An Eighth Century Obadiah

An Eighth Century Obadiah Andrew Perry Introduction While Obadiah has no dateable information in its superscription, the consensus of scholars is that the work is just exilic, or on the cusp of the exile, and partly a reflection upon Edom’s involvement in the sack of Jerusalem in 587.1 A full discussion of the dating of Obadiah is beyond the scope of this article. Here we will delineate an eighth century reading and contrast it with the consensus “Babylonian” reading. Challenging the Consensus The main verses that are taken to support a sixth century reading of Obadiah are vv. 10-14, and our contention is that they have been badly misunderstood by commentators for the following reasons: 1) Edom has done violence to Judah (v. 10) for which they will be destroyed. The word for “violence” is common (smx) but the expression “because of the violence” (smxm) is rare (3x) and is shared between Joel and Obadiah (Joel 3:19). In addition, Obadiah goes onto use the expression “children of Judah” (v. 12, hdwhy ynb) which is rare in the Prophets (5x) and occurs twice in Joel (Joel 3:8, 19). This verbal linkage allows the suggestion that Joel is talking about the same crime committed by Edom, and that therefore the violence was done in Edom and it was not the violence of war, but the violence of shedding innocent blood—the blood of civilian victims (e.g., Ps 106:38; Prov 6:17; Jer 7:6). Everyone in Edom was to be “cut off by slaughter” (KJV, RSV2) and the reason given is “for violence against Jacob” (v. 10): ...to the end that every one of the mount of Esau may be cut off by slaughter. For violence against thy brother Jacob...thou shalt be cut off for ever. Obad vv. 9-10 (KJV revised) The repetition of “cut off” (trk) in vv. 9-10 as an inclusio ties these two verses together and marks out v. 11 as a separate unit. There are certainly occasions in the eighth century when Edom might have committed this crime of shedding innocent blood, chief of which would be their attacks in the 730s when they took captives from Judah (2 Chron 28:17), or when they received captives from the Philistines (Amos 1:6, 9). 2) The text of v. 11 is marked off from vv. 9-10 because of the change of topic. Whereas vv. 9-10 centre on Edom’s violence, v. 11 is about Edom standing aloof from the plunder of Jerusalem. 3 Similarly, v. 11 is separated from vv. 12-14 by a sharp change in mood. This change is masked in the KJV and RSV but brought out by the NASB: 1 R. Mason, Micah, Nahum, Obadiah (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 94. Commentators disagree on the Hebrew syntax of v. 10; we follow the KJV and RSV and the MT verse division. J. Barton, Joel and Obadiah (OTL; WJK Press, 2001), 143, offers a discussion of the disagreement and supports the MT and RSV. 3 Mason, Micah, Nahum, Obadiah, 99, sees the change of topic between v. 10 and v. 11 as an “apparent inconsistency” which he attempts to resolve. However, there is no inconsistency in the reading that v. 10 closes vv. 8-10 and v. 11 opens the warnings of vv. 12-14. 2 On the day that you stood aloof, on the day that strangers carried off his wealth, and foreigners entered his gate and cast lots for Jerusalem—you too were as one of them. Obad v. 11 (NASB) Do not gloat over your brother's day, the day of his misfortune. And do not rejoice over the sons of Judah in the day of their destruction; Yes, do not boast in the day of their distress. Do not enter the gate of my people in the day of their disaster. Yes, you, do not gloat over their calamity in the day of their disaster. And do not loot their wealth in the day of their disaster. Do not stand at the fork of the road to cut down their fugitives; and do not imprison their survivors in the day of their distress. Obad v. 12-14 (NASB) This change of mood is marked from v. 11 to vv. 12-14, and it has caused commentators to change the normal rendering of the syntax in vv. 12-14 to a past indicative tense and mood consistent with v. 11. J. Barton observes of the verbal forms in vv. 12-14 that “the obvious way to take them is as imperative imperfects”,4 which is how the NASB renders the verses. This is consistent with the use of the particle adverb la and the imperfect verb everywhere else in Hebrew to convey the jussive.5 This is not an uncommon syntactical combination and there are dozens of examples where translations render the form as an imperative. Barton’s advocacy of the past indicative tense and mood is based on nothing more than the “odd effect”6 of the prophecy referring