lamity, continues with a vivid description of her cruel beha\'iour
toward Judah at the fall of Jerusalem, thrown into the form of im-
passioned warnings (w. ^^") and ends by declaring that her pres-
ent punishment is in just requital for her own deeds (v. ^^^). — On
an attempt to athetize w. ^" as secondary, cf. text. n. ad loc.

With V. ^'"^ we enter upon a different range of thought. The
writer does not describe a present calamity but hopes for the pun-
ishment of Edom on the day when Yahweh will judge all nations.
These verses have therefore grown out of a different situation. Ob.
interpreted events that had just transpired, when Edom had been
dispossessed by her former allies. This writer expects the day of
Yahweh in the near future and confidently believes that Edom

3



4 OBADIAH

will be utterly destroyed by Israel. Evidently some time had
passed since Ob, had written, Edom had, after all, not been com-
pletely destroyed but was living on, a menace and vexation to Ju-
dah. No redress seemed possible at present, and so the writer
looks forward to the future, to the day when Yahweh will hold his
judgment on all the nations. Then Edom's turn will also come
and its terrible pimishment will be administered by Israel. It is
not likely that Ob. was the writer of these verses, and Wellhausen
was right m regarding w. ^^^- ^""-^ as an appendix. There is also, if
the text is correct, such a sudden change of address in v. ^^ from the
Edomites to the Jews that the same author can hardly be credited
with it.

There are two sections in this appendix, w. ^^^' *^"^^ and vv. ^^■^,
and we may question whether they are by the same author. Vv. ^^'^^
are in the nature of a commentary on w. ^''^- ^^, and it seems that
V. ^^ with its list of territories understood v. ^^^ as saying that the
house of Jacob would regain its possessions. Originally v. "^ spoke
of Judah's conquest over her dispossessors (see text. n). That
there existed this difiference of interpretation of v. "^ is clear from M
and (i respectively. If this point is pressed we must probably
conclude that vv. ^""'^ are by a different author who understood
V. ""^ not as its writer had meant it but of the reconquest of Israel's
territories, and who connected his list of such territories very in-
geniously with his comment on v. ^*, by explaining that this proph-
ecy will be fulfilled by what is still left of the house of Jacob and
of the house of Joseph, i. e., the Israelitish and the Judean exiles.
They will regain the land, the Israelites as far north as Sarephath,
the Judeans including all the cities of the Southland. But the
thoughts of the driving out of the dispossessors and of the regaining
of the territories are closely enough related that the same writer
may naturally pass from the one to the other, esp. when it is possi-
ble to express both by the same Heb. word. And we need not
wonder that v. *^ thinks not only of the Edomites as to be driven
out as in v. " but of others also, when the setting which the
writer gives to the punishment of Edom is the day of Yahweh's
judgment on all the nations.

That V. '^ looks like a conclusion is due to the final formula



THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK 5

for Yahweh hath spoken. But this is really a quotation-formula.
For contents and metre alike show that v. ^^ is an older prophecy
which our author incorporated in order to establish the hope
which he entertained concerning the future victory of Israel
over Edom.

History of the literary criticism of Obadiah. Eichhorn {Einl.*, 1824,
iv, 320 ff., not yet in 3, 1803) appears to have been the first to doubt
the unity of Ob, He dated Ob. after 586 B.C. and regarded vv. "-2' as
an appendix from the time of Alexander Jannsus. He entitled the
whole book, Obadjas. Auf die Unterjochung der Edomiter dutch Nebu-
kadnezar zwischen 582-572 vor Chr. nach einer neuen Ausgabe des Ce-
sanges unter Alexander Jannaeus zwischen 106-80 vor Chr. {cf. also
Hebr. Proph., in, 524). Eich.'s view was not adopted. — Ewald
took up the problem afresh and presented an entirely different solu-
tion. Ace. to him the book was the work of an exilic prophet who had
used in vv. '-»" an older prophecy by Ob., a contemporary of Isaiah,
and in w. '^-la also older material which came from a prophet like Zc.
9-1 1, who, ace. to Ew., was an older contemporary of Isaiah. V. ",
though also older material, was not of the same piece as w. is. i?. is. To
the exilic prophet belong vv. "-i^ ■ 's-^'. This position, though with some
modifications in details, won the assent of many. Kautzsch and Driver
limited the older oracle to vv. ••» (not •»), G. A. Smith to w. '-8. Kautzsch
was not quite sure "whether remnants of the ancient oracle may not also
have been preserved in vv. 's-^'." But Konig, who analysed the second
part of the oracle, concluded that the older oracle consisted of w. >■>»•
i6a. 18. i9aa. 20b. — A uew phase in the literary criticism of Ob. began with
Wellhausen, who regards vv. '-'«• '^b (exc. «• »• »• '") as the work of Ob.,
the remaining verses as a later appendix. This solution was adopted in
substance by Now., Marti, Cor.s, Du.— The weak point in it is that it
does not correctly explain the relation between Ob. and Je. Barton
perceived this and presented a combination of Ew.'s and We.'s theories:
vv. '•« are a pre-exilic oracle of Ob., which was quoted by Je. and re-
adapted with additions (vv. '-'O by another Ob. in the early postexilic
days; w. >«•" form an appendix probably from Maccabean times. — A
small minority of scholars, among them Peters, Van H., Hal., still main-
tain the unity of the book. But even so conservative and careful a scholar
as Orelli regards vv. '»■'' as a later appendix.



OBADIAH



§ 2. THE DATE OF THE BOOK.

The result of the hterary criticism of Ob. necessitates the de-
termination of the time of the various component parts of the book.
In the absence of all external data, we must rely on internal evi-
dence.

The two points that have always been used for the fixing of the
date are also important for us: the description of the fall of Jeru-
salem in vv. """, and Ob.'s relation to Je. 49.

Since the date of Je. 49' "• was regarded as definitely fixed in the 4th
year of Jehoiakim {cf. 25' ^■) those who believed in the priority of Ob.
connected the capture of Jerusalem, in spite of all difSculties, either with
the raid of the Philistines and Arabians under Jehoram (2 Ch. 2i'8 «■),
or with the campaign of Joash of Israel against Amaziah (2 K. 14'' '■ 2
Ch. 2 523 ' •) . They could not identify it with the capture by the Chaldeans
in 586 B.C., though this was, as some acknowledged, the most natural
reference. Those who believed in the priority of Je. referred it, of
course, to 586 B.C. For them it was merely a question whether Ob.
was exilic or postexilic. Also those who believed that both Je. and Ob.
had quoted from an older oracle could put Ob. in the exilic or postexilic
period. And when the prophecies against the nations (chs. 46 ff.) came
to be quite generally regarded as non- Jeremian, it was possible also for
those who believed in the priority of Ob. to identify the fall of Jerusalem
with that of 586 B.C. and to place Ob. in or after the exile.

The most natural identification of this capture of Jerusalem is
the one in 586 B.C. by the Chaldeans, when ace. to La. 4^^ " Ez.
25^^'" 30^ 35^^' 137' 3 Esd. 4*^ Edom acted very cruelly toward
the Judeans. It is true that neither the Chaldeans nor the de-
struction of the temple nor the deportation of the whole people are
explicitly mentioned. But the situation is well defined, and criti-
cal opinion is more and more agreed on the reference to 586 B.C.
Moreover, the fact that a quotation from a Jeremian dirge (Je.
38"), which dated from the last days of Jerusalem, is incorporated
in V. ^ shows that 586 B.C. had passed and that the fall of Jerusalem
described here cannot refer to a pre-exilic situation. Nor can a
reference to a later conquest be maintained. Winckler connected
the verses with a postexilic destruction of Jerusalem about 500 B.C.,



THE DATE OF THE BOOK 7

but such a destruction cannot be proved. And the conquest of
Antiochus IV is excluded, because the book of Joel, which was
not as late as the 2d cent. B.C., presupposes Ob. {v. i.) Our termi-
nus a quo is thus 586 B.C.

The description of the calamity which had befallen Edom is sug-
gestive. The enemies who had driven them to the border of their
land and who had plundered them, had formerly been good friends
and allies, and it was only by treachery that they had succeeded.
We know from Diodorus Siculus (19, 94) that in 312 B.C. the Naba-
teans were in possession of Edom's ancient seats, for it was vs. the
Nabateans in Petra that Antigonus fought at that time. These
Nabateans had therefore taken Mt. Seir before the end of the 4th
cent, and had driven Edom northward out of her old territories into
the Negeb. How long before 312 B.C. they had succeeded in con-
quering it, we do not know. But there is every reason to believe
that the catastrophe which had befallen Edom in the first half of
the 5th cent, and which is described in Mai. i^ ^' was due to a de-
feat by the Nabateans. However, Mai. i^ ^" does not imply that
Edom had been driven out of its ancient territory. They were still
undaunted in Mal.'s time and confidently expected to retrieve their
losses. We., following Vatke, suggests that Ob.'s prophetic in-
terpretation of Edom's fall was connected with Mai. i^ ^' and that
it dealt with one of the stages of the Arabian invasion, though not
necessarily with the same as Mai. i. We have reason to believe
that these invasions began as early as the first half of the 6th cent,
and that the occupation of the Negeb by Edom shortly after 586
B.C. {cf. Ez. 35"- ^^ 36^) was due in some degree to the pressure
exerted upon Edom by the influx of the Arabians from the desert.
Of course, if the description of Ob. is regarded as fairly accurate
and if the driving unto the border is taken seriously, it would seem
that Ob. wrote after Malachi rather than before. And so We. and
Now. date him. Marti, Cor., Du. put him before Mai.

But does not the detailed character of the description of the
events connected with the fall of Jerusalem make the impression
of having been written by one who had first-hand knowledge, and
does not the impassioned manner in which it is given betray an
actual participant? If this objection is sustained we cannot go



8 OBADIAH

beyond the last quarter of the 6th cent. And we should have to
refer the invasion of the enemies in Mt. Seir to one of the earlier
phases, perhaps during the exile, and we should also have to as-
sume that the Edomites were able to regain their territory from
which they had been driven ace. to Ob. ', for in Mai. i^ ^" they are
in Mt. Seir. This is not an easy assumption in view of the char-
acter of Mt. Seir, but it is not impossible. The detailed and im-
passioned character of the description may, however, be accounted
for in another way. The story of those unforgettable days, when
the holy city fell, must have been told in Jerusalem again and again
in all its details. Who knows whether in Ob.'s own, or in a related
or befriended family, there was not a tradition of ancestors who had
either been robbed or betrayed or killed by the Edomites at that
time? As the story was told the vivid oriental imagination of Ob.
was filled with all those awful scenes, and made them so real that
his heart burned with anger and sorrow. And so when he thought
of that day, he seemed to go through those varied scenes himself
and to witness Edom's barbarities. It is quite reasonable to ac-
count thus for w. ^^■", and to assign Ob.'s date after Mai. in the
5th cent., to which the description in vv. ^"^ points so strongly.

This implies that the older oracle from which Ob. quoted ante-
dates the 5th cent. It represents Edom as still living in the rocky
fastnesses of Mt. Seir, on whose impregnable character it relies for
safety, and there is no hint that it has already suffered serious
reverses. And from the absence of all reference to Edom's behav-
iour toward Judah in 586 B.C. it would appear that the exile is
not yet presupposed. If we knew which nations attacked Edom,
we might perhaps be able to determine the time more definitely,
but no hint about their identity is given. The older oracle may
also have had the Arabians in mind, but we do not know.

In the appendix, vv. ^^^- ^*'"^^, no historical situation is indicated
which might help us fix its date more exactly. The terminus a quo
is, of course, the latter part of the 5th cent, after the completion of
Ob. ^""- ^^^. And the terminus ad quern is fixed by the date of the
book Joel, which is dependent on Ob. The likeness of passages
in Jo. to Ob. is limited to certain phrases (cf. Ob. *" with Jo. 4^^;
" with 4^; " with 4" i^^ 4^- "'; " with 3^ 4^^. But the comparison



THE DATE OF THE BOOK 9

shows that Jo. knew not only the older book but also the appendix.
The fact that he states in 3^ that he quotes an older oracle, which
occurs literally thus in Ob. ", makes it almost certain that he
used Ob. And since the phrase DGHD occurs with him also in a
passage against Edom (4^") and the infrequent phrase bll} H"*
(4^) is found also in Ob., and since Jo. adds to the phrase nTll
triD (4*0 a comment, the case is decided for the priority of Ob.
If the date of Jo. is correctly placed between 400 and 350 b.c.
this appendix must have been added some time before or soon
after the beginning of the 4th cent.

Vv. ^^-^^ point in the same direction. If the list in vv. ^^- ^^ were
a description of territory which Judah had already taken, it would
be different. The passage would then belong to the time of Alex-
ander Jannaeus (103-76 B.C.), where Eich. actually placed it. For
then all this was practically realised. Edom had been definitely
conquered by John Hyrcanus, Galilee by Aristobulus I, Philistia,
Moab and Gilead by Alexander Jannaeus. But if there were no
other reasons, the simple fact that w. ^^- -" are an expression of
hope and not a description of fact excludes this. Knowing that
these verses must be later than B.C. 400 we might think of the
Maccabean time, when patriotism flamed up once more and when
the hope of the reconquest of the old dominion seemed not un-
justifiable (We., Marti, Bart., Hpt.). But Ecclus. 49'" is not fa-
vourable to so late a date. And the mention of the Samaritans
and Ammonites, as well as of the Philistines and Edomites,
points to the age of Nehemiah or soon after. So does also the
manner in which the hope of the reconquest of the ancient ter-
ritory is expressed.

As a matter of historical interest Hi.'s interpretation deserves to be re-
corded. He thought the oracle was written in 312 B.C. in Egypt, when
Antigonus ordered the expedition against Petra and Mt. Seir. The
author was a Jew who had been carried off to Egypt by Ptolemy Lagi.
The difficult nm Snn in v. '» Hi. referred to the fortress in Egypt to which
the exiles had been carried. But this date is impossible because in 312
B.C. not the Edomites but the Nabateans occupied Petra and Mt. Seir.



lO OBADIAH



§3. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BOOK.

Israel and Edom had been enemies as far back as they could
remember. From the earliest time of their history the two nations
had hated and scorned and persecuted each other. But they
never forgot that they were brothers, though this seemed only
to add to the intensity of their hatred.

When, therefore, one day the news came that certain nations were
allying themselves for the purpose of attacking Edom, a prophet
in Israel felt his heart bum with the hope that they would succeed.
Doubtless all his people shared this hope. But it soon became
more than a hope with him, for he became aware that Yahweh
spoke to him in his innermost being and interpreted to him the
significance of these events. And with the authority and power of
a divine revelation upon him he spoke to his people of Yahweh's
decree. In brief, strong words uttered with true literary finish
he predicted Edom's defeat. Yahweh Himself was behind this
movement. He Himself would throw Edom down from its height.

We do not know the outcome of this campaign or when it took
place or who the attacking nations were. We do not even know
who the ancient prophet was. But his message must have made
a profound impression, for though his name perished, his words
were not forgotten. They were taken up by two other prophets
and incorporated into their writings. One of them was Obadiah.

It was after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., how long after we
do not know, it may have been still during the exile though it is
much more probable that it was over a hundred years later, when
a great catastrophe befell Edom, the Nabatean invasion, as a re-
sult of which she lost her land and her possessions.

What a tumult of joy the report of this disaster excited in the
hearts of the Jews! Again there was one among them who gave
voice to their emotions. He remembered those clear, strong words'
of the ancient prophet concerning Edom's fall. It was as if they
had been spoken but yesterday! Surely they were Yahweh's ora-
cle concerning the events that had just taken place! Yahweh had
said when some nations were preparing an attack upon Edom that



THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BOOK II

she would go down in this war, that nothing should save her from
it. If her high fortresses were even more inaccessible — yea, Ob.
adds, full of exultation, if they were as high as the very stars in the
sl-y — they would be of no avail, for behind these nations was Yah-
weh who would bring Edom dovm to the ground. — Ha! Ob. ex-
claims, the fall has come, and how terrible it has been! True
enough, as the old prophet had said, an ordinary razzia of robbers
and thieves would not account for the severity of the visitation, for
oh, how terribly she had been plundered, and that, to add to her
humiliation, by her o\vn friends and former allies! They have
driven her out of her strong, inaccessible mountain seats to the
borders of her land ! Shrewd and wary Edom had not been shrewd
enough to see through their treacherous tricks, by which they pre-
vailed over her. Ah, was not this also in fulfilment of the proph-
ecy which had declared that on that day Yahweh would take away
all wisdom from Edom in order that they might not be able to es-
cape complete destruction ? And surely, they have richly deserved
this fate by their behaviour toward Judah at the time of the cap-
ture of Jerusalem by the barbarians. Oh, that awful day! As
Ob. thinks of it, it suddenly -stands before his mind with all its
anguish and terror. He lives again through its horrors, sees the
Edomites full of malicious joy over Judah's calamity, hears their
words of scorn and ridicule, sees them coming into the city to loot
and to plunder, sees them cutting down fugitive Jews at the cross-
roads, and overmastered by his emotion he breaks forth into pas-
sionate warnings, as if Edom were even now doing these things.
Then he recovers himself and with one brief sentence he breaks
off. As thou hast done so is it done to thee, thy reward returns upon
thine own head! And with this note of satisfaction his words end.
Again the years passed on, how many we do not know, perhaps a
himdred years, perhaps more. The Nabatean invaders had long
driven Edom from Mt. Seir. But still the Edomites lived on as a
nation, closer neighbours of Judah than before the exile, for they
were settled in ancient Judean territory, in the South country, the
Negeb, and they still cherished their hatred for their brother na-
tion. The Jews had lost their political independence and mili-
tary power and could no longer expect to pimish foreign insolence



12 OBADIAH

by force. But they had not lost their keen sense of justice and
their ardent hope that some day Yahweh would set all things right
in this world and restore his nation Israel to her former glory. And
again a man of patriotic heart and prophetic mind arose and gave
utterance to this hope and brought the judgment of Edom into
this larger connection. Formerly the great movements of history
as they affected the fate of Israel could be interpreted by the proph-
ets as parts of Yahweh's plan. There were no such movements
now, no nation like the Assyrians or Babylonians, no king like
Cyrus that a prophetic mind could regard as Yahweh's special in-
strument. Not even the Nabateans were stirring; that peril was
over. But Yahweh was living still and controlling the affairs of
this world, and He was just, and He was still Israel's God. This
our prophet knows and believes with all the intensity of his spirit.
And out of the living experience of the reality and truth of these
convictions there grows afresh in his heart the hope, which becomes
an assurance, that the day was near when Yahweh would righten
all the affairs of this world, when He would judge all nations. It
would be a terrible day. But only for the other nations not for the
Jews, for they had already received their punishment at the hands
of Yahweh. Through this coming awful crisis those who were
still left would pass unharmed and after the catastrophe they would
dwell once more safely on Mt. Zion never to be driven out again
by foreign invaders. On the contrary, they themselves will then
drive out the nations that had dispossessed them and taken their
property. Then also Edom's turn will come, then that cruel
brother Esau also will receive his reward at the hands of Jacob,
who will exterminate him.

That our author proceeded to give a further explanation of how
w. ^^^- ^^ were to be understood, has seemed to us more likely
than that he stopped here at the end of v. ^^ and that somebody
else wrote the continuation, when in that great time of the Mac-
cabean uprising the national feeling ran high and the reconquest
of all the territory was hoped for, and when Edom again was be-
having cruelly toward Judah, however appropriate then the whole
prophecy might have been. Doubtless it cheered the Jews then!
All the former territory with its ideal limits would be retaken by



THE PROPHET AND HIS BOOK 13

Israel. That meant, of course, the exiles of Israel and of Judah.
They will come back and reconquer all of Palestine E. and W. of the
Jordan and in the N. as far as Zarepta and in the S. including the
cities of the Negeb. And they will march to Mt. Zion in order to
help their brethren in their expedition vs. Edom. And after that
the glorious day will break, when Yahweh's kingdom will be
established and when He will reign alone.

There are three modes of interpreting the book of Ob. The first in-
terprets it as a prediction oi future events. This has been the usual in-
terpretation up to recent years. The second interprets it as a poetic nar-
rative of past events (We.) ; the third as a prophetic estimate of present,
just transpiring, events (Marti). In the preceding paragraphs justice
has been done to all these interpretations. The older prophet who is
quoted, and the authors of the appendix spoke of the future. Ob. gave
a prophetic estimate of events that had taken or were just taking place
in his own time.

§ 4. THE PROPHET AND HIS BOOK.

It seems most reasonable to identify Ob. with the prophetic
writer of the 5th cent, and not with the author of the older oracle
from whom he quoted. The various identifications of Ob., e. g.,
with the officer of Ahab, i K. i8^^-, or with the teacher of the
law under Joshaphat, 2 Ch. if, or with the overseer under Josiah,
2 Ch. 34^^, or with the anonymous prophet under Amaziah, 2 Ch.
25^, are all without historical basis. We know nothing of Ob.
aside from his book. Tradition varies even in regard to the pro-
nimciation of his name. The Heb. pronounces it Obadiah, wor-
shipper of Yahiveh, the Gk. Abdiah, servant of Yahiveh. It has
even been suggested that it is a symbolic name for prophet of Yah-
weh. But its frequent occurrence as a common personal name
makes it unsuitable for such a use. It is obvious that we cannot
characterise him from the few verses that he wrote. But we are
aware that his strong way of putting things, his graphic descrip-
tions, his love for striking pictures, his qviick exclamations, his
impassioned warnings throbbing with anger and sorrow, made all
aglow by a wonderfully vivid imagination, reveal a strong, passion-
ate nature uncurbed by prophetic discipline and experience.



14 OBADIAH

He heard Yahweh in the voice of older prophecy and of history,