Joel, Book Of

VIEW:34 DATA:01-04-2020

JOEL, BOOK OF
1. Analysis.—The Book of Joel clearly falls into two parts: (1) a call to repentance in view of present judgment and the approaching Day of Jahweh, with a prayer for deliverance (Joe_1:1 to Joe_2:17); (2) the Divine answer promising relief, and after that spiritual blessing, judgment on the Gentile world, and material prosperity for Judah and Jerusalem (Joe_2:18-32; Joe_3:1-21).
(1) The immediate occasion of the call to repentance is a plague of locusts of exceptional severity (Joe_1:2 f.), extending, it would seem from the promise in the second part (Joe_2:25), over several years, and followed by drought and famine an severe as to necessitate the discontinuance of the meal- and drink-offering, i.e. probably the daily sacrifice (cf. Exo_29:41, where the same Heb. words are used of the daily meal-offering and drink-offering). This fearful calamity, which is distinctly represented as present (‘before our eyes’ Joe_1:16), heralds ‘the great and very terrible day of Jahweh’ (Joe_2:11), which will be ushered in by yet more fearful distress of the same kind (Joe_2:1-11). The reason of all this suffering actual and prospective is national sin, which, however, is not specified. Jahweh’s people have turned away from Him (implied in Joe_2:12). Let them turn back, giving expression to their penitent sorrow in tears, mourning garb, general fasting, and prayer offered by priests in the Temple (Joe_2:12-17).
(2) The second part opens with the declaration that the prayer for mercy was heard: ‘Then … the Lord … had pity on his people’ (Joe_2:18 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ). It seems to be implied that the people had repented and fasted, and that the priests had prayed in their behalf. The rendering of this passage in the AV [Note: Authorized Version.] , ‘Then will … the Lord pity his people,’ is generally rejected by modern scholars as inaccurate, being, according to Driver, ‘grammatically indefensible.’ What we have in the original is not prediction, but historical statement. This Divine pity, proceeds the prophet, speaking in Jahweh’s name, will express itself in the removal of the locusts (Joe_2:20), and in the cessation of the drought, which will restore to the land its normal fertility, and so replace famine by plenty (Joe_2:22-26). But higher blessings yet are in store for the people of Jahweh. His Spirit shall afterwards be poured but on all, inclusive even of slaves (Joe_2:28 f.). And when the Day of Jahweh comes in all its terror, it will be terrible only to the Gentile world which has oppressed Israel The gathered hosts of the former, among whom Phœnicians and Philistines are singled out for special condemnation (Joe_3:4-8), shall be destroyed by Jahweh and His angels in the Valley of Jehoshaphat (Joe_3:11 b f.]), and then Jerusalem shall be a holy city, no longer haunted by unclean aliens (Joe_3:17), and Judah, unlike Egypt and Edom, will be a happy nation dwelling in a happy because well-watered land, and Jahweh will ever abide in its midst (Joe_3:18-21).
2. Integrity.—The unity of the book was questioned by the French scholar Vernes (in 1881), who, however, admitted the weakness of his case, and by the German scholar Rothstein (in 1896), the latter finding a follower in Ryssel (in the JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] ). These critics assign the two parts to different writers in different ages. Baudissin (Einleitung) suggests extensive revision. These theories have found little acceptance. Recent criticism generally regards the book, with the exception of a gloss or two, as the work of one hand.
There are indeed two distinctly marked parts, as was shown in the analysis, but that is in no way incompatible with unity of authorship, for the following reasons: (a) The second part does not contradict but supplements the first. (b) The thought of ‘the day of Jahweh’ as a day of terror is common to both (Joe_1:15 and Joe_2:31). (c) The alleged lack of originality in the second part, in so far as it exists, can bereasonably accounted for by its apocalyptic character. (d) The distinctive features of the first part, which is mainly historic, are largely due to the special theme—the description of locusts and their ravages, which is unique in Heb. literature.
