Joel’s style is fluent and clear, both when he is describing the locusts, in which part of his book he is most original, and when he is predicting, in apocalyptic language largely borrowed from earlier prophets, the Day of Jehovah. To the ease of understanding him we may attribute the sound state of the text and its freedom from glosses. In this, like most of the books of the post-exilic prophets, especially the Books of Haggai, “Malachi” and Jonah, Joel’s book contrasts very favourably with those of the older prophets; and that also, to some degree, is proof of the lateness of his date. The Greek translators have, on the whole, understood Joel easily and with little error. In their version there are the usual differences of grammatical construction, especially in the pronominal suffixes and verbs, and of punctuation; but very few bits of expansion and no real additions. These are all noted in the translation below.
[1068] See above, Chap. XIII.
[1069] See Vol. I. The Assyria of “Zech.” x. 11 is Syria. See below.
[1070] The two exceptions, Nahum and Habakkuk, are not relevant to this question. Their dates are fixed by their references to Assyria and Babylon.
[1071] See Rob. Smith, art. “Joel,” _Encyc. Brit._
[1072] So obvious is this alternative that all critics may be said to grant it, except König (_Einl._), on whose reasons for placing Joel in the end of the seventh century see below, p. 386, n. 1130. Kessner (_Das Zeitalter der Proph. Joel_, 1888) deems the date unprovable.
[1073] See _The Religion of Israel_, Vol. I., pp. 86 f.
[1074] _The O.T. and its Contents_, p. 105.
[1075] _Lex Mosaica_, pp. 422, 450.
[1076] See especially Ewald on Joel in his _Prophets of the O.T._, and Kirkpatrick’s very fair argument in _Doctrine of the Prophets_, pp. 57 ff.
[1077] On Joel’s picture of the Day of Jehovah Ewald says: “We have it here in its first simple and clear form, nor has it become a subject of ridicule as in Amos.”
[1078] i. 9, 13, 16, ii. 14.
[1079] So Ewald.
[1080] 2 Kings xi. 4-21.
[1081] 1 Kings xiv. 25 f.: cf. Joel iii. 17_b_, 19.
[1082] 2 Kings viii. 20-22: cf. Joel iii. 19.
[1083] 2 Chron. xxi. 16, 17, xxii. 1: cf. Joel iii. 4-6.
[1084] Amos i.: cf. Joel iii. 4-6.
[1085] 2 Chron. xx., especially 26: cf. Joel iii. 2.
[1086] Joel iii. (Eng.; iv. Heb.) 16; Amos i. 2. For a list of the various periods to which Joel has been assigned by supporters of this early date see Kuenen, § 68.
[1087] The reference of Egypt in iii. 19 to Shishak’s invasion appears particularly weak.
[1088] Cf. Robertson, _O. T. and its Contents_, 105, and Kirkpatrick’s cautious, though convinced, statement of the reasons for an early date.
[1089] iii. 6 (Heb. iv. 6).
[1090] Amos i. 9.
[1091] _Bibl. Theol._, I., p. 462; _Einl._, pp. 675 ff.
[1092] _Ztschr. f. wissensch. Theol._, X., Heft 4.
[1093] _Theol. der Proph._, pp. 275 ff.
[1094] _Theol. Tijd._, 1876, pp. 362 ff. (not seen).
[1095] _Onderz._, § 68.
[1096] _Expositor_, 1888, Jan.—June, pp. 198 ff.
[1097] See Cheyne, _Origin of Psalter_, xx.; Driver, _Introd._, in the sixth edition of which, 1897, he supports the late date of Joel more strongly than in the first edition, 1892.
[1098] Wellhausen allowed the theory of the early date of Joel to stand in his edition of Bleek’s _Einleitung_, but adopts the late date in his own _Kleine Propheten_.
[1099] _Die Prophetie des Joels u. ihre Ausleger_, 1879.
[1100] _Encyc. Brit._, art. “Joel,” 1881.
[1101] _Gesch._, II. 207.
[1102] _Theol. Tijdschr._, 1885, p. 151; _Comm._, 1885 (neither seen).
[1103] “Sprachcharakter u. Abfassungszeit des B. Joels” in _Z.A.T.W._, 1889, pp. 89 ff.
[1104] _Minor Prophets._