I. TITLE OF THE BOOK: In both the Hebrew and Greek canons the book is titled after its main character, Daniel.

A. Hebrew: laynd meaning ‘God is Judge.’

B. Greek: DANIHL

II. CANONICAL PLACEMENT OF THE BOOK

A. Hebrew:

1. The Hebrew Scriptures were probably originally canonized into a two-fold division: the Law and the Prophets¹

2. By around the second century B.C.² a three-fold division of the Hebrew Scriptures arose: The Law, The Prophets, and The Writings³

a. The three-fold division included the same books as the two-fold division

b. There are several possible reasons for a three-fold division:⁴

1) A distinction was made between books which were written by men who held the prophetic office, and men who only had the prophetic gift

2) Some at a later date may have felt that those books which were not written by “prophets” were not fully canonical

3) A more practical purpose was served by the topical and festal⁵ significance rather than by the two-fold categories

3. In the Hebrew canon Daniel is not included among the prophets

4. In the Hebrew canon Daniel is included among the writings with the “historical” books. This emphasis may well have been appropriate for the following reasons:

a. Daniel is not in the role of a prophet who is speaking to the nation to repent of their ethical misdeeds

b. Although Daniel certainly wrote down prophetic visions, they are a message to the nation to enable them to walk through their history with the confidence that God is working among them even though they are being dominated by the Gentiles. If historical literature is emphasizing a revelation (record) of the sovereign work of God in history, then Daniel certainly applies because the prophetic visions are also a record (in advance) of the sovereign work of God in history as the Gentiles overrun Israel (who is in sin), but as Israel is also going to be ultimately delivered. As in other historical literature, this book would enable Israel to walk more faithfully with God when they saw His inclusive plan for them.

c. Perhaps the Masoretes did not consider Daniel to be a prophet since he was not appointed or ordained as a prophet in the text in the usual way; rather he was a servant of the government

d. Much of Daniel’s writing does not bear the character of prophecy, but rather of history

B. Greek & English:

1. The Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (The Septuagint or LXX c. 280-150 B.C.) divided the Old Testament according to subject matter which is the basis of the modern four-fold classification of the: five books of Law, twelve books of History, five books of Poetry, and seventeen books of Prophecy⁶

2. Daniel was a part of the major prophets

3. Our English editions follow this division

4. This is also a logical placement of Daniel becuase of the many prophetic visions in the book

III. DATE OF THE BOOK⁷

A. Late--Second Century (soon after 168 B.C.; usually 165 B.C.)⁸

1. Those who hold to a late date see this work as “historical fiction” designed to “encourage the resistance movement against the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes”⁹

2. Some argue that Daniel must have been late because it was placed among the “writings” of the Hebrew Scriptures, but many of the books in the “writings” are very old like Job, Davidic psalms, and Solomonic writings. Therefore, a placement in the “writings” does not determine a late date¹⁰

3. The date of 168 matches the evidence spoken of in Daniel 11:31-39; therefore, it is assumed that the book must have been written soon after that time

4. Most who hold to a late date for Daneil emphasize it as being apocalyptic literature:

a. While most all would agree that there are apocolyptic elementes to Daniel, this does not require that it also be modled after all aspects of apocalyptic literature

b. Some aspects of apocalyptic literature which Daniel is accused of are:

1) It is pseudepigraphic--a false author is attached to the book to give it credibility

2) The prophecies are vaticinia ex eventu or “prophecies-after-the-event”

5. The sensational events (3; 5; 6) are necessarily writing conventions like those which were employed by noncanonical literature of the intertestamental period

6. Often there is a hermeneutical presupposition against predictive writing¹¹

7. Often there is a non-miraculous presupposition against narratives like in Daniel (3; 5; 6).

B. Early--Sixth Century:¹²

1. Manuscript Evidence: Manuscripts discovered at Qumran (e.g., a Florilegium found in cave 4Q), which date from the Maccabean period make it very unlikely that the book was written during the time of the Maccabees (e.g., 168 B.C.) since it would have taken some time for it to have been accepted and included in the canon¹³

2. Linguistic Evidence:

a. Aramaic: Daniel’s Aramaic demonstrates grammatical evidences for an early date more closely associated with the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. than with the second century B.C.¹⁴

b. Persian:

1) Persian loan words in Daniel do not necessarily argue against an early date for the book since Daniel, who lived under the Persians, could have placed the material in its final form at the latter part of his life¹⁵

2) Four of the nineteen Persian words are not translated well by the Greek renderings of about 100 B.C. implying that their meaning was lost or drastically changed meaning that it is very unlikely that Daniel was written in 165 B.C.¹⁶

3) The Persian words which are cited in Daniel are specifically old Persian words dating from around 300 B.C. This argues against a 165 date¹⁷

c. Greek: Three Greek loan words in Daniel need not argue for a late date since there may well have been Greek writing prior to Plato (370 B.C.) where these words could have been used, and since they are the names of musical instruments which often are circulated beyond national boundaries, and since Greek words are found in the Aramaic documents of Elephantine dated to the fifth-century B.C.¹⁸

3. Apocalyptic Evidence: The themes of the prominance of angels, the last judgment, the resurrection of the dead, and the establishment of the final kingdom are not themes that are limited to later apocryphal literature, but have their roots in earlier biblical literature and even Zechariah¹⁹

