superscription,
means
'
my
messenger,'
and
in
this
sense
it
is
used
in
3'.
It
is
argued
that
the
word
ought
to
have
the
same
signification
in
both
places.
But,
while
in
3'
it
can
scarcely
mean
anything
else
than
'my
messenger,'
this
meaning
does
not
suit
the
superscrip-tion,
which
would
run,
'
Oracle
of
the
word
of
Jahweh
through
my
messenger.'
The
oblique
case
of
Jahweh
with
the
direct
reference
of
the
suffix
in
'my
mes-senger,'
is
more
than
awkward.
The
LXX
renders
the
superscription
'by
the
hand
of
his
messenger.'
The
change
of
text
is
very
slight.
Whether
there
was
MS
authority
for
it
cannot
be
determined.
The
termination
of
the
word
Ualachi
may
be
ad-jectival.
It
would
thus
be
equivalent
to
the
Latin
Angdicus,
and
would
signify
'one
charged
with
a
message
or
mission'
(a
missionary).
The
term
would
thus
be
an
official
title,
and
the
thought
is
not
un-suitable
to
one
whose
message
closed
the
Prophetical
Canon
of
the
OT,
and
whose
mission
in
behalf
of
the
Church
was
of
so
sacred
a
character.
If
this
were
the
explanation,
it
is
probable
that
greater
definiteness
would
be
attached
to
the
words.
It
should
be
noted
that,
while
the
LXX
render
the
word
Malachi
by
'
his
messenger'
in
the
superscription,
they
prefix,
as
the
title
of
the
book,
Malachias,
as
if
the
Hebrew
should
read
Malachiyah,
i.e.
'
messenger
of
Jahweh.'
Some
such
form
must
be
adopted
if
the
Malachi
of
the
super-scription
is
taken
as
a
proper
noun.
The
form
would
thus
correspond
to
Zacharias^
and
many
other
proper
nouns
(so
Vulg.
both
in
the
title
and
in
the
super-scription).
This
is
a
possible
grammatical
explanation,
and
the
name
'
messenger
of
Jahweh'
is
suitable
to
the
condition
of
Judah
at
the
time.
The
Jews
had
little
experience
of
prophets
when
the
message
of
this
book
was
delivered.
It
is
significant
that
Haggai,
the
earliest
prophet
of
the
post-exilic
period,
is
expressly
designated
'messenger
of
Jahweh'
(Hag
1").
He
had
already
received
the
official
title
of
prophet
(.naW),
(v.').
But
there
were
prophets
and
prophets.
False
prophets
had
done
much
to
bring
about
the
Exile.
If
there
were
to
be
prophets
after
the
Exile,
it
was
important
that
the
new
community
should
be
in
no
doubt
as
to
their
character.
This
was
secured
in
the
case
of
the
first
of
the
post-exilic
prophets
by
the
express
state-ment
that
he
was
the
messenger
of
Jahweh,
and
that
what
he
spoke
was
the
message
of
Jahweh.
In
the
case
of
the
last
of
the
prophets
of
the
OT
Canon,
an
assurance
of
a
similar
character
would
be
furnished
symbolically
by
the
name
Malachiyah
('messenger
of
Jahweh').
This,
pro
tanto,
favours
the
form
of
the
word
as
it
appears
in
the
title
of
the
LXX
and
the
Vulgate.
But
3'
remains.
If
Malachi
is
a
proper
noun
—
the
name
of
the
author
—
in
1',
should
the
word
not
have
the
same
significance
in
3"?
The
answer
is,
that
there
is
no
insuperable
objection
to
the
twofold
ex-planation.
The
form
admits
of
the
twofold
reference.
The
question
is
one
of
probability.
At
this
point,
however,
reference
should
be
made
to
the
Targum,
according
to
which
Ezra
was
the
author
of
the
Book
of
Malachi;
and
this
opinion
continued
to
prevail
among
the
Jews.
Jerome
accepted
it,
and
it
was
favourably
regarded
by
Calvin
and
others.
No
doubt
the
Targum
expressed
the
Jewish
opinion
of
the
time.
But
that
does
not
settle
the
question.
In
the
four
or
five
centuries
between
the
appearance
of
the
Book
of
Malachi
and
the
birth
of
Christ,
the
Ufe
of
the
OT
Church
centred
in
the
Law
of
Moses.
That
law
was
given,
mainly,
by
Ezra
to
the
post-exilic
Church.
As
years
passed,
and
the
traditions
of
the
scribes
began
to
gather
about
the
Law,
the
figure
of
Ezra
stood
out
as
the
prominent
one
in
post-exilic
times.
Everything
of
importance
con-nected
with
the
Law
was
wont
to
be
assigned
to
him.
Take
along
with
that
the
fact
that
Malachi
occurs
as
a
common
noun
in
3',
and
the
additional
fact
that
the
prophecy
closes
with
a
solemn
warning
to
remember
the
Law
of
Moses,
and
it
may
appear
not
improbable
that
Ezra
should
have
been
claimed
as
the
author
of
this
closing
passage,
and
of
the
prophecy
in
which
it
is
found.
In
these
circumstances
the
authority
of
the
Targum
is
not
of
very
great
weight.
But
in
one
respect
the
Targum
is
of
importance.
If
the
name
of
Ezra
was
the
only
one
associated
with
the
Book
of
Malachi
when
the
Targum
was
prepared,
it
is
probable
that
the
book
originally
appeared
anonymously
—
at
least,
that
it
bore
no
name
when
the
volume
of
the
Minor
Prophets
was
made
up,
and
that
the
compiler
either
regarded
the
term
Malachi
in
3'
as
the
name
of
the
author,
or
attached
it
to
the
book
in
the
superscription
as
an
official
title.
It
is
scarcely
necessary
to
observe
that
the
name
of
the
author
is
not
required
for
the
authentication
of
the
message.
The
terms
of
the
superscription
are
amply
sufficient
for
the
purpose
of
authentication.
It
is
the
'
Oracle
of
the
Word
of
Jahweh
'
that
the
prophet
delivers.
Tills
is
equivalent
to
'The
word
of
Jahweh
came
—
or
was
—
to
...
(so
and
so)'
in
other
books
of
prophecy,
and
implies
the
familiar
'Thus
saith
Jahweh'
of
prophetic
address.
2.
Date.
—
Opinion
is
greatly
divided
regarding
the
date
of
the
book.
That
it
belonged
to
the
Persian
period
appears
from
the
name
(.pechah)
given
to
the
governor
(cf.
Hag
!'■
"
etc.,
Neh
5"
etc.).
Further,
it
is
obvious
that
the
statutory
services
of
the
Temple
had
been
in
operation
for
some
time
before
the
message
of
Malachi
was
delivered.
Abuses
had
crept
in
which
could
not
be
associated
with
those
who
had
returned
from
Babylon
and
rebuilt
the
Temple.
The
dedication
of
the
Second
Temple
took
place
in
b.c.
516,
and
the
condition
of
religious
life
depicted
in
Malachi
must
have
been
a
good
many
years
later
than
that
date.
This
is
very
generally
admitted.
Two
dates
are
most
worthy
of
consideration
—
the
first
shortly
before
Ezra's
arrival
in
Jerusalem,
and
the
second
during
Nehemiah's
second
visit
to
the
holy
city.
Certain
expressions
occurring
in
the
book
are
held
to
favour
the
former
(cf.
2?-
*■
'
3^-
i»-
»
[EV
4<]).
These,
breathing
the
spirit
of
Deut.,
are
supposed
to
show
that
the
author
was
under
the
influence
of
the
Deutero-nomic
Code.
If
his
activity
was
later
than
445,
the
influence
of
P
would
have
been
expected
to
show
itself.
But
the
expression
'the
law
of
Moses'
(3^!
[EV
4<1)
finds
a
natural
explanation
in
connexion
with
the
whole
Pentateuchal
legislation
read
before
the
people
in
445
(Neh
8
ft.).
The
covenant
with
Levi
(2*-
')
seems
to
presuppose
Nu
25'»-"
(P).
And
the
reference
to
the
tithes
(3'")
appears
to
rest
on
Lv
27'"-^
and
Nu
18''-"
(both
belonging
to
P").
Deuteronomlc
expressions
of
an
ethical
character
are
suitable
to
any
earnest
prophet
after
Amos,
and
are
not
determinative
of
date
as
are
the
passages
which
presuppose
P,
—
on
the
assumption
that
P
was
first
promulgated
in
b.c.
446.
The
language,
upon
the
whole,
favours
a
date
later
than
the
appearance
of
P.
The
contents
of
the
book
point
in
the
same
direction.
Ezra's
reformation
appears
to
have
been
limited
to
the
banishing
of
the
foreign
wives,
and
the
effort
to
effect
a
complete
separation
of
the
Chosen
People
from
the
idolatrous
tribes
round
about.
The
author
of
Malachi
brings
three
main
charges
against
the
Church
of
his
day:
(1)
against
the
priests
for
the
profanation
of
the
services
of
the
Temple;
(2)
against
the
community
(priests
included)
for
marrying
heathen
wives;
(3)
against
the
people
generally
for
immorality,
indifference,
and
infidelity.
All
this
agrees
very
closely
with
the
state
of
affairs
with
which
Nehemiah
had
to
deal
on
his
second
visit
to
Jerusalem
(Neh
13™).
And
upon
the
whole
(the
conclusion
can
only
be
a
matter
of
comparative
probability),
the
period
of
that
visit
may
be
accepted
for
the
prophetic
activity
of
the
author
of
Malachi.
The
date
would
be
somewhere
about
B.C.
430.
3.
Contents.
—
The
book
may
be
divided
into
the
following
sections:
