(the Library of Hebrew Bible_Old Testament Studies 475) Mark J. Boda, Michael H. Floyd - Tradition in Transition_ Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology-Bloomsbury T&T Clark (20

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/
OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES
475
Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series
Editors
Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University
Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge
Founding Editors
David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn
Editorial Board
Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon,
Norman K. Gottwald, Gina Hens-Piazza, John Jarick, Andrew D. H. Mayes,
Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller, Yvonne Sherwood
This page intentionally left blank
TRADITION IN TRANSITION
Haggai and Zechariah 1-8

in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology
edited by
Mark J. Boda
and
Michael H. Floyd
Copyright © 2008 by Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher, T & T Clark
International.
T & T Clark International, 80 Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038
T & T Clark International, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX
T & T Clark International is a Continuum imprint.
Visit the T & T Clark blog at www.tandtclarkblog.com
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
Tradition in transition : Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 in the trajectory of Hebrew theology / edited
by Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd.
p. cm. -- (The library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament studies ; # 475)
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
ISBN-13: 978-0-567-02651-4 (hardcover : alk. paper)
ISBN-10: 0-567-02651-5 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Haggai--Criticism,
interpretation, etc. 2. Bible. O.T. Zechariah I-VIII--Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Boda,
Mark J. II. Floyd, Michael H. III. Title. IV. Series.
BS1655.52.T73 2008
224'.9706--dc22
2008012845
06 07 08 09 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
CONTENTS
Abbreviations vii
List of Contributors xi
Introduction xiii
TRADITION, CONTINUITY AND COVENANT

IN THE BOOK OF HAGGAI: AN ALTERNATIVE VOICE
FROM EARLY PERSIAN YEHUD
John Kessler 1
TIME AND TRADITION IN THE BOOK OF HAGGAI

Frank Y. Patrick 40
THE KING IN HAGGAI–ZECHARIAH 1–8

AND THE BOOK OF THE TWELVE
Paul L. Redditt 56
LIFE WRITING IN EZEKIEL AND FIRST ZECHARIAH

D. Nathan Phinney 83
ZECHARIAH’S SPIES AND EZEKIEL’S CHERUBIM

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer 104
“THE WHOLE EARTH REMAINS AT PEACE” (ZECHARIAH 1:11):

THE PROBLEM AND AN INTERTEXTUAL CLUE
Al Wolters 128
SUSTAINED ALLUSION IN ZECHARIAH 1–2

Michael R. Stead 144
HOY, HOY: THE PROPHETIC ORIGINS

OF THE BABYLONIAN TRADITION IN ZECHARIAH 2:10–17
Mark J. Boda 171
vi Tradition in Transition
ZECHARIAH AND THE SATAN TRADITION

IN THE HEBREW BIBLE
Dominic Rudman 191
TRACES OF TRADITION IN ZECHARIAH 1–8:

A CASE-STUDY
Michael H. Floyd 210
SIN AND ATONEMENT IN ZECHARIAH’S NIGHT VISIONS

Holger Delkurt 235
AN EPHAH BETWEEN EARTH AND HEAVEN:

READING ZECHARIAH 5:5–11
Johannes Schnocks 252
TARGUM JONATHAN’S READING OF ZECHARIAH 3:

A GATEWAY FOR THE PALACE
Marvin A. Sweeney 271
THE GREEK TEXT OF ZECHARIAH:

A DOCUMENT FROM MACCABEAN JERUSALEM?
Thomas Pola 291
A REVIEW
Willem A. M. Beuken 301
FOOTPRINTS TO THE POST-EXILIC PROPHETS

Rex Mason 310
HAGGAI–ZECHARIAH 1–8: SOME REFLECTIONS

David L. Petersen 319
RESPONSE
Janet E. Tollington 327
Bibliography 337
Index of References 361
Index of Authors 379
ABBREVIATIONS
AB Anchor Bible
ABD The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols.
New York, 1992
ABR Australian Biblical Review
AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des
Urchristentums
AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
ArBib The Aramaic Bible
ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute
ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments
ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch
AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies
AzTh Arbeiten zur Theologie
BAT Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments
BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge
BBS Bulletin of Biblical Studies
BDB Brown, Francis, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew
and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907
BEATAJ Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken
Judentum
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by Karl Elliger and Wilhelm
Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1983
Bib Biblica
BibInt Biblical Interpretation
BibOr Biblica et orientalia
BK Bibel und Kirche
BN Biblische Notizen
BKAT Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament
BRL2 Biblisches Reallexikon. 2d ed. Edited by Kurt Galling. HAT 1/1.
Tübingen, 1977
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
BThSt Biblisch-theologische Studien
BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CAT Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament
CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology
CBC Cambridge Bible Commentary
viii Tradition in Transition
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series
ConB Coniectanea biblica
CurBS Currents in Research: Biblical Studies
EBib Etudes bibliques
EdF Erträge der Forschung
ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses
EvT Evangelische Theologie
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
FBE Forum for Bibelsk Eksegese
FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
FS Festschrift
GesB Gesenius, Wilhelm. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch
über das Alte Testament. Edited by Frants Buhl. 17th ed. Berlin,
1915; repr. Berlin, 1962
GK Gesenius, Wilhelm. Hebräische Grammatik. Edited by Emil Kautzsch.
28th ed. Leipzig, 1909; 7th repr. ed. Darmstadt, 1995.
GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by Emil Katuzsch. Translated by
A. E. Cowley. 2d ed. Oxford, 1910
HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament
Hen Henoch
HeyJ Heythrop Journal
HSAT Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments. Edited by Emil Kautsch and
Alfred Bertholet. 4th ed. Tübingen, 1922-1923
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HTKAT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament
IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching
IBS Irish Biblical Studies
ICC International Critical Commentary
Int Interpretation
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
Jouön Jouön, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by
Takamitsu Muraoka. 2 vols. Subsidia biblica 14/1-2. Rome, 1991.
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JSJSup Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman
Periods: Supplement Series
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series
JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament
KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi
Abbreviations ix
LAI Library of Ancient Israel

LD Lectio divina
MGWJ Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums
MSU Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens
NAC New American Commentary
NCB New Century Bible
Neot Neotestamentica
NIB The New Interpreter’s Bible. 13 vols. Nashville, 1994-2004.
NIBC New International Biblical Commentary
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NTS New Testament Studies
OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis
Or Orientalia
OTE Old Testament Essays
OTG Old Testament Guides
OTL Old Testament Library
OtSt Oudtestamentische Studien
PIBA Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association
POuT De Prediking van het Oude Testament
SB Sources bibliques
SBB Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies
SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers
SBLSymS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series
SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
SEÅ Svensk exegetisk årsbok
SJLA Studies in Judaism and Late Antiquity
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
SJT Scottish Journal of Theology
SO Symbolae osloenses
SSN Studia semitica neerlandica
TBC Torch Bible Commentaries
TD Theology Digest
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel
and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols.
Grand Rapids, 1964–76
TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes
Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by John T. Willis,
Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and David E. Green. 8 vols. Grand Rapids,
1974–
THAT Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by Ernst
Jenni with Claus Westermann. 2 vols. Gütersloh, 1971–75
TJ Trinity Journal
TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries
Transeu Transeuphratène
TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum
TSK Theologische Studien und Kritiken
x Tradition in Transition
TThSt Trierer theologische Studien

ThWAT Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G.
Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren and Heinz-Josef Fabry. 8 vols.
Stuttgart, 1973–95
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche
ZWT Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Willem A.M. Beuken, Div.D. (Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht, Netherlands),

Emeritus Professor of Old Testament at the Catholic University of
Leuven, Belgium
Mark J. Boda, Ph.D. (Cambridge), Professor of Old Testament,

McMaster Divinity College, Professor, Faculty of Theology, McMaster
University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Holger Delkurt, Dr. theol. (Bonn), Postdoctoral Lecturing Qualification

(Bonn), Outside Lecturer, Faculty of Theology, Rheinische Friedrich-
Wilhelms-Universität, Bonn, Germany
Michael H. Floyd, Ph.D. (Claremont), Professor, El Centro de Estudios

Teológicos, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
John Kessler, Docteur de l’Université (Sorbonne-Paris IV), Professor of

Old Testament Tyndale Seminary Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Rex A. Mason, Ph.D. (London), Emeritus Fellow, Regent's Park College,

Oxford, United Kingdom; Lecturer in Old Testament and Hebrew
(retired), Oxford University, United Kingdom
Frank Y. Patrick, Ph.D. (Duke), Birmingham, Alabama, USA
David L. Petersen, Ph.D. (Yale), Professor of Old Testament, Candler

School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
D. Nathan Phinney, Ph.D. (Yale), Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies,

School of Theology, Malone College, Canton, Ohio, USA
Thomas Pola, Dr. theol. (Tübingen), Professor of Old Testament, Faculty

of Human Sciences and Theology, Dortmund University, Dortmund,
Germany
xii Tradition in Transition
Paul L. Redditt, Ph.D. (Vanderbilt), Professor of Old Testament,

Georgetown College, Georgetown, Kentucky, USA
Dominic Rudman, Ph.D. (St. Andrews), Eastleigh, Hants, United

Kingdom
Johannes Schnocks, Ph.D. (Bonn), Assistant Professor, Department of

Old Testament Studies, Faculty of Catholic Theology, Bonn University,
Bonn, Germany
Michael R. Stead, Ph.D. (Gloucestershire), Rector, St James Anglican

Church, Turramurra, and Visiting Lecturer in Old Testament, Moore
Theological College, Sydney, Australia
Marvin A. Sweeney, Ph.D. (Claremont), Professor of Hebrew Bible,

Claremont School of Theology, and Professor of Religion, Claremont
Graduate University, Claremont, California, USA
Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, D.Phil (Oxford), Lecturer in Hebrew Bible,

Faculty of Divinity, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, United
Kingdom
Janet E. Tollington, D.Phil. (Oxford), Director of Old Testament Studies,

Westminster College, Affiliated Lecturer, Faculty of Divinity, Cam-
bridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Al Wolters, Ph.D. (Free University, Amsterdam), Professor of Religion

and Theology/Classical Languages, Redeemer University College,
Ancaster, Ontario, Canada
INTRODUCTION
The theme of prophecy and tradition has long been a preoccupation of

modern biblical scholarship. Modernism defined itself in terms of a
critique of tradition, particularly religious tradition. It found a precedent
for this in the prophetic critique of Israelite religious beliefs and prac-
tices. The relationship between prophecy and tradition has been a
controversial one ever since. Just as modernism attributed tradition to
those it criticized and not to itself, modern biblical scholarship at first
attributed tradition to those the prophets criticized and not to prophecy
itself. As this analogy was pushed to its limits, however, it became clear
that although the canonical prophets were certainly not traditionalists,
they depended on and worked within the sphere of tradition in several
respects.
First of all, the prophets were not simply innovators. Their critique of
religious beliefs and practices was based on old ideals as much as new
insights. Their disagreements with their contemporaries were often argu-
ments about the implications of things held in common. Second, each
biblical prophet was a construct of tradition. Prophetic books were not
simply the record of what various prophets said and did, but the product
of retrospective reflection on the significance of their message and
character. Each prophetic book was the product of a tradition about the
prophet for whom it was named, as his legacy was carried on and devel-
oped by later generations. Third, as the traditions about various prophets
grew, the development of the older ones had a cumulative impact on the
development of the later ones. In this sense it is even possible to con-
ceive of the prophetic tradition as a whole.
Haggai and Zechariah, as post-exilic prophets with the agenda of
restoring Yehud in the early Persian period, stand at a crucial juncture
with respect to all these aspects of prophecy and tradition. Although they
resemble their predecessors to a considerable extent, there is undoubtedly
something different about them. In Haggai and Zech 1–8 one finds a
record of the innovative use of precedents, interpreted anew for the new
generation living in the new possibilities and realities of the Persian
Empire. Earlier scholarship generally took this change to be symptomatic
xiv Tradition in Transition
of the decline of prophecy, as it generally viewed Second Temple Juda-

ism to mark the decline of biblical religion. However, in view of the
growing realization that the Second Temple period was instead a time of
great creativity, this view of Haggai and Zechariah now seems inade-
quate. Their status is open to reappraisal, and a new view of them will
come more clearly into focus as scholarship remaps their relationship to
tradition in all its aspects.
Such reappraisal has been made possible by four major works that
appeared over the latter half of the twentieth century: in the 1960s a
monograph by Willem Beuken (1968), in the 1970s a dissertation by Rex
Mason (1973), in the 1980s a commentary by David Petersen (1984), and
finally in the 1990s a monograph by Janet Tollington (1993). More
recently there has been a flurry of scholarly work on the relationship
between these two Persian period prophets and earlier traditions, all
based on and yet seeking to progress beyond these four foundational
works. This first decade of the twenty-first century seems an appropriate
time for interaction between those who have more recently reflected on
this issue and those who first laid the foundation. The agenda of this
present volume is thus twofold. We invited scholars who have recently
done significant work on Haggai and Zechariah to join us in presenting
essays concerned with some particular aspect of how these two prophets
reflect tradition in transition. We also invited responses from the four
scholars whose work has been crucial in generating the reappraisal of
Haggai and Zechariah.
The contributed essays are surveyed by each of the four respondents at
the end of the volume, and there is no need to do so again here. Suffice it
to say that they all are concerned, in one way or another, with remapping
the ways in which Haggai and Zech 1–8 relate to tradition in all its
aspects. They make particular claims about how these texts distinctively
develop themes, motifs, and forms that are also evident in other pro-
phetic books and other parts of scripture. They employ various method-
ologies that assume—often implicitly—various concepts of the ways in
which the traditions concerning individual prophets can interact, and
about the ways in which the prophetic tradition can interact with other
traditions. Given the eclecticism that now characterizes biblical scholar-
ship in general, and given that the reappraisal of Haggai and Zechariah
has yet to take a particular turn, such heterogeneity is only to be expected.
The question is how to sort it all out.
The responses from Beuken, Mason, Petersen and Tollington take
initial steps toward such sorting. As readers can see from their responses,
there are some thorny methodological questions that need to be clarified
Introduction xv
before the reappraisal of Haggai and Zechariah can begin to take a more
definite shape. To a large extent these issues are concerned with the
specific ways in which traditions can develop and interact. With regard to
such large questions, scholarship often progresses by keeping one eye on
the details of interpreting particular texts, while also keeping the other
eye on the broader view of the cumulative results. Dialectical interaction
between these two perspectives often results in a breakthrough. We
believe that this collection of essays contributes to such interaction.
There are many who we want to thank for their assistance in bringing
this volume to press. First of all, we are grateful to the fourteen scholars
who contributed their new research to this volume and to the four respon-
dents who so graciously agreed to return to well-worn paths of their own
research to reflect afresh on new approaches to and conclusions on these
ancient texts. Secondly, we are thankful to Andrew Mein and Claudia
Camp, editors of the Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies
series, whose positive response made possible this publication, to (at
first) Henry Carrigan and (more recently) Burke Gerstenschlager, Bib-
lical Studies Acquisitions Editors for T&T Clark International/Con-
tinuum, for their interest, and to Duncan Burns for his copy-editing,
which made possible this volume in its final form. Thirdly, we are
indebted to Ms. Mary Conway from McMaster Divinity College for
invaluable help in the editing process and to Jimmy Adair for his help
with some of our font challenges in the late stages of preparing the
volume. Thanks are also due to the Board and Senate of McMaster
Divinity College for providing funds for graduate assistance.
The design of this project parallels that of the ancient processes under
investigation in the books of Haggai and Zechariah. As later scholars
trace the development of tradition in these books, so also these scholars
develop earlier traditions of the interpretation of these books by Profes-
sors Beuken, Mason, Petersen, and Tollington.
Mark J. Boda
Michael H. Floyd
1
This page intentionally left blank
TRADITION, CONTINUITY AND COVENANT
IN THE BOOK OF HAGGAI: AN ALTERNATIVE VOICE
FROM EARLY PERSIAN YEHUD
John Kessler
1. Introduction
In an article published in 1977, Peter. R. Ackroyd explored the dynamics
of the use of theological traditions in times of dramatic discontinuity—
moments when external circumstances call into question the tenability
of existing traditions, and the broader ideological foundations upon
which they rest.1 In it Ackroyd insightfully observes that “the doubts
which are raised by major or minor disruptions in life must affect the
attitudes of those who experience them and in turn have repercussions
upon the way in which they understand the traditions and upon the way
in which they express them.”2 Ackroyd then suggests that the primary
reaction to such breaches is to seek ways to overcome them and to find a
means of re-establishing an authentic sense of continuity. He then goes
on to illustrate ways in which individuals or communities have sought to
do just that, and how this has contributed to the formation of biblical
literature.3 Ackroyd pays special attention to the question of how, after a
major breach has occurred, the community may know for certain that it
indeed has been forgiven by the deity.4 He also discusses the matter of the
1. Peter R. Ackroyd, “Continuity and Discontinuity: Rehabilitation and

Authentication,” in Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament (ed. Douglas A.
Knight; London: SPCK, 1977), 215–34.
2. Ibid., 215.
3. In some ways Ackroyd is examining the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance,
a concept analyzed in much greater detail in Leon Festinger, When Prophecy Fails
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956). Festinger, it should be noted,
studies modern sectarian prophecy, rather than biblical prophecy. Festinger’s meth-
odology was subsequently applied to biblical prophecy, however, with only limited
success, in Robert P. Carroll, When Prophecy Failed: Reactions and Responses to
Failure in the Old Testament Prophets (London: SCM, 1979).
4. Ackroyd, “Continuity and Discontinuity,” 233.
2 Tradition in Transition
various competing claims to authentic continuity which may be advanced

by diverse groups after a major breach, such as that of 587 B.C.E.5
Especially insightful is Ackroyd’s observation that the use of traditional
language may often serve to obscure change. He comments, “It is clear
that the use of the same language in widely different periods—different
not only in time, but in political order and religious organization and
outlook—conceals the degree to which there in fact has been change.” 6
Although he does not specifically categorize the types of breaches he
discusses, Ackroyd’s examples appear to fall into two distinct categories:
(1) relational breaches, wherein the relationship between Yahweh and his
people has been disrupted by some fault, for example, a moral or cultic
failure (Ackroyd cites the violated oath in 1 Sam 14:37); and (2) more
external, historical disruptions where the words of the tradition, taken in
their basic sensus literalis, no longer correspond to the world as it has
come to exist (Ackroyd cites the retention of royal hopes and hyperbolic
vocabulary long after the monarchy has disappeared). Ackroyd’s article
constitutes an excellent introduction to the multifaceted way in which
communities and their religious traditions must respond to change, as
well as representing an interesting entrée to a distinctive aspect of the
use of tradition in Haggai.
It has long been recognized that the book of Haggai offers us an
excellent illustration of the creative reformulation of tradition in a time
of national crisis, specifically for the kind of “restorative” purpose noted
by Ackroyd. The radically changed circumstances of early Persian
Yehud—circumstances which were frequently at great variance with
those reflected in the older traditions—constituted just the kind of breach
Ackroyd discusses in his article. Both the community’s sense of connec-
tion to Yahweh and the external circumstances in which it found itself
threatened to undermine its own sense of identity and the validity of its
earlier religious traditions. Many of the excellent commentaries on
Haggai that have appeared over the last twenty years, 7 as well as several
5. Ibid., 226–34.
6. Ibid., 229.
7. Samuel Amsler, André Lacoque, and René Vuilleumeier, Aggée–Zacharie
1–8, Zacharie 9–14, Malachi (CAT 11/C; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1988); Michael
H. Floyd, Minor Prophets, Part 2 (FOTL 22; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000); Carol
L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8 (AB; Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1987); David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 (OTL; London:
SCM Press, 1985); Hans Walter Wolff, Haggai: A Commentary (trans. Margaret
Kohl; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988); Pieter A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and
Malachi (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987).
KESSLER Tradition, Continuity and Covenant 3
shorter studies,8 have devoted significant attention to the various tradi-

tions present in Haggai. The use of tradition was also a central feature
of my own monograph and several articles on Haggai, where special
attention was paid to the general rhetorical, hermeneutical, and ideologi-
cal stamp with which traditional materials are used in the book. 9 This
approach was also employed by Janet Tollington, 10 who also included
Zech 1–8 in her purview, and it continues to be a subject of interest to
scholars.11 It would not be an overstatement to say that most scholars
would concur that the book of Haggai is a text saturated with earlier
traditions, selectively used, hermeneutically reconfigured, and rhetori-
cally shaped, wherein continuity is established with the past, and hope
evoked for the future.
There is, however, one aspect of the use of tradition in Haggai which I
feel bears further reflection. As noted above, the destructions and depor-
tations of 587 constituted breaches of the highest magnitude in Israel’s
historical experience and theological expression. However, when closely
examined, Haggai and Zech 1–8 appear to take subtle but markedly
different approaches to the question of the current status of the relation-
ship between Yahweh and the nascent community at Jerusalem, as well
as regarding the ongoing significance each attributes to the destructions
and dispersions of 587.12
8. See the brief but useful survey of the traditions in Haggai in Rex A. Mason,
Preaching the Tradition: Homily and Hermeneutic After the Exile (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1990), 185–95.
9. John Kessler, The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian
Yehud (VTSup 91; Leiden: Brill, 2002); idem, “Building the Second Temple: Ques-
tions of Time, Text, and History in Haggai 1.1–15,” JSOT 27 (2002): 243–56; idem,
“Haggai, Zerubbabel, and the Political Status of Yehud: The Signet Ring in Haggai
2:23,” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (ed.
Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak; LHBOTS 427; New York: T&T Clark Inter-
national, 2006), 102–19; idem, “<t (le temps) en Aggée I 2–4: Conflit théologique ou
‘sagesse mondaine’?,” VT 48 (1998): 555–59.
10. Janet A. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8
(JSOTSup 150; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993).
11. See recently Willie Wessels, “Bridging the Gap: Haggai’s Use of Tradition to
Secure the Future,” OTE 18 (2005): 426–43. Wessels’s study draws upon much of
the recent scholarship on the use of tradition in Haggai and provides a survey of how
temple, exodus/covenant and royal theological traditions form continuity themes in
Haggai, and constitute much of the motivational foundation of Haggai’s preaching.
12. I am not persuaded, despite several recent proposals, notably that of Meyers
and Meyers, that Haggai and Zech 1–8 constitute a single literary unit. For a
preliminary defense of the integrity of Haggai as a literary, textual unit, see Kessler,
Book of Haggai, 56–57. Recently, Boda has also inveighed against a conflated
1
The perspective evidenced in Zech 1–8 clearly identifies these events

as the starting point for the community’s theological reflection in the
present moment.13 This is evident from Zechariah’s opening salvo to his
hearers:
The LORD was very angry with your ancestors. Therefore say to them,
Thus says the LORD of hosts, Return to me, says the LORD of hosts, and I
will return to you, says the LORD of hosts. Do not be like your ancestors,
to whom the former prophets proclaimed, “Thus says the LORD of hosts,
Return from your evil ways and your evil deeds.” But they did not hear or
heed me, says the LORD. Your ancestors, where are they? And the proph-
ets, do they live forever? But my words and my statutes, which I com-
manded my servants the prophets, did they not overtake your ancestors?
So they repented and said, “The LORD of hosts has dealt with us according
to our ways and our deeds, just as he planned to do.” (Zech 1:3–6 NSRV)
It is clear from this passage that for Zechariah the events of 587 consti-
tute a decisive and determining moment in the relationship between Yah-
weh and his people, and all future theological reflection must proceed
from it and be done in light of it. The book begins with the anger (Pcq)
of Yahweh against the ancestors.14 The people are then immediately
called to return (bw#) to Yahweh and to differentiate themselves from
their forebears who refused to heed (lwqb (m#) or hear (b#q) the word of
Yahweh and as a result were overtaken (g#n) by the judgments of
Yahweh uttered by the prophets, and enacted in the disastrous upheavals
of the early sixth century. Even the prophets who uttered these judgments
are no more and are set off as “former prophets” (Myn#)rh My)ybnh, Zech
1:4; 7:7, 12). Similar sentiments are expressed in Zech 7:7–14 and 8:14.
This state of anger and alienation is alleviated in Zech 1:6b where the
reading of the two texts (Mark J. Boda, “Zechariah: Master Mason or Penitential
Prophet?,” in Yahwism After the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the
Persian Period [ed. Rainer Albertz and Bob Becking; Studies in Theology and
Religion 5; Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003], 49–69). This is a matter I intend to
pursue more fully in a future study.
13. It is beyond the scope of the present study to discuss the redactional/literary
history of Zech 1–8. However I am in agreement with Boda who asserts that the final
shaping of the prose sections or redactional frame (Zech 1:1–6 and 7:1–8:23)
represents the latest stage of the book’s formation and is meant to establish the
hermeneutical orientation through which the night visions are understood (Boda,
“Zechariah: Master Mason,” 55).
14. In the interests of brevity I will not explore the traditional rooting and
significance of these various terms here. For a helpful summary, especially with
reference to the affinity of this section with the prose sermons of Jeremiah, see ibid.,
55–59.
people repent (bw#) and acknowledge that Yahweh’s judgments have

indeed come upon them.15 As Boda has noted, such a confession is rooted
in two key aspects of penitential prayer, especially as evidenced in Neh
9: (1) the solidarity between generations so that the unresolved anger of
Yahweh toward an earlier generation can be laid to rest through the
repentance of a later one; and (2) the community’s acknowledgment of
the justness of Yahweh’s judgments as a foundational act of repentance. 16
The community thus repents, and while no explicit statement is made,
one must assume that this repentance, in line with Yahweh’s call and
promise in Zech 1:3, was accepted. This then sets the stage for the
visionary-oracular complex in Zech 1:7–6:15. 17 It bears mentioning,
however, that the calamities of 597–587 continue to play a significant
role in that section via the themes of the desolation and depopulation of
Jerusalem (1:7–17; 2:5–9 [Eng. 2:1–5]), the ease of the nations who
scattered the people of Yahweh and Yahweh’s coming judgment upon
them (1:18–21; 6:1–8), the need for God’s people to flee Babylon (2:10–
15 [Eng. 2:6–12]), the need for a reconstructed and purified temple and
priesthood, including the many challenges involved in that endeavor
(3:1–10; 4:1–14), and the form of leadership in the new era (6:9–15).
The prose conclusion in 7:1–8:23, furthermore, reiterates the theme of
the ancestors’ sins and their appalling consequences. As in 1:1–6, these
failures are evoked in 7:7–14 and 8:13–15 as a reminder to the commu-
nity of the horrendous cost of neglecting Yahweh’s words through his
messengers the prophets (7:8–14). As well, the desolation of the land and
longing for its future repopulation occupy an important place (7:7, 14).
In sum, in Zech 1–8 the destructions and dispersions of the early sixth
century loom exceedingly large, both on the level of the relational break-
down between Yahweh and his people, as well as in the realm of the
historical and material manifestations of that breakdown.
But what of the book of Haggai? Does it share the perspective of Zech
1–8, a perspective also in evidence in Ezra 9, Neh 9, and Pss 79 and 106?
What role do the destructions and deportations of 597–587, the existence
of a large Diaspora,18 and the realities of a destroyed and defiled temple
15. There is significant debate as to the identity of the subject of bw#. Is it Zecha-
riah’s contemporaries or an earlier generation? Furthermore, what is the precise
nature of this returning/repentance. With Meyers and Meyers (Haggai, Zechariah
1–8, 96–97) and Boda (“Zechariah: Master Mason,” 55–59) I view it as the response
of Zechariah’s contemporaries.
16. On this, see Boda, “Zechariah: Master Mason,” 61–69.
17. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 134–35.
18. On the geographic distribution and settlements of the inhabitants of the
former Southern Kingdom and of their descendants in the late sixth century, see
1
play in the book?19 Coggins has correctly pointed out that there is little in
Haggai that directly points to the notion of an exile or return and of a
new beginning after the exile.20 What is the reason for this perspective?
Similarly, questions arise concerning the status of the Sinai covenant in
Haggai. Petersen suggests that the misfortunes experienced by the com-
munity (Hag 1:3–11) constituted judgments visited upon it as a result of
both the destructions of 587 and the neglect of the temple’s reconstruc-
tion in the restoration period.21 Beuken has suggested that the covenant
was ruptured in 587, and that this state continued until the covenant was
renewed in Hag 1:12–15.22 Petersen views the covenant as having been
“abrogated” by the restoration community’s neglect of its reconstruc-
tion.23 By contrast, several commentators take the use of covenantal curse
language in 1:2–11 as implying that the covenant was indeed still func-
tioning at some level.24 How does the book of Haggai view the earlier
covenant and its current status? Furthermore, how does Haggai view and
use the community’s earlier history? Is the people’s “dubious past” used
as a means of enjoining piety in the future? As we have seen, Zech 1:1–6
John Kessler, “Persia’s Loyal Yahwists: Power, Identity and Ethnicity in Achaem-
enid Yehud,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (ed. Oded Lipschits
and Manfred Oeming; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 91–121.
19. Following Norbert Lohfink (“Die Gattung der ‘Historischen Kurzgeschichte’
in den letzten Jahren von Juda und in der Zeit des Babylonischen Exils,” ZAW 90
[1978]: 319–47), Petersen characterizes Haggai as a historische Kurzgeschichte or
“brief apologetic historical narrative” (Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 32–36). Floyd
views it as a “prophetic history,” stressing that the book constantly oscillates
between the perspectives and insights of both the prophet and the narrator (Floyd,
Minor Prophets, Part 2, 258–62). I have argued for the term “dramatized prophetic
compilation,” stressing that an editor has taken various prophetic discourses and
organized them into a loose narrative with a specific polemical purpose. For fuller
discussion, see Kessler, Book of Haggai, 243–46.
20. Richard J. Coggins, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (OTG; Sheffield: JSOT,
1987), 30.
21. Petersen states, “Israel is living an existence that is doubly cursed. By failing
to restore its cultic center, the people still suffer the effects of the curses engendered
in 587 B.C.E., and they are also already suffering under a new curse because they had
not acted wisely in response to the possibilities for restoration open to them through
the Persian government” (Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 54). As I will argue
below, I find it difficult to see how the logic of the argument in 1:3–11 can be related
to the failures of an earlier generation.
22. Willem A. M. Beuken, Haggai—Sacharja 1–8: Studien zur Überlieferungs-
geschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie (SSN 10; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967),
42–46.
23. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 50, esp. n. 21.
24. E.g. Amsler, in Amsler, Lacoque, and Vuilleumeier, Aggée-Zacharie 1–8, 24.
begins with an explicit invitation to the community to differentiate and

dissociate itself from the attitudes and choices of earlier generations. A
similar outlook may be found in the other Persian-period texts noted
above. However, is this the case in Haggai? Does not the book demon-
strate a general orientation toward continuity with the past25 rather than
a call to break with it? In that which follows, I will present an analysis
of the text that seeks to demonstrate that the book of Haggai reflects
a distinctive perspective within the pastiche of Yahwistic theological
reflection in the Persian period, specifically one that does not view the
catastrophe of 587 as the touchstone for all discussion of the relationship
between Yahweh and the community, but which in many ways mini-
mizes it.
2. Prolegomena
Before proceeding to the text, a few introductory comments are in order.
First, I take the dates in Haggai as legitimate indicators of the approxi-
mate time of the delivery of his oracles,26 and I assume the final redaction
25. This was a theme of particular interest to Peter R. Ackroyd, and can be found
in several of his works: Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the
Sixth Century B.C. (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968); idem, “The Temple
Vessels—A Continuity Theme,” in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel (VTSup
22; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 166–81; idem, “Faith and its Reformulation in the Post-
exilic Period: Sources,” TD 27 (1979): 323–34; idem, “Faith and its Reformulation
in the Post-exilic Period: Prophetic Material,” TD 27 (1979): 335–46.
26. Despite Ackroyd’s earlier suggestions (“Studies in the Book of Haggai,” JJS
2 [1951]: 163–76) that the dates may have been added to the oracles approximately
one hundred years after the latter were delivered, the relative authenticity of the
dates in Haggai is now accepted by the majority of scholars (e.g. Beuken, Mason,
Petersen, Meyers and Meyers, and Redditt). Ackroyd later seemed to attenuate his
position stating, “If the dates were obviously schematic, it would be natural to
suppose them invented to provide a specific emphasis. But there are no clear indica-
tions of such deliberation; the dates themselves are sufficiently haphazard for a
majority of scholars to accept them without question” (Peter R. Ackroyd, “Problems
in the Handling of Biblical and Related Sources in the Achaemenid Period,” in
Achaemenid History III: Method and Theory [ed. Amélie Kuhrt and Heleen Sancisi-
Weerdenburg; Leiden: Niederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1988], 42). For
a detailed treatment of the form and function of the dates in Haggai, together with a
discussion of the emergence of precision in dating techniques in the sixth-century
dates, as well as relevant bibliography, see Kessler, Book of Haggai, 41–51. For a
recent critical re-appraisal, calling into question the validity of the dates in Haggai
and Zech 1–8, cf. Diana Edelman, The Origins of the “Second” Temple: Persian
Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem (Bible World; London: Equinox,
2005), 80–150.
1
to have occurred shortly thereafter.27 Thus, I believe it to be legitimate to

examine the book of Haggai with reference to the way the prophet and
his editor(s)/redactor(s)28 used tradition29 in responding to the existential
27. At the present time the scholarly consensus favors a late sixth- to early fifth-
century redaction. See among many others Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 37–
38; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, xliv–lxxii; Tollington, Tradition
and Innovation, 1–41. The major proponents of a later redaction (mid- to late fifth
century, and beyond) are Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, 331–35; Coggins, Haggai,
Zechariah, Malachi, 31; and Arnaud Sérandour, “Zacharie et les autorités de son
temps,” in Prophètes et rois: Bible et Proche Orient (ed. André Lemaire; LD; Paris:
Cerf, 2001), 259–98; idem, “Les récits bibliques de la construction du second tem-
ple: leurs enjeux,” Transeu 11 (1996): 9–32; idem, “Réflexions à propos d’un livre
récent sur Aggée–Zacharie 1–8,” Transeu 10 (1995): 75–84.
28. Despite the earlier work of Beuken and Mason, it has become increasingly
common to abandon the attempt to disentangle the perspective of Haggai from that
of his editor(s)/redactor(s). Floyd has carefully examined the relationship between
source and redactional material in Haggai and concludes that “the kind of analysis
that seeks to distinguish redactional material from source material…should be aban-
doned, along with the historical speculation that has often been based on this
practice” (Michael H. Floyd, “The Nature of the Narrative and the Evidence of
Redaction in Haggai,” VT 45 [1995]: 470–90 [esp. 473]). Floyd similarly points out
that in Haggai there is a constant fluctuation between the perspective of the prophet
and that of the narrator, thus enabling the book to be read as “an integral whole”
(Minor Prophets, 159–60). See also my arguments in the same vein rooted in the
lack of discontinuity between the oracles and framework, as well as the elements of
continuity between the two (Kessler, Book of Haggai, 53–55).
29. On the use of religious traditions and the traditionsgeschichtliche method of
analysis, see Douglas A. Knight, “Tradition History,” ABD 6:633–38. Of special
importance is Odil Hannes Steck, “Theological Streams of Tradition,” in Tradition
and Theology in the Old Testament (ed. Douglas A. Knight; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1977), 183–214. Steck’s article is unequalled in its examination of the nature of
traditionsgeschitliche investigation and it relationship to Überlieferungsgeschichte
and to form criticism. It is similarly profoundly insightful in its analysis of what
constitutes a religious tradition and how traditions are used in both the composition
of the biblical literature and in prophetic preaching.
In Haggai, as elsewhere, tradition is a critical element in prophetic preaching. As
Blenkinsopp observes, “This appeal to tradition, mediated or filtered through intense
personal experience and brought to bear on the interpretation of contemporary events
is of course a crucial aspect of the complex phenomenon of prophecy” (Joseph
Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel [2d ed.; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/
John Knox, 1996], 136). In point of fact, prophetic proclamation relies heavily on a
shared geistige Welt between speaker and hearer. On this see further the comments
in Steck, “Theological Streams of Tradition,” esp. 187, 190, and 192. There Steck
refers to this shared intellectual world, consisting of traditional Vorstellungen (con-
ceptions and notions) using words such as “antecedent intellectual world,” “antece-
dent material,” and “accepted prior notions and patterns.” Tollington, with reference
crisis of the Early Persian Yehudite community. Second, while it would

be impossible to determine with absolute certainty specifically which
traditions were known to this community,30 it seems entirely legitimate to
view the following motifs as representing some of the key constituents of
the traditio-religious landscape of Early Persian Yehud: (1) Zion Theol-
ogy with its close relative, Jerusalem Royal Theology, which would
have included concepts regarding the Day of Yahweh, and Holy War;
(2) Deuteronomism, which by this period would have included the tradi-
tions of the Exodus and Conquest; (3) wisdom traditions; (4) Priestly
Theology, as manifested in portions of Exodus, Numbers, and especially
Leviticus and Ezekiel; (5) disparate prophetic traditions from the monar-
chic period, whatever their state of fixedness. 31 Third, as noted above, I
believe it more methodologically sound to consider Haggai and Zech 1–8
as related yet discrete literary units and to consider matters of theme,
literary structure, and redactional history in the two books independently.
Fourth, I maintain that Haggai was completed in the late sixth century,
around the time of the dedication of the temple, but that Zech 1–8 experi-
enced a slightly longer period of literary development. 32 Thus Haggai
may reflect an earlier perspective among the Yehudite community than
Zech 1–8.
3. Haggai 1:1–2
The book’s opening (vv. 1–2), consisting of a date formula, a Worter-
eignisformel (henceforth Word-Event Formula), and a brief prophetic
oracle citing the words of the community immediately sets up a series of
to Haggai and Zechariah, similarly affirms that “in order to gain prophetic credibility
[Haggai and Zechariah] drew on the long-established religious traditions of the
people, as did their pre-exilic predecessors, to reinforce their authenticity” (Tradition
and Innovation, 76).
30. For a highly insightful, diachronic and avowedly preliminary attempt, see
Steck, “Theological Streams of Tradition,” 183–214.
31. On the formation of the prophetic books representing the prophets of the
monarchic period, see Ehud Ben Zvi, “Introduction: Writings, Speeches, and the
Prophetic Books: Setting an Agenda,” in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient
Near Eastern Prophecy (ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd; SBLSymS 10;
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 1–29; and Martti Nissinen, “How
Prophecy Became Literature,” SJOT 10 (2005): 154–72.
32. Kessler, Book of Haggai, 31–57. Cf. Amsler, Lacoque, and Vuilleumeier,
Aggée–Zacharie 1–8, 63; Albert Petitjean, Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie: Un pro-
gramme de restauration pour la communauté juive après l’exil (EBib; Paris: Librairie
Lecoffre and J. Gabalda; Louvain: Éditions Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1969), 440.
1
continuity features at a variety of levels. As Floyd notes, unlike many

superscriptions to prophetic books, 1:1–2 forms a complete sentence
integrating the date formula with the elements that follow. 33 From the
very outset, then, the redactor weaves together the date and setting, the
cast of characters, and the initial dramatic conflict and sets them before
the readers/hearers. This introduction immediately establishes continuity
between the present and past on several levels. First, the use of the date
and Word-Event Formula, as well as Haggai’s name and his designation
as a prophet ()ybn) establishes the text’s genre as a prophetic book and
suggests to the readers/hearers that it be approached with a reading
strategy appropriate to such texts.34 Furthermore it implies that Haggai
should be seen as having a place among a broader corpus of such works,
many of which recounted the activities of prophets active in the past, and
that Haggai be construed as one in a long series of intermediaries
through whom Yahweh has spoken to his people. 35 Thus consistent with
many of the books in the prophetic corpus, we begin with Yahweh who
speaks his word into a specific situation via a specific, named individual
(cf. Jer 1:1–2; Ezek 1:1–3; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Mic 1:1; Zeph 1:1; Zech
1:1). Second, it is especially noteworthy that the Word-Event Formula is
dated, not by the regnal year of a Yehudite ruler, but by that of a non-
Israelite, imperial monarch. While on one level this conforms to general
scribal practice in the West during the Babylonian and Persian periods, 36
there is surely a bit of redactional slight of hand at work. Through the
inclusion of the title of king (Klm) in the date formula, the redactor
avoids creating an anomaly vis-à-vis the prophetic books set in earlier
33. Floyd, “The Nature of the Narrative,” 476.

34. On the genre of the prophetic book, see the insightful discussions of Ehud
Ben Zvi, “Introduction,” 1–29, and idem, “The Prophetic Book: A Key Form of
Prophetic Literature,” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First
Century (ed. Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2003), 276–97; see also Nissinen, “How Prophecy Became Literature.”
35. This is likely the sense of “through” (dyb) in Haggai, reading the b as a beth
instrumentalis. On the broader discussion of the alternation between dyb and l) in
Haggai, cf. Kessler, Book of Haggai, 116–17.
36. On this see ibid., 359–66; John Kessler, “The Second Year of Darius and the
Prophet Haggai,” Transeu 5 (1992): 63–84; André Lemaire, “Les formules de data-
tion dans Ezéchiel à la lumière de données épigraphiques,” in Ezekiel and His Book:
Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation (ed. Johan Lust; Leuven:
Leuven University Press, 1986), 359–66; idem, “Les formules de datation en Pales-
tine au premier millénaire avant J.-C.,” in Proche-Orient Ancien: Temps vécu, temps
pensé (ed. Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet and Hélène Lozachmeur; Antiquités
Sémitiques 3; Paris: J. Maisonneuve, 1998), 53–82; Reuven Yaron, “The Schema of
the Aramaic Legal Documents,” JJS 2 (1957): 33–61.
periods. Like the majority of prophetic texts, Haggai is at work in a

community ruled by a king.37 It is noteworthy that the descriptor “Darius
the King” includes “king” but excludes any qualification indicating his
nationality or kingdom. This stands in contrast to the more common
inclusion of such qualifiers with reference to non-Israelite kings, 38 or the
exclusion of the title “king” altogether. 39 The hearer/reader is virtually
invited to skip over the issue of foreign domination and somehow see the
situation as analogous to earlier periods of the people’s history. 40 This
kind of “theological fiction” wherein the present, although radically dif-
ferent, is seen as standing in unbroken continuity with the past, will
appear many times in the book and constitutes an example of Ackroyd’s
suggestion of traditional language having the effect of obscuring the
degree to which the contemporary situation differed from the world in
which the tradition originally functioned. 41
The text’s orientation toward continuity continues with the intro-
duction of Zerubbabel, which follows immediately. Here Zerubbabel is
clearly identified as a Davidide via the inclusion of his patronymic 42 yet
37. As is well known, the institution of the monarchy was frequently the context
in which prophecy flourished, and the literature on this is vast. See, e.g., the essays
in André Lemaire, ed., Prophètes et rois: Bible et Proche Orient (LD; Paris: Cerf,
2001).
38. Cf. Cyrus the King of Persia (srp Klm #rwk , 2 Chr 36:23; Ezra 1:1);
Sennacherib, King of Assyria (rw#)-Klm byrxns , 2 Kgs 18:13); Nebuchadnezzar,
King of Babylon (lbb-Klm rc)ndkbn, 2 Kgs 5:8).
39. Zech 1:1 and 1:7 omit Klm while 7:1 includes it. This constitutes an addi-
tional correspondence between the date formulae in Hag 1:1 and Zech 7:1 to those
already noted by Meyers and Meyers (Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 381). Note too the
absence of Klm in Hag 2:10.
40. With Ben Zvi, I would assert that literary production in Yehud involved the
creation of literary pieces (and/or revision and redaction of earlier works) which
were intended to be read in light of one another, despite the distinctive emphases of
each text. Thus the rhetorical continuity between Haggai and other prophetic texts
set in the monarchic period would not likely be missed (Ehud Ben Zvi, “Beginning
to Address the Question: Why Were Prophetic Books Produced and ‘Consumed’ in
Ancient Yehud?” in Historie og konstruktion: Festschrift Niels Peter Lemche [ed.
Mogens Müller and Thomas L. Thompson; FBE 14; Copenhagen: Kobenhavens
Universetet, 2005], 30–41; Ben Zvi, “The Prophetic Book,” esp. 280–84).
41. Ackroyd, “Continuity and Discontinuity,” 229.
42. Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, 30; Wilhelm Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja
1–8, 9–14, Malachi (KAT 13/4; Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 1976), 32; Wolff, Haggai,
32–33. On the questions surrounding Zerubbabel’s genealogy, see Sara Japhet,
“Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel: Against the Background of the Historical and Reli-
gious Tendencies of Ezra–Nehemiah,” ZAW 94 (1982): 66–98; idem, “Sheshbazzar
1
attributed only the role of governor (hxp) of Yehud.43 Once again the
anomaly of Judah’s domination by a foreign power and Zerubbabel’s
humble status are deftly camouflaged by their inclusion in a somewhat
stereotypical introductory formula. This is not to suggest that the dis-
continuity between tradition and reality of Yehud’s political status quo
posed no problem for the book’s framers. Such matters would be taken
up in 2:20–23. However here at the book’s outset, an insistence on
continuity was of primary importance.
Next Joshua, the high priest, is introduced. 44 He is of Zadokite stock
(2 Kgs 25:18; 1 Chr 5:40–41 [Eng. 6:14–15]) and likely born in exile. 45
The introduction of a legitimate priestly figure strengthens the hearers/
readers sense of continuity—Yahweh had preserved both the Davidic
and Zadokite lines in exile, and both would be involved in the temple’s
reconstruction.46 The symmetrical fashion wherein each member of the
book’s principal characters is introduced by name and title thus creates
the image of an ordered and structured society in which each member has
an assigned role and a part to play.
The final member of the text’s cast of characters, “this people” (M(h
hzh), is introduced in 1:2, where their words are quoted. Despite the
objections of scholars who find the citation of the people’s words to be
and Zerubbabel: Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies
of Ezra–Nehemiah, Part II,” ZAW 96 (1984): 218–29.
43. Taking the term hxp to refer to an imperially appointed governor of an
independent province. See André Lemaire, “Histoire et Administration de la
Palestine à l’époque perse,” in La Palestine à l’epoque perse (ed. Ernest-Marie
Laperrousaz and André Lemaire; Paris: Cerf, 1994), 11–53. For an alternative view
cf. Francesco Bianchi, “Le rôle de Zorobabel et la dynastie davidique en Judée du
VIe siècle au IIe siècle av. J.-C.,” Transeu 7 (1994): 153–65; P. Sacci, “L’esilio e la
fine della monarchia davidica,” Hen 11 (1989): 131–48.
44. For a discussion of the neologism “high priest” (lwdgh Nhkh), see Amsler,
Lacoque, and Vuilleumeier, Aggée–Zacharie 1–8, 79–80; Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja
1–8, 309–16; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 180–81; Deborah W.
Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient
Israel (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000),
130; Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel (trans. J. McHugh; 2 vols.; London: Longman,
Darton & Todd, 1961), 2:397–403. De Vaux (2:241) Beuken (306–16) and, to a
lesser extent, Amsler (79–80) view the term as a post-exilic term that replaced the
earlier “chief priest” (#)rh Nhkh). Meyers and Meyers (180–81) view it as an essen-
tially new and distinct office. Rooke takes a similar view (130).
45. Meyers and Meyers (Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 16) note that his grandfather
Seriah was put to death in 587. His father Jehozadak was exiled to Babylon where
Joshua was likely born. If so, this would make him older than Zerubbabel.
46. On the priesthood in the Persian period, see Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs.
intrusive here,47 v. 2 fulfills two highly important functions. It introduces

a major dramatis persona, the people, as well as the first of a series of
dramatic conflicts, which will serve as vehicles to move the action of the
book forward.48 The term “this people” (hzh M(h) furthers the hearers’/
readers’ sense of the book’s continuity with other prophetic texts. The
term is frequently used in prophetic invectives (or in similar contexts in
narrative passages) to express disdain for the community’s behavior and
to distance Yahweh from the people who are normally identified as his
own. It is found extensively in Isaiah (Isa 6:10; 8:6, 11–12; 9:15 [Eng.
9:16]), in the Deuteronomistic tradition (Deut 5:8; 9:13, 27; 31:16; Josh
7:7), in Jeremiah (Jer 5:14; 6:19, 21; 7:16, 33; 15:20; 16:5; 19:11), and in
the Exodus–Sinai narratives (Num 11:11–14). The essence of Yahweh’s
conflict with his people is expressed through the prophet’s citation of the
people’s words: “This is not the time to come, the time for the house of
Yahweh to be rebuilt” (v. 2).49 The sense of the people’s words as pre-
sented in this context is likely the following: “Given current economic
conditions, wisdom would clearly dictate that the rebuilding of the
temple be put off until a more appropriate time.” 50 The likely implication
of the citation of the people’s words to the leaders, in the present form of
the book, is that Yahweh, via Haggai, is calling them to account for the
people’s attitude.51 Beuken, Mason, and Sérandour view the emphasis on
the community’s leadership as a defining characteristic of the editorial
framework.52 However, as noted above, the viability of disentangling the
two perspectives has been largely abandoned in the more recent litera-
ture, and it is thus preferable to view their presence here as owing to their
role in the conflict and its ultimate resolution.
This introduction (1:1–2) establishes the general context, cast of
characters, and initial conflict in Haggai, all of which set the drama of the
book in motion. Little reveals a distinctly post-exilic setting (cf. Zech
1:1–6). Rather, were we to read 1:1–2 with no knowledge of the historical
47. Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, 30; Wolff, Haggai, 32–33.

48. On the book as a series of dramatic conflicts, see Kessler, Book of Haggai,
243–51.
49. For a defense of this translation see infra.
50. The ongoing scholarly debate around the people’s motivation will be taken
up infra.
51. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 47.
52. Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, esp. 27–63; Rex A. Mason, “The Purpose
of the ‘Editorial Framework’ of the Book of Haggai,” VT 27 (1977): 413–21;
Sérandour, “Les récits bibliques,” 8–32; idem, “Réflexions,” 75–84; idem, “Zacharie
et les autorités,” 259–98.
1
and political background implied, we would simply assume the same

dynamics are obtained here as in all of the other prophetic books—
Yahweh had a case against his people and called them to repentance. We
thus are introduced to a well-known scenario with a well-known cast of
characters. Yahweh speaks to his people and their leaders through his
prophet about relational matters between them, in the context of a
specific situation marked by the regnal years of a king.
4. Haggai 1:3–11
The continuity motifs established in 1:1–2 are continued through 1:3–11
by two highly creative techniques: (1) the redactional slant placed upon
the conflict with the people over the rebuilding of the temple; and (2) the
use of Deuteronomistic and Zion traditions to express that conflict. Let
us examine these in turn.
The dramatic conflict introduced in v. 2 turns on the conviction of the
people that “it is not the time to come; the time for the house of the Lord
to be rebuilt.”53 For at least a half a century scholars have suggested that
what is at issue is something of a pious reluctance on the part of the
people. The community does not want to risk offending the deity by
proceeding with the reconstruction without having first received clear
authorization to do so. Peter Bedford has argued at length for this posi-
tion, but other voices may also be cited. 54 And indeed, such a supposition
is not historically improbable, since such authorization was a very
53. On the various textual and translational options taken in this translation of v.
2, see Amsler, Lacoque, and Vuilleumeier, Aggée-Zacharie 1–8, 19; Dominique
Barthélemy, ed., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Tome 3 Ezéchiel, Daniel
et les 12 prophètes (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1992), 923–24; Kessler, “Building the Second Temple,” 244–45.
54. Peter R. Bedford, “Discerning the Time: Haggai, Zechariah and the ‘Delay’
in the Rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple,” in The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial
Essays for G. W. Ahlström (ed. Steven W. Holloway and Lowell K. Handy; JSOTSup
190; Sheffield: JSOT, 1995), 71–94; idem, Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid
Judah (JSJSup 65; Leiden: Brill, 2001); Philippe de Robert, “Pour ou contre le
second temple,” in “Dort ziehen Schiffe dahin…”: Collected Communications to the
XIVth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament.
Paris, 1992 (ed. Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunck; BEATAJ 28;
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1996), 179–82; Hayim Tadmor, “ ‘The Appointed
Time Has Not Yet Arrived’: The Historical Background of Haggai 1:2,” in Ki
Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch
A. Levine (ed. William W. Hallo, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Robert Chazon;
Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 401–8.
significant element in temple reconstruction.55 Reading such a sentiment

into the words of Hag 1:2–11, however, is highly improbable. Rather,
whatever the historical realities may have been, the redactional presenta-
tion in 1:2–11 is unswervingly resolute in its desire to portray the people
as lazy, self-centered, and recalcitrant. Not even low crop yields, bad
harvests, high taxes, insufficient food and drink, and drought could moti-
vate them to change (1:4–11). However into this blocked scenario comes
Haggai, the prophet of Yahweh whose words persuade the people to
abandon their fruitless and selfish ways (1:12–14). 56 He addresses the
people in 1:3–11 using “traditional” forms of questions (cf. Hos 6:4;
Amos 3:3–8; Jonah 4:11; Mic 3:1–3; 6:3; Zech 1:5–6; 7:5–7; 8:6) 57 and
disputations,58 as well as a promise of salvation (v. 8). The dispute hinges
on the concept of the appropriate time (t(), a concept deeply rooted in
wisdom traditions.59 Haggai’s rhetorical question essentially challenges
the people’s conclusion that given the external circumstances, sound
wisdom would dictate that the work of reconstruction of the temple be
suspended. The prophetic fulmination which follows presupposes that,
under the guise of wisdom, the people were using the poor economic
conditions in Yehud to justify neglect of a duty they clearly understood
to be incumbent upon them. 60 The key point for our present purposes
concerns the rhetorical effect of obfuscating any pious or legitimate
55. On the importance of ascertaining the deity’s approval before undertaking the
reconstruction of a destroyed temple, see Bedford, Temple Restoration, 174–77. On
temple building generally, see recently Lisbeth S. Fried, The Priest and the Great
King: Temple–Palace Relations in the Persian Empire (Biblical and Judaic Studies
from the University of California, San Diego 10; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
2004), esp. 159–83.
56. This understanding of vv. 12–14 will be developed infra.
57. J. William Whedbee, “A Question–Answer Schema in Haggai 1: The Form
and Function of Haggai 1: 9–11,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Festschrift
in Honor of William Sanford LaSor (ed. Gary A. Tuttle; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1978), 184–94.
58. Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, 19. Beuken sees the following forms present:
v. 4, Scheltwort; vv. 5–6, Mahnwort; vv. 7–8, Auftrag and Heilswort; v. 9, Disputa-
tionswort; v. 10, Spruch/Entfaltung; v. 11, Eingreifen Gottes. Odil Hannes Steck
(“Zu Haggai 1, 2–11,” ZAW [1971]: 367) refers to it as a Diskussionswort.
59. Gerhard von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (trans. J. D. Martin; London: SPCK,
1972), 138–43.
60. Théophane Chary, Aggée–Zacharie, Malachie (SB; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1969),
19. Chary observes, “By repeatedly objecting ‘it is not the right time to build the
temple’ the people were admitting that they understood its necessity, but were
paralyzed by a lukewarm attitude” (translation mine, here and in all citations from
non-English sources).
1
concerns on the part of the people (should such have existed). Continuity
is maintained in that the people do what they have consistently done as
depicted in other prophetic texts and Haggai does what prophets tradi-
tionally do. Furthermore, attention is diverted from the past and focused
on the present. No explanation is given for the temple’s sorry state. No
mention is made of the sins of the ancestors. Rather, the critical issue
becomes what the hitherto negligent community will do now, and how
that will change the situation for the better. Although not explicitly stated,
the logic of Hag 1:2–11 appears to presuppose a community largely
comprised of recently arrived returnees which had begun to construct
dwellings for its members, while deferring the rebuilding of the temple. 61
This deferral became culpable neglect as the people, adequately housed,
failed to turn their attention to Yahweh’s dwelling. As a result Yahweh
had imposed these negative consequences upon the people as a corrective
measure meant to lead to repentance (cf. Amos 4), and he promised to
remove them if the people responded appropriately and undertook the
work of rebuilding Hag 1:8). It therefore seems to me unlikely that there
is any allusion in 1:2–11 to the consequences of the events of 587. 62
Rather, the focus is placed squarely on the recent past and present, and
the prophetic call to the people to amend their ways.
A second area in which continuity is affirmed is the use of Deuter-
onomistic and Zion traditions in 1:3–11. It has long been noted that
Haggai uses the treaty or futility–curse form in his disputation with the
people.63 Such usage was highly significant in the Deuteronomistic
tradition (Deut 28; Judg 2:11–14), especially in several of the prophetic
books (Hos 2:2–9; Amos 4:6–11; 5:11; Mic 6:13–16). Indeed, as has
frequently been pointed out, there are numerous verbal and thematic
parallels between Hag 1:3–11 and Deut 28; Lev 26, and Mic 6:13–16. 64
What is significant for our purposes here is the rhetorical effect and
underlying implication of the book of Haggai’s use of this motif. First, it
61. Alternatively one could view the text as presupposing the existence of a
community of non-exiled Judeans who, aware that reconstruction of the temple was
now a real possibility, failed to avail themselves of the opportunity to do so.
Historically speaking, the community was likely comprised of both groups (the book
appears inclusive of both Returnees and Remainees). In any case the text presup-
poses that the community understood temple rebuilding to be a real possibility and
failed to act upon it. See infra on the community’s awareness of such a possibility.
62. Pace Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 54.
63. Delbert R. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (BibOr 16;
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964). Tollington (Tradition and Innovation,
189–98) sees only a general knowledge of the form here. Cf. Meyers and Meyers,
Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 24–25; Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 50.
64. Hag 1:6//Deut 28:38; Hag 1:6//Lev 26:26; Hag 1:11//Deut 28:18.
casts Haggai in the mold of his pre-exilic forebears who used similar
terminology. Second, it implicitly assumes that the covenant is function-
ing as a contractual basis for the relationship between Yahweh and his
people. Beuken and Petersen have suggested that the verbal forms in vv.
4–11 indicate that the misfortunes experienced in the community have
occurred in the past and indicate a broken covenant.65 However the nine
assorted verbal forms in vv. 6–7,66 as well as those in vv. 9–11, 67 would
tend to indicate that the passage refers to the recent past and present, 68
and that these communal misfortunes were an ongoing reproach, rooted
in Yahweh’s covenant, for the community’s refusal to undertake its duty,
and that once the community obeyed, these misfortunes would cease.
Scholars have consistently commented upon Haggai’s innovative use
of the Deuteronomistic tradition at this point. The people are being
upbraided for a failure to rebuild the temple despite the fact that temple
building, as Petersen puts it, “is markedly absent from other covenant
stipulations preserved in the Hebrew Bible.” 69 However, that which is
most significant for the present discussion is the subtle fashion in which
the concept of the duty of temple reconstruction is introduced in Haggai.
In many of the texts of the monarchic and exilic period, the Jerusalem
temple was seen as something of an innovation, needing divine approba-
tion (2 Sam 7; 1 Kgs 8), a place where the worship of Yahweh was
corrupted by the worship of foreign deities (Ezek 8) or a locus of mis-
placed faith—a kind of talisman guaranteeing that Jerusalem would
never be overthrown no matter what the conduct of its inhabitants may
have been (Jer 7). This kind of dissonance within the tradition, coupled
with the self-evident reality that Yahweh himself had allowed his house
to be destroyed, and the customary practice in the ancient Near East of
awaiting instructions from the deity before beginning reconstruction
would naturally suggest that before such an undertaking was begun some
discussion would take place on the time for the temple’s reconstruction,
65. Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, 190–91; Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah

1–8, 50.
66. The sequence is: Perf.; inf. abs.; inf. abs.; inf. const.; inf. abs.; inf const; ptc.
67. The sequence is: Inf. abs.; perf.; perf.; ptc.; perf.; perf.; waw consec.+imperf.
68. As argued above. Thus also Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8,
25–26; Tollington, Tradition and Innovation, 198. Meyers and Meyers stress the
durative aspect of the inf. abs. This is certainly brought out by the use of the
participle rkt#m. See also Ursula Schattner-Rieser, “L’hébreu postexilique,” in La
Palestine à l’epoque perse (ed. Ernest-Marie Laperrousaz and André Lemaire; Paris:
Cerf, 1994), 199. Schattner-Reiser underlines that in late biblical Hebrew the
participle is the normal means of referring to the present.
69. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 50; Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8,
197.
1
as well as its form and cultic personnel. What is significant for our pur-
poses here is that Haggai will brook no discussion of the matter. The
rebuilding of the temple is a covenantal duty, and no explanation is
offered as to how, when, or why it came to be one! 70 The most likely
reason for the lack of any clear explanation for this is the strong impulse
toward continuity already manifest in the book. This was no time to call
into question, to deconstruct, or to reconsider the entire question of the
worship of Yahweh and the correct procedures and ordinances related to
the temple, not to mention the question of the future role of the Jerusa-
lemite temple in a new situation where Yahwism was evolving into a
non-territorial and multi-centric entity.71 Rather, the emphasis was upon
getting things “back to normal” as soon as possible. Thus, by the inclu-
sion of temple reconstruction as a covenantal obligation, the text neatly
sidesteps all discussion of this sort, and the book’s dramatic progression
can proceed unhindered.
In contrast to the book’s lack of emphasis on the failures of the past,
Haggai’s focus on the critical nature of the present moment can be seen
in v. 8. There Yahweh promises that if the people obtain the needed
materials and undertake the reconstruction, his response will not be in
doubt. He will take pleasure72 in the structure73 and accept the people’s
70. To be sure, in the present canonical configuration the authorization for

rebuilding may be understood as having been given in the decree of Cyrus, cited in 2
Chr 26:33 and Ezra 1:2–4. Petersen (Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 54) assumes that
Haggai’s community would have understood this to constitute divine authorization
to rebuild the temple. However, it should be noted that (1) Haggai nowhere mentions
the decrees and (2) Chronicles and Ezra were likely produced much later; thus
knowledge of the decree cannot be demonstrated within the text. Nevertheless, it
seems to me that Petersen is likely correct in his underlying assumption that in the
logic of the book of Haggai, especially the invective in 1:3–11, the fact that the
rebuilding of the temple was permitted (however such permission was granted)
constituted divine approval to do so. Clearly, debate concerning the temple contin-
ued from the Babylonian into the Persian period (Jer 3:16; Ezek 40–47; Isa 66:1).
71. Ibid., 182.
72. Here, with the majority of commentators, following the Kethib, I read the
two verbal forms (hcr) and hdbk)w) as imperfects, pace Meyers and Meyers
(Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 3). They read it as a telic clause: “Build the house, so that I
may be pleased with it.” A simple sense of temporal succession and promise seems
more apposite here: “Build my house and I will indeed be pleased with it.” However,
as Meyers and Meyers note (228), at times the sense of the cohortative and the
imperfect may be virtually identical.
73. Reading the temple, rather than the act of rebuilding, as the antecedent of wb,
as in Mic 6:7; Pss 149:4; 147:10; and 1 Chr 28:4, where hcr followed by b refers to
taking pleasure in a person or an object rather than an act.
labors as an activity glorifying to him. 74 The significance of this state-

ment for the purposes of this study is that it serves to announce, via a
statement of promise, that any uncertainty regarding the future lies
entirely with the people’s response to Haggai’s words. Yahweh has
declared how he will react to a positive response on the people’s part,
and there can be no uncertainty as to what the people are called to do.
There need be no fear on their part that their efforts will be rejected.
5. Haggai 1:12–15
Haggai 1:12–15 supplies a dramatic epilogue describing the effects of
Haggai’s message. Its significance with reference to the present discus-
sion lies in what it assumes about the community’s status vis-à-vis
Yahweh before and after its response to Haggai’s preaching. Beuken has
viewed this section as a covenant renewal ceremony analogous to those
found within the work of the Chronicler, and sees the response of the
people in rebuilding the temple as constituting an act of covenant
renewal. For him, the disobedience of the people in 1:4–11 constitutes a
covenant rupture (Bundesbruch) and the obedience of the people and
assurance of the divine presence as a covenant renewal (Bundeser-
neuerung). Beuken relies heavily on texts which describe earlier failures
to heed Yahweh’s word which resulted in the rupturing of the covenant,
manifested in the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile (2 Kgs 17:7–23;
2 Chr 36:15–21; Jer 42:21–22). He sees the failure to rebuild the temple
as a continuation of the hardening (Verstocktheit) which obtained among
the people before the exile.75 In this sense, his position is analogous to
Petersen’s suggestion that the misfortunes of the people in 1:3–11 were
the result of a “double cursing” of the people for the sins of the ancestors
and their own subsequent neglect of the temple. However, is this indeed
the case? Is a covenant renewal to be implied here? An analysis of the
vocabulary used to describe the response of the people as well as Yah-
weh’s own response casts doubt upon Beuken’s suggestion.
Several expressions are used to describe the people’s response. The
first is hwhy lwqb (m# (“to obey the voice of Yahweh”), used to describe
74. Here the middle or permissive sense of “getting glory for one’s self” or
“allowing one’s self to be glorified” seems most appropriate, especially when
compared with the other, non-participial instances of the Niphal of dbk with
Yahweh as subject (Exod 14:4, 17, 18; Lev 10:3; Ezek 28:22; 39:13). Ackroyd’s
translation renders it well: “Then I will accept it and I will let myself be glorified… I
will accept the worship due to my honour” (Exile and Restoration, 160).
1
75. Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, 32–33.
the obedience of the people in v. 12. This is a stock Deuteronomistic

expression for the fulfillment of Israel’s covenantal obligation (Deut
4:20; 8:20; 9:23, etc.), and follows logically upon the prophet’s use of
the various formal and thematic expressions of reproach in 1:3–11. 76
However that which is most important here is the striking contrast
between Hag 1:12 and the almost exaggerated use of same expression in
Jeremiah (negated, however) to describe the failure of Jeremiah’s con-
temporaries to listen to him. The phrase /Mh/yhl) hwhy lwqb (m# )l
K/Mk/wn/w is found in 3:25; 7:28; 9:12 (Eng. 9:13); 18:10; 22:21; 32:23;
42:13, 21; 43:4, 7; and 44:23. Jeremiah 43:4 is especially noteworthy.
Whereas in most instances lwqb directly follows (m# )l, in both Jer
43:4 and Hag 1:12 a tripartite subject intervenes:
Mylxh yr# lkw xrq Nb Nnxwy (m# )l
.hdwhy Cr)b tb#l hwhy lwqb M(h lkw
So Johanan son of Kareah and all the commanders of the forces and all
the people did not obey the voice of the LORD, to stay in the land of
Judah. (Jer 43:4 NSRV)
lwdgh Nhkh qdcwhy Nb (#whyw l)ytl# Nb lbbrz (m#yw
lwqb M(h tyr)# lkw
Mhyhl) hwhy wxl# r#)k )ybnh ygx yrbd l(w Mhyhl) hwhy
.hwhy ynpm M(h w)ryyw
Then Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, and Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high
priest, with all the remnant of the people, obeyed the voice of the L ORD
their God, and the words of the prophet Haggai, as the LORD their God
had sent him; and the people feared the LORD. (Hag 1:12 NSRV)
It is certainly possible that the frequency of this expression in the

Jeremianic tradition, and its presence at this critical point in Haggai, and
especially the correspondence in the two texts cited above is the fruit of
mere chance. I find it more probable, however, that the redactor of
Haggai knew of the Jeremianic tradition (this is certainly the case in Hag
2:23//Jer 22:24) and was using it to make a point. Whereas Jeremiah’s
hearers had refused to hear, Haggai’s words had hit home and broken
the logjam that had stymied the community’s life. The kind of response
that was sought (unsuccessfully) by Jeremiah was attained through the
preaching of Haggai. Thus, rather than signifying a definitive breaking or
76. Samuel R. Driver, Deuteronomy (ICC; New York: Charles Scribners’ Sons,
1916), lxxix; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1972), 83–84, 336–37. Beuken (Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, 32–
35) notes that this expression is rare in the Chronicler but explains its absence via the
hypothesis of several Chronistic circles at work.
renewal of a covenant, the phrase thus simply stresses covenantal

obedience.
A second continuity element in describing the people’s response is the
reference to their fear of Yahweh in v. 12b (hwhy ynpm M(h w)ryyw). Once
again we have a standard Deuteronomistic expression for obedience to
the covenant77 despite the rather unusual formulation it takes here. 78 The
expression likely indicates subjective fear,79 but such a response is
entirely consistent with an allusion to the “fear of God” as understood in
Deuteronomistic theology (Exod 20:20; Deut 4:14; 5:5, 28–29; 6:2;
10:20; 2 Kgs 22:8–10). Yahweh’s response to the people’s fear is
expressed through the introduction of the Beistandformel (henceforth
Formula of Divine Assistance) in 1:13. This formula, whose origins may
be found in priestly oracles of salvation, 80 assures the people of Yah-
weh’s presence. Furthermore, it has the rhetorical effect of associating
them with various individuals and groups in Israel’s past who have
received such words of assurance (Jacob in Gen 28:15; Jeremiah in Jer
1:8, 19; redeemed Israel in Isa 43:2; the community of Jeremiah’s day in
Jer 42:11, as well as many others). The section concludes with a sum-
mary statement81 affirming that it was through the preaching of Haggai, 82
Yahweh’s duly commissioned messenger, that Yahweh stirred up 83 the
77. See especially Louis Derousseaux, La Crainte de Dieu dans l’Ancien Testa-
ment (LD 63; Paris: Cerf, 1970), 205–57; Driver, Deuteronomy, lxxxii; Weinfeld,
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 83–85, 332–33.
78. The usual Deuteronomistic formula is a form of )ry followed by hwhy t).
Here we find hwhy ynpm )ry, a rare expression found only in Exod 9:30; Hag 1:12;
Eccl 3:14; and Ps 33:8 (Derousseaux, La Crainte de Dieu, 296).
79. Ibid. See also Verhoef, Books of Haggai and Malachi, 83, with bibliography;
and Wolff, Haggai, 49.
80. Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, 39–42; Wolff, Haggai, 50.
81. The understanding of v. 14 as a summary statement underlies the exegesis of
Amsler and Chary (Amsler, Lacoque, and Vuilleumeier, Aggée–Zacharie 1–8, 25;
Chary, Aggée–Zacharie, 21). It is also explicit in Meyers and Meyers and Rudolph
(see following footnote).
82. For a defense of this interpretation of v. 14, see Kessler, Book of Haggai,
150–51, with bibliography. Rudolph appropriately states, “It is Yahweh the primus
movens who fulfills his plan. He uses human agents, notably the people and leaders,
but in order for them to assume their own responsibilities, there must be the divine
word through the prophet, a word that shakes and rebukes, so that the work might be
accomplished” (Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, 9–14, Malachi, 36). Cf. Meyers and Meyers,
Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 4.
83. The Hiphil of rw( evokes Yahweh’s hidden activity, which touches the inner
workings of human volition and decision-making such that his purposes may be
attained, cf. Isa 41:2, 21; 45:13; Ezra 1:15; Jer 50:9; 51:1, 11.
1
hearts of leaders and people with the result that they came ()wb as in v. 2)
and did what they had been resisting all along—they set about the work
of restoring the temple. The epithet “remnant of the people” (M(h tyr)#)
in vv. 12 and 14 provides a further link with other prophetic and Deuter-
onomistic traditions. Thus “this people”—a common term of reproach
and disdain in the same traditions, as noted above—has become worthy
of the title “remnant,” evoking traditions such as those found in Zeph
3:12–13; Isa 10:20; 28:5; Jer 31:7–9; and Mic 7:18. 84
Returning now to the question of a covenant renewal in Hag 1:12–15,
it would appear to me that if Haggai is read without the grid of covenant
breach and covenant renewal suggested by Beuken, Hag 1:12–15 reads
far more like a Deuteronomistic description of faithful response to pro-
phetic preaching.85 Put another way, given the consistent use of positive
affirmative terminology drawn from Deuteronomistic tradition regarding
covenantal obedience, that which is being emphasized is the effective-
ness of Haggai’s preaching, rather than any kind of periodization of the
people’s history in which the people’s obedience constitutes a renewal of
the covenant and repairs the damage done by the ancestors’ failure to
heed the warnings of the prophets of the monarchic period. To be sure,
Haggai’s use of the covenant curse material suggests that the people’s
failure to rebuild the temple has strained their relationship with Yahweh,
but I do not think that it invites us to view Haggai’s words as being
addressed to a people with whom a decisive breach has occurred—a
breach which has continued to the present moment and which has been
repaired by the people’s response. Rather, what happens in 1:12–15 is
what could have happened had the hearers of Amos, Hosea, Micah, or
Jeremiah taken their words to heart and changed their ways and thus
ought to be viewed more as a description of a positive response to
prophetic preaching, and to the demands of an existing covenant, rather
than as a covenant renewal ceremony.
What is more, the term “covenant renewal” itself is problematic, not
only from an historical86 point of view, but also from a linguistic perspec-
tive, in that it does not distinguish renewal without lapse (as in the
84. Pace Floyd, I view the redactor as referring to the people as a whole. For a
fuller discussion, see Floyd, Minor Prophets, 275–77; also Kessler, Book of Haggai,
141–42.
85. The prominence of Deuteronomistic vocabulary in Haggai was observed in
Mason’s early treatment of the traditions in the book (Mason, “The Purpose of the
Editorial Framework,” 413–21).
86. On the whole matter of covenant violation and renewal, see George E.
Mendenhall and Gary A. Herion, “Covenant,” ABD 1:1179–202.
renewal of a lease or driver’s license) from reinstatement of a formerly

existing but lapsed arrangement (such as insurance policy which has
expired), or even the replacement of an earlier agreement with a newer
one with different terms (such as an international trade agreement). 87
Despite Beuken’s arguments, it seems to me to be more likely that Hag-
gai’s redactor is construing the people’s response as simply a faithful
response to Yahweh, or at most a case of renewal without lapse. By
means of the various continuity devices discussed above, this section has
minimized the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile—the text assumes
both but mentions neither. Failure to rebuild the temple, and the conse-
quences thereof, are portrayed as a blemish on an existing relationship,
not the evidence of one which had formerly existed and had lapsed. After
all, if the text presupposed that the people and Yahweh were in the same
state of alienation that, according to the Deuteronomistic tradition,
existed on the eve of Jerusalem’s destruction, reducing the totality of
Israel’s obligation to Yahweh to the rebuilding of the temple would be
rather surprising.88 Furthermore, the standard vocabulary of repentance in
the Deuteronomistic or for that matter Chronistic traditions (e.g. bw# hn(,
#rd #qb) is totally absent both in Haggai’s preaching and the people’s
response. In its place we find a simple command to go and get wood and
build Yahweh’s house, and the narration of the fulfillment of that
command (1:8, 14). All this would appear to indicate that far less than
Beuken suggests is at play.
In sum, in 1:12–15 the reader/hearer is invited to view Haggai’s words
and his hearers’ obedience as a challenge and response within an existing
relationship rather than a call to renew a lapsed one. Haggai makes no
direct allusion to the disobedience of any earlier generation, and only
appeals for obedience in the present. The verbal contrast between Hag-
gai’s hearers’ response and that which met Jeremiah’s words simply
serves to stress that whereas earlier generations had done the wrong
thing, Haggai’s hearers had done the right thing (1:12–15). The net effect
of this is to deflect attention away from the larger issues of the exile and
its results, the state and fate of the nation, and broader issues concerning
Yahweh’s relationship to his people. Rather, the minimization or even
obfuscation of these larger issues enables the book to set Haggai’s preach-
ing and his hearers’ response in a context which very much resembles
87. It seems to me that Beuken relates 1:12–15 to the second or third of these
three categories.
88. The Deuteronomistic tradition generally evokes the worship of other gods as
well as various violations of the Decalogue as the cause of Yahweh’s judgment (cf.
2 Kgs 17:7–20; 24:4–5; Jer 7:1–15).
1
prophetic preaching of earlier eras. Unlike Zechariah, who explicitly

warns his hearers not to be like their ancestors who ignored the words of
the prophets and were overtaken by divine judgment and who explicitly
repent (Zech 1:1–6), Haggai thus far is silent regarding the failures of the
past and even lacks an explicit call for repentance. He simply enjoins his
people to do what they ought. And when they do, he reassures them that
Yahweh is among them once again, as he has been in the past at critical
moments in the community’s history.
6. Haggai 2:1–9
In contrast to 1:1–15, this section moves more directly toward encounter-
ing the discontinuity between past and present, between the ideals held
out in tradition and memory and the grim realities of the present. This
discontinuity or dissonance is given voice as the prophet utters aloud
(2:2) that which a portion of his audience was thinking inwardly—that
the emerging temple was a pale shadow of its earlier self. Yet within this
overt admission of discontinuity, the text once again deploys a variety of
means through which to demonstrate that the present situation is not to
be viewed as cut off from either the fondly remembered past or the
greatly anticipated future. In essence, 2:3–9 responds to the discourage-
ment of the present in a twofold manner. First, in vv. 3–5 a variety of
traditional idioms and formulae are drawn upon to encourage the build-
ers to persevere in their task. Second, in vv. 6–9 a series of eschatologi-
cal motifs, largely drawn from Zion theology, are evoked to point to a
better future. In both sections numerous continuity motifs are deployed
to attenuate the people’s perception of discontinuity.
In vv. 3–5 continuity with the past is stressed by four primary means:
(1) the specific formulations used to describe the temple (vv. 3 and 9);
(2) the Ermutigungsformel (henceforth Divine Encouragement Formula)
addressed to leaders and people (v. 4); (3) the appeal to the covenant
(v. 5a); and (4) the reference to the presence of the Spirit and the tradi-
tional formula “fear not” (v. 5b). Each serves to create continuity with the
past and to reduce dissonance in the present. Let us examine these in turn.
In speaking of the temple, Haggai is cited as asking his hearers who
among them89 saw “this house in its former glory” (wdwbkb hzh tybh-t)
Nw#)rh). It is significant that, contrary to the customary practice of
89. In the logic of the passage the likely referent is older members of the
audience who had seen the pre-587 structure (Meyers and Meyers, Haggai,
Zechariah 1–8, 49). On the issue of the plausibility of such individuals being
present, see Verhoef, Books of Haggai and Malachi, 95–96.
referring to the “Second Temple,” Haggai knows no first and second

temples. Rather, there is one temple, “this house,” whose splendor or
glorious appearance goes through various stages. It was awe-inspiring in
an earlier time (Nw#)rh wdwbkb) and in a future day will be even more so
(Nwrx)h, v. 9). For Haggai, these are various states of the same temple,
not a comparison between various edifices. Thus the destructions of
587, which both archaeology90 and tradition (e.g. Lamentations; Ps 74)
acknowledge as highly significant, do not constitute a major element
within Haggai. The Jerusalem temple was, is, and will continue to be
Yahweh’s house. In point of fact, for Haggai it was still his house even
before the people undertook the work of reconstruction, when it lay
abandoned (1:4–11, esp. v. 9). 91
Facing the discouragement of disappointing results, Haggai addresses
the builders using the classical Divine Encouragement Formula, repeated
three times (v. 4), urging leaders and people to be strong and to continue
the work. This formula is extensively used in Deuteronomistic literature
(Deut 31:6, 7, 23; Josh 1:6, 7, 9, 23; 10:25; 2 Sam 10:12; 13:28) as well
as in Chronicles (1 Chr 19:13; 22:13; 28:10, 20; 2 Chr 19:11; 25:8; 32:7).
Thus Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the “people of the land” 92 are invited to see
themselves as standing in continuity with figures such as Joshua (Deut
31:7; Josh 1:6–7) or the ancient Israelite armies (2 Sam 10:12), and to be
confident of Yahweh’s presence and aid. This is reinforced by an appeal
in 2:5 to the covenant: “As for93 the covenant which I made with you 94
90. Opinions differ here on the extent of the destruction, and the bibliography is
multitudinous. Cf. Hans Barstad, The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the His-
tory and Archaeology of Judah During the “Exilic” Period (SO 28; Oslo: Scandi-
navian University Press, 1996), 51–51; Oded Lipschits, “Nebuchadnezzar’s Policy
in ‘Hattu-Land’ and the Fate of the Kingdom of Judah,” UF 30 (1998): 155–90;
Margreet Steiner, “The Archaeology of Ancient Jerusalem,” CurBS 6 (1998): 143–68.
91. Note the marked contrast to the departure of the presence of Yahweh from
the temple portrayed in Ezek 8–11. While that text nowhere states that the temple is
no longer Yahweh’s house, it implies that only after the destruction of those who
remain in Jerusalem, the return of the exiles, and the purification will the house be
identified with Yahweh once again (11:17–18).
92. The literature on the identity of this group is voluminous. (See Ernest W.
Nicholson, “The Meaning of the Expression Cr)h M( in the Old Testament,” JJS 10
[1965]: 59–66.) I take “people of the land” to refer to the community as a whole (see
Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, 150 nn. 50, 62, and 67). For a different approach,
cf. Floyd, Minor Prophets, 280–81.
93. On this sense of t), see Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testa-
ment. Tome 3, 928.
94. On the textual issue here, see Barthélemy who, noting that the disputed
phrase is solidly attested in the Masoretic traditions, states “Whether or not the
1
when you came out of Egypt, my Spirit abides among you, do not fear.”
As has been noted above, Haggai views the Sinai covenant as a founda-
tional constitutive element of the community’s relationship with Yahweh
(1:2–11). Here in a similar fashion Haggai draws a straight line between
the people of the exodus and the Jerusalemite community of the late
sixth century. The rhetorical “you”—“the covenant that I made with you
when you came out of Egypt”—clearly views the latter community as
standing in direct continuity with the former. Coupled with the lack of
any clear allusion to the breaking or suspension of the covenant in
Haggai (cf. Amos 4:12; 8:1–3; 9:1–4; Hos 1:6–9; Jer 31:31–34), this
conveys a striking continuity between past and present. The Jerusalemite
community is viewed as standing in complete continuity with their
forebears. This is reinforced by a reference to the presence of Yahweh’s
Spirit, viewed as standing (tdm() among his people. This is likely an
allusion to the “pillar of cloud” which mediated the divine presence to
the community95 at the Exodus (Exod 13:21; 14:19, 24; 25:8; 29:45). 96
This is followed by an exhortation not to fear (w)ryt-l)), the traditional
formula of Divine Reassurance, a common turn of phrase in Deuter-
onomistic as well as other Pentateuchal and prophetic traditions. Haggai’s
community thus hears the same words as were spoken to the great
worthies of the past (Abraham in Gen 15:1; Jacob in Gen 26:24 and 46:3;
Rachel in Gen 35:17; Joseph’s brothers in Gen 43:23 and 50:19; the
generation of the Exodus in Exod 14:13; 20:20; Deut 1:21; 20:3, and
Josh 10:25; Moses in Num 21:34; Joshua in Deut 31:6; Josh 8:1, and
11:6; Gideon in Judg 6:23; David in 1 Sam 23:17; Ahaz in Isa 7:4;
Jeremiah in Jer 1:8; and Ezekiel in Ezek 2:6). Significant also is the fre-
quent use of the same formula in prophetic texts relating to the renewed
Zion/Israel following the exile (Isa 35:4; 40:9; 41:10; Jer 30:10; 46:27;
Zeph 3:16; and Zech 8:13). Derousseaux well summarizes the import of
the expression as being one that calls the addressees to overcome their
phrase is secondary, its omission would have to be made on literary-critical rather

than text-critical grounds” (ibid.).
95. Thus Amsler, Lacoque, and Vuilleumeier, Aggée–Zacharie 1–8, 31–32;
Kessler, Book of Haggai, 170–73; and Verhoef, Books of Haggai and Malachi, 100.
This stands in contrast to several scholars who see a reference to prophecy here:
Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, 57–58; Chary, Aggée–Zacharie, 27; and Wolff,
Haggai, 59–60.
96. Texts noted by Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, 57. Despite the book of
Haggai’s great interest in prophecy in the restoration period, as well as the Targum’s
interpretation here, the context resists an allusion to prophecy here. The community
can be strong and unafraid because of Yahweh’s presence with them, which
certainly includes, but goes far beyond, the presence of prophets.
fear “before humans and the dangers with which they are faced [because
of Yahweh’s] saving presence.”97
In 2:6–9 a second reason is given as to why the builders should not be
discouraged. Here Haggai draws upon various traditional motifs of Zion
theology to describe the ultimate glorification of Zion: the hostile attack
of the nations against Zion, the gathering of spoil, the elevation of Zion,
the pilgrimage of the nations, and the ultimate age of world peace (cf.
Mic 4:1–5, 11–13; Isa 2:1–4; 60:1–22; Joel 3 [Eng. 4]; Zech 14). It is
beyond the scope of the present study to assess the various issues con-
nected with these motifs,98 and Haggai’s use of them.99 Simply put, using
highly traditional, eschatological imagery Haggai asserts that the nations’
wealth will flow into Jerusalem. What is of significance here is that
Haggai finds relief from the dissonance caused by the existing state of
affairs (disappointing temple, especially in comparison with its former
state) simply by reaffirming a standard element of earlier hopes attached
to Zion and its temple, with little or no modification. The temple will be
glorified through the wealth of the nations which will be present there.
Furthermore, Haggai deliberately obscures the origin of such wealth (is it
the spoil of war, or the offerings of the nations?—both are found in the
tradition), and is frustratingly silent regarding the manner in which it
comes to Jerusalem. Thus Haggai blurs the broader details of the tradi-
tional complex and picks up a single element within the tradition and
elevates it to central importance. I judge this to be a distinctive rhetori-
cal/hermeneutical technique within the book, one that I have described
elsewhere as generalization/focalization.100 What is more, in this section
there is nothing that the people can do to define the future other than wait
for it. It is Yahweh who will intervene and glorify his own abode through
97. Derousseaux, La Crainte de Dieu, 90.

98. The literature here is extensive. See Paul D. Hanson, “Zechariah 9 and the
Recapitulation of an Ancient Ritual Pattern,” JBL 92 (1973): 37–59; Gerhard von
Rad, “The City on the Hill,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays
(trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken; London: SCM Press, 1984), 232–42; idem, Old
Testament Theology (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd,
1965), 2:292–97; J. J. M. Roberts, “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition,” JBL
92 (1973): 329–44; Moshe Weinfeld, “Zion and Jerusalem as Religious and Political
Capital: Ideology and Utopia,” in The Poet and the Historian (ed. Richard Elliott
Friedman; HSS 26; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 75–113.
99. I have dealt with this in far greater detail in Kessler, Book of Haggai, 173–
95; also idem, “The Shaking of the Nations: An Eschatological View,” JETS 30
(1987): 159–66.
100. For a fuller discussion, see Kessler, Book of Haggai, esp. 190–95, 239–40,
70–75.
1
the splendor brought to it via the precious treasures of the nations which
will adorn it. In sum, then, although 2:1–9 represents a more direct
confronting of the failures of the past, numerous devices are deployed to
establish continuity with positive aspects of Israel’s earlier history, and to
nurture hope. The future is thus waiting to be shaped by the intervention
of Yahweh and the present is therefore somewhat transitional in nature—
life in Yehud is not what it once was, but not yet what it will be. Once
again no explanation is proffered as to why the temple was destroyed,
nor is there any allusion to the sins of previous generations. What is
more, all references to deportation, to the existence of a Diaspora, to a
return from exile bearing gifts from the Gentiles—all stock items in Zion
Theology and key themes in Isa 40–66 and Zech 1–8—are absent here.
All that matters is that the struggling Jerusalemite community—be it in
Haggai’s day or that of his redactor—not be discouraged and retain hope.
7. Haggai 2:10–19
This section has long troubled readers of Haggai due to the numerous
questions it raises in the present form of the book. These questions deal
principally with how, having noted with approbation the response of
leaders and people in 1:12–15, and having further encouraged them in
their efforts (2:1–9), Haggai can now upbraid them again, and declare
them unclean (2:14). One common response to the problem is (1) to view
1:15a + 2:15–19 as the remnant of an oracle proclaimed on the twenty-
first day of the seventh month, just after the rebuilding began,101 and (2) to
understand the people who are deemed to be unclean not as the Yehudite
community, but the inhabitants of the former northern kingdom who
have sought to join in the project (Ezra 4:2). 102 This position, however,
has largely been abandoned in recent commentaries. 103 Rather, following
Koch, the majority of interpreters have viewed 2:10–19 as a unit and
sought to make sense of it as such.104 With Meyers and Meyers, Petersen,
101. Thus Amsler (Amsler, Lacoque, and Vuilleumeier, Aggée–Zacharie 1–8,

10) following Beuken (Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, 208) and Johann Wilhelm Rothstein
(Juden und Samaritaner: Die grundlegende Scheidung von Judentum und
Heidentum: Eine Kritische Studie zum Buche Haggai und zur jüdische Geschichte
im ersten nachexilischen Jahrhundert [BWANT 3; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1908],
53–73).
102. Thus Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, 67–70; Rothstein, Juden und
Samaritaner, passim; and Wolff, Haggai, 26–30.
103. Floyd, Minor Prophets, 286–96; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah
1–8, 57; Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 70–96.
104. Klaus Koch, “Haggais unreines Volk,” ZAW 79 (1967): 52–66.
Amsler, and Floyd, I have argued that the dramatic conflict here is essen-
tially cultic in nature,105 and that the pericope concerns the radical trans-
formation of the people’s fortunes which will follow upon the temple
refoundation ceremony (Zech 4:6–7, 8–10; 8:9), 106 a ceremony analogous
to the kalu rite widely practiced in the ancient Near East.107 From a
tradition-critical perspective, the passage clearly contains allusions to a
variety of forms and traditions including Priestly Theology (vv. 11–13),
Deuteronomism (vv. 15–17), wisdom reflection (vv. 15, 18–20), pro-
phetic oracles of reproach (v. 14), prophetic symbolic actions (vv. 11–13),
and exhortations (vv. 15–19).108 Following those who view the thrice-
repeated date (2:10, 18, 20) as the date of the rededication ceremony, I
maintain that the prophetic-symbolic action with its discussion of pure
and impure, the declaration of the people’s uncleanness, and the sub-
sequent declaration of Yahweh’s blessing, may have formed part of the
ceremony itself, even constituting a dramatic presentation within it. 109
At issue for our present discussion, however, are three key factors.
The first is that here, for the first time in the book, the destruction of the
temple and the resultant defilement of the people and their offerings are
openly acknowledged. Unlike 1:1–11, where such matters are only
hinted at, here they form the central problem. How can the people be
made clean again? The second is that here it is ceremony or ritual (sup-
ported, to be sure, by appeals to tradition) rather than simply obedience
to or trust in the prophetic word, which is needed to reconnect the past
and present. Up until now, the problems have lain with the people and
their reluctance or discouragement, and tradition has been used as a
motivating factor. Here the community marks the ritual consecration of
its work, and receives assurance that Yahweh will bring unprecedented
105. In contrast to the “anti-Samaritan” and ethical positions. On the latter see,
e.g., David R. Hildebrand, “Temple Ritual: A Paradigm for Moral Holiness in
Haggai II 10–19,” VT 18 (1989): 154–68; Rex A. Mason, “The Prophets of the
Restoration,” in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd
(ed. Richard Coggins, Anthony Philipps, and Michael Knibb; Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1982), 137–53.
106. On this text, see Baruch Halpern, “The Ritual Background of Zechariah’s
Temple Song,” CBQ 40 (1978): 167–90; Koch, “Haggais unreines Volk,” 52–66;
Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 63–64; Petersen, Haggai and Zecha-
riah 1–8, 88–96; David L. Petersen, “Zerubbabel and Jerusalem Temple Reconstruc-
tion,” CBQ 36 (1974): 366–72; Petitjean, Les Oracles du Proto-Zacharie, 241–51.
107. Richard S. Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia (Yale Near
Eastern Researches 2; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968).
108. On these latter two see Floyd, Minor Prophets, 294–95.
1
109. As I have suggested in Kessler, Book of Haggai, 213–18.
blessing. The third and most important feature to be noted is the

prophet’s certainty, based upon that which has transpired on the twenty-
fourth day of the seventh month, 110 that the present, transitional moment
would ineluctably give way to greater agricultural and economic bless-
ing. Attention is directed away from the past through the lack of any
detail regarding how and why the community and its altar and offerings
had become unclean111 and is directed toward the future which would,
without any doubt whatsoever, be defined by the blessing of Yahweh
(vv. 15–19). Thus the activity of the people in re-consecrating the tem-
ple, and Yahweh’s decision to honor their re-consecration, served to
ensure future blessedness. With only an oblique reference to the temple’s
earlier defilement, this emphasis on the assurance of future blessedness
constitutes the central focus of the passage. Thus, despite the fact that the
critical problem addressed in this pericope is indeed the temple’s
defilement as a result of the events of the past, these events are not dwelt
upon, but simply form the backdrop for the prophet’s message. What
matters is the certainty of future weal.
8. Haggai 2:20–22
In many ways this concluding section of the book marks its most con-
centrated use of traditional material. Following a standard introductory
formula in v. 20, the prophet is instructed to deliver an oracle to Zerub-
babel concerning his present and future status. Briefly put, the oracle
assures the governor that in the coming, dramatic intervention of Yahweh,
wherein the entire cosmos is shaken, and the power of all nations
reduced (vv. 21b–22), he himself will be greatly exalted. The specific
form of this exaltation and Zerubbabel’s precise role in it are left largely
unclear.112 As elsewhere in the book, continuity motifs abound. Verse 22
describes the coming intervention of Yahweh in terms drawn from the
destruction of the cities of the plain, the Sea of Reeds, the oracles against
the nations, and various prophetic-eschatological scenarios, 113 as well as
110. Floyd (Minor Prophets, 289–90) takes an alternative view of the chronol-
ogy of this section.
111. This vagueness has given rise to the great diversity of interpretations in the
critical literature. For a convenient summary of these, see Amsler, Lacoque, and
Vuilleumeier, Aggée–Zacharie 1–8, 36.
112. I have examined this lack of clarity in detail (Kessler, “Haggai, Zerubbabel,
and the Political Status of Yehud,” 102–19).
113. Note especially the use of Kph in 2:22. Cf. Gen 19:21–25, 29; Deut 29:22
(Eng. 29:23); Jer 49:18; 50:40. On this verb in Haggai, see Petersen, Haggai and
Zechariah 1–8, 99. Note also the motif of the “going down” (dry) of hostile forces
motifs of the Divine Warrior and Day of Yahweh. 114 All these various
traditional formulations and motifs are fused and configured in distinc-
tive ways.115 Further continuity features are found in the specific words
addressed to Zerubbabel in v. 23. Similar to the Formula of Divine
Assistance in 1:13b, the thrice-repeated Encouragement Formula in 2:4
and the exhortation “fear not” in 2:5, the three verbal and one nominal
expressions link the governor to highly significant individuals in the past.
Let us examine these expressions in turn.
First Yahweh announces that on that day he will “take” Zerubbabel
and “set him as a signet ring.” The term xql is frequently used for Yah-
weh’s selection of specific individuals or groups and their appointment to
certain tasks. These include Israel as a nation (Exod 6:7; