[1130] Perhaps this is the most convenient place to refer to König’s proposal to place Joel in the last years of Josiah. Some of his arguments (_e.g._ that Joel is placed among the first of the Twelve) we have already answered. He thinks that i. 17-20 suit the great drought in Josiah’s reign (Jer. xiv. 2-6), that the name given to the locusts, הצפוני, ii. 20, is due to Jeremiah’s enemy _from the north_, and that the phrases _return with all your heart_, ii. 12, and _return to Jehovah your God_, 13, imply a period of apostasy. None of these conclusions is necessary. The absence of reference to the _high places_ finds an analogy in Isa. i. 13; the מנחה is mentioned in Isa. i. 13: if Amos viii. 5 testifies to observance of the Sabbath, and Nahum ii. 1 to other festivals, who can say a pre-exilic prophet would not be interested in the meal and drink offerings? But surely no pre-exilic prophet would have so emphasised these as Joel has done. Nor is König’s explanation of iv. 2 as of the Assyrian and Egyptian invasion of Judah so probable as that which refers the verse to the Babylonian exile. Nor are König’s objections to a date after “Malachi” convincing. They are that a prophet near “Malachi’s” time must have specified as “Malachi” did the reasons for the repentance to which he summoned the people, while Joel gives none, but is quite general (ii. 13_a_). But the change of attitude may be accounted for by the covenant and Law of 444. “Malachi” i. 11 speaks of the Gentiles worshipping Jehovah, but not even in Jonah iii. 5 is any relation of the Gentiles to Jehovah predicated. Again, the greater exclusiveness of Ezra and his Law may be the cause. Joel, it is true, as König says, does not mention the Law, while “Malachi” does (ii. 8, etc.); but this was not necessary if the people had accepted it in 444. Professor Ryle (_Canon of O.T._, 106 n.) leaves the question of Joel’s date open. [1131] Pages 333 f. n. [1132] Vernes, _Histoire des Idées Messianiques depuis Alexandre_, pp. 13 ff., had already asserted that chaps. i. and ii. must be by a different author from chaps. iii. and iv., because the former has to do wholly with the writer’s present, with which the latter has no connection whatever, but it is entirely eschatological. But in his _Mélanges de Crit. Relig._, pp. 218 ff., Vernes allows that his arguments are not conclusive, and that all four chapters may have come from the same hand. [1133] _I.e._ Hitzig, Vatke, Ewald, Robertson Smith, Kuenen, Kirkpatrick, Driver, Davidson, Nowack, etc. [1134] This allegorical interpretation was a favourite one with the early Christian Fathers: cf. Jerome. [1135] _Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theologie_, 1860, pp. 412 ff. [1136] Cambyses 525, Xerxes 484, Artaxerxes Ochus 460 and 458.