to what the Edomites have done (?!) in vv. 1-11 and then switching to an imperative. On this basis, the RSV has, But you should not have gloated over the day of your brother in the day of his misfortune; you should not have rejoiced over the people of Judah in the day of their ruin; you should not have boasted in the day of distress. You should not have entered the gate of my people in the day of his calamity; you should not have gloated over his disaster in the day of his calamity; you should not have looted his goods in the day of his calamity. You should not have stood at the parting of the ways to cut off his fugitives; you should not have delivered up his survivors in the day of distress. Obad vv. 12-14 (RSV) It is a mistake to overturn a common syntactical pattern7 because of a lack of understanding on the part of a commentator/translator in how the thought of a text flows from point to point. We conclude therefore that the NASB is correct to maintain the Hebrew syntax as imperatives. The consequence of this is that the subject-matter of v. 11 is different to that of vv. 12-14, so that both cannot refer to the Babylonian sack of Jerusalem in 587. The NASB would allow a date for Obadiah before 587, in which case vv. 12-14 become a warning in general terms to Edom not to take advantage of Judah’s punishment and v. 11 references an earlier injustice on the part of Edom. The RSV (incorrectly) harmonizes the verbal mood and tense across vv. 11-14 and thereby avoids this implication. However, commentators who follow this way of rendering the Hebrew have Obadiah writing after the sack of Jerusalem, and in this case, it is surprising that the prophet makes no reference to the destruction of the city or temple or to the deportation of the people to Babylon, and this casts doubt on the Babylonian interpretation. In an eighth century reading (following the NASB), it is not difficult to identify an occasion when 4 Barton, Joel and Obadiah, 148; see also Mason, Micah, Nahum, Obadiah, 100. GKC, sections 46, 109, 110; R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967), 184, 402. 6 Barton, Joel and Obadiah, 148. 7 The LXX translates as aorist subjunctives which show that the RSV and KJV at least maintain an ancient translation of the Hebrew. 5 Obadiah might have warned Edom (not to stand by and watch Judah’s downfall since this was threatened by Assyria in the 730s, 720s and in 701. 3) Obadiah v. 11 references a prior historical act of hostility, but vv. 1-10 anticipates (and concludes) a forthcoming war with Edom. This is clear from v. 1 which states that a “report” (h[wmv) has been heard, a term that is indicative of military movement (e.g., Isa 28:19; 37:7; Jer 10:22; Ezek 7:26). Thus says the Lord God concerning Edom: We have heard tidings from the Lord, and a messenger has been sent among the nations: “Rise up! Let us rise against her for battle!” Obad v. 1 (RSV) Contrary to Barton,8 who reflects a common view that v. 1 is about nations gathering against Edom, this messenger is Edom’s messenger gathering the nations round about to battle against Zion.9 Against this opening declaration, the oracle of vv. 2-4 can be rendered as in the KJV with its perfect verbs expressing a fact: Behold, I have made thee small among the heathen: thou art greatly despised. The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high; that saith in his heart, ‘Who shall bring me down to the ground?’ Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord. Obad vv. 2-4 (KJV) Edom had designs on Zion, but God had made her a small people and of no account; if they magnified themselves and sought to take Jerusalem, they would be brought down to the ground. The anticipation of a war at this point, prosecuted by Edom, is incompatible with a Babylonian reading. 4) The attempt at forging an alliance and then attacking Jerusalem comes to an end at the border when treachery within the alliance brings Edom’s designs to an end (v. 7). The “wisdom” and the “political understanding” of the Edomite counsellors is shown to be disastrous. The so-called allies had turned against Edom and left nothing—they were “cut off” to such an extent that their state was as if robbers had left nothing behind in a house (v. 5). The reason for all this was their “violence” against their brother Jacob (v. 10).10 The forthcoming war of vv. 1-4 is averted by the repetition of Jehoshaphat’s “victory” over a similar Edomite alliance that also fell to internecine strife (vv. 5-10, cf. 2 Chronicles 20). 5) Obadiah vv. 10-14 is usually taken to be the sack of Jerusalem in 587.11 An older commentary view is that this is a reference to Shishak’s subjugation of Jerusalem in the days of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:25-28).12 It has also been related to the Philistine and Arabian attack on Jerusalem in the 8 Barton, Joel and Obadiah, 135. The feminine suffix in “against her” is common and one usage is naturally for cities—Isa 7:1; 66:10; Jon 1:2; Zeph 2:15. One indication that Zion is meant is the use of the masculine elsewhere in Obadiah for Edom. 10 The refrain of “cut off” (vv. 5, 9, 10) ties vv. 5-10 together as description and explanation of what befell the Edomites. The units are v. 5, vv. 6-7 and vv. 8-10. 11 Barton, Joel and Obadiah, 120-123; see also H. W. Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986). 12 E. B. Pusey, Joel and Obadiah (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1906), 274. 9 reign of Jehoram (2 Chron 21:16-17),13 and the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis.14 On any interpretation, Edom is assigned an unhelpful largely passive role in which she takes delight in Judah’s downfall (cf. Ps 137:7; Lam 5:9). However, there are a number of objections to the Babylonian interpretation: i) First, the interpretation does not respect the divisions between Obadiah’s oracle units—vv. 510, v. 11 and vv. 12-14. ii) Secondly, there is extensive quotation of Obad vv. 1-8 in Jeremiah 49,15 but crucially, vv. 10-14 is not quoted. This is surprising if these verses are about the capture of Jerusalem in 587 and Jeremiah has Obadiah available for his use. One would have expected these verses to have been used by Jeremiah in his oracles about 587. This lack of mention has led scholars to propose that Obadiah is a composite work that includes an earlier prophet’s words (e.g. vv. 1-9, 17-18), to which Jeremiah had access, along with the work of an exilic or post-exilic prophet which post-dates Jeremiah.16 iii) Third, if Obadiah is taken to be a unified record17 from one prophet, certain statements do not easily fit the Babylonian Captivity and its aftermath. First, there is the positive assurance of deliverance (not capture) in Zion (v. 17; Joel 2:32); secondly, there was to be “holiness” in Zion, a hope indicative of the continuing presence of the temple and/or the Spirit (v. 17; Joel 2:28-29; 3:17); thirdly, there is an expectation of vengeance meted out by Judah upon Edom (v. 18; cf. Joel 3:19); and fourthly, there is confidence in the enlargement of Judah and Benjamin, and a return of captives from the West (not East, vv. 19-20). This difficulty has led commentators to read vv. 1721 in long-distance terms, as an expression of what will happen in the “last days”.18 The problem with this ad hoc suggestion is that it is difficult to see how such a reading would have been relevant or of value to Obadiah’s audience and it looks like an attempt to avoid evidence that goes against the Babylonian reading. Furthermore, the details of geography are very specific as if to require an immediate relevance to Judah (Zarephath; Sepharad) rather than an application in the “last days”. 13 F. Pearce, From Hosea to Zephaniah (Birmingham: CMPA, 1979), 42; E. J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Rev. ed.; London: The Tyndale Press, 1960), 277. 14 Mason, Micah, Nahum, Obadiah, 93, notes this option but does not espouse it; he favours a Babylonian interpretation. His argument is that no capture of Jerusalem is recorded for the troubled reign of Ahaz (94). 15 The direction of dependency is certain as Jeremiah mixes his use of Obadiah with his own material, whereas Obadiah’s opening oracles (vv. 1-4; 5-9) are coherent and compact units; furthermore, this intermixing of Obadiah is comparable to how Jeremiah uses Isaiah. Were the direction of dependency to be the other way, one would have expected some characteristic idioms of Jeremiah to come across into Obadiah, but the common material has no such idioms—Pusey, Joel and Obadiah, 278-294. 16 Pusey, Joel and Obadiah, 299—vv. 1-9, 17-18 for the early prophet; Barton, Joel and Obadiah, 120, vv. 1-4, 15b for the early prophet. 17 We cannot argue for this viewpoint here; L. C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (NICOT; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1976), 133-136, offers a discussion and favours the case for a unified Obadiah. Our argument would be that the disunity arguments depend on the Babylonian misreading and once this is removed, the unity of the book comes into plain sight. Exactly where Obadiah divides up into its constituent oracles is also beyond our scope; Allen, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, 140-143, has a good overview. 18 Barton, Joel and Obadiah, 118; Allen, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, 133. iv) Fourthly, the return of captives is from the West rather than the East as in the case of the Babylonian Captivity (2 Chron 36:20; Ezra 2:1). L. C. Allen remarks, “One might have expected a reference to Babylon as the domicile of Jewish exiles, but instead a mysterious Sepharad is named”.19 Allen advocates Sardis as the identity of Sepharad principally on the grounds of an Aramaic bilingual inscription which has the Aramaic sprd as the name of Sardis. If this is correct, Sardis is to the north and east in Asia Minor. Pusey observes that such a location would be consistent with slave-trading.20 Such a detail harmonizes with Joel’s record of the Ionians’ 8c. involvement in slavetrading with the Phoenician and Philistine coastal cities (Joel 3:4, 6); the location of Sardis near to the centre of Ionian trade is an undesigned coincidence between Joel and Obadiah. It is noteworthy that these specifics in the prophecy tell against a “last days” interpretation of the later verses. Moreover, the focus then shifts to Judah and Benjamin possessing land to the north and the south rather than any last days’ return that would encompass all the tribes of Israel. v) The direct involvement of Edom in the sack of Jerusalem is a hypothesis. The evidence of Ps 137:7 and Lam 5:9 is that they “watched” the attack and operated in the desert harrying refugees. In the record of Kings and Chronicles, Chaldeans, Arameans, Moabites and Ammonites joined in the attack on Jerusalem (2 Kgs 24:2; Jer 35:11); Edom is not mentioned, which one would have expected in a list of Judah’s local enemies if Obadiah was about the prior sack of Jerusalem. For these reasons, (i)-(v), we reject the Babylonian interpretation. This does not settle a date for Obadiah and the historical reference of v. 11 remains uncertain. Suggestions based on Shishak’s entry into Jerusalem (1 Kgs 14:25-26) or that of the Arabians and Philistines (2 Chron 21:16-17) are possible21 but they beg the question of how long after these events Obadiah prophesied. If Obadiah was a near contemporary to either event (925, 840), the question can be raised as to why the book is not first in any order of the Minor Prophets. 6) The scope of v. 11 does not obviously suggest the sack of a city: there is no description of the ruination of the city, walls, buildings and temple; there is no language of deportation. The Edomites are not accused of taking delight in these common aspects of conquest. In contrast, they are accused of this attitude by the Psalmist in response to the events of 587, Remember, O Lord, against the sons of Edom The day of Jerusalem, Who said, “Raze it, raze it to its very foundation.” Ps 137:7 (NASB) cf. Lam 5:9 The descriptions in v. 11 also fit a situation where Jerusalem surrendered to a foreign army leaving the apparatus of the state and the infrastructure of the city intact. This was evidently the case in the reign of Rehoboam (Shishak) and Jehoram (Arabians, Philistines). On these occasions, the wealth of the city is taken by the hostile force, but the monarchy and the state continue to function. Ezekiel notes another attitude on the part of Edom: The word of the Lord came to me: 2 "Son of man, set your face against Mount Seir, and prophesy against it, 3 and say to it, Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am against you, Mount Seir, and I will stretch out my hand against you, and I will make you a desolation and a waste. 4 I will lay your cities waste, and you shall become a desolation; and you shall know that I am the Lord. 5 Because you cherished perpetual enmity, and gave over the people of Israel 19 Allen, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, 171. Pusey, Joel and Obadiah, 303. 21 Of these two events, the attack in Jehoram’s reign is the more likely as Jehoram and Edom had been war (2 Kgs 8:20-22; 2 Chron 21:8-10). 20 to the power of the sword at the time of their calamity, at the time of their final punishment… Ezek 35:1-5 (RSV) Here, the invective is that the cities of Mount Seir would be laid waste because they had “cherished perpetual enmity” and handed Israel over to the Babylonians during the final days of the monarchy. This accusation against Edom is not the same as that expressed in Obadiah, and this suggests that Obadiah reflects a different occasion to that of Ezekiel.22 Moreover, Ezekiel notes Edom’s long memory and determination to wreak revenge for past treatment at the hand of Judah. This long memory could be reflected in an equal long memory on the part of Judah about Edom’s reciprocal treatment (Amos 1:9). In this case, Obadiah might well be remembering the behaviour of Edom during the reign of Jehoram and cite this in his own generation.23 7) Edom’s role is one of non-involvement according to Obad v. 11. They “stand aloof” (v. 11, RSV, NASB) while “strangers” carry away the wealth (v. 11, lyx, RSV, NASB) of the city. They are not part of the forces of the foreign army that has assailed Jerusalem (“strangers”, Hos 8:7; Isa 1:7). Furthermore, the main complaint is the taking of wealth rather than any destruction of Jerusalem. This fits the leading characteristic that Kings and Chronicles record for the Arabian and Philistine incursion: And the Lord stirred up against Jehoram the anger of the Philistines and of the Arabs who are near the Ethiopians; 17 and they came up against Judah, and invaded it, and carried away all the possessions they found that belonged to the king's house, and also his sons and his wives, so that no son was left to him except Jehoahaz, his youngest son. 2 Chron 21:16-17 (RSV) This event presupposes some sort of surrender24 on the part of the king, with its consequent tribute, as the Jerusalemites were able to anoint Ahaziah in place of Jehoram. The alliance against Judah would have “cast lots” for the disposal of slaves taken in the raid. If this is Obadiah’s historical reminiscence, the accusation against Edom is that they were “like one of them”—the raiders, but not “actually one of them”. The “casting of lots” that Obadiah mentions makes sense in the case of such an alliance, but not in the case of Babylon who are presented as the only enemy taking treasure and captives from Jerusalem to Babylon (2 Chron 36:7, 10, 18). 8) The warnings of vv. 12-14 are prefaced by the historical statement of v. 11: the purpose of v. 11 is to justify the warnings—Edom had a history of standing by and watching with satisfaction any downfall of Judah. In order for the warnings to have force, there must be a prospect of destruction (dba), distress (hrc), and calamity (dya) coming upon Judah. These terms are sufficiently common for any invasion or war that the prospect Obadiah foresees cannot be identified. For instance, distress is a feature of crises in Judah’s history in the 730s (Isa 8:22) as well as in 701/700 (Isa 33:2; 37:3; 63:9) and also in Josiah’s day (Zeph 1:15). The term “calamity” is used of the Babylonian Captivity (Jer 18:17; Ezek 35:5). If Obadiah’s warnings were delivered in the eighth century, they could certainly be re-used in the sixth century, but this consideration does not settle their date and provenance. 22 Contra Barton, Joel and Obadiah, 120-121. Edom broke its long-standing alliance with Judah (2 Sam 8:13-14; 2 Kgs 3:4-27) during Jehoram’s reign (2 Kgs 8:20-22) and this betrayal would stand long in the memory of Judah. 24 Hence, Mason, Micah, Nahum, Obadiah, 94, is wrong to argue that Ahaz’ reign is an unsuitable period for Obadiah—if at this time Obadiah includes an historical reference to the surrender of Jerusalem to the Arabian and Philistine alliance. 23 Obadiah’s warnings in vv. 12-14 are linked to the Day of the Lord, For (yk) the Day of the Lord is near upon all the nations. As you have done, it shall be done to you, your deeds shall return on your own head. Obad v. 15 (RSV) The effect of the “for” (yk) is to supply the backing for the warnings: Obadiah’s rhetoric is “Do not do this…for the Day of the Lord is near upon all nations”. Edom would be “rewarded” on that Day according to whether they had heeded Obadiah’s warnings. This logic excludes a date and provenance for Obadiah around 587, because at this time there was no prospect of there being a Day of the Lord for Edom and the nations. We can say that 587 was a Day of the Lord for Judah (cf. Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11), but Obadiah is about a Day of the Lord for all nations or as Joel puts it—the multitudes (Joel 3:14). Obadiah goes on in v. 16 to draw the comparison that as Edom had in the past drunk on God’s holy mountain, so too all nations would drink and “be as though they had not been” (KJV). This prophetic rhetoric fits the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis and the arrival of Assyria into Syro-Palestine in 734. At this time, they distressed Judah (2 Chron 28:20) and threatened the status quo in the entire Syro-Palestine land bridge. Edom was a confident aggressor at this time towards Judah and had “smitten them and carried away captives” at some time in the years leading up to 734 (2 Chron 28:17). It is a plausible hypothesis that Edom saw further opportunity for self-aggrandisement at the expense of Judah with the arrival of Assyria in the area or with the anti-Assyrian coalition of Syria and Northern Israel. Obadiah warns Edom against this course of behaviour and threatens a Day of the Lord for all nations—a prospect which he sees lying beyond the Assyrian occupation of the land. 9) Obadiah along with Joel affirms deliverance upon Mount Zion (v. 17, Joel 2:32). In the same oracle unit it is asserted that the “house of Joseph” and the “house of Jacob” would be a fire to the stubble of Esau (v. 18). As a result, the south (the Negeb) would possess Esau, the plain (the Shephelah) would possess the Philistines, and Benjamin would possess Gilead: Those of the Negeb shall possess Mount Esau, and those of the Shephelah the land of the Philistines; they shall possess the land of Ephraim and the land of Samaria and Benjamin shall possess Gilead. Obad v. 19 (RSV) These details fit an eighth century setting, but are difficult to fit around the events of 587. For this reason, commentators date vv. 17-21 (or some combination25 of vv. 15a, vv. 16-21) to a later writer than Obadiah. With Assyria’s assault on Northern Israel in the 730s during the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis, and then in the 720s with the siege of Samaria and occupation of Northern Israel, many in the north migrated to the south for the safety of Judah. At this time the “house of Joseph” (Northern Israel, Amos 5:6) and the “house of Jacob” (Judah, Mic 2:7; 3:9) were “together” and could have wrought revenge upon Edom in Hezekiah’s reign. He removed the Assyrian garrison set up under Ahaz, campaigned against the Philistines, and addressed the “captivity” of Judah and Jerusalem (2 Kgs 18:7-8; 2 Chron 29:9). The south and the plain had been lost to the Philistines in the 730s (2 Chron 28:18); Obadiah prophesies their return in v. 19. It is not implausible to see Hezekiah’s campaigns extend to Edom at the same time. 25 Barton, Joel and Obadiah, 151; Allen, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, 133-136, sets out the options in full. The mention of Gilead is also explicable in the politics of the late eighth century. Gad along with Reuben occupied the eastern bank of the Jordan (Gilead) in the original tribal division of land (Num 32:1-5). During the period, 748-732, Menahem and Pekah were rival kings in Northern Israel. Assyrian records refer to Menahem as “of Samaria” 26 which indicates his sphere of influence as Ephraim. Pekah’s sphere of influence would naturally fall on the east side of the Jordan, and his power base was most likely Gilead. In his usurpation of power, Menahem had assassinated Shallum who was from Jabesh-Gilead (2 Kgs 15:13-14), and in his turn, Pekah’s own coup against Menahem would be supported by Gileadites (2 Kgs 15:25). Pekah’s close association with Rezin king of Syria is explained by the proximity of Gilead to Syria and Rezin’s dominance of this region (Amos 1:3-5) along with Ammon (Amos 1:9). It would be a natural assurance in this political climate for Obadiah to declare specifically that Benjamin would possess Gilead. For the above reasons, (1)-(9), we take Obadiah to be an eighth century prophet, contemporary with Joel, and prophesying during the Assyrian crises of the 730s and 720s. We take vv. 11-21 to be the earlier oracles of Obadiah that explain the downfall of Edom which he delineates in the oracles of vv. 1-10. This downfall took place at the border as an Edomite alliance turned in on itself in much the same way as had happened in the days of Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 20). Conclusion Reading Obadiah in the eighth century time-frame allows a commentator to respect the evidence of its location in the Hebrew order of the Minor Prophets amongst the eighth century Prophets. It also allows a commentator to respect the unity of the book coming from one prophet— Obadiah. In contrast the Babylonian reading splits the book up into earlier and later “prophets” with Obadiah himself assigned to the period around 587. 26 J. K. Kuan, Neo-Assyrian Historical Inscriptions and Syria-Palestine (Hong Kong: Alliance Bible Seminary, 1995), 152.