The Prophet Obadiah, expounded by Charles Paul Caspari [pp. 226-240]

by Charles Paul CasparZ.
another treatise of kindred character on the Syro-Ephraimitic
War under Jotham and Ahaz, and an Arabic Grammar, designed for students of the language, who want something less copious than the grammars of De Sacy and Ewald, yet not so
meager as the generality of the manuals previously in use.
Of Obadiah, as of some others of the minor prophets,
nothing is recorded but the name, and that only in the title to
his prophecy. The traditionary notices which variously identify
him with the governor of Ahab's house, 1 Kings xviii. 3; with
the captain of fifty spared by Elijah, 2 Kings i. 13; or with
the husband of the woman mentioned, 2 Kings iv. 1; or which
declare him to have been a proselyte from Edom, are entirely
unreliable, and owe their origin to an endeavour to elicit by
conjectural combination a knowledge of the prophet which
authentic accounts did not furnish. The very period in which
he lived, is matter of dispute. As might have been anticipated,
this furnished a fine opportunity for German criticism to display itself, which is never more confident in its conclusions,
than when it has least evidence on which to base them.
UJnfortunately, however, its varying results are calculated to
inspire any thing but confidence in lookers on. Obadiah has
been pronounced with equal positiveness to be the very earliest
and the very latest of the prophets, whose writings form part
of the canon, while almost every assignable intermediate
position has been allotted to him, by one or other of those who
have undertaken to speak oracularly upon the subject. Caspari has been content to take the less ambitious, but not less
safe method of acquiescing in a date already furnished, rather
than inventing a new one. The only external evidence which
bears upon the point, is the position which this prophecy
occupies in the collection of the minor prophets, according to which Obadiah succeeds Amos and precedes Jonah
and Micah. The correctness of this, our author strenuously
defends; and if he has not rigidly proved it, he has certainly shown that no sufficient reason exists in the present
case for departing from it. It is on all hands admitted,
as is indeed evident on a bare inspection, that in the arrangement of the minor prophets some respect was had, at least in
the general, to the chronological order; the only question that
1852.]
227