verified". 
 Certainly! For Joel has generally been regarded not only 
 as one of the most spiritually-minded prophets, hut a writer 
 of the deepest thoughts and suhlimest ideas. And how does 
 Merx verify his much ventured judgment? Simply by going 
 through the Prophets, particularly the Messianic and eschat- 
 ological portions of Isaiah and Ezekiel, to discover where 
 Joel, whose "book is only the result of studying the writ- 
 ings", gathered his materials; and strange to say, Merx 
 linds, that Joel very seldom agrees with his predecessors, 
 upon whom he was constantly dependent. And what hear 
 we next! "Joel found before him these separate elements, 
 which he awkwardly put together. He borrowed them and 
 gave them an order, but it is exactly the opposite of pro- 
 phetic originality" (p. 22). It is noteworthy, but not very 
 surprising, that we soon hear the sarcastic rejoinder likewise 
 from the new school: "If poor Joel put forth an unin- 
 telligible and illogical book, in which nothing is in its 
 right place, this does not prove that he is a younger writer 
 (the style is dependent upon the age), but only that the 
 critic would have done it better."^) 
 
 It becomes us, as we proceed, to weigh carefully the 
 arguments of such a prominent orientalist, when they concern 
 not only a difierence of centuries in the age of the book, but 
 also the originality and significance of thel^rophet in general. 
 Merx says (pp. 22. 23): "Just as he (Joel) has the holiness 
 
 1) Reuss, Geschichte der lieiligen Schriften des Alton Testa- 
 mentrf, 1881. 
 
— 31 — 
 
 and .security ul the city uf Jerusalem Irom Isaiah, so the 
 pouring out of the Spirit is from Ez. 39, 29, the phenomena 
 in the heavens from Kz. 32, 7; Is. 6(J, 19; 24, 23 and the 
 assembling of all nations to judgment from Is. 34, 1". In his 
 comments upon these and other passages, which the Prophet 
 is supposed to have used, it is remarkable how often, aftei' 
 comparing them with our book, Merx himself linds not 
 only the phraseology much changed, but quite a different 
 application made by Joel. And this is more particularly the 
 case in the comparison with passages of supposed later 
 origin from the Books of Isaiah and Zechariah. This cer- 
 tainly does not strongly support the later origin of Joel, Of 
 course this is because "he put it awkwardly together". And 
 yet the Prophet from beginning to end has only one pur- 
 pose in view, namely, to comfort his people in the time of 
 need, as ^lerx also observes, and in contrast therewith to 
 l)roclaim destructive judgment upon all enemies of the theoc- 
 racy. But in Joel's opinion this comfort was to be reached 
 only through repentance, which should be followed by out- 
 ward blessings, as protection from their enemies and fruit- 
 liilness of the soil, and afterwards, ';D~"'"ins, the outpouring 
 of the Spirit, Ch. 3. The Spirit shall come ''upon all flesh" 
 to insi)ire men of every class and to save those who call 
 upon Jehovah, 3, 1. 2. 5; but there is no indication here 
 of a distinction between Judeans as "of course saved" and 
 all others as "of course damned" (Merx).^) At the same 
 time the signs in the heavens, 3, 3 — 4, point forward to 
 the judgment of the world, 4, 9 ft'.; and then the discourse 
 passes over into Ch. 4, which, as a new main section of 
 the book, has the same general ol)ject steadily in view, ])ut 
 
 1) On tliL' cuiitiiuy, I reiiiark tluit Joel seems to condciiin tVr 
 ilt'structioii only those nations, who by contact with Israel eoulil liavc 
 known Jehovah. Neither tlie Jonians nnr the Sliabaeans are expressly 
 condemned. Comp. Jo. 4,6. H. 
 
— 32 — 
 
 proceeds from another standpoint, namely, a political and 
 an escliatological one. 
 
 The answer to the question: What shall become of the 
 enemies of Israel? is given first in Ch. 4, It begins: At 
 that time I will restore the prosperity of Judah and Jeru- 
 salem, V. 1; but in contrast therewith shall all nations be 
 gathered into the valley of decision before Jehovah enthron- 
 ed upon Zion to be judged, and to receive their fearful 
 retribution in the valley of threshing, '}''^"inn p)2y; for the 
 day of ''Jehovah is near in the valley of decision," 4, 2. 
 12 — 14. The signs in the heavens and upon earth are at 
 once repeated, vs. 15. 16 a. Thus the day of Jehovah, the 
 judgment of all people, and these signs were connected in 
 Joel's mind from the beginning of the discourse. Comp. 1, 15; 
 2, 1. 10. 11; 3, 3. 4. It is simply natural, indeed neces- 
 sary, that the discourse, after this last picture of the judg- 
 ment, should make another turn here, in order to reach a 
 satisfactory and logical conclusion. For, if it was the 
 purpose of the prophecy to proclaim the day of Jehovah as 
 the judgment of the world, yet the chief purpose was to 
 inspire hope in the faithful Israelites. Hence the promise is 
 repeated from 3, 5, that the covenant-people, bxnt3"'"'i3Zi, 
 shall remain secure in spite of all these convulsions of heaven 
 and earth, and ''ye shall know that I am Jehovah your 
 (irod'', because Jehovah in Zion is the refuge and fortress 
 of His people. Vs. 16b. 17. (See p. 17). 
 
 But while Ch. 4, 2. proclaims the asseml)ling of all 
 nations to judgment, who had scattered the inheritance of 
 Jehovah among the heathen, divided His land and sold the 
 youth into slavery to satisfy their lusts, the names of the 
 evil-doers are not mentioned, as if it would have been too 
 painful, but chiefly, as we shall directly see, on account of 
 the neces sary universality of the subject here. Vs. 4 — 8 
 are a parenthesis brought into the discourse in order to 
 
— 33 - 
 
 specify certain. l)iit iidt tlic principal, enemies, who. as it 
 seems, had been unfaithful friends, and had taken part in 
 the above-named deeds for the sake of gain : — Amos seems 
 to accuse the Tyrians of the same unfaithfulness in a sort 
 of historical compendium, 1, 9. 10. At any rate the subject 
 seems to arise in the Propliet's mind suddenly, and he 
 almost passionately says: '1^1 "'b ariSt'ma ny\, ''Yea, and 
 what have ye to do with me, C) Tyve and Zidon and all the 
 districts of Philistia", wherein oriT evidently points out a 
 new category of enemies, yet, as we shall soon see, they are 
 contained in the former. And although Hengstenberg^) 
 carries the allegory in its universality over into the annuunce- 
 nient of the judgment, Ch. 4. he was nevertheless obliged 
 to admit, that these are enemies in the literal sense, if. 
 indeed, named "merely as examples". He also admitted that 
 this passage, 4, 4-8, is "parenthetical". But are these 
 enemies specified merely as examples? On the contrary the 
 Pheniciaus and Philistines are addressed directly in the 
 second person, particular malicious deeds are imputed to 
 them and tln'ir s{)ecilic punishments are annuunced for the 
 near future. The universality, therefore, applies only to the 
 judgment of the world and to the outpouring of the Spirit. 
 These enemies had carried away the costly articles of the 
 Temple into their temples and were the slave-traders, who 
 had sold the youth to the Jonians, vs. 5. 6. 
 
 But if one object particulary to this interpretation of 
 4, 4 — S as a parenthesis for the specification of the enemies 
 therein mentioned and their deeds, one must then explain, 
 on the one hand, why exactly these enemies, as D^i, v. 4. 
 their names and the phraseology generally show, are so 
 personally and conspicuously addressed, and on the other 
 h:ind. why no names appear in vs. 2. 3, since the division 
 
 1) Christologie des Alten Testaments, I. 332. 
 
— 34 — 
 
 of the land and the casting of lots for the people were quite 
 as great injuries as the plundering of the Temple. My 
 answer to the latter question is, that the universalizing of 
 these deeds and events for the general judgment renders 
 specifications inappropriate. But if any one will, on that 
 account, undertake to separate the events in vs. 2. 3 from 
 those in vs. 4 ff. altogether, as has hitherto been the custom, 
 again I reply, that the discourse here is not broken, and 
 that the generalizing expressions in v. 3h and the spe- 
 cializing ones in vs. 6. 7 a, although in part different as to 
 persons, render the conclusion unavoidable, that only one 
 instance of slave-dealing is recorded in the two passages. 
 But so important and indispensable as this parenthesis was, 
 it could be inserted only here, after the events which sug- 
 gested it, and before the apostrophizing summons went forth 
 to the surrounding hostile nations to meet Jehovah and 
 ''the mighty ones" for battle in the valley of decision, where 
 He will judge them, vs. 9 ff. After such a generalization 
 specializing would be inappropriate both logically and in the 
 order of time. 
 
 But it is the frequent repetition in this rapid and highly 
 figurative discourse, which enables one to grasp the whole 
 in its unity and its comparatively harmonious connection. 
 Thus ulDTIJirT^ p^y, 4, 2 and 12, in connection with finriri p^y, 
 vs. 13, 14, should make it unmistakable, that the gen- 
 eral subject in these passages is the same, although ny\ 
 vs. 4, and the change to imperative speech, vs. 9 ff., clearly 
 point out an intervening parenthesis. Other parallel passages 
 linking together the whole discourse have already been 
 noticed. Here in 4, 2. 3 is given the historical ground, 
 namely, their hostility to Jehovah und His covenant-people, 
 why the nations should enter into judgment with Him, and 
 upon this basis the earnest discourse ascends — after the 
 necessary interuption, vs. 4 — 8, — to the eschatological rep- 
 
35 
 
 resentation, vs. 9 — 16a, where the climax of the entire 
 l)uok is reached in v. 17. 
 
 It is also the question of the order in this eschatologi- 
 cal part, that disturbs the peace of the new school of critics. 
 Merx's apocalyptical tj'pology leads him further into error 
 here than usual, and he asks quite unanswerable, and from 
 his point of view quite irrelavent, questions. For the apoc- 
 alypse does not enable us to determine the time and order 
 of future events. Only a few chief events are given as 
 turning points. But according to reason, theology and the 
 analogy uf the jus civile , the teaching or law goes before, 
 then the protection of the obedient, then the correction and 
 restoration of the corrigible, and finally must follow the 
 condemnation uf the incon-igible and criminal. But tliis is 
 not a necessary program by which to judge of the appro- 
 priateness of ever}^ eschatological prophecy. Yet I believe 
 such prophecies will be found usually to folbjw this order. 
 If then we can discover about so much of the order of the 
 chief events, which happen to be given in an eschatological 
 prophecy, we should count ourselves happy. And so much 
 seems to be clear in Joel, and indeed these chief elements 
 are here more fully presented than usual. ^) Further, we are 
 not only unable to discover a chronological order according 
 to which the events of an apocalyptical or an eschatological 
 prophecy should occur, but we are often unable to find 
 complete consistency in such a prophecy itself, e. g., some 
 parts of Pizekiel or of the Book of the Revelation. Each 
 prophet who looks out over the Messianic, or eschato- 
 
 1) It is because Oort (Theologisch Tijdschril't. X. 375) tloes not 
 enter into Joel's i)r(>f(jun(l thoughts, that he finds instead of order 
 and unity "an artificially prejiared jjroiihecy". Because he can not 
 conceive how the author can rcjicat hirasoif, or insert a paranthesis 
 like 4, 4 — 8, he discovers a double judgment in ("h. 4. 
 
 3* 
 
— 36 — 
 
 logical period, seems to start from liis own prophetic point 
 of view and prophesies onl}^ a few particular events, whose 
 order and time are indicated by means of "before this and 
 that", or ''after so and so," or perhaps they are left entirely 
 indefinite. Blessings, warnings, judgments and retributions 
 upon particular people, and the judgment of the world with 
 signs upon earth and in the heavens are so woven together 
 in the same narration, that frequently we can jHily guess^ 
 what is intended as an occurrence of the near future^, whut 
 of distant time, or what is eschatological. A conspicuous 
 example of the indefiniteness of eschatological prophecy in 
 respect to time is in the discourse of Jesus, Matt. 24, 14 ff. 
 The parallel passage, Luke 21, 20, shows that the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem is here intended. It is equally clear 
 that the discourse is in part eschatological. Now, let the 
 skilful interpreter mark the elements of time in Matt. 24, 
 14 — 31 and tell us, if he can, when the events announced 
 shall occur, or how long the epochs are, which are limited 
 by ''immediately after" (v. 29), or by "then" (v. 30). Yet, 
 as with Joel "the day of Jehovah is near", so here v. S3: 
 "When ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh, 
 even at the doors." If the destruction of Jerusalem were 
 not a historical fact, who would venture to point out its 
 place in the order of the events announced in this discourse? 
 And since the subject returns to the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem, shall we conclude that the destruction is to be repeat- 
 ed just as Oort discovers two judgments of the \^orld jii 
 Joel's prophecy? 
 
 As 1 have indicated, Joel follows the rational ordei' of 
 moral and civil government. But Merx objects and thinks, 
 tlie fact that "the darkening of the sun and the turning 
 of tlic moon into blood, as also the proclamation of Jeru- 
 salem's immunity" "are announced beforehand'", shows 
 "how little reality there is in the pouring out of the Sj)irit 
 
— 37 — 
 
 wilh him (Joel)." Without these there would be ''a sort 
 of a climax"' (p. 22). But how could the climax be more 
 natural than to let the sending of the Spirit follow the 
 protection from enemies, the removal of the plague and the 
 return of fruitfulness? And if my conclusion is coiTect that 
 Ch. 4 continues the same general subject, onl}' from a dif- 
 ferent point of view, namely, a political and an eschatological 
 one. and brings it to a close in v. 17, then a greater cli- 
 max in Ch. 3 would be wholly inappropriate. Although the 
 contents of the two chapters differ so widely in some respects, 
 yet a close connection is maintained between them, in that 
 th'' same end is over kept in view. This is why the expression 
 TM- ^i. -Wn- behold", 4. 1, Hts so well here as another link 
 ill Uif chain, which liinds the parts into one united whole. 
 But as to wiiether the signs and wonders, announced in 
 connection with the day of Jehovah and immediately follow- 
 ing the outpouring of the Spirit, which seem so disturbing 
 to Merx, are realli/ appropriate here, I modestly confess 
 my ignorance. They are things which belong to the cate- 
 gory of the supernatural in whose realm we have no pre- 
 rogative. But neither Joel nor Peter, Acts 2, 17 — 24, 
 supposed there was an incongruity therein. 
 
 Y'et if .Joel leaves the future indefinite as to exact 
 points of time, he at least distinguishes between periods. 
 According to my analysis and interpretation of the scope 
 and purpose of his book, x-^nn nyai niEnn n"«>2^3, 8. 2; 
 4, 1. 18, (the expression in the three places is essentially 
 the same) could properly be said lirst after 13''>';^n», 3, 1. 
 The latter expression assumes an indelinite point; of time 
 in the future and points at once backward to an event or 
 events, which shall then have taken place and forward to 
 that which shall yet occur. In 3, 1 it points back to the 
 fullilineiit of the prophecy in 2, 18 — 25, or to the Prophet's 
 imnifdiate future. It is nearly related to c^^^r. n''"ins3. 
 
— 38 — 
 
 but is not of exactly the same meaning.^) And it may. 
 perhaps, be regarded as the beginning of "the day of Jehovah" 
 in the widest sense of the term, beginning with the Mes- 
 sianic period which is characterized by the outpouring of 
 the Spirit, and ending with the judgment of the world. 
 si^nn nyi^. nTsnrj u'>)2% 4, 1, falls, therefore, within this 
 indefinite period, mIHi DI'^, and is itself temporally indefi- 
 nite. Thus the elements of time in our book are all neces- 
 sarily indefinite as to length, or rather not to be determined. 
 From this conclusion it follows, that rr^ntpTiS n^©i? can 
 apply to Joel's near future, only in case the period of the 
 pouring out of the Spirit and the rescue of those who call 
 upon Jehovah also soon take place, the promises in 2, 18 — 25 
 having, of course, first been fulfilled. But we have just 
 seen, that the events in Ch. 3 fall wholly in the indefinite 
 future. The fact that Ch. 4, 2 refers to the assembling 
 of the nations to the last judgment shows also, that v. 1. 
 as does the expression NTin nym n^nn D'^'q'*! elsewhere. 
 refers to the distant future. Thus mmij-ns niirx may and 
 should be taken in connection with the promise in 3, 5. 
 which affords us another proof of the near connection be- 
 tween Chs. 3 and 4. 
 
 On the other hand the parenthesis, Ch. 4, 4 — 8, applies 
 to the near future. It begins with the direct personal ad- 
 dress, continues the same throughout and promises the 
 bringing back of the youth sold as slaves to the Jonians, 
 i. e., what must yet occur in their life-time. It is indeed 
 possible, that nimr-nx nmrx may indirectly refer to the 
 bringing back (v. 7), since Joel's language often bears a 
 double meaning, but this can be only of the smallest moment 
 
 1) The phrase is similarly explained by Credner (Der Prophet 
 Joel, 1831. S. 222), who thinks, however, that the outpouring of the 
 Spirit did not occur on account of the transgression of the divine 
 commands. 
 
~ 39 - 
 
 in the above-mentioned restitutio in integrum of Israel. 
 The return fr(»ni the Babylonian captivity (Hengsteubei-g. 
 Havernick, Schrader et al.), as we shall further see, should 
 scarcely come into consideration here, since Joel nowhere 
 mentions nor presupposes that captivity. (See pp. 47 — 61). 
 
 Finally, the paragraph, 4, 18—21, has thus far remained 
 unnoticed, because it deserves attention apart. Merx raises 
 (pp. 24 tf.) special objections here to the previous interpreta- 
 tions. And this is not surprising; for they seem to me 
 to be founded upon a misunderstanding of the relation be- 
 tween this paragraph and the rest of the book. For ex- 
 ample, V. 19, which announces definite punishments for a 
 specified injury to Israel by particular enemies, would stand 
 exactly between the promises of the choicest blessings 
 (vs. 18 and 20) very awkwardly, if this paragraph, as it is usu- 
 ally understood, distinctly promised yet other general l>less- 
 ings of the Messianic time, or were a continuation of the 
 foregoing verses (16 b — 17), wliich again both logically and 
 consistently declare Jehovah's defence and protection of 
 His convenant-people during the fearful scenes attending 
 the judgment at the end of that period of blessing, just 
 as similar promises are added in 3, 5 immediately after the 
 preceding announcement of like phenomena. But all will 
 appear quite otherwise, if we observe, that the book and 
 prophecy virtually close with 4, 17, the security of Zion, as 
 the sacred dwelling-place of Jehovah, and that vs. 18 — 21 are 
 a short resume of the whole discourse, or more particularly 
 of the promises therein. This resume, it is true, is neither 
 formal nor quite complete; ])ut it is clear and meets the 
 objections, which have reasonably been opposed to other 
 explanations. It would be difficult to show a real advance 
 in the discourse after 4, 17. but at must a poetical per- 
 oration summing up the foregoing prophecies. 
 
 That VC^T^T) Dvn 7Tiiy\ (v. 18), which stretches out over 
 
— 40 — 
 
 the entire Messianic and eschatological periods, recurs here in 
 nearly the same form and with exactly the same meaning" 
 as in 3, 2 and 4, 1 and clearly indicates a turn in the nar- 
 ration of events. It would have been superfluous to re- 
 call the desolation of the land by locusts and drought, which 
 still remained a sad picture of despair before all eyes. Yet 
 it is not left unnoticed. Certain words and phrases refer 
 to them, by way of contrast, very pointedly. Thus Cp^, the 
 flowing new wine, reminds us of the long failing vintage, 
 1,5 5"., as nnin'^ ^]?iDi4-b3 and I'sn of the parching drought, 
 the exhausted springs and the misery of the panting herds; 
 while they all together (v. 18 a) sum up the promise of the 
 soil's returning fruitfulness and plenty in the land, 2, 21 — 26. 
 For the promises of fruitfulness rise to the poetical and 
 figurative already in 2, 24 b and this happy state of things 
 is to be endless, 2, 26. 27. Ch. 4, 18 expands the same 
 into Messianic figures similar to those of Amos (9, 13) and 
 other Prophets. Then v. 18 b points us to the fountain 
 in the House of Jehovah, to Israel the symbolical origin of 
 all divine gifts, both outward and especially spiritual. The 
 words D''t3tsn bnrni? ni^tpn speak of this fountain in poetical 
 and hyperbolical fulness, which shall overflow the Dead Sea 
 and the Jordan and richly supply the dry valley of Shittim; 
 and thus this symbol fittingly recalls the pouring out of 
 the Spirit in fulness in Ch. 3. V. 19 refers to 4, 2. 3, the 
 announcement that Jehovah will enter into the general 
 judgment with all hostile nations, where the universality of 
 the subject rendered particularities inappropriate, and informs 
 us who the chief of those enemies and robbers of His in- 
 heritance, land and sanctuary were, viz., the Egyptians and 
 Edomites (Karle^). Vs. 20. 21 promise the security of the 
 
 1) Commentationes criticae ad Vetus Testanientum pertinentes, 
 1867. p. 31 sq. 
 
41 
 
 land and the city, ^o long as Jehovah dwells upon Zion 
 (Cump. V. 17; 2, 27); while the certain revenge of the 
 shedding of the ''innocent blood" — in view of the cruelty 
 of the enemies, vs. 3. 4 — 8. 19, — is promised with the 
 emphasis of a moral necessity, vs. 2. 3. 9 — 14. Indeed, 
 it may be said, that these last two verses contain the theme 
 of the whole prophecy. 
 
 By means of this necessarily lengthy analysis of the 
 contents of our book and the relation of its parts, I trust 
 I have been able to show, that the charge of incongruity 
 and of want of clearness and order is almost groundless — 
 the supposed lack of originality and of biassed priestly char- 
 acter will be considered next. Joel has at least a deiiuito 
 plan, order, and not confusion. If his book is a compilation 
 from other authors, it is nevertheless not without '' har- 
 monious arrangement in the order of events." That he 
 nut only agrees so little with his alleged sources — of which 
 more in the next chapter, — but often sharply conflicts with 
 them (Merx, 21 — 23), renders this hypothesis of the book's 
 origin very suspicious. That he has produced so small a work 
 of so different materials and attained so much harmony and 
 consistency, certainly favors originality. But because a 
 consistent system seems to result from the foregoing anal- 
 ysis, it is not assumed, that the interpretation proper, which 
 lies beyond the limits of our subject, will offer no further 
 difliculties. Yet it is believed that light has been thrown 
 upon a number of very difUcult passages. 
 
42 
 
 Second Part. 
 
 Did Joel live before or after the Exile? 
 
 Chapter I. 
 It is the purpose of this chapter to consider the spe- 
 cial objections raised against Joel's originality, and, in connec- 
 tion therewith, to bring forward arguments against the 
 supposed post-exilic origin of his book. 
 
 Our first object will be carefully to examine some of 
 the passages of other Prophets already cited, from which 
 Joel is supposed to have gathered the materials of his book. 
 
 We have already seen how precarious it is to set up 
 a program of eschatological events, by which to judge 
 whether the order of a prophecy is appropriate or not 
 (pp. 37—39). But Merx (pp. 17f.) finds the order in Joel 
 very unhappy, ascribes to him "the Jesajanic dog-ma", which 
 Duhm ^) discovered and accordingly thereto proposes another 
 order of events instead of Joel's. He says: "It seems more 
 fitting to have first signs, then destruction and rescue, and 
 finally the outpouring of the Spirit upon the rescued," which 
 agrees neither with the order of Isaiah, nor that of Micah, 
 nor yet that of Joel. This is a singular conception 
 of the purpose of the outpouring of the Spirit: — perhaps 
 it is understood to be a gift for the enjoyment of the res- 
 cued and to have nothing to do with the deliverance itself. 
 Merx (p. 23) sets against Joel liis interpretation of Zech. 
 12, 9 — 10, which places the outpouring of the Spirit — 
 "a spirit of repentance and conversion as opposed to 
 
 1) Theologie der Propheten, 1875. S. 169. 175. 
 
- 43 
 
 Joel" {?), although according to Merx Zechariah was one 
 of Joel's sources — after the destruction of the nations. But 
 he seems to understand Zechariah as poorly as he does 
 Joel. The former gives no order of time in the passage 
 just named. The subject here is the security of the rights 
 and dignity belonging to the Royal House of David, vs. 7 flf., 
 and the blessing of him and the inhabitants of Jerusalem 
 with "a spirit of grace and of supplication", not a spirit of 
 prophecy, etc. as in Jo. 3, 1. 2, There (v. 9) Jehovah 
 destroys the attacking enemies in defence of Jerusalem, 
 whereas, according to Joel, Jehovah first assembles the 
 enemies to destructive judgment. 
 
 We now turn more directly to the passages, which, 
 according to ]\Ierx, ''Joel knew and cited". Joel is supposed 
 to have found the so-called "Jesajanic dogma of the inviola- 
 bility of Zion'"i) in Is. 2, 4; 4, 2; 10, 22 and Mi. 4. 1. 
 If it were only meant, that Isaiah and Micah delighted in 
 Zion as the Sanctuary of Jehovah, every one could assent 
 to the coiTectness of the "Jesajanic dogma." But in the 
 narrow sense intended by "inviolability" it was held by 
 neither of them. Both of them predict Jerusalem's ex- 
 treme want and desolation on account of her wicked politi- 
 cal and religious leaders. Is. 3, 1; Mi. 1, 12; 3, 12, and 
 also the plundering and shame of Zion, Is. 3; 16 f. 24 — 26. 
 The prophecy in Mi. 3, 12: ''Therefore, on your account 
 shall Zion be ploughed as a Held and Jerusalem shall be- 
 come heaps of ruins and the mountain of the house as the 
 forest-heights", seems to have remained in the memory of 
 the people until in the Exile. Comp. Jer. 26, 18. On the 
 other hand, these two Prophets presuppose a time of uni- 
 
 1) The German is: ''Das jesajaniscbe Dogma dcr Unantastbarkeit 
 Zions". "Inviolability" is the nearest renderinf:: of "Unantastbarkeit" 
 into English without too great a ciroinnlocuti<tn. Comp. Merx, pj). 17 f. 
 
— 44 — 
 
 versa! peace, when instruction and reproof shall go forth 
 from Jerusalem and Zion and the nations shall come thither 
 to he taught of Jehovah, Isaiah announces a fearful judg- 
 ment in Ch, 3 and then speaks of the rest which shall he 
 in Jerusalem and Zion, 4, 2. 3; hut their deliverance is 
 only through the cleansing of the Lord, v. 4. Joel mentions 
 nothing of that kind, neither sin in, nor judgment upon, 
 nor the going forth of teaching from Zion, nor in con- 
 sequence thereof the coming of the nations thither to 
 confess Jehovah and learn of Him. Jer. 25, 30 is very 
 similar to, and Am. 1, 2 a is exactly the same as, Joel 4, 
 16 a, although Amos was sent as a prophet to the Kingdom 
 of Israel. Yet, like Joel, Micah and Isaiah, neither Amos 
 nor Jeremiah will tolerate a dead piety in Zion. In this 
 they agree. But if Joel studied these other Prophets so 
 much, and was so dependent upon them as Merx supposes, 
 it is very strange that he should deviate so widely and 
 ofteii from them as indicated ahove. Yet, notwithstanding 
 the differences, the deliverance according to Joel is only 
 for those who call upon Jehovah, 3, 5: 4, 16. 17. — not 
 specially for Jews (Merx). These differences must indicate 
 very different circumstances as well as objects of these 
 Prophets. When Joel urges: ''Beat your ploughshares into 
 swords and your pruninghooks into spears", both the motive 
 and the end were very different from those of Isaiah and 
 Micah, who prophesy Zion's desolation, hut also its glorious 
 future and recommend the conversion of these weapons into 
 implements of peace. Joel either knew nothing of Isaiah's 
 and Micah's prophecies of the time of peace among the 
 nations and their knowledge of and reverence towards Jehovah, 
 or else his use of their writings was for another purpose 
 than that which Merx ascribes to him, viz., to comfort his 
 people by the interpretation of their prophecies of peace 
 and blessing. But according to Merx he changes much 
 
43 
 
 and misplaces other things — how bold! witliout i)r(i])hetic 
 authority, and how strange! if he desired the conlidence of 
 his people — and turns that promised time of universal 
 j)eace and piety into a destructive judgment, at which 
 Jehovah's people are delivered only through His special 
 iutervention. Joel certainly had other eveuts of the future 
 in mind than those, which ]saiali and Micah point out. 
 
 Merx tells us: "He (Joel) has the pouring out of the 
 Spirit from Ez. 39, 29" (pp. 22 f.). This would be possible 
 so far as the form is concerned, but it can appear probable 
 first, when it is certain that Joel is younger than Ezekiel 
 and stood in need of such a source. For, according to 
 Ezekiel, the Spirit should be poured out upon Israel after 
 the return from the Exile. If Joel borrowed this passage, 
 he greatly enlarged it, generalized it and difl'erently applied 
 it, viz., as fore-runner and means to the restoration of the 
 fiirmer prosperity, to which Ezekiel also seems to refer 39, 25. 
 But liDW does Joel's representation suit a time of the most 
 rigid priesthood and indicate a "fieshl}^ minded, Jewish 
 particularism' as its author, who was yet dee]dy sunken in 
 the oroi/eTa tou Koajjiou? Perhaps he had in mind rather 
 the condition of things, for which Moses yearned, when all 
 Jehovah's peo])le should be prophets, Num. 11, 29, as in 
 striking contrast with the present lukewarmness. 
 
 Joel, says Merx, took ''the phenomena of the heavens from 
 Ez. 32, 7; Is'. GO, 19; 24, 23." The first and the last of these 
 passages are in some respects similar to Joel. But in other 
 res])ects tliey are very different, and forbid every favorable 
 comparison, since the circumstances and subjects are so very 
 unlike. The remaining passage is still less applicable. 
 Am. 8, 9 and Is. 13, 10 might have been cited quite as 
 happily. 
 
