The safest conclusion appears to be that Jeremiah and Obadiah borrowed from a common source, and that Obadiah incorporated this with less alteration than Jeremiah.
OBADIAH, BOOK OF
»-
To return now to the three views noted above as to the date of the book in its present form. What we have said in comparing Jeremiah and Obadiah would suffice to show the improbability, not to say the impossibility, of (1) the view that the whole of Obadiah is pre-exilic and that the book is a unity (Caspari, v. Hofmann, Delitzsch, Nigelsbach, Keil, v. Orelli, Kirkpatrick, Peters). The objec- tions to the unity and an early date for the whole book are mainly three: (a) the nations are in vv.” God’s instruments of vengeance ainst Edom, whereas in vy. they are all alike (Edom included) the object of Divine chastisement ; (ὁ) vv."-™ cannot have a satisfactory sense assigned to them except on the view that they refer to the capture of Jerus. and the deportation of the Jews by Nebuchadrezzar (cf. v. ‘the captivity of Jerusalem’); (6) there isa difference in style between the two halves of the book, the first being terse, animated, and full of striking figures, while the second is diffuse and marked by poverty of ideas and trite figures. The occasion to which those who make the book a unity oe ascribe it is the capture of Jerusalem by the Philistines and Arabians in the time of Jehoram (c. 850 B.c.). But while this occurrence, regarding which, unfortunately, we have no information apart from 2 Ch 21!*, might account for vv.!"™, it is quite inadequate to explain vv.1"*.
(2) Wellhausen holds that vv.!° allude to the attitude displayed a Edom at the taking of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, but he sees no reason for making vv.‘ [he considers vv.® interpolations} earlier. The attack upon Edom by treacherous friends and allies he cannot refer to any action on the part of Assyria, Babylon, or Persia, or of Moab or Ammon, not to speak of Judah or Israel, but must have in view, he thinks, the small nomadic neighbouring peoples.* The Edomites were, as a matter of fact, expelled from their original settle- ments by Arab tribes. This took place subsequent to the capture of Jerusalem, so that the main Sh for separating vv.!° from vv.!7 seems to
ellh. to fall away.t The Arabs had begun to press northwards in the beginning of the 6th cent. (perh. Zeph 914. of. v.7; Ezk 951: δ. 10). and at length we find them in B.c. 312 settled in Petra (Diodor. xix. 94); οἵ. the Arabic name Gebal for Seir in Ps 838, dating perhaps from about the same time. During the intermediate period we hear of Geshem or Gashmu the Arabian in Neh 2! 6}: * 8, and Wellh. thinks that Mal 11-δ (first half of 5th cent.) may refer to the same ἘΣΕΒῸ of the expulsion of the Edomites by the Arabians as is represented in Ob**_ Of course he does not contend that all the Edomites were driven into the Negeb (which, he thinks, Ob" designates as the then dwelling- place of Esau). Many may have remained in their original homes, where under Arab rule they would be the special representatives of Nabatean culture, and this would account for the numerous Hebrew a er names that occur among the Nabateans.
ellh. does not attempt to fix the date of vv., but simply remarks that v.”" might refer to the a Ne of Idumea by John Hyrcanus,
ellh. is closely followed in the above conclusions by Nowack, who fixes as the terminus a quo for vv.!"4the date of the capture of Jerusalem (B.C. 586), but thinks it should probably be brought down to a date shortly after that of Malachi. Vv.) are much later, belonging to a time when eschatological hopes filled men’s minds, but we are not in a
* It may perhaps be not without Interest, in view of the use of the term ‘thieves’ in v.5, to compare the application to the same tribes of the word daikanu (in the Tel el-Amarna tablets) which Winckler interprets ‘ robbers’ or ‘ murderers.’
+ G. A. Smith agrees with Wellh. that v.7 (which is not found in the lel in Jer) probably refers to the expulsion = ihe jomites by the Arabs, but assigns vv.) to an earlier
OBADIAH, BOOK OF 579 penttion to fix the date more precisely. Both Vellh. and Nowack insist strongly that vv.’ describe what has actually bes og not what is going to happen, to Edom. It is different with vv.} 1, where, however, the punishment of Edom is to be simply an episode in the larger scheme of judgment upon all nations.*
Hitzig, who makes the whole book post-exilic, seeks to fix the date of Obadiah from the words in vie ma $50 nba, which he renders ‘the captivity of this fortress,’ alluding to the fortress of Egypt to which many Jews were carried captive by Ptolemy Lagi (cf. Jos. Ant. xu. i. 1, c. Ap. li. 4). In B.C. 312 Antigonus ordered an expedition against Petra, to which Hitzig would refer the words of Ob! ‘We have heard a report,’ etc. The chief objection to this is that before 312 (see above) Petra had ceased to belong to Edom and had passed under the rule of the Arabians.
(3) As we have seen above, the view strongly commends itself that vv.!-° (°F 10) are pre-exilic and borrowed pretty faithfully from an older source, whereas νυν. ἢ presuppose the capture of Jeru- salem and the Exile.