Defending the Bible: The Date of Joel
In this post I want to emphasize the defense of traditional dates for the composition of biblical books. In his book A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), a book that has been translated into many languages and influenced many people in many countries, Gleason Archer wrote:
The prophecy of Joel has been dated all the way from the ninth century to the fourth century B.C. by the various schools of criticism, conservative and liberal. But on the basis of internal evidence, the most reasonable estimate is in the minority of King Joash, during the regency of Jehoiada, the high priest, about 830 B.C.
Archer then proceeds to offer three categories of evidence for a 9th century composition for the book of Joel. Here I am listing only evidence number two. Archer wrote:
There is a distinct evidence of borrowing, as between Amos and Joel. For example, both Joel 3:18 and Amos 9:13 contain the promise, “The mountains shall drop sweet wine.” While Joel might possibly have quoted from Amos, the contextual indications are that it was the other way around. Another example is found in Joel 3:16 where in the midst of a prophetic discourse he says, “The Lord also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem.” This same verse appears at the beginning of the prophecy of Amos, and it may fairly be inferred that Amos was using it as a sort of text from which he developed his first serrnon. On this basis, then, Joel must have been written earlier than Amos, that is, earlier than 755 B.C.
Let me quote the two texts in Joel and Amos Archer mentioned:
Joel 3:18; “In that day the mountains will drip new wine, and the hills will flow with milk.”
Amos 9:13: “‘The days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when ... new wine will drip from the mountains and flow from all the hills.’”
Joel 3:16: “The LORD will roar from Zion and thunder from Jerusalem.”
Amos 1:2: “The LORD roars from Zion and thunders from Jerusalem.”
In light of this evidence of borrowing, Archer wrote: “While Joel might possibly have quoted from Amos, the contextual indications are that it was the other way around.”
It is convincing, right? Not necessarily.
What Archer did not say is that Joel quotes from Amos, Micah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zephaniah Ezekiel, Nahum, Jonah, Malachi, Zechariah, and Obadiah (see my article “Joel 3:10 [H 4:10] : “Beat your plowshares into swords,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 14 [1987]: 125-130).
Here are the passages Joel quoted from other biblical books:
Amos 1:2 = Joel 3:16 [H 4:16]; 9:13 = 3:18 [H 4:18].
Micah 4:3 = Joel 3:10 [H 4:10].
Isaiah 2:4 = Joel 3:10 [H 4:10]; 13:6= 1:15; 13:10 = 2:10; 2:31 [H 3:4]; 45:5,6,18,21=2:27; 51:3 = 2:3; 52:1 = 3:17 [H 4:17]; 63:3 = 3:13 [H 4:13]; 66:18 = 3:2 [H 4:2].
Jeremiah 30:3; 33:15; 50:4, 20 = Joel 3:1 [H4:1].
Zephaniah l:7 = Joel 1:15; 1:14-15 = 2:2; 1:16 = 2:1.
Ezekiel 30:2-3 = Joel 1:15; 32:7 = 2:10; 2:31 [H 3:4]; 36:11 = 3:17 [H 4:17]; 36:35 = 2:3; 39:29 = 2:28 [H 3:1]; 47:1-12 = 3:18 [H 4:18].
Nahum 2:10 [H 2:11] = Joel 2:6.
Jonah 3:9 = Joel 2:14; 4:2 = 2:13.
Malachi 3:2 = Joel 2:11; 4:5 [H 3:23] = 2:11; 2:31 [H 3:4].
Zechariah 14:2 = Joel 3:2 [H 4:2]; 14:8 = 3:18 [H 4:18].
Obadiah 10 = Joel 3:19 [H 4:19]; 11 = 3:3 [H 4:3]; 15 = 1:15; 3:4 [H 4:4]; 17 = 2:32 [H 3:5].
It is hard to imagine that all these prophets believed that Joel was so important that they all quoted from him, including Amos, as Archer stated in his book. However, the truth is more complex that Archer intimates. Just becomes Amos follows Joel in the canonical order of the prophetic books, it does mean that Amos was written after Joel.
All these quotations clearly demonstrate that Joel’s writing was highly influenced by the writings of past prophets. As I wrote in my article (p. 126), “These quotations, sometimes part of a verse, sometimes a theme or an idea contained in the verse, represent a later form of prophecy in which prophetic sayings were reinterpreted to a new generation in order to describe the ways and judgments of God. This readaptation and reinterpretation of the ancient prophetic traditions suggests a post-exilic date.”
I think Archer’s argument for a 9th century date for Joel is misleading because he provided only partial information to prove his point. To defend the integrity and the authenticity of the Bible by providing partial or misleading information is wrong and it does not convince people who are already critics of the Bible. There is nothing wrong with Christian apologetics. However, those who want to defend the Bible should be sure that their arguments are based on solid evidence.