 Joel has "the assembling of the nations from is. 34, 1." 
 It is true, that the subject here is nearly related to the 
 
— 46 — 
 
 fourth chapter of Joel, but the words and the phraseology 
 of the two are so different, that it is difhcult to compre- 
 hend how Joel could have thought of the representation 
 in Isaiah or even have known anything about it. It is re- 
 markable that Merx did not rather choose Zeph. 1, 14 — 18 
 for his purpose of comparison, since a universal judgment 
 is prophesied there, the da}^ of Jehovah is proclaimed as 
 '•great" and '"near" in vs. 7. 14, and vs. 14 — 16 are liter- 
 ally very similar to some of Joel's expressions. Comp, 2, 1. 2. 
 '•But, while Zephaniah is chargeable with the same" want 
 of clearness," which Merx (p. 23) ascribes to both Joel and 
 Isaiah, in that he immediately restricts this general judg- 
 ment to a particular people, he was further, indeed wholly, 
 unsuited to our Critic's purpose, since it is Judah and the 
 inhabitants of Jerusalem to whom the judgment is thus 
 limited, Zeph. 1, 4. 12; whereby Zephaniah displays the 
 same ignorance of the so-called "Jesajanic dogma of Zion's 
 inviolability" as Jeremiah, his contemporary, and Ezekiel 
 often do. Our Prophet certainly appears remarkably inde- 
 pendent here for one who is so insignificant and wanting 
 in originahty and logical consistency (Oort, Duhm, Merx). 
 After the same manner the Prophets Avere rather illogical 
 as a class, one would think. But certainly they were rhe- 
 torical, often even to eloquence; for conviction usually fol- 
 lowed their discourses.^) Thus the impeachment of Joel 
 for want of originality seems to posses little or no found- 
 ation; and we shall examine other passages soon. 
 
 In the foregoing chapters not only the unity of the 
 book of Joel as opposed to two discourses, but also the 
 
 1) It is needless to follow Merx (p. 24) through his perplexities 
 with the contest between Jehovah and his enemies, Joel 4. 13 — 15, 
 and similar passages, as Gen. 19, 11; 2 K. 6, 18; Ps. 11, 2, since he 
 nowhere informs us how such a contest should be described, although 
 he is sure that Joel did it very awkwardly. 
 
— 47 - 
 
 logical connection and clearness in general as opposed to 
 disunion and confusion, have been defended and the ob- 
 jections thereto shown to be groundless. That there are 
 interruptions in the flow of discourse is admitted. But they 
 are mostly on account of the grandeur of the ever- varying 
 ideas rather than fi'oni an}' change of subject or introduction 
 of elements foreign to the main topic. That there is a 
 parenthesis and an apostrophe in the fourth chapter, has 
 also been observed and their lifting order shown. Graetz^) 
 compares Joel with Jer. 14 — 15, where Jeremiah announces 
 the word of Jehovah in 14, 1, which he proclaims first in 
 Ch. 15, after various interruptions by the description of a 
 drought, a prayer, an admonition, etc. The analogy seems 
 to be a happy one, although Graetz's application to Joel is 
 not so happy. He regards the first half of Joel as a sub- 
 jective meditation — a part of Jer. 14 seems to be such, 
 — and He thinks, that the real word of Jeho\ ah. nini 12", 
 begins with the second half of the book. But the first 
 half is clearly an objective representation of existing cir- 
 cumstances, which now digresses into direct address. 1, 
 13. 14; 2, 1. 12 — 16, now into prophetic discourse, 1, 15; 
 2, lb — 2a.. 10. 18. which are all constituent parts of Je- 
 hovah's word. The deplorable condition of the country 
 served as the incentive to, and occasion of, the discourse, 
 and the second half, the prophecy proper, arises naturally 
 out of the circumstances. 
 
 B. 
 
 Further proofs in defence of Joel's originality, and spe- 
 cial arguments against a post-exilic origin of his prophec3\ 
 
 We turn now to another class of passages from the 
 Prophets, from which Joel is supposed to have gathered 
 
 1) Der einheitliche Cbarakter der Prophotie Joel's, 1873. S. 28. 
 
— 48 — 
 
 materials for his book, namely, certain ones directed against 
 different nations. Thus "Ez. 25, 15 considers Philistia; 2G. 
 1—28, 19 Tyre; then 28, 20-26 Zidon; further Ez. 29, 
 1—32, 32 Egypt; Ez. 33—34 Judah-Israel andEz. 35Edom. 
 with which the eschatological addresses in 36 — 39 are connec- 
 ted, as we shall yet see. Joel's apocalyptical representation 
 mentions exactly the same hostile nations and no others, 
 and indeed in the same order" (Mei-x, 8. 29). But does 
 Philistia precede Tyre and Zidon in Joel 4? The eiTor is 
 a little one, since Joel places them all in the same sen- 
 tence. Aside from this Merx's ^'exactly" is very inexact 
 Eor Edom's real place in Ezekiel is 25, 12 — 14 rather than 
 Ch. 35, that is, before Philistia, Tyre and Zidon, as also 
 Judah, or ''Judah-Israel," in reality occurs in and before 
 Ez. 24. Further, the destruction of Jerusalem and the 
 threatening discourses against the heathen all properly occur 
 in Ezekiel before Ch. 33. This chapter begins a new sec- 
 tion of the book, whose first minor section consists of 
 Ch. 33 — 39 and predicts Israel's restoration. This seems 
 to be incorrect; for Seir and Edom occur in Ch. 35. But 
 this chapter treats specially of Seir only, which was a 
 district in Edom. Mount Seir shall be made desolate, and 
 Edom is mentioned chiefly with reference to the real pro- 
 phecy against it, 25, 12 — 14, and, to indicate the complete- 
 ness of Seir's coming desolation, it is added here at the 
 end of the chapter: fi>3 Di^S!:-bD1, ''yes and all Edom, the 
 whole of it". Also Seir occurs here in an otherwise inad- 
 missible place on account of her incessant hostilities, in that 
 she had delivered Israel "into the power of the sword in 
 the time of their calamity"; and because Seir had rejoiced 
 over Israel's misfortunes, vs. 5. 13. 15, is her coming retri- 
 bution here intentionally brought into bold contrast with the 
 promised restoration of Israel, Ch. 36. The experience of 
 the land of Israel has been terrible — whose prosperity 
 
— 49 — 
 
 and salvation shall return, — but Edom's misfortune shall 
 be yet more terrible.^) 
 
 According to Merx Joel made these passages — which 
 together are several times the size of his book, and other 
 non-eschatological passages from Isaiah, Jeremiah and the 
 Minor Prophets might have been quite as appropriately 
 added — the basis of his eschatology ; but not so much for 
 the sake of the eschatology as in order to give consolation 
 and to renew the courage of his people, who were de- 
 spairing in that deplorable period under Persian rule, by 
 assuring them that the former prophecies against their 
 enemies should finally be fulfilled. There are sufficient 
 grounds for the complete refutation of this hypothesis. 
 1. The eschatology of Ezekiel is almost entirely confined 
 to Chs. 38 and 39, which Joel with all his painstaking 
 "study of the writings" (Schriftstudium) nowhere essentially 
 touches, so far as his book indicates (pp. 65 — 68). Merx exerts 
 himself much to prove the opposite. Joel used these eschat- 
 ological addresses of Ez. 36 — 39 (p. 29), which according 
 to Merx are clear (?) in Ezekiel. "Ezekiel's apocalyptical 
 ideas were suspended before Joel", who was especially fond 
 of describing (pp. 9 — 10), and he borrowed certain ex- 
 pressions from them, which Merx finds scattered here and 
 there in his book, disunited and without clearness, although 
 this is the result of the special "study of Ezekiel" (p. 65). 
 But one sees how this assumption of Merx is wholly depen- 
 dent upon a purely literal understanding of a few — one 
 would expect many according to this hypothesis — phrases 
 instead of up(jn a com]irehcnsive comparison of the suppos- 
 ed parallel passages. Thus, excepting Ez. 39, 29, which 
 has been considered (p. 45), Merx bases his conclusion 
 
 1) Comp. Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, IV. 105 ff. and 
 Smcnd, Der Prophet Ezekiel, S. 277. 
 
 4 
 
— 50 ^ 
 
 chiefly upon the following expressions : ""pissin, ')^'ii<<n py "j^l, 
 D^'ia nB-\n and D^n nianp. But the first three occur 
 in similar forms and different connections several times in 
 Ezekiel, whicli indicates their general usage. And there is 
 no proof that the last was not also familiarly known. Is 
 it then conceivable, why one so wanting in originality, so 
 fond of descriptions and so inclined to eschatological figures 
 (Merx), should have borrowed so sparingly from these long 
 apocalyptical representations of Ezeldel and have made his own 
 composition so short and obscure? Certainly, few will feel 
 inclined to accept such a conclusion so long as we can, 
 for the most part, understand the Book of Joel otherwise. 
 
 2. According to the analogy of Ezekiel and others, 
 apocalyptical and eschatological representations, so far as the 
 names of nations are concerned, are usually indefinite: '^all 
 nations" (pp. 35 f.), or they are restricted to one or more 
 hostile nations as representing all, Is. 34; or, as Ez. 38. 39; 
 Rev. 17. 18. 20, or they refer to distant heathen, who are 
 not particularly hostile towards Jehovah and his religion 
 or, perhaps, know nothing of them, not personally, but 
 merely as representative examples. Otherwise the repesen- 
 tation of the judgment of the world might appear one- 
 sided and partial instead of universal and alike towards 
 all. Now in order to be specific, as Merx understands him, 
 Joel was obliged to ignore all such principles, since the 
 purpose of his studying and writing was to interpret the 
 prophecies against Israel's enemies eschatologically (p. 42), 
 — a very remarkable kind of consolation must tliis have 
 seemed to the despondent Jews of the Persian period, to 
 learn , that their enemies of centuries ago , who had long 
 been subjugated and almost extirpated, should be punished 
 at the last judgment. 
 
 3. Now this purpose alone which Merx ascribes to Joel, 
 namely, to comfort his people in the manner above indicated, 
 
— 51 — 
 
 should have comi)ened him to mention tlie hiter and the 
 yet oppressing enemies instead of earlier ones. The 
 Syrians, Assyrians, Chaldeans and Persians could, according 
 to this view of the Prophet's puii)ose, hy no means have 
 been omitted; certainly not the last two nations. One can 
 conceive, why Ezekiel should have directed no menacing 
 prophecy against the Assyrians together with the Chaldeans ; 
 for according to him, Ch. 31, 3 fif., Assyria bore the sword 
 of revenge against Israel's enemies and brought the deserved 
 punishment upon Israel itself as the covenant-people. Assyria 
 was the executor of a divine mandate says Smend.^) 
 Joel had not only no reason in the Persian period, why he 
 should not have placed them in this specific category, but 
 the mention of these last, most injurious enemies would have 
 been unavoidable according to the view under consideration: 
 not indeed, because they were of the past, or were of them- 
 selves worse than other enemies, but because they had forced 
 Israel from their land and sanctuary into captivity, and 
 because Joel had undertaken to arouse his people out of 
 lethargy, despondency and the feeling of ignominy through 
 the hope of both a future restoration of the theocracy and 
 the destruction of all enemies. And yet Joel knows abso- 
 lutely nothing of the Exile and of these nations. 
 
 4. On the other hand, the mention of Egypt and Edom 
 as specially hostile powers after the Exile is entirely in- 
 admissible. According to all authorities these, particularly 
 the ]*]gyptians, were friendly towards the Jews in the Persian 
 period. Merx himself observes how inharmonious his hypoth- 
 esis here stands: ''But why Joel placed the figures of 
 Egypt and Edom in this closing th'^ocratic picture, would 
 remain a problem, had not E/ekiel solved it, whose eschat- 
 ological representation, aside from the restoration of Israel 
 
 1) Der Prophet Ezekiel. 1880. S. 393. 
 
 4* 
 
— 52 — 
 
 with Jiidah, Ez. 37, was worked together by Joel with the 
 prophecies against hostile nations into a compendium of 
 eschatological dogmatism" (p. 28). One may reasonably 
 doubt whether or not the Jews of the fifth century had 
 much interest in a dogmatism of the eschatological type. 
 But this explanation intended specially to support Merx's 
 hypothesis is so little satisfactory, that he immediately adds 
 another: "That Joel specially brings the murders by Egyp- 
 tians and Edomites forward, is probably occasioned by the 
 persecutions of the Jews, which resulted there." Which? 
 The history as well as Merx is silent concerning them. But 
 again: 'The Egyptians and Edomites, who are threatened 
 by Joel with n^tttj, must not be omitted, and where could 
 they be placed? They fit nowhere in Joel's development 
 of the last judgment; yet as a rhetorically designed contrast 
 to the great fulness of Judea, they could best stand where 
 they are" (p. 29). Then our author did not place them 
 last so as to have all "in the same order" as Ezekiel. 
 Since this is true, he might easily have placed them with 
 Tyre, Sidon and Philistia. On the contrary it has presum- 
 ably been shown, that the last paragraph of Joel is prop- 
 erly a short recapitulation of his prophecy. These two 
 chief enemies of the pre-exilic (in no wise , post-exilic) period 
 could fittingly stand therein: 1) because they were tolerably 
 representative enemies of that period; 2) because, as seems 
 evident, the Judeans had suffered an invasion from them 
 within a few years, on account of whose cruelties and material 
 injuries Joel would not mention their names in the mourn- 
 ful narration, and particularly, 3) because specializing would 
 have been out of place here in connection with D''i3n"^3, 
 "all nations", Jo. 4, 2, where the prediction of the universal 
 judgment would admit only the mention of hostile people in 
 general. 
 
 Perhaps this is the most convenient place, before we 
 
— 53 — 
 
 enter upon the arguments of a more political nature, to 
 notice an opinion set forth by Stade ^) in a discussion upon 
 the Jonians in the Old Testament. He thinks that D'^li'^n, 
 "the Jonians", Jo. 4, 6, represent a great power wliich was hostile 
 to Israel, the beginning of whose rise to importance had already 
 been observed by later authors, as in Gen. 10, 4; Zech. 9, 13; 
 Dan. 8, 21; 10, 20, as also earlier by Ezekiel, 27, 13. 19. 
 But Joel certainly nowhere suggests, that the Jonians were 
 a hostile power, neither dues he charge them with any ill- 
 will towards Israel. They are a distant, to him httle known 
 nationality, who had, as was legitimate in early times, pur- 
 chased captives for slaves. But if we place Joel in the time 
 of the Grecian supremacy in the East, who were the Phe- 
 nicians and Philistines then, that they appear so conspicuous 
 according to Joel? and how did they carry on their slave- 
 trade so independently? and were their temples probably 
 remaining after their successive subjugations ? and why was 
 it necessary to transport the Judean youth "far from their 
 borders" to the Greeks, since they were themselves the 
 nearest power to the Israelites, if not indeed their rulers? 
 And further: how could Joel neglect to denounce them with 
 Israel's other enemies, or rather as the chief of them? 
 Jo. 4, 4 — 8. An answer to these and other relevant ques- 
 tions would be superfluous. The interrogation is a sufficient 
 refutation here. J. D. Michaelis also held for a time, that 
 
 1) De jjopulo Javan parcrgon patrio serraone conseriptum. 1880. 
 j)p. 18 — 20. Hitzig's once adopted and never abandoned hypothesis 
 (Die zwolf kleinen Propheten, 4. Aufl. 1881. S. 97), that yv^^ is equiv- 
 alent to the Arabic Jemen, has found little favor \vith scholars. It 
 was, on the contrarj', a Greek tribe or tribes as Stade shows; but 
 the view of the latter is scarcely a possible one, that they were the 
 Greeks of Asia Minor in general. They were rather certain (ireeks 
 upon the islands on the coast of Asia Minor (Schrader, KAT. 2. AuH. 
 1883. S. 81 f.). 
 
— 54 — 
 
 Joel belonged to the Maccabean period, but he afterwards 
 abandoned that view. 
 
 5. Merx does not inform us definitely where Joel found 
 his reference to the Jonians and the Shabaeans, 4, 6. 8. 
 But the question arises here, how could Joel bring into his 
 eschatology the return of the Judeans, who had been sold 
 into bondage by the Phenicians and Philistines? or how 
 could he possibly think, in this eschatological representation, 
 of the sale of the children of these slave -dealers to the 
 Shabaeans? And further, where in Ezekiel or among the 
 Prophets did Joel learn that the Tyrians, Sidonians and 
 Philistines had robbed the Temple and carried its costly 
 articles forth into their temples? Oort suggested, that the 
 slave-dealers followed the Babylonian army in order to buy 
 the captives and the treasures of the Temple. But that 
 would be to threaten and punish these purchasers extremely, 
 without even impeaching those who plundered the Temple 
 and lead the captives forth. ^) Moreover, we know that 
 the Chaldeans carried the captives into Babylonia and the 
 treasures of the Temple to Babylon; wheares, Joel says to 
 the Phenicians and Philistines of his time expressly: "Ye 
 have taken (orjrijjb, by force) my silver and my gold and 
 have carried my precious articles away into your temples." 
 Again, upon what ground could Joel assume such courage 
 and such a zealous spirit in the Persian period? How could 
 he so suddenly arouse the people out of their lethargy by 
 an imaginary army of locusts and drought, so that they 
 heard and heeded his appeal to celebrate a fast? And upon 
 what sort of a foundation could one at that time stand in 
 
 1) Comp. Smend, Moses apud Proplietas, 1875. pp. 1 sqq. intra. 
 It is true that Smend's views have suffered considerable change in 
 some respects; but I am not aware, that he has come to a diiferent 
 conclusion in regard to Joel. At any rate the argument above is 
 valid and pointed. 
 
— 55 — 
 
 order to denounce and menace the nations? Before the Exile 
 the influence of the religion of the Sanctuary together with 
 the power of the state would have been a strong support 
 and an encouragment. And for what cause were these de- 
 nunciations? In that "quiet life (of the Persian period), 
 from which there is nothing recorded, because there was 
 nothing to record" (Merx, p. 34), there were no formidable 
 enemies to be feared and none had robbed the city and 
 Temple, while those whom Joel threatens were then incon- 
 ceivable. Ewald observed, that Joel had no foreboding of 
 the Assyrians — how much less even an idea of the later 
 enemies, — but ''the unbroken spirit from the time of 
 Deborah and David continues to move here." And Smend 
 correctly says, it would be wholly incredible, that Joel, who 
 regarded the Temple so jealously, lived in Zedekiah's time, 
 or after the Chaldean conquest (Kuenen, and Oort formerly) 
 and lamented Israel's possessions without more definitely 
 mentioning the treasures of the Temple. It would he still 
 less credible, if he was a naiTOw-minded theocratic priest 
 after the Exile (Merx). But Merx is so little responsible 
 for consistency in the history, that he chides his fore-runner, 
 Hilgenfeld, for his attempt to apply his allegory, namely, the four 
 kinds of locusts, historically. Hilgenfeld made, at least, the at- 
 tempt, however awkwardly (s. above p. 8). But Mei-x's typol- 
 ogy, no less than that of Hilgenfeld and other allegorists, 
 turns the locusts also into a mere figure, a prophetic vision, 
 whose application he does not even attempt ; but, to avoid all 
 troul)le with history and things definite, he simi)ly pushes it 
 into the indefinite events belonging to eschatology ^). 
 
 1) Merx fittingly styles Hilgenfeld'a attempt "falsches Historisie- 
 ron", i, e., a false application to history (p. 37, note). But this suggests 
 '•Enthistorisicren", a term not in current usage, as the ajipropriato 
 name for Merx's effort to remove Joel entirely from the plane of 
 historical events. 
 
— 56 — 
 
 6. Joel's political perspective is entirely too small to 
 fit anywhere in the post-exilic period. Xot only occur in- 
 admissable names, according to the post-exilic_, history, in his 
 list of enemies, and not only are indispensible names omitted, 
 but the register of national names, as a whole, seems to he too 
 narrowly circumscribed by the repeated expression, Di13in"bD 
 a^n©^, Jo. 4, 11. 12, as also by D^n3in-bD, v. 2. Ex- 
 cepting the anciently known Egyptians, the special enemies 
 include only those contiguous to Palestine. Joel seems to 
 mean very little more by I'^nott nii:\n-bD and n^l3n-bD, — 
 the latter is limited by the former as also by the context 
 in which it stands (v. 2). This only indicates Joel's very 
 early age, when the Hebrew's conception of the world was 
 a very limited one. Never after the beginning of the Syrian, 
 at latest of the Assyrian period, could the political horizon 
 have been so small. It is therefore inconceivable, indeed 
 impossible, that a Midrash-composer of the Persian period, 
 who was particularly fond of description, a diligent student 
 of the early Prophets, who knew so many nations, the author 
 of "a compendium of eschatological dogmatism," which above 
 all was founded upon Ezekiel, whose political horizon extended 
 from Gog, Magog and Tubal to Ethiopia, — I say, it is 
 simply impossible, that this little book originated fi'om such 
 an author and such surroundings. One can see, how Haggai, 
 Zechariah and Malachi have little to say about special 
 enemies, since they were genuine Prophets, as all admit, 
 and had not undertaken to prepare a complete register of 
 enemies. But if Joel was the '^ Jewish particularist" with 
 priestly prejudices for the cultus of the second Temple, 
 whom the critics now make him, he certainly would not 
 have omitted to bring the Samaritans under the ban of 
 scathing denunciations; for they were at that time open 
 enemies of Jerusalem and did their utmost to prevent the 
 rebuilding of the Temple, Ezra 4. Yet our critics do seek 
 
— 57 — 
 
 occasionally to discover some historical mark of Joel's age. 
 Thus: the city -was surroimded by a wall, Jo. 2, 7; there- 
 fore, Joel wrote after the completion of the same, i. e., after 
 445 B. C.^). And yet this Jew, who was full of hatred 
 towards all enemies, was nevertheless so inconsistent and 
 unpatriotic, that he severely threatens long subjugated 
 nationalities (Edom, Phenicia, Philistia and Eg^pt), forgets 
 the later, far more injurious Sj'rians, AssA'rians, Babylonians, 
 as also the then existing Persians, and wilfully omits to 
 mention the deriding and hostilely armed Samaritans, Am- 
 monites, Arabs and others, Neh. 2, 19; 4 and 6; 13, 1 — 3. 
 7. "What has just been set forth is conspicuously appli- 
 cable to nearly all passages, which Joel is supposed to have 
 borrowed. This is exemplified by a comparison of 4, 18b 
 with Zech. 14. 18; Ez. 47, 1 — 12; for Joel's description is 
 clearly too small to have been compiled from the others. 
 And of all such passages cited by Merx scarcely two are 
 fuller in the Book of Joel, than in the other Prophets. 
 Furthermore, had he then the remarkable power to induce 
 others to believe him, when he declared: Our earlier Proph- 
 ets were quite mistaken , ^) the kingdom shall be restored 
 first after the last judgment has destroyed all these political 
 enemies? And could he possibly pray: "Give not thy 
 heritage to reproach that heathen should nile over them." 
 2, 17, although they had already been constantly suffering 
 Tinder the yoke of heathen rule 100 — 200 years (Hilgen- 
 feld, Oort, Duhm, Merx) with no hupe of an early escape 
 (Smend)? and how could the author speak of a future 
 bringing back, niniD nic, 4, 1, 2, when the main part of 
 
 1) Duhm, Theologie der Propheten, S. 277 and Merx, S. 31. 
 
 2) So I must understand Merx (j). 37), unless he means, as lie 
 probably does not, that Joel's view of the Prophets was correct, and 
 that they also were biassed by the same apocalyptico-eschatological 
 theory, which he ascribes to Joel. 
 
— 58 — 
 
 the people had long been resettled in the old home') and 
 the rest had wilfully remained in Babylonia? It would also 
 be strange, if no other post -exilic Prophet anywhere 
 mentions such a restoration, whether it be Malachi, who 
 speaks of ''the great and terrible day of Jehovah," 3, 23, 
 or Daniel, whom Criticism places still later; while Jewish 
 history knows quite as little of such a promise at that time 
 and with the supposed meaning. This alone renders the 
 assumption of so late an origin illusory^). 
 
 C. 
 
 Merx does not remove the above difficulties of his hypoth- 
 esis, but .rather avoids them by asking: "Whether the 
 post-exilic Prophets could regard the pitiable restoration they 
 had experienced as a nimo niTJJ, whether they were not rather 
 obliged to push the same into the future" (p. 37)? It has 
 been observed above that the post-exilic Prophets make no 
 reference either directly or indirectly to another restoration 
 in respect to mere material prosperity. Merx's question leads 
 us, therefore, to examine a few phrases and expressions, upon 
 whose interpretation his hypothesis greatly depends. 
 
 The phrase (rr^nTC) n^niri a'lTC sometimes refers to a 
 bringing back out of a captivity. But Joel (4, 1) evidently 
 has another thought in mind, transcending the outward 
 and material blessings , to which kind the prophecies in 2, 
 18 — 27 for the most part refer. For the phrase applies 
 seldom, if at all, literally to a captivity or prison as it is 
 usually understood, nintj, or nin©, is in fact derived from 
 a"i©, and nine niTC literally means: to turn a turning, or 
 to restore a restoration, and in general: to restore one's 
 former state of prosperity. Job 42, 10; Hos. 6, 11; Ez. 16, 
 
 1) Comp. De Wette-Schrader, Einleitung in d. A. Text., S. 455. 
 
— 59 — 
 
 53. Comp. V. 55; Ps. 126, 4; Am. 9, 14.^) These passages 
 can uot be clearly explained by the usual derivation of 
 matb from nnc, so that rraiDTS mo should mean: to 
 turn one's captivity or imprisonment, in the sense of: to 
 make an end of the misery; for it could not have lost its 
 primary meaning so as to apply to Job 42, 10, where there 
 is no hint of a captivity or imprisonment (Dillmann^). On 
 the other hand, this meaning as the primary one would be 
 inappropriate in almost every case, as: Dt. 30, 3; Jer. 29, 
 14; 30, 3. 18; 33, 7. 11; Ez. 29, 14; 39, 25 (Bottcher); 
 whereas the idea of a restoration to prosperity is every- 
 where the chief thought, which even Gesenius^) adopted in 
 the passages, Hos. 6, 11; Ez. 10, 53; Job. 42, 10, and 
 Miihlau and Vulck*) also in the last one, although they, like 
 Gesenius, derive r.-'ar, mmr from nnc. It is freely admitted, 
 that such forms are more frequently derived from 'nb verbs; 
 but in only one place. Num. 21, 29, is it neces^mry to derive 
 iT^miJ (nimij nowhere) from nnrj, and here it is most prob- 
 ably derived immediately from ""nTr, or the more poetical 
 n'i'ntJ/) while such forms are also derived from 'ys verbs, 
 as n^isn from Din, Ez. 32, 5, n^Tb from Tib, Prv. 4, 24, 
 r^T^V from TI3?, n^-ia from m:k Jer, 41, 17. The objection, 
 that we should not expect two different nouns, as n^miJ and 
 nmtj, Is. 30, 15, from a single stem, like mis (Deli tzsch), is at 
 least sufficiently offset by n^nan and n^in. Mi. 2, 3, from 
 D11. On the other hand, since we have ""aTr and n-»m!7 
 
 1) For a full treatment of the subject comiiare Bottcher, Neue 
 Aehrenlese, No. 109, and Kuenen, De Israelitische Godsdienst. in Theo- 
 logischTydschrift VII. As opposed to the above view, compare Delitzsch, 
 Commentar iiber das Buch Hiob, 2. Aufi. 1876. 
 
 2) Commentar iiber Fliob, 1869. S. 368. 
 
 3) Thesaurus, S. 1352. 
 
 4) Hebr. und Chald. Wt3rterbuch. 
 
 5j Ewald, Lohrbuch d. hebr. Sprache, 165, b. unten. 
 
-- 60 — 
 
 from natj meaning: captivity, or collectively: captives, 
 should Ave expect another form, iriatJ, ninir, from the same 
 stem, which must constantly be explained figuratively in 
 the sense of a derivative from T\ti ? nimij is clearly distin- 
 guished from '^rniJ, TOytd, in Jer. 48, 46 f. Many passages 
 contain both ideas either as parallels or as contrasted. Thus: 
 '•\y\ D":ian-b3B DDn« ""nsapi oDn^mc-nx ^nniiji, Jer. 29, 
 
 14. Comp. V. lO'; Ez. 29, 13. 14; 39, 25. 27, etc., where 
 the promise is two-fold: a local return from captivity and 
 a restoration to a former state of prosperity. Indeed, the 
 former idea is often so fully and repeatedly expressed in 
 other words, as to render nimc y)ti not merely tautological, 
 but superfluous, and therefore meaningless, if it did not in 
 itself express a higher idea than mere release from misery. 
 But it goes further and clearly promises restoration to pros- 
 perity. The distinction is unmistakable. Moreover, analo- 
 gous phrases, so-called schemata etymologica, in which the 
 object is derived from the verbal stem and repeats a similar 
 sound, are of frequent occurrence. They are usually inten- 
 sive expressions^) and may be compared to the Arabic 
 j^ibji J)*aJi, or the Greek and Latin cognate accusatives. 
 That the object is usually introduced by TiS after niaiij niffi 
 is an objection, which Delitzsch raises to this kind of idiom, 
 but which seems to me not very formidable. And, indeed, 
 I find several corroborating examples of such definiteness 
 in similar expressions, as: nyiiaffiSiTiX ya©, 1 Sam. 4, 19; 
 nrn byian .... byia,^) Josh. 22, 31; ^n-^n-nx n"*"), 1 Sam. 
 24, 16; Jer. 50, 34; Ps. 35, 1; Prv. 23, 11; ly^i^yni? nn 
 •fnTSjjrnjs '^ri'aj??'!,^) Jer. 51, 36. A related expression is 
 
 1) Comp. Ewald's Lehrbuch d. liebr Sprache, 281, a. 
 
 2) The sign of the object nx is, indeed, wanting in this express- 
 ion, but the definiteness, which is the thing of importance here, is 
 hoterwiso made clear. 
 
 3) It susprises one that Delitzsch, who is usually more exact. 
 
