Dating+of+the+Book+of+Joel

toc

=**Problem of Dating**=

Of all books in the bible, many argue that the date for the book of Joel is the most difficult to determine. So why bother? Though it may take work, establishing a reliable date for the book helps one to place Joel in its proper place in the canon and thereby establish its greater relevance in the scope of God’s plan. Furthermore, establishing a date is essential for establishing the historical background, which provides greater insights into the text. That is why it is worthwhile to delve into this issue of dating the book of Joel. There is no easy solution to the complex problem of dating the book of Joel. [i] But why is this? Very little is explicitly stated about the man himself, besides that his name means “Yahweh is God.” There is no direct reference to the time when he prophesied. For the most part he remains a shadowy figure among the prophets. [ii] Despite the multiplicity of arguments that both sides have hurled at the issue, much of the evidence adduced is clearly indecisive.

=**Pre-exilic or Post-exilic Authorship?**=

The suggested views range from pre-exilic to exilic to post-exilic. Most recently, dating has fallen primarily into two broad categories of pre- and post-exilic authorship. [iii] Many conservative commentators have preferred the era of the minority of Joash (835- 789 B.C.), under the regency of the High Priest Jehoiada (2 Kings 11). [iv] In the book of Joel one finds no critique of any of the royal class. One would think that the leaders of the nation would be pointed out in a time of national crisis, but instead the priests seem to be in charge. Many of the prophets critique royalty, such as Isaiah and Micah. That is why the traditional view has been for an early, pre-exilic dating of the book during the time of Joash, when Joash was a young boy and Jehoiada the priest was in charge. Joel would not have critiqued a boy. The dating would have to be early in his reign, for one finds no mention in the book of Joel of the Syrians, who became a great threat to Israel in the later years of Joash’s reign (2 Kings 11: 17-18). One also finds signs of an economic depression in the time of Joash, seen in a reluctance of the priests to contribute to the temple rebuilding project. This could be associated with the locust plague. Granted, there is no direct mention of the locust plague in the time of Joash, or anywhere else for that matter, but the lack of a critique of royalty seems to suggest that Joel could have prophesied in the time of Joash.

Another reason, at first glance, for a pre-exilic view is the constellation of foreign nations mentioned in chapter 3 with the history of Judah. After the reign of Joash Judah was never again faced by this assortment of enemies. Yet Finley argues that this data does not rule out the possibility of a post-exilic date. Babylon and Assyria may have already fallen by the time of the Persian period, that being the reason they were not mentioned. The absence of the mention of Persia could simply reflect the generally positives relations with that nation, he suggests. He notes that Tyre, Sidon, and Philistia are mentioned in Zechariah 9:2-6 and Zech. 14:16-19. Also the mention of Greeks and Sabateans, while it does not militate against a pre-exilic date, would fit naturally with the post-exilic period. [v] The Post-exilic view does have its tenets as well, which Garrett explains comprehensively. [vi] The lack of a mention of kings could be because there were no kings in the post-exilic period. However, the books of Haggai and Zechariah refer to Zerubabbel of the royal line (Zechariah 4:6; Haggai 1:1). The lack of the mention of the Northern kingdom seems to suggest that Joel was post-exilic because at those times there was no Northern kingdom. However, Joel may have had other reasons for excluding any mention of Israel. Also, since Joel seems to quote Obadiah, many scholars who propose a postexilic date for Obadiah insist that Joel also must be post-exilic. Yet this assumes a late date for Obadiah which is an entirely separate and lengthy discussion of its own.

=**Solution**=

In sorting through the arguments for both the pre- and post-exilic views, an early pre-exilic date seems likely based on intertextual arguments oftentimes ignored or forgotten by those who take a late post-exilic view. Sometimes forgotten is Joel’s intertextual relationship with Deuteronomy, an important argument for a pre-exilic date for the book. One must read Deuteronomy 28-30 as a context for the book of Joel, because Joel clearly sees the current situation of the locust plague through a Deuteronomic lens. A locust plague was promised as a curse for covenantal disobedience (Deut. 28:42), and moreover as a precursor to the final judgment of exile (Deut. 28:48ff). This understanding of Deuteronomy and its relationship with Joel not only lends weight to a pre-exilic dating of Joel, but it also helps one to understand Joel’s argument, the structure of the book, and its trajectory in redemptive history. Joel also has strong intertextuality with the book of Amos (Cp. Joel 3:18 with Amos 9:13; Joel 3:16 with Amos 1:2). The question becomes, “Who quoted who?” “Amos appears to be quoting from Joel in an effort to show his hearers that he is continuing the work of his predecessor.” [vii] Joel 3:16 is obviously prior to Amos 1:2 because in Joel it is the climax of a revelation; whereas Amos starts out with it, taking it, as it were, for his text. [viii] Pusey agrees: ‘The whole force of the words, as employed in Amos, depends upon their being recognized by his hearers, as a renewal of the prophecy of Joel.’” [ix] Finally, the concept of the Day of the Lord had not yet fallen into misconception and misinterpretation as it did in the days of Amos (5:18ff). [x] It could be said that Amos prophesied in order to bring Israel back to the true definition of the Day of the Lord defined in Joel.

In summation, similar prophecies in both passages, when compared, are found to be more contextually appropriate to Joel than to Amos. When Joel is compared with other Old Testament prophets, they appear to be dependent on, expand upon, or presuppose the work of Joel (cp. Ezek. 30:2 with Joel 1:15, 2:1ff; Jer. 25:30-31 with Joel 3:11, 16; Isa. 66:18 with Joel 3:2; Ezek. 47:1ff with Joel 3:18; Ezek. 38:17, 39:8 with Joel 3; and Isa. 2:4 and Mic. 4:3 with Joel 3:10). [xi] Either Joel is a patchwork of other prophets or he came first. Based on this knowledge, it makes more sense to place Joel as a pre-exilic book before Amos, narrowing the date down even further. But where exactly in the pre-exilic period before Amos does Joel fit in and why is it important? This has already been addressed, and placing the book during the time of Joash seems likely. Placing it during this time does not have critically important implications, yet it does have some significance. One must look at the expectations of Judah and Israel during the reign of Joash. Joash ruled Judah in the seventh year of Jehu king of Israel. Jehu was promised only four generations of sons to rule after him (1 Kings 10:30). This was a blessing for his obedience in eradicating the house of Ahab (2 Kings 10:30), but it was also a curse. It is likely that God promises Jehu only four sons because Jehu did not turn from the sins of Jeroboam and failed to seek the Lord whole-heartedly (2 Kings 10:31). Later in the book of Kings the prophecy came true. The fourth son, Zechariah, was conspired against and killed by Shallum, who became king. Soon after, the kingdom plunged into chaos. After the death of Zechariah, things went rapidly downhill and the nation soon went into exile.

What is the point of this historical background? The promise of four generations of sons is like a timer ticking down. Israel would most likely anticipate something ominous with the end of the fourth generation of sons. Judah would also have a great concern, seeing as northern Israel was their buffer from armies of the North. Therefore placing the book of Joel during the time of Joash, a contemporary of Jehu, gives a sense of a greater urgency for Judah to repent because they sense the bomb is ticking and time is running out. Why again is dating the book so important? Establishing the exact pre-exilic date is not as important as simply establishing that Joel was pre-exilic. That is the most important thing to consider in dating the book. A pre-exilic date has been determined most effectively by examining Joel’s relationship with Amos, other OT prophets, and the book of Deuteronomy. Joel clearly views the locust plague as a precursor to the exile per the book of Deuteronomy. He compares the locusts to an army (Joel 1:6) in order to warn Israel. If God has the power to send a locust plague, he has the power to destroy them and sent them into exile, per Deuteronomy. Or they could repent according to what God has said in Deut. 30:2 and join the repentant remnant. By giving a post-exilic date to the book, one strips Joel out of the context and flow of the Deuteronomic covenant.

[i] Irvin Busenitz, //Commentary on Joel and Obadiah// (Geanies House Fearn Ross-shire Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2003), 33. [ii] Thomas Finley, //Joel, Amos, Obadiah : An Exegetical Commentary// ([Dallas TX?]: Biblical Studies Press, 2003), 22. [iii] Busenitz, //Commentary on Joel and Obadiah//, 14. [iv] Finley, //Joel, Amos, Obadiah//, 3. [v] Ibid., 4. [vi] Duane Garrett, //Hosea, Joel// (Nashville Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1997), 286-294. [vii] Busenitz, //Commentary on Joel and Obadiah//, 33. [viii] George Robinson, //The Twelve Minor Prophets// (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 38. [ix] E Pusey, //The Minor prophets : a Commentary, Explanatory and Practical// (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953), 144. [x] Busenitz, //Commentary on Joel and Obadiah//, 33. [xi] Ibid., 34-35.

media type="custom" key="7807365"

media type="custom" key="7807367"