STOP
Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World
This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world by JSTOR.
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.
We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
purposes.
Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-
journal-content .
JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact support@jstor.org.
THE
JEWISH QUAETERLY
REVIEW
JANUARY, 1908
SOME NEW CONSIDERATIONS TOWARDS
THE DATING OF THE BOOK OF MALACHI.
The Book of Malachi is commonly assigned to various
periods of the career of Ezra or Nehemiah x . The latest
date which has been proposed is by Torrey 2 , who attri-
butes it to the first half of the fourth century B. c.
The conditions described, religious and social, the per-
version of religion by the priests and the utter demoraliza-
tion of the people (ii. 8, iii. 5) have clearly a resemblance
to the period of Ezra and Nehemiah, and the reference to
the nna (i. 8) may be regarded as further indication that
the book may belong to the Persian period. Malachi,
however, describes also another class of persons, in his eyes
not less worthy of censure than the gross offenders against
the law of Yahweh (ii. 17, iii. 13 ff.), whom we should
perhaps rather designate as honest freethinkers ; and a
difficulty, which complicates the question of date — not yet
1 Among those who hold that tho work belongs to a time shortly before
the arrival of Ezra at Jerusalem, are Herzfeld, Bleek, Reuss, Stade, and
Nowaek, while Kehler, Nftgelsbach, Schrader, Keil, v. Orelli, Kuenen, and
Steiner refer it to the period of the second visit of Nehemiah to Jerusalem,
or a little earlier. Driver, Introduction, p. 357, places it in the time of
Neheiniah's absence at the Persian Court.
2 Encyclopedia Biblica, art. " Malachi."
VOL. XX. N
l68 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
satisfactorily solved — occurs in the remarkable passage
(i. a-5) in which Edom is represented as the arch-enemy
of Israel.
The Book of Malachi is peculiar in its diction and the
didactic presentation of its message. Its author was
a man eclectic in his use of the Hebrew language, at
a period when it was deteriorating under the increasing
use of Aramaic. It may be observed, that among literary
nations it is precisely at times of its decadence that men
of learning and patriotism are at most pains to do honour
to their own language and to maintain its original purity
by the careful avoidance of foreign elements.
The absence of Aramaisms cannot be regarded as —
necessarily — an argument in favour of the early date of
the composition of this book, especially in view of the
suggestion which has been made that the writer was not,
like Isaiah, a preacher to those who could be reached only
in popular language, but who rather addressed himself to
the few who would appreciate the use of the sacred tongue
now fast disappearing.
We may observe that the writer shows familiarity with
D, as, for example, in his use of the phrase ^n ^3 for priests
and of 3"in as the name of the place of the giving of the
Law, and also of the deuteronomic phrase tPtiE&Q) U s ?n.
It has been argued, upon a wrong interpretation of ii. 14
that the Book of Malachi could not have been written
before the proclamation of the Law, which did not occur,
as we may gather from a comparison of Ezra ix with Neh.
ix. a, until after the dissolution of the mixed marriages,
which took place in the second year of Ezra, c. 430 B.C. 1
However, the writer has a purpose entirely different from
that of Ezra, and the passage ii. 14 does not refer merely to
literal marriage conditions, but to the idea which is involved,
that of the acceptance of the religion of Yahweh. The fol-
lowing passage (ii. 15 sq.) may, however, be taken as a literal
1 Cf. Bertholet in MartVs Hand-Commentar, p. xviii.
THE DATING OF THE BOOK OP MALACHI 169
reference to social conditions, opposed to the moral concep-
tion of the writer who, as the prophet of Yahweh, forcibly
condemns them, ver. 16. It is indeed conceivable that the
passage may be a protest against the severity of Ezra
rather than evidence of the author's ignorance of his proce-
dure, a procedure which could hardly have been ignored,
had it already taken place. In this light we may perhaps
accept the work as later than the books of Ezra and
Nehemiah.
The occurrence of the word nns (i. 8) has, by some, been
regarded as positive evidence that the work belongs to the
Persian period. That the P document was known to the
author is evident from the stress which he lays upon
sacrificial worship. D, as we have seen, was also known
to him, and we may assume acquaintance with Deutero- and
Trito-Isaiah from his use of the phrase i~\i fUB, to prepare
the way, which occurs nowhere but in Mai. iii. 1 and in Isa.
xl. 3, lvii. 14, lxii. 10, and yet we would not argue from
familiarity with these authors that the writer belongs to
any of the periods to which they are individually assigned.
On the same analogy, are we justified in supposing that the
use of the word nns is necessarily evidence that the book,
as commonly alleged, belongs to the Persian period ?
The term nns is used in the Old Testament, from the time
of Solomon downward, to indicate various officials, at least
by the redactor in 1 Kings x. 15 and % Chron. ix. 14. The
LXX, however, distinguishes among these officials by the
use of various Greek titles, as is shown by the following
list:—
nns =
<T<xTp6.in\$ 1 Kings x. 15 ; a Chron. ix. 14, Solomon's gover-
nors ; 1 Kings xx. 24, Benhadad's captains.
