Dating Obadiah (Part 1 of 2)

Dating Obadiah to the Babylonian Invasion of Judah

There are six undated prophets in the Minor Prophets (Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Malachi). Scholars argue about their dates and often reach a consensus. Obadiah is usually dated to just before or just after the sack of Jerusalem (587). In this discussion, we present this consensus and an alternative eighth century dating.

Introduction

The book of Obadiah carries no dateline (e.g. ‘in xth year of…’), nor does it bear the name of any king (cf. Hos 1:1; Amos 1:1; etc.). There is no biographical information about the prophet, save the name ‘Obadiah’, and so he cannot be identified with any known historical figure.[1] External evidence for the date of Obadiah is sparse. It is possible that Obadiah’s position in the canon, amongst the pre-exilic prophets, may form an early witness to the date of book. Yet it is known that the order of the Minor Prophets was quite fluid. In any case, there is no particular reason to suppose that the Minor Prophets were ordered chronologically, rather than, say, thematically, therefore most commentators date the book according to internal evidence.

Amongst the older commentaries there is to be found a wide spectrum of opinion regarding the date of Obadiah as commentators select various invasions of Israel/Judah as the context of the prophecy. The dates range from the sack of Jerusalem by Shishak in the reign of Rehoboam (c.970; 1 Kgs 14:25-6) to the capture of Jerusalem by Ptolemy Lagus (c.301).[2] Ewald proposed the restoration of the city of Elath by Rezin of Syria to Edom (2 Chron 28:17), Delitzsch and Keil favoured the incursion of the Philistines and Arabians (c.850; 2 Chron 21:16f), whilst Meyrick, Kuenen and Farrar selected the conquest of Nebuchadnezzar (c.587).[3] Both E. B. Pusey and A. F. Kirkpatrick favoured the Philistine-Arabian invasion, arguing that vv. 1-9 is the source for Jeremiah 49.[4] Wellhausen dated the book to 5thc, assuming that it must have been written after the Edomites had been expelled from their homeland.[5]

In modern commentaries a consensus has formed around the Babylonian invasion as the most likely context for Obadiah.[6] Pusey’s argument about vv. 1-9 being a source for Jeremiah 49 is no longer considered decisive since many believe that both are based upon some third source. The issue of date, therefore, is now determined almost entirely on whether the words of Obadiah better fit the aftermath of the Babylonian invasion of Judah.

The question of dating is complicated by the assertions of many critical scholars that certain parts of the book are later additions. The most common approach is to divide the book, identifying vv. 15-21 as an “appendix”, written to generalize Obadiah’s words and give them a universal application (following Wellhausen). One piece of evidence that is cited for dividing the book[7] is the mention of ‘Sepharad’ (=Sardis, v. 20), which is taken to betray a later date for vv. 15-21 (or vv. 10-21) as Sardis was not a region of either the Assyrian or Babylonian empires, but was a conquest of the Persians.

Our consideration of the date of Obadiah here will focus upon choosing between the various invasions of Israel/Judah to identify the one that suits Obadiah’s words. Lastly, we will attempt to reconstruct the events that led to the destruction of Edom, since this event is the terminus ad quem (latest possible dating) for the book.

Invasion of Israel

Vv. 10-14 describes in dramatic terms an invasion of Judah and particularly the conquest and destruction of Jerusalem. The first two verses (vv. 10-11) are straightforward, but the change of tense (or verbal aspect) in vv. 12-14 leaves many commentators perplexed. In these verses the verbs are imperfect imperatives,[8] translated by many modern versions “do not …” (e.g. NASB, ESV) in contrast to the NKJV:

But do not gloat over the day of your brother in the day of his misfortune; do not rejoice over the people of Judah in the day of their ruin; do not boast in the day of distress. Do not enter the gate of my people in the day of their calamity; do not gloat over his disaster in the day of his calamity; do not loot his wealth in the day of his calamity. Do not stand at the crossroads to cut off his fugitives; do not hand over his survivors in the day of distress. [ESV]