3. Date.—There is no external evidence. The place of the book in the Canon is not conclusive, for the Book of Jonah, which was manifestly written after the fall of Nineveh, is also found in the former part of the collection of the Twelve, and comes before Micah, the earliest portions of which are beyond doubt much older. Hence the question can be answered, in so far as an answer is possible, only from the book itself.
The facts bearing upon it may be briefly stated as follows: (1) The people addressed are the inhabitants of Judah (Joe_3:1; Joe_3:6; Joe_3:8; Joe_3:18 ff.), and Jerusalem (Joe_2:32; Joe_3:6; Joe_3:16 f., Joe_3:20). Zion is mentioned in Joe_2:1; Joe_2:15; Joe_2:23; Joe_2:32; Joe_3:16-17; Joe_3:21. There is no trace of the kingdom of Samaria. The name ‘Israel’ is indeed used (Joe_2:27; Joe_2:3), but, as the first and last of these passages clearly show, it is not the kingdom of Israel that is meant, but the people of God, dwelling mainly about Jerusalem. (2) There is no mention of royalty or aristocracy. (3) The Temple is repeatedly referred to (Joe_1:9; Joe_1:13 f., Joe_1:15, Joe_2:17; Joe_2:3), and by implication in the phrase ‘my holy mountain’ (Joe_2:1; Joe_2:3): its ritual is regarded as of high importance (Joe_1:9; Joe_1:18, Joe_2:14), and its ministers stand between the people and their God, giving expression to their penitence and prayer (Joe_1:9; Joe_1:13, Joe_2:17). (4) The people are called on to repent of sin (Joe_2:12 f.), but in general terms. No mention is made of idolatry or formalism, or sensuality, or oppression—the sins so sternly denounced by Amos and Isaiah. (5) The foreign nations denounced as hostile to Israel are the Phœnicians (Joe_3:4), the Philistines (ib.), Egypt and Edom (Joe_3:19). Reference is also made to the Grecians (‘sons of the Ionians,’ 3 [Heb_4:1-16]:6). and the Sahæans or S. Arabians (Joe_3:8) as slave-dealers. Assyria, Babylonia, and Aram are neither named nor alluded to. (6) The history of Judah and Jerusalem includes a national catastrophe when the people of Jahweh were scattered among the nations and the land of Jahweh was divided amongst new settlers (Joe_3:2). (7) This book of 73 verses contains 27 expressions or clauses to which parallels, more or less close, can be adduced from other OT writings, mainly prophetic. In 12 passages there is verbal or almost verbal correspondence: cf. Joe_1:15 b and Eze_30:2 f.; Joe_1:15 c and Isa_13:6; Isa_2:2 and Zep_1:15; Zep_2:6 and Nah_2:10; Joe_2:13 and Exo_34:6; Exo_2:14 and 2Sa_12:22; 2Sa_2:27 b and Eze_36:11 etc.; Joe_2:27 c and Isa_45:5 f., Isa_45:18; Joe_2:31 b, and Mal_4:5; Joe_2:32 and Oba_1:17; Oba_1:3; and Amo_1:2; Amo_3:1 and Jer_33:15 etc. In two other places there is contrast as well as parallelism. Joe_2:28 answers to Eze_39:29, but the latter has ‘on the house of Israel,’ the former ‘on all flesh,’ and Joe_3:10 is the reverse of Isa_2:4 and Mic_4:3. The last clause of Joe_2:13 is found also in Jon_4:2 in the same connexion and nowhere else. (8) The Heb. exhibits some features which are more common in late than in the earlier literature. There are a few Aramaisms: ’âlâh ‘lament’ (Joe_1:8); sôph ‘hinder part’ (Joe_2:20) for qçts; the Hiphil of nâchath Joe_3:11), and rômach (Joe_3:10)—a word of Aramaic affinities; and several expressions often met with in late writers. Still, it is not advisable to lay much stress on this point.