TOTtapxvs a Kings xviii. %\ ; Isa. xxxvi. 9, Assyrian captains.
rj-ye/xdv Jer. li. 23, 57 (LXX, xxviii. 23, $7), Chaldean
governors ; Ezek. xxiii. 33, governors of various
peoples.
N %
170 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
&PX&V Neh. iii. 7, v. 14, xii. 26, officials over a district ;
Esther iii. 12, viii. 9, ix. 3, Persian governors.
7)yo6lj.tvo$ Mai. i. 8 ; Jer. li. 28 (LXX, xxviii. 28), governor
of the Medes ; Ezek. xxiii. 6, 12, Assyrian
governor.
iirapxos Ezra v. 3, 6, vi. 6, 13, viii. 36 ; Neh. ii. 7, 9,
Aramaic form.
With the exception of Unapxos and fjyefuov the Hebrew
title }5D is also rendered by these terms.
According to our present sources, there were Governors
in Judaea for a short time only, none indeed later than
Nehemiah, who in the MT. is called nna and in the LXX
apxcov. It would seem from our records that the Persian
influence had been but little exerted in relation to the
internal affairs of Judaea : cf. Ezra x. 14. We find that the
people were governed by twelve heads (Ezra ii. 2 ; Neh.
vii. 7) and by princes (Neh. xi. 1), but no appointment of any
governor is mentioned after Nehemiah, although there
must have been a responsible official. That a Jew should
have been advanced to such a position seems extraordinary,
and it is possible that Nehemiah had the foresight to give
such a guarantee to the Persians as induced them to leave
this little religious state unmolested, so long as there was
a prompt delivery of the taxes. During the Greek period
Jerusalem was under the gerusia, i. e. the Council of the
Elders T , at the head of which was the high-priest. The
power of the high-priest was certainly supreme not only in
religious matters, but, as occupying a position as mediator
between the people and their rulers, the Greeks, political
also, the union of that of Ezra with that of Nehemiah,
a sort of priestly governor.
As we have seen, the word nns in the MT. is applied to
various officials; never, however, to priests. A curious
instance of the use of the word has been preserved in
1 Jos., Ant. xii. 3. 3.
THE DATING OP THE BOOK OF MALAOHI 171
Bikkurim, III, 3 1 where the plural nina is used in con-
nexion with D'OJD and D^att, denoting priests belonging to
the highest order. We often find b^JD and nina used
together in the MT. : cf. Jer. li. 23, 28, 57 ; Ezek. xxiii. 6,
12, 23, where nine is translated by the LXX by fiyepAvas and
D'JJD by arparqyoijs (or riyavpAvovs koL orpai-r/yol/s) ; to this
phrase corresponds 01 b.pyj.cpti$ ml crrparriyot (Luke xxii. 4,
52) 2 . The &pxi*p€is were high-priests who retained the title
after they had been deposed from office. Now, if the title
nna had been gradually changed from being the designation
of an Assyrian or Persian governor to that (in the plural)
of the deposed high-priests of the time of Christ, may we
not justly infer that the nna par excellence meant the
ruling high-priest ? From this we may assume that the
nna in Mai. i. 8 does not necessarily refer to a Persian
satrap, but rather to some person who, at a time when
there was no actual Persian governor in Jerusalem occu-
pied his position and took his title ? Who, then, may have
been this governor-priest ?
Before answering this question it is necessary to find
what internal evidence the book affords us for a terminus
a quo for its possible date. Such evidence is fourfold.
1. Evidence from language.
2. Evidence from the position accorded to the priests.
3. Evidence from the theological view taken by the
author.
4. Evidence from his eschatology.
1. As we have seen, the author uses many terms which
do not occur elsewhere in the Old Testament, and derives
his technical expressions from D. The following words
occur only here and in P : —
ii. 2 Bna faecal matter, Exod. xxix. 14; Lev. iv. 11, viii.
17, xvi. 27 ; Num. xix. 5.
1 Cf. Sehurer, Geschichte, <fcc, II s , p. 266.
s Sehurer, op. cit., ibid.
172 TEiS JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
ii. 15 nv>, in the sense of life, Gen. vi. 17, vii. 15, 22; also
Ezek. xxxvii. 5 et al. ; Eccles. iii. 19.
The evidence would so far seem to point to a date
not earlier than P. It must be conceded, however, that
the elements of P were more or less known before the final
codification.
Other words, however, point to a date even later than P.
We find that the writer uses words which occur else-
where only (1) in Trito-Isaiah and other late passages : —
i. 7, 1 2 7X3 defile, Isa. lix. 3, lxiiL 3 ; Lam. iv. 14 ; Dan. i. 8.
The part, used as subst. occurs in Zeph. iii. 1.
i. 12 3>i fruit, Isa. lvii. 19.
The verb occurs only in Zech. ix. 17 ; Ps. lxii. 11, xcii.
15; Prov. x. 31.
iii. 19 itfp stubble, in a metaphorical sense, Isa. xxxiii. 11 ;
Obad. v. 18.
We may also consider here the words which occur only
in Malachi and Deut.- and Trito-Isaiah \
ii. 17 in* to weary, occurs in the Hiph. only here and Isa.
xliii. 23, 24.
iii. 1 TWfUB to prepare the way, Isa. xl. 3, lvii. 14, lxii.
10.
(2) In the Psalms and Wisdom Literature : —
i. 4 ?12S territory, in a figurative sense, occurs elsewhere
only in Job xxxviii. 20, Ps. lxxviii. 54.
i. 7 bm to defile, Pual. only here and Ezra ii. 62 || Neh.
vii. 64.
i. 10, 13 mn to be pleased with, accept, c. ace. of sacrifice.
The following references may be regarded as containing
words and phrases, peculiar to the writer : —
1 It is a well-known fact that Trito-Isaiah writes on the whole in the
same metre as Deut. -Isaiah with whom he also agrees in many things. The
idea, therefore, that these two books are the work of one man, namely,
Trito-Isaiah, yet written at different periods of his life, is well worth con-
sidering.
THE DATING OF THE BOOK OF MALACHI 173
i. 2 3HN to love, used in the first person by Yahweh (cf.
Prov. iii. 12 ; Deut. vii. 8, 13).
i. 4 Eteh to be beaten down, Pual. (only other passage Jer.
v. 17 Po'el).
nytih haa territory of wickedness : cf. Job xxxviii. 20
and Ps. lxxviii. 54.
i. 13 HBi to sniff at.
bsn that which has been rescued after seizure, hence,
mutilated 1 .
i. 14 !>313 deceiver.
ii. 5 ab&ni D^nn life and peace : cf. Prov. iii. 2.
ii. 6 nros min faithful instruction : cf. Neh. ix. 13 ; Ps.
cxix. 1, 2.
ii. 13 pK followed by the Infinitive.
iii. 10 spti /<x«2 in Yahweh's house.
tfDtfn nuns sluices of heaven, as a figure of blessing.
iii. 12 pan ps Zcmc? of delight.
iii. 16 piDt *1BD &oo& 0/ remembrance.
Compare also: —
ii. 2, iii. 9 mt*» cwrse, Prov. iii. 33, xxviii. 27, and Deut.
xxviii. 20.
ii. 3 in festive sacrifice, Ps. cxviii. 27.
ii. 9 *JB Ntw to show partiality, Job xiii. 8, 10, xxxiv. 19 ;
Prov. xviii. 5; Ps. lxxxii. 2; Deut. x. 17 ; Lev.
xix. 15 ff. Cf. also Job xxxii. 21 ; Prov. vi. 35.
ii. 13 npJN groaning, Ps. xii. 6, lxxix. 11, cii. 21.
iii. 6 apjp-^a as a form of address only here and Ps. cv. 6 :
cf. 1 Chron. xvi. 13.
iii. 10 ppD food ; this idea is late and occurs elsewhere
only in Ps. cxi. 5 ; Prov. xxxi. 15 : cf. Job xxiv. 5.
The word is old in its primary meaning of prey,
literal or metaphorical.
1 Cf. Prof. F. Brown in the New Rebr. Lex.
174 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
iii. 17 J^PiO possession, Ps. cxxxv. 4.
iii. ao npTi BW sun of righteousness, Ps. li. 1 8, cxix. 108,
and Deut. xxxiii. 11.
With the possible exception of two or three passages, all
here cited belong to a very late date, many of the Psalms
to a late Greek and even Maccabean period. The diction
of the book would therefore seem to point to a date long
subsequent to that of Ezra and Nehemiah, and, as we shall
see, there are certain indications which may suggest a time
not far removed from the Maccabean, if not the Maccabean
period itself.
%. The importance of the priesthood. This can be ex-
plained only as a result of the new organization of the cult
personel set forth in the P code. The reference to the
tithes payable to the priests, iii. 8, points to a time after
the public introduction of the P code by Ezra and Nehe-
miah, for, according to Deut. xiv. a a, 29, the tithes were to
be paid every third year to the Levites, while according
to Num. xviii. ai ff. P requires that payment be made to
the priests.
3. The theological view taken by the writer.
The conception of God in Malachi is pre-eminently that
of Yahweh, the father and creator of the individual Jew,
ii. 10. The Jews, therefore, are his Q\J3 and, as such, are
brethren.
Yahweh's power is not limited to the land of Israel, but
extends far beyond it, i. 5 ; his name is great among the
peoples, i. J4; and everywhere pure sacrifices are brought
to him, i. 11. It is his universal rule which Malachi
expresses.
