ently had been a tU-|ieiuleney of Jiuliih since the time of DiiviJ, the Chionicler reports that, in the days of Jehoram, it niailo an etl'ort to secure its independence, — ' Kdoni revolteil from under the hand of Judah an<l made a kinj: over themselves' (2 Ch 21», of. 2 K 8-», wliere tlie statement of Ch is conlirmed). Edom, indeed, was nn inveterate enemy ; but in the days of Jehoram specilic acts of hostility were committed, which sulhce to ex- plain the reference in Joel. It is true that in Ch the Phicnicians are not mentioned. Amos, how- ever, includes them in the same charge as the I'hilis- tines. The I'lucnicians were the great naval power of the time. The maritime carrying-trade of the world wa-s very largely in their hands. The Jewish slaves who were sold to the loniaiis (Jl 3'[Heb. 4"J) were, no doubt, convej'ed in I'lnen. vessels to the slave markets of Greece. The descendants of those whom Hiram allied to Judah broke the friendly relation, and ranged themselves with the enemies of the chosen people. And there was more than this. The Phfcn. Baal-worshi]) had been intro- duced into the northern kingdom through Jezebel, and into Judah through her daughter Athaliah, the wife of Jehoram. The influence of Phojnicia had been powerful enough to largely suppress the worship of J" throughout the lanil of promise. When that worship was restored by Jehoiaua, {)ious Jews would regard the friendship of Phu-nicia aa more dangerous than the hostility of Philistia. And a prophet of the period might be expected to assign to the Phcenicians a first place among the powers hostile to Judah. This is what Joel does (3* [Heb. 4']). In support of the late date, atten- tion is directed to the fact that Joel mentions only 5otty peoples in the neighbourhood as enemies of udah ; whereas, in the early prophets, prominence is given to a lieatlien power of widely extended influence, which threatens the independence of the chosen people. It is quite true tiiat from the time of Amos, who, if Joel is late, first raises this question in OT prophecy, a world-power aiming at universal empire has to be dealt with. But if a prophet did actually appear and write a book fifty years before Amos, — what then? At that time Assyria was beyond the prophetic horizon. Egypt since the days of Shishak^a century before —had ceased to cause anxiety. Only Phcenicians, Philistines, and Edomites troubled Judah. On the assumption of the late date, the peoples mentioned by Joel raise a serious difficulty. The date pro- posed by Merx, and favourably regarded by other critics, IS about the middle of the 5th cent. n.C, when Nehemiah restored the wall of Jerusalem. In the historical books that deal ^vith that period, tribes in the neighbourhood of Jerus. are spoken of as bitterly hostile to the Jewish community. Chief among these are the Samaritans and the Ammonites, — no mention is made of the Phce- nicians (cf. Neh 4"^-). It is scarcely credible that a prophet living in Jerus., whUe Nehemiah was struggling to pat the capital in a position of security, should threaten heavy judgments against powers — some of them remote — whose hostility was scarcely felt, and not so much as mention the peoples bordering on Judah whose forces were united in active opposition of the most bitter kind against the Jewish community. And the case is strengthened by the fact that Ezekiel, from whom, according to Merx, Joel is supposed to have freely borrowed, begins his denunciation of the hostile powers with the Ammonites, — aa bitter opponents as the Jews of the period had to deal with (cf. Ezk 25"'-)- Accordingly, if Merx' date is accepted, the mention of the peoples referred to — a factor of the weightiest imjjortance in the determination of the dates of prophetical books— U deprived of its historical significance.
It has been urged that the Bk. of Joel is net an original work, but a Mii/nixh—a sort of eschato- logical compendium — founded on the books of earlier propliets). According to this view, the nations named would lose their historical value. This might be admitted of the Egyptians and the Kdumites, and, in a less degree, of the Philistines. But the reference to the PiKenicians cannot be ex- pluineii in this way. And, in point of fact, so far as our historical information warrants an opinion, there is no period when a prophet loyal to tlie theo- cracy would be more likely to introduce liis censure of hostile powers in the words of Joel (3* [lleb. 4*]) than the early part of the reign of Joasli, when Judah had just escaped the danger of ruin through the l'h<en. Baal-worship. To sum up this point — a tyjiical reference cannot be assigned to all the nations mentioned ; an exact historical reference ia not consistent with the post-exilic date propo.sed.
In connexion with the late date, another point deserves consideration. The prophet summons the people to repentance ; but he does not name any special sin oi which they are guilty. How unlike this is to Amos and liis successors ! On this ground alone it is dillicult to lind a suitable place for Joel between Amos and the exile of Judah. This may appear to favour a post-exilic date. But the condition of Judah described in the post-exilic books of OT is quite unlike that suggested in Joel. If the latter half of the 5th cent, is accepted as the date, Joel and Malachi would belon" to the same period. Malachi gives aa melancholy a picture of the moral and religious state of his countrymen aa any prophet before the Exile. And the situation, then, is this. One prophet lays bare the sins which are eating as a canker into the heart of the post- exilic Church in language as severe as that of Amos or Isaiah, — while another prophet — practically a contemporary — ^^■rites as if there were not a special sin to denounce. Further, Malachi's eflbrts cio not appear to have been crowned with much success (see his book throughout) ; Joel's simple, earnest appeal led to the happiest results (cf. 2'*^-). It follows that, if Joel had a practical message to his contemporaries, he can scarcely be placed in the generation to which Malachi belonged. A fair interpretation of the language is opposed to the view that the book is a mere Midrash, having no reference to the circumstances of the prophet's day. If the occasion of the prophet's exhortation was found in the actual condition of Judah at the time, the proposed post-exilic date is highly improb- able. If the date is pre-exilic, it is not easy to point to a time more suitable than that suggested by Credner, viz. the tarly part of the reign of Joash of Judah. Througli the reforming zeal of Jehoiada, the worship of J" was at that time com- paratively pure. And the people would be likely to respond to the earnest and aiTectionate appeals of a prophet like Joel.