DIVIDING UP THE BOOK OF OBADIAH

Watts begins his commentary on Obadiah by stating, “This smallest of the books in the Old Testament has earned disproportionate attention from the scholars.” The reason given by Allen for this phenomenon is that the book “cries out to be considered as a model upon which to demonstrate structural and strophic theories.” A few representative divisions proposed for the body of the book based on these theories are shown below. Note that some involve a slight textual rearrangement or overlap of verses, a phenomenon which will be discussed below.

Divisions                                                     Reference

            1a; 1b; 1b-9a; 9b-14; 15-21                          Stuart

            1a; 1b-4; 5-9; 10-14; 15-18; 19-                   LeCureax

            1a; 1b-7; 8-21                                                Sweeney

            1-4; 5-6; 8-14; 15-21                                    Dict. of Bibl. Imagery

            1-4; 5-7; 8-10; 11-14; 15-21                        Allen

            1-4; 5-7; 8-14; 15-18; 19-21                        NIV

            1-4; 5-7; 8-15; 16-18; 19-21                        Raabe

            1-4; 5-9; 10-14; 15-16; 17-21                      TEV

            1-4; 5-9; 10-15; 16-18; 19-21                      Jerusalem Bible

            1-4; 5-10; 11-14; 15-16; 17-21                    Watts

            1-4; 5-14; 15-21                                          RSV, NRSV, NEB

            1-7; 8-15a; 15b-21                                      Magary

            1-9; 10-14; 15-16; 17-                                Ryken

1-9; 10-14; 15-21                                        Kaiser

1-9; 10-21                                                   Keil

            1-15; 16-21                                                 Premnath

            2-9; 10-14; 15b; 15a; 16-21                       Allen

            2-14; 15b; 15a; 16-18; 19-21                     Childs

            2-15; 15-21                                                Bridger

As Mobley wisely put it, “In a book of only twenty-one verses, it is difficult and, perhaps unnecessary to isolate subsections.” And the above summary serves to amply demonstrate that fact.

In support of a break after verse 9 are the echoes of Jeremiah 49 found in Obadiah 1-9 (Allen), and similarities to Joel 2 and 3 present in vv. 10-18 (Keil). The situation is not entirely clear-cut, however, since:

a. A three-fold structure with vv. 19-21 as the final section is still not precluded.

            b. There is a possible echo of Jeremiah 49:12 in Obad. 16 according to Bullock, and the allusions to Jer. 49 may actually be limited to Obad. 1-6 (DBI).

            c. Obad. 1 also shows a similarity to Joel 3. (Watts)

            d. Two separate oracles using different sources is not the only explanation for the observed data. It is possible that different portions of Obadiah were incidentally utilized by Joel and Jeremiah for their own purposes. Stuart states that the direction of borrowing is not easy to determine. (Stuart) It is primarily for this reason that Childs pronounces, “The literary relationship between Obadiah and Jer. 49 has no major canonical significance.” However, it is still an intriguing relationship that may at least be indicative of a change in emphasis at v. 10.

Other two-fold divisions of Obadiah are possible depending upon the criteria used:

a. Raabe notes that, with a few exceptions, vvs. 1-15 are addressed to Edom while the rest of the book is directed toward Judah. LaSor uses the same criterion for his two-part structure which, however, has its major break after Obadiah 14. Added evidence for such a division comes from the nature of vs. 15, which in a way acts as a conclusion to all that has preceded and “corresponds well with the concluding line of the whole book.” (Raabe) Thompson also detects a sharp contrast in tone between these two sections: sin and doom in the first with hope and victory in the second.

b. Stuart notes that several commentators have felt that Obad. 1-18 appears to be written in poetic form while the concluding verses have more prose-like character. This could serve as justification for dividing the text into two quite unequal parts. However, it is just as possible to see a progression from pure poetry to prose as the book progresses, or even a three-fold division of poetry (vv. 1-16), elevated prose (vv. 16-18), and prose (vv. 19-21). (Raabe) In addition, it has been argued by Stuart that there is no barrier to vv. 19-21 being considered as poetry.

Textual Dislocations

As if the above were not confusing enough, some scholars are unhappy with the order of the text as it is found. Concerning the integrity of the text itself, Watts, in his commentary on Obadiah, appropriately notes, “The exegete's first task is always that of text criticism.” In the relatively longer books I investigated up to this point, the authenticity or placement of a few words or phrases has had relatively little effect on the organization of the whole composition. With a book of only 21 verses, however, such small perturbations may profoundly affect the overall structure. And, unfortunately, there are several places in the text where errors in copying have been suspected. The first involves Obadiah 1 itself.

I have seen that the Jerusalem Bible transposes verses within the text of numerous poetic passages in the Old Testament at the slightest provocation and without any manuscript evidence to back up their dislocations. Thus, it is no surprise that they are alone in feeling that an “improvement” in the reading can be effected by transposing the second line of v. 1 to the end of the verse so that it reads:

    Vision of Obadiah: about Edom

    I have received a message from Yahweh

    a herald has been sent throughout the nations,

    “Up! Let us march against this people.

    Into battle!”

    The Lord Yahweh says this:

In this manner, the last line serves to introduce the idea which follows.

A more common verse felt to need amending is Obadiah 15. A simple reading of the text at this point reveals why this is true. Many feel that the second half of v. 15 (“As you have done, it shall be done to you, your deeds shall return on your own head.”) is a fitting conclusion to the previous verses addressed directly to Edom. Likewise, the first part of the verse (“For the day of the LORD is near upon all the nations.”) appears to be a perfect introduction to the next verses which deal with the fate of the nations. In fact, there are plausible causes for an accidental rearrangement of the text occurring at this point. (Allen) 

However, it is attractive to consider Childs' proposal that the reversal was a purposeful way to unify what were originally two separate oracles. “The effect of v. 15 in its present sequence is to interpret the oracle against Edom as part of the coming 'Day of Yahweh' which is delivered to all the nations.” Stuart also defends the present order of Obadiah 15a-b. Thus, this verse is not necessarily a natural breakpoint in the structure, but perhaps a hinge verse uniting two parts of the same section in the book.

Another area of concern regarding the order of the text is the proper placement of Obadiah 21. Allen, for both strophic considerations and logic of content, feels that v. 21 originally followed 17 directly and was moved at some early point in the history of the text in a misplaced effort to provide a more fitting ending to the book. One test of such a theory is to re-examine the patterns of repetition mentioned above to see how they are affected by relocating this verse. The faint pattern involving the word “Yahweh” (with special occurrences at start and finish) disappears if this change in the text is made. Also telling are the changes made in the distribution of phrases involving the two terms associated with Edom: “mount” and “Esau.” Combining some of these phrases and specifically examining their appearances in vv. 17-19, with and without relocation of Obad. 21, leads to the following:

vv. 17-19, 21                                                     vv. 17, 21, 18-19

mount Zion (17a)                                                          mount Zion (17a)

house of Jacob (17b)                                                 house of Jacob (17b)

            house of Jacob (18a)                                          mount Zion (21a)

house of Joseph (18b)                                 ------------

house of Esau (18c)                                            mount Esau (21b)

            house of Esau (18d)                                                   house of Jacob (18a)

mount Esau (19a)                                                                  house of Joseph (18b)

                ------------                                                               house of Esau (18c)

mount Zion (21a)                                                                   house of Esau (18d)

mount Esau (21b)                                                             mount Esau (19a)

Concerning this last example, it is interesting how the order of the verses also bears on the interpretive question involving the phrase “house of Joseph” in Obadiah 18. The two main possibilities are that it refers (a) to all the Jews, in parallel with “house of Jacob” or (b) to the northern tribes in contrast to “house of Jacob,” which designates the southern tribes only. (Raabe) The structure on the left (above) supports the latter interpretation while that on the right lends some credence to the first possibility.

The bottom line after considering these data is that certain symmetrical phrase patterns can be detected with v. 21 in either its current position or placed directly after 17. Since the structural evidence does not definitely eliminate either possibility, the conservative approach would be to leave Obadiah 21 where all the extant texts place it.