Timeline: Missing Prophet -- Ack

Sssooo, while reviewing the timeline between 870-790 BC, I could not find the prophet Joel (825-809) or Obadiah (841-825) listed. When I type Joel into the filter it shows the number "1" in the filter box but nowhere do I see Joel. This is even after I scroll the timeline vertically...nothing. Hmmm...what am I missing?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rich DeRuiter

Sssooo, while reviewing the timeline between 870-790 BC, I could not find the prophet Joel (825-809) or Obadiah (841-825) listed. When I type Joel into the filter it shows the number "1" in the filter box but nowhere do I see Joel. This is even after I scroll the timeline vertically...nothing. Hmmm...what am I missing?

The timeline depends on information provided in tagged resources. If you have a Bible dictionary with that information, is it tagged (a little flag)? If so, this could be a bug in the timeline data.

You can also try using the find box in the timeline panel/window: type CTRL-F and type in Joel - does that find it for you?

DMB

Joel was somewhat unusual having produced his book well after his death (per the timeline):

Surprisingly Obadiah, though not having a prophetic career, produced his book in the same year as Joel.

Many scholars have not come to grips with Obadiah working alongside Joel's ghost. But more seriously, the Timeline 'should' at least move to one or more of the filtered events rather than just remaining 'blank'.

Rosie Perera

See ISBE for controversy over the dating of Joel and Obadiah. Or your favorite Bible dictionary or Old Testament survey should cover it if you don't have ISBE,

Logos's Timeline evidently follows "the position held by the majority of scholars" (400 B.C.) but it's not the only view. They should show alternative dating options in the Timeline, as they do for some of the other books with disputed dates.

Here's the ISBE excerpt on the dating of Joel. The situation for Obadiah isn't quite as complex.

1. Date No issue raised by the book of Joel is more controversial than its date. Despite intense and protracted discussion, there is still no consensus of opinion, as the following survey will indicate.

a. Survey of Opinion A more detailed survey may be found in Thompson (“The Date of Joel”). The main possibilities which various scholars have held in recent times are:

(1) Early Preexilic Popular in the 19th cent after the publication of Credner’s comm in 1831, this position has been upheld more recently by Bič as well as a number of conservative writers (e.g., the intros to the OT of E. J. Young [rev ed 1964], pp. 254–57, and G. L. Archer [rev ed 1974], pp. 303–307). It is argued, for instance, that the position of Joel in the canon points to an early date, and that the conditions reflected in the book suit the rule of Joash while he was still underage (ca 870–860 b.c.). Political allusions are explained by reference to 1 K. 14:25–28, 2 K. 8:20–22, and 2 Ch. 21:16f. In addition, Bič cites a number of Ugaritic parallels in order to interpret Joel as an early polemic against Baalism.

(2) Late Preexilic Kapelrud, Keller, and Rudolph are notable proponents of a date for Joel immediately before the Exile. Rudolph, taking seriously the allusions of 3:2, gives a date between the first and second Babylonian sieges of Jerusalem (597 and 587 b.c.). Joel’s origin within the cult is considered an adequate explanation for its allusions to other prophetic books, whereas its many close parallels with Jeremiah suggest that they were contemporaries. Many of the weaker arguments for a postexilic date are rightly rejected.

(3) Exilic Reicke is among a few scholars who date Joel during the period before the building of the second temple. His main argument is that 2:17 (“between the vestibule and the altar”) indicates that no full temple was standing at the time.

(4) Early Postexilic A proposal which has gained a good deal of support (Myers, Ahlström, Allen) is to date Joel immediately after the rebuilding of the second temple (ca 515–500 b.c.), thus making him a contemporary of Haggai and Zechariah. In addition to the general arguments in favor of a postexilic date (see 1.c below), precision is added by the reference in 3:8 to the Sabeans, who, it is claimed, lost control of the eastern trade routes after the 6th century.

(5) About 400 b.c. This is probably the position held by the majority of scholars, although, as we noted, another trend has been to favor a somewhat earlier date. Precision is given to the general indications of the postexilic period by the reference to the wall in 2:7, 9, said to be the one built by Nehemiah in 445 b.c., and by the citations from many other prophets (see B.2 below), which suggest that Joel is one of the latest books to have been written. On the other hand, the reference to Sidon’s judgment as yet future (3:4 [MT 4:4]) suggests a date before 345 b.c. when that city was destroyed by Artaxerxes III and its inhabitants were sold into slavery.

(6) Late Postexilic Those who find various layers of composition in Joel (see B.3 below) often date the secondary sections to the 4th or 3rd cent b.c. This later date has further been upheld for the whole book by a few scholars. Earlier commentators pointed in particular to the mention of Greeks (3:6 [MT 4:6]) as a late element, while more recently Treves has suggested that 3:2f, 19 refer to Ptolemy I Soter’s capture of Jerusalem in 312 b.c., and Stephenson, finding a reference to the firsthand experience of a total eclipse of the sun in 2:31 (MT 3:4), is obliged to date Joel later than 357 or 336 b.c., the dates of the only two total eclipses in the period under consideration.

b. Some Inconclusive Arguments In view of such a wide diversity of opinion, few would dare to claim certainty for their position. Ibn Ezra and Calvin are only two of those who, even in the pre-critical period, expressed real uncertainty over the issue. Nevertheless, some of the arguments which have been adduced are far from convincing, and should therefore be dropped from the discussion. Those that have played a significant role in the debate may be mentioned here.

(1) Place in the Canon Although it is true that generally the compilers of the “Book of the Twelve” appear to have been guided by chronological considerations, in the case of Joel uncertainty in this regard is shown because in the LXX Joel stands fourth, after Micah, not second. Moreover, Wolff has developed the argument that, since the book of Joel is in itself undated, its position in the canon may rest not on a tradition concerning its date, but on some close verbal parallels in its closing verses with Amos, which it immediately precedes (compare 3:16 with Am. 1:2, and 3:18 with Am. 9:13). As a result, its position in the canon cannot be determinative for us.

(2) The Greeks The older argument that reference to the Greeks (Heb b^enê hayy^ewānîm) in 3:6 demands a date after the Hellenistic expansion (late 4th cent b.c.) is unfounded. Evidence for Greek contact with Palestine from much earlier times continues to accumulate (Myers, pp. 178–185; D. Auscher, VT, 17 [1967], 8–30), and it has been suggested that the reference in Joel is to the Greeks as a still somewhat remote people to whom the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem might be sold as slaves; this better suits a date before their conquests of 333 b.c.

(3) Lack of Reference to the King This argument has been adduced in support of both a postexilic date and a date in which Joash was still a minor. This sufficiently demonstrates its ambiguity, but in any case the dangers of an argument from silence are such that little weight should be placed upon it.

(4) Reference to the Wall A number of scholars have argued that the wall in 2:7, 9 is complete and that therefore, if the date of the book is postexilic, it cannot precede Nehemiah’s time. It is unlikely, however, that no wall at all was in existence before Nehemiah, for Neh. 2:13 and 4:7 suggest that he needed only to repair certain sections, and the implication of Neh. 1:3 is that a wall surrounding postexilic Jerusalem had only recently been destroyed.

(5) Total eclipse of the sun Stephenson’s argument that 2:31 presupposes firsthand experience of a total eclipse of both moon and sun is striking, but ultimately not conclusive. In 2:10 and 3:15 (MT 4:15) similar phenomena are mentioned, and the statement is added that “the stars withdraw their shining,” which cannot be explained on so natural a basis. It seems more probable, therefore, that the passage refers to elements drawn from the Day of the Lord traditions that were later associated with theophanic eschatological descriptions (cf. J. Jeremias, Theophanie [1965], pp. 97–100).

c. More Certain Indications The following arguments, which all favor a postexilic date for Joel, seem to carry greater weight, particularly since they all point in the same direction. It should be stressed again, however, that a number of scholars propose alternative explanations, so that, though the following represents a majority opinion, it does not command full agreement.

