off stragglers, and rejoiced in the calamity of Judah. Nothing is said of the total destruction of the city and the temple, nothing of the people recovering their lost home; they are supposed to be still occupying their own country (vers. 17-19), and thence extending their kingdom. Now, we read in the Old Testament of three, or perhaps four, occasions on which Jerusalem was taken. The first capture by Shishak, in the reign of Rehoboam (1 Kings xiv. 25; 2 Chron. xii. 2), was not attended with such evils ás are noted in our prophecy, and took place at a time when the Edomites, being subject to Judah, could not have acted in the manner specified.

The second occasion belongs to the reign of Jehoram, when the Philistines and Arabians (the latter being a loose designation of the roving tribes of the wilderness and the inhabitants of the country south of Judæa) invaded Judah, plundered much treasure from the house of the king, and carried away his wives and all his children save his youngest son, Jehoahaz (2 Chron. xxi. 16, 17; comp. 2 Kings viii. 20, etc.). The description is brief, and further details are wanting; but it can scarcely be doubted that other captives were taken besides the royal family; and that if the palace of the king was sacked, the city and its inhabitants could not have got off scatheless. Amos (i. 6, 9, 11) is probably alluding to the same event when he speaks of the injuries perpetrated by the Philistines, Phoenicians, and Edomites; and Joel (iii. 3—6), when he complains that the Phoenicians sold the Judæans into captivity to the sons of the Grecians, and (iii. 19) foretells the desolation of Egypt and Edom for their violence against the children of Judah in their (the Jews') land. It is objected that "the house of the king," in 2 Chron. xxi. 17, does not mean the royal palace, but only the camp where was the king's temporary abode, because in the following chapter we read, "The band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest" children. But this proves nothing; the sons may have been killed in the camp (though the account does not say so), and the invaders may have gone on to Jerusalem, now left unguarded, and plundered it. Nor is it likely that they would have found much substance in a temporary camp. It is true that the Edomites are not expressly named among the allied peoples who took part in this raid; but they may well be included in the vague term "Arabians;" and at any rate the latter could not have attacked Judah without their consent, which they were ready to give at this particular time, when they had just recovered their freedom from the rule of David's line, and were glad of an opportunity of vengeance. Of the animosity and active hostility of Edom a further proof is afforded by Ps. lxxxiii., composed, perhaps, in the time of Hezekiah, where among the nations confederate against Israel are mentioned "the tabernacles of Edom and the Ishmaelites."

The third occasion when Jerusalem suffered at the hands of enemies was when Joash King of Israel defeated Amaziah, and brake down the wall of the city (2 Kings xiv. 8, etc.; 2 Chron. xxv. 17, etc.). But this cannot be the catastrophe to which Obadiah refers, as he calls the invaders strangers

and foreigners, and describes the calamity as much greater than the partial disaster then incurred.

The fourth capture of Jerusalem is its final destruction by the Chaldeans. Now, the language of Obadiah does by no means adequately depict this terrible catastrophe. There is no mention of Assyrians or Babylonians. The utter destruction of the city and temple, and the dissolution of the kingdom, are nowhere stated or implied. Compare our prophet's words with those of Jeremiah and Ezekiel describing the overthrow, and how tame and insufficient they seem in the face of such utter ruin! Could any true patriot have said only thus much, and have omitted so many points which added intensity to the disaster? What are the strongest expressions used? The fatal time is called thrice, "the day of their calamity;" twice, "the day of distress;" once, "the day of their destruction" and "disaster," when "foreigners entered the gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, and carried away her substance." Pillage and rapine are intimated, but nothing more. Where is any similar reproach to that of the psalmist, "Remember, O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem, who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof!" (Ps. cxxxvii. 7)? Could Obadiah have failed to recall this cruel cry of the Edomites in detailing their offences against his people, if he were referring to their conduct at the Chaldean invasion? Then, again, there is no trace in our prophecy of any wholesale deportation of the people or of the desolation of the land. The nation is regarded as still seated in its own country, and adding to its possessions (ver. 17); not as returning from captivity. These considerations seem to point to the conclusion that Obadiah refers, not to the final destruction of Jerusalem, but to some previous calamity; and none that we are acquainted with coincides with the expressions with which he describes it, except the capture by the Philistines and Arabians in the time of Jehoram, which may possibly simplify the chronological difficulty by affording a terminus a quo, especially if any reason could be found for regarding this event as recent when Obadiah wrote.

But if we regard this calamity of Jerusalem as the event which the prophet has in view, we cannot, of course from this fact alone, settle the disputed question of his date. It is plain that the language employed in vers. 11 and 16 implies that the event is passed; and our Authorized Version, by a mistranslation of the intervening passage, emphasizes this inference. Thus in vers. 12, etc., we have, "Thou shouldest not have looked on the day of thy brother; . . . neither shouldest thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah," etc. It is certain that this rendering is grammatically wrong, and that al with the future can only be prohibitive; the words, therefore, ought to be translated, "Do not look," etc. (Mỳ éπídys, Septuagint; Non despicies, Vulgate; "Ne intuearis," Mont.). This rendering makes the reference future; and it is said that, if Obadiah were speaking of a past event, he would not give an eightfold injunction not to do something which had

..

already been done. It is not God's wont to warn when it is too late to repent. In answer to this, to argue that the prophet, in poetical form, is describing the past as future, seems scarcely sufficient. Rather, the truth appears to be this: In ver. 11 he is, as we concluded before, alluding to a definite capture of Jerusalem; in the following verses he is warning the Edomites not to act in the manner specified when calamity has overtaken Judah. Judging from what they had done formerly, he surmises that they will repeat the same conduct whenever occasion shall arise. He knows well how bitter and unwearied is Edom's hostility against Judah; he has seen how she behaved in the late invasion, how she sided with the enemy and made her gain from her sister's misfortune; and he urges her to act not again in this way. His prophetic eye looks forward to the future calamity that shall befall his country; from the view of the disaster which he had witnessed under Joram, he rises to the vision of a greater and more complete ruin; one is a type and prophecy of the other; and the behaviour of Edom in the former case is a rehearsal of what she will do in the latter. If the prophet's words, though nominally addressed to the Edomites, were not intended as a warning to them, and, as is most probable, never came under their notice, we may regard them as virtually foretelling their action and consequent punishment, and hence imparting comfort to the faithful few with the hope of a glorious future. The punishment which he invokes is, doubtless, primarily the consequence of their recent conduct; but the prediction embraces other crimes of a similar nature, which will increase the penalty when the moment for its judgment shall arrive. Thus far we have seen reason to decide that Obadiah wrote, not directly after the Chaldean invasion, but after the raid of the Philistines and Arabians, while the catastrophe was still present to men's memory. Again, the enemies are an indefinite mass composed of heathen tribes, not a determinate foe such as the Chaldeans. And the captives are not taken to the far east, but to the north, to Phoenicia, and to western regions. Of fugitives to Egypt no mention is made. With the Chaldean invasion in his view, Obadiah could not have used these expressions. There is another consideration which makes for the same inference, and that is his relation to other prophets. The coincidence of thought and expression between Obadiah and Joel cannot be accidental. One must have been acquainted with the other; or both must have had recourse to a third original. Thus Joel says (ii. 32), "In Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape, as the Lord hath said; " and Obadiah (ver. 17), "In Mount Zion there shall be those that escape." Joel iii. 2, 3, “Whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land; and they have cast lots upon my people;" Obad. 11, "Foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem." Joel iii. 4, 7, "I will return your recompense upon your own head; Obad. 15, "Thy recompense shall return upon thine own head." "The day of the Lord is near" (Joel iii. 14; Obad. 18); "Jerusalem shall be holy" (Joel iii. 17); "Mount Zion shall be holy" (Obad. 17); "Edom shall be a

desolate wilderness, for the violence done to the children of Judah” (Joel iii. 19); "For the violence done to thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever' (Obad. 10). That Joel borrowed from Obadiah, Keil considers proved by the expression in Joel ii. 32 (according to the numbering of the English Version), "as the Lord hath said," where, as we have seen above, he repeats Obadiah's words, which occur nowhere else. This, however, is not conclusive, as Joel may be merely asserting his own claim of Divine authority, and may not necessarily be quoting another prophet's utterance. Many other critics incline to the opinion that Joel rests on Obadiah; if this could be demonstrated, the dispute concerning the date of the latter might be approximately settled. But this opinion is at best presumptive, and depends on such allegations as that Obadiah never imitates predecessors, except in the one case of an allusion to Balaam's prophecy (vers. 4, 18, etc.); that he is more original than Joel; and that it is not probable that in his short book he should have had recourse to others for ideas and expressions.

The relation between Obadiah and Jeremiah is capable of more satisfactory determination. There are nine verses in the former (vers. 1—9) which are found in the latter (Jer. xlix. 7—22). In the former these occur consecutively, and form one connected whole; in the latter they are dispersed over a wider space, and disunited by the insertion of other thoughts. The prophecy of Obadiah against Edom is an orderly and regular production, with a beginning, middle, and conclusion, passing on naturally to the climax ; Jeremiah denounces Edom at various times and in various manners, but his prediction has no internal unity, and is not worked up into a perfect whole. Jeremiah, too, has on other occasions borrowed largely from his predecessors. It is impossible that Obadiah should have prefaced his work with the words, "The vision of Obadiah," and "we have heard tidings from the Lord," if he was taking such large extracts from previous writings. A careful inspection of the two prophets (noting especially how Jeremiah has softened the ruggedness and changed the unusual expressions in Obadiah) will lead to the conclusion that Obadiah is the original from whom Jeremiah borrowed, just as he introduces verses from Isaiah in his denunciation of Moab (comp. Jer. xlviii. 43, 44 with Isa. xxiv. 17, 18; and generally Jer. xlviii. with Isa. xv., xvi.), and a passage from Amos (i. 4) in the judgment of Damascus (Jer. xlix. 27). Thus the prophecy of Obadiah was anterior to that of Jeremiah, whose utterance against Edom belongs to the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Caspari, pp. 14, etc.). The question still remains-How long anterior? Some intimation of the truth may be gleaned from the fact that there are found in Obadiah phrases and sentences common to Amos and Joel, but nothing from writers later than these. If these prophets cited Obadiah, cadit quæstio; if he quoted them, why did he refer to no later writings? The presumption is that he lived close to their time.

From what has been said, we conclude that Obadiah is one of the earliest

of the minor prophets, that he lived about the time of Jehoram, and prophesied at latest (as Dr. Pusey thinks) during the minority of Joash.

SIV. GENERAL CHARACTER.

There can be no doubt that the style of Obadiah is remarkably original. In his very diction he deviates from the beaten track, using many words and forms which occur nowhere else. Though his language is simple, it is very suggestive, full of thought, and pregnant with meaning. Pure and idiomatic, it breathes a high antiquity, unmixed with later forms, and distinct from that of the greater prophets. There is a vigour, and terseness, and a rapidity, which carry the reader along, and place him by the prophet's side in fullest sympathy. Obadiah delights in interrogation and apostrophe, in vivid detail, and concise statement. He is often highly poetic, never monotonous. What force and pathos are there in the sustained description of the injuries inflicted by strangers on Jerusalem, ending in the sudden address to Edom, "Thou wast as one of them" (ver. 11)! What power in the warning against malicious pleasure at a neighbour's disaster, with its oftrepeated expression, "in the day" (vers. 12-14)! What solemnity in the summing up of the prophecy, " And the kingdom shall be the Lord's"! A regular sequence of thought runs through the whole book. To find in this very uniform and consistent prophecy nothing but literary patchwork, as Graf and Ewald, for instance, have done, is a groundless neologian fancy. These critics suppose that the former part of the prophecy (vers. 1—10) was an extract from an older seer-the true Obadiah or an unknown writer; that the latter portion belongs to the time of the Captivity, and was added by the compiler. The sagacity that thus arbitrarily dissects the work is singularly at fault in this case. It requires only an unprejudiced eye (even if we exclude a belief in the predictive element) to see that our book is one whole, that its parts progress equably and uniformly, that the conclusion. follows naturally on what precedes; so that if we had to find one special characteristic of the prophecy, we should say that it is distinguished by the close connection of its members without break or interruption.

§ V. LITERATURE.

Among medieval commentators upon Obadiah we may mention Hugo à S. Victore, whose interpretation is wholly mystical. Ephraem Syrus has left a commentary on this prophet. Luther's 'Enarrationes in Abdiam' are well known. Other works are those of Bishop Pilkington, Exposition;' Pfeiffer, with a Latin translation of the Commentary of Arbabanel (Vittemb., 1670); Raynoldi (1613); Leusden (Utrecht, 1657); the text, Hebrew and Chaldee, with the notes of Jarchi, Aben-Ezra, and Kimchi; Crocius (Brema, 1673), with rabbinical interpretations; Bishop Horsley, Critical Notes; Hendewerk, Obadiæ Proph. Oraculum' (1836); Caspari, Der Prophet Obadja' (Leipzig, 1863); Seydel (Leipzig, 1842); T. T. Perowne, in Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges.' An Armenian Version was published by A. Acoluthus, in 1680, and a Syriac by Grimm, in 1799.