assis obadiah jsot dec 2014

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Vol 39.2 (2014): 209-221 The Author(s), 2014. Reprints and Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0309089214567376 http://JSOT.sagepub.com

Structure, Redaction and Signicance in the Prophecy of Obadiah ELIE ASSIS Department of Bible Studies, Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 529002, Israel Abstract This article argues that Obadiah consists of three oracles, each reecting a different time period. The rst oracle reects the pre-destruction period and comprises criticism of Edomite pride. The second oracle conveys Judahs hostility to Edom, based on its parti-cipation in the destruction of 586 BCE, whereas the third depicts a later period, marked by signicant Edomite encroachment into southern Judah. This third oracle evokes the peoples aspiration to reclaim their patriarchal lands. Though it is clear that the books authorship was a three-phase process, the unity of the work is also unequivocal. The prophecy is recorded as one sequence and lacks opening and concluding formulae. More-over, the rhetorical and theoretical application of the lex talionis principle characterizes all three oracles. In each of the oracles the prophet attributes to Edom a distinct transgression for which commensurate retribution is anticipated. This article asserts that the author revised his treatment of Edom in view of political changes that occurred. These modied political realities prompted new responses from the prophet, though they did not revoke the earlier oracles. This analysis embodies, perhaps, the advantage of diachronic analysis of the prophetic text alongside serious consideration of the synchronic view. The willing-ness to apply both methods facilitates, in this case, a more precise understanding of the text than that allowed by the exclusive application of just one. Keywords: Edom, Obadiah, lex talionis, measure for measure, composition, retribution.

at Bar-Ilan university on January 11, 2015jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from

210 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 39.2 (2014)

1. Unity or Disparate Prophecies in Obadiah: A Brief Review of Research The book of Obadiah is the shortest book of the Hebrew Bible, though as Mason noted, citing Jerome, its difculty is in inverse proportion to its length.1 One of the central questions addressed by scholarly research is that of the books composition and its development. Opinions on this topic are wide-ranging. Some see the 21 verses of the book as a collection of fragments; others view it as a cohesive work, authored by one hand at one time. In this article I will strive to demonstrate that the various phases of the book of Obadiahs compilation and the objective of its composition are comprehensible only through an approach that integrates historical research with literary-rhetorical analysis. Robinsons position on the question of the books composition is the most extreme. He viewed the book of Obadiah as a collection of seven fragments of diversely dated longer poems, dened by a common theme, namely Edom.2 Watts saw the book as an assortment of ve oracles.3 These research directions did not merit scholarly approbation. Following Wellhausen, a bipartite division of Obadiah is widely endorsed by research, with vv. 1-14 and 15b constituting the rst prophecy and vv. 15a and 16-21 the second. The rst prophecy manifests a concrete historical background while the second is an eschatological oracle.4 The division between the two segments is supported by the signicant disparities between them. While the rst prophecy, vv. 1-14 and 15b, generally addresses Edom in the second person, the second prophecy refers to Edom exclusively in the third personin conjunction with all the nationsreserving the second person for Judah (v. 16). The

1. R. Mason, Micah, Nahum, Obadiah (OTG; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic Press, 1991), p. 87 2. T.H. Robinson, The Structure of the Book of Obadiah, Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1916), pp. 402-408. The fragments are, in his opinion, vv. 1-5, 6, 7, 8-11, 12-14, 15-16, 17-18, 19-21. 3. J.D.W. Watts, Obadiah: A Critical Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), pp. 20-21. 4. J. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten: bersetzt und Erklrt (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1898), pp. 213-214; D.K. Marti, Das Dodekapropheton (Tbingen: Mohr, 1904), p. 228; J. A. Bewer, Obadiah and Joel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911), pp. 3-4; W. Rudolph, JoelAmosObadjaJona (KAT, 13/2; Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1971), pp. 295-96; H.W. Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah: A Commentary (trans. M. Kohl; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986), pp. 21-22; J. Barton, Joel and Obadiah, A Commentary (OTL; London: Westminster John Knox, 2001), p. 118.