(1) Reference to the Exile The prophecy in 3:2f seems most naturally to refer to the fall of Jerusalem, dispersion of the people, and foreign settlement of the land as past events. It is doubtful whether any situation prior to the final fall of Jerusalem in 587 b.c. can do justice to this description. In connection with this, 3:5 seems to refer to the destruction of the temple (contra Rudolph).

(2) Existence of the Temple Despite Reicke’s argument from 2:17, 1:2–2:17 clearly presupposes the existence of a temple in which the priests might expect in normal times to officiate over a full round of cultic ceremonies. Though we know little about conditions in Jerusalem during the Exile, it would be surprising if Joel could be fitted into that period. Taken with the first point, this would establish 515 b.c. (when the second temple was completed, cf. Ezr. 6:15) as a terminus a quo.

(3) Language The argument from language and style has undoubtedly been overplayed in the past (cf. H. Holzinger, ZAW, 9 [1899], 89–131). Nevertheless, Ahlström (pp. 1–22) has surveyed the whole issue again with commendable caution in the light of the questions that have been raised about it and suggested that, although most of the evidence which has been advanced cannot be used to determine the date of Joel, a confluence of evidence from a limited number of items (e.g., “Judah and Jerusalem” in 3:1, 6, 20 and “sons of Zion” in 2:23) points to a period no earlier than Jeremiah. These findings would thus allow a late preexilic date, and would fit well with a postexilic one, but are an embarrassment to an early preexilic date.

(4) Names and Nature of the Community Joel addresses his audience as “Judah and Jerusalem,” and applies to them the title “Israel” (2:27; 3:16). The impression is of a small community, focused on the city of Jerusalem and its cult. These features are strikingly similar to those portrayed in the narratives of Ezra and Nehemiah (cf. H. C. M. Vogt, Studie zur nachexilischen Gemeinde in Esra-Nehemia [1966]), but appear quite out of place before the Exile.

(5) Quotations These will be dealt with below (B.2) as a separate problem of composition. It is sufficient to say here that the evidence can be most naturally explained if Joel features among the later written prophets.

(6) References to Other Peoples A terminus ad quem of 345 b.c. seems to be demanded by the manner in which Sidon is introduced in 3:4 (cf. B.1.a [5] above) and fits with the implication of 3:6 that the Greek expansion has not yet begun.

d. Conclusions A date somewhere between 515 and 345 b.c. is the most likely on the basis of the evidence presented above, and this view presents fewer difficulties to the general outlook of the prophet as concerns both the cult and eschatology. It is difficult to specify further with any degree of certainty; Myers’s argument from the decline of the Sabeans (3:8) at the end of the 6th cent is questionable, since it is now known that the Sabean kingdom continued to flourish long after (cf. W. F. Albright, BASOR, 129 [Feb. 1953], 20–24; A. Jamme, Sabaean Inscriptions from Maḥram Bilqîs [Mârib] [1962]; A. K. Irvine, “The Arabs and Ethiopians,” in D. J. Wiseman, ed, Peoples of OT Times [1973], p. 300). The evidence of the quotations perhaps brings us toward the latter part of the specified period, but the evidence on that basis alone is inconclusive in the final analysis.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/472819#Comment_472819

Rosie ... just happened to notice Ezra was working on his book alongside Joel and Obadiah. But that makes a lot of sense, given Ezra wrote the whole OT per (some) jewish traditions. This is probably not helpful to Lucy's quest. [corrected spelling]

Lucy M. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/472814#Comment_472814

Based upon your reply and the other two below, the issue was definitely one of dating. When I used the find function, it immediately went to the Joel references in other timeframes. That said, and along these lines, I notice that not all books give you the Timeline option under view. Is there an easy way to tell which ones do or don't without diving into the view option for each?

Lucy M. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/472821#Comment_472821

No problem on the spelling. I knew what you meant. ;-)