[1] Exceptions must be made in the cases of Esther and the Song of
Songs, which do not mention God, and the original writer in
Ecclesiastes who is a philosopher.
[2] This remarkable passage reads thus: "_But I know that my redeemer
liveth, and afterwards he shall arise upon the dust, and after my
skin, even this body, is destroyed, without my flesh shall I see God;
whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not as a
stranger; my reins within me are consumed_ with longing." The
redeemer who liveth and shall arise or stand upon the earth is God
whom he shall see with his own eyes, on his side. The course of
exegesis was greatly influenced by the translation of Jerome, who,
departing from the Itala, rendered: "In novissimo die de terra
surrecturus sum ... et rursum circumdabor pelle mea et in carne mea
videbo deum meum." The only point now in question is whether: (a) Job
looks for this manifestation of God to him while he is still alive,
or (b) after death, and therefore in the sense of a spiritual vision
and union with God in another life; that is, whether the words
"destroyed" and "without my flesh" are to be taken relatively only,
of the extremest effects of his disease upon him, or literally, of
the separation of the body in death. A third view which assumes that
the words rendered "without my flesh," which run literally, "out of
my flesh," mean _looking_ out from my flesh, that is, clothed with a
new body, and finds the idea of resurrection repeated, perhaps
imports more into the language than it will fairly bear. In favour of
(b) may be adduced the persistent refusal of Job throughout to
entertain the idea of a restoration in this life: the word
"afterwards"; and perhaps the analogy of other passages where the
same situation appears, as Ps. xlix. and lxxiii., although the actual
dénouement of the tragedy supports (a). The difference between the
two senses is not important, when the Old Testament view of
immortality is considered. To the Hebrew the life beyond was not what
it is to us, a freedom from sin and sorrow and admission to an
immediate divine fellowship not attainable here. To him the life
beyond was at best a prolongation of the life here; all he desired
was that his fellowship with God here should not be interrupted in
death, and that Sheol, the place into which deceased persons
descended and where they remained, cut off from all life with God,
might be overleapt. On this account the theory of Ewald, which throws
the centre of gravity of the book into this passage in ch. xix.,
considering its purpose to be to teach that the riddles of this life
shall be solved and its inequalities corrected in a future life,
appears one-sided. The point of the passage does not lie in any
distinction which it draws between this life and a future life; it
lies in the assurance which Job expresses that God, who even now
knows his innocence, will vindicate it in the future, and that,
though estranged now, He will at last take him to His heart.
JOBST, or JODOCUS (c. 1350-1411), margrave of Moravia, was a son of John
Henry of Luxemburg, margrave of Moravia, and grandson of John, the blind
king of Bohemia. He became margrave of Moravia on his father's death in
1375, and his clever and unscrupulous character enabled him to amass a
considerable amount of wealth, while his ambition led him into constant
quarrels with his brother Procop, his cousins, the German king
Wenceslaus and Sigismund, margrave of Brandenburg, and others. By taking
advantage of their difficulties he won considerable power, and the
record of his life is one of warfare and treachery, followed by broken
promises and transitory reconciliations. In 1385 and 1388 he purchased
Brandenburg from Sigismund, and the duchy of Luxemburg from Wenceslaus;
and in 1397 he also became possessed of upper and lower Lusatia. For
some time he had entertained hopes of the German throne and had
negotiated with Wenceslaus and others to this end. When, however, King
Rupert died in 1410 he maintained at first that there was no vacancy, as
Wenceslaus, who had been deposed in 1400, was still king; but changing
his attitude, he was chosen German king at Frankfort on the 1st of
October 1410 in opposition to Sigismund, who had been elected a few days
previously. Jobst however was never crowned, and his death on the 17th
of January 1411 prevented hostilities between the rival kings.
See F. M. Pelzel, _Lebensgeschichte des römischen und böhmischen
Königs Wenceslaus_ (1788-1790); J. Heidemann, _Die Mark Brandenburg
unter Jobst von Mähren_ (1881); J. Aschbach, _Geschichte Kaiser
Sigmunds_ (1838-1845); F. Palacky, _Geschichte von Böhmen_, iii.
(1864-1874); and T. Lindner, _Geschichte des Deutschen Reiches vom
Ende des 14 Jahrhunderts bis zur Reformation_, i. (1875-1880).
JOB'S TEARS, in botany, the popular name for _Coix Lachryma-Jobi_, a
species of grass, of the tribe _maydeae_, which also includes the maize
(see GRASSES). The seeds, or properly fruits, are contained singly in a
stony involucre or bract, which does not open until the enclosed seed
germinates. The young involucre surrounds the female flower and the
stalk supporting the spike of male flowers, and when ripe has the
appearance of bluish-white porcelain. Being shaped somewhat like a large
drop of fluid, the form has suggested the name. The fruits are esculent,
but the involucres are the part chiefly used, for making necklaces and
other ornaments. The plant is a native of India, but is now widely
spread throughout the tropical zone. It grows in marshy places; and is
cultivated in China, the fruit having a supposed value as a diuretic and
anti-phthisic. It was cultivated by John Gerard, author of the famous
_Herball_, at the end of the 16th century as a tender annual.
JOCASTA, or IOCASTA ([Greek: Iokastê]; in Homer, [Greek: Epikastê]), in
Greek legend, wife of Laïus, mother (afterwards wife) of Oedipus (q.v.),
daughter of Menoeceus, sister (or daughter) of Creon. According to Homer
(_Od._ xi. 271) and Sophocles (_Oed. Tyr._ 1241), on learning that
Oedipus was her son she immediately hanged herself; but in Euripides
(_Phoenissae_, 1455) she stabs herself over the bodies of her sons
Eteocles and Polynices, who had slain each other in single combat before
the walls of Thebes.
JOCKEY, a professional rider of race-horses, now the current usage (see
HORSE-RACING). The word is by origin a diminutive of "Jock," the
Northern or Scots colloquial equivalent of the name "John" (cf. JACK). A
familiar instance of the use of the word as a name is in "Jockey of
Norfolk" in Shakespeare's _Richard III._ v. 3, 304. In the 16th and 17th
centuries the word was applied to horse-dealers, postilions, itinerant
minstrels and vagabonds, and thus frequently bore the meaning of a
cunning trickster, a "sharp," whence "to jockey," to outwit, or "do" a
person out of something. The current usage is found in John Evelyn's
_Diary_, 1670, when it was clearly well known. George Borrow's attempt
to derive the word from the gipsy _chukni_, a heavy whip used by
horse-dealing gipsies, has no foundation.
JODELLE, ÉTIENNE, seigneur de Limodin (1532-1573), French dramatist and
poet, was born in Paris of a noble family. He attached himself to the
poetic circle of the Pléiade (see DAURAT) and proceeded to apply the
principles of the reformers to dramatic composition. Jodelle aimed at
creating a classical drama that should be in every respect different
from the moralities and _soties_ that then occupied the French stage.
His first play, _Cléopâtre captive_, was represented before the court at
Reims in 1552. Jodelle himself took the title rôle, and the cast
included his friends Remy Belleau and Jean de la Péruse. In honour of
the play's success the friends organized a little fête at Arcueil when a
goat garlanded with flowers was led in procession and presented to the
author--a ceremony exaggerated by the enemies of the Ronsardists into a
renewal of the pagan rites of the worship of Bacchus. Jodelle wrote two
other plays. _Eugène_, a comedy satirizing the superior clergy, had less
success than it deserved. Its preface poured scorn on Jodelle's
predecessors in comedy, but in reality his own methods are not so very
different from theirs. _Didon se sacrifiant_, a tragedy which follows
Virgil's narrative, appears never to have been represented. Jodelle died
in poverty in July 1573. His works were collected the year after his
death by Charles de la Mothe. They include a quantity of miscellaneous
verse dating chiefly from Jodelle's youth. The intrinsic value of his
tragedies is small. _Cléopâtre_ is lyric rather than dramatic.
Throughout the five acts of the piece nothing actually happens. The
death of Antony is announced by his ghost in the first act; the story of
Cleopatra's suicide is related, but not represented, in the fifth. Each
act is terminated by a chorus which moralizes on such subjects as the
inconstancy of fortune and the judgments of heaven on human pride. But
the play was the starting-point of French classical tragedy, and was
soon followed by the _Médée_ (1553) of Jean de la Péruse and the _Aman_
(1561) of André de Rivaudeau. Jodelle was a rapid worker, but idle and
fond of dissipation. His friend Ronsard said that his published poems
gave no adequate idea of his powers.
Jodelle's works are collected (1868) in the _Pléiade française_ of
Charles Marty-Laveaux. The prefatory notice gives full information of
the sources of Jodelle's biography, and La Mothe's criticism is
reprinted in its entirety.
JODHPUR, or MARWAR, a native state of India, in the Rajputana agency.
Area, 34,963 sq. m. Pop. (1901), 1,935,565, showing a decrease of 23% in
the decade, due to the results of famine. Estimated revenue, £373,600;
tribute, £14,000. The general aspect of the country is that of a sandy
plain, divided into two unequal parts by the river Luni, and dotted with
picturesque conical hills, attaining in places an elevation of 3000 ft.
The river Luni is the principal feature in the physical aspects of
Jodhpur. One of its head-streams rises in the sacred lake of Pushkar in
Ajmere, and the main river flows through Jodhpur in a south-westerly
direction till it is finally lost in the marshy ground at the head of
the Runn of Cutch. It is fed by numerous tributaries and occasionally
overflows its banks, fine crops of wheat and barley being grown on the
saturated soil. Its water is, as a rule, saline or brackish, but
comparatively sweet water is obtained from wells sunk at a distance of
20 or 30 yds. from the river bank. The famous salt-lake of Sambhar is
situated on the borders of Jodhpur and Jaipur, and two smaller lakes of
the same description lie within the limits of the state, from which
large quantities of salt are extracted. Marble is mined in the north of
the state and along the south-east border.
The population consists of Rathor Rajputs (who form the ruling class),
Brahmans, Charans, Bhats, Mahajans or traders, and Jats. The Charans, a
sacred race, hold large religious grants of land, and enjoy peculiar
immunities as traders in local produce. The Bhats are by profession
genealogists, but also engage in trade. Marwari traders are an
enterprising class to be found throughout the length and breadth of
India.
The principal crops are millets and pulses, but wheat and barley are
largely produced in the fertile tract watered by the Luni river. The
manufactures comprise leather boxes and brass utensils; and turbans and
scarfs and a description of embroidered silk knotted thread are
specialities of the country.
The Maharaja belongs to the Rathor clan of Rajputs. The family
chronicles relate that after the downfall of the Rathor dynasty of
Kanauj in 1194, Sivaji, the grandson of Jai Chand, the last king of
Kanauj, entered Marwar on a pilgrimage to Dwarka, and on halting at the
town of Pali he and his followers settled there to protect the Brahman
community from the constant raids of marauding bands. The Rathor chief
thus laid the foundation of the state, but it was not till the time of
Rao Chanda, the tenth in succession from Sivaji, that Marwar was
actually conquered. His grandson Jodha founded the city of Jodhpur,
which he made his capital. In 1561 the country was invaded by Akbar, and
the chief was forced to submit, and to send his son as a mark of homage
to take service under the Mogul emperor. When this son Udai Singh
succeeded to the chiefship, he gave his sister Jodhbai in marriage to
Akbar, and was rewarded by the restoration of most of his former
possessions. Udai Singh's son, Gaj Singh, held high service under Akbar,
and conducted successful expeditions in Gujarat and the Deccan. The
bigoted and intolerant Aurangzeb invaded Marwar in 1679, plundered
Jodhpur, sacked all the large towns, and commanded the conversion of the
Rathors to Mahommedanism. This cemented all the Rajput clans into a bond
of union, and a triple alliance was formed by the three states of
Jodhpur, Udaipur and Jaipur, to throw off the Mahommedan yoke. One of
the conditions of this alliance was that the chiefs of Jodhpur and
Jaipur should regain the privilege of marriage with the Udaipur family,
which they had forfeited by contracting alliances with the Mogul
emperors, on the understanding that the offspring of Udaipur princesses
should succeed to the state in preference to all other children. The
quarrels arising from this stipulation lasted through many generations,
and led to the invitation of Mahratta help from the rival aspirants to
power, and finally to the subjection of all the Rajput states to the
Mahrattas. Jodhpur was conquered by Sindhia, who levied a tribute of
£60,000, and took from it the fort and town of Ajmere. Internecine
disputes and succession wars disturbed the peace of the early years of
the century, until in January 1818 Jodhpur was taken under British
protection. In 1839 the misgovernment of the raja led to an insurrection
which compelled the interference of the British. In 1843, the chief
having died without a son, and without having adopted an heir, the
nobles and state officials were left to select a successor from the
nearest of kin. Their choice fell upon Raja Takht Sinh, chief of
Ahmednagar. This chief, who did good service during the Mutiny, died in
1873. Maharaja Jaswant Singh, who died in 1896, was a very enlightened
ruler. His brother, Sir Pertab Singh (q.v.), conducted the
administration until his nephew, Sardar Singh, came of age in 1898. The
imperial service cavalry formed part of the reserve brigade during the
Tirah campaign.
The state maintains a railway running to Bikanir, and there is also a
branch railway into Sind. Gold, silver and copper money is coined. The
state emblems are a _jhar_ or sprig of seven branches and a _khanda_ or
sword. Jodhpur practically escaped the plague, but it suffered more
severely than any other part of Rajputana from the famine of 1899-1900.
In February 1900 more than 110,000 persons were in receipt of famine
relief.
The city of JODHPUR is 64 m. by rail N.W. of Marwar junction, on the
Rajputana railway. Pop. (1901), 60,437. It was built by Rao Jodha in
1459, and from that time has been the seat of government. It is
surrounded by a strong wall nearly 6 m. in extent, with seventy gates.
The fort, which stands on an isolated rock, contains the maharaja's
palace, a large and handsome building, completely covering the crest of
the hill on which it stands, and overlooking the city, which lies
several hundred feet below. The city contains palaces of the maharaja,
and town residences of the _thakurs_ or nobles, besides numerous fine
temples and tanks. Building stone is plentiful and close at hand, and
the architecture is solid and handsome. Three miles north of Jodhpur are
the ruins of Mandor, the site of the ancient capital of the Parihar
princes of Marwar, before its conquest by the Rathors. Mills for
grinding flour and crushing grain have been constructed for the imperial
service troops. The Jaswant college is affiliated to the B.A. standard
of the Allahabad university. To the Hewson hospital a wing for eye
diseases was added in 1898, and the Jaswant hospital for women is under
an English lady doctor.
JOEL. The second book among the minor prophets in the Bible is entitled
_The word of Yahweh that came to Joel the son of Pethuel_, or, as the
Septuagint, Latin, Syriac and other versions read, _Bethuel_. Nothing is
recorded as to the date or occasion of the prophecy. Most Hebrew
prophecies contain pointed references to the foreign politics and social
relations of the nation at the time. In the book of Joel there are only
scanty allusions to Phoenicians, Philistines, Egypt and Edom, couched in
terms applicable to very different ages, while the prophet's own people
are exhorted to repentance without specific reference to any of those
national sins of which other prophets speak. The occasion of the
prophecy, described with great force of rhetoric, is no known historical
event, but a plague of locusts, perhaps repeated in successive seasons;
and even here there are features in the description which have led many
expositors to seek an allegorical interpretation. The most remarkable
part of the book is the eschatological picture with which it closes; and
the way in which the plague of locusts appears to be taken as
foreshadowing the final judgment--the great day or assize of Yahweh, in
which Israel's enemies are destroyed--is so unique as greatly to
complicate the exegetical problem. It is not therefore surprising that
the most various views are still held as to the date and meaning of the
book. Allegorists and literalists still contend over the first and still
more over the second chapter, and, while the largest number of recent
interpreters accept Credner's view that the prophecy was written in the
reign of Joash of Judah (835-796 B.C.?), a powerful school of critics
(including A. B. Davidson) follow the view suggested by Vatke (_Bib.
Theol._ p. 462 seq.), and reckon Joel among the post-exile prophets.
Other scholars give yet other dates: see the particulars in the
elaborate work of Merx. The followers of Credner are literalists; the
opposite school of moderns includes some literalists (as Duhm), while
others (like Hilgenfeld, and in a modified sense Merx) adopt the old
allegorical interpretation which treats the locusts as a figure for the
enemies of Jerusalem.
There are cogent reasons for placing Joel either earlier or later than
the great series of prophets extending from the time when Amos first
proclaimed the approach of the Assyrian down to the Babylonian exile.
In Joel the enemies of Israel are the nations collectively, and among
those specified by name neither Assyria nor Chaldaea finds a place.
This circumstance might, if it stood alone, be explained by placing
Joel with Zephaniah in the brief interval between the decline of the
empire of Nineveh and the advance of the Babylonians. But it is
further obvious that Joel has no part in the internal struggle between
spiritual Yahweh-worship and idolatry which occupied all the prophets
from Amos to the captivity. He presupposes a nation of
Yahweh-worshippers, whose religion has its centre in the temple and
priesthood of Zion, which is indeed conscious of sin, and needs
forgiveness and an outpouring of the Spirit, but is not visibly
divided, as the kingdom of Judah was between the adherents of
spiritual prophecy and a party whose national worship of Yahweh
involved for them no fundamental separation from the surrounding
nations. The book, therefore, must have been written before the
ethico-spiritual and the popular conceptions of Yahweh came into
conscious antagonism, or else after the fall of the state and the
restoration of the community of Jerusalem to religious rather than
political existence had decided the contest in favour of the
prophets, and of the Law in which their teaching was ultimately
crystallized.
The considerations which have given currency to an early date for Joel
are of various kinds. The absence of all mention of one great
oppressing world-power seems most natural before the westward march of
Assyria involved Israel in the general politics of Asia. The purity of
the style is also urged, and a comparison of Amos i. 2, Joel iii. 16
(Heb. iv. 16), and Amos ix. 13, Joel iii. 18 (iv. 18), has been taken
as proving that Amos knew our book. The last argument might be
inverted with much greater probability, and numerous points of contact
between Joel and other parts of the Old Testament (e.g. Joel ii. 2,
Exod. x. 14; Joel ii. 3, Ezek. xxxvi. 35; Joel iii. 10, Mic. iv. 3)
make it not incredible that the purity of his style--which is rather
elegant than original and strongly marked--is in large measure the
fruit of literary culture. The absence of allusion to a hostile or
oppressing empire may be fairly taken in connexion with the fact that
the prophecy gives no indication of political life at Jerusalem. When
the whole people is mustered in ch. i., the elders or sheikhs of the
municipality and the priests of the temple are the most prominent
figures. The king is not mentioned--which on Credner's view is
explained by assuming that the plague fell in the minority of Joash,
when the priest Jehoiada held the reins of power--and the princes,
councillors and warriors necessary to an independent state, and so
often referred to by the prophets before the exile, are altogether
lacking. The nation has only a municipal organization with a priestly
aristocracy, precisely the state of things that prevailed under the
Persian empire. That the Persians do not appear as enemies of Yahweh
and his people is perfectly natural. They were hard masters but not
invaders, and under them the enemies of the Jews were their
neighbours, just as appears in Joel.[1] Those, however, who place our
prophet in the minority of King Joash draw a special argument from the
mention of Phoenicians, Philistines and Edomites (iii. 4 seq., 19),
pointing to the revolt of Edom under Joram (2 Kings viii. 20) and the
incursion of the Philistines in the same reign (2 Chron. xxi. 16,
xxii. 1). These were recent events in the time of Joash, and in like
manner the Phoenician slave trade in Jewish children is carried back
to an early date by the reference in Amos i. 9. This argument is
rather specious than sound. Edom's hostility to Judah was incessant,
but the feud reached its full intensity only after the time of
Deuteronomy (xxiii. 7), when the Edomites joined the Chaldaeans, drew
profit from the overthrow of the Jews, whose land they partly
occupied, and exercised barbarous cruelty towards the fugitives of
Jerusalem (Obad. _passim_; Mal. i. 2 seq.; Isa. lxiii.). The offence
of shedding innocent blood charged on them by Joel is natural after
these events, but hardly so in connexion with the revolt against
Joram.
As regards the Philistines, it is impossible to lay much weight on the
statement of Chronicles, unsupported as it is by the older history,
and in Joel the Philistines plainly stand in one category with the
Phoenicians, as slave dealers, not as armed foes. Gaza in fact was a
slave emporium as early as the time of Amos (i. 6), and continued so
till Roman times.
Thus, if any inference as to date can be drawn from ch. iii., it must
rest on special features of the trade in slaves, which was always an
important part of the commerce of the Levant. In the time of Amos the
slaves collected by Philistines and Tyrians were sold _en masse_ to
Edom, and presumably went to Egypt or Arabia. Joel complains that they
were sold to the Grecians (Javan, Ionians).[2] It is probable that
some Hebrew and Syrian slaves were exported to the Mediterranean
coasts from a very early date, and Isa. xi. 11 already speaks of
Israelites captive in these districts as well as in Egypt, Ethiopia
and the East. But the traffic in this direction hardly became
extensive till a later date. In Deut. xxviii. 68, Egypt is still the
chief goal of the maritime slave trade, and in Ezek. xxvii. 13 Javan
exports slaves to Tyre, not conversely. Thus the allusion to Javan in
Joel better suits a later date, when Syrian slaves were in special
request in Greece.[3] And the name of Javan is not found in any part
of the Old Testament certainly older than Ezekiel. In Joel it seems to
stand as a general representative of the distant countries reached by
the Mediterranean (in contrast with the southern Arabians, _Sabaeans_,
ch. iii. 8), the farthest nation reached by the fleets of the Red Sea.
This is precisely the geographical standpoint of the post-exile author
of Gen. x. 4, where (assuming that Elishah = Carthage and Tarshish =
Tartessus) Javan includes Carthage and Tartessus.
Finally, the allusion to Egypt in Joel iii. 19 must on Credner's
theory be explained of the invasion of Shishak a century before
Joash. From this time down to the last period of the Hebrew monarchy
Egypt was not the enemy of Judah.
If the arguments chiefly relied on for an early date are so precarious
or can even be turned against their inventors, there are others of an
unambiguous kind which make for a date in the Persian period. It
appears from ch. iii. 1, 2, that Joel wrote after the exile. The
phrase "to bring again the captivity" would not alone suffice to prove
this, for it is used in a wide sense, and perhaps means rather to
"reverse the calamity,"[4] but the dispersion of Israel among the
nations, and the allotment of the Holy Land to new occupants, cannot
fairly be referred to any calamity less than that of the captivity.
With this the whole standpoint of the prophecy agrees. To Joel Judah
and the people of Yahweh are synonyms; northern Israel has
disappeared. Now it is true that those who take their view of the
history from Chronicles, where the kingdom of Ephraim is always
treated as a sect outside the true religion, can reconcile this fact
with an early date. But in ancient times it was not so; and under
Joash, the contemporary of Elisha, such a limitation of the people of
Yahweh is wholly inconceivable. The earliest prophetic books have a
quite different standpoint; otherwise indeed the books of northern
prophets and historians could never have been admitted into the Jewish
canon. Again, the significant fact that there is no mention of a king
and princes, but only of sheikhs and priests, has a force not to be
invalidated by the ingenious reference of the book to the time of
Joash's minority and the supposed regency of Jehoiada.[5] And the
assumption that there was a period before the prophetic conflicts of
the 8th century B.C. when spiritual prophecy had unchallenged sway,
when there was no gross idolatry or superstition, when the priests of
Jerusalem, acting in accord with prophets like Joel, held the same
place as heads of a pure worship which they occupied after the exile
(cf. Ewald, _Propheten_, i. 89), is not consistent with history. It
rests on the old theory of the antiquity of the Levitical legislation,
so that in fact all who place that legislation later than Ezekiel are
agreed that the book of Joel is also late. In this connexion one point
deserves special notice. The religious significance of the plague of
drought and locusts is expressed in ch. i. 9 in the observation that
the daily meat and drink offering are cut off, and the token of new
blessing is the restoration of this service, ch. ii. 14. In other
words, the daily offering is the continual symbol of gracious
intercourse between Yahweh and his people and the main office of
religion. This conception, which finds its parallel in Dan. viii. 11,
xi. 31, xii. 11, is quite in accordance with the later law. But under
the monarchy the daily oblation was the king's private offering, and
not till Ezra's reformation did it become the affair of the community
and the central act of national worship (Neh. x. 33 seq.).[6] That
Joel wrote not only after the exile but after the work of Ezra and
Nehemiah may be viewed as confirmed by the allusions to the walls of
Jerusalem in ch. ii. 7, 9. Such is the historical basis which we seem
to be able to lay for the study of the exegetical problems of the
book.
The style of Joel is clear (which hardly favours an early date), and his
language presents peculiarities which are evidences of a late origin.
But the structure of the book, the symbolism and the connexion of the
prophet's thoughts have given rise to much controversy. It seems safest
to start from the fact that the prophecy is divided into two well-marked
sections by ch. ii. 18, 19a. According to the Massoretic vocalization,
which is in harmony with the most ancient exegetical tradition as
contained in the LXX, these words are historical: "Then the Lord was
jealous,... and answered and said unto his people, Behold," &c. Such is
the natural meaning of the words as pointed.
Thus the book falls into two parts. In the first the prophet speaks in
his own name, addressing himself to the people in a lively description
of a present calamity caused by a terrible plague of locusts which
threatens the entire destruction of the country, and appears to be the
vehicle of a final consuming judgment (the day of Yahweh). There is no
hope save in repentance and prayer; and in ch. ii. 12 the prophet,
speaking now for the first time in Yahweh's name, calls the people to a
solemn fast at the sanctuary, and invites the intercession of the
priests. The calamity is described in the strongest colours of Hebrew
hyperbole, and it seems arbitrary to seek too literal an interpretation
of details, e.g. to lay weight on the four names of locusts, or to take
ch. i. 20 of a conflagration produced by drought, when it appears from
ii. 3 that the ravages of the locusts themselves are compared to those
of fire. But when due allowance is made for Eastern rhetoric, there is
no occasion to seek in this section anything else than literal locusts.
Nay, the allegorical interpretation, which takes the locusts to be
hostile invaders, breaks through the laws of all reasonable writing; for
the poetical hyperbole which compares the invading swarms to an army
(ii. 4 seq.) would be inconceivably lame if a literal army was already
concealed under the figure of the locusts. Nor could the prophet so far
forget himself in his allegory as to speak of a victorious host as
entering the conquered city like a thief (ii. 9). The second part of the
book is Yahweh's answer to the people's prayer. The answer begins with a
promise of deliverance from famine, and of fruitful seasons compensating
for the ravages of the locusts. In the new prosperity of the land the
union of Yahweh and his people shall be sealed anew, and so the Lord
will proceed to pour down further and higher blessings. The aspiration
of Moses (Num. xi. 29) and the hope of earlier prophets (Isa. xxxii. 15,
lix. 21; Jer. xxxi. 33) shall be fully realized in the outpouring of the
Spirit on all the Jews and even upon their servants (Isa. lxi. 5 with
lvi. 6, 7); and then the great day of judgment, which had seemed to
overshadow Jerusalem in the now averted plague, shall draw near with
awful tokens of blood and fire and darkness. But the terrors of that day
are not for the Jews but for their enemies. The worshippers of Yahweh on
Zion shall be delivered (cf. Obad. v. 17, whose words Joel expressly
quotes in ch. ii. 32), and it is their heathen enemies, assembled before
Jerusalem to war against Yahweh, who shall be mowed down in the valley
of Jehoshaphat ("Yahweh judgeth") by no human arm, but by heavenly
warriors. Thus definitively freed from the profane foot of the stranger
(Isa. lii. 1), Jerusalem shall abide a holy city for ever. The fertility
of the land shall be such as was long ago predicted in Amos ix. 13, and
streams issuing from the Temple, as Ezekiel had described in his picture
of the restored Jerusalem (Ezek. xlvii.), shall fertilize the barren
Wadi of Acacias. Egypt and Edom, on the other hand, shall be desolate,
because they have shed the blood of Yahweh's innocents. Compare the
similar predictions against Edom, Isa. xxxiv. 9 seq. (Mal. i. 3), and
against Egypt, Isa. xix. 5 seq., Ezek. xxix. Joel's eschatological
picture appears indeed to be largely a combination of elements from
older unfulfilled prophecies. Its central feature, the assembling of the
nations to judgment, is already found in Zeph. iii. 8, and in Ezekiel's
prophecy concerning Gog and Magog, where the wonders of fire and blood
named in Joel ii. 30 are also mentioned (Ezek. xxxviii. 22). The other
physical features of the great day, the darkening of the lights of
heaven, are a standing figure of the prophets from Amos v. 6, viii. 9,
downwards. It is characteristic of the prophetic eschatology that images
suggested by one prophet are adopted by his successors, and gradually
become part of the permanent scenery of the last times; and it is a
proof of the late date of Joel that almost his whole picture is made up
of such features. In this respect there is a close parallelism,
extending to minor details, between Joel and the last chapters of
Zechariah.
That Joel's delineation of the final deliverance and glory attaches
itself directly to the deliverance of the nation from a present calamity
is quite in the manner of the so-called prophetic perspective. But the
fact that the calamity which bulks so largely is natural and not
political is characteristic of the post-exile period. Other prophets of
the same age speak much of dearth and failure of crops, which in
Palestine then as now were aggravated by bad government, and were far
more serious to a small and isolated community than they could ever have
been to the old kingdom. It was indeed by no means impossible that
Jerusalem might have been altogether undone by the famine caused by the
locusts; and so the conception of these visitants as the destroying
army, executing Yahweh's final judgment, is really much more natural
than appears to us at first sight, and does not need to be explained
away by allegory. The chief argument relied upon by those who still find
allegory at least in ch. ii. is the expression _hassephoni_, "the
northerner"[7] [if this rendering is correct], in ii. 20. In view of the
other points of affinity between Joel and Ezekiel, this word inevitably
suggests Gog and Magog, and it is difficult to see how a swarm of
locusts could receive such a name, or if they came from the north could
perish, as the verse puts it, in the desert between the Mediterranean
and the Dead Sea. The verse remains a _crux interpretum_, and no
exegesis hitherto given can be deemed thoroughly satisfactory; but the
interpretation of the whole book must not be made to hinge on a single
word in a verse which might be altogether removed without affecting the
general course of the prophet's argument.
The whole verse is perhaps the addition of an allegorizing glossator.
The prediction in _v._ 19, that the seasons shall henceforth be
fruitful, is given after Yahweh has shown his zeal and pity for Israel,
not of course by mere words, but by acts, as appears in verses 20, 21,
where the verbs are properly perfects recording that Yahweh hath already
done great things, and that vegetation has already revived. In other
words, the mercy already experienced in the removal of the plague is
taken as a pledge of future grace not to stop short till all God's old
promises are fulfilled. In this context v. 20 is out of place. Observe
also that in v. 25 the locusts are spoken of in the plain language of
chap. i.
See the separate commentaries on Joel by Credner (1831), Wünsche
(1872), Merx (1879). The last-named gives an elaborate history of
interpretation from the Septuagint down to Calvin, and appends the
Ethiopic text edited by Dillmann. Nowack and Marti should also be
consulted (see their respective series of commentaries); also G. A.
Smith, in _The Book of the Twelve Prophets_, vol. i. (1896), and S. R.
Driver, _Joel and Amos_ (1897). On the language of Joel, see
Holzinger, _Z. A. T. W._ (1889), pp. 89-131. Of older commentaries the
most valuable is Pocock's (Oxford, 1691). Bochart's _Hierozoïcon_ may
also be consulted. (W. R. S.; T. K. C.)