תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

referred to. Bö., Gr. emended or 7, cf. Ald. 'Apapáē. Van H. has revived Schrader's older view that opp (2 K. 17" 18") was meant. Sipar. Similarly Hal. mp in Sippara or Sippar, near Tel Abib where Ez. lived.—21. o'ygı, act., so Tan, Σ owσoves, I salvatores. But 6 Aq. O pass.,

,ספרויס the sg. form of ,(ספרה) ספרו He reads

,.Hi ,64 בהר ציון-.So also Gr., Now., Hal נוֹשָׁעִים or מוּשָׁעִים either

,(Des (guerriers" נושעים אשר בהר'

Gr., Du.:, but hy is not used with in connection with Mt. Zion. Hal. takes 3 diyen = sauvés au Mont Sion, partiront Pour exercer le jugement sur le montagne d'Ésaü." This is the best interpretation, if the pass. is adopted. nhy, to make an expedition (cf. Ho. 8° Je. 4928 509). hy with a, cf. Ju. 13, 2 S. 21, 24, I Ch. 14". CD correctly exdikĥoal. Ke., Perowne, van H. think of government. But such a use of D for Judah's rule over other nations is quite improbable. Marti om. either

for ליהודה as a gloss, Che. reads לשפט את הר עשו or preferably בהר ציון

a. Acc. to Zim., KAT.3, 647, D is an old Bab. loan word.

COMMENTARY ON JOEL.

INTRODUCTION TO JOEL.

§ 1. THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK.

The book of Joel has usually been regarded as the work of one author and is still treated as such by all recent commentators. And this in spite of the fact that M. Vernes as early as 1872 maintained that chs. 3, 4 were not written by the author of chs. 1, 2.* He restated his position in 1874 and in a less dogmatic form in 1880, when he did not insist on difference of authorship, though he still maintained the difference and irreconcilability of the two sections. Vernes' thesis remained unnoticed until, independently of him, J. W. Rothstein in 1896 argued for difference of authorship for chs. 1, 2 and chs. 3, 4. Then Nowack called attention to Vernes and interpreted in his counter-arguments Vernes' non-insistence on duality of authorship as a practical abandonment of his position. G. A. Smith and Marti followed Nowack's lead in opposing Rothstein's position, G. A. Smith not without reserve. But more recently Ryssel, Sievers, Duhm and P. Haupt have agreed that the book is no unity. Ryssel adopted Rothstein's literary position, regarding chs. 1, 2 from one author, chs. 3, 4 from another. Sievers considers 212-14. 18-27 31-541-8. 17-21, Duhm 218-421 as later and both point out insertions in chs. I, 2.

It is clear that there is a decided difference of interest and subject-matter in both sections. Chs. 1, 2 treat of a locust plague and a drought as disciplinary punishment of the Jews; chs. 3, 4 treat of the final judgment of the nations and of the protection and glory of the Jews, without mentioning the locust plague. But though the day of Yahweh dominates chs. 3, 4 the locust plague in chs. 1, 2 is also brought into connection with it in a number of passages. And it is due to this fact, more than to any other, that

*The Hebrew text has four chapters, the English Version only three; English 223-32 = Hebrew 316; ch. 3 Engl. = ch. 4 Heb.

the unity of authorship has been maintained so strongly even by critics like Nowack and Marti. But these references to the day of Yahweh in chs. 1, 2 turn out to be interpolations.

11. Nothing whatever in the context indicates that the prophet had in mind the day of Yahweh, on the contrary vv. 2. exclude it. So does the fact that we have here a quotation from Is. 13, when all through the address we have the words of an original poet and writer. 11 is a foreign element in the context. So also Siev., Du.

21b. 2. Again the phrases are taken almost verbatim from other prophets, Zp. 115 17. 14 Mal. 32. 23. Moreover, the day of Yahweh and the day of the locusts are connected here in such a manner that it is not clear whether they are the same, or whether the locusts are merely the precursors of the day of Yahweh. The alarm is to be sounded, we are told, first because of the approach of the day of Yahweh and then, all of a sudden, because a huge locust swarm is coming. Then the description of the locust swarm is continued until we come to vv. 10. 11 where we again meet most unexpectedly a description of an eschatological army. Duhm also believes that 21b. 2 is an interpolation.

210. 11. While the locusts in 21. might perhaps be interpreted as precursors of the day of Yahweh this is not possible in 210. 11. "In ch. ii. 10," says Davidson, “the plague and the day of the Lord seem brought immediately together . . . this darkening of the sun and moon is not to be rationalised into the effects upon daylight produced by swarms of locusts in the sky, it is a sign of the near approach of the day of the Lord, though not identical with that day (ii. 31, Engl.) ... these hosts of locusts were the army of the Lord . . . (ii. 25) and He was at the head of the army giving it command; and thus there was virtually that presence and manifestation of the Lord, at least in its beginnings, in which the day of the Lord was verified” (pp. 202 ƒ.). These verses do not describe an actual locust flight, as the preceding had done, but the day of Yahweh; and the locusts are the agents of His judgment. And yet in spite of this much more terrible danger of the day of Yahweh the appeal to repentance in vv. 12-14 contains as little reference to it as do the prayer of the priests and Yahweh's answer in 218 .. It is the locust plague and the drought that constitute the whole of these passages, the day of Yahweh is not mentioned at all. Rothstein already attributed 210. 11 to the editor who combined chs. 1, 2 with chs. 3, 4. Siev. and Du. retain them, strangely enough.

2o. There are two further traces of this interpolator of the day of Yahweh who tried to connect chs. 1, 2 with chs. 3, 4. The first of these is in 2o. This verse, though not absolutely incompatible with the context, interrupts the description of the advance of the locust swarm. It has more than once been pointed out that d›dy, nations or peoples, is rather

« הקודםהמשך »