But you should not have gazed on the day of your brother in the day of his captivity; nor should you have rejoiced over the children of Judah in the day of their destruction; nor should you have spoken proudly in the day of distress. You should not have entered the gate of My people in the day of their calamity. Indeed, you should not have gazed on their affliction in the day of their calamity, nor laid hands on their substance in the day of their calamity. You should not have stood at the crossroads to cut off those among them who escaped; nor should you have delivered up those among them who remained in the day of distress. [NKJV]

Pusey interprets the imperfect imperatives as signifying that the Edomite invasion of Judah had not yet taken place and therefore takes vv. 12-14 as a prophecy of the Babylonian invasion:

According to the only meaning, then, which the words bear, Edom had not yet committed the sin against which Obadiah warns him, and so Jerusalem was not yet destroyed, when the prophet wrote…no day was the day of utter destruction to Jerusalem, except that of its capture by Nebuchadnezzar.[9]

Nevertheless most modern commentators interpret vv. 12-14 as referring to past action because it is sandwiched by clauses in the past tense (“you were like one of them” v. 11 (RSV); “as you have done” v. 15 (RSV)).[10]

On the day that you stood aloof, on the day that strangers carried off his wealth, and foreigners entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem, you were like one of them…

… For the day of the Lord draws near on all the nations. As you have done, it will be done to you. Your dealings will return on your own head.

It would certainly seem strange if some future event were referred to in the midst of diatribe about past transgressions; hence translators render the Hebrew as “you should not have”. This is how the LXX rendered its Hebrew using aorist subjunctives:

And thou shouldest not have looked on the day of thy brother in the day of strangers; nor shouldest thou have rejoiced against the children of Judah in the day of their destruction; neither shouldest thou have boasted in the day of their affliction. Obad 1:12 (LXX)

It is to be remembered that vv. 12-14 are not in the future tense and do not necessarily refer to future actions. If vv. 12-14 were intended as a warning we could reasonably expect the writer to use the jussive and not the imperfect imperative (pace Pusey). The imperfect imperative implies absolute (and thus, timeless) prohibition. It seems probable therefore that the change of tense is an intentional rhetorical device by the author to emphasize Edom’s moral responsibility to his brother.

Obadiah describes an attack on Jerusalem with these specific features:

  • Penetration of the city gates (vv. 11, 13), apparently by force
  • Looting (vv. 11, 13)
  • Destruction and ruin of the city (v. 12)
  • The inhabitants slain or made fugitives (v. 14)

Edom’s part in these events is described sometimes in terms of an onlooker (vv. 11-12), but also as an active participant in ‘violence’ (v. 10), marching “through the gates” (v. 13), seizing wealth (v. 13) and cutting down those who escaped (v. 14). The Edomites violence against Jerusalem is described vividly as drinking upon the ‘holy hill’ (v. 16). When attempting to identify the situation of the words, we will need to find an attack upon Jerusalem that matches both the specifics details and the dramatic tone, and, most importantly, that involved Edom.

From the time of David onwards, Jerusalem endured many onslaughts:

  1. In the fifth year of Rehoboam Shishak of Egypt plundered the Temple and the royal palace (1 Kgs 14:25f)
  2. In Jehoram’s reign the palace was again plundered by the Philistines and Arabs (2 Chron 21:16-17).
  3. A war between Amaziah and Jehoash, king of Israel, led to the destruction of part of the wall and further looting of the Temple (2 Kgs 14:11-14).
  4. In the time of Ahaz, Jerusalem was again attacked by the combined armies of Syria and Israel, but withstood and was not penetrated (2 Kgs 16:6).
  5. The armies of Sennacherib laid siege to Jerusalem but did not penetrate it (701 B.C.E.; 2 Kgs 18-19).
  6. Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem on several occasions, probably in 605 and certainly in 597 taking captives. Finally in 587 the city and Temple were destroyed by the Babylonian army.

The question is in which, if any, of these onslaughts were Edomites involved. The first (A) must be dispensed with since Edom was in subjection to Israel/Judah from the reign of David till the reign of Jehoram (2 Sam 8:13-14; 2 Kgs 8:20-22).[11] (C) is also unlikely since prior to invasion of Jehoash Amaziah had captured Sela (capital of Edom) and slaughtered 10,000 of their fighting men (1Kgs 14:7-10).