With these facts before them critics have concluded that the book must be either very early or late. Many, led by Credner, found evidence of pre-exilic date, and most of these, after him, selected the minority of Joash of Judah (c [Note: circa, about.] . b.c. 737). König prefers the latter part of the reign of Josiah (b.c. 640–609). Recent critics with a few exceptions (Orelli, Kirkpatrick, Volck, and to some extent Baudissin) regard the book as post-exilic: c [Note: circa, about.] . b.c. 500 (Driver, but not without hesitation); after the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah (E.Kautzsch, W. R. Smith, G. A. Smith on the whole, Martl, the school of Kuenen, Nowack, Cornill, and Horton). Positive decision between these widely divergent views is at present impossible. Much can be said, as Baudissin has recently shown, in favour of a pre-exilic date, which, if proved, would modify our conception of the growth of Israelitish religion; but several points seem to strongly favour post-exilic origin: the religions atmosphere, the political situation in so far as it can be discerned, reference to the Greeks, and the literary parallelisms, most of which are more intelligible on the assumption of borrowing by Joel than vice versa.
4. Interpretation.—The ancient Jews, as represented by the Targum, and the Fathere, who have been followed by Pusey, Hengstenberg, and others, to some extent even by Merx, regarded the locusts of the Book of Joel as not literal but symbolic. That view, however, is now generally abandoned. The seemingly extravagant descriptions of the locust-swarms, and the havoc wrought by them, have been confirmed in almost every point by modern observers. What is said about their number (Joe_1:6), the darkness they cause (Joe_2:10), their resemblance to horses (Joe_2:4), the noise they make in flight and when feeding (Joe_2:5), their irresistible advance (Joe_2:7 ff.), their amazing destructiveness (Joe_1:7; Joe_1:10 ff., Joe_2:3), and the burnt appearance of a region which they have ravaged (Joe_2:3 ab)—can hardly be pronounced exaggerated in view of the evidence collected by Pusey, Driver, G. A. Smith, and other commentators. The colouring of the picture is no doubt Oriental and poetic, but when allowance is made for that, it is seen to be wonderfully true to life. The description of the locusts as ‘the northern army’ (Joe_2:20) is indeed still unexplained, but is insufficient of itself to overthrow the literal interpretation. On the apocalyptic character of the latter portion of the book there is general agreement.
5. Doctrine.—As compared with some of the other prophetic writings, say with Deutero-Isaiah and Jonah, the Book of Joel as a whole is particularistic. The writer’s hopes of a glorious future seem limited to Judah and Jerusalem, and perhaps the Dispersion (Joe_2:32 [Heb_3:5]). On the other hand, it is remarkable that the outpouring of the Spirit is promised to ‘all flesh,’ not merely to ‘the house of Israel’—a general way of stating the promise which made the NT application possible (Act_2:16 ff.). So the book may be said to contain a germ of universalism. Its other most striking characteristic, from the doctrinal standpoint, is the importance attached to ritual and the priesthood, and the comparatively slight stress laid on conduct. Still, it is here that we find the caustic words: ‘Rend your heart and not your garments’ (Joe_2:13).
6. Style.—In style the Book of Joel takes a very high place in Hebrew literature. It is throughout clearly, elegantly, and forcefully written. Skilful use is made of parallelism—note the five short clauses in Joe_1:10; of Oriental hyperbole (Joe_2:30 f. [Heb_3:3 f.]); and of word-play, e.g. shuddadh sadheh ‘the field is wasted’ (Joe_1:10), yâbhçshu … hôbhîsh ‘are withered … is ashamed’ (Joe_1:12), shôd mish-shaddai ‘destruction from the Almighty’ (Joe_1:15), and the play on the verb shâphat and the name Jeho-shaphat in Joe_3:2; Joe_3:12).