— 61 — 
 
 TTBS DH'^S^apTS 3?3p, Prv. 22, 23. Other passages without 
 nx, but with a suftix occur in Ps. 119, 154; Pn'. 22, 23; 
 Lam. 3, 58 f. But returniug to Joel, we find yet further proof 
 of the distinction above made and the meaning of maw aiizj 
 as defended. For, if this idiomatic expression means: to 
 tuni the captivity or imprisonment, or: to make an end of 
 the misery, as usually explained, then we should expect it 
 in 4, 7. That it has the other meaning in 4, 1 is clear 
 by its nearness to the pouring out of the Spirit and with 
 the latter applies to the distant future, as pointed out by means 
 of the expression, n-cnn W^-Cl, 3, 2; 4, 1. Comp. pp. 37 f. 
 This error in regard to nirns nittj depends, so far as 
 Merx is concerned, immediately upon the assumption, that 
 D'j'^a DS-bottb ncnnb T^nbn? 1Pri"-», Jo. 2, 19, must 
 mean: Give not thy heritage to reproach, that the heathen 
 should deride them ('^iiber sie spotten"), and that Joel refers 
 to this humiliation and disgrace as present under the Persian 
 rule. ^) But biD^, upon which Merx bases his interi)retation, 
 means with n and a personal object: to rule over, Dt. 15, 6; 
 Ps. 106, 41; Jud. 8, 22 f.; 2 S. 23, 3; Is. 3, 4. 12; 19, 4; 
 63, 19; Lam. 5, 8; or: to bear the rule over a people, 
 Jud. 14, 4; 15, 11; and with an impersonal object : to tule 
 over a land. Josh. 12, 5; 1 K. 5, 1; 2 Chr. 9, 26. Li 
 only one instance, Xeh. 9, 37, 'by biria means: to rule over, 
 etc., and here it is evidently by attraction of the foregoing by, 
 after which Dtbctt stands. Otherwise bt'a with by or bx 
 (if the person or thing often means: to deride, or to mock 
 at — as the substantive btjia could sometimes be rendered: 
 a derision, Ez. 12, 23 — from the primary meaning: to 
 
 should have based an argument chiefly upon the incorrectness of the 
 Hebrew of such clauses as this last one notwithstanding the striking 
 analogies cited above. 
 
 1) Die Prophetic des Joel und ilire Ausleger, S. 13 f. unten u. 35. 
 
— 62 ~ 
 
 be like, to liken, to make like. Now, if Joel had meant, to 
 deride or to mock at, he must have used by (or ba) instead 
 of S. Merx finds support for his exegesis only in Job, 
 17, 6, where, as he thinks, n"'")2y bilj^b is equivalent to 
 W^^zy 13 bffi^b. Then 'a blCtt could mean: to deride a person. 
 But, if a change were here desirable, this expression might 
 just as well, and from analogy far better, stand for bilhib 
 □1)33? iby. Some commentators insist, nevertheless, that the 
 context forbids the interpretation here defended, the reproach 
 consisting in derisive speech. Comp. Ez. 17, 2; 18, 2. 3, etc. 
 But the parallelism in Jo. 2, 17. 19 might better refer to pro- 
 tection from enemies ('by Din, 'by b'nn, ^-nsb ssp), of whom 
 there seems to be hints in 2, 2 — 9, since the passages 
 usuall}^ cited as proof of the contrary ]iot unfrequently connect 
 the said reproach and derision (nsin and b'©')D) with out- 
 casting or subjecting to hostile people. Comp. Dt. 28, 37; 
 1 K. 9, 7; Jer. 24, 9. 
 
 ButMerx's interpretation is further erroneous : 1) because 
 the prayer, Jo. 2, 17, itself clearly shows, that the state 
 of humiliating reproach is not present, but imminent, so 
 that it can in no wise have been already present for gene- 
 rations. 2) If Ch. 4, 1 ff. be the intended answer to this 
 petition, it should either stand nearer to it in the text, or 
 else show some unmistakable signs of such relationship, 
 instead of standing remote in connection with the assem- 
 bling of the nations to the last judgment. And where then 
 would be the immediate answer to console the petitioner, 
 which one logically expects and which is admittedly the 
 purpose of the discourse. Hope for the far distant future alone 
 witliout some present indication of the same in experience would 
 be little consolation. 3) This petition with earnest penitence 
 is, on the contrary, for protection in imminent danger from 
 the disgrace of heathen rule. 
 
 It is highly probable, that one or more Iiostile nations 
 
— 63 — 
 
 sought to take udvantage of the impoverished condition of the 
 laud iu order to subdue Judah. That would be the intended 
 reproach , that Jehovah's covenant people should l3e obliged 
 to submit to derisive heathen rulers.^) Hence the petition 
 is first of all, to spare "thy people" and not to submit 
 "thy heritage" to open shame. The form of expression. 
 iia:?'!? n*,rT' n^X^I, v. 19, also indicates a particularly intimate 
 cummunication between Jehovah and His people, and the 
 whole connection shows a lirm confidence in Jehovah, while 
 the mention of different classes and ages makes the prayer, 
 which is ascribed to the priests, apparently the petition of 
 the people as a whole. If this were a petition for deUver- 
 ance from present evils, either as the derision of a long 
 standing heathen rule (Merx), or as the disgrace of a subjuga- 
 tion, which is present to the priests, whom Joel prophetically 
 sees (Hengst. et al), it should then read: T^lGy-nst T^WTi 
 '-"}«, or '131 K^iirin and the following context should har- 
 monize therewith. But the answer which follows is the 
 only possible one upon the supposition of imminent danger 
 and not of present evils, namely, "Jehovah has been (already 
 determined, will be) jealous for His land and has spared (not, 
 delivered) His people", etc., vs. 19 flf. with praet. prophetica 
 and futures (pp. 5 flf.). Merx is not very clear as to the time 
 when the fruitfuluess of the soil, Jo. 2, 21 ff., shall return; 
 but since all is so "sensual" and "earthly" with Joel, and 
 the ))redicted prosperity is to be attained by the execution 
 of the last judgment upon all enemies, we must place all 
 after that ordeal. Or is it merely a "rhetorical" sketch of 
 the author's "development of the last judgment", whither our 
 
 1) Although c^'.a, 2, 17, is inilehnite, thiit docs uot i)revciit it, 
 as Wiinschc assumes, from refering to particular people, who may 
 liave been awaiting an opportunity for invading the land. c. g., the 
 lOgyptians, Edomites and others. 
 
— 64 — 
 
 Critic transports the whole assembly, priests, elders and 
 entire celebration of the fast together? 
 
 Thus far our research has been concerned especially 
 with the object and the logical connection of our book and 
 how they are related to the outward, and particularly to 
 the poUtical, circumstances at the time of its composition. 
 Although the figurative language, the eschatological rep- 
 resentations and some interruptions in the flow of the dis- 
 course present serious difficulties, yet few, if any, are in- 
 surmountable. And the results thus far warrant not only 
 the conviction, that Joel prophesied and wrote very early, 
 but also the conclusion that no clear indications of a post- 
 exilic origin have appeared. On the contrary the impos- 
 sibility of so late a composition has been clearly demon- 
 strated, provided that no unusually weighty objections are 
 yet to be offered. 
 
 Chapter II. 
 
 Our attention will next be turned to the civil and 
 especially the reUgious institutions of Jerusalem and Judea 
 at the time of Joel. 
 
 We find here quite another material for our careful 
 study, of which the critics of the newest school, after having 
 placed him in the Persian period, have constructed around 
 our Prophet, as they suppose, an impregnable fortification. 
 But this new structure must be submitted, in all its parts, 
 to a thorough examination, by which we shall doubtless 
 discover both rents in the wall and weak places in the foun- 
 dation; and even the materials, as they appear in the Book 
 of Joel are not well adapted to the post-exilic style. They 
 consist of four kinds, viz., the elders, the fasting, the offer- 
 ings and the priests, materials, which, as the Graf-school 
 would years ago have taught us, appear only in a rough un- 
 polished condition in the old state and cultus. 
 
— 65 — 
 
 Turn to this little book and the e3'e Mis at once upon 
 ^■^Sj^in, the elders and the first clause reads: ''Hear this 
 ye elders", or better with the English Version: ''ye old 
 men". One sees that the elders occupy an important po- 
 sition in the community, which Joel addresses. As is well 
 kno\vn, they have always had a controlling influence in the 
 political and civil, as also in the religious questions of the 
 East. Wherever counsel and resolution were required — and 
 the same is yet true where oriental customs prevail — the 
 elders were called upon to plan and to provide. In the 
 time of Moses they were the leaders, Ex, 3, 16; 4, 29; 
 Dt. 22, 15 — 17, and in the time of the judges they had 
 a ruling voice, Jud. 21, 13 — 16. (Comp. Josh. 8, 33). In 
 the most serious crises they constituted a kind of assembly 
 of notables (Merx), while their position of influence and 
 reverence was abiding as seen in Jer. 26, 18 and elsewhere. 
 It was the assembled old men, who petitioned .Samuel for 
 a king. Even so when Samuel went to Bethlehem to anoint 
 David as King, the elders were present, although he as 
 Prophet and Judge possessed full power. Their influence 
 and dignity were such that David made a kind of consti- 
 tutional covenant with them and again they anointed him 
 King over Israel, 2 S. 5, 3. But having once become en- 
 emies, they prompted his son almost to overthrow his king- 
 dom, 2 S. 17, 4—15. 
 
 With an oriental people — to a less extent with others — 
 the unofflcial authority of the elders first becomes inoperative, 
 when the kingdom develops into a monarchy, or the priest- 
 hood into a ruling hierarchy, or both united, as was largely 
 the case under Solomon. It is entirely natural too, that 
 the official should take the place of their unofficial author- 
 ity, and their counsel and aid are again reciuired only in 
 the crisis of a weak administration or of a revolution. That 
 we hear so little of the elders during Solomon's reign, is 
 
 5 
 
— 66 — 
 
 perhaps due to the fact, that this wise and proud statesman 
 so developed and exhalted both state and religion, that their 
 counsel was seldom necessary. Yet at the dedication of the 
 Temple they were leaders of their tribes and occupy the 
 first places in the congregation, 1 K. 8, Iff.; 2 Chr. 5, 2 ff. 
 But from that time onward the Davidic idea of the kingdom 
 and cultus began to be realized. Nor did Solomon ever wholly 
 reject the elders, or, so far as we are informed, desire to do 
 it. For after his death, when Rehoboam's weakness and 
 folly jeopardized the safety of the kingdom, the same elders, 
 who had been accustomed to stand before his father, reap- 
 pear in a deliberative assembly with their former rights to 
 counsel him, 1 K. 12, 6. 8. 14. Since the King, like the ruler 
 of the Northern Ivingdom, 1 K. 20, 8, called them together, 
 thej^ could scarcely have been a fixed corporation. Appar- 
 ently more like the assembly mentioned by Joel was the 
 one which Josiah summoned, in which the most prominent 
 personages seem to be, first the elders and then the priests and 
 the prophets, 2 K. 23, 1—3. Comp. Ez. 1, 26. 27; Ch. 8, etc. 
 Such were the important position and influence of the 
 elders of Israel as surely before the Exile as afterwards. 
 But, on the other hand, the rigid ritualistic and almost 
 tyrannic post-exilic priesthood, as understood by the Graf- 
 school, leaves no room for Merx's "aristocratic free-state" 
 (p. 30), wherein the elders ruled over all at will; and much 
 less could they have summoned and controlled the celebration 
 of a fast in the court of the Temple. Moreover, Joel does 
 not refer to the elders as an official administrative corpo- 
 ration (Mei-x); for in the last of the three places where 
 D"i:pT occurs, 2, 16, it means simply "old men" (Reuss). 
 And further: we read in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 
 of "the governor," "the nobles," "the princes of Judah," 
 "the chief of the fathers" (ninsjn '^m'i), "the princes of the 
 fathers (nis«n ^ni» Ezr. 8, 29), of' Persian officials, of 
 
— 6*^ 
 
 Nehemiah as guveruor, of priests, Levites, chief priests 
 (a-'snsn "^ir P]zr. 10, 5), Nethiiiim, often of ''the old men" 
 and once, at least, of "the chief of the fathers (who are 
 the elders or), the old men" (D^:pTn rinsn ■'iJin Ezr. 3, 12). 
 When there are so many higher officials, while the references 
 to *'the fathers" are indelinite and variable, where is room 
 for the "aristocratic free-state" ruled over by an official 
 budy of elders in a couutiy so small, "that the Prophet 
 supposes (?) it very easy to summon the whole people to- 
 gether by the blowing of trumpets" (Duhm, Oort, Merx)? It 
 is not at all to be supposed, that the counsel of the elders had 
 no more weight after the Exile. They appear at least once 
 in a deliberative assembly of the whole people with the 
 princes, Ezr. 10, 8. 9. 14, but neither with paramount 
 authority, nor even with the influence which they had in 
 the days of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel; for they come 
 frum every city, "T^yi "i"'y""':j5T, i. e.. the elders of the Judean 
 villages, — there were properly no citiea then — not alone 
 from Jerusalem, and they apparently take the second place 
 by the princes and judges. From all this it would seem, 
 that, so far as the position and authority of the elders is 
 concerned, it was never official; and that Joel much more 
 likely lived in the time of the kings than after the Exile. 
 But we have before us the elders, or the old men 
 together with all tlie inhabitants of the land, i. e.. the com- 
 munity as a whole, and the elders are named first appar- 
 ently out of respect for old age, ])ut chiefly because their 
 long memory is especially called upon to corrolwrate tb<' 
 affirmative answer, which is implied in the question in 1. 2 b. 
 And what kind of an assembly is this? Among the "bs 
 }nxn •'nCT', the whole people, 1, 1. 11, are specified, the 
 drunken and the wine-drinkers, the husbandmen and the 
 vine-dressers, as also diflferent ages and classes togetiior with 
 the priests, 1, 5. 11; 2. 16; 1, 13; 2. 17. The Pn^phet 
 
 5* 
 
— 68 — 
 
 addresses now one class, now another, according to their 
 vocation and dignity. Such a specification of so different 
 classes certainly forbids the conclusion that the elders and 
 the priests, considering their positions of dignity and honor 
 with reference to the people, are made so very conspicuous 
 as many critics assume. 
 
 At a time of such distressing want as Joel describes, 
 fasting and penitence scarcely need be recommended to a- 
 people; for they occur almost of course, as at the time of 
 the extreme drought of which Jeremiah informs us, 14, 
 1 — 12. Still less than Joel could Jeremiah be content Avith 
 prevalent externalities, but he was obliged publicly and 
 zealously to combat the utter emptiness and the hopeless 
 insincerity of the fasting and sacrificing. The Temple-service 
 does not appear so debased as represented by Joel, while 
 the latter only admonishes in regard to fasting, that along 
 with it the heart instead of the garments must be rent. 
 But special sins did not belong to his topic. He speaks of 
 the distressing famine, of the goodness of Jehovah and 
 future blessings, and of the judgment of the world. It is 
 therefore not so peculiar, that the people are charged with 
 no culpa nostra (Merx). Yet it is clear, that every one is 
 conscious of culpa sua. Otherwise, wherefore are repentance 
 and sacrifice universal customs with men? Or for what other 
 reason should one turn with the whole heart to God? And 
 Joel, who had doubtless often laid the sins of his people 
 before them, is of the same opinion, 2, 12. Says he: ''Rend 
 your heart and not your garments and turn unto Jehovah 
 your God," 2, 13. This is the turning point of the entire 
 address, the mni "im, this the kernel of the prophetic 
 oracle («TCBn). 
 
 Thus one sees how erroneously Mera asserts: "The 
 fasting has with Joel the import and object of securing an 
 answer to prayer;" but he proceeds far more correctly: "that 
 
— 69 — 
 
 is conceivable or discoverable iu the case of no old (i. e.. 
 earlier, yet more exactly, Old Testament) prophet." It is 
 recognized by all that the meat-offering and the drink-offering, 
 the fasting and the dignity of the priests were at an early 
 date highly valned by the people generally, ') which to Reuss 
 is a proof of Joel's early age. Merx nevertheless supposes, 
 that ''it was first introduced by the King of Nineveh" and 
 therefore appears only "in the latest period of Hebrew 
 literature" (p. 31). But the occurrence of fasting is by no 
 means wanting in the earlier literature. Comp. Jud. 20, 26; 
 1 S. 7, 5—6; 31, 13; 2 S. 1, 12; 12, 16; 1 K. 21, 9 S.% 
 So common was the fasting as a national custom, which 
 the regent could appoint, — and this earlier than Hosea 
 and Amos, — that Jezebel could employ it to carry out 
 lier wicked design against Naboth. But the first of the 
 above passages may serve us as a representative example of 
 the Old Testament fasting. The fast was properly a cele- 
 l)ration, and in the highest degree an earnest time of sincere 
 confession and solemn contrition, so that it is always pre- 
 sumed, that those who joined in it firmly believed upon 
 Jehovah. Hence the author of Ps. 69, could poetically repre- 
 sent the soul as fasting while engaged in very solemn 
 prayer. 
 
 In accordance with this sense and usage instead of all 
 the earlier Prophets rejecting it (Merx), they nowhere object 
 to fasting as such, but only to fasting from unbelieving, 
 immoral or idolatrous persons. As a proof of this one need 
 only read Jcr. 14. 12; Is. 58, 6; Zech. 7, 5; 8, 19. which 
 
 1) Merx, S. 32. WelUiausen, Prolegomena zur Gesch. Israels, 1883, 
 S. 63. 
 
 2) It is suprising that Merx's keen eye fell ui)on none of these 
 examples of fasting by Samuel and David, although he otherwise 
 rites the books in which thev are recorded. 
 
— 70 — 
 
 Merx mentions. There can be no reasonable doubt that 
 the author here intentionally contrasts the fasting, which he 
 observes with a true kind, which would be pleasing to Je- 
 hovah. It is remarkable, that even the post-exilic Zecha- 
 riah, who himself zealously struggled for the erection of the 
 new Temple, Ch. 4, is the most outspoken against fasting. 
 Merx also observes the same, but allows his interpretation to 
 mislead him again. This Prophet clearty indicates the ground 
 of complaint, 7, 8 — 13, and means only: Fasting, which 
 hitherto, as now, has often borne evil fruits, should bear the 
 good fruits of righteousness, truth, love, joy and peace, 8, 16. 
 Daniel also fasted, 9, 3. And although the Book of Daniel 
 is usually placed so late, it sets no undue value upon fast- 
 ing. If so, we should naturally expect to find it in con- 
 nection with prayer at times of great anxiety and danger, 
 Chs. 3 and 4. Jonah, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther and the 
 apocryphal Books of Judith and IV Ezra, to which Merx 
 merely refers, teach us no additional ordinance or special 
 usage in respect to fasting. 
 
 The objections, which must now be brought against the 
 newest school of critics in respect to the meat-oflferings (or 
 better rendered: vegetable-offerings) and drink-offerings, 
 nns'a and ?|D;^ are very similar to those above. Especially 
 in regard to these is Joel considered ''particularly Jewish", 
 fonnal, narrow-minded, priestly, as no pre-exilic Prophet 
 was. The grounds of this assumption can be fairly tested 
 only by a thorough examination of the passages, which relate 
 to the subject; although this method is by no means sufficent 
 to present a complete picture of the doctrinal features of 
 each Prophet. Only somewhat more nearly can one, by 
 comparison of all the Prophets, arrive at a consensus of 
 prophetic teaching in regard to subjects more fully noticed 
 by them. Hence it is not intended here to speak with 
 authority in regard to Joel's entire theology from the few 
 
— 71 — 
 
 sentences he has recorded, as some dare do; but only to show 
 that the priesthood and Temple-service as represented by 
 him coincide with, and were contained in, the Temple and 
 cultus of Solomon. To this end let us see what the few 
 utterances of the Prophets teach concerning the pre-exilic 
 cultus, and particularly the parts mentioned by Joel. 
 
 1. The Prophets express themselves complainingly as 
 follows: against Tfo: and nn:ie together with nnr, the slain 
 or bloody sacrifice, offered to idols, Is. 57, 3—7; against 
 nn:i2 together with other offerings, Is. 66, 3; againt -jo: 
 offered to strange gods, i. e., others than Jehovah, together 
 with nnbp, incense, offered to ''all the host of heaven", 
 Jer. 19, 13, and to Baal, Jer. 32, 29; against tjc: offered 
 to strange gods, n"iT3p5 to idols and 0*^:^2, a cake or wafer, 
 to "the queen of heaven", Jer. 7, 18; against the last three 
 all offered to "the queen of heaven", Jer. 44, 17 ff.; with 
 strong deiuinciation against 1fD2 together with nnr and 
 nin*'; n-^n, i. e., sweet odor, offered upon the high places, 
 Ez. 20, 28. 29. This is exactly what one should expect 
 from the true prophets of Jehovah. That is, the true advo- 
 cates of any religion must be consistent with its teachings. 
 
 2. The following offerings are emphatically denounced: the 
 nnr-a, nnr and nbir, or burnt-offering, by Amos, 5, 22. 25, 
 the same together with rnu]? and the Sabbath by Isaiah, 
 1, 13, and the nn:^ and n'';y by Jeremiah, 14, 12. But 
 this is not because their being offered was a matter of in- 
 ilifference to these Prophets (Merx). Each of these three 
 Prophets, who best represent the pre-exilic, as also the exilic, 
 period, denounces the offerings for unmistakable reasons, 
 namely, on account of impiety, transgression and the wor- 
 ship of idols and strange gods, which reasons of themselves 
 constantly point back to the genuine and approved offerings. 
 lUit the Prophets neither expressly command, nor expressly 
 forbid the offerings as such; the former not, l>e('.ause it was 
 
— 72 — 
 
 clear enough then, as at all times and in every religious 
 system, that the externalities would not be neglected; the 
 latter not, because it was not their vocation, nor any part of 
 their duty to oversee the services of the Temple. Yet it 
 is true, that they always denounced the offerings of the 
 faithless and transgressing: and notwithstanding they were 
 otherwise welcome and enjoined, they are, therefore, absolutely 
 unwelcome and rejected. In Is. 43, 22 — 25 the author 
 goes yet farther, where Merx (p. 32) finds the TTt^lQ ^) "even 
 lightly esteemed", but where the sense is: Although I (Je- 
 hovah) have not burdened thee with exacted offerings and 
 sacrifices — which were properly due me, — yet hast thou 
 not so much as earnestly sought me, but, on the contrary, 
 for my own sake I have been obliged to blot out thy trans- 
 gressions and cease to remember thy sins. 
 
 3. And if the Prophets in harmonj^ with their time 
 and the earlier cultus attached so little importance to these 
 offerings and sacrifices, as is often assumed, whence came 
 the, in that case, very peculiar notion of theirs, that the same 
 gifts would be so appropriate in the future glorious theocracy 
 and blessed Messianic era, which they predicted? Zeph. 3, 10; 
 Is. 19, 21; 66, 20; Jer. 17, 26; 33, 18. How did it ever 
 occur to them, that ordinances, which in their time were 
 never highly esteemed, which were usually rejected by them 
 on account of their misuse and real abuse, and which they 
 were often obliged publicly to denounce, could ever be com- 
 patible with the order of, or even admissible into, the Mes- 
 sianic Kingdom? Merx (p. 32) admits, that these are predicted 
 for the Messianic age, but nevertheless, while he correctly 
 understands the nnDia in Jeremiah as a special fruit-oflferiug, 
 
 1) "]D3 and nnsia are usually so closely connected and similarly 
 regarded by writers of the Old Testament, that it has seemed un- 
 necessary to make any exact distinctions here in their treatment. 
 
— 73 — 
 
 he hints that Isaiah otherwise lightly esteems this offerint,'. 
 and he regards the same in Zeph. 3, 10 as a simple "gilt". 
 He tells us, that Ezekiel is the first Prophet, who gives the 
 nniia a more important place. Upon what grounds this 
 conclusion can be securely based. I know not. All sacri- 
 fices and offerings, be they nby, n2T, nnsia, ic:, rz^^b, 
 nTJp or mrr': rr^n, are primarily and universally gifts 
 as 131^5, Arab. ^(/J 8yr. jirjioj, i. e., what is l)rought to 
 present. Merx says further: "The Prophets are men of the 
 Spirit, and not under the ban of religious acts". Then the 
 inference is unavoidable, that these devotees of Jehovah laid 
 special stress ujjon all gifts worthy of being offered to Him, 
 and the onns prohandi rests with those, who assume the 
 contrary, until it is discovered, where the Prophets evidently 
 reject these offerings as such, i. e., not upon moral grounds. 
 On the contrary, the ver}' forms and modes of expression in 
 the passages cited aljove show, that the presentation should 
 take place with holy reverence. Jeremiah places the TWrJC 
 along with nST, nVy and rnjinb, frankincense, and lets the 
 adorers of Jehovah bring them together with niin. the 
 thank-offering, into His House, 17, 26. >Similarly the heathen 
 bring their gifts to the House of Jehovah upon the holy 
 mountain. Is. 66. 20; while the author here lets the Egyptians, 
 after they have known and confessed Jehovah, bring Him 
 the nar with their TTpl and make and perform their vows 
 unto Him, 19, 21.^) Zephaniah would most likely be under- 
 stood in the same way, in favor of which is also, that iry 
 here means rather: sujijiliant, than the offering which the 
 sui)pliant brings, 3, 10. That PiZekiel mentions the nn:i2 
 
 1) The last two passages'^as cited against Merx naturally loose 
 some, but not all, of their force, because he refers them both to the 
 exilic "II Isaiah". But they are in no wise necessary to our arguments 
 as a whole. 
 
— 74 — 
 
 several times in his ordinances of the new Temple, concerns 
 our discussion only in so far, as he, in that he was a rigid 
 priest according to the adovcates of Graf's hypothesis, would 
 naturally have changed the old endeared cultus as little as 
 possible. 
 
 On the other hand, let us contrast with these the atti- 
 tude of the later Prophets and see if the difference naturally 
 arising from different situations and surroundings has not 
 been exaggerated by the critics. For, that Malachi found 
 intolerable abuses in the Temple, was the fault of the 
 demoralized priests and, to a less extent, of the people also, 
 and hence it is no proof, that he and his age unduly es- 
 teemed the offerings (Merx); but he had exactly the same 
 interest in them as every other pious Israelite, only with 
 this difference, that he, as a prophet, was obliged to denounce 
 these sinful practices in the Temple, as theSanctuary of Jehovah, 
 yet more strenuously than those elsewhere: — certianly no 
 peculiar priestly proclivities ! Comp. Mai. 1, 10. 13; 2, 12; 3, 3. 
 And none of his contemporaries, as devout worshippers of 
 Jehovah, could withhold their sympathy from the un- 
 sparing Prophet. More sacrilegious yet was the far earlier 
 Temple -robbery of Eli's sons, 1 S. 2, 12—17. Ezekiel 
 condemns the shameful abominations in the Temple at 
 Jerusalem in a similar manner, 8, 6 ff". Merx (p. 33) had 
 certainly not closely examined Mai. 1. 11, when he came 
 to the extraordinary conclusion, that Malachi was so restricted, 
 if not indeed quite fettered, by the "unity of the cultus 
 and the Levitism," that he showed in himself special signs 
 of the dying out of prophecy, and that "out of a prophet 
 had here developed a preacher." But is he not all the more 
 a prophet, because he was first a fearless, zealous preacher? 
 Por, with the exception of Hosea, Malachi goes farther, 
 is less restricted and more severe with the immoralities 
 of the priesthood than any of the earlier Prophets. And 
 
- 75 — 
 
 although Zechariah was exceedingly zealous for the new 
 Temple, like Joel, he was not so coulined to this one idea 
 as to omit to proclaim Messianic promises and the universal 
 judgment, 0. 9. 10. i) 
 
 Xuw, what is Joel's real attitude towards the Temple 
 and its ordinances? He unmist<akably considered the pres- 
 entation of the meat-offerings and drink-offerings in 
 the Temple of great importance. That they had been 
 cut off" from the House of Jehovah, is to him an evidence 
 of the extremely sad condition of the country l)oth materially 
 and spiritually, wherefore the priests mourn (1, 9) and may 
 well mourn, yes wail! (1, 13). But we have clearly seen, 
 that the thing of paramount importance with Joel is the 
 fearful <lay of Jehovah, when every one shall be either rescued 
 or fearfully punished, the proper preparation for which ordeal 
 is to return to Jehovah, 2, 12. But the people believed, 
 that reconciliation with Jehovah was to be attained by follow- 
 ing the prescribed usages of the Temple -worship. The 
 absence of the requisite elements for the daily offerings had 
 forbidden their presentation; for fiimine was in the land. 
 In their Ititter need the pe(jple wail and rend their garments. 
 The Prophet agrees: the interruption in the presentation of 
 the offerings is truly deplorable, but perhaps there is yet 
 time. Only return to God with your whole heart and repent 
 with fasting, weeping and wailing. The rending of gar- 
 ments does no good. Rather rend the heart, and Jehovah 
 will revoke the evil, which He has purposed, and grant the 
 necessary harvests, so that you may rejoice and bring again 
 your offerings into his House, 2, 12—14. With this mtuh he 
 returns to the Temple-ser\ice neither in the prayer, which 
 he puts into the mouth of the priests, nor in the answer 
 to it, nor yet in iiis references to Zion. 
 
 ll Tliat /cell. 9--14 originated with all Zechariah, or with a II 
 and 111 Zaeiiariah, seems to lue yet to be proved. 
 
— 76 — 
 
 But the degree of importance which Joel attaches to 
 the regular offerings of the Temple should not appear xei'j 
 strange even at a very earl}" age. The New Criticism also recog- 
 nizes these earl}' usages. Thus saj-s "VVellhausen : "The 
 sacrificial service existed at all times and had great signifi- 
 cance in Israel," which was regarded "on the whole as so 
 self-evident and well known to all the world," that it is 
 "nowhere in the Old Testament formally explained." It 
 was ^')2'\'p in the Priest-codex 'and nriD'a in the rest of 
 the Old Testament The offering is constantly a meat- 
 offering and a drink-offering First at a later date it 
 
 became legal: according to the scrupulous carrying out of 
 the law." ^) This meat-offering and drink-offering can have 
 been no other than Joel's nnS'a and ^DD. Already in 
 Samuel's time the rejection of His nnsia was regarded as a 
 great sin before Jehovah, 1 S. 2, 17, as also to trample 
 under foot, i. e., to despise the slain-offering and the meat- 
 offering, V. 29. David also chose the nrij'a as the offering 
 with which to seek reconciliation before Jehovah, 1 S. 
 29, 19.2) 
 
 And Hosea can mean no less than that the drink- 
 offering — the tjDD maybe recognized here in 'j''^ tjOi — and 
 the slain-offering should be presented, and that a vegetable- 
 offering^) should also be brought into the House of Jehovah, 
 
 1) Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 1883. S. 63. 64. 
 
 2) It is true that the Graf-school of critics, "Wellhausen included, 
 as we shall further observe, regard the Books of Samuel as revised 
 by a post-exilic ritualist in his own favor. But if they should reject 
 the passages cited from these books, perhaps the testimony of Well- 
 hausen himself quoted above, will be acceptable. 
 