The conception of Yahweh as " Father " is not an old
one. In Exod. iv. 22 JE ; Hos. xi. 1, Israel is called " Son,"
but Yahweh is not spoken of as "Father." In the few
references which exist as to this fatherhood, we can trace
a gradual broadening of the idea. In Deut. xxxii. 6
Yahweh is called " the father of Israel " because, by the
redemption from Egypt he called Israel into being as
THE DATING OF THE BOOK OF MALACHI I75
a nation (cf. Exod. iv. 22 ; Hos. xi. 1), and afterwards
watched over them with the tenderness of a parent, Exod.
xix. 4 JE; Deut. xxxii. 11. This idea of the sonship of
Israel includes that of obligation toward Yahweh as father,
i. e. owner and master of his people. Cf. 2 Kings xvi. 2 :
" Thy servant and thy son am I." The same idea is ex-
pressed in Jer. xxxi. 9, 20, according to which Yahweh is
the creator of his people.
" My Father," as used in Jer. iii. 4, 19, is an " honourable
form of address " which does not necessarily express any
spiritual relationship, yet here for the first time Israel is
desired to give that name to Yahweh.
A still more developed conception appears in Isa. lxiii.
16, where Yahweh is contrasted with the patriarchs, the
physical fathers of Israel. Yahweh is often declared to be
the one by whom Israel was created and formed : cf. Isa.
xliii. 1, xliv. 2, 24, xlv. 11, xlix. 5, &c, yet he has never
been regarded by Israel as their ap^y-yins, but as having
elected them through their fathers : cf. e. g. Deut. vii. 8,
ix. 5, x. 15. Such fatherhood as is here contrasted must
mean something other than that of Deut. xxxii. 6, and
I cannot but think that the reference in Isa. lxiii. 16 is
rather to an ethical conception of fatherhood than to that
of mere ownership as in Deut. xxxii. 6. Yahweh redeemed
the Israelites, and therefore, according to oriental thought,
owns them, and is their father. Here, however, such an
idea is secondary, while the primary reference is to the
characteristics of a father, the beginnings of the spiritual
conception of the fatherhood of Yahweh. This, however,
remains as yet the relation to the people as a whole, and
not to the individual. In Malachi, on the other hand,
Yahweh is regarded as the father of the individual Israelite
(ii. 10), and the inference follows that all Israelites are
brethren. Ezra's policy was, if anything, opposed to this
teaching of a divine fatherhood, even to such as is pre-
sented in the first chapter of Genesis 1 .
1 Cheyne, Jewish Religious Life after the Exile, p. 60.
176 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
This conception of the fatherhood of Yahweh as uni-
versal, and not merely Jewish, is confined to Malachi
and is very late. His monotheism and conception of
Yahweh transcends that of the earlier prophets, and in its
general character is analogous to that presented in the
Book of Jonah, which, however, it surpasses in this
respect.
While the older writers present the mal'ak Yahweh as
the form under which Yahweh appeared to man, the writer
of the Book of Malachi mentions the two as separate beings,
iii. 1. He speaks also, for the first time, of a mal'ak beHth
by which we may perhaps understand the protecting angel
of the congregation 1 . It seems that two angels with
separate functions are here mentioned. The mal'ak Yahweh
as a particular angel occurs first in Zech.' i. 11 f., the
mal'ak berith, the forerunner of Yahweh 2 , only in Malachi.
The mention of two special angels who were carrying out
the plans of Yahweh points to a time when angels so
employed played a prominent part in theology. The
incipient stages of this new theology, due in part to a more
transcendental conception of the deity, may be found in
Zech. i. 1 a ; Job v. 1, xxxiii. 23 ; Eccles. v. 5> where it is
intimated that angels intercede for mankind ; in the Book
of Daniel, iii. 38, as well as often in the Psalms, they are
represented as helpera of mankind. The standard litera-
ture on Jewish angelology, however, is that of the
apocryphal and New Testament writings ; as for example,
1 Cf. Kraetzschmar, Die Bundesvorstellung im A. T., pp. 237 ff. ; Nowack,
Handkommentar, in loco.
a The interpretation of the mal'ak berith, iii. 1, as Elijah in iii. 23 sq.
may be due to a misunderstanding of Deut. xviii. 15 sqq., a passage which
does not refer to the Messiah. As the maVak berith is the forerunner of
Yahweh, and not of the Messiah, the expected Messiah, according to these
verses, iii. 1 and 23 sq., if genuine, must be Elijah — a conception which
we find expressed in Jes. Sirach xlviii. 4, 10-11. In the New Testament,
Matt. xi. 10-14, Mark i. 2, John i. 21, &c, Elijah is the forerunner of the
Messiah : cf. especially Luke i. 17. Cf. also Bousset, Die Religion desJuden-
turns, p. 219 sq., 1903.
THE DATING OF THE BOOK OP MALACHI 1 77
Enoch liii. 3, lxi. 1, lxii. 11, lxiii. 1, &c. ; Bel and the
Dragon 34-39 ; Heb. i. 14 ; Rev. vi. sq., &c. Any such
specific references as we find in Malachi must, therefore,
belong to a late period, a time when angelology was a
recognized feature in Jewish theological thought.
