_THE BOOK OF OBADIAH_
The Book of Obadiah is the smallest among the prophets, and the
smallest in all the Old Testament. Yet there is none which better
illustrates many of the main problems of Old Testament criticism. It
raises, indeed, no doctrinal issue nor any question of historical
accuracy. All that it claims to be is _The Vision of Obadiah_;[454] and
this vague name, with no date or dwelling-place to challenge comparison
with the contents of the book, introduces us without prejudice to
the criticism of the latter. Nor is the book involved in the central
controversy of Old Testament scholarship, the date of the Law. It has
no reference to the Law. Nor is it made use of in the New Testament.
The more freely, therefore, may we study the literary and historical
questions started by the twenty-one verses which compose the book.
Their brief course is broken by differences of style, and by sudden
changes of outlook from the past to the future. Some of them present
a close parallel to another passage of prophecy, a feature which when
present offers a difficult problem to the critic. Hardly any of the
historical allusions are free from ambiguity, for although the book
refers throughout to a single nation—and so vividly that even if Edom
were not named we might still discern the character and crimes of that
bitter brother of Israel—yet the conflict of Israel and Edom was so
prolonged and so monotonous in its cruelties, that there are few of
its many centuries to which some scholar has not felt himself able to
assign, in part or whole, Obadiah’s indignant oration. The little book
has been tossed out of one century into another by successive critics,
till there exists in their estimates of its date a difference of nearly
six hundred years.[455] Such a fact seems, at first sight, to convict
criticism either of arbitrariness or helplessness;[456] yet a little
consideration of details is enough to lead us to an appreciation of the
reasonable methods of Old Testament criticism, and of its indubitable
progress towards certainty, in spite of our ignorance of large
stretches of the history of Israel. To the student of the Old Testament
nothing could be more profitable than to master the historical and
literary questions raised by the Book of Obadiah, before following them
out among the more complicated problems which are started by other
prophetical books in their relation to the Law of Israel, or to their
own titles, or to claims made for them in the New Testament.
* * * * *
The Book of Obadiah contains a number of verbal parallels to another
prophecy against Edom which appears in Jeremiah xlix. 7-22. Most
critics have regarded this prophecy of Jeremiah as genuine, and have
assigned it to the year 604 B.C. The question is whether Obadiah or
Jeremiah is the earlier. Hitzig and Vatke[457] answered in favour of
Jeremiah; and as the Book of Obadiah also contains a description of
Edom’s conduct in the day of Jerusalem’s overthrow by Nebuchadrezzar,
in 586, they brought the whole book down to post-exilic times.
Very forcible arguments, however, have been offered for Obadiah’s
priority.[458] Upon this priority, as well as on the facts that Joel,
whom they take to be early, quotes from Obadiah, and that Obadiah’s
book occurs among the first six—presumably the pre-exilic members—of
the Twelve, a number of scholars have assigned all of it to an early
period in Israel’s history. Some fix upon the reign of Jehoshaphat,
when Judah was invaded by Edom and his allies Moab and Ammon, but saved
from disaster through Moab and Ammon turning upon the Edomites and
slaughtering them.[459] To this they refer the phrase in Obadiah 9,
_the men of thy covenant have betrayed thee_. Others place the whole
book in the reign of Joram of Judah (849—842 B.C.), when, according to
the Chronicles,[460] Judah was invaded and Jerusalem partly sacked by
Philistines and Arabs.[461] But in the story of this invasion, there
is no mention of Edomites, and the argument which is drawn from Joel’s
quotation of Obadiah fails if Joel, as we shall see, be of late date.
With greater prudence Pusey declines to fix a period.
The supporters of a pre-exilic origin for the _whole_ Book of Obadiah
have to explain vv. 11-14, which appear to reflect Edom’s conduct at
the sack of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar in 586, and they do so in two
ways. Pusey takes the verses as predictive of Nebuchadrezzar’s siege.
Orelli and others believe that they suit better the conquest and
plunder of the city in the time of Jehoram. But, as Calvin has said,
“they seem to be mistaken who think that Obadiah lived before the time
of Isaiah.”
The question, however, very early arose, whether it was possible to
take Obadiah as a unity. Vv. 1-9 are more vigorous and firm than vv.
10-21. In vv. 1-9 Edom is destroyed by nations who are its allies; in
vv. 10-21 it is still to fall along with other Gentiles in the general
judgment of the Lord.[462] Vv. 10-21 admittedly describe the conduct
of the Edomites at the overthrow of Jerusalem in 586; but vv. 1-9
probably reflect earlier events; and it is significant that in them
alone occur the parallels to Jeremiah’s prophecy against Edom in 604.
