A literal interpretation of the locust swarms is generally held by modern authorities and there is a tendency to regard the apoc alyptic characteristics as interpolations into the original work of Joel. An argument advanced against the literal interpretation is the description of the locusts as "the northerner" (ii. 20, has sephoni). Locusts as a rule enter Palestine from the south or south-east ; thus it is considered that "the northerner" can only re fer to an invading army from the north, e.g., Assyrians, Scythians, Babylonians. But it is evident from the rest of the verse that "the northerner" must refer to locusts. The expression has no connec tion with the origin of the locusts; it is an epithet denoting the dread which Hebrew thought associated with the north, the region of the uncanny and mysterious. By a common usage the etymo logical sense of "the northerner" is discarded and the term has assumed a symbolical significance—any agent through which calamity came (Wade).
With the possible exception of iii. 4-8 it appears unnecessary to regard the book as other than the work of one author. At a time when real locusts had brought calamity upon the land Joel calls the inhabitants to repentance. He then turns from the present to the future and describes "The Day of Yahweh" in language sug gested to him by experience of actual locusts. The locusts of ii. 1-17 are eschatological, they usher in "the Day of Yahweh." The people repent either in direct response to the prophet's call, or, possibly, in the ideal future to which the prophet looks, and obtain mercy from Yahweh. Thus, in the ideal future as Joel wished to see it, when "the Day of Yahweh" comes it will bring punishment to Israel's foes, to Israel relief and hope.
Credner in 1831 argued that the conditions implied by internal evidence gave sufficient justification for dating the prophecy in the early days of Joash, king of Judah, 837-801, during whose minority the government was in the hands of Jehoiada the priest (2 Kings xi. 4-21). A division of the book has been suggested by Vernes and Rothstein, assigning i. and ii. 1-27 to the time of Joash, ii. 28-32 and iii. to the post-exilic period. On account of linguistic
and other affinities with Jeremiah, Konig has placed the date in the last years of Josiah. Each of these views is open to serious objection in its interpretation of the evidence and fails to give a satisfactory explanation of a number of passages.
A post-exilic date was first proposed by Vatke; this view is now generally accepted. (Driver, Gray, G. A. Smith, Wade, Merx, Marti, Nowack, Wellhausen.) The style and language of the book have characteristics similar to the earlier prophetic books; but there are late elements, such as the general apocalyptic concep tions, which mark Joel as the work of a post-exilic writer who was acquainted with and influenced by earlier literature. Though in iii. I the phrase "bring again the captivity of Judah . . ." may be rendered "retrieve the fortune of Judah . . .," the statement (iii. 2, 3) that the Jews have been dispersed among the nations has no adequate explanation in any event except the overthrow of Judah in 586 and its subsequent effect upon the fortunes of the people. It is therefore necessary to seek a period of ter the exile when there is an undivided nation which maintains the true wor ship of Yahweh in the Temple. A time when there is no king: the elders and priests are the leaders of the people, Judah has suf fered at the hands of foreign nations; these are not Assyrians nor Babylonians but the people of Tyre, Sidon, Philistia and Greece. Conditions such as these are only satisfied at a period after the settlement of the restored community at Jerusalem ; and, since the worship is associated with the Temple, it is implied that the second Temple is in existence. Thus Joel must be later than Haggai and Zechariah i.–viii. (Driver) and cannot be earlier than c. 520 B.C. (Wade). The reference to "the wall" in ii. 7,9 seems to imply that the wall of Jerusalem has been rebuilt and presup poses that the book was written after Nehemiah (c. 445 B.c.). Omission of any mention of the Persians as oppressive foes is due to the leniency with which they usually treated the Jews. It was not until the reign of Artaxerxes Ochus (358-337) that Jew ish subjects were ill-treated : a period subsequent to this is not supported by internal evidence.