W. Taylor Smith.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

Joel, Book Of
I. Personal Circumstances. —
1. Birthplace. — Pseudo-Epiphanius (2, 245) records a tradition that the prophet Joel was of the tribe of Reuben, born and buried at Bethhoron (v.r. Bethoim, etc.), between Jerusalem and Caesarea. It is most likely that he lived in Judaea. for his commission was to Judah, as that of Hosea had been to the ten tribes (Jerome, Comment. in Joel.). He exhorts the priests, and makes frequent mention of Judah and Jerusalem (1, 14; 2, 1, 153 32; 3, 1, 12, 17, 20, 21). It has been made a question whether he were a priest himself (Winer, Realw.), but there do not seem to be sufficient grounds for determining it in the affirmative, though some recent writers (e.g. Maurice, Prophets and Kings, p. 189) have taken this view.
2. Date. — Various opinions have been held respecting the period in which Joel lived. It appears most probable that he was contemporary with Amos and Isaiah, and delivered his predictions in the reign of Uzziah, B.C. cir. 800. This is the opinion maintained by Abarbanel, Vitringa, Rosenmüller, De Wette, Holzhausen, and others (see D.H. v. Kölln, Diss. de Joel oetate, Marb. 1811; Jäger, in the Tübing. theol. Zeitschr. 1828, 2, 227). Credner (Joel, p. 38 sq.), with whom agree Movers (Chronicles 119 sq.), Hitzig (Kleine Proph. p. 4), and Meier (Joel, p. 16 sq.), places him in the time of Joash; Bertholdt (Einleit. 4, 1604) in that of Hezekiah; Cramer and Eckermann in Josiah's reign; Jahn (Einl. 2, 476) in Manasseh's; and Schröder still later; while some have placed him during the Babylonian captivity (Steudel, in Bengel's Archiv., 2, 232), and even after it (Vatke. Bibl. Theol. p. 462). The principal reason for the above conclusion; besides the order of the books (the Sept., however, places Joel after Amos and Micah), is the special and exclusive mention of the Egyptians and Edomites as enemies of Judah, no allusion being made to the Assyrians or Babylonians, who arose at a later period.
II. Contents. — We find, what we should expect on the supposition of Joel being the first prophet to Judah, only a grand outline of the whole terrible scene, which was to be depicted more and more in detail by subsequent prophets (Browne, Ordo Soecl. p. 691). The scope, therefore, is not any particular invasion, but the whole day of the Lord. “This book of Joel is a type of the early Jewish prophetical discourse, and may explain to us what distant events in the history of the land would expand it, and bring fresh discoveries within the sphere of the inspired man's vision” (Maurice, Prophets and Kings, p. 179). The proximate event to which the prophecy related was a public calamity, then impending on Judaea, of a twofold character: want of water, and a plague of locusts, continuing for several years. The prophet exhorts the people to turn to God with penitence, fasting, and prayer, and then, he says, the plague shall cease, and the rain descend in its season, and the land yield her accustomed fruit — nay, the time will be a most joyful one; for God, by the outpouring of his Spirit, will impart to his worshippers increased knowledge of himself, and, after the excision of the enemies of his people, will extend through them the blessings of true religion to heathen lands. Browne (Ordo Soecl. p. 692) regards the contents of the prophecy as embracing two visions, but it is better to consider it as one connected representation (Hengstenberg, Winer). For its interpretation we must observe not isolated facts of history, but the idea. The swarm of locusts was the medium through which this idea, “the ruin upon the apostate Church,” was represented to the inward contemplation of the prophet; but, in one unbroken connection, the idea goes on to penitence, return, blessing, outpouring of the Spirit, judgments on the enemies of the Church (1Pe_4:17), final establishment of God's kingdom. All prior destructions, judgments, and victories are like the smaller circles, the final consummation of all things, to which the prophecy reaches, being the outmost one of all. There are thus four natural divisions of the entire book.