On some of these grounds Ewald regarded the little book as consisting
of two pieces, both of which refer to Edom, but the first of which was
written before Jeremiah, and the second is post-exilic. As Jeremiah’s
prophecy has some features more original than Obadiah’s,[463] he traced
both prophecies to an original oracle against Edom, of which Obadiah on
the whole renders an exact version. He fixed the date of this oracle in
the earlier days of Isaiah, when Rezin of Syria enabled Edom to assert
again its independence of Judah, and Edom won back Elath, which Uzziah
had taken.[464] Driver, Wildeboer and Cornill[465] adopt this theory,
with the exception of the period to which Ewald refers the original
oracle. According to them, the Book of Obadiah consists of two pieces,
vv. 1-9 pre-exilic, and vv. 10-21 post-exilic and descriptive in 11-14
of Nebuchadrezzar’s sack of Jerusalem.
This latter point need not be contested.[466] But is it clear that
1-9 are so different from 10-21 that they must be assigned to another
period? Are they necessarily pre-exilic? Wellhausen thinks not, and has
constructed still another theory of the origin of the book, which, like
Vatke’s, brings it all down to the period after the Exile.
There is no mention in the book either of Assyria or of Babylonia.[467]
The allies who have betrayed Edom (ver. 7) are therefore probably
those Arabian tribes who surrounded it and were its frequent
confederates.[468] They are described as _sending_ Edom _to the border_
(_ib._). Wellhausen thinks that this can only refer to the great
northward movement of Arabs which began to press upon the fertile
lands to the south-east of Israel during the time of the Captivity.
Ezekiel[469] prophesies that Ammon and Moab will disappear before
the Arabs, and we know that by the year 312 the latter were firmly
settled in the territories of Edom.[470] Shortly before this the
Hagarenes appear in Chronicles, and Se’ir is called by the Arabic name
Gebal,[471] while as early as the fifth century “Malachi”[472] records
the desolation of Edom’s territory by the _jackals of the wilderness_,
and the expulsion of the Edomites, who will not return. The Edomites
were pushed up into the Negeb of Israel, and occupied the territory
round, and to the south of, Hebron till their conquest by John Hyrcanus
about 130; even after that it was called Idumæa.[473] Wellhausen would
assign Obadiah 1-7 to the same stage of this movement as is reflected
in “Malachi” i. 1-5; and, apart from certain parentheses, would
therefore take the whole of Obadiah as a unity from the end of the
fifth century before Christ. In that case Giesebrecht argues that the
parallel prophecy, Jeremiah xlix. 7-22, must be reckoned as one of the
passages of the Book of Jeremiah in which post-exilic additions have
been inserted.[474]
Our criticism of this theory may start from the seventh verse of
Obadiah: _To the border they have sent thee, all the men of thy
covenant have betrayed thee, they have overpowered thee, the men of
thy peace._ On our present knowledge of the history of Edom it is
impossible to assign the first of these clauses to any period before
the Exile. No doubt in earlier days Edom was more than once subjected
to Arab _razzias_. But up to the Jewish Exile the Edomites were still
in possession of their own land. So the Deuteronomist[475] implies,
and so Ezekiel[476] and perhaps the author of Lamentations.[477]
Wellhausen’s claim, therefore, that the seventh verse of Obadiah refers
to the expulsion of Edomites by Arabs in the sixth or fifth century
B.C. may be granted.[478] But does this mean that verses 1-6 belong,
as he maintains, to the same period? A negative answer seems required
by the following facts. To begin with, the seventh verse is not found
in the parallel prophecy in Jeremiah. There is no reason why it should
not have been used there, if that prophecy had been compiled at a
time when the expulsion of the Edomites was already an accomplished
fact. But both by this omission and by all its other features, that
prophecy suits the time of Jeremiah, and we may leave it, therefore,
where it was left till the appearance of Wellhausen’s theory—namely,
with Jeremiah himself.[479] Moreover Jeremiah xlix. 9 seems to have
been adapted in Obadiah 5 in order to suit verse 6. But again, Obadiah
1-6, which contains so many parallels to Jeremiah’s prophecy, also
seems to imply that the Edomites are still in possession of their
land. _The nations_ (we may understand by this the Arab tribes) are
risen against Edom, and Edom is already despicable in face of them
(vv. 1, 2); but he has not yet fallen, any more than, to the writer of
Isaiah xlv.—xlvii., who uses analogous language, Babylon is already
fallen. Edom is weak and cannot resist the Arab _razzias_. But he
still makes his eyrie on high and says: _Who will bring me down?_ To
which challenge Jehovah replies, not ‘I have brought thee down,’ but
_I will bring thee down_. The post-exilic portion of Obadiah, then, I
take to begin with verse 7; and the author of this prophecy has begun
by incorporating in vv. 1-6 a pre-exilic prophecy against Edom, which
had been already, and with more freedom, used by Jeremiah. Verses
8-9 form a difficulty. They return to the future tense, as if the
Edomites were still to be cut off from Mount Esau. But verse 10, as
Wellhausen points out, follows on naturally to verse 7, and, with its
successors, clearly points to a period subsequent to Nebuchadrezzar’s
overthrow of Jerusalem. The change from the past tense in vv. 10-11
to the imperatives of 12-14 need cause, in spite of what Pusey says,
no difficulty, but may be accounted for by the excited feelings of
the prophet. The suggestion has been made, and it is plausible, that
Obadiah speaks as an eye-witness of that awful time. Certainly there
is nothing in the rest of the prophecy (vv. 15-21) to lead us to bring
it further down than the years following the destruction of Jerusalem.