We know little of the Philistine-Arab invasion (B); it is described in two verses in Chronicles and is not mentioned in Kings. The surrender of Jerusalem is implied; the treasures from the palace are taken and the sons and wives of Jehoram taken captive (2 Chron 21:17). Yet even were this sufficient to merit the words of Obadiah, the involvement of Edom in this skirmish seems unlikely: first, Edom is not mentioned; secondly, Edom had only recently revolted against Judah (2 Kgs 8:20-22; 2 Chron 21:8-10).

The Edomites are mentioned in the account of the Syro-Ephraimite crisis during the reign of Ahaz as the beneficiaries (D), gaining the town of Elath after the Syrians had driven away the Judahite inhabitants (2 Kgs 16:5-6). However, this account stresses that the Syrian invaders were not able to penetrate Jerusalem, contrary to Obadiah’s words. The Chronicles account also mentions an invasion by the Edomites during the reign of Ahaz. It is recorded that the Edomites took captives and Ahaz was forced to ask for assistance from the King of Assyria (2 Chron 28:16-17); no attack on Jerusalem is mentioned.

Since Edom is listed in Assyria’s tribute list from after Tiglath-Pileser III’s campaign against Philistia in 734,[12] it is just possible that the Edomites were allied to Sennacherib when he besieged Jerusalem (E). Nevertheless, we know that Sennacherib failed in his attempt to capture Jerusalem and no looting or captivity occurred.

The Babylonian invasion of Judah (c.587) is the only time in Israel’s history when the Edomites are associated with a penetration of Jerusalem. Psalm 137, in its lament for Zion, petitions the Lord to remember Edom for its part:

Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites the day of Jerusalem, how they said, “Lay it bare, lay it bare, down to its foundations”. Ps 137:7 (ESV)

1 Esdras 4:45 accuses the Edomites of destroying the Temple:

You have vowed to build up the Temple, which the Edomites burned when Judah was made desolate by the Babylonians.

This evidence of the involvement of the Edomites has been called into question by some commentators. For instance, R. J. Coggins doubts whether 1 Esd 4:45 is based on any independent historical tradition, viewing it as an interpretation based upon Ps 137:7 and Obadiah.[13] Given that 1 Esdras was probably written at a time of Jewish aggression against the Idumeans dwelling in the south, it is understandable that the writer would have wished to emphasize (and exaggerate?) the extent of Edom’s previous transgressions. Also, Ps 137:7 only describes Edom as a passive observer and does not mention any acts of aggression against Judah.

It should be noted that Edom’s participation in 587 is not mentioned in either the Babylonian or Jewish accounts of the fall of Jerusalem. Edom appears to have been friendly to Judah (Jer 27:2-3) and Edom is not listed amongst Nebuchadnezzar’s allies in 2 Kgs 24:2. In Jer 40:11-2 it is implied that Jewish refugees from the Babylonian invasion had settled in Edom and were free to return when Gedaliah was appointed governor, which is a difference to Obadiah’s words that Edom cut off the fugitives and delivered them up. Also, the archeological evidence is sporadic and difficult to interpret. There is some evidence of Edomite penetration into southern Judah in the latter part of the sixth century B.C.E., which J. Renkema interpreted as evidence of Edomite aggression around 587.[14] It is more likely that this indicates an Edomite migration into Judah prompted by occupation of their homeland by the Nabataeans, an Arabian tribe.[15]

Nevertheless, despite the absence of more explicit mention, the involvement of Edom in the Babylonian invasion seems probable. The mention of the Edomites in a psalm criticizing the Babylonian invasion would be bizarre if they had not played some part in that event. If it proves nothing else, 1 Esd 4:45 demonstrates a long-standing association of the Edomites with the destruction of Jerusalem in the memory of the Jews. It is also perfectly reasonable that Edom should have participated, either as ally or opportunist, in Judah’s downfall. Renkema states,

It is politically unlikely that Edom did not take advantage of this opportunity to broaden its sphere of influence.[16]

Ezekiel seems to confirm the Edomites’ involvement, criticizing them for giving over “the people of Israel to the power of the sword at the time of their calamity, at the time of their final punishment” (Ezek 35:5).