 3) Whether nnb is here a certain kind of wafer or loaf similar 
 to the show-bread, which was brought as an offering, or rather a 
 particular offering of meal, which was afterwards converted into bread, 
 is quite undecided. 
 
- ■ 77 - 
 
 since he predicts the time, when the IsraeHtes shall be 
 deprived uf the pri\ilege uf sacriiiciug, however earnestly 
 they may desire it, 9, 3. 4fif. Comp. Ch. 3, 4. Amos is 
 au equally good witness to certain sacrifices and feasts of 
 his day, which were rejected by Jehovah, 5, 21. 22. But 
 this is not because Jehovah despised all sacrifices, as is 
 sometimes supposed ; for Chs. 5 and 6 clearly predict Israel's 
 overthrow on account of his apostasy, 5, 2. 4 — 6. Hosea 
 and Amos have otherwise incidentally considerable to say 
 about ofterings, which indicates at least their general usage 
 at that time, and a full system of sacrifices in Jerusalem 
 and Zion, whence Amos came as an ambassador of Jehovah. 
 And in the time of these two Prophets we find a con- 
 firmation of this view in 2 K. 16, 15, from which Kuenen^) 
 and Wellhausen^) infer "the custom of that time to present 
 sacrifices at fixed times daily, viz., an nby in the moniing 
 and a r\n:'Q in the evening. The latter further regards the 
 offering of the daily nn:^ as having by general usage 
 become the ''determination of time for the afternoon." Yet 
 Wellhausen thinks the offering of the show-bread was the 
 oldest custom.^) Still again in the same verse cited above, 
 as also in v. 13, occur the meat-offering and the drink- 
 offering, which Joel mentions, along with the burnt-offering 
 and the slain-oftering. The phraseology itself shows, that 
 the existing institutions of the land are referred to here. 
 
 The question now arises, "Whence came this ancient 
 ''custom" in Israel? Without a reasonable doubt it must 
 have already long existed. And we have before us the 
 leading features of the rituahstic sacrifices found in the 
 
 1) Godsdienst van Israel, II. 271. 
 
 2) Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 1883. S. 82. 
 
 3) It is quite unnecessary exaggeration, when Wellhausen infers 
 from 1 K. 1, y, that the early usage was: "No sacrifice without a meal 
 and no meal without a sacrifice". Proleg. zur Gesch. Israels, S. 78. 
 
— 78 — 
 
 Priest-code, Ex. 29, 38—42; Num. 7, 87; 15, 2—12; 28, 
 3 — 8, without the special ordiuauces and iustrumeuts there 
 mentioned for their presentation at the altar, whose men- 
 tion in this naiTation, 2 K. 16, 15, would have been super- 
 fluous and inappropriate. Here is also a sacrifice in general 
 usage, as the article indicates, viz., ^fb^LH riby, ''the sacrifice 
 of the king", which is wanting in the Priest-code. It is 
 therefore evident, that a complete well-ordered Temple- 
 service was already in usage before that time; for it is im- 
 possible, that "King Ahaz should have either designed the 
 entire system or introduced it from Damascus. He simply 
 added one more altar to the existing altars and utensils of 
 the Sanctuary. Whether this system of Temple -service 
 existed in the form of a code, and whether this code orig- 
 inated with Moses, or with whomsoever, does not lie within 
 the compass of the present treatise particularly to discuss. But 
 were Grafs hypothesis concerning the post-exilic origin of 
 the Priest-code proven, the foregoing arguments \vould, 
 nevertheless, lead unmistakably to the conclusion, that the 
 sacrificial service of the Jerusalem Sanctuary in current 
 usage at the time of Hosea, Amos and King Ahaz was 
 definite and rather complete, and perhaps "self-evident and 
 known to all the world," if, indeed, "naive" and not yet 
 codified, as many assume. Its ordinances and rules of observ- 
 ance may have quite equalled those of the Priest-code 
 itself, especially since our sources of information mention 
 legal forms only as occasion demanded certain particulars. 
 It is therefore clear, that, so far as the sacrifices and the 
 cultus are concerned, Joel may well have been a contem- 
 porary of Hosea and Amos; or he may have lived still ear- 
 lier, for, according to the above-noticed facts and autliorities, 
 he mentions only the oldest parts of the then current 
 system of sacrifices. Here we turn from this line of argu- 
 ment to trace another and no less interesting one. 
 
- 79 — 
 
 Special objections have been raised to the prominent 
 position which Joel assigns to the priests. They appear to 
 be "leading personages" and are particularly called upon 
 for the public observance of mourning (Merx). But if Joel 
 purposely directs our attention to the dire need occasioned 
 by locusts and drought, as has already been shown (pp. 6 f., etc.), 
 and if the famishing people, with fresh recollections of a 
 pillaging of the land l}y an invading army, stand in dread 
 of a shameful subjugation from heathen (pp. 61 — 63), then 
 the whole situation may be easily understood. What should 
 the priests do in such a case? The old men with the people 
 generally have become greatly excited and wailing rend their 
 garments, the husbandmen are much confused and the vine- 
 dressers wofuUy complain. Should the priests, ''the minis- 
 ters (or attendants) at the (now unused) altar", remain un- 
 moved at such a time? Have they, who, according to every 
 hierarchical religion, seek at the altar absolution from sin 
 for the people, no interest, when all other classes are 
 summoned to , fasting and penitence and hasten to the 
 Sanctuary to cry unto Clod? Jo. 2, 16; 1, 14. These before 
 us are rather the pious priests of a very primitive age 
 (Ewald) than those of a time, when all had become lifeless 
 forms and rites, and the shameless priests, whom Malachi 
 strenuously denounces, disposed of the holy things in the 
 Temple, Mai. 1, 6—8. 13. 
 
 The objection is not so much that Joel mentions the 
 priests, but that he assigns them too honorable a place 
 in the cultus for an early age. Merx tells us (pp. 33. 34), that 
 the priests of Malachi's day had "gradually developed into 
 teachers" (2, 7) and "now according to the Levitical Joel 
 (2, 17) they have also become intercessors, who mediate be- 
 tween the people and (Jod not only by means (tf the cul- 
 tus, but also through the word, which was fornu'rly tin- 
 business of the prophets." Were this true, then Jo. B. 1 
 
— 80 — 
 
 should read about thus: TiltJ'a n'^pnsn-by ^ri^-i-ni« TfistJi^ 
 DDnya ^bbsn'^ n©if (Mai. 2, 7) n?^n ■^n^aiij nih% i. e., I will 
 pour out m}^ Spirit upon the priests, the servants of Jeho- 
 vah, the keepers of knowledge, and they shall pray for you ; 
 and V. 5 a: ubTS'; in^n iniDn bbEn-^-mcs; bb T\ir['], i. e., and 
 it shall be, that every one for whom the priest prays shall 
 be saved. But Joel is of quite another opinion. All the people 
 shall assemble and pray to Jehovah, the priests as "lead- 
 ing personages" of course not excluded, 1, 11. The priests 
 were not wholly separated from the people, because as a 
 class they were set apart for the religion. They lived in 
 the towns and cities, perhaps for the most part, but not 
 exclusively, in those appointed to them, journeyed to Jeru- 
 salem at stated times to take part in the Temple-service, 
 and, in their frequent intercourse with the people, they 
 doubtless had much to narrate and to teach them about 
 the Temple and its ordinances, about the cultus and the 
 Law. Yet Joel does not once intimate, that the prayer of 
 the priests mentioned by him was a part of the Temple- 
 service. And such it was not; for, in the first place, the 
 priests are not exactly at the altar, while the sacrifices had 
 doubtless entirely ceased; and, in the second place, the 
 prayer is not one suited to stated Avorship in the Temple 
 or elsewhere. It refers neither to sacrifice, sin, repentance 
 nor pardon, and it contains nothing of the nature of inter- 
 cession ^''beticeen the people and God", but it is a prayer 
 for the people in the exigency of great danger. The priests 
 are simply here — prominently of course — in a public 
 assembly, which interests the whole people, 1, 13. 14, such 
 as often occurred at times of anxiety and alarm. Comp. 
 Jer. 26, 8ff.; 28, 5. And ifSmend^) judges rightly, that 
 
 1) Der Prophet Ezekiel, 1880 zu Ch. 8, 16—18. Comp. Well- 
 hausen. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, S. 230. 
 
- 81 
 
 the people before the Exile might enter the iuuer court, 
 i. 6., somewhere "between the porch and the altar", which 
 was more particularlj' designed for the priests alone, then 
 Joel may here (2, 17) be contemplating the assembly for 
 fasting and prayer, which shall soon come together in 
 accordance with his urgent call, 1, 13. 14; 2, 15. 16. But 
 the author nowhere informs us that another than the Proph- 
 et himself may, or may not, ''mediate through the word." 
 He tells us, it is true, that the prayer of the priests in 
 this exigency was heard ; but he teaches us also, that every 
 one should call upon Jehovah for himself, which certainly 
 can not mean, that they should be dependent upon priestly 
 offices, 3, 5. 
 
 But the school of Graf is fully convinced, that Joel 
 lived at a time, when "the freedom of the cultus and the 
 freedom of the prophets had been succeded by the unity 
 of the cultus and Levitism", a stage of development, which 
 was not reached before the second Temple was completed.^) 
 Yet Ewald^) regarded Joel as himself a priest and at the 
 same time the earliest of the Prophets, whose writings we 
 possess. This is possible, though not provable. For Eze- 
 kiel was a priest (1, 3), as also Jeremiah (1, 1), and Sam- 
 uel attended upon the Priest Eli, or ministered before 
 Jehovah in his youth, 1 S. 2, 11. 18 3) and himself offered 
 sacrifices later in life, although he was not properly a priest, 
 but only a judge and a great prophet. On the one hand, 
 as shown above, Joel duly honors the priests as such, with- 
 out making them unduly prominent as belonging to a 
 
 1) So Merx (p. 33) after the example of Duhm. 
 
 2) Die Propheton des Alton Bundles, 2. Ausg. I, 89. 
 
 3) Samuel was n'ii^ "PBTX rnrTq, or a minister before Jehovah 
 as a youth girded with tlie linen Ei)hod. mc^: and the verb n'^ia 
 are words of frequent occurence iu connection with sacrificial services. 
 Corap. Jo. 1, 9. 18; Is. 61, 6; Jer. 83. 22; etc. 
 
 6 
 
— 82 — 
 
 well- organized priesthood. Ou the other hand, as we shall soon 
 see, the dignity of the priests was not merel}^ highl}' re- 
 garded in common life alone (Merx, p. 32), hut other authors 
 and among them earlier Prophets respected the office of 
 priest quite as much as Joel. 
 
 One sees what an important position the priests earl}^ 
 filled, in that one directs King Saul in seeking the oracle 
 of God, 1 S. 14, 36. 37, and David borrows a priest's Ephod 
 in order to inquire of the Lord, 1 S. 23, 9. 10. It is 
 probably such instances as these, that led Kuenen^) to the 
 unwarranted conclusion, that ''Already (at an early age) 
 in sacrificing and regulating the observances of the divine 
 service generally, there was an ever-increasing value assigned 
 to his (the priest's) teaching, and moreover in seeking, i. e., 
 inquiring, he was the indispensable middle-man." With- 
 out going to such extremes we know upon historical grounds 
 what important parts Jehoiada, 2 K. 11 and 12, Uriah, 
 2 K. 15, 11—16, and Hilkiah, 2 K. 22 and 23, as D-'SniDn 
 D''biian or Tcxhn ^Dnb, ''the High- priests" played (Comp. 
 Josh. 20, 6). And by the high -priest stand also "i^nb 
 riDllJian, "the priests of the second rank," 2 K. 23, 4. Comp. 
 2 K. 25, 18. Since these two ranks are specified, they 
 must have been exclusive of the indefinite term "priests" 
 as a third rank. In Dt. 20, 2 ff. the priest appears as a 
 leader in warlike movements. In the face of such witnesses 
 it is arbitrarily combating plain facts, when Wellhausen^) 
 denies the existence of the pre -exilic High -priest in the 
 full sense of the term. If, as Wellhausen affirms, "the 
 Sanctuary was the property of the king and the priest his 
 servant" — for which the proofs are however wanting, — 
 then the latter must have been premier among the servants 
 
 1) Volksreligion und Weltreligion, 1883. S. 78. 
 
 2) Prolegomeua zur Gcsch. Israels, S. 154. 
 
— 83 — 
 
 of the kiug and state; -for, when the king disappears, the 
 High-priest rises at once to the regency. This onl}' shows 
 that the .Sanctuar}^ was more important than the state, and 
 that the Kingdom consisted of Sanctuary and State rather 
 than State and Sanctuary. That is, it was a theocracy. 
 
 It has been observed that the Prophets in opposing 
 talse offerings negatively testify to the genuine and approved 
 offerings (pp. 72 — 75). They point out delinite duties of 
 the priests in a similar manner. Now, because Joel ascribes 
 no undue, at least for any post -Solomonic time, no iu- 
 admissilile. importance to the priests, has it happened that 
 the majority of later critics have regarded him as the earliest, 
 while some regard him as a later and some as the latest 
 of the Prophets — if, indeed, he be a prophet (Mei'x). It is 
 very remarkable too, that the earliest and the latest of the 
 Prophets, Joel excepted, most emphasize the duties of the 
 priests as teachers and as observers of the Law and good 
 morals. Malachi (2, 1 — 9) says in the name of Jehovah: 
 My covenant was with him (Levi) the life and the peace, 
 i. e., a covenant of life and i)eace, or of prosperity, v. 5; 
 teaching of truth was in his mouth, v. 6; the priest's lips 
 shall keep knowledge and they shall seek teaching (law) from 
 his mouth, for he is the messenger of Jehovah of hosts. 
 V. 7. It was the fault of the priests themselves, that they 
 were then almost the opposite of this ideal (p. 76). 
 Hosea (4, 1 ^.) also impeaches the priests of his time on 
 account of the people's sins, because tliey had desi)ised 
 knowledge and forgotten the Law of God, v. 6 — certainly 
 very important duties. While they eat the sin-offering ot 
 the people (Comp. Lev. 6. 19; 10, 17. 18), they set their 
 heart upon their iniquity, v. 8; hence "it shall be as unto 
 the people so unto the priest," v. 9 (Comp. Is. 24, 2). And 
 wlien Micah (3, 11) accuses the priests of teaching for 
 a reward, it is manifest that they should teach gratui- 
 
 6* 
 
— 84 — 
 
 toiislj^^) Similarly saj^s Zephauiah (3, 4): The priests violate law, 
 i. e., transgress the law by violence, which their influential 
 position enabled them to do. Finally, the author of Deuter- 
 onomy lets the Levitical priests come to Moses help 
 in teaching the people, Dt. 27, 9. 14; 33, 10. Comp. 
 Josh. 8, 83. 
 
 If the Prophet had only once mentioned ''the Levites" 
 or "the priests and the Levites", as the expression often 
 elsewhere occurs, the followers of Graf, from their point of 
 view, would have felt more confident.^) But in the sense, 
 in which this school assumes it, Joel was not particularly 
 biassed towards Levitism, while on the other hand, as an 
 early Prophet, he might have mentioned the Levites in 
 connection with the other priests, if he had had occasion 
 to do so. This can be made manifest upon historical grounds 
 to him who has not unconditionally subscribed to the new 
 creed of criticism. According to Ezra 6ff. it is evident, 
 that the Levites were a particular class of priests, when 
 they returned from the Babylonian captivity, and Ch. 6, 18 
 informs us, that the two ranks had retained their old classi- 
 fication, rather than that the priests had been subjected to 
 a new one. And the distinction is equally marked as re- 
 corded of seventy-six years earlier on the return of the first 
 train of Exiles, Ezra 2, 36— 40ff'. Again fourteen years 
 later at the dedication of the Temple we find the same 
 
 1) The priests here are not judges (Kuenen); otherwise the same 
 office must be ascribed to the prophets also. The Di'dx"!, "the chiefs", 
 are the judges in this passage. It is surprisingly pleasant to find 
 Kuenen zealously defending the dignified position of the priests at 
 so early a date. But he is sometimes decidedly too zealous. See 
 Kuenen, Volksreligion und Weltrelgion, S. 86 — 90. 
 
 2) Duhm thinks, that Joel can not have written later than the 
 fifth century (!), because in that case he must have mentioned the 
 liCvites by name. 
 
— 85 — 
 
 distinction, Xeh. 7, 73; 12, 44—47; 18, 5. Comp. Ezra 
 2, 70. Yot the critics sa}' that Ezra and Xeliemiah sought 
 the authority of antiquity for their innovations. Our records 
 on the contrary class the Levites as singers, porters, etc.. 
 just as some ninety years earlier, when the rebuilding of 
 the Temple was first undertaken. Here are strangely no 
 indications of development in this, as critics assume, very 
 formative period of Jewish institutions. Not only so, hut 
 we are plainly told that this was the ancient order of 
 things introduced by David, Solomon and Asaph, Neh. 12, 
 45. 46. 
 
 Yet again: it is well known that Ezekiel also distin- 
 guishes clearly between the Levites and other priests. If, as 
 is assumed by the new school from Graf to Merx, Ezra 
 continued the work, which Ezekiel had begun, viz., to devise 
 and codify the Priest-code as a system in the name of 
 Moses, then P^zra either misunderstood Ezekiel in this par- 
 ticular — who will venture to assume it? — or the Levites 
 had constituted a particular class of priests for centuries. 
 A third alternative is, that these authors resorted to the 
 so-called "legal fiction", and in that case they must have 
 continued the same systematically for generations. It is 
 yet much more likely than any of these, that the critics 
 have misunderstood both Ezekiel and Ezra. For, while 
 Ezekiel as priest shows a familiar acquaintance with the 
 Temple and cultus at Jerusalem, in the temple and cultus 
 projected by himself, he nowhere refers to Moses as if he 
 would avail himself of ancient authority for the introduction 
 of a new system; and the scheme itself is so ideally designed 
 and of such proportions, that it could never have been intend- 
 ed to be literally realized. Comp. Ez. 40 — 48. Nor do 
 Ezra and Nehemiah notice it particularly, much less follow 
 it as a model. It is also liighly improbable, that the Prophet 
 would have introduced a new order of things, as a new 
 
— 86 — 
 
 classification of the priests, into a symbolical prophecy like 
 this in Ezekiel. The figurative, the ideal, must find its 
 counterpart somewhere in the actual, if it is to be com- 
 prehended. But Jeremiah, 33, 17 — 26, had already assigned 
 "the priests and the Levites"^) the conspicuous place by 
 the Royal House of David in the indissoluble covenant, 
 which he promises shall remain as unbroken as the alter- 
 nation between day and night. 2) Every one admits, that 
 the Levites as priests still earlier possessed special privileges, 
 just as they also had particular duties to perform, and they 
 received regular support similarly to the poor and widows 
 and orphans, in regard to which Deuteronomy, now usually 
 assigned to King Josiah's reign, is sufficiently instructive, 
 Chs. 16—18; 24, 8; 26, 12, 13; 27, 9. The Levites, 
 therefore, were legally recognized as a particular class of 
 priests before the Exile. 
 
 But it is supposed by Wellhausen and others, that 
 there existed no real distinction between the Levites and 
 the Aaronites before about the time of the Exile. Why the 
 new classification should have been introduced by Josiah 
 and Hilkiah, i. e., together with the Deuteronomic Code, 
 there are no satisfactory reasons ofi'ered. But it is a 
 fundamental principle of the development hypothesis, that 
 the written legal ordinances must have succeeded the same 
 in common usage. If this be correct, then the Levites must 
 
 1) The meaning of this expression will be specially discussed 
 on j)p. 95 f., note. 
 
 2) This passage of Jeremiah, whose genuineness has been much 
 disputed, is an important, but b}- no means indispensible one for the 
 argument above. It has often been rejected on account of its absence 
 from the text of the LXX, which seems to be sufficient objection for 
 Wellhausen, while other objections are frequently raised. Yet the 
 majority of the ablest critics defend its genuineness, and prominent 
 among them is Graf in his commentary, Der Prophet Jeremiah. 1862. 
 
87 — 
 
 have assumed their definite position in the ciiltus of Israel 
 earlier than suggested above, and both that which concerns 
 the rank of the Levites, and that which concerns the unity 
 of the Sanctuary and the idolatry mentioned in Deuteronomy, 
 must have been a considerable time cun-ently known. The 
 question here is not. When and how the Deuteronomic 
 Code may have originated? but on the one hand, How, 
 in accordance both with this principle of historical devel- 
 opment and wuth a long existing cultus, could such a clas- 
 sification in the priesthood and such idolatrous practices have 
 suddenly appeared in common usage and, on the other hand, 
 How could the history not only remain perfectly silent in 
 regard to the introduction of a new code of laws at this 
 time, but expressly assert that those laws were already very 
 old ones? The supposition, that the laws against idolatry 
 upon the high places and elsewhere, were first introduced 
 by Josiah, is the more improbable, since the powerful Kings, 
 Asa and Hezekiah with Isaiah and his so-called "dogma of 
 the inviolability of Zion" to help him, just as little as the 
 great Regent-priest Jehoiada in his time, w^ere during their 
 long reigns (juite unable to remove the worship upon the 
 high places and the worship of Baal from the land. On 
 the one hand, it is almost incredible, that these great rulers 
 strove so zealously for the unity of the Sanctuary at Jeru- 
 salem without recognized laws in their favor. And if this 
 is true, then the contrast between their means to their end 
 and those of the young King Josiah to his, i. e., the same 
 end, or to remove the idolatry, is so great and even remark- 
 able as, on the other hand, to make it inconceivable, that 
 this young King of eighteen years all at once introduced 
 and carried into execution the Deuteronomic Code as a 
 newly designed corpus juris, so that he could attain so much 
 as a temporary removal of the idolatry. But according to 
 Wellhausen the Deuteronomic Code originated suddenly 
 
— 88 — 
 
 without similar precedence with Josiah and Hilkiah, worked 
 wonderfiill}^ for a while — at least "lopped off the bows 
 of the green trees upon the high mountains" (the local 
 sanctuaries) — and although codified, at once disappeared 
 from the' praxis only to reappear first after the Exile, i) 
 The question arises, Wh}^ reappear after the Exile, when 
 there was admittedl}' only one sanctuary and no idolatry 
 or worship of Baal to combat? Such a theory of events 
 in the history requires indisputable proofs for its acceptation. 
 The laws which Josiah and Hilkiah applied to the idolatry 
 and the worship of Baal, just as these strange modes of 
 worship themselves, evidently existed before their time, 
 whether in the foim of a code, or handed down by oral 
 tradition as unwritten law. Even so and upon the same 
 grounds the two classes of priests and the ordinances of 
 the Temple-worship must have previously existed and have 
 at times, if not uniformily, attained to general usage. 
 
 Chapter III. 
 
 The pre-exilic date of Joel is confirmed by the importance 
 of Zion and the Temple as the only true Sanctuary, and 
 also by arguments from the historical books, the Prophets 
 and the Psalms. 
 
 In the foregoing chapter the objections offered to the 
 pre-exilic origin of the Book of Joel, arising fi'oni the prom- 
 inence given to the elders, to fasting, to the offerings in the 
 Temple and to the priests, have been refuted, and it has been 
 proven, that the cultus of Jerusalem in its ordinances and 
 consecrated persons supports the arguments for so early an 
 origin. I shall now undertake to show, that the unity of 
 the Sanctuary and the importance of Zion, as they appear 
 in this book, do not forbid, but rather prove, upon historical 
 
 1) Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Gesch, Israels, S. 26 ff. 
 
— 89 — 
 
 grounds, its pre-exilic composition and indicate quite an 
 early ago. 
 
 Tliere are nut a few passages in the historical books, 
 as also elsewhere, which confirm the conclusion arrived at, 
 that the magnitude and the contents, in every particular, 
 of the pre-exilic cultus include all and much more than 
 does the Book of Joel. Such passages are 1 S. 6, 15; 2 
 S. 15. 24; 1 K. 8, 3. 4; 2 Chr. 5, 5. 11; 11. 14. 15; 13. 
 9. etc. These, it is true, are rejected by Wellhausen and 
 others. It becomes, therefore, indispensible to test the 
 validity of our historical records before we can safely rely 
 upon them. But upon what grounds are they rejected? 
 The Books of Chronicles afford numerous evidences of the 
 importance of the early cultus and of its two chief ranks 
 of consecrated persons, the priests, the sons of Aaron of the 
 tribe of Levi, and the other Levites, who were not full 
 priests. On account of certain corruptions of the text, in- 
 consistencies and apparent contradictions in these books and 
 in some parts of the Books of Samuel, the New Criticism 
 feels itself obliged to discredit them as historical evidences, 
 or so much of them as one sees proper. But Dillmann truly 
 says:^) "That the Chronicler everywhere drew from other 
 sources, and that there is intentional falsifying or misrepre- 
 sentation of the history by him. can not even be supposed". 
 "Wellhausen calls this: "An unnecessary exaggeration of the 
 scientific". The latter thinks, that the prayer of Solomon 
 and the epitome of it are an example to the contrary. How 
 lightly lie turns the Chronicler aside may be seen in the 
 following: "That the Chronicles present the history of Israel 
 according tc» the Priest-codex" — mark the teason — "has 
 usually, indeed arbitrarily, led to making its consistent 
 interpretation the foundation of the history, but it should 
 
 1) Herzogr's Real-Encyclopiidie. 2. Aufl. 111. 223. 
 
— 90 — 
 
 rather influence us to leave it out of the question, when it 
 comes to ascertaining the real, genuine tradition".^) That 
 can only mean, if the history of Israel really occured in 
 accordance with the Priest-code, the Chronicler should not 
 have testified to the same. In the same manner certain 
 passages in the Book of Judges are also set aside. 
 
 The Books of Kings remain in general less disturbed 
 by the critics, but always on condition, that whatever is 
 found to accord with the Priest-code shall be ascribed to the 
 Deuteronomic reviser, who lived in the latter part of the 
 Exile, or later. It is sufficient, that ''the Temple-building 
 stands at the head of the entire book" and "at once the 
 point of view is announced, which also controls the rest of 
 the Judean history, which is more a history of the Temple 
 than of the kingdom". "It is evident, that this treatment 
 is foreign to the traditional subject-matter and seriously 
 conflicts with it".^) Wellhausen does not inform us to which 
 "traditional subject-matter" he refers. Has he then certain 
 sources, which are still unknown to other critics? or is he 
 so authoritatively informed as to the contents of the sources, 
 which the authors of the historical books used, that he can 
 discover their mistakes and rule out falsifications, even when 
 they agree in regard to historical facts? Or is this an 
 authority to reject and to amend history at will? But more 
 specifically says Wellhausen: "Only in one section, in the 
 description of the Temple and the dedication of it, 1 K. 
 6 — 8, which in a high degree has undergone all kinds of 
 corrections and interpolations, are found traces also of the 
 interweaving of the Priest-codex". On such grounds, and 
 because he is .not sure just where the Ark of the Covenant 
 was the whole time, until it was brought into the Temple of 
 
 1) Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, S. 13. 
 
 2) Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Gesch. Israels, S. 294. 295. 
 
— 91 — 
 
 Solomon, he doubts the correctness of 1 K. 8. 3 ff'. in par- 
 ticular. He further thinks: "It needs no proof", •'that 1 K. 
 12, 31 originated with the Deuteronomic reviser".^) These 
 citations plainly indicate the foregone conclusion of the critic, 
 that the Priest-code and every thing that haimonizes with 
 the same are of late exiUc or post-exilic origin. It is there- 
 fore unpleasant, that a Levite should rise up anywhere in 
 the preceding history by the side of the little Tabernacle, 
 or even in the court of the Temple, to protest. 
 
 Full of force and truth is the remark of Dillmann-): 
 ''That the priestly laws and those of the cultus were first 
 committed to writing or, indeed, first framed in the time 
 of the Exile and in Babylonia, where no cultus whatever 
 existed, is irrational." To this Wellhausen characteristically 
 rejoins: ''Irrational be it eveimore, if only true. Progress 
 it is not, but none the less a factum, that the high-priests 
 succeeded the kings and the rabbis the proi)hets." This 
 last assertion agrees, for the most part, with the later his- 
 tory; but it is no proof of the ^'factum.'' On the other hand, 
 we have already seen, that the high-priest in the earlier 
 history of the kingdom often presented a very stately ligure 
 by the king's side (pp. 82 f.). But, if Wellhausen is 
 correct in this and in regard to the date of the Priest- 
 code, we should certainly have some trace in this Code of 
 the king, on the one hand, and of the future rabbi, on the 
 other, and of their respective relations to the high-priest 
 and the prophet. Here is a "missing link" in the chain of 
 historical development, which the author of the Priest-code 
 should never have failed to supply. And strangely enough 
 from this point of view, we find no traces of it in the en- 
 tire Pentateuch, and just as little in the historical books. A 
 
 \) Proleg. zur Gesch. Israels, S. 14fi. 
 
 2) Die Biicher Exodus und Leviticus, Vorwort )». viii. 
 
— 92 — 
 
 hypothesis supposed to be suggested hy a clear insight into 
 historical events, which at the same time constanth' conflicts 
 with the only existing records of those events, is not merely 
 doubtful, it is clearly erroneous in its conception. But correct, 
 amend or attempt to wipe out history as one will, so long 
 as the imposing Solomonic Temple continues (historically) 
 to stand upon Zion, if it was not a mere Castle in the Air, 
 the main elements of the two accounts of its erection, out- 
 fitting and dedication must continue to be regarded as sub- 
 stantially true. And if this be the case, there remains no 
 real cause why one should throw suspicion upon the 
 historical books, certainly none, where they mutually cor- 
 roborate each other. How much less in respect to that, 
 to which the Prophets also testify? 
 
 But no one attempts to ignore this magnificent struc- 
 ture of ancient architecture upon Zion. Now this Temple 
 with its altars and sacred utensils constructed and ordered 
 by Solomon stands in need of a complete cultus of priests 
 and sacrifices. If they were not already in usage in connection 
 with the Tabernacle, and if Solomon did not design and 
 introduce them, they must necessarily have originated soon 
 afterwards. No nation constructs a grand edifice for Par- 
 liament without a state constitution, nor will a people erect 
 a fine Temi)le in a world- renowned capital city with- 
 out rites and ordinances of worship. Such gigantic skel- 
 etons no more appear between the strata of historical for- 
 mations without having at some time, at least in their 
 inception, been represented by actual beings than those of 
 geological formations without having been generously clothed 
 with flesh and blood. The natural order is, first the ritual 
 and the priests, etc. — if ^mting is known, the formal code 
 soon follows, — then the temple as a necessity. Who would 
 trouble himself so much to erect such a splendid edifice 
 without the necessity in existing usages and institutions? 
 
93 
 
 Whoever else might, certainly a Solomon would not. But 
 what here appears to l)e a necessit}', is quite fully reported 
 in the historical annals of the Kings and Chronicles at its 
 introduction, and it is often referred to afterwards. If Joel, 
 who merely incidentally mentions the most important ele- 
 ments of such a complete cultus of priests and sacrifices, 
 lived in the time of the earlier kings, his notice of those 
 elements would appear perfectly natural. 
 
 Yet again from Wellhauseu I quote: ''The Priest-codex, 
 the definitive Mosaic Law, was as such published and in- 
 troduced 444 B. C, a hundred years after the Exile". ^) 
 Further: "It is a simple but very important observation of 
 Vatke's, that the holy constitution of the congregation 
 extensively described in the Priest -codex is wholly incom- 
 plete and presupposes that which at the time^of Moses would 
 have been the chief thing to be founded, viz., the state, 
 without which the church also could not exist. In order 
 to support a rich and extravagant cultus and an immense 
 swarm of clergy, increased revenues and duties were neces- 
 sary. In order to gather the same in and to sustain the 
 appearance of the holy persons and arrangements, in order, 
 viz., to maintain properly the strong centralization and uni- 
 formity of the legitimate worship of God among a constant- 
 ly rude people, an executive force was necessary, which 
 encompassed the entire people and held them in its power. 
 But where is this united power in the period of the Judges?"-) 
 Very well! But I ask also: Where was this power in the 
 struggling little Judeau colony of the fifth century? At that 
 time there was no well organized state. The colony at 
 Jerusalem was in a pitiful condition and was ridiculed by its 
 neighbors, Neh. 2, 19; 3, 3 — 6; 5, 1 — 5. No power could 
 
 1) Prolegomena zur Gesohiohto Israels, S. 430. 
 
 2) Wellhauscn, Prolog, zur (.iosch. Israels, S. 437. 
 
— 94 — 
 
 have collected large reveuues from such a communitj. One 
 is reminded, how untiringl}' Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai and 
 Zechariah labored, admonished and urged the people in order 
 to complete the Temple and the wall. If in some degree 
 united, the}' were despairing and almost powerless, as the}' 
 necessarily returned from captivit}^ On the other hand, 
 no one supposes that the cultus realized its greatest per- 
 fection in the period of the Judges. This ''observation of 
 Vatke's" is, indeed, so "important" as to forcibly remind 
 one of the time of David and Solomon, with whom the 
 cultus of the Temple became really splendid in its organi- 
 zation, as did also the kingdom, while the literature was 
 rapidly entering upon its golden age. 
 
 The discussion here is not particularly concerned with 
 the unity of the Sanctuary before Solomon, nor can it l>e 
 denied that there existed throughout the pre -exilic epoch 
 other, though wholly illegal, sanctuaries. Yet for the very 
 reason, that the Temple "rules the rest of the history of 
 Judea" (Wellhausen) — and properly modified this would also 
 apply to the prophecy of Israel as a whole, — it is only 
 reasonable to conclude, that the Temple with its cultus was 
 in reality, as well as according to the historians, the chief 
 figure of the kingdom^). Hence no one should discredit 
 its authority without imperative reasons. And since these 
 two witnesses, the Books of Kings and the Books of Chron- 
 icles, which for the most part otherwise mutually support 
 and confirm each other, agree subsantially and as a whole 
 
 1) Wellhausen ouce almost concedes this, but he thinks the 
 Northern Kingdom is not properl)'' considered in the historical books. 
 Was Jereboam then not a rebel and Israel an apostate? What his- 
 torian, however im])artial, docs not give his chosen theme the chief 
 place? Or should tlic historians have given the cai)ital of Samaria 
 and the sanctuaries at Bethel and ]»aii the greater i)art of their at- 
 tention ? 
 
95 
 
 iu regard to the Temple aud cultus. ^vitlluut in priuciple. 
 if iu any particular, ])eing contradicted by the Prophets, 
 there can ])e no such thing as intentional or actual mis- 
 representation of history in the interest of either the Deu- 
 teronomic Code or the Priest-code. This remains true aside 
 from and independent of the origin and composition of these 
 two codes, which questions do not directly concern this discus- 
 sion. And, in accordance with this hrm conclusion, the Priest- 
 code can scarcely have originated after the Exile. It has 
 already been shown, that Joel might have spoken at a very 
 early age of the priests, ofi'erings and fasting, as he has 
 spoken. Hence this excursus upon the credibility of the histor- 
 ical sources was necessary only on account of the unsettled 
 condition of present criticism. But it will nevertheless be 
 advantageous. For one may now cite the Books of Kings 
 at liberty, and the Chronicles also more freely, or at least 
 more intelligently. And this position has been attained with- 
 out relying upon the passages in dispute. But the integ- 
 rity of the Chronicles has been so generally impeached, that 
 their complete defence can not here be undertaken, and 
 hence one can base no argument with confidence upon them 
 alone, from which one might otherwise adduce irresistible 
 arguments. Comp. especially 2 Chr. 7 — 8 with 1 Clir. 
 15—10. ' - 
 
 Since the reports from the building, outfitting and 
 dedication of the Temple with an ample cultus may be re- 
 garded as trustworthj', the principal objections to Joel's early 
 age are rendered futile. All that he says about the TempU'. 
 priests and offerings harmonizes naturally with the system. 
 He might have mentioned the Levites with or without the 
 other priests, if he had only desired to do so, 1 K. 8, 4. ^) 
 
 1) Which of thu two readings. O'^bn'; c-'jnrn, 1 K. 8, 4, with 
 Thenius (Die Biicher der Koiiige) and others, or as corrected according 
 
-^ 96 — 
 
 And it would not be difficult to produce many other direct 
 and indirect corroborative testimonies to the extent of the 
 cultus from other pre-exilic Prophets, of which sufficient for 
 our purpose has already been noticed. 
 
 to C^i^n d'^snsn, 2 Chr. 5, 5, with Bertheau (Die Biicher der Cliro- 
 nik) and W. R. Smith (The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 
 p. 436) is preferable, is difficult to decide. Both forms occur elsewhere 
 in the Chronicles. Hence 2 Chr. 5, 5 may in any case be correct 
 as it stands. Bertheau thinks it much more probable, that 1 in 1 K. 
 8, 4 is an insertion than that it has been omitted from 2 Chr. 5, 5. 
 Very well, if the context in both of the parallel passages were not 
 against it. That the Chronicler will make a distinction here, is clear 
 from the diiferent categories into which he divides the priests and 
 the Levites, vs. 11. 12. Yet it is possible, that a copyist inserted 1 
 in 1 K. 8, 4 epexigetically to call attention to the well known dis- 
 tinction between the Levitical priests and the (other) priests, who 
 as descendants of Aaron were also Levites. Thus the standing ex- 
 pression for bearers of the Ark is n'l'ian )i'iH ^mii n'l^n B'^jn'sn, 
 the priests the Levites, i. e., the Levitical priests, who bear the Ark 
 of the Covenant, Josh. 3, 3. But after this passage Joshua constantly 
 omits Clbn in his frequent repetition of the expression, as of itself 
 understood, nilbn can not here be an insertion by a post-exilic Levite; 
 for such a one would have inserted it uniformly. So the author of 
 the Books of Kings seems to assume, that the regulations for bearing 
 the Ark are self-evident. He says in 1 K. 8, 3: the priests are the 
 bearers of the Ark. V. 4. says: the priests and the Levites, as if the 
 priests assisted the Levites, or if 1 be an insertion, the Levitical 
 priests, bore the Ark together with the Tabernacle, up into the Temple. 
 But here the Levites, who were not allowed to enter the Holy of 
 Holies, returned and the priests proper carried it forward to its place 
 under the cherubim, v. 6. Comp. Num. 4, 19. Thus vs. 3—5 refer 
 to the Levites, or rather to them with the priest, and vs. 6—8 to 
 the priests alone. Comp. 1 Chr. 13, 9; 15, 11. 14. 15; Dt. 31, 9. 25. 
 Further in regard to the difference between Levites and other ])riests 
 see Dt. 18, 1 ft". Josh. 21, 4 and frequently in the Chronicles. For 
 a full discussion of the subject, see Moses and the Prophets, 1883, 
 pp. 78 ff., 127 ff., by Professor W. H. Green. 
 
— 97 — 
 
 Also upon the historical ground already won may be 
 brought forward the demeanor of Jerel)oam after the division 
 of the kingdom as another very important, although, for 
 the most part, negative, argument for the significance of 
 the Sanctuary at Jerusalem. He proceeded at once after the 
 division of the kingdom to establish sanctuaries at Bethel 
 and Dan in order to estrange the heart of the people from 
 the Sanctuary at Jerusalem, by preventing them from offering 
 sacrihces there. Thus he testifies to the powerful intiuence 
 of the unity of the Sanctuary. He therefore introduced 
 golden calves and altars upon the high places, appointed 
 priests and celebrated the feast of the Tabernacles, which 
 he changed from the seventh to the eighth month, by offer- 
 ing sacrahces and incense, 1 K. 12, 27 — 33 (Thenius). There 
 can be no reasonable doubt, that he attempted to organize 
 his heathen^) cultus as far as practicable in imitation of 
 the cultus at Jerusalem in order successfully to win the 
 ten tribes from the latter. And as gladly as he Avould 
 doubtless have appointed the priests in the Northern King- 
 dom to his priesthood, he nevertheless chose them from the 
 lowest class of people instead of from the tribe of Levi 
 (v. 31. Comp. 13, 33), because both the regular priests and 
 the Levites, having been cast out of the priesthood of Jehovah 
 by Jereboam, left their possessions and went over to Judea 
 and Jerusalem to sacrifice to Jehovah, the God of their 
 fathers, 2 Chr. 11. 13tf. According to the Chronicles, on 
 another occasion, the rejection of "the priests of Jehovah, 
 the sons of Aaron, and the Levites" — the distinction 
 between the two is here clear — was made the gi'ound of 
 a special denunciation of Jerel)oam, 2 Clir. 13, 9. 
 
 1) .Should any one take oxcejition to the attribute "heathen" here, 
 few will deny that the .Samaritan cultus, like that ujMtn tlie high 
 places in general, even when it was for the worshiji of Jehovah, was 
 of foreign, i. e. , non-Israelitic origin, and I call all such heathen. 
 
 7 
 
— 98 — 
 
 Another stumbling-stoue to the advocates of Grafs hj^po- 
 thesis is the mauuer iu which the Prophet refers to Mount 
 Zion, which David chose for the site of the Sanctuary, and 
 upon which Solomon founded the same, 1 K. 8, 1 ff. ; 2 Chr. 5, 
 2 flf., etc. Especially in regard to Zion is Joel supposed to 
 have shoAvn himself very partial, and even "particularly 
 Jewish". Zion is for him the only Sanctuary, and he does 
 not once mention the idolatry upon the high places. This, 
 it is said, can be a circumstance only of the post-exilic period. 
 But it has been made sufficiently clear, that it did not 
 l)elong to the Prophet's subject to consider particular sins, 
 that to mention the bamoth was no part of his purpose. 
 That Zion as the place of the Sanctuary was very dear to 
 him is beyond a doubt. But that he was particularly prej- 
 udiced iu its favor, or that his manner of referring to it 
 is a proof that he had adopted "the (so-called) Jesajanic 
 dogma of inviolability" in the sense iu which Duhm and Merx 
 affirm it, is upon hiftorical grounds hard to believe. For 
 Joel's predilection for Zion, which has latterly been narrowed 
 down to the prejudice indicated by this "dogma", originated 
 long before Isaiah. 
 
 From the time, when David brought the Ark of the 
 Covenant to its appointed place upon Zion, this was nominally 
 the site of the true Sanctuary, 2 S. 5, 7; 6, 1 — 16; 1 Chr. 
 15, 15; 16, 1. 37 ff. In the next account we read, that 
 David had it in mind to build a house for the Ark of God, 
 2 S. 7, 1 ff. Comp. 1 K. 5, 15—17. And although sacri- 
 fices continued to ))e offered upon the high places, it was 
 excused on the ground of necessity, 1 K. 3, 2. 3. Solomon 
 erected that house for the national Temple, 1 K. 7. 51, and 
 in his dedicatory prayer before the congregation of Israel 
 he calls repeated attention to "this house", "this place", as 
 that in which one should pray, without once hinting that 
 worship might l)e as acceptable elsewhere. Even in other 
 
— 99 
 
 lands, iu war, in case of plagues, as of locusts and drought, 
 the prayer should be directed towards "this city'' and ''this 
 house", 1 K. 8, 23 — 53. There is no thouglit here of more 
 than a single Sanctuary. 
 
 Moreover, in the opinion of the author of the Books 
 of Kings, when Solomon himself turned after strange gods 
 and introduced the worshii) upon the high places, he com- 
 mitted a very grievious sin in the eyes of Jehovah, which 
 should result in a national calamity, IK. 11, 7 ft"., similar 
 to till* one which Jereboam afterwards brought upon Israel 
 on a more extensive scale, 1 K. 14, 7 — 16; etc. Xor do the 
 authors of the historical books anywhere regard the worshij* 
 upon the high places with equanimity. On the contrary, 
 an attempt to remove these abominations from the land is with 
 them apparently the chief characteristic, which distinguished 
 between pious and godless kings, while its omission is con- 
 stantly considered a neglect of known duty, 1 K. 13, 32 f.; 14, 
 22f.;'l5, 14; 22,43f.; 2K. 12,3; 14,4; 15, 4. 35; Chr. 17 and 
 1 8 ; 2 1 , 3. A stereotyped expression of most frequent occurrence 
 throughout the historical annals is ino'X'b niiasn (!}S) pn, 
 "save the high places were not removed", which is partic- 
 ularly contrasted with the reign of a pious king like Asa. 
 who had striven to remove idolatry from the land, 1 K. 15, 
 14, etc. as cited above. Another equally frequent exin-ession. 
 but of quite different signihcance is ""ITDX '^^n^ cynv 
 bsnTzr-i-ns N"^t:nn, "Jereboam the son of Nebat, who caused 
 Israel to sin", 2 K. 3, 3. Comp. 1 K. 13, 34; 14. 10. These 
 passages and numerous conlirmatory ones in the Chronicles 
 all point in a siugle direction. Although the high places 
 reniiiincd almost continuously and the worshii) of Baal was 
 Irt'ijiR'ntly revived from Solomon to Josiah, and again after 
 the latter until in the Exile, yet the true reverers of Jehovah 
 iinduubtcdly ceased not so zealously to strive for tlie attain- 
 ment of ii puvf woislii|. of Him, that they could never e\- 
 
100 - 
 
 cuse the worship of another, and not even the false worship 
 of Jehovah Himself. That some of the high places were 
 dedicated to Jehovah and priests officiated upon them, does 
 not change the matter, 2 K. 18, 22; Is. 37, 7; 2 Chr. 32, 
 12; 33, 17. They were in spite of this, nay rather on this 
 very account the more unsparingly, denounced^). 
 
 And what have the Prophets, particularly the earher 
 Prophets, to say positively for Zion as the place of the Sanc- 
 tuary, or negatively, i. e., against the high places? — and 
 traces of the interpolator's or the redactor's hand will seldom 
 he ascribed to their writings. Those who complain of Joel 
 on account of his predilection for Zion do not duly observe, 
 that Amos, although he was sent to prophesy to Israel, begins 
 his prophecy in Joel's words: ' 'Jehovah roareth from Zion 
 and sendeth forth His voice from Jerusalem", 1, 2; Jo. 4, 16. 
 It was, indeed, because he represented the present Avarning 
 voice sounding forth from Zion, which should also continue 
 to resound, that he was so objectionable to the priests of 
 Bethel and to the king, Ch. 7. Micah, 4, 1 — 3, and Isaiah, 
 2, 2 — 4, predict that the nations shall seek Jehovah in 
 Zion, whence go forth (the) law and the word of Jehovah, 
 and He shall judge and instruct them, and there shall be 
 universal peace among them. He shall sit enthroned above 
 them forever. Likewise, according to Zeph. 3, 14 — 16, shall 
 Zion and Jerusalem rejoice and exult over the salvation from 
 Jehovah. ^) Even so Obadiah, who is considered a very early 
 
 1) Comp. Green, Moses and the Prophets pp. 155 f. 
 
 2) It is not my purjiose to consider whether these Prophets here 
 speak of Zion merely as the centre of the united cultus or also in a 
 figurative sense. In any case it could never cease to be a place of 
 special regard and even of great solemnity to them in the former 
 sense. Compare with the above the somewhat similar reference to 
 Zion, ].]). 43—45. 
 
— 101 — 
 
 Prophet by some, and placed at least before the Exile by 
 the majority, si)eaks with nearly the same particularity and 
 often in the same words as Joel concerning Zioii. vs. 16. 
 17. 21. It is generally recognized, that Isaiah, 4, 5; 10, 
 32; 33, 20 (Conij). 2 K. 19, 34, etc.), was specially fond of 
 Zion and defended it, as did also the Prophets after him. 
 According to the hypothesis of Duhm and Merx it is very 
 remarkable that the })Ost-exilic Prophets did not also, like 
 Joel, adopt the so called "Jesajanic dogma" and join in the 
 defence of Zion against the heathen. But only Zechariah 
 mentions Zion and his references are surely not of a very 
 defiant, warlike tone, 2, 7. 10; 8, 2, 3; 9, 9 f. If it should 
 be supposed that the passage, Ch. 9, 12 ff., is of a bellig- 
 erent nature — which would infringe upon the sense, — it 
 would only run the more directly counter to the above 
 hypothesis, for Merx (p. 5) locates Zech. 9 — 11, as not a 
 few others do 9 — 14, in the time of the earliest Prophets. 
 On the other hand, no one will venture to affirm that 
 the Prophets ever positively favored the worship of Baal or 
 that upon the high places. At most it is suggested, that 
 they sometimes regarded the plurality of altars inditferently. 
 or did not denounce them so zealously as the advocates of 
 the unity of the Sanctuary should have done. But this is 
 at once a rather weak and a groundless charge. The early 
 Prophets neither hesitated in this way nor neglected a 
 matter of so vital importance. According to Hosea. 4, 15; 
 9, 15, the Israelites had committed their chief sins at Gilgal 
 and Beth-aven — may Judah be spared such offences, he 
 suggests — which they must renounce in order to be true 
 servants of Jehovah. He expressly denounces the plurality 
 of altars elsewhere, as also those at Bethel and Gilgal, 8. 
 11; 10, 1; 12. 12. which places are therefore threatened 
 with desolation, 10, 5, 8. 15. In like manner Amos expresses 
 himself with much zeal against Gilgal, Bethel, Dan and 
 
— 102 — 
 
 Beer-sheba, 4, 4; 5, 4 — 6; 8, 14; and predicts the devas- 
 tation of Israel's holy places and altars aud Isaac's banioth, 
 3, 14; 7, 9. According to Merx's (p. 21) ^'severe judgment" 
 upon Joel, Hosea, 4, 15, and Amos, 6, 9, must have been 
 quite ' 'particularly JeAvish". At least the latter appeared 
 so to the Israelites at Bethel, especially to the Priest Ama- 
 ziah, 7, 9 ff. Even so Micah earnestly denounces Samaria 
 and the high places of Judah, 1, 5. Merx's (p. 6) re- 
 presentation seems, therefore, rather inadequate: ''These 
 (Hos. 10, 8; Am. 7, 9; Mi. 1, 5) are the only passages 
 of the earlier Prophets, in which the bamoth are men- 
 tioned and rejected." If this is meant strictly according to 
 the letter, it is correct; and if the number were multiplied 
 the condemnation could not be clearer. But by fairness of 
 interpretation one can not avoid the direct application of 
 Hosea' s complaint on account of the plurality of altars and 
 of Amos' offence at the same, as mentioned above, some of 
 which were at the same places where these bamoth were, 
 also to the bamoth themselves, the usual "local sanctuaries" 
 of that time. These examples, whose number might be in- 
 creased, positively and negatively, for the theoretical — no 
 one supposes the praxis was perfect — unity of the Sanc- 
 tuary run through the history parallel to the attempts of certain 
 kings to eradicate the high places and the worship of Baal 
 from the land. And it is strikingly significant in this con- 
 nection, that b(jth Hosea and Amos recognize the right of 
 the Royal House of David and predict its restoration over 
 a united Kingdom of Judah and Israel, whereby Israel shall 
 seek Jehovah, i, e., renounce his apostasy and all that per- 
 tains thereto in favor of the true worship. Hos. 3, 4. 5; 
 Am. 9, 11. 
 
 That Samuel offered sacrifices upon the high places a 
 few times, concerns our position less: 1. because the Taber- 
 nacle and the Ark at that time had no permanent site; 
 
103 — 
 
 2. because Samuel as Prophet aud Judge, the earthly head 
 of the theocracy, presumably had divine authority for his 
 action; and chiefly, 3. because this discussion proposes to 
 go no farther back than the dedication of the Tem^ile of 
 Solomon, which tirst lent lixeduess to the idea of the unity 
 of the Sanctuary. That Solomon also sacrificed upon the 
 bamoth is in the same manner excused as a necessity, since 
 there had not yet been a house built to the name of Jeho- 
 vah, 1 K. 3, 3. 4. Thenius *) observes, for the most part, cor- 
 rectly in regard to this passage: ''Also he (Solomon) followed 
 the gradually adopted, but illegal usage, to sacrifice in vari- 
 ous places," while the Books of Samuel record such things 
 ''wholly unrestricted and without disapproving remarks." 
 
 It is indeed more difficult to harmonize with the unity 
 of the Sanctuary, as held by the Prophets, the fact, that 
 Elijah "restcjred the altar of Jehovah (up(jn Mount Camiel), 
 which had been broken down" and proceeded at once to ofi'er 
 sacrifices upon it, 1 K. 18, 30. 36. But this seems by 
 some to be sufliciently explained by another fact, viz.. that 
 Elijah as Jehovah's Prophet acted upon divine authority. 
 It is yet more difficult to explain that only utterance of a 
 jtrophet in the Old Testament, which could probably favor 
 a plurality of altars, viz., Elijah's complaint: "They (this 
 ai)ostate folk) have broken down thy (Jehovah's) altars," 
 1 K. 19, 10. It has already been observed (p. 100), that 
 there were high i)laces in Judea dedicated to Jehovah. 
 They were doubtless more numerous in Israel, and were 
 either of pre -Solomonic origin, or more likely erected by 
 pious Israelites in their easily supposable necessity after the 
 division of the kingdom-). Professor Green ^) significantly 
 
 1) Die Buclier der Ki'migo, zur StoUe. 
 
 2) Seo Keil and Thenius upon this passage. 
 
 3) Moses and the Prophets, p. 119, note. This exoellent work has 
 been very helpful to me in this portion of my investigations. 
 
_ 104 — 
 
 remarks iu this connection: *'In the auomolous condition 
 of the Northern Kingdom, cut off from access to the Tem- 
 ple at Jerusalem, it is not surimsing if the fearers of Jeho- 
 vah maintained His worship in local sanctuaries. And 
 the hostility to Jehovah's service, which overthrew these 
 altars, was not palliated by the fact that, from a strictly 
 legal point of view, they were unauthorized. We might be 
 indignant at an infidel government for suppressing the Koman 
 Catholic worship without approving of the celebration of the 
 Mass." The passage seems, therefore, most easily explain- 
 able upon the supposition, that the complaint was not oAving 
 to any special regard for the altars themselves, but rather 
 owing to the hostility towards Jehovah, which led to their 
 demolition. 
 
 On account of the widely differing opinions in regard 
 to the age of many of the Psalms, it is rather precarious 
 to cite them for the support of views in regard to any partic- 
 ular time. But the arguments drawn fi-om them with proper 
 caution are, therefore, the more forcible, since no one sup- 
 poses that the Psalmists have ever intentionally misrepre- 
 sented history. Por the hymns of every age spring out of 
 the innermost thoughts and experiences of a people, i. e., 
 out of life. Thus: 1. Since the Psalms as a rule originate 
 from the religious nature and spiritual condition, they seldom 
 refer with detiniteness to the externalities of religion. Yet 
 Pss. 40, 7; 50, 8—15; 51, 18—21, speak of sacrifices very 
 similarly to that which has been observed by the Prophets. 
 Hosea, 6, 6; Micah, 6, 6. 7; Isaiah, 1, 11 ft'., etc. Also, 
 as in the case of the Prophets, it can not be supposed, 
 that these offerings were little approved, or actually dis- 
 approved, because the poets valued genuine piet}^ with thank- 
 fulness more highly. Ps. 51, 12 — 19 declares that a pure, 
 humble heart is the first condition of pleasing God; but 
 thereupon it is added, that burnt- offerings and sacrifices 
 
105 — 
 
 will then also be acceptable. Comp. P.s. 20, 4, Pss. 40 and 
 50 should also be understood after the analogy of Ps. 51 
 and the Prophets, viz.. that righteousness and truth are 
 much preferred to sacrilices and offerings, not that the latter 
 were in themselves superfluous or burdensome. These Psalms 
 can hardl}" in any case be of later date than the Prophets 
 above compared, and they (particularly Ps. 51, 19 — 21) 
 may, therefore, indicate the signilicance of offerings in their 
 age. If they are Davidic and from the time of the earlier 
 kings (Delitzsch et al.) — and there is no clear proof that 
 they are not — then they strongly support the view of the 
 cultus here defended. But if they are of post-exilic origin, 
 or from the Maccabean period (Olshausen) and the theory 
 of the Graf-school is correct, that such passages prove the 
 insignificance or worthlessness of offerings in the mind of 
 the authors, this fact would be yet more at variance with 
 the same critics, who hud every thing after the Exile strict- 
 ly Levitic and ritualistic. 
 
 2. The Psalms of every age mention only a single 
 Sanctuary. They sing almost constantly of Zion and David, 
 of the Holy Mountain and Jerusalem, of Sanctuary and 
 Kingdom, a united theocracA. This tone is heard from 
 David on through the history. Prom Psalms which are 
 almost universally^) recognized as Davidic there are sufli- 
 
 1) Olshausen (Die Psalmen erklart, 1858. S. S) is here not par- 
 ticularly considered. He supposed, that not a single Psalm of the 
 collection can be referred with certainty to David and Solomon, al- 
 though a few may be of pre-exilic origin. Some, according to Ols- 
 hausen. belong to the period between the Exile and Antiochus Ejiijih- 
 anes, but the most of them are from the time of the JIaccabees. The 
 grounds of this conclusion arc such characteristics as mark the hymns 
 of eveiy age, viz., the antithesis between the suffering and the pros- 
 perous, between the ])ious and the imjiious, and the inner schisms 
 of Judaism; or, certain Psalm were written si)ecially to be used in 
 worshi]!. The Graf-school are somewhat sjiaring in their utter- 
 ances about the Psalms — there is little here for them to glean. 
 
— 106 — 
 
 cieiit iudicatious of the great signiticauce of Zion as the 
 site of the Sanctuary even before the Temple was built. 
 Thus in Ps. 3, 5 Jehovah answers prayer from His holy 
 mountain. Ps. 11, 4 represents Jehovah's Temple as in 
 heaven, but as contrasted with Zion, v. 1. So also in 
 Ps. 18, 7 ''His (heavenly) Temple" doubtless points back to 
 the earthly Tabernacle, since v. 11 represents Him as rid- 
 ing upon the cherub, whose figure stood above the altar in 
 the Holy of Holies. Ps. 15, 1 evidently speaks of Zion as 
 the holy mountain after the Tabernacle had been located 
 upon it, Ps. 20 from the period of the earlier kings (Ewald, 
 Hitzig) makes the Sanctuary and Zion alike the place, whence 
 help Cometh. In Ps. 24, 3 David (Ewald), or Jeremiah 
 (Hitzig), describes the mount of Jehovah as the place 
 of His Sanctuary. Ps. 110, which is usually ascribed to 
 David, although Hitzig pushes it off into the Maccabean 
 •period, represents Zion as the seat of the future kingdom 
 with an everlasting priesthood. Pss. 5 and 9 are located 
 differently from David until after the Exile. The former i) 
 
 Perhaps the extreme bounds of Hitzig will be regarded as sufficiently 
 liberal for our further discussion. 
 
 1) Against the Davidic authorship of this Psalm there can he 
 no satisfactory argument founded upon the usage of r^a and h^^^li, 
 as is yet often attempted, since both 'n n'^ri and 'n ^?'^>7. were pre- 
 viously names of the Tabernacle, Josh. 6, 24; 2 S. 12, 20; 1 S. 1, 
 9; 3, 3. It is true, there is dispute as to the meaning in the last 
 two passages; but 'n bs'Ti in them is nevertheless called iriia bnx 
 2, 22. If it be still further objected, that 'n n''3 in Shiloh was more 
 a temple than a tabernacle, 2 S. 7, 6 should at least teach us, that 
 bnx the Tabernacle, could not even be regarded as a n*>2, house, in 
 its broader sense, much less a ba'^n, temple, but was an actual bns, 
 tent or tabernacle. And yet as tent, booth, or house it could be 
 called n'^a, as also in Arabic c*^/, and the name bs'^n does not nec- 
 essarily indicate the dimensions, but more especially its splendor and 
 the glorious appearance of Jehovah therein. Comp. further upon 
 this passage Delitzsch, Die Psalmen, 8. oder 4. Aufl. 
 
107 — 
 
 (v. 8) refers to the holy Temple as a sanctuary for worship 
 and the latter represents Zion as a place of thanksgiving 
 and exultation for the salvation of Jehovah. 
 
 (Chapter IV. 
 
 There have been occasional remarks made here and 
 there in the foregoing cha])ters upon Joel's style, and 
 investigations \\\Hm the meaning and usage of certain words 
 and phrases have l)een educed. These subjects must now 
 receive a fuller treatment. 
 
 It was formerly supposed that the style of Hebrew was 
 easy to recognize, and too great stress was often laid upon 
 the power to distinguish by this means between different 
 authors and ages. Thus the age of many Psalms, as also 
 other parts of Hebrew literature, were often judged far too 
 severely, or else too rashly, as was notably done by Hitzig 
 and Olshausen. But since it is now customary to push the 
 greater part of the Hebrew literature beyond Jeremiah, 
 there remains little more room for skill in this art. Style 
 plays its former important part only in the microscopic dissec- 
 tion of the Pentateuch. And although the judgment of the 
 ablest Semitic scholars is usually little heeded, yet Joel's 
 peculiar style is certainly an early one — flowing, elegant, the 
 primary meaning of the words, for the most part, easy to 
 understand, while poetry and prophecy intermingle, and 
 sometimes pass into metaphors hard to comprehend. So 
 tar as 1 have observed, only Kuenen and Duhm have ven- 
 tured to assume that Joel's style is "an indication of a later 
 compusitiuii.*' ^) Merx (p. 3) reminds us rather how futile 
 all arguments from style are so long as the best Hebraists 
 differ so widely in regard to the same literature, as, e. g., 
 Jlwald regards the second Psalm as Davidic, while Hitzig 
 
 1) Duhm, Die Tlieolfgie tier Propheten, 1&75. S. "276. 
 
— 108 — 
 
 refers it to the Maccabean period. But it is therefore the 
 more remarkable, that Hitzig's hue linguistic sense obliged 
 him with Ewald, Delitzsch, Baur, Schrader, Keil, Wiiusche 
 and others, to regard Joel's style as decidedly old classic. 
 
 Since it is quite impossible to give the Prophet's lan- 
 guage even the appearance of a late age, it is rather at- 
 tempted to show, that he is fanciful, obscure and insigni- 
 ficant. Thus Duhm, who is not so sure after all, that 
 Joel's stjde indicates a later composition, writes concerning "the 
 little insignificant book": "Why should not an epigon, who 
 is endowed with great form-talent, and not much troubled 
 with thoughts, by a careful imitation of the best models, 
 write a good stjde?" Oort and Mei"x express themselves 
 similarly. And this would be possible in exceptional cases, 
 just as now and then a classic piece of Latin appeared in 
 the Middle Ages. But if I have judged correctly, that Joel 
 as a whole gives a clear sense, that his political horizon 
 can not coincide with that of the post-exilic period, and that 
 his book harmonizes with the old cultus, this attempt to 
 make him feel at home in the midst of the Jerusalem 
 colony of the fifth century is all in vain. 
 
 The variety of leading thoughts in our book is, indeed, 
 not great, but these few concentrate in a harmonious unity 
 about the one thought of the whole, "the day of Jehovah" 
 in the broad sense of the term, presented in the double 
 picture of richest blessings and of the last judgment. The 
 Prophet will comfort the people in the national calamity, 
 which calamity is itself an omen of the righteous judgment 
 to come upon all people. The diversity of subordinate 
 thoughts radiating from these leading ones, and primarily 
 from the one topic, is very great, while they are painted in 
 metaphorical pictures, now of much beauty, now of mar- 
 vellous grandeur. It was chiefly on account of liis great 
 "depth and fulness in connection with the easy, pleasant 
 
1U9 
 
 flow of discourse, which is distiuguished from that of all 
 others", that Ewald supposed Joel to have spoken and 
 written a great deal. Instead of showing the signs of the 
 dying out of prophecy restricted hy the bonds of the Leviti- 
 cal priesthood, still more binding than in the time of Mal- 
 achi (Merx), Joel appears with the mien of the earlier 
 Prophets, unhesitating, imperative, like a Samuel, a Xathan 
 or an Elijah, begins in genuine prophetic form: ri^rT]""^n~ 
 bs^nE-]3 bsi^-bs r\iT\ -itcn "The word of Jehovah, which 
 came to Joel the son of Pethuel", and continues with 
 prophetic authority throughout the discourse. 
 
 It is nowhere and in nowise true, that the Book of 
 Joel is put together from citations out of other authors, as 
 Mei*x and others aflirm. The passages common to him and to 
 other Prophets stand nowhere in unbroken succession in 
 his prophecy, as that hypothesis requires. While I have 
 constantly insisted upon it, that parallel expressions can, in 
 themselves, never determine which is the older of two books, 
 it has been clearly shown, that such passages are, almost 
 without exception, shorter and more definite with Joel than 
 with other Proi)hets. Since it has constantly appeared, that 
 Joel can not have lived after the Exile, and since his style 
 is clearly an old classic one, it may now be confidently af- 
 firmed, that it is directly due to this old classic style and 
 to the old classic thought with a genuine prophetic tone, 
 that nearly every other Prophet freely draws ui)on him. 
 For ''there is hardly a Prophet from Amos on, through 
 whom one does not hear reminiscences of Joel". ^) 
 
 The author of our book selected also almost exclusively 
 good old classic words for his prophecy; or with him they 
 seem rather to flow without effort. This has lieen disputed 
 in only a few instances. Merx supposes that all the ex- 
 
 1) Delitzsch, in Rudelbach ii. (luoricke's Zeitschriit, 1851. S. 30() IV. 
 
— no — 
 
 pressions of the prayer, Jo. 2, 17, belong to a later or the 
 latest literature. But this may be reasonably questioned. 
 His remarks (p. 13, note) upon oin do not apply directly 
 to this word, but only to the idiomatic use of '\'}^_ with 
 Din. Similar exi)ressions are: '"'.2"'J|n nin, Gen. 31, 35; 
 45, 5; '3 )■»? nyn, Dt. 15, 9; D^ry'Wn, Ps. 19, 9; -lh'J 
 '7"a D'^r?^ Hab. 1, 13. Compare the Arab. &*^yi ^^^c and 
 Syr. ]LJLsa« ^Ji^. Din without 1'^^ occurs only seven 
 times: Jo. 2, 17; Jon. 4, 10 (11); Jer. 13, 14;' 21, 7; 
 Ez. 24, 14; Ps. 72, 13; Neh. 13, 22, while it occurs with 
 Y^ seventeen times from Gen. 45, 20 to Ezekiel. Hence 
 the latter is the more frequent form, by with its noun 
 (person or thing) is always to be supplied as indirect object 
 of Din, where it is wanting. Compare the Syr. sjoL with Vi^, 
 
 of the person and the Arab. Jla. with j of the person. The 
 action of the verb is reflexive. Now as a very sensitive 
 organ giving ready expression to the feelings, I'^J' is par- 
 ticularly suited to take the place of the wanting reflexive 
 pronoun, self, in Semitic languages, when one wishes to 
 express the sensibilities of the heart. Him, whom the eye 
 hates, pities or spares, hates, pities or spares the person 
 also. This use of fiy is analogous to the far more general 
 use of ©B5 for the reflexive pronoun in Hebrew, as also in 
 other Semitic dialects. Especially in Arabic is such a use 
 of both ^j,** and j-iJ quite prevalent. Other words have a 
 similar usage in some of the other dialects, but they seem 
 generally to apply more to things than to persons. ^) Such 
 linguistic usages must have originated by their rare employ- 
 ment first as similes, which graduallv became idiomatic. 
 
 1) Comp. Gesen.-Kautzsch, Hebr. Gram., 124, 1. Wright, Arab, 
 Gram., II. 135. 139. Noldeke, Syr. Gram., S. 157. Dillmauu, 
 Gram. d. Ethiop. Sprache, S. 273. Sclirader. Keiliiischriften und d. 
 A. Testament, 2. Aufi. S. 585. 
 
Ill - 
 
 It WHS, therefore, merely a matter of choice in Hehrew 
 between the idiom 'by ^37 Din and the same expression 
 without "J"*? as Joel has it, and not a question of age. onn 
 occurs twice, both times without I'^y. in Jer. 13, 14; 21, 7 
 and even so in Ps. 72, 12 (by Solomon, Delitzsch et al., 
 while some place it after Isaiah). On the other hand Ezekiel 
 chose the idiom eight times out of nine. Later tlian Ezekiel 
 Din occurs with certainty only once, or twice if Jonah is of 
 later date, both times without "j-^y. Thus it is seen, that 
 the two forms are about of equal age so far as their histor- 
 ical usage is concerned. But it is self-evident, as the use 
 by Ezekiel also suggests, that the idiom 'by 'j'^y Din is 
 later than the expression without "j"^?, whose place the former 
 as an expressiA'e figure gradually assumed in the develo]imeut 
 of the language. — Merx tinds DH-^nbi^ n;;x, ''Where is 
 your God"? 2, 17, ''possible first in theoretical disputes about 
 the relation of Jehovah to the gods, as also in the history 
 of the language first almost in the time of the Exile''. But 
 I notice that in his citations he overlooks 2 K, 2. 14 and 
 Mi. 7, 10, where such disputes are particularly i)roniinent. 
 Of a similar nature and also long before the Exile is the 
 use of this expression in 2 K. 18, 34. Comj). Is. 36. 19. 
 I\Ierx did not think it necessary to test the other ex- 
 pressions of this prayer. And 1 am sure, that he would not 
 have succeded better with them, on C^l.^ btj^sb has already 
 been noticed (pj). Gl. 62). nEin, Jo. 2, 17, occurs quite 
 often in the earlier as well as in the later Psalms, but sel- 
 dom by other late authors, while it is of frequent occurrence 
 in the early prophetical books. — nb©, Jo. 2, 8 excepted, 
 seems according to usage to be a later form in the sense 
 of, missile or javelin, but not necessarily peculiar to the later 
 literature, if i)erhai)s Job was Avritten in the time of Solomon 
 (Keil), or more ])robably in the first half of the seventh 
 century (Dillmanii, DcAVelte-Schrader et al.). The arguments 
 
— 112 
 
 for a still later origin of the discourses of Elihn, Job 32 — 87 
 (nbt occurs in 33, 18; 36, 12), seem to me quite unsatis- 
 factory. The same word occurs once in the kindred meaning 
 of, shoot, sprout, Cant. 4, 13. Its rare occurrence certainly 
 forbids the conclusion, that it is of decidedly later usage. — 
 The few OTra^ Xeyofjisva in Jo. 1, 17 and their different 
 renderings in the early versions and interpretations may also 
 be an indication, although not a proof, of Joel's earlier age. 
 Otherwise more agreement, and certainly more clearness, 
 should be expected in the early translations, some of which, 
 particularly the LXX, were not so far from Joel's time, if 
 he lived after the Exile, but that they should have relieved 
 us somewhat in our perplexities with the text of his book ^). 
 This seems all the more probable, if the Midrash and the 
 Haggada were so customary in Joel's age as Merx supposes. 
 
 In the foregoing chapters the reasons, which have led 
 recent critics to place Joel after the Exile, have been quite 
 fully considered. But it was first attempted by an analysis 
 of the book to defend the unity, and the logical connection 
 and to discover the chief object of the prophecy. Meanwhile 
 it was necessary, as also opposed to the allegorical inter- 
 pretation, to lay a historical foundation upon which to defend 
 the clearness and originality of the Prophet against the extrav- 
 agant assumptions of the latest school of critics to the con- 
 trary, and at the same time to show the erroneousness of Merx's 
 
 1) Both Karle (Commentationes criticae ad Vetus Testamentum 
 pertinentes, 1867) and Merx (pp. 100—106) have undertaken to correct 
 the text of Jo. 1, 17 and have offered some sugg-estive substitutes; 
 but neither of them have produced a more fitting or clearer text 
 than the traditional one, which Wiinsche's exegesis with comparative 
 etymological remarks indicates. As opposed to Merx's correction of 
 this passage in particular compare Hitzig-Steiner, Die Kleinen Pro- 
 pheten, 4. Aufl. 1881. S. 80 f. 
 
typico-eschatological iiiter])retation. In the Second Part and 
 based upon the analysis set forth and eonlinneil in the First 
 Part, the question: Did Joel live before or after the Exile? has 
 been considered. Firstly, the special objections against Joel's 
 originality were refuted by arguments: a. from the passages 
 of earlier Prophets supposed to have been cited by him; 
 b. from the complete incompatibility of Joel's |)olitical horizon 
 with j)ost-exilic events; c. by explaning the })rincipal words 
 and phrases upon which Merx bases his interpretation. Sec- 
 ondly, it was shown that no sound arguments for a post- 
 exilic composition could be founded upon Joel's utterances 
 concerning the elders and the cultus in general, by indicating 
 the important place of the elders in the early history and 
 the great signilicance of the cultus of Solomon's Temple, 
 which coincide with what Joel says concerning the elders, 
 ffistiug, the offerings and the priests. Thirdly, after a de- 
 fence of the credil)ility of the historical sources, proofs were 
 brought forward for the pre-exilic age of the Book of Joel, 
 by defending the theoretical unity of the Sanctuary and 
 its signilicance with that of Zion according to the historical 
 books, the Prophets and the Psalms. Finally, the argu- 
 ments from Joel's style and usage of words also indicate 
 an early age. 
 
 Of the arguments offered against a pre-exilic and for 
 a post-exilic age no one carries the weight of great proba- 
 bility, and all together make the evidence little stronger, 
 and much less have they the force of conviction. And as 
 various as have been the questions discussed, the arguments 
 brought forward and the conclusions reached, the foregoing 
 investigations liave constantly tended, so far as the Book of 
 Joel is concerned, to disprove the hypotheses of the Graf- 
 school and therewith to show the very weak f(»un(lation upon 
 which the arguments for a post-exihc composition are based. 
 And if T am not wholly in error this result has been fully 
 
 8 
 
- 114 — 
 
 reached b}^ very various proofs, many of which mutually 
 support one another. 
 
 This investigation has apparently been drawn out to 
 prolixity. But the compass and character of the literature 
 has seemed to demand it; and the estimation of the im- 
 portance of the subject as others regard it seems to justify 
 it fully. For example Steiner says^): "The Joel-question 
 is ... . solidly bound together with the Pentateuchal 
 question, and the advocates of G-raf s hypothesis can scarcely 
 avoid the necessity of bringing Joel also down into the time 
 of Ezra. A thorough testing of this argument would be 
 possible, therefore, only in connection with the whole 
 Pentateuchal question'". But, although the two subjects are 
 now brought into very close relation, it seemed to me, that, 
 on account of the present unsettled state of the Pentateuchal 
 criticism the question of Joel's age could be better discussed 
 independent of that of the Pentateuch. And further; be- 
 cause the interpretation of Joel, particularly of the first half 
 of the book, has been a disputed question throughout the 
 history of criticism, and has recently been conducted with 
 such immoderation, that it is regarded l)y some as a fanciful 
 and almost meaningless combination of passages from other 
 authors, it became therefore necessary by careful examination 
 of the contents first to determine the logical unity and the 
 object of the prophecy. It is hoped that the foregoing dis- 
 cussion has fully demonstrated not only that Joel lived be- 
 fore the Exile, but that the Pentateuchal question should 
 have no important weight in determining in which pre-exilic 
 age the Prophet lived, a question which will claim our 
 attention in the Third Part of this treatise. 
 
 1) Hitzig-Steiiier, Die zwolf kleinen Proiihcten, 1881. S. 74 f. 
 
115 
 
 Third Part. 
 
 In which pre-Exilic Age did Joel prophesy? 
 
 Chapter I. 
 Nearly all the indications of the age in which Joel lived 
 thus far observed puiut bacli to the time of the earlier or 
 earliest Prophets. And the foregoiug discussion, has served 
 to show clearly either the groundlessness, or the exaggerated 
 character, of a number of the old arguments. For exagger- 
 ation and error in the interpretation of our book have opened 
 the way for the views of the new school of critics and partly 
 excused them. Just as the purely figurative interpretation of 
 the allegorists, which had no real foundation in history, gave 
 occasion to the hite typico-eschatological view, which makes 
 our book a product of meaningless rhetorical fancy; so the 
 next succeeding view, which greatly over-estimated the priest- 
 ly character of the Prophet and against all arguments to 
 the Contrary submitted him to the rule of the Priest Jehoi- 
 ada, plays him directly into the hands of those, who can 
 endure nothing of a genuinely priestly nature before the 
 time of Ezra, or at earliest before Ezekiel. ^) But from our 
 investigations it is clear — and both Kuenen and Well- 
 hausen from their standpoint testify to the same, — that 
 the early cultus of Israel was, at least, long and broad 
 enough to oiler that of Joel ample room. And it has l)een 
 demonstrated, that Joel prophesied before the Exile. But 
 when? 
 
 I) Upon these twu erroneous interiirotutions, which have con- 
 stantly been the chief iuistaket> in the discussion of the many-sided 
 question of Joel's age. both Hilgenfeld and Mei-x, each in his own 
 manner, have based tlieir hypotheses; and they already ignore tlieir 
 "\vn foundation. 
 
- 116 — 
 
 Let us take the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chald- 
 eans — for no one places our Prophet actually in the time 
 of the Exile and apparently only Kuenen now places him, 
 as also Oort formerly, at the beginning of the Exile — as 
 a turning-point in the discussion, Avhich is now to be trans- 
 planted from the largely hypothetical to the purely histor- 
 ical soil, from which the Joel-question should never have 
 been removed. Upon such a vantage-ground, fortified against 
 all objections by means of typical and narrowly priestly 
 interpretations of the book, we shall endeavor to determine 
 as nearly as possible the date of our pre-exilic Prophet. 
 For the sake of clearness and in accordance with the anal- 
 ysis of the book already given, I call attention once more 
 to Joel's chief object, viz., to proclaim ''the day of Jeho- 
 vah" in its broader sense, i. e., the entire Messianic era, or 
 future period of prosperity extending, as already observed, 
 to the last judgment, and thereby, together with promises 
 of present outward and spiritual blessing, to comfort his 
 people. This purpose is of primary importance with Joel, 
 and herein lies the unity of his book, which Graetz^) did 
 not fully recognize. Although this of itself offers no indi- 
 cation of the age, yet it is necessary to keep this leading 
 figure of the composite picture constantly in view in order 
 that we may not become prepossessed and turned aside by 
 other interesting particulars of less importance, which are 
 in- part the real determining features of time, and to which 
 we must now give special attention, in order that we may 
 not exchange the lesser for the greater reason in our proc- 
 esses of argument. 
 
 Such features are to be observed in the first three 
 chapters of our book, particularly as follows: 1. The plague 
 of locusts together with the drought. This is not to be 
 
 1) Der einheitliche Charakter der Prophetie Joel's, 1873. 
 
— 117 - 
 
 allegorically ajiplied to armies ot niL'ii, uur to be understood 
 as a t3i)e taki'ii from history in order to exi)lain the judg- 
 ment of the nations, but as a present plague painfully distress- 
 ing alike to the Prophet and his people, which seiTed as 
 a suitable motive to prophesy. No true ijroi)het ever 
 attempts merely to entertain his people by rhetorical dis- 
 play, or to satisfy their curiosity by announcing future events ; 
 which is nearly the conception of Joel formed by Oort. 
 Duhm and Mei-x. On the contrary, the outward circum- 
 stances and spiritual condition of the people, their material 
 and moral necessities, must tirst move him thereto. But 
 such and similar plagues, if seldom so extroardinary and pro- 
 ductive of extreme want, are too common in the East, with- 
 out further historical indications, in any w^ay to indicate a 
 particular age, as some of the earlier inteii)reters supposed. 
 2. The assembly of the people presents to us most 
 imi)ortant features, viz., the elders, the priests, the fasting, 
 the otleriugs. Yet these are not of primary importance with 
 Joel, but are brought into the description as the occasion 
 suggested them and suit almost any time during the exist- 
 ence of the Solomonic Temple, only not in the gigantic 
 form, which many assume and profess to find in our book. 
 Consequently, in the first half of the book, only the manner 
 of description, the very simple appearance of the assembly, 
 the undisputed authority of the Prophet and the universally 
 recognized elegant language and beautiful style of the M-liole 
 discourse, can indicate certainly an early age. But these 
 indications are also, like the foregoing ones, indefinite. Yet 
 Ewald rightly recognized in the ab(»ve-mentioned characteris- 
 tics the very primitive age of our book, an age somewhat 
 similar to that of a Nathan or a Gad in the time of David, 
 when every thing appeared much simpler and more ancient than 
 at tiie time of Amos, and when a whole i>oopU' was yet (U'lH-n- 
 d'/nt ui)0u the Prophet, neither contradicting him nor complain- 
 
— 118 — 
 
 ing^). In these three chapters also occur the da}^ of Jehovah, 
 the blessing of the soil, the pouring out of the Spirit and the 
 rescue of those who then call upon Jehovah, and the phe- 
 nomena in the heavens, the last two occurring also in Ch. 4. 
 But none of these features, nor the mention of the House 
 of Jehovah and Zion, affords us any sure indications of the 
 exact age of composition. 
 
 3. There was another cause which led to this prophecy, 
 viz., the extenial danger to the kingdom from enemies, 
 Jo. 2, 17 — 19, which, with the still fresh and painful re- 
 membrance of injury from former foes, whom one sees only 
 in the background of the picture in 2, 2 — 9, was another 
 important cause of the present crisis. Since these enemies 
 are not definitely named, although they are most likely 
 included among those mentioned in the fourth chapter, they 
 can have no influence in determining the age of Joel. 
 
 4. But the political relations, the enemies and their 
 offences presented in the fourth chapter are our surest in- 
 dications of the age. It has already been duly observed, 
 how the Avant of reference to the Syrians, Assyrians and 
 other later hostile nations makes the post-exilic composition 
 impossible, simply because Joel intentionally refers to the 
 special enemies of Judah in Ch. 4. With almost equal 
 propriety the same may l)e said of its comi)osition in the 
 time of the Exile. This argument, although of itself in- 
 sufficient, that the Syrians and Assyrians had not l)een in 
 Jerusalem before Joel prophesied, becomes quite conclusive, 
 if one attach particular importance to the political features 
 of our book, as nearly all interpreters rightly do. Even so 
 the want of reference to idolatry and to the service of Baal 
 can not be an evidence of the age, since such strange wor- 
 ship was, perhaps, never entirely eradicated from the kingdom ; 
 
 1) Ewald, Die Propheten des Alten Bundes, 2. Aufl. 1. 89. 
 
119 
 
 uor is it remarkable, since Juel calls special atteutiuu to 
 no other gross sin. This will appear still less remarkable, 
 if at the time those kinds of worship were little indulged 
 in (see p. 68). And Joel's place in the Canon can be accepted 
 only as an evidence of an early date, Init without dehnite- 
 uess, as was observed in the beginning of this treatise. 
 
 With all these indications according to their individual 
 importance, as above presented, which, it is presumed, the 
 foregoing discussions have sufficiently verified, we may now 
 attempt to determine the age, as nearly as possible, in 
 which Joel lived; although it may he quite impossible to 
 attain to exactness beyond doubt. But I must remark in 
 the beginning, that, after a long and thorough examination 
 of the literatm'e in general and in particular upon the sub- 
 ject, I can find, according to the internal and the strictly 
 historical indications, no other place so suitable for our 
 Prophet as in the first generation after King Solomon. But 
 how does he stand here? The history as it has come down 
 t(j us must solve the problem. 
 
 Solomon had left to his son a united Israel with an 
 imposing central Sanctuary and a powerful government, a 
 theocratical kingdom, which stood in friendly relations with 
 the great powers, P'gypt on the south and Phenicia on the 
 north, w^hile the smaller adjacent states were either sub- 
 jugated or very desirous of friendship, 1. K. 5, 1.11. The 
 bond of friendship with Hiram King of Tyre, who had 
 stood in very confidential relations with David, 2 S. 5, 11; 
 1 Chr, 14, 1, was of the nature of a brother-hood during 
 Solomon's life, 1 K. 5. 14ff. ; 9, 27; 2 Chr. 2, 3 ft". etc. 
 Even un an occasion when he felt himself injured, Hiram 
 addressed Solomon as ■>nx, my brother, 1 K. 9, 13. The 
 flourishing young kingdom looked with i)ride upon the \rdst 
 and with confidence to the future. But the seeds of evil 
 had already been sown and must soon grow and bear th<'ir 
 
— 120 — 
 
 fruits. The Edomites, who appeared to he completely sub- 
 jected, fostered an irrecoucilahle hatred aud reveuge towards 
 the kingdom founded hy David , 2 S. 8, 14; IK. 11, 14ff. 
 And although the King of Egypt remained apparently friendly 
 towards Solomon, yet he welcomed the refugees from justice 
 out of the former's kingdom, 1 K. 11, 17. 19. 21. 40. So 
 soon as David's aud Solomon's old general Joab died, the 
 young Prince Hadad, who had returned from the court of 
 King Shishak of Egypt, assumed the reign over Edom; and 
 likewise after Solomon's death, Jereboam, an escaped ser- 
 vant of Solomon, from the same Egyptian court, appeared 
 in Israel, and by reason of Rehoboam's weakness and folly 
 he possessed the greater influence and power, 1 K, 12; 
 2 Chr. 10. The proud kingdom quickly met with misfortune, 
 subjects rebelled without hindrance, and little Judah stood 
 alone, isolated, beside the larger newly-founded Kingdom of 
 Israel. Soon, eA'en in the fifth year, follows the humil- 
 iating conquest by the same King Shishak of Egypt, the 
 Capital City and the Sanctuary are plundered, servants are 
 led away, the laud is divided and a total subjugation is 
 barely escaped — all quick and terrible like the thunder-bolt 
 from a blue sky. Comp. 1 K. 14, 25. 26; 2 Chr. 12, 2—9. 
 And who had sown the seeds of destruction? who 
 devised the wicked plot? — for so much would scarcely 
 be expected from a single person. One need only read the 
 passages cited. Every thing had, doubtless, been carefully 
 planned in counsel and carried out by Shishak, Hadad and 
 Jereboam.^) If in connection with these historical records 
 I have understood Jo. 2, 17; 4, 1 — 3. 19 rightly, these enemies 
 had done it all. They have scattered my inheritance Israel 
 
 1) The LXX (Edit, vatic.) insert, afterl K. 12, 24 of the Hebrew 
 text, a passage concerning the relations of Shishalc and Jereboam, ac- 
 cording to which the latter was the Egyptian King's brother-in-law, 
 as we otherwise know that Hadad was, 1 K. 11, 19. 
 
121 — 
 
 among the nations and divided my land, says the Prophet. 
 One seeks in vain elsewhere a historical account of a division 
 of the kingdom, which could at all ])rohably coincide with 
 that of Joel. The capture and plundering of Jenisalem by 
 the Philistines and Arabians (Credner, Hitzig) is no real 
 division of the hind, Jo. 4, 2. Nor can the occupation of 
 a district or villages here and there by the Philistines and 
 Pheniciaus answer to Joel's description. If one think of the 
 captivity from the Northern Kingdom and the subsequent 
 Assyrian colonization of Samaria^), all this lies far from 
 Joel's position, as also from his thoughts. And after the 
 Exile there was scarcely a similar division of Palestine before 
 that into the Roman Tetrarchies, were the post-exilic and 
 exilic periods on other, mostly political, grounds not already 
 excluded. If a reason be required, why the Kingdom of 
 Israel is not mentioned (Mei-x) — for in 4, 2. 16 "Israel" 
 refers to the congregation, the inheritance, the covenant- 
 people, and is not to be understood politically, — the reason 
 is clear according to this interpretation. It is not recorded, 
 it is true, that Edom took ])art in the capture and plun- 
 dering of the city ; l)ut it is hardh' credible to supi)0se, that 
 Hadad neglected to join his brother-in-law. protector and 
 friend, 1 K. 11, 14 ff., uj)on the march to Jerusalem which 
 promised to satisfy his feelings of revenge. 
 
 It may, therefore, easily be supposed that Shishak exer- 
 cised a jxjwerful influence upon Israel by encouraging and 
 supporting Jereboam. His conquest in the fifth year weak- 
 ened Judah greatly, and its expectation may also have en- 
 couraged the ten tribes to separate themselves from Judah. 
 For there is no certain evidence that Kehoboam met with 
 resistence at once, or that the dissensions of the people 
 reached the point of a real divisi(»n before about the time 
 
 1) Berthold, Eitileitung in die Schriften des A. u. N. Testaments, 
 1S14. II. Th. IV. 1600 f. 
 
— 122 — 
 
 of this conquest. Nor is it reported that Jereboam returned 
 to Israel directly after Solomon's death. Comp. 1 K. 12; 
 2 Chr. 10. It may be objected to this view, that neither 
 the Israelites nor Jereboam are elsewhere called ''heathen". 
 But this interpretation considers the Israelites simply under 
 foreign rule, in the power of the nations, Q^ias, Jo. 4, 2. 
 And if Jereboam may not properly be classed with the 
 n'^'^a, he was always regarded as chief in the rebellion a- 
 gainst the theocracy, as "the son of Nebat who caused Israel 
 to sin." While there were ceaseless efforts put forth to 
 win Israel back to the true religion, the worship of that 
 kingdom was idolatry, its gods were the gods of the nations in 
 the eyes of the prophets. Politically it was a foreign state. 
 The inference is warrantable, therefore, that, aside from the 
 natural discontent of the people with Rehoboam, Shishak, 
 doubtless assisted by Hadad, exerted the greatest power in 
 rending the kingdom asunder. The Egyptians and Edomites 
 are certainly included in Joel's D^ian, "the nations", and 
 they and Jereboam may well be the u^^^ who "scattered 
 my heritage Israel among the peoples and divided my land." 
 If ITS, to scatter, to disperse, means more than is here 
 implied, as it well may, it can adequately be represented 
 in the captivity, into which Israelites were brought by Shi- 
 shak's invasion, as we shall soon see (pp. 125f.), It is often 
 supposed that the division of "my land" refers to particular 
 districts conquered by the Phenicians and Philistines at a 
 later date. But if such a division adequately represented 
 the meaning of i2-is?-ns< ^p?n, 4, 2, the towns and terri- 
 tory conquered by Shishak on this invasion of Palestine are 
 more important than those which the indications of history 
 show to have been taken by the nations named. It was, 
 doubtless, by Jereboam's consent, and may have been to 
 aid him in obtaining complete control over Israel, that Shi- 
 shak extended the invasion into Samaria. 
 
— 123 
 
 One may infer so mucli from our incomi»lete rocortis 
 of that early history as almost self-evident; and so much 
 was nothing new to Joel, altliough none the less painful. 
 Judah's subsequent long-continued danger had so constantly 
 recalled that misfortune, that lie involuntarily colors his 
 representation of the army of locusts with those hon'ible 
 t'Xperiences , as a fearful omen of the ai)proaching day of 
 Jehovah. This book more than any other of the Proi)h- 
 ets gives us nearly everywhere the extroardinary, often 
 the supernatural. Others ascend to equal heights only here 
 and there. As surely as every effect must have its ade(iuate 
 cause, so surely must Joel's surroundings and experiences 
 have been of the rarest kind. Probably the Judeaus never 
 suffered another stroke so violent nor humiliation so unex- 
 pected, not even that by Nebuchadnezzar; for the Prophets 
 and the wretched political condition of the country had, at 
 that time, somewhat prepared the true sen'ants of Jehovah 
 for the event, and that conquest and cai)tivit3' met the 
 majority of every class as the expected and merited reward 
 of their unfaithfulness. On the contrary, as by Joel, so in 
 the historical books at that early time one observes no 
 particular complaint of the people, but only sin in general. 
 
 On the other hand, the larger Northern Kingdom under 
 Jereboam with his idolatrous eultus was not only a rival, 
 but was also an open enemy of Zion and Jerusalem. Thus 
 Israel, the inheritance of Jehovah, and not merely Judah, 
 was actually divided, Jo. 4, 2, and ten of the twelve parts 
 were separated from the Sanctuary and the Cajiit^il City. 
 Jereboam, himself like a heathen king, constantly carried 
 on war with Judah, 1 K. 14, 30. And after his death, in 
 order to protect his own kingdom, Asa was obliged to 
 bribe the Assyrian Ben-hadad to break his treaty with Jere- 
 boam's successor, Baasha, and attack him in the rear, 1 K. 
 15. 16 ff. In the iirst generation Judah succeeded onlv a 
 
— 124 — 
 
 short while under Abijah in thorough!}' repelling Israel. 
 2 Chr. 13, 13 — 20. If we place Joel under such circum- 
 stances of danger to the kingdom, hemmed in and threat- 
 ened on all sides, with famine within and no hope of even 
 a moderate harvest, assemblies for counsel, 3-es for repen- 
 tance and pra^'er, should only be expected. It is not remark- 
 able, that the priests, the only legal representatives of the 
 religion, should anxiously pray: "Jehovah, spare thy people 
 and give not thy heritage to reproach, that the heathen 
 should rule over them; Avherefore should they say among 
 the nations, where is their God?" 2, 17. It is only natural, 
 if Joel lived in Rehoboam's time, that the priests, who had 
 sacriliced home and possessions to worship the God of their 
 fathers in His Sanctuary, 2 Chi-. 11, 14, should often meet 
 in this Sanctuary to pray, when both the kingdom and the 
 Sanctuary were seriously endangered. Nor is it surprising, 
 that a true prophet of the beloved Zion, which was a little 
 while ago so splendid, but now robbed of her choicest treas- 
 ures, should defend the "holy mountain" with his burn- 
 ing rhetoric to the utmost. There was then no time for the 
 discussion of special sins. To lose the Capital City and the 
 Sanctuary would have been the certain and complete fall 
 of the kingdom. It is to me inconceivable therefere, why 
 so many interpreters follow Credner^) in seeking a time of 
 prosperity for the promises of Joel, when the cultus at least, 
 if not the whole country (as some think) was flourisliiug, 
 — of which the Prophet gives no indication from beginning 
 to end, — as if a wise statesman, not to speak of a prophet 
 of earlier times, had not often, in the midst of great 
 misfortune and dangers, been al)le to comfort his people 
 with promises of a better future. And who only slightly 
 conversant with the history of Israel must not have won- 
 
 1) Der Prophet Joel, 1831. S. 56. 
 
125 
 
 dered, in thinking of that time uf Jiulah's great i-alamity, 
 if no great proi)het appeared to counsel and to comfort the 
 people of God, as was the case under all simihir circum- 
 stances in the history of the kingdom? And would it not 
 be very remarkable, if no writing of such a prophet has come 
 down to us from that time, which was at least the begiuning 
 uf the golden age in Hebrew literature? for there were schools 
 of the prophets from Samuel on, 1 S. 19, 20. Comp. 1 S. 10, 
 5; 2 K. 2, 3. 7. 15. The objection may reasonably be raised, 
 that we have no positive proof of so early prophetic writings 
 and that the departure from the traditionally accepted view as 
 to the beginning of canonical prophecy is too radical. This 
 has admittedly a peculiar weight, but by no means the force 
 of necessity, nor even of the preponderance of probabilities 
 in its favor, as opposed to the foregoing evidencies and the 
 arguments to follow, Morover, the objection must appear 
 in bad taste from those who anywhere depart from the ca- 
 nonical order of the Minor Prophets; and few critics of 
 to-day hesitate to do this. (Comp. also pp. 145 f.). 
 
 That the Egyptians and Edomites shed "innocent l)loud", 
 Jo. 4, 19, when they captured and plundered the city, is 
 only according to the usual methods of war in early times, 
 and such instances are always to be expected. But wliether 
 asnxa here properly ^ means in Judea or in the land of the 
 enemies may be reasonably questioned. Both suppositions 
 probably correspond to the actual facts. Yet it is highly 
 improbable, that innocent blood in the quantity, which Joel 
 will here indicate (Karle), wtis shed in Judea without the 
 least hint of the same in the Books of the Kings. ^) Fortun- 
 ately we are not conlined to this explanation of CS'istS. The 
 suffix can, at least, just as well refer to the P^gyjitians and 
 Edomites. And the Chronicler assures us, that Judeans 
 
 I) Do Wette-Schrader, Einleitung in tl. A. Test., S. 606. 
 
— 126 — 
 
 became servants or slaves, D"'1^y, at that time, not only 
 of Shishak, but also of ''the kingdoms of the countries", 
 2 Chr. 12, 8. Certainly the Chronicler could hardly have wished 
 to record a prophecy of that nature, which was never ful- 
 filled, vs. 5-8. Further: among the memorials upon the 
 wall of the Ammon-Temple at Ivarnak is recorded a large 
 number of cities, which Shishak captured in Palestine, and 
 among the figures in relief of his captives from different 
 lands is the physiognomy of a Jew. ^) Innocent Judeans uf 
 that captivity may easily have lost their lives under the 
 cruel Egyptian hand as also by the hand of the revengeful 
 Edomites. 
 
 On the other hand, in the records of Shishak's conquest 
 according to the historical books occur neither the Philistines 
 nor the Phenicians, towards whom Joel appears very sensitive, 
 as if they had no excuse for their hostility (see pp. 34 — 36). 
 But it would be superfluous to adduce the many evidences 
 of the constant enmity of the former throughout the period 
 of the early kings. They would have been only too gkul 
 at any time to join an attacking army aganist Jerusalem. 
 Their spirit of revenge towards the Kingdom of David was 
 
 1) Brugsch rejects the formerly current explanation of the sup- 
 posed Hebrew name of a person, -|bT2 mici'', which is inscribed by 
 this physiognomy, on the ground that it is contrary both to the 
 Hebrew and to the Egyptian languages to place the nominative after 
 the genitive case, and because it stands among the recorded names 
 of cities. He thinks it is the name of a city, -brn lirt"', to which 
 there are similarly sounding names of places in Palestine to-day, 
 although unknown formerly. These objections, however, only apply 
 to and militate against the explanation of this name without ques- 
 tioning the facts in regard to the captives and the Jewish physiog- 
 nomy. Corap. Brugsch, Geographische Inschriften altagyptischer 
 Denkmaler, 1858. S. .^6. Also Lepsius, Herzog's Real P^ncykl. 1. Aufi. 
 I. 174, and Briefe aus Aegypten u. d. Ifalbinsel des Sinai, 1822. S. 275. 
 Sir Gardner Wilkinson, Modern Egypt and Thebes, II. 263. 
 
127 
 
 hardly less bitter tluin that of the Edumites. As to tlu- 
 Pheniciims, they never appear as the friends of Judali after 
 the division of the kingdom. In the time of Amos (1, 9; 
 they had forgotten the bond of brother-hood (Comp. p. 119) 
 and like Gaza, Am. 1, G, had transported captives to Edom. 
 This can hardly be the same instance of selling slaves, which 
 Joel, 4, 3, 6. 7, mentions, not only because Joel says the 
 captives were sold to the Jonians, for they ma}' have been 
 sold in botli directions at the same time, nor alone because 
 those mentioned by Amos, if one dare specialize here at 
 all, were carried away captive from Israel, where he was 
 prophesying ; but rather because the context of the passage 
 in Amos shows, that he refers to a series of events probaldy 
 reaching far back in the history. 8o also api)ears the trans- 
 gression of Edom, Am. 1, 11, because he had pursued his 
 'brother with the sword, etc.; and we know of no other 
 similar incident, which occurred in his generation. Morover. 
 it is botli incapable of proof and very improbable, that all 
 these attacks of enemies recorded by Amos occurred in or 
 near his own time. The summing-up also of different sore 
 experiences of Israel refers rather to historical than to con- 
 temporaneous events, Am. 5. Joel, 4, 4 — 8, on the other 
 hand, relates a single event, which is without doubt to be 
 unilerst(jod in immediate connection with v. 3, just as Oba- 
 diali refers to a single event, v. 10—12. If Joel referred 
 to historical events of different dates, we should reasonably 
 expect more deiiniteness as to names and facts, such as is 
 manifest in Amos' historical narration. (See p. 131, note). 
 And further, there had existed no bond of brother-hood. 
 ens? rT'ia, Am. 1, 9, between Phenicia and Judah since 
 Solomon's day, while it is apparently the sudden breach ol 
 the treaty of which Joel complains (pp. 121 f.). This strongly 
 favors a time not very long after Solomon's death. In the 
 slave-trade the Phenicians had merelv followed their long- 
 
-- 128 — 
 
 known customs. Accordingly in the narration of historical 
 events and characteristics of this people, Ezekiel, 27, 13, 
 refers to their, in all probability, very ancient Phenician 
 slave-trade with Javan, Tubal and Meshek, i. e., with different 
 nations, — wherever the trade was best. When Jerusalem 
 became the Capital City of little Judah alone, it was to the 
 interest of Phenicia to put herself in friendly relations with 
 the more contiguous and more powerful Northern Kingdom 
 and with Egypt. Now, if the Phenicians and Philistines did 
 actually take part in the pillaging of Jerusalem, as seems 
 evident, they certainly received their share of the spoils, 
 the treasures of the Temple, and of the captives. ^) If they 
 were not actively present, it is no unwarrantable assumption, 
 that they purchased the same of the real pillagers. 
 
 For sufficient reasons already adduced, so far as the 
 Temple and cultus is concerned, Joel may he placed any- 
 where after Solomon in the early history. And it may be 
 recalled, that the Prophet acted in this great calamity ac- 
 cording to the recommendation of Solomon. In the prayer 
 of the latter at the dedication of the Temple the well-known 
 misfortunes of the land were remembered, the plague of 
 locusts, the drought, etc., as in case of loss by enemies, 
 
 1 K. 8, 33 — 49 (pp. 98 f.). In all such cases, if they were 
 not conveniently near to go to Jerusalem and the Temple, 
 
 1) It is true, Joel does not expressly say, that the Temple had 
 been plundered, which has constantly been implied in this treatise 
 (pp. 33, 54 f. etc). But the context (4, 4-8), the reference to "my 
 silver and my gold" the expression Diaiin "^n^ri^ "my costly articles" 
 (v, 5) compared with the similar usage of lianas, Is. 64, 10, C'^TanB "^^2, 
 
 2 Chr, 36, 19, and rriTsn ^bs, 2 ('hr. 36,"l'o, referring to the treas- 
 ures of the Temple, seem so clearly to indicate such an occurrence, 
 that it has seldom been questioned, even by those, as the advocates 
 of Credner's view, who are at a loss to locate the same historically. 
 Moreover, the use which was made of these costly articles by the 
 Phenicians and Philistines supports this conclusion. 
 
129 
 
 the people should direct their prayers towards the Sauctuary 
 there. Could any thing be more natural than that Joel 
 should have had these instructions in mind, when the country 
 was scourged by all three of these calamities in close suc- 
 cession and was still in imminent danger? This is in every 
 respect probable, and there in no necessity for seeking a 
 picture of the plague of locusts in the Exodus, for the hor- 
 rible, almost unendurable reality was before all eyes. 
 
 It will have been observed, that I — not in order to 
 represent the other extreme from Duhm and Merx — agree, 
 as to the date of the Book of Joel, most nearly with 
 Bunsen, ^) whose able discussion has been too little regarded. 
 Against his views Ewald^) had only the objection to ofiFer. 
 that we can nut presuppose an artificial name like pr2^ 
 tSDC'in'', 4, 2. 12, at so early a date. But there is no proof 
 at hand, that this name originated from King Jehoshaphat. 
 as Ewald and others supposed. And that wSTDini pTST, 
 "the valley where Jehovah judges", assumed the place of 
 n^na p)2y, "valley of blessing", 2 Chr. 20, 26, where 
 Jehoshaphat ordered a celebration for thanksgiving after his 
 great victory, is now almost given up as groundless. Joel's 
 is, indeed, a very figurative style, for which he could just 
 -as well have invented this name, UDTIJini p'Q^, as the other, 
 doubtless, for the same valley, V^"inn p'av in v. 14. Will 
 one answer: the article forbids, that "j^Tinn pry should be 
 a proper name, that would not be quite correct; fur proper 
 names sometimes originate from descriptive expressions and 
 may accidentally preserve an article contained in the ex- 
 pressions. Also that this valley occurs by this name no- 
 where else in the Old or in the New Testament, although at 
 the foot of the Temple-hill and frequented at all times and 
 
 1) Bunsen, Gott in der Geschichtc, II. 229 ff. 
 
 2) Jahrbiicher der bibl. Wissenschaft, VIII. 238. 
 
 9 
 
— 130 — 
 
 by all people, seems to show conclusively, that it was not 
 named after that great king, notwithstanding a tradition 
 based upon a mistaken interpretation of Joel, which prob- 
 ably dates from before Christ, fixes the judgment of the" 
 world in this valley.^) Morover, Ewald admitted, as all 
 others must admit, who will find in the pre-exilic epoch 
 either a conquest of the land by the Egyptians or a plun- 
 dering of the city and Temple by enemies named in our 
 book, that Jo. 4, 19 points to the conquest and plundering 
 by Shishak. The next recorded conquest by the Egyptians 
 was shortly before the Exile, when Jerusalem seems not to 
 have been nearly approached, 2 K. 23, 33. 34; 2 Chr. 36, 34; 
 and we otherwise know, that Nebuchadnezzar a few years 
 later bore away the treasures of the Temple of that time 
 to Babylon. 
 
 Chapter II. 
 
 Frequent mention has been made of the Allegorists, as 
 critics of different ages who advocate a particular kind of 
 interpretation, and of the New School, or Graf-school, who, 
 in accordance with their view of the origin of the Priest- 
 code, assign Joel to a very late date. Those who entertain 
 the views which are next to be considered may, for want 
 of a better term, be called the Credner-school. They in- 
 clude a number of the most eminent biblical scholars of the 
 last half-century, and although they differ widely in regard 
 to various points of the interpretation of our prophecy, they 
 follow Credner in placing Joel in the early part of King 
 Joash's reign, and most of them place him under the 
 regency of the High-priest Jehoiada. 
 
 To these views of Credner and others in regard to the 
 age of Joel may be offered five leading objections. To some 
 of these attention has already been more or less carefully 
 
 1) Socin, in Baedecker's Palestina u. Sjrien, S. 98. 
 
- 131 
 
 directed. 1. There is clearly a want of historical data to 
 support their arguments. In the first place, it is said, that, 
 in the time of King Joram Edom revolted from Judah 
 and certainly it was "not without the shedding of blood," 
 i. e., the shedding of "innocent blood," Jo. 4, 19. Let us 
 see. In the reign of Jehoshaphat all Edom, even as far 
 as Ezion-geber, paid tribute to Judah and, at one time, 
 was his ally against Moab, 1 K. 22, 49; 2 K. 3, 9 ff. At 
 a later date Joram attempted to punish the above-mentioned 
 revolt, but failed, 2 K. 8, 20—22; 2 Chr. 21, 8—10. In 
 this event Joel's complaint against Edom would appear 
 rather trivial, if, in the strife, a few Judean military or 
 other officials lost their lives. Of this, however, we have 
 no historical account'). One would hardly call this "shed- 
 ding of innocent blood", but rather a struggle for independ- 
 ence. The Chronicler, according to the passage already 
 cited, regarded Joram's defeat as the punishment for his 
 unfaithfulness to "the God of his fathers;" and in the fol- 
 lowing verses refers to the Prophet Elijah in a way which 
 indicates that the Prophet also regarded the matter in the same 
 light. If Joel referred to these events, he doubtless shared 
 the views of Elijah and the historian. Hitzig applies Jo. 4, 19 
 to the murder of Jews who had settled in Edom. To this 
 Bunsen replies with much force, that such a settlement of 
 Judeans at that time is very improbable and an ungrateful 
 invention of the imagination, for Hadad's sword of revenge 
 
 1) This shows also how ])recarious the arguments are, by which 
 it is atteni])ted to prove, from the fact that Obadiah prophesied in 
 particular against Edom (Keil, Die zwolf kleinen Propheteu, 2. AuH. 
 S. 245 f., et al.), that he lived in the time of Joram or soon after- 
 wards. Obadiah mentions rather a fierce attack from the Edomites 
 as allies of the chief enemies against Jerusalem, Ob. 10 — 12, — Joel 
 probably refers to a similar one — instead of the revolt mentioned 
 above. 
 
 9* 
 
— 132 — 
 
 would have exterminated them long before; and that Joel's 
 threat of devastation was principally directed against Egypt 
 with her heautiful valley of the Nile and to a less extent 
 against Edom, which by nature resembles a nest of rocks. 
 
 The combination goes further. The Philistines, and the 
 Arabians, who were neither Edomites nor Egyptians, Jo. 4, 
 19, but lived between the two by the Cushites, afterwards, 
 in the time of Joram's affliction, invaded Judea, took away 
 his cattle and his wives, plundered his palace and killed 
 all of his sons except the youngest, 2 Chr. 21, 10. 16. 17. 
 Credner and others assume with remarkable assurance to 
 have found in this event the circumstances upon which Joel 
 based his prophecy against ''the nations", Ch. 4. This is 
 to me inexplicable. For of all the enemies, whom the 
 Prophet threatens on account of their malicious deeds, only 
 the Philistines are mentioned in the Chronicles and none 
 of the deeds themselves, while the Books of Kings do not 
 mention the subject at all. If the plundering of the Temple 
 had then occurred and Joel had attached so much impor- 
 tance to it, the Chronicler, who is usually supposed to have 
 been greatly biassed towards the priesthood and the theocracy, 
 could scarcely have omitted it. If any one, in the face of 
 strong probabilities (p. 128), object, that Joel does not neces- 
 sarily refer to Temple-robbery ; on still better grounds it may 
 be said, that he can not refer to the above-mentioned pillaging 
 of Jerusalem. For in that case: l)he must have associated the 
 Philistines with the Arabians insteird of with the Phenicians ; 
 2) the offence would have been that of bloodshed, 2 Chr. 22, 1, 
 rather than of the selling of captives into slavery, Jo. 4, 6 ; 
 and hence, 3) the Philistines and Arabians must certainly 
 have been associated with the Egyptians and Edomites, if 
 indeed not rather have taken the place of the latter in the 
 charge of shedding innocent blood, Jo. 4, 19. 
 
 If this view, which has been and is yet held by 
 
133 
 
 eminent biblical scholars, was supported by any undoubted 
 historical data, or if there was to be found upon Joel's 
 political horizon some unmistakable sicrn pointing- in that 
 direction, the further supposition, that, at that time. 
 the Tyrians and Sidonians transferred the captives as slaves 
 to the Jonians, would be more plausible; for, as is well- 
 known, they were always ready to avail themselves of 
 an opportunity to further the interests of their trade. But 
 this combination does not agree with the actual history 
 as a whole, nor can it be applied in detail. It is of 
 little use to recall the invasion by the Egyptians under 
 Shishak a century earlier and the supposed shedding of 
 innocent blood by the Edomites in the time of Joram. Even 
 if these j)articulars haiTnonized with one another and with 
 Joel, they would all together scarcely be sufficient. The 
 Prophet accuses the Egyptians and Edomites of shedding 
 innocent blood, and the Philistines and Phenicians he charges 
 with robbing the Temple (p. 128) and with selling the 
 Judean youth into bondage, Jo. 4, 3. 6. He paints these 
 together with other objects and scenes in one composite 
 picture. Of this composition our interpreters seek the con- 
 stituent parts, which they suppose the author to have selected 
 from scattered events of the preceding century, and finding 
 some of them, they wrongly put them together. The Philistines, 
 who according to Joel were temple-robbers and slave-traders, 
 according to the passage in the Chronicles, had, it is true, 
 killed the princes; but they had neither robbed the Temple 
 nor sold slaves. The same interpreters suppose, that Joel 
 took the shedding of innocent-blood, 4, 19, so far as the 
 Egyptians are concerned, from the event recorded in 1 K. 
 14, 25, 26; 2 Chr. 12, 2 — 9, where no such thing occurs; 
 while according to their interpretation of our Prophet, he 
 loft the main i^articulars of that narration untouched. We 
 have already seen (pp. 130 f.) ui)on how slender a fouu- 
 
— 134 — 
 
 dation rests the hypothesis of most of these critics (Hitzig, 
 Keil, Wiinsche et al), that the same shedding of innocent 
 blood, so far as the Edomites are concerned, occurred at 
 their revolt from Judah in the reign of Joram. And although, 
 on the one hand, the hypothesis under consideration is thus 
 dependent upon the record of Shishak's invasion, and although, 
 on the other hand, the intimate relations between him and 
 Hadad and the bitter hatred of the Edomites at that time 
 towards Jerusalem makes their participation in this invasion 
 very highly probable; yet, because the historians omit to 
 mention the Edomites in connection with Shishak's invasion, 
 and because the leap would presumably be too long, the 
 advocates of this hypothesis, who, in the interests of historical 
 criticism, have removed our Prophet from his place in the 
 Canon, will not venture to locate him in the tenth century. 
 But here appears another inconsistency, which the ad- 
 vocates of a date for Joel later than about 940 B. C. can 
 not easily avoid. If the shedding of innocent blood, Jo. 4, 
 19, refers at once to the Egj^ptians and to the Edomites 
 (Keil, Wiinsche et al.), then the Prophet combines in a single 
 statement and apparently regards as a single malicious deed, 
 two events, which occurred nearly a century apart and 
 absolutely independent of each other, and does this without 
 making the slightest distinction between them. Tliis would 
 be scarcely credible. But if the Egyptians are not included 
 in the accusation (Hitzig-Steiner), then the Prophet, wifliout 
 charging this people with any crime, which is otherwise 
 with him, and perhaps in the Prophets, unexampled, distinctly 
 pronounced their punishment. Moreover, as if he desired 
 to make their inseparable relation in the crime very con- 
 spicuous, he associates the Egyptians and the Edomites together 
 by almost the same punishment and in exactly the same 
 bloody deed. The explanation of the latter interpreters is, 
 therefore, still less credible than that of the former. In neither 
 
— 135 — 
 
 of these two ways, it seems to me, cau Joel have chosen 
 and put together the incidents of his description. Since, 
 as the foregoing arguments clearly set forth, we are largely 
 left to supposition in regard to the PMomites in Jo. 4, 19, 
 it appears more reasonable to adopt a hypothesis, which 
 harmouizes with that fact concerning the Egyptians, which 
 the majority of Credner's followers, as most others, admit 
 to be intended by Joel. And further, where were the Tyrians 
 and Sidonians at the time of Joash? and on what ground 
 shall we make room for them in this historical picture? 
 Were they, in that generation, particularly hostile to Judah? 
 In their perplexity with these last questions Delitzsch 
 proposes a solution for the advocates of Credner's hypothesis. 
 He suggests,^) that, by means of Joram's, Ahaziah's and 
 Athaliah's relation to the Royal House of Phenicia, the 
 worship of Baal had found its way from the Court of the 
 Northern Kingdom, which was quite Ephraimitic-Phenician, 
 into the court of the Temple at Jerusalem, 2 K. 11, 18; 
 and that the removal of this foreign religion by force together 
 with the murder of Athaliah at the instance of the Priest 
 Jehoiada had so enraged the Phenicians, that they invaded 
 the land and plundered the city. This hypothesis is both 
 ingenious and plausible, and to the advocates of the view 
 under consideration, which places Joel in the reign of King 
 Joash, it Avas some real relief. It might also easily be 
 accepted, if the view of the Credner-school was othenvise 
 sustained by fticts of history. But this our investigations 
 force us to deny. We are seeking only hiftiorical data for 
 our arguments, and can find no positive evidence of the 
 open enmity of the Phenicians in that period. There is 
 just as little evidence of a plundering of the Temple in the 
 same period. Xow this hypothesis requires, in consistency, 
 
 1) Rudelbach und Guericke's Zeitschrift, 1851. is. 3(6 ff. 
 
— 136 — 
 
 two plunderiugs, one in which the Philistines in the time 
 of Joram took part, and the one, which has just been sup- 
 posed, by the Phenicians. Comp, Jo. 4, 4. On the other 
 hand, we have two accounts of the plundering of the city 
 and Temple by Shishak, and we know that his invasion was 
 rendered easier by Jereboam's enmity and was probably 
 furthered by his power; and that he almost certainly in- 
 fluenced the hostile Philistines and the indifferent, but booty- 
 loving Phenicians — surely the Edomites, who were eager 
 for revenge, did not refuse — to take part in further hu- 
 miliating the recently divided and declining Da vidic Kingdom. 
 Before we proceed further, it seems neccessary, in order 
 that we may not unconsciously go astray, to adopt some 
 governing principle. Thus: In order to solve the problem 
 of Joel's age upon historical grounds, either, a) the histor- 
 ical data, taken from recorded events of different times for 
 the purpose of substantiating any particular view or hypoth- 
 esis, must easily harmonize with one another in one com- 
 plete picture according to Joel's representation of the his- 
 tory and must include all the events which he mentions; 
 or, b) the political data in support of any view must be so 
 united into one composite whole containing all the persons 
 and events mentioned by the Prophet, that each shall fit- 
 tingly take its place in the representation, or in case any 
 are wanting, it must be easy to supply the same from other 
 unmistakable hints and data of the contemporary history. 
 The reader must judge for himself whether this principle 
 is a proper one to rule such historical investigations, and 
 whether the combination, or combinations, of events made 
 by Credner and others correspond at once to the historical 
 records and to Joel's representations. ^) But I am fully con- 
 
 1) It has been the constant misfortune of the critics, and par- 
 ticularly of the latest school, that, in the discussion of the question 
 
137 
 
 vinced, that the fourth cliapter of our book presents a 
 tolerably complete representatioii of a conquest of Judea and 
 a plundering of Jerusalem and the Temple, although some 
 particulars thereof do not appear in very clear light; and 
 that all the data may either be found in the historical 
 books, 1 K. 14, 25 ff.; 2 Chr. 12, 2 ff., or may be supplied 
 with very plausible reasons. 
 
 In connection with the analysis of the fourth chapter 
 (pp. 34 ff.) it was shown, that, although Ch. 4, 2. 3 con- 
 tains a generalization of events and persons with a view to 
 the last judgment and vs. 4—8 a specialization of particular 
 enemies arraigned on account of definite wicked deeds, the 
 discourse is only parenthetically interrupted and concerns 
 only a single historical event. In addition to those deeds 
 we have here a division of the land, 4, 2. 3. I know of 
 no other division, which so nearly coiTespouds to this one 
 as the division of the kingdom into Judah and Israel (pp. 121 f.). 
 We have also seen, that the Prophet almost certainly thought 
 of the Edomites and Egyptians in vs. 2. 3 (pp. 134 f.). 
 1 K. 14. 25. 26 and 2 Chr. 12, 2—9 relate the invasion 
 of the Egyptians, and the Chronicles mention the captives 
 and the slavery. From these facts and our discussion we 
 have a probability bordering on certainty, that, when he 
 referred to the enemies in Ch. 4, Joel had the invasion of 
 Shishak together with the other foes named by him in mind. 
 This combination of events, it is true, is not quite perfect, 
 for some of the data can not be historically verified; but 
 they all have a strong probability in their favor and are 
 
 of Joel's age, they have had no definite jirinciple as a touch-stone 
 to determine, how much, or how little historical support they were 
 able to adduce for their hypotheses. Hence some prominent feature 
 of the prophecy is usually studied with peculiar interest and made 
 paramnunt in deciding ujion the age of the Prophet, while other 
 quite important characteristics are often passed over almost in silence. 
 
— 138 
 
 consistent with one another. This is far more than can he 
 alleged in favor of any other view, which has yet heen pro- 
 posed. If it does not satisfy all minds, I am sure that no 
 satisfactory view can be formed from the present sources of 
 the history of Israel. 
 
 2. The second mistake of Credner and others of kin- 
 dred views and the one, which did most to mislead them, 
 is this, that they attached far too great importance, on the 
 one hand, to Joel's representation of the priesthood and, on 
 the other hand, to the absence of any mention of the king. 
 They have felt themselves constrained, therefore, to find a 
 place in the history, which would correspond to these con- 
 ditions. They decide upon the regency of the High-priest 
 Jehoiada, Avhen all else revolved about the Temple and the 
 priesthood flourished and ruled, and when King Joash on 
 account of his minority was disregarded, 2 K. 11, 4 — 12, 
 17; 2 Chr. 23—24, 22. Comp. Jo. 1, 9. 13 ff.; 2, 17. Now 
 it is true, that the priesthood of Joel's time was conspic- 
 uously important. But this, which has been duly set forth 
 earlier in our discussion (pp. 79flf. 93 ff.), was the case from Sol- 
 omon onward. And the peculiarity of Joel's time consisted 
 rather in the sad domestic condition of the country and the 
 foreign relations of the state, which impelled him to describe 
 the comparatively pure cultus more fully and clearly than 
 did any other early Prophet. 
 
 It is freely recognized, that in Jehoiada's day every 
 thing was subjected to his ruling hand. The author of the 
 Kings, as also the Chronicler, makes Jehoiada the leading 
 personage of that time. At his bidding the people assem- 
 bled at the Temple. In the name of his king, whom he 
 had crowned, he regulated the incoming taxes and appro-' 
 priated them to the reparation of the Temple. His com- 
 mand was the law, which every one was bound to respect. 
 But under such conditions where was room for the unre- 
 
- 139 — 
 
 stricted authority of our zealous Prophet, to whom all, 
 even the priests, as the critics all allege, readily hearkened? 
 How did Joel dare oflicially and solemnly call together this 
 mixed multitude, including elders, priests, tillers of the soil, 
 vine-dressers, "all the inhabitants of the land", upon the 
 Temple-yard, as generally understood, without in some way 
 recognizing that priestly person of princely power? Yet the 
 Prophet seems to know nothing of him'). 
 
 3. The other reason already mentioned, why this school 
 of Joel's critics place him under King Joash, is his omis- 
 sion to mention the king. But this omission should not 
 seem strange, since it was not a custom of the Prophets 
 to mention the king in connection with public gatherings of 
 the people, as the authors of the historical books also did 
 not, except when the king summoned the people and ad- 
 dressed them in person. Comp. 1 K. 8; 2 K. 23, 1. 3 fif., etc. 
 An example of this kind is found in Jer. 28, where in a 
 mixed gathering including priests and prophets, subjects of 
 the most vital importance to the country were considered. 
 But there is no mention made of the king or any represen- 
 tative of him, one of whom, one would suppose, was almost 
 certainly present. On the supposition that Joel was really 
 in a public assembly (p. 12 f.), it had the appearance rather 
 of a gathering for religious purposes than for counsel; al- 
 though meetings for the latter purpose may, at that time of 
 danger and anxiety, have been quite frequent (pp. 79 ff. 
 123 f.). Perhaps Jeremiah intentionally ignored the un- 
 worthy King Zedekiah in the assembly of which he speaks. 
 At any rate, if Joel should and would otherwise have meu- 
 
 1) All this operates still more forcibly against the hypothesis of 
 Duhm and Merx, who place Joel in a time, when kingdom and 
 prophecy had been totally eclipsed by the Levitical priesthood. Reuss 
 pointedly asks-. "Where remains the High-priest of that (Persian) 
 period ?" 
 
— 140 ^ 
 
 tioned the king, there was good reason, wh}^ he might dis- 
 regard Rehoboam, under whom I am inclined to locate the 
 Prophet, namely, because this ruler had acted very tyranni- 
 cally, had despised the elders and their natural right to 
 give counsel and was himself on account of his incapability 
 rather despised. Why should not the elders and others be 
 again duly respected? 
 
 It may also be added, that the character of Joel's 
 prophecy made it unnecessary to mention the reigning king. 
 There was no fixed rule of the Prophets in this respect; 
 but the custom seems to have been to mention the name 
 of the ruler or rulers in the title of a book only when 
 reference was otherwise made to him, or to circumstances 
 which particularly concerned the governing power, with a 
 view, at the same time, to influencing him, or the people 
 as a kingdom. Although Joel says so much about pohtical 
 relations, his purpose is purelj^ a religious one. 
 
 4. Again, ther majority of the advocates of the view 
 under consideration, as also others, have gone too far, in 
 that they feel obliged to find a time for Joel, when there 
 existed neither the worship of Baal, nor '^offensive" (Credner) 
 idolatry, particularly the worship upon the high places, 
 since Joel mentions neither of them. But all have found 
 this a difficult undertaking. The worship of Baal was, 
 indeed, removed from Jerusalem by Jehoiada, 2 K. 11, 
 17. 18; 2 Chr. 23, 17; but it may have remained elsewhere 
 in the land, as idolatry certainly remained upon the high 
 places, 2 K. 12, 4, and continued to be practised under 
 the next king. This was manifestly "ofiensive" to the 
 authors of Kings and Chronicles, as their oft repeated riTaai, 
 ino'Xb, "but the high places were not removed", clearly 
 proves. Can they possibly have been less ofifensive to the 
 Prophet? Karle also supposes, that the most fitting place 
 for Joel is in the time of Asa, the first king who expelled 
 
— 141 - 
 
 this idolatry from the land. But neither did Asa com- 
 pletely remove the banioth, 1 K. 15, 12—14; 2 Chr. 15, 
 16. 17. The Graf-school, as is well known, think that 
 a Prophet of the ninth or tenth century could very easily 
 have tolerated the bamuth. It has already been shown 
 (pp.68. 123), that neither idolatry, norths worship of Baal, nor 
 any other particular sins belonged to Joel's theme and, 
 therefore, unless they were conspicuously near him, as in 
 Jerusalem, or were very flagrant, they could, under the 
 mournful circumstances, little concern him. If they existed, 
 he probably denounced them on more suitable occasions, 
 as did Hosea and Amos. 
 
 5. It is also a mistaken notion uf many, as previously 
 observed (p. 124), that leads them to seek a period of pros- 
 perity for Joel, when at least the influence of the Sanctuary 
 was great and the cultus was flourishing. Such a condition 
 of things, it is supposed, must have encouraged him to 
 predict a future of rich blessings. Some lind the time of 
 Jehoiada, when the income of the Temple was unusually 
 large, the priesthood powerful and the cultus ostentatious, 
 very favorable to the origin of such promises; just as Ewald 
 has the Prophet wait for a rain before he promises fruit- 
 fulness of the soil. Bunsen and Karle were similarly in- 
 fluenced. The latter is reminded, that Asa had fortified the 
 country, equipped a large army and appointed the celebra- 
 tion of a grand feast in Jerusalem, 2 Chr. 14, GIF.; 15, 
 10 ff. Karle supposed that such circumstances awakened 
 the Prophet's hopes and were reasons, why "his spirit went 
 out after that which he in the fourth chapter saw coming." 
 But of such a present prosperous period there is not a 
 trace in our book. On the contrary, the present is to Joel 
 one of extreme adversity and discouragement. Before the 
 plague the land was fruitful like an Eden. Xow it is des- 
 olation, Jo. 2, 3. The Capital and Temple have been 
 
— 142 — 
 
 plundered and the Judean j^outlis liave been sold into bondage. 
 The Temple-service is in a sad condition, if not entirely 
 obstructed; for the daily offerings have ceased. Of a full 
 treasury of the Temple as in Jehoiada's time it is difficult 
 here to think. Doubtless all had been necessary to purchase 
 bread for the hungry. So far from the country being well 
 fortified, danger of a subjugation by a foreign power con- 
 stantly threatens. The only consolation and hope lay in the 
 promises of the Prophet, that the evil times should cease, 
 that fruitfulness should return to the desolated land, and 
 that a far more prosperous era should eventually come, when 
 the Spirit of their covenant God should be abundantly 
 poured out upon them. Similar prophecies are, even under 
 the most discouraging circumstances, not infrequent else- 
 where in the Prophets. One need only think of a Jer- 
 emiah in the time of the Exile or of an Ezekiel in cap- 
 tivity after Jerusalem had been laid waste. ^) 
 
 Chapter III. 
 The only other view of Joel's age, which has re- 
 cently been strongly advocated and that most thoroughly 
 by Kuenen, 2) will now claim our attention. Schroder^) had 
 advocated a similar view, as also, at a later date, Oort.^) 
 The latter finally placed Joel in the end of the sixth or in 
 the fifth century before Ezra's reform, ^) so that, like Hilgen- 
 
 1) It must not be inferred from this that those who understand 
 Joel and the history as above-represented, are necessarily opposed 
 to prophecy as real prediction. This would be quite erroneous. The 
 above discussion has to do with their critical views only. 
 
 2) De Propheten en de Prophetic onder Israel, 1875. I. bl. 123 
 verv., 197—205. 
 
 3) Die Propheten Hosea, Joel and Amos, 1829. 
 
 4) Godgel. Bijdr., 1866. bl. 760-773. 
 
 5) De Leeftijd van Joel, in Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1875. X. 
 362 verv. 
 
— 143 
 
 feld d decade earlier, he became a predecessor of Merx in 
 respect to the date of the origin of our proi)hecy. Kiienen 
 places Joel soon after the carrying away of the Judeans 
 into the Captivity in the year 597. probably under Zede- 
 kiah, and, says he, '*it is first of all on account of these 
 verses", i. e., Jo. 4, 1 — 3. He observes in the Prophet 
 a patriotism (Schroder) similar to that of the false Prophet 
 Hananiah who withstood Jeremiah, 28, 1 — 14. Joel. Habak- 
 kuk and Zechariah (author of Chs. 10 — 12). notwithstand- 
 ing their personal differences, are very similar. They are 
 agreed, according to Kuenen, that no second earning away 
 shall occur. This view of Kuenen and other views of 
 minor importance yet unnoticed will be discussed in this 
 last chapter. 
 
 It is surprising that Kuenen finds support for his view 
 in Jo. 4, 1 — 3, ninnj'nx niTCX; for, according to his own 
 exposition of this expression, it does not necessarily refer to 
 the Exile, but such a rendering dare at most be an admissible 
 secondary meaning (see pp.58ff"). Moreover, the most of those 
 arguments from the political relations of Joel's time, which 
 have been employed against Oort and ^lerx, apply with almost 
 equal force to Kuenen's view. Of the foes of Judah who 
 are mentioned by Joel only the Edomites can possibly have 
 taken part in this destruction of Jerusalem, as writers of 
 t he exilic period probably wished to be understood, Jer. 49. 
 7—22; Lam. 4, 21f.; Ez. 25, 12—14; 35. 5. 14. 15. 
 ("omp. Ob. 10—13; Ps. 137, 7; although the historians record 
 nothing of the kind. And, as the passages named indicate, 
 the Edomites were present on that occasion merely as 
 helpers, wliile we also know that the Chaldeans, of whom 
 Joel knows and says nothing, were, at that date, the real 
 destroyers of the city. It has been clearly seen, how in- 
 congruous, and with the history actually coutlictiug, din 
 mention of the Pheuicians and Philistines, with no men- 
 
— 144 — 
 
 tion whatever of the leaders in the attack, would have been, 
 if Joel had had the supposed destruction of Jerusalem in mind. 
 The present methods of criticism in respect to the 
 dates of some of the Prophets deserve a little special atten- 
 tion, and since the Edomites, to whom we shall not refer 
 again so directly, play an important part in these critical 
 methods, this seems to be the most convenient place for 
 the slight digression. Without any strong probability in 
 its favor it is often assumed, that Obadiah's representation 
 of the Edomites as aiding in the capture of Jerusalem can 
 refer to no other than the capture by the Philistines and 
 Arabians in Joram's reign, 2 Chr. 21, 16 ff. But, although the 
 Edomites had recently revolted and become a powerful enemy, 
 2 K. 8, 20—22; 2 Chr. 21, 8—10, so that one should 
 expect their names, if they were at all connected with this 
 event, to head the list of assailing foes, the Chronicler, who 
 alone records the occurrence, strangely makes no reference 
 to them whatever. Yet the argument is chiefly based upon 
 the striking relation between Obadiah and Joel, who is 
 supposed to refer to the same event, and upon the depend- 
 ence of the latter upon the account of the former. Kusz- 
 nitzki^) attempts also by mere citations to prove, that Joel, 
 Amos and Obadiah — only in inverse order (?) — all proph- 
 esied in the reign of Uzziah, the date fixed by Amos 
 determining the period of all three. All three are said to 
 threaten the Edomites, because they participated in the 
 plundering of Jerusalem with the Pliilistines and Arabians. 
 On the contrary, Ewald, Schrader and others, in like man- 
 ner by comparison of the same or similar passages of Oba- 
 diah and Jer. 49 — the comparison is truly striking, it 
 must be granted — are fully convinced, that the former. 
 
 1) Joel, Amos, Obadia, qua aetate et quibus de rebus sint lo- 
 cuti, 1872. 
 
— 145 — 
 
 just as the latter, described the destruction of Jerusalem 
 l)y the Chaldeans with the help of the Kdomitcs. lint thny 
 are not agreed as to whether Jeremiah borrowed from Oba- 
 diah. or the latter from the former, or both from some 
 now unknown author. AVe have just seen how Kuenen by 
 a combination of similar passages, which refer to a fierce 
 attack, or attacks, upon Jerusalem — and we shall soon 
 have similar arguments from him with reference to the day 
 of Jehovah — tries to prove, that Joel. Habakkuk and 
 Zech. 10 — 12 were all written soon after the carrving away 
 of the Judeans into Exile in the year 597. And Merx. for 
 the sake of views, which with him outweigh all else hy- 
 pothetical, theoretical or historical, makes Joel dependent 
 upon nearly everj- other Prophet. 
 
 Joel's latest critic, Scholz'), proceeds similarly, but in 
 regard to the Prophet's age, he offers us little new except 
 his new arrangement of the citations. He thinks Joel (3. 5) 
 evidently quoted from an earlier prophecy: "Yor there shall be 
 a deliverance (those who have escaped) upon Mount Zion 
 and in Jemsalem", because it is added, "as Jehovah hath 
 said". He finds the original in Is. 37. 32. But the con- 
 clusion that the latter expression necessarily indicates an 
 older vvitten source is an oft repeated fallacy. For. since 
 the expression, mn"' iTaN, quite usually means: Jehovah 
 says, now or at the present, there can be nothing in the 
 form, which requires a rendering in the past. It is true, 
 the position of the expression in the middle of a verse 
 makes it appear much like a quotation. If, on this account, 
 it should be regarded as necessarily a quotation, it may still 
 have been from some oral prophecy by another Prophet, or 
 by Joel himself. If. in addition to the foregoing suppositions. 
 the still less probable hypothesis should nevertheless be vent- 
 
 1) Commcntivr zuni I5uolic dcs Proplieten Joel, 1885. S. 6. 
 
 10 
 
— 146 — 
 
 nred, that Joel must have cited a written source, that 
 source was not of necessit}^ one of our canonical Prophets; 
 for there were also other and earlier prophets who wrote. 
 Comp. 2 Chr. 9, 29; 12, 15; 13,22. How numerous these 
 last were, we have no means of ascertaining. Again, one 
 ma}^ truly wonder, why Joel did not quote more of the 
 promise from Isaiah, and why the Assyrians, of whom 
 Isaiah says so much, do not appear among the foes of Ju- 
 dah, whom he arraigns for judgment. Since, according to 
 Scholz, Zechariah quotes from Joel, he therefore places the 
 latter between Isaiah and Zechariah. He further thinks 
 that Joel may have quoted Ob. 17, which he has as- 
 signed to a date later than Jer. 49, 3 ft'. ^). 
 
 Thus the critic with a few parallel passages and ar- 
 (jumenta e silentio places, almost at will, a Joel, an Obadiah, 
 a Habakkuk or parts of other Prophets in the history of 
 Israel. Along with much profound and lasting work, per- 
 haps Ewald more than any other pursued this entirely ar- 
 bitrary method. However, it is not here meant, that scholars 
 have intended to be so arbitrary; but merely that our 
 "historical criticism" has confined itself too little to known 
 historical facts, while, in favor of particular hypotheses, it 
 has culled from the Prophets with too free a hand. For 
 instance, the historians do not mention the Edomites in 
 connection with any invasion and plundering of Jerusalem. 
 On the other hand, the Prophets of nearly every age threat- 
 en this constantly hostile people and some speak also of 
 their alliance with pillagers of the city in an indefinite 
 manner; just as the Prophets generally have much in com- 
 mon, however original they may be, when they speak of 
 kindred subjects. Certainly, we should search and find out 
 all we possibly can from the indefinite references to Edom, 
 
 1) Scholz, (Jomnientar zura Buche Jes Propheten Jeremias. 
 
147 
 
 as to other liiiuls; but, in di'terniiiiiiig the age of l*ru]ih- 
 i'ts, there must be a sharper lino drawn between niero 
 hypothesis and plain fact. 
 
 Returning to Kueneu, we find, thit the second reason 
 given for phicing Joel at the beginning of the Exile is, 
 that ver^' simihir reference is made to the day of Jeho- 
 vah in Joel, Hal)akkuk and Zech. 10—12, which are said 
 to have been composed almost contemporaneously. Thi' dis- 
 cussion of the ages of Habakkuk and Zechariah and of tin.' 
 jiuthorshij) of the latter book lies too remote from our sub- 
 ject to be undertaken here at length; yet it should be ob- 
 served, that it is fai" from being proved that these books 
 belong to the time to whicli Kueneu assigns them. On the 
 contrary, Hab, 1, 5 if. undoubtedly rej)resents the ca])ture 
 of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans as a future event. Kueneu 
 supposes, that, because the family of David is made so 
 prominent in Zech. 12 — 14, they must have been yet upon 
 the throne. But the expression, '"the house of David shall 
 be as God, as the Angel of Jehovah", 12, 9, forbids such 
 a literal interpretation, as do also several other passages, 
 e. g., 14, 7. Moreover, Ch. 12, 12—14 gives nearly the 
 same prominence to the family of Levi, the family of Na- 
 than, the family of Shimei and to ''the rest of the families", 
 which clearly indicates that tliey must all l)e figuratively 
 understood. Otherwise, how will the Graf-school account 
 for the prominence of the TiCvites here l)efore tlie origin of 
 the Priest-codi.'':' Further, the great majority of inter j)reters 
 locate Habakkuk and Zech. 9—14, when they separate tliis 
 part from Chs. 1 — 8, at latest before the invasion b.\ the 
 Chaldeans. And, if it could be proved, that Habakkuk and 
 Zech. 10 — 12 were composed at the assumed date, that 
 would not warrant the conclusion, that Joel l)elonged to 
 tlie same category, even if he does speak of the day of 
 Jehovah very simihirly tc tlie dtlier two. His language 
 
 10* 
 
— 148 — 
 
 and style resemble that of the others, especially Zech. 10 — 12^ 
 very little; just as the passages in the Prophets generally^ 
 which predict and depict the scenes of that day, differ 
 greatly in sense and in the form of expression. On that 
 very account, because *'all possible phenomena unite on 
 that day", should every one see, that the representations 
 of the day can in nowise be understood ''literally without 
 destroying their poetic character." ^) It is well known, that^ 
 in the time of Amos, 5, 18, the day of Jehovah had 
 already become a subject of public derision, an unmistak- 
 able proof, that the people had been a considerable time 
 familiar with the expression; and for the same reason it 
 seems at least probable, that it had become a subject for the 
 pen, — who else is so likel}^ as Joel to have written upon it? 
 There were, doubtless, current in early Hebrew as in every 
 language certain adages and proverbs expressing particular 
 truths ; and where prophets were so common, many proph- 
 ecies also must have been orally handed down. 
 
 Kuenen and Oort^) are confident, that Joel wrote later 
 than Amos, since the former, in his description, speaks of 
 the heavens and the earth, while the latter mentions only 
 the dwellings of the shepherds and Carmel, Jo. 4, 16; 
 Am. 1,2. It is said that Joel's representation is fuller, 
 although not clear, and that, if Amos had been conversant 
 with this fuller, more energetic form, he would surely have 
 employed it. But should one recognize no difference of 
 style between the two Prophets? should one so ignore the 
 
 1) Kuenen, De Profeteu en de Prophetic onder Israel, 1875. I. 
 bl. 200. Comp. the passages cited bj- Kuenen; Is. 34, 1—5 S.; 13, 
 10—13; 24, 18—20. 23; Am. 8, 9 f.; 9, 5; Jo. 2, 2. 10; 3, 3, 4; 4, 
 15; Hab. 3. To these Jo. 1, 15 might have been added, which Is. 
 13, 6 repeats almost literally. And this day was by no means un- 
 known to Obadiah, v. 15. 
 
 2) Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1876. X. bl. 362 verv. 
 
149 - 
 
 difference between their subjects and th;it between their 
 aims, that Amos should be supposed purposeless to sacri- 
 fice every thing for the expression of another? Amos was 
 a simple shepherd sent by Jehovah to His relx'llious people 
 Israel to proclaim His message from Zion, if perhaps they 
 would hearken and return to their covenant God, 7, 14 ff. 
 He threatens them severely. And although God had chas- 
 tised them by desolation of the land, Am. 4, He will now 
 lay His hand more heavily upon them; yet not with the 
 destructive power of the Almighty, w^hich according to Joel 
 should come upon His defiant adversaries on the day of 
 Jehovah. There should be no objection, therefore, made 
 to Amos, because he employs the shepherd's language and 
 ideas. Moreover, a further citation of Jo. 4, IG would have 
 been quite inappropriate. 
 
 Joel had quite a different object in view. He also 
 proclaimed Jehovah's word from Zion; but to the enemies 
 of Jehovah and His religion it was a word of destruction, 
 while to His own people the needful protection was assured, 
 
 3, 5; 4, 16b. 17. Joel is also quite poetic, often quite 
 graphic, even in the midst of his fearful thoughts and ter- 
 rific words. These features are little characteristic of the shep- 
 herd of Tekoa. This is truly a great difference of persons, 
 aims and style. For similar reasons Micah, 4 , 3, and Isaiah, 
 2, 4, inverted the order of Joel's apostrophized injunction, 
 
 4, 10, since their purpose was to predict peace, blessing 
 and knowledge to the nations in the same words witli which 
 he had declared a war of destruction. (Comp. pp. 43 ff.). 
 It is, indeed, not a necessary conclusion, that other passages 
 from them. Mi. 4, 1—3; Is. 2, 2 — 4; 13, 6, which resemble 
 Joel's words very closely, are borrowed from him; but an 
 unprejudiced judgment must ever agree with our greatest 
 Hebraists (Ewald, Hitzig, Delitzsch et al.), that Joel, with 
 whose style the expressions much better harmonize than with 
 
— 150 — 
 
 tliat of Isaiah or of Micali, is more likel}' to be the original. 
 And this appears so strikingly true, that Ewald^) was con- 
 vinced from "the kind of language, the subUme thought and 
 the flow of the speech", that these passages of Isaiah and 
 Micah were ''intentionally repeated merel}'' as the words of 
 an earlier and recognized Prophet". 
 
 In passing it should he mentioned, that Cramer ^) placed 
 our Prophet in the reign of Josiah. His view arose from 
 a supposed plundering of Jerusalem by the Scythians, who 
 according to Herodotus made a raid about that date through 
 the land. Joel is supposed to have taken some of his met- 
 aphors from the appearance of these horsemen, who were 
 the Northerners, Jo. 2, 2 — 5. 20. But even if Herodotus 
 informs us correctly, there is no evidence that those Scyth- 
 ians went to Jerusalem; and if the Temple had been rob- 
 bed in Josiah's time, when the Sanctuary and cultus attracted 
 almost the whole attention, the perfect silence of the histori- 
 cal books in regard to it would be unaccountable. 
 
 Likewise without sure historical data Berthold^), whom 
 Theiner^) imitated, considered Joel a contemporary of Isaiah 
 in the time of Hezekiah. The army of locusts represents 
 Sanherib with his AssjTian host, who come out of the North, 
 "^riBSn, Jo. 2, 20. This view would, indeed, appear plau- 
 sible, if the allegorical interpretation were only admissible, 
 if the chief enemies mentioned and the selling of the Ju- 
 deans into slavery were not so little considered, just as also 
 by Cramer, and if the plundering of the Temple were not 
 almost ignored. 
 
 Finally, two or three more recent views, according to 
 which Joel lived in the time of Uzziah and Jereboam II, 
 
 1) Die Propheten des A. Bundes, I. 92. 
 
 2) Scythische Denkmaler in Palestina, 1777. 
 
 3) Einl. in das A. u. N. Testament. 1814. II. Thl. IV. S. 1600 if. 
 
 4) Die kleineu Propheten, 1828. 
 
151 
 
 must be noticed. Although this date has been almost aban- 
 doned since Hengstenberg, whose views have been C(jnsidered 
 (pp. 4 ff.), I desire to recognize every plausible argument 
 in fiwor of an age, which seems to accord so nearly with 
 the canonical order. Pinet^) supposes, that both the virtues 
 and the vices of I^ng Uzziah agree with the prophecy of 
 Joel. Joel wrote after Uzziah, on account of his audacity 
 at the altar in the Temple, had been punished Avith leprosy 
 and cast out. Hence the King is deservedly ignored. Kusz- 
 nitzki') investigates somewhat more thoroughly. He su])- 
 poses there was continuous war with the Edomites from 
 Joram until in Uzziah's reign, and that Obadiah referred 
 to their invasion and plundering of Jerusalem under the 
 former king, to whom this Prophet did not otherwise refer. 
 Amos mentioned the earthquake, 1,1, and described the 
 plague of locusts and the drought, Ch. 4, of which Joel 
 gave a much fuller description. From these and other 
 comparisons and parallel passages Kusznitzki recognizes the 
 order of succession of these Prophets, viz., Obadiah, Amos, 
 and Joel. The other events and relations, especially the 
 political ones, of these Prophets are not properly considered ; 
 and if they were, it would seriously disturb Kusznitzki's 
 hypothesis. An attempt upon historical grounds to place 
 our Prophet in the same period had long before been made 
 by von Colin ^). 
 
 The allegorical interpretation of the prophecy, advocat- 
 ed in this century chielly liy Hengstenberg') and Hiiver- 
 nick^, was discussed near the beginning of this treatise. 
 
 1) Essay d'une introduction critique au Proi)hete Joel. 1858. 
 
 2) Joel, Amos, Obiulia, ([ua aetate et quibus in rebus sint 
 locuti, 1872. 
 
 3) De Joelis prophetae aetate, isil. 
 
 4) Chrii-tologie des .\. Testaments, 2. Auti. I. .^.^l tV. 
 
 5) Einleitung in das A. Testament, II. 
 
— 152 — 
 
 The same interpreters placed Joel in the time of Uzziah. 
 for which the historical evidences, apart from the position 
 of the hook in the Canon, are almost wholly wanting. One 
 may admit what these interpreters alleged in defence of 
 this view, that the mention of the invasion of Judea by 
 the S}Tians and of the treasures of the Temple, which they 
 carried away, 2 K. 12, 18 ff.; 2 Chr. 24, 23 ff., was not 
 exactly necessary, if Joel lived a half-century later, when 
 the event was almost forgotten; hut it can never he con- 
 cluded, that ''one should not expect the mention" of them 
 hy Joel (Hengstenherg). Eor the Prophet not only specifies 
 the present enemies, but goes at least a few years, perhaps 
 far, back in the history. Otherwise, why do our critics, 
 both those who place Joel under Uzziah and those who 
 place him under Joash, in order to find the events men- 
 tioned by him, namely, the hostiUty of the Egyptians and 
 of their, according to Joel, allies in shedding innocent l)lood, 
 i. e., the Edomites, whom the critics usually discover in the 
 reign of Joram, — why, I repeat do they follow the Prophet 
 back through the history to the invasion of Shishak? And 
 none of the advocates of these two views, which have just 
 been mentioned, have, in favor of either Joram's or tTzziah's 
 reign, indicated a time later than Shishak's invasion, when 
 the Philistines certainl}^ or the Phenicians very probably, 
 took part in robbing the Temple (pp. 132flf.), or when they 
 certainly sold Judean youth, or when the Phenicians came 
 to Jerusalem at all. 
 
 These historical facts and their fresh, lively description 
 clearly indicate, that the events which interested the Prophet 
 so mucli, had happened not long prior to the time of his 
 writing. Now if we may suppose, that the historical books 
 are reliable, which there is little reason to doubt (pp. 80 — 95), 
 and if they may be regarded as afifording sufficient facts, 
 indications and hints, by which the age of the Prophet, 
 
153 
 
 with any degree uf certaiul.v, may be determined ; then there 
 is no other period in the history ul' Israel, which appears 
 half so probably that of the Prophet as the one in the years 
 following Shishak's invasion and seizure of Jerusalem, which 
 occurred about 970 B. C; and he most probably pr<»ph- 
 esied in the reign of Rehoboam. But shall we suppose that 
 our historical sources afford suflicient evidence for a detinite 
 conclusion? If such had been without doubt the state of 
 things there would never have been written tlie tithe ot the 
 present literature upon the age of Joel, and consequently 
 a tithe of the present treatise might have sufficed. The 
 authors of Kings and Thronicles constantly refer to various 
 other sources, which they had not exhausted, and give the 
 impression that their own works contain only a selection 
 of the principal tilings suited to their purposes. What the 
 original sources would afford us, if they now existed, we 
 can only guess. The l^rophets, particularly Joel, clearly 
 show us, that our present historical books are sadly deficient. 
 But since Joel seems evidently to refer to a plundering of 
 the Temple, and since the Temjde with its cultus was the 
 most important thing in the kingdom from Solomon onward, 
 and since at least three plunderings of the same are plainly 
 recorded: 1) 1 K. 14. 25 ff.; 2 Chr. 12, 2 ff. by Shishak. 
 2) 2 K. 14, 14; 2 Thr. 25, 24 by Joash King of Israel, 
 and 3) the one by the Chaldeans, the assumption, that the 
 historians omitted to make any mention whatever of a plun- 
 dering of the Temple, which was attended by such excep- 
 tional hostility and even cruelty and in which different 
 nations participated, seems very questionable, indeed. Yet 
 improbable as such an omission seems, it is nevertheless 
 I)ossible. And if it is actually true, then in making sup- 
 positions as to the proper ]ilari' in history for these events 
 and poUtical relations, and couMMjuently for Joel, we may 
 (juito as safely, with such a modilicatioii of the internal 
 
— 154 — 
 
 and external indications, decide upon the reign of Uzziah, as 
 upon any period. He was certainl}^ not later than Hosea, Amos 
 and Micah. Again, if we are to seek the historical data of the 
 prophecy scattered here and there in the history and bring them 
 together to obtain Joel's coml)ination of events, as the critics 
 usually do, and must do in case Joel phrophesied after about 
 940 B. C; then, why we should or dare remove our Prophet 
 from his accustomed place in the order of the Minor Proph- 
 ets, which was given him by the collectors of the Canon, 
 who were doubtless comparatively well-informed either from 
 more or less exact oral traditions, or from quite exact records, 
 there seems to be no satisfactory reason. 
 
Date Due 
 
 J!l8_J?' 
 
 ff ff o ... 
 
 %l 
 
 "!»». 
 
 ^4 — 
 
 '■) } 
 
 -m 
 
 --fflJV b 'h!S 
 
 y;^»1'i"^ " 
 
 
 r^^ ii^ ' i 'f y fy 
 
 '^^^^^TO 
 
 
• I'rPi • *,•''"• 
 
 m- ' ■: 1^ 
 
BS1575 .4.P36 
 
 The prophecy of Joel: its unity, its aim 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00012 5619 
 
 
 ' " ■.■.v/.^'••^-:li.^■^'i^'■■T•^Wjiil 
 
 
 ^;*!'l^ 
 
 
 
 ■'■''A-'' 
 
 ■V:- .M 
 
 
 '■i'^ 
 
 ■«■ 
 
 V-jx^i 
 
 _;: ,-?»(; 
 
 ii 
 
 'j.- 
 
 11'' 
 
 •■;;:;;f^ 
 
 
 
 
 ■:;!!;i-^;rr'-^':!;!^;j 
 
 :;i;-5;f';ifl:ST