Everything points to the Jews being still in exile. The verbs which
describe the inviolateness of Jerusalem (17), and the reinstatement of
Israel in their heritage (17, 19), and their conquest of Edom (18), are
all in the future. The prophet himself appears to write in exile (20).
The captivity of Jerusalem is in Sepharad (_ib._) and the _saviours_
have to _come up_ to Mount Zion; that is to say, they are still beyond
the Holy Land (21).[480]
The one difficulty in assigning this date to the prophecy is that
nothing is said in the Hebrew of ver. 19 about the re-occupation of
the hill-country of Judæa itself, but here the Greek may help us.[481]
Certainly every other feature suits the early days of the Exile.
The result of our inquiry is that the Book of Obadiah was written at
that time by a prophet in exile, who was filled by the same hatred of
Edom as filled another exile, who in Babylon wrote Psalm cxxxvii.; and
that, like so many of the exilic writers, he started from an earlier
prophecy against Edom, already used by Jeremiah.[482] [Nowack (_Comm._,
1897) takes vv. 1-14 (with additions in vv. 1, 5, 6, 8f. and 12) to
be from a date not long after the Fall of Jerusalem, alluded to in
vv. 11-14; and vv. 15-21 to belong to a later period, which it is
impossible to fix exactly.]
There is nothing in the language of the book to disturb this
conclusion. The Hebrew of Obadiah is pure; unlike its neighbour, the
Book of Jonah, it contains neither Aramaisms nor other symptoms of
decadence. The text is very sound. The Septuagint Version enables us to
correct vv. 7 and 17, offers the true division between vv. 9 and 10,
but makes an omission which leaves no sense in ver. 17.[483] It will be
best to give all the twenty-one verses together before commenting on
their spirit.
THE VISION OF OBADIAH.
_Thus hath the Lord Jehovah spoken concerning Edom._[484]
“_A report have we heard from Jehovah, and a messenger has been sent
through the nations, ‘Up and let us rise against her to battle.’ Lo,
I have made thee small among the nations, thou art very despised! The
arrogance of thy heart hath misled thee, dweller in clefts of the
Rock[485]; the height is his dwelling, that saith in his heart ‘Who
shall bring me down to earth!’ Though thou build high as the eagle,
though between the stars thou set thy nest, thence will I bring thee
down—oracle of Jehovah. If thieves had come into thee by night (how
art thou humbled!),[486] would they not steal _just_ what they wanted?
If vine-croppers had come into thee, would they not leave_ some
_gleanings? (How searched out is Esau, how rifled his treasures!)_”
But now _to_ thy very _border have they sent thee, all the men of thy
covenant[487] have betrayed thee, the men of thy peace have overpowered
thee[488]; they kept setting traps for thee—there is no understanding
in him! “[489]Shall it not be in that day—oracle of Jehovah—that I
will cause the wise men to perish from Edom, and understanding from
Mount Esau? And thy heroes, O Teman, shall be dismayed, till[490]
every man be cut off from Mount Esau.” For the slaughter,[491] for the
outraging of thy brother Jacob, shame doth cover thee, and thou art
cut off for ever. In the day of thy standing aloof,[492] in the day
when strangers took captive his substance, and aliens came into his
gates,[493] and they cast lots on Jerusalem, even thou wert as one of
them!_ Ah, _gloat not[494] upon the day of thy brother,[495] the day
of his misfortune[496]; exult not over the sons of Judah in the day
of their destruction, and make not thy mouth large[497] in the day of
distress. Come not up into the gate of My people in the day of their
disaster. Gloat not thou, yea thou, upon his ills, in the day of his
disaster, nor put forth thy hand to his substance in the day of his
disaster, nor stand at the parting[498]_ of the ways (?) _to cut off
his fugitives; nor arrest his escaped ones in the day of distress_.
_For near is the day of Jehovah, upon all the nation as thou hast done,
so shall it be done to thee: thy deed shall come back on thine own
head.[499]_
_For as ye[500] have drunk on my holy mount, all the nations shall
drink continuously, drink and reel, and be as though they had not
been.[501] But on Mount Zion shall be refuge, and it shall be
inviolate, and the house of Jacob shall inherit those who have
disinherited them.[502] For the house of Jacob shall be fire, and the
house of Joseph a flame, but the house of Esau shall become stubble,
and they shall kindle upon them and devour them, and there shall not
one escape of the house of Esau—for Jehovah hath spoken._
_And the Negeb shall possess Mount Esau, and the Shephelah the
Philistines,[503] and the Mountain[504] shall possess Ephraim and the
field of Samaria,[505] and Benjamin shall possess Gilead. And the
exiles of this host[506] of the children of Israel shall possess(?) the
land[507] of the Canaanites unto Sarephath, and the exiles of Jerusalem
who are in Sepharad[508] shall inherit the cities of the Negeb. And
saviours shall come up on Mount Zion to judge Mount Esau, and the
kingdom shall be Jehovah’s._
FOOTNOTES:
[454] עֹבַדְיָה, ‘Obadyah, the later form of עֹבַדְיָהוּ, ‘Obadyahu (a name
occurring thrice before the Exile: Ahab’s steward who hid the prophets
of the Lord, 1 Kings xviii. 3-7, 16; of a man in David’s house, 1
Chron. xxvii. 19; a Levite in Josiah’s reign, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12), is
the name of several of the Jews who returned from exile: Ezra viii. 9,
the son of Jehi’el (in 1 Esdras viii. Ἀβαδιας); Neh. x. 6, a priest,
probably the same as the Obadiah in xii. 25, a porter, and the עַבְדָּא,
the singer, in xi. 17, who is called עֹבַדְיָה in 1 Chron. ix. 16. Another
‘Obadyah is given in the eleventh generation from Saul, 1 Chron. viii.
38, ix. 44; another in the royal line in the time of the Exile, iii.
21; a man of Issachar, vii. 3; a Gadite under David, xii. 9; a _prince_
under Jehoshaphat sent _to teach in the cities of Judah_, 2 Chron.
xvii. 7. With the Massoretic points עֹבַדְיָה means worshipper of Jehovah:
cf. Obed-Edom, and so in the Greek form, Ὀβδειου, of Cod. B. But other
Codd., A, θ and א, give Ἀβδιου or Ἀβδειου, and this, with the
alternative Hebrew form אַבְדָּא of Neh. xi. 17, suggests rather עֶבֶד יָה,
_servant of Jehovah_. The name as given in the title is probably
intended to be that of an historical individual, as in the titles of
all the other books; but which, or if any, of the above mentioned it is
impossible to say. Note, however, that it is the later post-exilic form
of the name that is used, in spite of the book occurring among the
pre-exilic prophets. Some, less probably, take the name Obadyah to be
symbolic of the prophetic character of the writer.
[455] 889 B.C. Hofmann, Keil, etc.; and soon after 312, Hitzig.
[456] Cf. the extraordinary tirade of Pusey in his Introd. to Obadiah.
[457] The first in his Commentary on _Die Zwölf Kleine Propheten_; the
other in his _Einleitung_.
[458] Caspari (_Der Proph. Ob. ausgelegt_ 1842), Ewald, Graf, Pusey,
Driver, Giesebrecht, Wildeboer and König. Cf. Jer. xlix. 9 with Ob. 5;
Jer. xlix. 14 ff. with Ob. 1-4. The opening of Ob. 1 ff. is held to
be more in its place than where it occurs in the middle of Jeremiah’s
passage. The language of Obadiah is “terser and more forcible. Jeremiah
seems to expand Obadiah, and parts of Jeremiah which have no parallel
in Obadiah are like Obadiah’s own style” (Driver). This strong argument
is enforced in detail by Pusey: “Out of the sixteen verses of which
the prophecy of Jeremiah against Edom consists, four are identical
with those of Obadiah; a fifth embodies a verse of Obadiah’s; of the
eleven which remain ten have some turns of expression or idioms, more
or fewer, which occur in Jeremiah, either in these prophecies against
foreign nations, or in his prophecies generally. Now it would be wholly
improbable that a prophet, selecting verses out of the prophecy of
Jeremiah, should have selected precisely those which contain none of
Jeremiah’s characteristic expressions; whereas it perfectly fits in
with the supposition that Jeremiah interwove verses of Obadiah with his
own prophecy, that in verses so interwoven there is not one expression
which occurs elsewhere in Jeremiah.” Similarly Nowack, _Comm._, 1897.
[459] 2 Chron. xx.
[460] 2 Chron. xxi. 14-17.
[461] So Delitzsch, Keil, Volck in Herzog’s _Real. Ency._ II., Orelli
and Kirkpatrick. Delitzsch indeed suggests that the prophet may have
been _Obadiah the prince_ appointed by Jehoshaphat _to teach in the
cities of Judah_. See above, p. 163, n. 454.
[462] Driver, _Introd._
[463] Jer. xlix. 9 and 16 appear to be more original than Ob. 3 and 2b.
Notice the presence in Jer. xlix. 16 of תפלצתך which Obadiah omits.
[464] 2 Kings xiv. 22; xvi. 6, Revised Version margin.
[465] _Einl._³ pp. 185 f.: “In any case Obadiah 1-9 are older than the
fourth year of Jehoiakim.”
[466] “That the verses Obadiah 10 ff. refer to this event [the sack of
Jerusalem] will always remain the most natural supposition, for the
description which they give so completely suits that time that it is
not possible to take any other explanation into consideration.”
[467] Edom paid tribute to Sennacherib in 701, and to Asarhaddon
(681—669). According to 2 Kings xxiv. 2 Nebuchadrezzar sent Ammonites,
Moabites and Edomites [for ארם read אדם] against Jehoiakim, who had
broken his oath to Babylonia.
[468] For Edom’s alliances with Arab tribes cf. Gen. xxv. 13 with
xxxvi. 3, 12, etc.
[469] Ezek. xxv. 4, 5, 10.
[470] Diod. Sic. XIX. 94. A little earlier they are described as in
possession of Iturea, on the south-east slopes of Anti-Lebanon (Arrian
II. 20, 4).
[471] Psalm lxxxiii. 8.
[472] i. 1-5.
[473] _E.g._ in the New Testament: Mark iii. 8.
[474] So too Nowack, 1897.
[475] Deut. ii. 5, 8, 12.
[476] Ezek. xxxv., esp. 2 and 15.
[477] iv. 21: yet _Uz_ fails in LXX., and some take ארץ to refer to the
Holy Land itself. Buhl, _Gesch. der Edomiter_, 73.
[478] It can hardly be supposed that Edom’s treacherous allies were
Assyrians or Babylonians, for even if the phrase “men of thy covenant”
could be applied to those to whom Edom was tributary, the Assyrian or
Babylonian method of dealing with conquered peoples is described by
saying that they took them off into captivity, not that they _sent them
to the border_.
[479] So even Cornill, _Einl._³
[480] This in answer to Wellhausen on the verse.
[481] See below, p. 175, n. 6.
[482] Calvin, while refusing in his introduction to Obadiah to fix a
date (except in so far as he thinks it impossible for the book to be
earlier than Isaiah), implies throughout his commentary on the book
that it was addressed to Edom while the Jews were in exile. See his
remarks on vv. 18-20.
[483] There is a mistranslation in ver. 18: שׂריד is rendered by
πυρόφορος.
[484] This is no doubt from the later writer, who before he gives the
new word of Jehovah with regard to Edom, quotes the earlier prophecy,
marked above by quotation marks. In no other way can we explain the
immediate following of the words “Thus hath the Lord spoken” with “_We_
have heard a report,” etc.
[485] ‘Sela,’ the name of the Edomite capital, Petra.
[486] The parenthesis is not in Jer. xlix. 9; Nowack omits it. _If
spoilers_ occurs in Heb. before _by night_: delete.
[487] Antithetic to _thieves_ and _spoilers by night_, as the sending
of the people to their border is antithetic to the thieves taking only
what they wanted.
[488] לחמך, _thy bread_, which here follows, is not found in the LXX.,
and is probably an error due to a mechanical repetition of the letters
of the previous word.
[489] Again perhaps a quotation from an earlier prophecy: Nowack counts
it from another hand. Mark the sudden change to the future.
[490] Heb. _so that_.
[491] With LXX. transfer this expression from the end of the ninth to
the beginning of the tenth verse.
[492] “When thou didst stand on the opposite side.”—Calvin.
[493] Plural; LXX. and Qeri.
[494] Sudden change to imperative. The English versions render, _Thou
shouldest not have looked on_, etc.
[495] Cf. Ps. cxxxvii. 7, _the day of Jerusalem_.
[496] The day of his strangeness = _aliena fortuna_.
[497] With laughter. Wellhausen and Nowack suspect ver. 13 as an
intrusion.
[498] פֶּרֶק does not elsewhere occur. It means cleaving, and the LXX.
render it by διεκβολή, _i.e._ pass between mountains. The Arabic forms
from the same root suggest the sense of a band of men standing apart
from the main body on the watch for stragglers (cf. נגד, in ver. 11).
Calvin, “the going forth”; Grätz פרץ, _breach_, but see Nowack.
[499] Wellhausen proposes to put the last two clauses immediately after
ver. 14.
[500] The prophet seems here to turn to address his own countrymen: the
drinking will therefore take the meaning of suffering God’s chastising
wrath. Others, like Calvin, take it in the opposite sense, and apply it
to Edom: “as ye have exulted,” etc.
[501] _Reel_—for לעוּ we ought (with Wellhausen) probably to read
נעוּ: cf. Lam. iv. 2. Some codd. of LXX. omit _all the nations ...
continuously, drink and reel_. But א^{Ca} A and Q have _all the
nations shall drink wine_.
[502] So LXX. Heb. _their heritages_.
[503] That is the reverse of the conditions after the Jews went into
exile, for then the Edomites came up on the Negeb and the Philistines
on the Shephelah.
[504] _I.e._ of Judah, the rest of the country outside the Negeb and
Shephelah. The reading is after the LXX.
[505] Whereas the pagan inhabitants of these places came upon the
hill-country of Judæa during the Exile.
[506] An unusual form of the word. Ewald would read _coast_. The verse
is obscure.
[507] So LXX.
[508] The Jews themselves thought this to be Spain: so Onkelos, who
translates ספרד by אַסְפַּמְיָא = Hispania. Hence the origin of the
name Sephardim Jews. The supposition that it is Sparta need hardly
be noticed. Our decision must lie between two other regions—the one
in Asia Minor, the other in S.W. Media. _First_, in the ancient
Persian inscriptions there thrice occurs (great Behistun inscription,
I. 15; inscription of Darius, II. 12, 13; and inscription of Darius
from Naḳsh-i-Rustam) Çparda. It is connected with Janua or Ionia and
Katapatuka or Cappadocia (Schrader, _Cun. Inscr. and O. T._, Germ. ed.,
p. 446; Eng., Vol. II., p. 145); and Sayce shows that, called Shaparda
on a late cuneiform inscription of 275 B.C., it must have lain in
Bithynia or Galatia (_Higher Criticism and Monuments_, p. 483). Darius
made it a satrapy. It is clear, as Cheyne says (_Founders of O. T.
Criticism_, p. 312), that those who on other grounds are convinced of
the post-exilic origin of this part of Obadiah, of its origin in the
Persian period, will identify Sepharad with this Çparda, which both he
and Sayce do. But to those of us who hold that this part of Obadiah
is from the time of the Babylonian exile, as we have sought to prove
above on pp. 171 f., then Sepharad cannot be Çparda, for Nebuchadrezzar
did not subdue Asia Minor and cannot have transported Jews there. Are
we then forced to give up our theory of the date of Obadiah 10-21 in
the Babylonian exile? By no means. For, _second_, the inscriptions of
Sargon, king of Assyria (721—705 B.C.), mention a Shaparda, in S.W.
Media towards Babylonia, a name phonetically correspondent to ספרד
(Schrader, _l.c._), and the identification of the two is regarded as
“exceedingly probable” by Fried. Delitzsch (_Wo lag das Paradies?_ p.
249). But even if this should be shown to be impossible, and if the
identification Sepharad = Çparda be proved, that would not oblige us to
alter our opinion as to the date of the whole of Obadiah 10-21, for it
is possible that later additions, including Sepharad, have been made to
the passage.