ASSIS Structure, Redaction and Signicance 211

most important distinction between the two prophecies is that the nations are the executors of Gods judgment of Edom in the rst, whereas the second includes Edom within all nations upon whom the day of the Lord shall come, and Israel is the implement though which Gods judg-ment shall be enacted against the nations. Further noteworthy is that the rst oracles portrayal of the retribution against Edom lacks any mention of Judah, while in the second part the redemption of Israel is the ip side of the coin of Edoms destruction in the framework of the day of the Lord. This distinction holds true regarding v. 15 as well: the rst part of the verse discusses the judgment against all the nations, as do vv. 16-21, while v. 15s second segment addresses Edom in the second person, as do vv. 1-14.5 These discrepancies brought most scholars who accept this division to the conclusion that these two prophecies were not composed by the same prophetic author. On the other hand, Rudolph and Weiser, who accept this division, contend that it does not preclude the possibility of uniform authorship of both prophecies, though they believe that vv. 19-21 were not written by Obadiah.6 In contradistinction to those who contend that the book of Obadiah constitutes more than one prophetic unit, there are scholars who view the entire chapter as one literary unit. Allen was a proponent of the unitary nature of the book, stressing its theological backdrop. He argued that the author of Obadiah, similar to the author of the book of Lamentations, viewed the destruction as a consequence of Gods wrath on the day of the Lord, but that God allowed the survival of a remnant of Israel in deference to their right to a capital city and a homeland; conversely, the nations who attacked Jerusalem would face retribution. Therefore, Allen asserts a natural progression throughout the book. The prophecy opens with an oracle concerning Edoms downfall and then proceeds to depict the crimes of Edom on the day of the Lord. Thereafter, the scope widens to portray the destruction of the nations and the rehabilitation of the nation of God. In the prophecys second part too, Obadiah continues to emphasize Edom over the other nations. To corroborate the books cohesion, certain scholars discerned structural phenomena that encompass all elements of the book. Allen also elucidated an afnity between the rst and nal verses (1 and 21) that forms an inclusio. The inversion of

5. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten, p. 213; Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, p. 237. 6. Rudolph, JoelAmosObadjaJona, p. 296; A. Weiser, Introduction to the Old Testament (trans. D.M. Barton; London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961), p. 248 (English).



Israels situation that is stressed at the conclusion of the prophecy (v. 21) reects the manifestation of the mightiness of Gods dominion, and this constitutes the concrete articulation of Gods declaration at the outset, in v. 1.7 Cogan tended to this view as well. He underscored the afnity between vv. 1 and 21, asserting that one theoretical framework embraces the entire book that opens with a call for war to be waged against Edom (v. 1) and concludes with an illustration of the judgment that will be meted out in Mount Esau.8 Cogan also pointed out the literary device of interconnectedness between many of the chapters verses. According to this structure, some sequential verses feature a common word.9 Snyman attempted to prove that the book was deliberately redacted to accord with its overall chiastic structure. Though he admits the works lack of cohesion, he would highlight the calculated outcome of the book.10 Renkema too, in his comprehensive commentary on Obadiah, down-played the importance of the divergences between the segments.11 Raabe, in his extensive exegesis in the Anchor Bible series, exposited the relationship between the two parts through the use of terms and concepts common to the chapters various segments.12 Recently, Jenson has determined that the book should be read as a unied whole.13 2. The Various Segments of the Book of Obadiah according to their Historical Background Several of the assertions in support of the books cohesiveness are unconvincing. The interconnectedness of the books verses, suggested by Cogan, does not encompass all its components and pertains, at times, to shared words that are overly commonplace. Even the afnity between the rst and nal verses is quite general. Furthermore, the contention that the book should be read in its current form is not credible in this case. This is

7. L.C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), pp. 135-36; Barton, Joel and Obadiah, p. 118. 8. M. Cogan, Obadiah, Introduction and Commentary (Mikra Leyisrael; Tel Aviv and Jerusalem: Am Oved and Magnes, 1992 [Hebrew]), p. 4. 9. Cogan, Obadiah, p. 5. 10. S.D. Snyman, Cohesion in the Book of Obadiah, ZAW 101 (1989), pp. 59-71. 11. J. Renkema, Obadiah (trans. B. Doyle; Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), p. 38. 12. P.R. Raabe, Obadiah (AB, 24D; New York: Doubleday, 1996), pp. 18-19 13. P.P. Jenson, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah: A Theological Commentary (LHBOTS, 496; New York: T&T Clark International, 2008), p. 6.



a cogent assertion in cases where the text at hand represents an obviously unied coherent unit, for examplea story with a dened, explicit plot whose nal form, rather than the process of its formation, can constitute the subject of scholarly scrutiny. In our case, we lack primary information that would allow us to determine whether before us is one or several prophecies or a collection of prophecies; therefore, the very assertion of a nal product that moreover should be read sequentially, demands substantiation. Despite the weakness of the various scholarly premises regarding the unity of the book of Obadiah, and notwithstanding the fact that the theoretical development within the book indicated by scholars is to some extent uneven, the movement within the chapter is unmistakably sequential. Evidently, the book, in its present form, was designed to be read consecutively as it lacks opening and concluding formulae. Even if we were to accept some of the claims advocating unity between the disparate segments of the book, the very signicant discrepancies between the chapters two sections reasonably support the assertion of the chapter not as one literary unit but as a composite of two prophetic units. It is difcult to fathom how in one unit of prophecy the nations will be Gods emissaries that execute the judgment meted out to Edom, while in the same prophecy Edom stands accused alongside the other nations. Neither does the fact that Israel will take part in the judgment of the nations in the second part comport with its passive role in the rst section. Therefore, I concur with the opinion rst espoused by Wellhausen, of a distinction between vv. 15a and 16-21 and vv. 1-14 and 15b.14 I also agree with Wellhausens view that v. 15a depicts the day of the Lord for all the nations and appertains to vv. 16-21, while v. 15b that addresses Edom in the second person, as do vv. 10-14, appertains to vv. 1-14.15 Of the scholars who accepted this division, there were those who believed that the material should be attributed to additional authors. Many view vv. 19-21 in disassociation from vv. 15a and 16-18, due mainly to

14. However, it is not due to the disparate natures of the two partsthe rst historical and the second eschatologicalthat I accept Wellhausens division. On this point I agree with Thompson, who claims that that many prophets combine these elements in their works; see J.A. Thompson, The Book of Obadiah: Introduction and Exegesis, in The Interpreters Bible (New York: Abingdon, 1956), VI, pp. 857-67 (859). 15. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten, p. 213; Bewer, Obadiah and Joel, pp. 3-4. However, other scholars did not view the differences between the two parts of v. 15 as signicant. See Raabe, Obadiah, pp. 200-201. Ben Zvi explains the shift between the parts; see E. Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah (BZAW, 242; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996), pp. 174-175; Renkema, Obadiah, p. 185.



the fact that vv. 19-21 are written in prose while the rest of the chapter is in poetic form.16 Rudolph and Wolff further assert that v. 20 assumes dispersion in the exile, a situation that is, in their view, incompatible with the foregoing verses eyewitness account of the destruction. However, Allen is correct in that Obadiahs witnessing of the destruction does not necessarily obviate his observation of the Jews dispersal in the exile at the end of the sixth century BCE.17 The distinction between prose and poetry is likewise not sufciently conclusive to establish diverse author-ship of the verses. Contrary to this overworked assertion, there is no reason why one author cannot write poetry as well as prose.18 While the division of vv. 15a and 16-21 into two oracles is not defensible in my view, I accept Sellins division of vv. 1-14 and 15b into two separate oracles. He views the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE as the backdrop to vv. 10-14 and 15b, while vv. 1-9, which parallel Jeremiah 49, predate the destruction.19 It is improbable that vv. 1-9, which criticize Edom for its pride alone, without relating in any way to the actual damage inicted by Edom on Judah, were uttered after the destruction.20 This

16. Bewer, Obadiah and Joel, p. 16; Rudolph, JoelAmosObadjaJona, p. 296. According to Rudolph, only vv. 19-20 are a late addition, while a reconstructed version of v. 21 was the books originals ending. This opinion is also held by Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah, p. 22. 17. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, p. 135. 18. It should be noted that even though vv. 19-21 may be identied as prose, they still maintain poetic rhythm. A similar claim was made by Thompson regarding the prose sections in Jeremiah. He claims that the distinction made in the book of Jeremiah between prose and poetry is overly discriminating, and many of the prose sections in the book should be classied as elevated prose. See J.A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 46. A similar claim was made previously by H. Weippert, Die Prosareden des Jeremiabuches (BZAW, 132; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973), pp. 228-34. 19. D.E. Sellin, Das Zwlfprophetenbuch (KAT, 12/1; Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1929), pp. 274-77. 20. Many scholars following Wellhausen, who suggested that vv. 1-9 are from the fth century and reect the Arab incursions into Edom. See Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten, p. 214. In his opinion the oracle reects a current historical situation. Others, however, believe that it is a prognostication of future events. See, e.g., O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, An Introduction (trans. P.R. Ackroyd; New York: Harper & Row, 1965), p. 403. Ben Zvi agrees that the topic of the pericope is arrogance but places it nonetheless after the events of 586 BCE, during the Persian period. Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah, pp.69, 228-29. This is apparently due to his belief that Edom is not the actual nation from the south of Judah; Edom in his opinion is a symbol for all the nations, see pp. 68, 230.



argument pertains to Jeremiah 49 as well. I therefore concur with scholars who maintain that this prophecy, in Jeremiah 49 as well as in Obadiah 1-9, reects the pre-destruction period, predating allegations of Edomite complicity in the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 586 BCE.21 In light of the above, it can be surmised that Obadiah, following the superscription the vision of Obadiah (v. 1), is divisible into three separate oracles: the rst part, vv. 1-9; the second part, vv. 10-14 and 15b; and the third part, vv. 15a and 16-21.22 The three oracles indicate three time periods that, though proximate, manifest different historical features. Verses 1-9 reect the pre-destruction period, the end of the sixth century BCE. Verses 10-14 and 15b indicate the events of the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. Presumably, they were composed during this time or shortly thereafter. Verses 15a and 16-21 reect a slightly later period, during which neighbor nations of Judah appropriated various territories within Judah, and they articulate Jewish hopes of restoration to those areas. This oracle was apparently recorded in the post-exilic period, following the repatriation of Jews to Judah in the wake of the Edict of Cyrus. These Jews were distraught over the foreign encroachment into lands that were Judean before the destruction.23 Beyond the historical assertions underpinning this division, I will strive to provide substantive, thematic grounds for this tripartite division of the prophecies. Obadiahs topic is Edoms sins and its judgment. The three segments reect three different grievances against Edom.

21. See, e.g., W.L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 2652 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), p. 378; Y. Hoffman, Jeremiah (Mikra Leyisrael; Tel Aviv and Jerusalem: Am Oved and Magnes, 2001 [Hebrew]), p. 810; J.R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 3752 (AB, 21; New York: Doubleday, 2004), p. 333. Carroll explains that the hostility towards Edom in Jer. 49 is moderate in relation to other prophetic texts because it is a redacted piece, drawing on other material; see R.P. Carroll, Jeremiah, A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1986), p. 802. Thompson posits the events of the sixth century as the background of Jer. 49; see Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, p. 720. 22. This is the division advocated by Sellin, Das Zwlfprophetenbuch, pp. 274-77. 23. For a similar approach, see G. Fohrer, Die Sprche Obadjas, in Studia biblica et semitica.Theodoro Christiano Vriezen qui munere professoris theologiae per XXV annos functus est, ab amicis, collegis, discipulis dedicate (Wageningen: Veenman & Zonen, 1966), p. 83. However, contrary to the opinion advocated in the present study, Fohrer assigns vv. 1-9 to 850 BCE.



3. The Three Sins of Edom in the Book of Obadiah Verses 1-9 elucidate Edoms sin and the consequent allotted judgment that is its due. The judgment according to these verses is the nations war against Edom (vv. 5-9)the sin is more obscure. Many scholars believe that the judgment depicted in these verses is a consequence of the Edomites participation in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, elaborated in detail in vv. 10-14.24 It is more reasonable, however, that the sin of which Edom is accused in these verses is that of pride, and its judgment will be its downfall, according to the principle of lex talionis, measure for measure.25 The verses imply that the Edomites took special pride in two things, the rst being their strength and fortications that led them to imagine themselves impregnable to attack (v. 3). Furthermore, Edom is indicted on account of its pride in its wisdom (vv. 7b and 8b). The fact that many of the verses elaborations appear additionally in Jer. 49.7-22, serves as a basis for the perception that the indictment against Edom centers exclusively on its pride. The prophecy in Jeremiah denes no other charges against Edom other than its pride in its wisdom and military valor.26 Since these verses in Obadiah are but a different formu-lation of the prophecy in Jeremiah, there is room to extrapolate regarding the autonomy of the verses vis--vis the rest of the chapter in Obadiah too.27 In the same way that the prophecy in Jeremiah does not refer to Edomite participation in the events of the destruction of Jerusalem and

24. Rudolph, JoelAmosObadjaJona, p. 305; Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, p 153; R.L. Troxel, Prophetic Literature: From Oracles to Books (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), p. 102. 25. Fohrer, Die Sprche Obadjas, p. 86. Others do not see the motif of arrogance as the sin in this oracle. See Rudolph, JoelAmosObadjaJona, p. 306. Allen too, sees the motif of arrogance in Obadiah merely as a description intended to heighten the impression of Edoms downfall; see Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, p. 147 n. 17. For the principle of lex talionis in prophetic literature, see Patrick D. Miller Jr., Sin and Judgment in the Prophets: A Stylistic and Theological Analysis (SBLMS, 27; Chico: Scholars Press, 1982), and Ka Leung Wong, The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel (VTSup, 97; Leiden: Brill, 2001). 26. W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (ICC; Edin-burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), II, p. 1230; Hoffman, Jeremiah, p. 810. 27. There are three basic opinions regarding the relationship between Obad. 1-7 and Jer. 49.9-22. Some regard Obadiah as the source, some consider Jer. 49 the source, while others claim that a third source, unavailable to us, is the provenance of both texts. For a summary of the various possibilities, see J. Nogalski, Redactional Processes in the Book of Twelve (BZAW, 218; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), pp. 61-74; Raabe, Obadiah, pp. 22-31; Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah, pp. 99-109.



indeed precedes the events of the destruction, so vv. 1-9 in the prophecy of Obadiah depict the pre-destruction reality. Scrutiny of the oracles con-tents corroborates this premise. A fundamental theme in these verses is the principle of measure for measure. Juxtaposed against Edoms pride (v. 3a), the prophet predicts its downfall (v. 2); against its conception of impregnability due to its lofty geographic setting, the prophet avows, in Gods name, that it will be brought down low (v. 4). According to the principle that judgment is rendered measure for measure, we can infer that the sin addressed by the prophet in vv. 1-9 is the sin of pride. The sin of arrogance, which furnishes grounds for Obadiahs indict-ment of Edom, is a known theme in biblical prophecy where it is reprised differently in a variety of contexts, vis--vis an assortment of nations. First, as already noted, this is the contention of Jer. 49.16 against Edom, in the prophecy analogous to Obadiah. In Isaiah 10, the prophet avows the destruction of Assyria on account of its two sins: its aspirations to destroy Judah and its pride (Isa. 10.12). Criticism of Assyrias pride appears too in Ezek. 31.3, 10. A range of prophets discussed the pride of other nations and their rulers: Moab (Isa. 16.6; 48.29), Babylon (Isa. 47.8), Tyre (Ezek. 28.2), Nineveh (Zeph. 2.15), Belshazzar (Dan. 5.23). At times, the nations arrogance concerns their military prowess (e.g. Isa. 10.13); at other times it is directed against the God of Israel (Isa. 10.11; 14.13-14). Wisdom can also be a basis for arrogance as demonstrated in Isa. 10.13 regarding Assyria that confronted the people of Israel and God. The charge of arrogance, directed at various nations, is related to the biblical conception of the absolute supremacy of God over humanity according to which human pride is perceived as opposition to the conception of Gods supremacy.28 Edoms sin in the second part of the book, vv. 10-14 and 15b, is, in contradistinction to the sin of arrogance in vv. 1-9, its participation in the devastation of Jerusalem and Judah in 586 BCE. Ezekiel 25.12-14, Lam. 4.22, Psalm 137 and 1 Esd. 4.45 are all instructive regarding Edoms complicity in the ravaging of the city.29 Indeed, the second part of

28. See Barton, Joel and Obadiah, pp. 137-38. This topic was extensively studied by D.E. Gowan, When Man Becomes God: Humanism and Hybris in the Old Testament (Pittsburgh Theological Series, 6; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1975), esp. pp. 19-67. See also B.S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (Studies in Biblical Theology, 3; London: SCM Press, 1967), pp. 88-89. 29. Bartlett claimed that Edom was falsely accused; see J. R. Bartlett, Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem, 587 B.C., PEQ 114 (1982), pp. 13-24. This opinion was not accepted



Obadiah evinces a second application of the principle of measure for measure. One of Edoms sins is How could you stand at the passes, to cut down )( its fugitives? (v. 14). In similar terms, Obadiah promises Edom: and you shall perish () forever. Assuming that v. 15b appertains to vv. 1-14, as proposed by numerous scholars, the con-clusion of this segment perfectly encapsulates the measure for measure principle: As you did, so shall it be done to you; your conduct shall be requited. This sentence is irrelevant to the rst section of Obadiah, which does not elaborate the acts of the Edomites toward Judah but rather their self-conceit alone. Thus two different applications of the principle of measure for measure are herein demonstrated: the humiliation of Edom as comeuppance for their pride in the rst part, vv. 1-9, and a second application of this principle in the avowed perishing of the Edomites in retaliation to their cutting down the fugitives of Judah (v. 10). This sin of the Edomites toward Judah, their abetting of the attack on Judah in 586 BCE, is depicted exclusively in other sources, among them Ezek. 25.12-14. The third part, vv. 15a and 16-21, continues the threat of retribution against Edom introduced by the second part (vv. 10-14 and 15b), though through a doubly modied perspective: rst, the accused in this section are all the nations (vv. 15a, 16, 19b) alongside Edom (vv. 18, 19a, 21). The extension of culpability to all the nations elicits the expectation of treatment of their sin. Indeed, this treatment is reprised in v. 16, where the principle of measure for measure is applied for the third time: That same cup that you drank on my Holy Mount shall all nations drink

by the scholarly consensus. Against this view, see B. Glazier-McDonald, Edom in the Prophetical Corpus, in D.V. Edelman (ed.), You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He is Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition (Archaeology and Biblical Studies, 3; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), p. 24; B. Dicou, Edom, Israels Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story (JSOTSup 169; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic Press, 1994), pp. 186-87. Cresson believes that Edom took an active role in the destruction of Jerusalem in the events of 587 BCE; see B.C. Cresson, The Condemnation of Edom in Postexilic Judaism, in J.M. Erd (ed.), The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring (Durham: Duke University Press, 1972), p. 143. Bright suggested that they joined the Babylonian troops; see J. Bright, A History of Israel (OTL; London: SCM, 1972), p. 329. Myers claimed that Edom provided direct or indirect assistance to the Babylonians; see J.M. Myers, Edom and Judah in the Sixth-Fifth Centuries B.C., in H. Goedicke (ed.), Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971), p. 386.



evermore, drink till their speech grows thick, and they become as though they had never been. The charge in the third part, however, is different. In this section, the main crime for which the prophet indicts Edom and the other nations is the appropriation of lands that belonged to Judah.30 The prophet describes the settlement of Edomites in the Negev31 and the Philistines in the Shephelah (coastal strip).32 In addition to the territories previously enumerated, the verse determines that the eld of Shomron as well as Gilead will also be restored to Israel. Regarding Gilead, we are told that Benjamin will inherit it, though the verse does not specify from whom it will be repossessed. Does the prophet indicate Ammon or Moab? Neither does the verse inform us from whom the eld of Shomron will be reclaimed, though it is apparently indicating, according to 2 Kings 17, the inhabitants exiled by Assyria from Babylon to this region. Indeed, there are attestations to the development and growth of the satrapy of Samaria from the late Iron Age III and the Achaemenid period.33 This situation will be reversed and Israel will reoccupy these lands, as proclaimed by v. 17: The House of Jacob shall dispossess those who dispossessed them.34 The indictment of the neighboring nations on account of their appro-priation of Judean lands following the destruction applies explicitly to Edom and to additional unspecied peoples in Ezek. 36.5 and in Joel 4.2

30. On the borders of Yehud in the Persian period, see E. Stern, The Province of Yehud the Vision and the Reality, in L.I. Levine (ed.), The Jerusalem Cathedra (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute, 1981), I, pp. 9-21; C. E. Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study (JSOTSup, 294; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic Press, 1999); J.W. Wright, Remapping Yehud: The Borders of Yehud and Genealogies of Chronicles, in O. Lipschits and M. Oeming (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), pp. 67-89. 31. For the Edomite settlement in the south of Judah, see, e.g., W.F. Albright, A Brief History of Judah From the Days of Josiah to Alexander the Great, BA 9 (1946), pp. 1-20; A. Kasher, Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs: Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Nations of the Frontier and the Desert during the Hellenistic and Roman Era (332 BCE70 CE), (Tbingen: Mohr, 1988), pp. 1-6. 32. For the Shephelah as an area outside Yehud, see Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period, pp. 90-99. 33. For a summary of this point, see G.N. Knoppers, Revisiting the Samarian Question in the Persian Period, in O. Lipschits and M. Oeming (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), pp. 269-70 34. This is according to the MT that reads , their possessions. However, the LXX and the Peshitta and Vulgate read apparently , their possessors. This reading is attested also in the Murabbaet manuscript. Verses 19-20 spell out the territories that will be retaken by Judah, thus supporting, I believe, the MT version.



and possibly in Joel 4.2. In Joel 4.4, the reproof is directed at Philistia, Tyre and Sidon. This being the case, these verses introduce a third accusation against Edomthe appropriation of Judean lands following the destruction, one that is shared with other nations. As in many cases involving the application of the measure for measure principle (e.g. Joel 4.8), here too Israel will be the one to exact retribution from the nations for what they had wrought. This principle, thrice articulated in Obadiah, is manifested here in the double use of the root : (The House of Jacob shall dispossess those who dispossessed them). The allegation that the nations appropriated Judahs patriarchal lands is an outcome of the occupation and destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE and is dated later than the second prophecy. Obadiahs message is thus composed of three disparate prophecies, each articulated in a different political reality. The rst prophecy, vv. 1-9, conveys the indictment of Edom, prior to the destruction and before it struck at Judah during the events of 586 BCE. In this oracle, the prophet accuses Edom of pride. The second prophecy, vv. 10-14 and 15b, indicates Edoms actions during the destruction itselfits participation in the destruction of Jerusalem. The third prophecy reects the post-destruction period, during which these nations encroached upon the lands that were Judahs before the destruction, from the south, west, north and east.35 The prophet formulates three separate accusations, each corre-sponding to a different time period: arrogance, the destruction and ruin of Jerusalem, and the appropriation of Judean land. 4. The Compilation of Obadiah From a historical perspective, it should be stressed that the three oracles are not necessarily separated by lengthy periods of time. There is no reason not to assume that the rst prophecy was written shortly before the destruction, the second prophecy during the event itself, and the third a few years thereafter. It is thus indeed possible that one author composed all three prophecies or that he wrote the last two, adopting the rst from Jeremiah into his piece. The more interesting and important question is

35. Kasher has demonstrated how contradictions in the book of Ezekiel should not be attributed to different authors but to a change of the prophets mind on some central concepts. See R. Kasher, Remnant, Repentance and Covenant in the Book of Ezekiel, Beth Mikra 44 (1999), pp. 15-34.



that of the literary afnity between the various oracles. Is Obadiah an assortment of oracles concerning Edom from different periods, or is it one work composed of three disparate oracles? As noted, the book contains no indications of opening or concluding passages between the three proph-ecies. That said, it is clear that the book was conceived in relation to three varying time periods with distinctive historical contexts. How then should the books composition be explained? I would hypothesize that the various segments were not written as three separate units but rather each segment was appended to its predecessor. Thus, the rst prophecy was written rst, before the destruction. Follow-ing the destruction, the author updated his work, appending the second prophecy, vv. 10-14 and 15b to vv. 1-9. Now Edom stood accused not only of arrogance but also of active action against Judah. Moreover, now it seems that Edoms arrogance has been articulated in practice, through its antagonistic behavior toward Judah during the destruction. Over time, the Edomites, in conjunction with other nations, gradually encroached upon Judean lands, adding, in the post-destruction era, an extra nuance to the charges against Edom, hitherto implicated in the destruction. Before us, therefore, are diverse oracles written during several, closely related time periods. It appears to me that what is manifested here is an action of prophetic revision, in light of the diplomatic and political transitions that occurred. The second prophecy does not annul the rst, nor does the third annul the secondinstead it augments it. Thus, while the nal product constitutes one work, this work was written in three different stages, having been twice updated in view of changed circum-stances. This, on the one hand, explains the prophecys cohesion, the shared formal characteristics, and the absence of the standard openings and conclusions that are qualities of prophetic units, while on the other hand, accounting for the explicit unevenness between the segments that reveal it as one work written in the course of three historical situations. The diverse historical backdrops rule in favor of a multi-phased com-position, though the unity of the work is conveyed through the consistent use of the principle of measure for measure in each of the three oracles. The prophet applies this principle in all three prophecies: in each prophecy, the prophet depicts a different sin of Edom and in each he methodically anticipates its judgment with an additional application of measure for measure.


/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False

/CreateJDFFile false /Description > /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ > /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ]>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice

assis obadiah jsot dec 2014

Documents