1. The prophet opens his commission by announcing an extraordinary plague of locusts, accompanied with extreme drought, which he depicts in a strain of animated and sublime poetry under the image of an invading army (Joe_1:1-2; Joe_1:11). The fidelity of his highly wrought description is corroborated and illustrated by the testimonies of Shaw, Volney, Forbes, and other eminent travelers, who have been eye witnesses of the ravages committed by this most terrible of the insect tribe. SEE LOCUST.
It is to be observed that locusts are named by Moses as instruments of the divine justice (Deu_28:38-39), and by Solomon in his prayer at the dedication of the Temple (1Ki_8:37). In the second chapter the formidable aspect of the locusts, their rapid progress, their sweeping devastation, the awful murmur of their countless throngs, their instinctive marshalling, the irresistible perseverance with which they make their way over every obstacle and through every aperture, are delineated with the utmost graphic force (Justi, Die Heuschrecken-Verwüstung Joel 2, in Eichhorn's Bibliothek, 4, 30-79). Dr. Hengstenberg calls in question the reality of their flight, but, as it appears to us, without adequate reason. Other particulars are mentioned which literally can apply only to locusts, and which, on the supposition that the language is allegorical, are explicable only as being accessory traits for filling up the picture (Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 310).
Maurice (Prophets and Kings, p. 180) strongly maintains the literal interpretation of this judgment. Yet the plague contained a parable in it which it was the prophet's mission to unfold (comp. “heathen,” 1, 6). Hence a figurative interpretation was adopted by an early paraphrast, Ephrem the Syrian (A.D. 350), who supposes that by the four different denominations of the locusts were intended Tiglath-pileser, Shalmaneser, Sennacherib, and Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews, in the time of Jerome (A.D. 400), understood by the first term the Assyrians and Chaldeans; by the second, the Medes and Persians; by the third, Alexander the Great and his successors, and by the fourth, the Romans. By others, however, the prophecy was interpreted literally, and Jerome himself appears to have fluctuated between the two opinions, though more inclined to the allegorical view. Grotius applies the description to the invasions by Pul and Shalmaneser. Holzhausen attempts to unite both modes of interpretation, and applies the language literally to the locusts, and metaphorically to the Assyrians. It is singular, however, that, if a hostile invasion be intended, not the least hint is given of personal injury sustained by the inhabitants; the immediate effects are confined entirely to the vegetable productions and the cattle. Dr. Hengstenberg, while strongly averse from the literal sense, is not disposed to limit the metaphorical meaning to any one event or class of invaders. “The enemy,” he remarks, “are designated only as north countries. From the north, however, from Syria, all the principal invasions of Palestine proceeded. We have, therefore, no reason to think exclusively of any one of them; nor ought we to limit the prophecy to the people of the old covenant. Throughout all centuries there is but one Church of God existing in unbroken connection. That this Church, during the first period of its existence, was concentrated in a land into which hostile irruptions were made from the north was purely accidental. To make this circumstance the boundary stone of the fulfilment of prophecy were just as absurd as if one were to assert that the threatening of Amos, ‘By the sword shall all sinners of my people die,' has not been fulfilled in those who perished after another manner” (Christology Keith's translation, 3, 104). In accordance with the literal (and certainly the primary) interpretation of the prophecy, we should render אֶתאּהִמּוֹרֶהas in our A.V., “the former rain,” with Rosenmüller and the lexicographers, rather than “a (or the) teacher of righteousness,” with margin of A.V., Hengstenberg, and others. The allusion to the Messiah which Hengstenberg finds in this word, or to the ideal teacher (Deu_18:18), of whom Messiah was the chief, scarcely accords with the immediate context.
2. The prophet, after describing the approaching judgments, calls on his countrymen to repent, assuring them of the divine placability and readiness to forgive (Joe_2:12-17). He foretells the restoration of the land to its former fertility, and declares that Jehovah would still be their God (Joe_2:18-26; comp. Müller, Anmerk. ib. 2, 16, in Brenz. and Verd. Biblioth. 2, 161).
