Editing Book of Joel (section)

== History of interpretation ==
[[File:Tissot Joel.jpg|thumb|150px|Joel (watercolor circa 1896–1902 by [[James Tissot]])]]
The [[Masoretic text]] places Joel between [[Book of Hosea|Hosea]] and [[Book of Amos|Amos]] (the order inherited by the Tanakh and Old Testament), while the [[Septuagint]] order is Hosea–Amos–[[Book of Micah|Micah]]–Joel–[[Book of Obadiah|Obadiah]]–[[Book of Jonah|Jonah]]. The Hebrew text of Joel seems to have suffered little from [[Textual criticism|scribal transmission]], but is at a few points supplemented by the Septuagint, [[Peshitta|Syriac]], and [[Vulgate]] versions, or by [[conjectural emendation]].<ref>Allen 36</ref> While the book purports to describe a plague of locusts, some ancient Jewish opinion saw the locusts as [[allegory|allegorical]] interpretations of Israel's enemies.<ref>[[Targum]] at 2:25; also margin of [[Septuagint|LXX]] manuscript Q, mid-6th century AD</ref> This allegorical interpretation was applied to the church by many [[Church Fathers]]. Calvin took a literal interpretation of chapter 1, but allegorical view of chapter 2, a position echoed by some modern interpreters. Most modern interpreters, however, see Joel speaking of a literal locust plague given a prophetic or [[Apocalyptic literature|apocalyptic]] interpretation.<ref>See Allen 29–31</ref>

The traditional ascription of the whole book to the prophet Joel was challenged in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by a theory of a three-stage process of composition: 1:1–2:27 were from the hand of Joel, and dealt with a contemporary issue; 2:28–3:21/3:1–4:21 were ascribed to a continuator with an apocalyptic outlook. Mentions in the first half of the book to the [[day of the Lord]] were also ascribed to this continuator. 3:4–8/4:4–8 could be seen as even later. Details of exact ascriptions differed between scholars.

This splitting of the book's composition began to be challenged in the mid-twentieth century, with scholars defending the unity of the book, the plausibility of the prophet combining a contemporary and apocalyptic outlook, and later additions by the prophet. The authenticity of 3:4–8 has presented more challenges, although a number of scholars still defend it.<ref>See Allen 25–29 for details and arguments.</ref>