incidental, as _Vitringa_, in his _Typ. Doctr. Proph._ p. 189 sqq., has admitted: "The prophet," says he, "was describing the heavy judgments with which God would, after the effusion of the Spirit, successively, and especially in the latter days, visit the enemies of the Church, and overthrow them, on account of the injuries which they had inflicted upon it. And while he was doing so, those injuries presented themselves to his mind, which in his own time, and in the immediate past, were inflicted upon the Jewish people--a portion of the universal Church--by the neighbouring nations, the Tyrians, Sidonians, and Philistines. To them he addresses his discourse _in passing_ (_in transitu_), and announces to them, in the name of God, that they themselves also would not remain unpunished." The correctness of _Vitringa_, with his "_in transitu_," is proved by the וגם, as well as by the circumstance, that vers. 9 ff. are closely connected with ver. 3; so that vers. 4 ff. form a real parenthesis. How entirely out of place would here have been any mention of the Syrians! There was necessarily something required which was very striking, and [Pg 294]which, having but recently occurred, was still vividly remembered. But the matter was altogether different in the case of Amos. Joel has to do with the enemies of Judah only; Amos, with those of the kingdom of Israel also, among whom the Syrians were the most dangerous. Hence, he begins with them at once. The crime with which he charges them in chap. i. 3, that they had threshed the inhabitants of Gilead with threshing instruments of iron, concerns the kingdom of Israel only. The same applies to the Ammonites and Moabites also, who, in like manner, are mentioned by Amos, and not by Joel. The Ammonites are charged in Amos i. 13 with ripping up the women with child of Gilead, that they might enlarge their border; and the crime of the Moabites, rebuked in chap. ii. 1, occurred, very probably, during the time of, or after, the expedition against them, mentioned in 2 Kings iii.--the real instigator of which was the king of Israel. We must indeed be astonished that _Hitzig_, _Ewald_, _Meier_, _Baur_, and others, after the example of _Credner_, have likewise declared in favour of the view that the prophecies of Joel were composed under Joash. None of the arguments, however, by which they attempt to support their view, can stand examination.