4. The eschatology of the writer. Contrary to Haggai
(ii. 5 sqq., 21 sqq.) and Zecbariah (i. 15, ii. 1 sqq., vi. 1 sqq.),
who expect a severe judgment of Yahweh upon the
heathen, the writer of Malachi declares, ii. 1 7 sqq., iii. 1 ,
13 sqq., that it is the Jews whom he will severely chastise.
How is so great a change of opinion to be historically
accounted for? It would indeed be impossible if we
assume the writer to have lived in the middle of the
fifth century. Haggai and Zechariah were suffering, not
only from the public disasters which had fallen upon the
Jews in 586 B.C., but from the vicious personal attacks of
their neighbours. If we assume, from the above arguments,
linguistic and theological, that the writer of the Book of
Malachi belonged to a period later than Ezra and Nehemiah,
things in his time had greatly changed. So far as the
Jews were concerned times were fairly peaceful, although
the great nations outside were engaged in mutual strife.
Malachi had therefore no ground for calling down the
vengeance of Yahweh upon the heathen, he had no
dreams of a Jewish world-empire ; the desire of his heart
was for a spiritual and universal dominion of Yahweh, and
to this he gives expression when he declares that Yahweh's
name was great among the peoples, i. 5, 11, which could not
be said in regard to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, i. ia;
therefore, if any punishment were to fall, it was solely
upon the Jews. This teaching, so completely opposed to
that of Haggai and Zechariah, could be due only to extra-
ordinary conditions among the Jewish community, such as
may indeed have existed in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah,
but did certainly exist, as we shall see, at a later period.
We have thus seen that the evidences of language,
theology, and eschatology point to a time later than Ezra
178 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
nnd Nehemiah, and that the theology finds its counterpart
in the Book of Jonah.
But the book affords still other evidences of a date later
than that of Ezra-Nehemiah.
In ii. 1 sq. the priests, the givers of the Torah, are said
to be upon the verge of themselves forgetting it. This
allegation, taken in conjunction with the phrase ^"On,
iii. 3, has been considered as sufficient evidence of the
period of Ezra as that of the authorship, for we find
that the degeneracy of the priesthood is one of the evils
of his time, and it is asserted that, had the writer lived
after the publication of P, he would have referred to the
priests as pis 'oa. This seems a priori probable, but an
investigation of the actual circumstances may perhaps
lead us to another conclusion.
We may observe that, throughout the book, a sharp
contrast is drawn between the conduct of the priests and
that of the Levites : cf. ii. 1, 8 with ii. 4 sqq. While the
priests are accused of having led the people astray by
false teaching, and of having broken the covenant with
Levi *, the Levites, on the contrary, so long as they were in
power, ii. 4 sqq., had been well-pleasing to Yahweh, ii. 6,
as having led the people in the right path 2 . This division
of priests and Levites did not exist in Deuteronomy : cf. x. 8,
xviii. 7 ; nor even in the time of Ezekiel, cf. xl. 45 with xliv.
10 sq., 14, xlv. 5 ; and was first formally established by Ezra :
cf. the lists, Ezra ii || Neh. vii ; 1 Esdras v, although, accord-
ing to Ezek. xliv. 5 sq., especially ver. 10 sqq., the Levites,
who had sacrificed before the local shrines, were to be
punished by exclusion from proper priestly functions in
the new Temple. Though the Levites were well provided
for in P as recipients of tithes, of which they in turn had
1 Levi is here the name for the priestly tribe as in D, not for the
individual.
3 The identification of priests with Levites (cf . ii. 6 with iii. 3) is due to
a correction in iii. 3, where we must read mro priests ; for the writer always
contrasts the priests of his time with the Levites who officiated in former
times.
THE DATING OP THE BOOK OP MALACHI 1 79
to give a portion to the priests, Num. xviii. ai sqq., is it
likely that they would submit without opposition to new
conditions which were actual degradation? We have,
however, no evidence beyond that of human analogy for
such opposition, none is recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah.
May we not, however, suppose that the Book of Malachi
points to some such opposition on the part of the Levites,
though it be only that of the weak against the strong?
May we not regard it as a Tendenzschrift pointing out
how much more pleasure Yahweh had taken in the service
of the old Levites than in that of the new order of priests,
who were not only evil in themselves, but exerted a
demoralizing influence over the people, ii. 8, in contrast to
their predecessors, whose conduct and example were alike
upright, ii. 6 ?
We can hardly assume that a man of so strong a per-
sonality as that of Nehemiah would have entirely ignored
teaching and ideas so utterly at variance with his own, had
this book appeared but a short time, comparatively, before
his return to Jerusalem. On the other hand, we may see
many reasons for disi'egard of the priest-code on the part
of the author of the Book of Malachi ; that he knew it is
shown by several references, especially by unmistakable
allusion to the existence of a priestly guild, the creation of
Ezra, and to its points of difference from the conditions of
the earlier Levites, cf. ii. i, 8 with ii. 4 sqq., &c. The
writer may even have himself belonged to one of the older
families which had been deposed. If we accept, therefore,
this distinction as made by the author, we must assign the
Book of Malachi to a period after the publication of P and
of the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah.
Another protest which the writer raises against the
teaching of Ezra 1 is that as to divorce, ii. 16. This, he
declares, is hated by Yahweh, whereas, according to Ezra's
presentation, ix. a, he demanded it as essential to the
1 Cf. Ezra ix. a, x. 3, 16-44; Neh. x. 30, 32 sqq., xiii. 4 sqq., 15 sqq.,
a 3 si*!-) s8 S< 1 ( 1'
l8o THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
preservation of the purity of the Jewish people. Malachi's
point of view was that Yahweh, being in honour among
the nations, and receiving from them pure sacrifice, i. ii,
14 — a conception contrary to that of Ezra, — a marriage,
even between a Jew and a non-Jew, was nevertheless
productive of holy seed, DTi^N JJ1T, ii. 15. Only in this
light can we understand Mai. ii. 15, which should, perhaps,
follow ver. 16. The passage ii. 14 should be taken as
setting forth that a marriage entered into by a Jew is
always sacred, Yahweh himself being the witness, because
the woman, whoever she may be, enters into the man's
covenant, and stands to the religion of Yahweh in the
same relation as that of a wife to her husband, just
as that of the man to his religion, is that of a husband to
a wife : cf. ii. 11. The woman's attitude towards Yahweh
is thus precisely that of her husband who is already a
believer. The nobility of soul of the writer thus appears
in a new light, he condemns divorce, not only because he
regards the grounds given by Ezra as inadequate, but
because he accords to the wife of a Jew, be she whom
she may, a religious position equal to that of her husband,
an idea wholly new among Old Testament prophets, until
we come to that turning-point in the religious history of
mankind ushered in by Paul : fjyiao-Tai yc\p 6 avrip 6 &ttuttos
kv tjj yvvaiKl, Kal ^yiaorai ^ yvvr\ fj AiriaTos iv t$ d8eA$<3,
I Cor. vii. 14.
This view receives additional support if taken in con-
nexion with the statement in i. 11, where the prophet
speaks of a universal worship of Yahweh.
The meaning of ii. 13-16 has been understood as depict-
ing the same relation of Yahweh to his people as is so
touchingly set forth by Hosea; but this is not the case.
The writer is condemning, upon religious grounds, a great
social evil, originating, in great degree, in the inferior
position accorded to the woman in the cult, an evil which
must cease if the man has been wedded to Yahwism as to
a bride, ii. 11, and the woman also as to a husband, ii. 14,
THE DATING OF THE BOOK OP MALACHI l8l
by means of her relation to the man. It is this decay of
all nobler impulse in the people, culminating, as it did, in
divorce upon frivolous pretexts, ii. 13 sq., and exhibiting
itself in the oppression of the widow and the orphan, in
sorcery, perjury, and adultery, iii. 5, which the prophet
declares to be the reason of Yahweh's rejection of their
sacrifices, ii. 13.
As we have seen, the indignation of the writer against
the principle of divorce may be, moreover, a special protest
against that procedure on the part of Ezra which served
perhaps as a convenient precedent to many of a later
generation, and may have been used to conceal, under
a semblance of propriety and a shadow of justification,
such immoral conduct as we read of in later times 1 .
We now return to our question, To what date are we
to assign the Book of Malachi, a date which must be
subsequent to that of Ezra-Nehemiah if we accept the
above arguments drawn from internal evidence 1
The key to the date is furnished by the reference in
Mai. i. 4, which has caused so much difficulty to com-
mentators.
We have seen that the writer holds to the historical
position of the Levites as priests, but that he differs in
regard to the Edomites from D 2 , who calls them the
brothers of Israel, whose rights, as to land, should be
respected, whereas our present author condemns them
unconditionally. The exilic and post-exilic prophets also
denounced them, and foretold a visitation by Yahweh in
punishment for their impious deeds 3 . We find that, as
1 Jes. Sirach vii. 26, xxv. 25 : cf. also Matt. v. 3a.
8 Cf. Deut. ii. 5-8, xxiii. 7.
3 Jer. xlix; Ezek.xxv. 12-14, xxxv. 15, xxxvi. 5 ; Obad. w. 1-14 ; Lam.
iv. 21 ; Isa. xxxiv. 5 sqq., Ixiii. 1-4 ; Ps. lx. 8, lxxxiii. 6-9, cviii. 9,
cxxxvii. 7.
Duhm considers Ps. cxxxvii — on account of ver. 8 — as belonging to
a time shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, but it may be equally
considered as reflecting the renewed humiliation of Jerusalem by Arta-
xerxes Ochus and the rejoicing and aggression of the Edomites, partly from
1 82 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
early aB the year 31a B.C. Southern Judaea was in the
hands of the Edomites, and was known as Idumea 1 , and
that in the second century Hebron 2 was an Idumean
town. Between the denunciations of Ezekiel and those
of our prophet there is a long silence in regard to Edom.
The memoirs of Ezra-Nehemiah make no reference to the
Idumeans, but later we hear of them frequently, especially
in the later Psalms. The wrath of the Jews must have
received increased occasion by renewed encroachment upon
their territory, which can have occurred only at some
period of national disaster, and not in the time of Ezra-
Nehemiah, when the Jews enjoyed the protection of the
powerful Persian empire, and when an incursion into
Judaea would have been severely visited upon the
offenders.
We know that the Jews joined in an unsuccessful revolt
against Artaxerxes Ochus 3 , who led many of them captive
to Hyrcania on the Caspian Sea, about 350 b. 0. The
Jews, in consequence, fell into disgrace, and being helpless
had probably to suffer from the renewed attacks of their
old enemies the Edomites, who in turn had been pressed
forward by the Nabateans *, and were compelled to seize
mere self-preservation, though not so regarded by the Jews, and partly by
the desire to retaliate upon the Jews for former enmities. To the Persian
Empire, as the heir of the Assyrian world, would naturally be transferred
all the hatred against Babylon which the Jews had long stored up, cf. Isa.
x. 16, 23 ; so that, in the phraseology of Ps. cxxxvii. 8, we may look for
a recollection of the ignominy which they had suffered at the hands of
the Babylonian kings, and which they were in some degree still suffering
from their heir and successor Artaxerxes Ochus. The kindness of his
predecessors had long been forgotten. The other Psalms belong un-
doubtedly to the Maccabean period ; Ps. lxxxiii is a reflection of i Mac-
cabees v.
Isa. lxiii. 1-4 contains no reference to Edom. Read with Lag. Du.
DJHO, cf. Kahum ii. 4 instead of DVwo, and isao, cf. LXX instead of
rnao.
1 Diod. Sic. xix. 98, cf. Noldeke, Encyc. Bib., art. "Edom."
a 1 Mace. v. 65.
* Eusebius, Chron., cf. Schfirer, op. cit., Ill, p 6.
4 Schfirer, op. cit., I, p. 730.
THE DATING OF THE BOOK OP MALACHI 183
upon Jewish territory. To this time of Artaxerxes Ochus
we may refer some of those utterances against Edom in
which the Edomites are charged with malicious joy in the
catastrophe which had befallen Judah ; we may perhaps
also assign Obad. vv. 1-14, and Lam. iv. 21 sqq. to this
period. With the exception of the condemnation of Edom
in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, which points to a different period
of history in the life of Judah, most of the prophecies
against Edom are found in very late literature. The
time at which the Jews were harassed by the Edomites
being, thus, the middle of the fourth century, the events
referred to by Malachi (i. 4) cannot belong to this period,
for we hear of no reverses borne by the Idumeans (for as
such they were known since the fourth century) until we
come to the Maccabean period, when Judas (1 65-161)
defeated them 1 . To this time the expression used in Mai.
i. 4 may well apply, as the fortune of the Jews was then
very varied and when, so far from being able to sustain
their mastery over the Idumeans, they were themselves
defeated by Lysias at Beth-Zacharyah 2 . This defeat, and
the subsequent fate of Judas, gave to the Idumeans an
opportunity to " build up " again, and in the time of
Jonathan, the successor of Judas, we hear nothing of them,
for the internal complications in Judaea, and his constant
warfare with the Syrian kings, left him no time to
subjugate the Idumeans who, therefore, had again a
breathing space. The growing power of the new Jewish
state and the imperialistic policy of the successors of Judas
would naturally lead any observant Jew to ask how long
would his native land of southern Judaea remain in the
hands of the impious Idumeans? In the success of the
Maccabees such a question found its answer ; the Idumeans
might build, but Yahweh, through the instrumentality of
the Maccabees would destroy. It is therefore to the time
of Jonathan that this prophecy must be assigned, for
1 1 Maec. v. 3, 65. Bead in 1 Mace. v. 3 iv 'ISov/iai^ N. Old Lat.
s Schurer, op. cit., I, p. 213.
VOL. XX.
184 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
under John Hyrcanus (135-104) that catastrophe overtook
the Idumeans 1 .
We now return to the question who was the Pins of
Mai. i. 8 ?
As we saw ahove, the term mr© was applied in Talmudic
times to the displaced high-priests. Now in the year
1 53 b. c. Jonathan assumed the office of high-priest, being
appointed by Alexander Balas 2 . In the year 150 b. a,
moreover, he was appointed <ny>ar>;yos and ixepibdpxns 3 .
This was a mere form, as he was practically an indepen-
dent ruler ; but to both Balas and Jonathan it served a
practical purpose. Apart from the dignity of high-priest
we find Jonathan bearing two titles, errpanyyos = JJD *,
prefect or military governor and p.epi.hdpxr]s = civil governor t
1 Mace. x. 65, which exactly describes the office of
Nehemiah, to whom the title nns is given in the MT. 5 ,
which the LXX renders enap^os, so that his official titles
were |JD and nrfi of Judah, thus uniting both offices in his
own person.
The conditions of life, political and religious, which
prevailed in Jerusalem in the earlier part of Jonathan's
rule, give us the historical justification for the accusation
brought against the priests in Mai. ii. 7 sqq.
Alkimus, the high-priest, was himself the leader of the
Greek party in Jerusalem 6 , a fact which would naturally
add to the influence of Greek thought in the expression
of religious belief, and of Greek culture in the Temple
worship. This was doubtless an offence in the eyes of the
Jewish legalist and national party, and resulted in scorn
of the priests who followed him as their head. They
regarded the death of Alkimus as a divine punishment for
his impiety, especially for his destruction of the temple-
1 Jos., Ant, xiii. 9. 1, Bell. Iud., i. a. 6, of. Ant, xv. 7. 9.
2 1 Mace. x. 15, 21, Jos., Ant, xiii. 2. 1, Schiirer, op. cit., I, p. 238.
3 1 Mace. x. 51-66, Jos., Ant, xiii. 4. 1, 2 ; Schiirer, op. cit., I, p. 231.
4 Cf. Jer. lvii. 23, 57 ; Ezek. xxiii. 6, 12, 23, MT. and LXX.
5 Neh. v. 14, 18, xii. a6. 6 1 Mace. ix. 54-6.
THE DATING OP THE BOOK OF MALACHI 185
wall. This introduction of Greek philosophy and culture
into the worship of Yahweh explains the phrase 7&P"fi ?JD*
"IM, Mai. ii. 11, while the situation presented in ii. 10
is made clear by the fact that the two contending parties,
the Greek-Jewish and the National-Jewish, were alike
Jews, children of one God, although in vehement opposi-
tion. The writer of the Book of Malachi does not seek
to widen the breach already existing, but rather to heal it
by reminding the two parties of their common origin,
while at the same time forcibly denouncing those who
follow a corrupt worship, and who thereby desecrate the
Temple ; for at heart he is a Jew of the old type, at least
so far as the cult is concerned, though all the time holding
to a spiritual conception of Yahwism.
Where two religious parties contend together there is
often a third, that of the honest free-thinker who, however,
can exist only under some influence in itself ennobling,
although, it may be, antagonistic to some form or expression
of the faith in which he has been brought up, ii. 1 7 seq., iii.
13 sqq., such an influence as made itself felt pre-eminently
in the Greek period, when a higher and more philosophical
conception of God was disseminated among the learned
Jews, and when the aesthetic idea gained hold of the
educated classes. Both aspects of thought were new to
Judaism, and served to prepare the Jews for ethical and
aesthetical pleasure, mental and physical, such as did not
enter into the severe view of life taken by the Mosaic law,
and which introduced into their religion a deepened sense
of spirituality. This enrichment of their soul-life demanded
the struggle with which the butterfly breaks from the
chrysalis. To the Jewish party they were renegades ; even
by a man of so lofty a type as our prophet they were
misunderstood, in spite of his teaching that even the
sacrifices of the heathen were acceptable to Yahweh, and
indeed that sacrifice was a mere means to the attainment
of a higher and more spiritual faith.
The writer of the Book of Malachi gives us — in theological
%
l86 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
terms— a rapid summary of the great struggle between
the National-Jewish party — which believed that the return
to former glory could be achieved only by a more strict
observance of Law and Custom and the exclusion of foreign
elements — and the Graecised- Jewish party which desired
the adoption of Greek thought and culture as a means
of national advancement and prosperity, as well as of
a life of wider activity, mental and spiritual. The writer
himself belongs to neither party. Although his inclination
toward a stricter Judaism is evident, he is personally free
from an unspiritual ritualism and his teaching is, in a
sense, a forecast of that later outlook which has brought
its healing message of the sonship and brotherhood of man.
Note. — Since writing this article my attention has been
drawn, by a reference in Marfci's Dodeka Propheton, to
Winkler's suggestion that the Book of Malachi belongs
to the middle of the second century, to which Marti objects
that Malachi must be earlier than 180, since his words
(iii. 24) are quoted by Jesus Sirach, xlviii. 10. The
passage beginning at ver. 22 is regarded as a later addition
by Marti himself, as well as by others, and the parallelism
may be otherwise accounted for, either (1) as a quotation
by Malachi from Sirach or (2) by both from a common
source. The passage in Sirach occurs in a chapter referring
to the coming of Elijah, and ver. 10 is hence in its proper
connexion, whereas, as occurring in Mai. iii. 34, obvious
connexion is absolutely lacking.
Hans H. Spoee.