Though Obadiah does use different language than Ezekiel (there are no intertextual links), he describes the crisis in the gravest terms: “the day of his misfortune … the day of ruin … the day of distress” (v. 12), “the day of calamity” (three times; v. 13), “the day of distress” (v. 14). Such terminology does not fit with the looting of previous invasions (A-C) but implies an event of far greater impact: the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the kingdom of Judah (v. 12).

The reference to the captivity (v. 20; cf. vv. 11, 14) makes sense against this interpretation:

The exiles of this host of the people of Israel shall possess the land of the Canaanites as far as Zarephath, and the exiles of Jerusalem who are in Sepharad shall possess the cities of the Negeb. [ESV]

There was no significant captivity before the Assyrians carried away the northern kingdom. In v. 20, the prophet refers to both the exiles of “the people of Israel” and of “Jerusalem”. Now while it is conceivable that both references are prophetic, these verses would seem to have little relevance prior to both captivities.[17] The fact that Obadiah is predicting the return of the exiles of Jerusalem (to the cities of the Negeb) strongly implies that he is speaking after their exile (not before).

Obadiah and Jeremiah

It is well known that there are strong parallels between Obadiah and Jeremiah 49, and it is clear that they have a common topic. Even though Jeremiah 49 can be reliably dated to the years leading up to the Babylonian invasion (c. 605; cf. Jer 45:1), it cannot be conclusively shown that Obadiah is dependent on Jeremiah 49, thereby making Obadiah a later book. However, for the purposes of our argument it is sufficient to show that the two texts share a common background topic—the downfall of Judah. The main intertextual links are set out in the table below:

Obadiah (ESV) Jeremiah 49 (ESV)
v.1 Thus says the Lord God concerning Edom, We have heard a report from the Lord and a messenger has been sent among the nations: “Rise up! Let us rise against her for battle!”

v.7 Concerning Edom. Thus says the Lord of hosts.

 

v.14 I have heard a message from the Lord, An envoy was sent to the nations to say, “Assemble yourselves to attack it! Rise up for battle!”
v.2 Behold, I will make you small among the nations…you shall be utterly despised… v.15 Now I will make you small among the nations…despised among men.
v.3 The pride of your heart has deceived you…you who live in the clefts of the rock, in your lofty dwelling… v.16 …and the pride of your heart have deceived you, you who live in the clefts of the rocks, who occupy the heights of the hill…
v.4 …though your nest is set among the stars, from there I will bring you down, declares the Lord. v.16 Though you build your nest as high as the eagle’s, from there I will bring you down,” declares the Lord.
v.5 If thieves came to you, if plunderers came by night—how you have been destroyed!—would they not steal only enough for themselves? If grape gatherers came to you, would they not leave gleanings?

v.9 If thieves came during the night, would they not steal only as much as they wanted?

 

If grape pickers came to you, would they not leave a few grapes?
v.6 How Esau has been pillaged, his treasures sought out! v.10 But I have stripped Esau bare; I have uncovered his hiding places, and he is not able to conceal himself. His children are destroyed, and his brothers, and his neighbors; and he is no more.

v.7 …you have no understanding…

 

v.8 Will I not on that day, declares the Lord, destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding of Mount Esau?

 v.7 Is wisdom no more in Teman? Has counsel perished from the prudent? Has their wisdom vanished?
v.9 And your might men shall be dismayed, O Teman, so that every man from Mount Esau will be cut off by slaughter. v.10 His descendants are plundered, his brethren and his neighbours, and he is more.
v.16 For as you have drunk on my holy mountain, so all the nations shall drink continually; they shall drink and swallow, and shall be as though they had never been v.12 For thus says the Lord: If those who did not deserve to drink the cup must drink it, will you go unpunished? You shall not go unpunished, but you must drink
v.21 Saviors shall go up to Mount Zion to rule Mount Esau, and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s v.19 And I will appoint over her whomever I choose. For who is like me? Who will summon me? What shepherd can stand before me?

The judgments upon Edom in Jeremiah 49 are set against the background of Judah’s troubles with the Babylonians; similarly, we should read Obadiah against the same background.

We would in fact propose that Obadiah does borrow phraseology from Jeremiah and builds his prophecy around key themes of the passage. Yet Obadiah does not simply regurgitate Jeremiah’s prophecy, he is creative and turns this old words to a new purpose. Several sections in Obadiah’s prophecy find no parallel in Jeremiah 49, specifically: the description of Edom’s sin (vv. 10-14), the introduction of the Day of the Lord (v. 15) and the description of Israel’s victory and distribution of the land (vv. 18-20). These additions add depth, making the judgment of Edom retributive on the one hand and on the other providing an eschatological hope to his listeners.

Several commentators note that it is peculiar that Obadiah does not mention the destruction of the Temple if he is writing directly after the fall of Jerusalem.[18] One response to this observation is that Obadiah would have regarded the destruction of the Temple as the work of the Lord, not of the Edomites.[19] More importantly, Obadiah is focused on the crimes of Edom, not Babylon, and there is no evidence except the disputed reference in 1 Esd 4:45 that the Edomites were involved in the destruction of the Temple. Obadiah’s words are concerned with the human tragedy and Edom’s failure to respect its duty as a brother, rather than the spiritual tragedy. In any case, at twenty-one verses, Obadiah is too short for any omission to be given significant weight.

The Destruction of Edom

The evidence we have discussed so far indicates that Obadiah was writing after the destruction of Jerusalem (c.587), but how long after? Did Obadiah write shortly after the events, or many centuries later? Since Obadiah predicts the destruction of Edom, this event is the terminus ad quem (latest possible dating) for the book. We will now attempt to date that event.

The little we know of the land of Edom in the centuries following the fall of Jerusalem demonstrates that Obadiah’s predictions of doom upon Edom were fulfilled. The writings of Diodorus Siculus indicate that by 312 B.C.E. the land of Edom was occupied by Nabataeans, an Arabian tribe.[20] The books of the Maccabees and Josephus record that by the time of the Maccabees the Edomites (named ‘Idumeans’) were dwelling in southern Judea.[21] The Idumeans were later subdued and integrated amongst the Jews. The initial dispossession of the Edomites by the Nabataeans seems to be the primary fulfillment of Obadiah’s words (“your allies have driven you to your border” v. 7), however the later fate of the Idumeans, disappearing from the page of history, completes the judgment determined (v. 10).

Though we know little about the destruction of Edom or the Nabataean expansion into region, we can give a probable reconstruction of these events. The excavations at Ezion-Geber indicate the presence of Edomites to the mid-sixth century, revealing a seal (c.600-550) and an ostracon (c.550-500) each bearing Edomites names.[22] We also find to the continued reference to the nation of Edom in the OT books of this period (Lam 4:21-22; Ezek 25:12-14; Dan 11:41). By the time of Malachi the destruction of Edom is past (Mal 1:1-5); this is corroborated by the discovery of Arabic names at Ezion-Geber dating from the fifth century.[23] The relevant tablet of the Babylonian Chronicle, known as the Nabonidus Chronicle, though damaged, reveals that it was probably Nabonidus who came against Edom on his way to Teima (c.550). The excavations of Buseira, Tawilan and Tell el-Kheleifh reveal that they were destroyed in the mid-sixth century, corroborating the account of the Chronicle.[24] That the Babylonians were the source of Edom’s destruction corresponds with Obadiah’s prediction that Edom’s allies would be against her (v. 7).

The reason for the Babylonian campaign against Edom is unclear, though it is possible that, like the kings of Judah, the kings of Edom attempted to rebel against their overlords. It is no longer thought that Nabonidus’ extended residence in Teima was for spiritual solitude. It is likely that Nabonidus sought to secure the trade routes of north Arabia to gain wealth for Babylon.[25] The campaign against Edom may be explained as a security measure to provide stability in the region. It is certainly probable that the Babylonian military presence in northern Arabia disposed the Nabataeans and prompted them to find a new home in the land of Edom, conveniently weakened by the Babylonians.[26]

The remnant of the people of Edom appears to have migrated westward into southern Judah under pressure from the Nabataeans. It is likely that some Edomites remained in Edom and were integrated with the Nabataeans, who appear to have adopted some Edomite customs and religious practices. In the second century B.C.E. the Edomites who had migrated into southern Palestine were defeated Judas Maccabaeus[27] and again subdued by Hyrcanus.[28] Josephus records that after this later defeat, the remaining Edomites (Idumeans) were forcibly converted to Judaism and integrated into Jewish society. By the time of Jesus there was little differential between the Jews and Idumeans. The last historical mention we have of the Edomites is Herod, king of Judea, was called an Idumean.[29]

Conclusion

The destruction of Edom and the initial fulfillment of Obadiah’s prophecy may be cautiously dated to c.550 B.C.E. If this event is to have relevance as retribution, Obadiah must be referring to Edom’s latest crime. The evidence for Edom’s involvement in the destruction of Jerusalem is sparse but sufficient to establish the association. This is in contrast to the alternative penetrations of Jerusalem, for which there is little or no evidence of Edom’s involvement, and in any case do not fit the tone of Obadiah’s words.

 

Other clues to the dating are scarce and difficult to interpret. If Obadiah’s dependence upon Jeremiah 49 is substantiated then this would add weight to the sixth century date. More significant is the reference to the captivity of Jerusalem (v. 20), which would seem to rule out any date prior to 605 B.C.E.

In conclusion, we may cautiously date the book of Obadiah to 587-550 B.C.E., that is, in the immediate aftermath of the Babylonian invasion of Judah.

[1] In Jewish tradition, the prophet was identified as Ahab’s chamberlain (1 Kgs 18) but there seems to be little to connect them except the name and their mutual service of the YHWH.

[2] E. B. Pusey, Joel and Obadiah (8 vols; London: James Nisbet & co., 1906), 3:274. Pusey describes the variation as a product of “unbelieving criticism” and a failure of commentators to grant true prophetic status to the words of scripture.

[3] S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (7th ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1898), 319-321.

[4] Pusey, 3:278f; A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Doctrine of the Prophets (London: Macmillan & Co., 1892), 36f.

[5] Driver, Introduction, 321; J. Barton, Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary (Louisville: John Knox Press, 2001), 123.

[6] J. D. W. Watts, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 51; R. J. Coggins, “Judgment Between Brothers: A Commentary on the Book of Obadiah” in Israel among the Nations: A Commentary on the Books of Nahum and Obadiah and Esther (ed. R. J. Coggins & S. P. Re’emi; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 68; C. E. Armerding, Obadiah in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (12 vols; ed. F. E. Gaebelein et al.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 7:337; J. Renkema, Historical Commentary on the Old Testament: Obadiah (trans. B. Doyle; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 30; P. R. Raabe, Obadiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1996), 49f; Barton, 123.

[7] Driver, Introduction, 320; Barton, 123.

[8] W. Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar (2nd ed.; ed. E. Kautzsch; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910), sections 46, 109, 110; hereafter, GKC.

[9] Pusey, 277-8.

[10] T. J. Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah – An Exegetical Commentary (Biblical Studies Press, 2003), 80.

[11] This being said, it is recorded that the Edomites allied with the Ammonites and Moabites in an unsuccessful raid on Judah in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron 20:1).

[12] ANET, 282.

[13] Coggins, 68.

[14] Renkema, Obadiah, 34.

[15] Armerding, Obadiah, 7:336.

[16] Renkema, Obadiah, 34.

[17] Raabe, Obadiah, 52.

[18] Kirkpatrick, The Doctrine of the Prophets, 38.

[19] Renkema, Obadiah, 30.

[20] Diodorus Siculus 19.95.2; 19.98.1.

[21] 1 Macc 4; 5:3; 2 Macc 10:15-6; Josephus, Ant. 12.8.1.

[22] Armerding, Obadiah, 7:335.

[23] Armerding, Obadiah, 7:336.

[24] Raabe, Obadiah, 54.

[25] P. A. Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus King of Babylon 556-539 BC (London: Yale University Press, 1989) 182-3.

[26] Armerding, Obadiah, 7:336.

[27] 1 Macc 5:3, 65; Josephus, Ant. 12.8.1 (327-8).

[28] Josephus, Ant. 13.9.1 (257-8).

[29] Coggins, “Obadiah”, 72, raises the possibility that Herod was called ‘Idumean’ as a “term of abuse” rather than an accurate description of his nationality.