3. The אֵחֲרֵיכֵןof 3:1 in the Hebrew, “afterwards,” 2:27 of the A.V., raises us to a higher level of vision, and brings into view Messianic times and scenes (comp. Tysche, Illustratio vaticinii. Joelis 3 [Gött. 1788]; Steudel, Disq. in Joelis 3 Tübing. 1820]). Here, says Steudel, we have a Messianic prophecy altogether. If this prediction has ever yet been fulfilled, we must certainly refer the event to Acts 2. The best commentators are agreed upon this. We must not, however, interpret it thus to the exclusion of all reference to preparatory events under the earlier dispensation, and still less to the exclusion of later Messianic times. Acts 2 virtually contained the whole subsequent development. The outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost was the ἀπαρχη, while the full accomplishment and the final reality are yet to come. But here both are blended in one, and the whole passage has therefore a double aspect (see Dresde, Proph. Joelis de effusione Sp. S. [Witt. 1782]). The passage is well quoted by Peter from the first prophet to the Jewish kingdom. His quoting it shows that the Messianic reference was the prevailing one in his day, though Act_2:39 proves that he extended his reference to the end of the dispensation. The expression “all flesh” (Act_2:17) is explained by the following clauses, by which no principle of distribution is meant, but only that all classes, without respect of persons, will be the subjects of the Spirit's influences. All distinction of races, too, will be done away (comp. Joe_2:32 with Rom_10:12-13).
4. Lastly, the accompanying portents and judgments upon the enemies of God (ch. 3, A.V.; 4, Hebrews), and their various solutions, according to the interpreters, in the repeated deportations of the Jews by neighboring merchants, and sale to the Macedonians (1Ma_3:41; Eze_27:13), followed by the sweeping away of the neighboring nations (Maurice); in the events accompanying the crucifixion, in the fall of Jerusalem, in the breaking up of all human polities. But here again the idea includes all manifestations of judgment, ending with the last. The whole is shadowed forth in dim outline, and, while some crises are past, others are yet to come (comp. 3:13-21 with Matthew 24 and Revelation 19). SEE DOUBLE SENSE.
III. The style of Joel, it has been remarked, unites the strength of Micah with the tenderness of Jeremiah. In vividness of description he rivals Nahum, and in sublimity and majesty is scarcely inferior to Isaiah and Habakkuk (Couz, Diss. de charactere poetico Joelis [Tüb. 1783]). “Imprimis est elegans, clarus, fusus, fluensque; valde etiam sublimis acer, fervidus” (Lowth, De Sacra Poesi Hebr. Prael. 21). Many German divines hold that Joel was the pattern of all the prophets. Some say that Isa_2:2-4; Mic_4:1-3, are direct imitations of him. Parts of the New Test. also (Rev_9:2 sq.; Rev_14:18) are pointed out as passages in his style.
The canonicity of this book has never been called in question, IV. Commentaries. — The special exegetical helps on the book of Joel as a whole are the following, to the most important of which we prefix an asterisk: Ephrem Syrus, Explanatio (in Syr., in Opp. 5, 249); Hugo a St. Victor, Annotationes (in Opp. 1); Seb. Münster, Commentarius (Aben- Ezra's, Basil. 1530, 8vo).; Luther, Enarratio [brief, with Amos and Obadiah] (Argent. 1536, 8vo); also Commentarius (Vitemb. 1547, 4to; both in German, Jen. 1553, 4to; and, together with Sententioe, in Opp. 3, 497; 4, 781, 821); Seb. Tuscan, Commentarius (Colon. 1556, fol.); Topsell, Commentarius (London, 1556, 1613, 4to; also in Engl. ib. 1599, 4to); Mercier, Commentarius [on first five minor proph.] (Paris, s. a. fol.; Lugd. 1621, 4to) ; Genebrard, Adnotationes (from Aben-Ezra and others, Paris, 1563, 4to); Draconis, Explicatio [with Micah and Zechariah] (Vitemb. 1565, fol.; and later separately); Selnecker, Anmerkungen (Lpz. 1578, 4to); Schadaeus, Synopsis (Argent. 1588, 4to); Matthias, Proelectiones (Basil. 1590, 8vo); Simonis, Joel propheta (Cracov. 1593, 4to); Bunny, Enarratio (Lond. 1583, 1595, 8vo); Bonerus, Paraphrasis (F. ad O. 1597, 4to); Wolder, Diexodus (Vitemb. 1605, 4to); Gesner, Comment. (Vitemb. 1614. 8vo); Tarnovius, Commentarius (Rost. 1627, 4to) ; Ursinus, Commentarius (Francf. 1641, 8vo); Strahl, Erklär. (Wittenb. 1650, 4to); Leusden, Explicatio [Rabbinical, includ. Obad.] (Ultraj. 1657, 8vo); De Veil, Commentarius (Par. 1676, 8vo); *Pocock, Commentary (Oxf. 1691, fol.; in Latin, Lipsiae, 1695, 4to) ; Hase, Analysis (Brem. 1697, 4to); *Van Toll, Vitlegginge (Utrecht, 1700, 4to); Schurrmann, Schaubühne (Wesel, 1700, 4to; in Dutch, ib. 1703, 4to); Zierold, Auslegung [mystical] (Francfort, 1720, 4to); J.A. Turretin, in his De S. S. Interpretatione, p. 307-45 (ed. Teller, Tr. ad Rh. 1728, 8vo); Chandler, Commentary (Lond. 1735, 4to); Richter, Animadversiones (Vitemb. 1747, 8vo), Baumgarten, Auslegung (Halle, 1756, 4to); Cramer, Commentarius (in his Scyth. Denkm. Kiel and Hamb. 1777-8, p. 143-245); Couz, Dissertatio, etc. (Tüb. 1783, 4to); Büttner, Joel vates (Coburg, 1784, 8vo); Eckermann, Erklärung (Tüb. u. Lpz. 1786, 8vo); Justi, Erläuterung (Lpz. 1792, 8vo); Wiggers, Erklärung (Gött. 1799, 8vo); Horsley, Notes (in Bibl. Crit. 2, 390); M. Philippson, מנְחָה טְהוֹרָה[including Hosea] (Dessau, 1805, 8vo); Swanborg, Notoe (Upsala, 1806, 8vo); *Rosenmüller, Scholia (in vol. 7, pt. 1, Lipsiae, 1827, 8vo); Schröder, Anmerk. [includ. other poet. books] (in Harfenklänge, etc., Hildsh. 1827, 8vo; also separately, Lpz. 1829, 8vo); Holzhausen, Weissagung, etc. (Götting. 1829, 8vo); *Credner, Erklärung [Rationalistic] (Halle, 1831, 8vo); *Meier, Erklärung (Tüb. 1844, 8vo); Robinson, Homilies (Lond. 1865, 8vo). SEE PROPHETS, MINOR.
8. A chief of the Gadites, resident in Bashan (1Ch_5:12). B.C. cir. 782.
9. A Levite, son of Uzziah or Azariah, and father of Elkanah, of the family of Kohath (1Ch_6:36), and one of those who cooperated with Hezekiah in his restoration of the Temple services (2Ch_29:12). B.C. 726. In 1Ch_6:24 he is called SHAUL by an evident error of transcribers.
10. A descendant of Simeon, apparently one of those whose enlarging families compelled them to emigrate to the valley of Gedor, whose aboriginal inhabitants they expelled (1Ch_4:35). B.C. cir. 712.
11. Son of Zichri, and prefect of the Benjamites resident at Jerusalem after the captivity (Neh_11:9). B.C. 536.
12. One of the “sons” of Nebo, who divorced his Gentile wife after the return from Babylon (Ezr_10:43). B.C. 459.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores