The imperatives in vv.1214 a)
icture which the writer calls up to himself of the conduct of
idom. He is really describing the past, but he speaks of what the Edomites had actually done as of what they ought not to do.
to be due to the vivid
The day of the Lord (on this conception see Driver, Joel and Amos [Index]; A. B. avidson on Zeph 1’ and in art. EscHATOLOGY oF OT in vol. i. of this Dictionary, p. 735 ff.) is near upon all the nations, in whose destruction Edom shall share, being exterminated by the united ‘house of Jacob’ (including both Judah and Ephraim (vv. 35-28), .
The idea of a reunion of Judah and Ephraim in the last days appears elsewhere, 6.0. in Jer 315-27, Zec 106.—The ‘ye’ of v.16 cannot be the Edomites, who are addressed throughout in the wenuine es by ‘thou.’ Moreover, Edom must be included in ‘all the nations.’ The ‘ye’ can only be the Jerusalemites. As Judah had once drunk the cup of Jahweh’s fury (for the expression cf. Ezk 2382, La 421, ‘Jer’ 5117, Hab 216, Pg 759 (Eng. 5]; cf. also Jer 131214 [Ὁ Jehoiachin’s time] for a closely allied conception), so must the heathen now drink it.
The house of Jacob shall reinherit their ancient
ssessions, Judah and Benjamin overflowing into
phraim and Gilead, which are compensated by receiving the borderland of Pheenicia as far as Zarephath, while the Negeb dispossesses Esau of Mt. Seir, and the captives from Sepharad occupy the cities of the Negeb. ‘Saviours’ (cf. Jg 916 3° 1°) shall defend Zion and ‘judge’ the mount of Esau, and the rule of Jahweh shall be established (νυ ἘΈ
The summary given of this last section is what upon the whole appears to us to be the most probable meaning, but much uncertainty attaches to it. Wellhausen, followed by Nowack, understands vv.19. 20 quite differently. He pronounces them to be an expansion of v.17, and declares that 2330 and 7597 cannot possibly be subjects of 7) (as AV and RV take them). They must be in apposition with WY Wny and -nx WAYS respectively (both of which Wellh. pronounces inter- polated, because they have nx prefixed, while 23:7 and προψτι want it). He remarks, further, that ‘Benjamin,’ if genuine, would reflect the late conception that Jerus. was situated in this tribe. But possibly it is a textual error, we expect rather a verb. jor, too, he suspects, for the ‘fields of Samaria’ would surely be included in the ‘fields of Ephraim.’ See, further, below under ‘ Date.’
iii, UNtty AND DATE.—Three leading forms of opinion have prevailed regarding these: (1) that the Bk. of Ob is a unity and pre-exilic; (2) that it consists of two portions both post-exilic; (3) that it is made up of an early pre-exilic and a late post-exilic passage. We shall presently ex- amine each of these positions, but in the first place it will be well to consider a question whose answer will affect our final conclusion, namely—
OBADIAH, BOOK OF
What is the relation between Οὗ 1:9 and Jer 497-2 The resemblance between these two passages is so close as to demand explanation. The facts are as follows :—
Obi=Jer 4914, except that in Jer the sing. ‘AYDY is read instead of the plur. 13yDy, the pass. ptep. Qal my replaces the perf. Pu'al nde for ‘is sent,’ and the expressions used in summoning the nations have been modified and slightly expanded (Ob having 72973) mby psp) wip, Jer sszan7 rmended wap) ΠΡ wa).
Ob 2=Jer 4915, except that in Jer an introductory ‘p is pre- fixed, that 7px after ‘13 is wanting, and that for ἽΝ ‘greatly’ of Ob we have in Jer 07¥3 ‘among men’ paral- Jel to 033 of the preceding clause,
Ob %=Jer 49163, except that Ob wants the anyben ‘thy terribleness’ of Jer, that for ΝΠ of Ob we have in Jer πον κϑπ, that yp is anarthrous in Ob, but has the article in Jer, that Jer inserts *yph (‘holding’) before op (‘height’), and replaces inay (‘his dwelling’) by y33 ‘hill.’ Ob 3>* that saith in his heart’ is wanting in Jer.
Ob 4=Jer 4916b, except that Jer substitutes 3 for Ox, and omits ‘and though thou set [thy nest] among the stars.’
Ob 5 closely resembles Jer 499, but the order is reversed, Jer commencing with ‘if grape-gatherers came,’ etc., and the interrogative 7 is omitted before x5, making of the words an assertion instead of a question. The words ‘if spoilers’ and the exclamation ‘ How art thou destroyed !’ are want ing in Jer, and for 3333) ‘ steal’ we have imnyn ‘destroy.’
Ob 8 resembles in thought, but only slightly in expression, Jer 4910. Note how w5n ‘search out’ of Ob is replaced by v7 in Jer.
Ob 8 slightly resembles Jer 497,
Ob % resembles Jer 4922b,
It is evident that either Jeremiah borrowed from Obadiah or Obadiah from Jeremiah, or that both borrowed from a common source. The first and the third of these have been the favourite positions maintained, although Hitzig and Vatke have main- tained that Jeremiah formed the model for Obadiah. But an examination of the differences between the texts of Obadiah and Jeremiah in the passages common to both has satisfied the great majority of scholars that the more original form of the pro- phecy is in Obadiah. [Only in vwv.® 5-16 the omis- sion of ὑοῦ ox, the reading ὈπΝΞ for kp, and the retaining of 7p¥257, can the superiority be awarded to Jeremiah]. The logical connexion, too, is better in Obadiah. On the other hand, if Jeremiah is held to have borrowed from Obadiah, the following difti- culties have to be faced. Not only has Jeremiah occasionally the better text, but Jer 497-™, if it be from the pen of Jeremiah, dates from the fourth year (B.C. 604) of Jehoiakim’s reign, whereas Ob 14, as we shall presently find reason to con- clude, presupposes the capture of Jerusalem b the Chaldeans and the destruction of the Jewis State. Hence the Bk. of Obadiah could not have lain before Jeremiah in its present form—a con- clusion which is strengthened when we note that it is only from the first nine verses of Obadiah that Jeremiah would thus have borrowed, although much of what follows these would have suited his purpose admirably. Wellh. and Nowack make Obadiah the direct model for Jer 497-”, but do not admit the genuineness of this sage, the former holding (with Stade, Smend, Schw y) that the whole of Jer 46-51 is non-genuine and late, the latter (with Giesebrecht, etc.) that many passages in these chapters, including 497-22, must be denied to Jeremiah. Nowack would account for the superiority of Jer 49°" to Ob ™? by supposing that in Ob? we have probably a textual corrup- tion and in y.° an interpolation both introduced subsequent to the use of Obadiah by ‘Jeremiah.’