4. Literary Evidence: The reason the development of history seems to stop with Antiochus IV Epiphanes is not necessarily because that was when the writer lived; it is probably for literary/theological reasons, he best foreshadows the Antichrist to come²⁰

5. Predictive Evidence: The fourth empire in Daniel 2 is not that of the Greeks as those who hold to a late date affirm; this is substantiated by the vision in chapter 7 were the second empire is not Media and the third empire is not Perisa, but is Greece which divides into four (the Persian empire never divided into four parts). This is also substantiated in Daniel 9 with the vision of the ram and the he-goat (with one horn and then four horns--divided Greece).²¹

IV. AUTHOR OF THE BOOK

A. Late: Someone living during the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (these go with the arguments above)

B. Early: Daniel the self-proclaimed author of the book living during the sixth century B.C.

1. External Evidence:

a. Jesus identifies Daniel as the prophet who spoke of the “abomination of desolation” (cf. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) in the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24:15-16 (cf. also Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20)

b. The Jewish Talmud attributes the writing of “Daniel” to the Great Synagogue²² but it is questionable whether such a synagogue ever really existed.

c. The writer shows an accurate knowledge of sixth-century events:

1) The city of Shushan is described as being in the province of Elam back in the time of the Chaldeans (8:2)²³

2) In chapter 9 the writer goes beyond the Maccabean period by predicting the crucifixion of Christ and the following destruction of the city of Jerusalem²⁴

2. Internal Evidence: The author refers to himself as Daniel throughout the book (cf. 7:1; the rest of the references are in terms of pronouns either third person or first person singular)

V. PURPOSES OF THE BOOK

A. “To establish hope in future restoration by reflecting in vision God’s dealing with Israel’s national sin through the times of the Gentiles”²⁵

B. To instruct and admonish the people of God in the crisis of faith²⁶

C. To challenge “the faithful to be awake and ready for the unexpected intervention of God in wrapping up all of human history”²⁷

---

¹ The two-fold division is argued upon (1) the way in which Moses' Law is referred to as a unit throughout the Scriptures, (2) the way in which the historical books are linked together as a unit, (3) the reference in Daniel to the Law and the books [9:2], and (4) the recognition of the Former prophetic books by the Latter (See Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, pp. 148-161).

² Prologue to Ecclesiasticus (c. 132 B.C.), Jesus in Luke 24:44 (A.D. 30) Josephus, Against Apion, I.8 (A.D. 37-100).

³ The Writings include: (1) Poetical Books--Psalms, Proverbs, Job, (2) Five Rolls (Megilloth)--Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Ecclesiastes, (3) Historical Books--Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles

Sometimes Ruth was attached to Judges, and Lamentations was attached to Jeremiah thereby making the Hebrew canon comprised of 22 books rather than the more usual 24 books (see Geisler and Nix, General, pp. 18-19).

⁴ Critical scholars assume that the three-fold division reflects dates of canonization in accordance with their dates of compositions--Law (400 B.C.), Prophets (c. 200 B.C.), Writings (c. A.D. 100). However, this thesis is untenable in light of early reports of a three-fold division (c. 132 B.C.; see above). See Geisler and Nix, General, p. 151.

This critical approach is suggested by La Sor et al as an explanation for the placement of Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, Esther, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes when they write, Essentially, the purpose of the Writings as a whole was to collect those sacred books whose purpose, character, or date excluded them form the collections of law and prophecy (Old, p. 508-509).

⁵ Song of Solomon (eighth day of Passover), Ruth (second day of Weeks, or Pentecost), Lamentations (ninth day of Ab, in mourning for the destruction of Solomon's temple), Ecclesiastes (third day of Tabernacles), Esther (Purim).

⁶

Law	Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
History	Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther
Poetry	Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon
Prophets/Major	Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel
Prophets/Minor	Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

For a more extensive overview see Geisler and Nix, General, pp. 17-25.

⁷ Concerning the importance of this study Waltke writes, This is is of greatest importance for at least three reasons. First, the sovereignty of the revealed God in this book is at stake. If Daniel's God was able to predict the future, then there is reason to believe that the course of history is completely under Yahweh's sovereignty. On the other hand, if the predictions are fraudulent, then one must remain agnostic about Daniel's God. Second, the divine inspiration of the Bible hangs in the balance. If the book contains true predictions, then there is firm reason to believe that this book ultimately owes its origin to One who can predict the future. On the contrary, if it is a spurious, fraudulent, although well-intentioned piece of literature, then the reliability of other books in the canon of Scripture may legitimately be questioned. Third, one's understanding of the nature of Jesus Christ depends on the answer to the date of the book. Jesus Christ regarded the Book of Daniel as a prophetic preview of future history and indeed of the divine program for a future that still lies ahead (Matt. 24:15-16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20). If he is wrong in His interpretation of the book, then He must be less than the omniscient, inerrant God incarnate. On the other hand, if His appraisal is right, then His claim to deity cannot be questioned in this regard (Bruce K. Waltke, The Date of the Book of Daniel. Bibliotheca Sacra 133 (1976): 320).

⁸ For a concise overview of this position and the imaginative working with the evidence to support their presuppositions see Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 611ff. Archer provides an excellent discussion of the supports for a late date with good answers throughout (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3387ff).

⁹ Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 388; Brevard S. Childs writes, The visions called the community of faith to obedience and challenged it to hold on because the end of time which Daniel foresaw would shortly come. Because it was written in the form of vaticinium ex eventu, the effect of this message would be electrifying. Daniel had prophesied about the rise and fall of the earlier three kingdoms and these events had occurred. Now his vision of the last days was being fulfilled before their very eyes. The 'little horn' had appeared; the persecution had reached its height; the end was imminent. Therefore 'blessed is he who waits' (Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 615-16).

¹⁰ In addition Archer writes, the statement in Josephus (Contra Apionem 1:8) ... indicates strongly that in the first century A.D., Daniel was included among the prophets in the second division of the Old Testament canon; hence it could not have been assigned to the Kethubim until a later period (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 388).

¹¹ This was first advanced by a Neoplatonic philosopher named Porphyry who lived in the third century after Christ and wrote his fifteen volume set, Against the Christians. See R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament: With a Comprehensive Review of Old Testament Studies and a Special Supplement on the Apocrypha, 1110. Waltke writes, But the question naturally arises, If the evidence for a sixth-century date of composition is so certain, why do scholars reject it in favor of an unsupportable Maccabean hypothesis? The reason is that most scholars embrace a liberal, naturalistic, and rationalistic philiosphy. Naturalism and rationalism are ultimately based on faith rather than on evidence; therefore, this faith will not allow them to accept the supernatural predictions (Bruce K. Waltke, The Date of the Book of Daniel. Bibliotheca Sacra 133 [1976]: 329).

¹² Archer writes, Despite the numerous objections whihc have been advanced by scholars who regard this as a prophecy written after the event, there is no good reason for denying to the sixth-century Daniel the composition of the entire work. This represents a collection of his memoirs made at the end of a long and eventful career which included government service from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar in the 590s [605?] to the reign of Cyrus the Great in the 530s. The appearance of Persian technical terms indicates a final recension of these memoirs at a time when Persian teminology had already infiltrated into the vocabulary of Aramaic. The most likely date of the final ediition of the book, therefore, would be about 530 B.C. (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 387).

¹³ Bruce K. Waltke, The Date of the Book of Daniel. Bibliotheca Sacra 133 (1976): 321-322. Concerning the supposed error of the writer in 11:40-45 to predict the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (cf. I and II Maccabees) Waltke writes, if this be so, it seems incredible that the alleged contemporaries would have held his work in such high regard referring to him as 'Daniel the prophet,' a title bestowed on him in a florilegium found in 4Q (Ibid.).

¹⁴ Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 398-401. Daniel's Aramaic is closer to Eastern Aramaic (rather than Western Aramaic) much like that which is found in the Elephantine papyri (fifth-century B.C.) and Ezra (450 B.C.) than it is with the Genesis Apocryphon found in Qumran Cave One from the first century B.C. (Bruce K. Waltke, The Date of the Book of Daniel. Bibliotheca Sacra 133 (1976): 322-23; Franz Rosenthal, Die Aramaistisch Forschung (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1939), 66ff; Kenneth A. Kitchen, et. al., The Aramaic of Daniel, in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, 31-79.

¹⁵ Kenneth A. Kitchen, et. al., The Aramaic of Daniel, in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, 41-42; Bruce K. Waltke, The Date of the Book of Daniel. Bibliotheca Sacra 133 (1976): 323.

¹⁶ Kenneth A. Kitchen, et. al., The Aramaic of Daniel, in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, 43.

¹⁷ Ibid., 43-44.

¹⁸ For a fuller discussion see Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 395-97 where he also shows how the Greek (or lack thereof) is a strong support for an early date for Daniel. Bruce K. Waltke, The Date of the Book of Daniel. Bibliotheca Sacra 133 (1976): 324..

¹⁹ Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 402-403.

²⁰ See Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 404; Matthew 24; Mark 13.

²¹ For a further discussion see Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 403-407; Bruce K. Waltke, The Date of the Book of Daniel. Bibliotheca Sacra 133 (1976): 326-329. Waltke writes, If then the second and third kingdoms refer to Medo-Persia and Greece respectively, the fourth kingdom must be Rome. In this case, even those who contend for a Maccabean date of authorship must admit true prediction in the Book of Daniel for the Roman Empire did not appear in Israel's history until 63 B.C. (Ibid., 328).

²² B.Bat 15a.

²³ Archer writes, But from the Greek and Roman historians we learn that in the Persian period Shushan, or Susa, was assigned to a new province which was named after it, Susiana, and the formerly more extensive province of Elam was restricted to the territory west of the Eulaeus River [cf. Strabo, 15:3, 12; 16:1, 17; Pliny, Natural History, 6. 27] (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 408).

²⁴ Waltke writes, Daniel, in addition to predicting that Rome will succeed Greece, also predicts the very date that Israel's Messiah will be crucified. In Daniel 9:24 the writer predicts that 69 'weeks' (= 483 years) after the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem Messiah will be 'cut off.' Artaxerxes issued this decree in the month Nisan of his twentieth year of 444 B.C. (Neh. 2:2).

Hoehner demonstrates that Jesus Christ was crucified on the Passover in the year A.D. 33. The time interval between the first of Nisan (444 B.C.) and the Passover (A.D. 33) is 173,880 days (476 x 365 = 173,740 days; March 4 [1 Nisan] to March 29 [the date of the Passover in A.D. 33] = 24 days; add 116 days for leapyears). Now a prophetic year (also a lunar year) is 360 days (cf. Rev 11) and 483 years multiplied by that figure also equal 173,880.

Here then is confirmatory proof that the book contains genuine predictions (Bruce K. Waltke, The Date of the Book of Daniel. Bibliotheca Sacra 133 (1976): 329).

²⁵ Elliott E. Johnson, Principle of Recognition, 55.

²⁶ Although Childs does not hold to a sixth century date for Daniel and comes about this statement in a 'round-a-bout manner, his analysis of its design is true (Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 622). Later he writes, the biblical writers pointed to the end of the world in order to call forth a faithful testimony from the people of God. They sought to evoke a commitment 'even unto death' (Ibid.).

²⁷ Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 622. Continuing he writes, The stories of Daniel and his friends picture men who bear eloquent testimony in both word and deed to an unswerving hope in God's rule. As a consequence, they were made free to hang loosely on the world because they knew their hope rested elsewhere (Ibid.).

I. TITLE OF THE BOOK

A. In Hebrew the title comes of the prophetic author, lway , the combination of two names of God--Yahweh & Elohim. The affirmation is probably “Yahweh is God.” This is the reverse of Elijah (“God is Yahweh”)

B. In Greek the title is simply a transliteration of the Hebrew IWHL

II. AUTHOR: Joel

A. Nothing is know about Joel other than his being the son of Pethuel (who is also unknown) 1:1

B. He was from Judah

C. Perhaps references to Jerusalem indicate that he was from Jerusalem

III. CANONICAL PLACEMENT

A. In the Hebrew Canon Joel is placed among the minor prophets after Ezekiel & Hosea and before Amos

B. In the Greek canon Joel is placed after Daniel and Hosea and before Amos. Our English order matches the Greek placement of the book.

IV. DATE: Although it is not possible for one to be certain, it seems that a late preexilic date is the best choice for the time of Joel (609-586 B.C.)

A. Early Preexilic (Ninth Century, 835 B.C.):¹

1. The early placement of Joel in the Hebrew Canon (second minor prophet after Hosea); but this is inconclusive to chronology--especially since the LXX places the book in a different place (e.g., after Daniel).

2. The enemies of Judah are her earlier enemies of Tyre, Sidon, Philistia, Egypt, and Edom (Joel 3:4, 19); but this is inconclusive since even a prophet like Ezekiel pronounces prophecies against these life long enemies of Judah (Ezek 25--32; cf. also Jer 46--49; Zeph 2:4-7).

3. The type of government described in the prophecy (the rule of elders [1:2; 2:16] and priests [1:9, 13; 2:17]) supports the time when Joash became king at age seven; but these arguments will also be used to support a late date for the book (when there was no king).

B. Late Preexilic (Seventh-Sixth Century, 609-586 B.C.):²

1. Joel 2 seems to picture the Babylonians vividly enough that he did not need to specifically identify them in the chapter; their presence is imposing.

2. Joel 3:2b which speaks of Judah having been “scattered,” and “divided” may have reference to the deportation of 597 B.C. (2 Kings 24:10-16); this also allows for Joel’s reference to the temple (1:9, 13; 2:17) which stood until 586 (cf. 2 Ki 25:9)

3. Joel 1:15 and 2:1-11 are anticipating the final destruction of Judah in 586 B.C. (2 Ki 25:1-21)

4. Joel’s “Day of the Lord” is referring to the coming destruction in 586 B.C. (cf. Jer 5:17)

5. The slave trade between the Phoenicians and Greeks fits with this historical period (cf. Ezk 27:13)

6. Chisholm argues that 2:18-19 “seems to recorded God’s mercy to Joel’s generation, implying they truly repented .... If so, such a sequence of events is difficult to harmonize with the historical record of Judah’s final days.”³
But need one conclude from 2:18-19 that Judah did repent, or that they were being exhorted to repent. If the latter is the case, and Judah did not repent, there would be no problem with the historical fall of Jerusalem which followed.
Moreover, if one understands chapter two to be still describing the same historical plague as chapter one as a “local” Day of the Lord which then jumbs into the eschaton, the mercy experienced in 2:18-19 would not have to refer to the fall of Jerusalem.

C. Postexilic (Sixth to Fourth Century, 515-350 B.C.):⁴

1. The references to the temple in 1:9, 13; and 2:17 must refer to the second temple since Joel 3:1-2, 17 refer to the destruction of Jerusalem; but this could refer to the late preexilic period (see above)

2. The king is not the leader of the community, but the elders are which matches a postexilic period (cf. Ezra 10:14); but this is an argument from silence. Elders were prominent before the fall of Jerusalem (cf. 2 Ki 23:1; Jer 26:17; Lam 5:12, 14)⁵

3. Joel seems to quote other prophets like Ezekiel (cf. Joel 2:3 with Ezek 36:35; Joel 2:10 with Ezek 32:7; Joel 2:27 with Ezek 39:28-29); but it is difficult to determine who is referring to whom. In addition Ezekiel would be a contemporary of Joel if he wrote during the late preexilic period

4. The reference to Greek slave trade in 3:6 more closely aligns with the postexilic period, but this also existed during the late preexilic period⁶

D. Conclusion:

1. Therefore, while the early preexilic and postexilic periods are both possible, the evidence seems to align itself more favorably with the late preexilic period than the other two possibilities

2. Thankfully, the answer to this question is one of “historicity,” and does not determine the “meaning” of the book, even though the referent is affect by historical setting.

V. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND⁷

A. Josiah brought about the final spiritual revival for Judah when he came to the throne in 622 B.C.

B. The Assyrian Empire Fell

1. The Assyrian power rose with Ashurnasirpal II (884-859 B.C.) and Shalmaneser II (859-824 B.C.)

2. Tiglath-pileser III (Pul in the Scriptures) began a group of conquerors who took Syria and Palestine including Shalmaneser V (727-722 B.C. who began the deportation of Samaria), Sargon II (722-705 B.C. who completed the deportation of Samaria), Sennacherib (704-581 B.C. who attacked king of Judah, Hezekiah [Josiah’s father]), and Esarhaddon (681-669 B.C. who led campaigns against Egypt)

3. Esarhaddon’s son, Ashurbanipal (669-631) ruled much of the upper Egyptian city of Thebes, but his decline and that of Assyria’s soon followed

4. Nineveh, the capital, was destroyed in 612 B.C.

5. Assyria’s army was defeated in 609 B.C. at Haran

6. What was left of Assyria’s army went to Carchemish (just west of the Euphrates River and north of Aram)

C. The Neo-Babylonian Empire Arose

1. Merodach Baladan was a Chaldean and father of Nabopolassar and grandfather of Nebuchadnezzar. Merodach Baladan sent ambassadors to Hezekiah (Isa 39; 2 Ki 20:12-19)

2. In October 626 B.C. Nabopolassar defeated the Assyrians outside of Babylon

3. In 616 B.C. Nabopolassar expanded his kingdom, and in 612 B.C. he joined with the Medes and destroyed Nineveh

D. A Realignment of Power in 609 B.C. and later

1. Judah: When Assyria fell and Babylon arose Judah, under Josiah, removed itself from Assyria’s control and existed as an autonomous state until 609 B.C. when it lost a battle with Egypt on the plain of Megiddo

2. Egypt:

a. Attempted to expand its presence into Palestine with Assyria’s troubles

b. Egypt joined with Assyria to fight the Babylonians at Haran

1) Judah tried to stop Egypt’s (Pharaoh Neco II) alliance but was defeated on the plain of Megiddo with the loss of their king, Josiah (cf. 2 Chron 35:20-24)

2) The Assyrians lost their battle with Babylon (even with the help of Egypt) and disappeared as a power in the world, and Egypt retreated to Carchemish as the dividing line between Egypt and Babylonian

3) Egypt ruled Judah:

a) Egypt (Necho) replaced Josiah’s son, Jehoahaz, after three months with Jehoiakim (who was another son of Josiah) as a vassal king (2 Ki 23:34-35)

b) Egypt (Necho) plundered Judah’s treasuries

c) Egypt (Necho) took Jehoahaz into captivity in Egypt

E. In 605 B.C. other changes of power occurred:

1. Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish

2. Judah’s king, Jehoiakim, changed his loyalty to the Babylonians rather than the Egyptians and became Nebuchadnezzar’s vassal king (2 Ki. 24:1)

3. Nebuchadnezzar had to return to Babylon with the death of his father, Nebopolassar

4. Nebuchadnezzar solidified his rule by appointing vassal kings and taking hostages; Daniel was taken as a part of this deportation (Dan 1:1-6)

F. In 601 Egypt defeated the Babylonians

1. Judah’s king, Jehoiakim, switched loyalty from Babylonia to the Egyptians (2 Ki 24:1)

2. On December of 598 Babylonia made an attack on Jerusalem leading to Jehoiakim’s death and the surrender of the city by his successor, Jehoiachin, in March of 597

3. Nebuchadnezzar, replaced Jehoiachin after only three months of reign, deported him and 10,000 other leaders⁸ from the city, looted the city, and placed Zedekiah Judah’s vassal king (cf. 2 Ki 24:12-16)

G. Zedekiah was a weak king who repeated the errors of those before him; he was convinced by Egypt to revolt with a coalition of other states (Tyre and Ammon) against Babylon (588 B.C. against the advise of Jeremiah) and Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in 586 B.C.

VI. AUDIENCE FOR THE BOOK: The southern nation of Judah

VII. PURPOSES FOR THE BOOK:

A. To warn Judah of the coming Day of the Lord when judgment will get worse for Judah and the nations of the world

B. To urge Judah to repent of their sins

C. To proclaim a future time when complete restoration will come to the nation

---

¹ Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 311-14; John A Martin, An Outline of Joel, unpublished class notes in 304 preexlic and exilic prophets, (Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1983), 1.

² Homer Heater, Jr., Notes on the Book of Joel, unpublished class notes in seminar in the preexilic Old Testament prophets [Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1990], 163; Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 438-39; Arvid S. Kapelrud, Joel Studies, 19ff, 154-58.

³ Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Joel, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty: Old Testament, 1410. See also Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Interpreting the Minor Prophets, 53-54.

⁴ Leslie C. Allen, Joel, Obadiah, Johan, and Micah, 19-25; Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Joel, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty: Old Testament, 1410; Interpreting the Minor Prophets, 51; Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 365-55; R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 876-79.

⁵ See Arvid S. Kapelrud, Joel Studies, 19ff, 187-89.

⁶ Arvid S. Kapelrud, Joel Studies, 154-58.

⁷ This was adapted from Charles H. Dyer, Jeremiah, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty: Old Testament, 1125-27, and Homer Heater, Jr., Notes on the Book of Jeremiah, unpublished class notes in seminar in the preexilic Old Testament prophets (Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1990), 101-105.

⁸ Perhaps Ezekiel was one of those deported during this second deportation. He would have begun his prophetic ministry five years later.

I. TITLE OF THE BOOK:

A. In Hebrew the book is titled hydbu meaning servant of Yahweh. This may have been a popular name as with Ahab's steward who met Elijah (cf. 1 Ki 18)

B. In Greek the book is titled OBDIOU, a transliteration of the Hebrew name and title

II. AUTHOR: Nothing is known historically about the author from the book or from other background materials

III. DATE: Probably exilic with the fall of Jerusalem (586/85 B.C.)

A. Preexilic Date During the Reign of Jehoram (848-841 B.C.)¹

1. This is a plausible option

2. It is argued that verses 10-14 of Obadiah refer to the Philistine-Arab invasion of Judah (cf. 2 Chron 21:8-20)
While it is true that an Edomite revolt did occur during this time period (cf. 2 Ki 8:20-22; 2 Chron 21:8-10), there is no mention of the Edomites invading with the Philistines and the Arabs at this time (cf. 2 Chron 21:16ff).² This is a deduction that is made.
While it is true that the palace was looted (2 Chron 21;17), the magnitude does not seem to be equivalent to that which was described in Obadiah vv. 10-14³

3. Jeremiah borrowed from Obadiah⁴
This argument is inconclusive since it can be argued either way depending on when one dates the book.

B. Preexilic Date During the Reign of Ahaz (743-728 B.C.)⁵

1. This view is also a valid possibility

2. The argument is that Obadiah is describing the defeat of Ahaz at the hands of the Edomites and Philistines as was recorded in 2 Chronicles 28:17-18
The problem with this position is that no such capture and despoliation of Jerusalem is reported to have taken place during these campaigns as is implied in Obadiah 11⁶

C. Exilic Date Soon after the Destruction of Jerusalem (586/85 B.C.)⁷

1. The Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. may best explain the description found in Obadiah vv. 10-14

a. Standing by while strangers carried off Judah's riches

b. The disastrous nature of the fall

c. References to lots being cast over the city

2. The Babylonian context matches other exilic scriptures which describe the involvement of Edom in the fall of Jerusalem:

a. Psalm 137:7:
Remember, O Lord, against the sons of Edom the day of Jerusalem who said, 'Raze it, raze it, to its very foundation'

b. Lamentations 4:21-22
Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, Who dwells in the land of Uz; but the cup will come around to you as well, you will become drunk, and make yourself naked, the punishment of your iniquity has been completed. O daughter of Zion. He will exile you no longer. But He will punish your iniquity, O daughter of Edom; He will expose your sins.

c. Ezekiel 25:12-14:
Thus says the Lord God, 'Because Edom has acted against the house of Judah by taking vengeance, and has incurred grievous guilt, and avenged themselves upon them,' Therefore thus says the Lord God, 'I will also stretch out My hand against Edom and cut off man and beast from it. And I will lay it waste; from Teman even to Dedan they will fall by the sword. An I will lay My vengeance on Edom by the hand of the people Israel. Therefore, they will act in Edom according to My anger and according to My wrath' thus they will know My vengeance,' declares the Lord God (cf. also Ezekiel 35:5, 12-15)

3. The parallels between Jeremiah and Obadiah are probably due to the priority of Jeremiah or a common source

D. Conclusion:

Although it is very difficult to be certain about the date for this book--especially between views one and three, it seems best to this writer to identify Obadiah with view four, and the fall of Jerusalem (586/85 B.C.)

IV. HISTORICAL SETTING:⁸

A. Josiah brought about the final spiritual revival for Judah when he came to the throne in 622 B.C.

B. The Assyrian Empire Fell

1. The Assyrian power rose with Ashurnasirpal II (884-859 B.C.) and Shalmaneser II (859-824 B.C.)

2. Tiglath-pileser III (Pul in the Scriptures) began a group of conquerors who took Syria and Palestine including Shalmaneser V (727-722 B.C. who began the deportation of Samaria), Sargon II (722-705 B.C. who completed the deportation of Samaria), Sennacherib (704-581 B.C. who attacked king of Judah, Hezekiah [Josiah's father]), and Esarhaddon (681-669 B.C. who led campaigns against Egypt)

3. Esarhaddon's son, Ashurbanipal (669-631) ruled much of the upper Egyptian city of Thebes, but his decline and that of Assyria's soon followed

4. Nineveh, the capital, was destroyed in 612 B.C.

5. Assyria's army was defeated in 609 B.C. at Haran

6. What was left of Assyria's army went to Carchemish (just west of the Euphrates River and north of Aram)

C. The Neo-Babylonian Empire Arose

1. Merodach Baladan was a Chaldean and father of Nabopolassar and grandfather of Nebuchadnezzar. Merodach Baladan sent ambassadors to Hezekiah (Isa 39; 2 Ki 20:12-19)

2. In October 626 B.C. Nabopolassar defeated the Assyrians outside of Babylon

3. In 616 B.C. Nabopolassar expanded his kingdom, and in 612 B.C. he joined with the Medes and destroyed Nineveh

D. A Realignment of Power in 609 B.C. and later

1. Judah: When Assyria fell and Babylon arose Judah, under Josiah, removed itself from Assyria's control and existed as an autonomous state until 609 B.C. when it lost a battle with Egypt on the plain of Megiddo

2. Egypt:

a. Attempted to expand its presence into Palestine with Assyria's troubles

b. Egypt joined with Assyria to fight the Babylonians at Haran

1) Judah tried to stop Egypt's (Pharaoh Neco II) alliance but was defeated on the plain of Megiddo with the loss of their king, Josiah (cf. 2 Chron 35:20-24)

2) The Assyrians lost their battle with Babylon (even with the help of Egypt) and disappeared as a power in the world, and Egypt retreated to Carchemish as the dividing line between Egypt and Babylonian

3) Egypt ruled Judah:

a) Egypt (Necho) replaced Josiah's son, Jehoahaz, after three months with Jehoiakim (who was another son of Josiah) as a vassal king (2 Ki 23:34-35)

b) Egypt (Necho) plundered Judah's treasuries

c) Egypt (Necho) took Jehoahaz into captivity in Egypt

E. In 605 B.C. other changes of power occurred:

1. Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish

2. Judah's king, Jehoiakim, changed his loyalty to the Babylonians rather than the Egyptians and became Nebuchadnezzar's vassal king (2 Ki. 24:1)

3. Nebuchadnezzar had to return to Babylon with the death of his father, Nebopolassar

4. Nebuchadnezzar solidified his rule by appointing vassal kings and taking hostages; Daniel was taken as a part of this deportation (Dan 1:1-6)

F. In 601 Egypt defeated the Babylonians

1. Judah's king, Jehoiakim, switched loyalty from Babylonia to the Egyptians (2 Ki 24:1)

2. On December of 598 Babylonia made an attack on Jerusalem leading to Jehoiakim's death and the surrender of the city by his successor, Jehoiachin, in March of 597

3. Nebuchadnezzar, replaced Jehoiachin after only three months of reign, deported him and 10,000 other leaders⁹ from the city, looted the city, and placed Zedekiah Judah's vassal king (cf. 2 Ki 24:12-16)

G. Zedekiah was a weak king who repeated the errors of those before him; he was convinced by Egypt to revolt with a coalition of other states (Tyre and Ammon) against Babylon (588 B.C. against the advise of Jeremiah) and Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in 586 B.C.

H. The Edomites joined in Babylon's destruction of Judah (Psalm 137:7; Lam 4:21-22; Ezek 25:12-14; 35:5, 12-15).

V. PURPOSES:

A. To proclaim judgment upon Edom for rejoicing over the fall of Jerusalem

B. To proclaim through the judgment of Edom that all of the nations will be judged for their hostility to God's people¹⁰

C. To proclaim a message of hope for Judah¹¹

---

¹ Walter L. Baker, Obadiah, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty: Old Testament, 1453-54; Charles Lee Feinberg, The Minor Prophets, 125; Hobart E. Freeman, An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophets, 140-41; John A Martin, An Outline of Obadiah, unpublished class notes in 304 preexlic and exilic prophets, (Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1983), 1.

² Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Interpreting the Minor Prophets, 109.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Compare Obadiah vv. 1-4 with Jeremiah 49:14-16; Obadiah vv. 5-6 with Jeremiah 49:9-10; Obadiah v. 8 with Jeremiah 49:7, and Obadiah v. 16 with Jeremiah 49:12.

⁵ Archer notes that J. H. Raven and J. D. Davis date the book at this time (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 306-307).

⁶ Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 307.

⁷ Most evangelical writers seem to hold to this view: Leslie C. Allen. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, 129-30; Carl E. Armerding, Obadiah, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, VII:337; Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Interpreting the Minor Prophets, 109-110; Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 377; Homer Heater, Jr., Notes on the Book of Obadiah, unpublished class notes in seminar in the exilic Old Testament prophets [Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1990], 173).

⁸ This was adapted from Charles H. Dyer, Jeremiah, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty: Old Testament, 1125-27, and Homer Heater, Jr., Notes on the Book of Jeremiah, unpublished class notes in seminar in the preexilic Old Testament prophets (Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1990), 101-105.

⁹ Perhaps Ezekiel was one of those deported during this second deportation. He would have begun his prophetic ministry five years later.

¹⁰ See Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 414-15.

¹¹ This book may have never been read to Edom. It was written for Judah (cf. vv. 18, 21). Childs writes, In sum, the canonical shape of the oracles of Obadiah has interpreted the prophetic message as the promise of God's coming rule which will overcome the evil intent of the nations, even Edom, and restore a holy remnant to its inheritance within God's kingship (Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 415).

I. TITLE OF THE BOOK:

A. Hebrew: In Hebrew the book is titled <wjn which is probably the passive form of “comforted” with the name of Yahweh omitted¹

B. Greek: In Greek the book is titled NAOUM which is basically a transliteration of the Hebrew

II. AUTHOR:

A. He is identified as Nahum the Elkoshite (Nahum 1:1)

B. The title “the Elkoshite” may have reference to the town that Nahum was from (e.g., Elkosh); however, it is not presently known where that town was located. Perhaps it was in Judah since he writes to Judah.

C. His name means “consolation” or “comfort” which has significance since that is what he will bring to Judah through his message about the destruction of Nineveh

D. Canonicity of Nahum has never been seriously challenged²

III. DATE: 663 to 612 B.C. (perhaps between 663 to 654 B.C.)

A. The prophecy’s identification of the Assyrian (Ashurbanipal) destruction of the Egyptian city of Thebes (No-amon), in upper Egypt on the Nile (Nahum 3:8), suggests that the book was written after 663 B.C.

B. Since the essence of the book is to describe the upcoming destruction of the Assyrian capital of Nineveh, it is probable that the book was written before 612 B.C.

C. Perhaps the book’s emphasis upon the power of the Assyrians may suggest a date before 645 B.C. since its decline was evident by 626.³ This would have been during the reign of Manasseh (686-642 B.C.)

D. Conclusion: Therefore it is reasonable to affirm that Nahum was written sometime between 663 B.C. and 612 B.C., perhaps before the rebuilding of the city of Thebes from 663 B.C. to 654 B.C.

IV. HISTORICAL SETTING:

A. The Assyrian power rose with Ashurnasirpal II (884-859 B.C.) and Shalmaneser II (859-824 B.C.)

B. Tiglath-pileser III (Pul in the Scriptures) began a group of conquerors who took Syria and Palestine including Shalmaneser V (727-722 B.C. who began the deportation of Samaria), Sargon II (722-705 B.C. who completed the deportation of Samaria), Sennacherib (704-581 B.C. who attacked king of Judah, Hezekiah [Josiah’s father]), and Esarhaddon (681-669 B.C. who led campaigns against Egypt)

C. Esarhaddon’s son, Ashurbanipal (669-631) ruled much of the upper Egyptian city of Thebes, but his decline and that of Assyria’s soon followed

D. In 616 B.C. Nabopolassar expanded his kingdom, and in 612 B.C. he joined with the Medes and Scythians to destroy Nineveh

E. Assyria’s army was defeated in 609 B.C. at Haran

F. What was left of Assyria’s army went to Carchemish (just west of the Euphrates River and north of Aram)

V. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROPHETS:

A. Jonah: Nahum is related to Jonah who prophesied 150 years earlier against Nineveh and experienced a great revival in the city. It seems that Nineveh has now fallen again into is severe sin and is being told again of certain judgment

B. Nahum is one of three prophets who have prophesies against other nations:

1. Nahum--against Assyria

2. Obadiah--against Edom

3. Habakkuk--against Babylon
These three countries/empires afflicted God’s people throughout their history

VI. PURPOSES:

A. To place a “burden” (oracle) or destruction upon Nineveh
Note--there is no counter condemnation upon Judah

B. To provide comfort for Judah who was afflicted by Assyria with the assurance that God is in control and will fight for His people
Bob Chisholm says it this way, “The sovereign Lord, who is the most powerful of all warriors, would avenge the harm done to His covenant people by appropriately and thoroughly judging their Assyrian oppressors”⁴

---

¹ See Homer Heater, Jr., Notes on the Book of Nahum, unpublished class notes in seminar in the preexilic Old Testament prophets [Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1990], 171.

² Pfeiffer argued that 1:2-10 was not original because he felt that it was a late, corrupted piece of acrostic poetry, but there is no good evidence that such an acrostic poem exists in the text (for a fuller discussion see Carl E. Armerding, Nahum, in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, VII:457-58; Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 361).

³ See the discussion by Carl E. Armerding, Nahum, in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, VII:452-53.

Elliott E. Johnson summarizes Walter Maier's arguments (in The Book of Nahum: A Commentary, pp. 30, 34-37) for a date between 663 and 654 when he writes, 1. The description of Nineveh (1:12; 3:1, 4, 16) does not match the decline of the Assyrian nation under Ashurbanipal's sons, Ashur-etil-ilani (626-623 B.C.) and, Sin-Shar-ishkum (623-612) B.C.).

2. When Nahum prophesied Judah was under the Assyrian yoke (1:13, 15; 2:1, 3). This fits with the reign of Manasseh over Judah (697-642) more than with the reign of Josiah (640-609).

3. The Medes rose in power around 645 B.C. as an independent nation, and the Neo-Babylonian Empire began in 626. If Nahum had written shortly before Nineveh's fall to those nations in 612, mention of them would be expected. But since Nahum does not mention the Medes or the Babylonians, he probably wrote his prophecy before 645.

4. Most important, however, is the fact that nine years after Thebes was destroyed, it was restored (in 654). Nahum's rhetorical question in 3:8 would have had little or no force if it had been written after 654 (Elliott E. Johnson, Nahum, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty: Old Testament, 1496; see also Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 361).

⁴ Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Interpreting the Minor Prophets, 179.