A

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL

COMMENTARY

ON

OBADIAH AND JOEL

BY

JULIUS A. BEWER, Ph.D.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL PHILOLOGY UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK.

ミ

INTRODUCTION TO OBADIAH.

§ 1. THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK.

The first literary problem in Ob. is the relation of vv. 1-9 to Je. 497.. These passages are so much alike that they cannot be independent of one another. Either Ob. quoted from Je., or Je. quoted from Ob., or both quoted from an older oracle. Every one of these positions has been taken by scholars. At present, as a result of Caspari's investigation, almost all writers believe that Je. 49 quoted from Ob. But a renewed comparison of both texts shows that the more original text is contained in Je. 49; that Ob. quoted vv. 1 almost, though not quite, literally; that he commented on this older oracle in vv. partly in the words of the older prophet, partly in his own words, in order to show that it had been fulfilled in his own day; and that in vv. 8. 9 he quoted once more from the older oracle without any show of literalness. These conclusions involve the originality of vv. 6. 8. 9 . 9. See the detailed discussion on pp. 33 ff.

1-4

5-7

In vv. 10. 11 Ob. proceeds to state the reasons for Edom's calamity, continues with a vivid description of her cruel behaviour toward Judah at the fall of Jerusalem, thrown into the form of impassioned warnings (vv. 12-14) and ends by declaring that her present punishment is in just requital for her own deeds (v. 15b).—On an attempt to athetize vv. 12-14 as secondary, cf. text. n. ad loc.

With v. 15a we enter upon a different range of thought. The writer does not describe a present calamity but hopes for the punishment of Edom on the day when Yahweh will judge all nations. These verses have therefore grown out of a different situation. Ob. interpreted events that had just transpired, when Edom had been dispossessed by her former allies. This writer expects the day of Yahweh in the near future and confidently believes that Edom

will be utterly destroyed by Israel. Evidently some time had passed since Ob. had written, Edom had, after all, not been completely destroyed but was living on, a menace and vexation to Judah. No redress seemed possible at present, and so the writer looks forward to the future, to the day when Yahweh will hold his judgment on all the nations. Then Edom's turn will also come and its terrible punishment will be administered by Israel. It is not likely that Ob. was the writer of these verses, and Wellhausen was right in regarding vv. 15a. 16-21 as an appendix. There is also, if the text is correct, such a sudden change of address in v. 16 from the Edomites to the Jews that the same author can hardly be credited with it.

19

17b

15a. 16-18 and VV.

17b. 18

17b

19-21

and it seems that

as saying that the

17b

There are two sections in this appendix, vv. and we may question whether they are by the same author. Vv. 19-21 are in the nature of a commentary on vv. v. with its list of territories understood v. house of Jacob would regain its possessions. Originally v. spoke of Judah's conquest over her dispossessors (see text. n). That there existed this difference of interpretation of v. 17b is clear from and respectively. If this point is pressed we must probably conclude that vv. 19-21 are by a different author who understood V. not as its writer had meant it but of the reconquest of Israel's territories, and who connected his list of such territories very ingeniously with his comment on v. 18, by explaining that this prophecy will be fulfilled by what is still left of the house of Jacob and of the house of Joseph, i. e., the Israelitish and the Judean exiles. They will regain the land, the Israelites as far north as Sarephath, the Judeans including all the cities of the Southland. But the thoughts of the driving out of the dispossessors and of the regaining of the territories are closely enough related that the same writer may naturally pass from the one to the other, esp. when it is possible to express both by the same Heb. word. And we need not wonder that v. 19 thinks not only of the Edomites as to be driven out as in v. 17 but of others also, when the setting which the writer gives to the punishment of Edom is the day of Yahweh's judgment on all the nations.

18

That v. looks like a conclusion is due to the final formula

for Yahweh hath spoken. But this is really a quotation-formula. For contents and metre alike show that v. 18 is an older prophecy which our author incorporated in order to establish the hope which he entertained concerning the future victory of Israel over Edom.

History of the literary criticism of Obadiah. Eichhorn (Einl.', 1824, iv, 320 ff., not yet in 3, 1803) appears to have been the first to doubt the unity of Ob. He dated Ob. after 586 B.C. and regarded vv. 17-21 as an appendix from the time of Alexander Jannæus. He entitled the whole book, Obadjas. Auf die Unterjochung der Edomiter durch Nebukadnezar zwischen 582–572 vor Chr. nach einer neuen Ausgabe des Gesanges unter Alexander Jannaeus zwischen 106-80 vor Chr. (cf. also Hebr. Proph., iii, 524). Eich.'s view was not adopted. - Ewald took up the problem afresh and presented an entirely different solution. Acc. to him the book was the work of an exilic prophet who had used in vv. 1-10 an older prophecy by Ob., a contemporary of Isaiah, and in vv. 15-18 also older material which came from a prophet like Zc. 9-11, who, acc. to Ew., was an older contemporary of Isaiah. V. 16, though also older material, was not of the same piece as vv. 15. 17. 18. To the exilic prophet belong vv. 11-14. 19-21. This position, though with some modifications in details, won the assent of many. Kautzsch and Driver limited the older oracle to vv. 1.9 (not 10), G. A. Smith to vv. 1-6. Kautzsch was not quite sure "whether remnants of the ancient oracle may not also have been preserved in vv. 15-21" But König, who analysed the second part of the oracle, concluded that the older oracle consisted of vv. 1-10. 16a. 18. 19. 20b.—A new phase in the literary criticism of Ob. began with Wellhausen, who regards vv. 1-14. 15b (exc. 6. 8. 9. 12) as the work of Ob., the remaining verses as a later appendix. This solution was adopted in substance by Now., Marti, Cor.", Du.-The weak point in it is that it does not correctly explain the relation between Ob. and Je. Barton perceived this and presented a combination of Ew.'s and We.'s theories: vv. 1-6 are a pre-exilic oracle of Ob., which was quoted by Je. and readapted with additions (vv. 7-15) by another Ob. in the early postexilic days; vv. 16-21 form an appendix probably from Maccabean times.—A small minority of scholars, among them Peters, Van H., Hal., still maintain the unity of the book. But even so conservative and careful a scholar as Orelli regards vv. 19-21 as a later appendix.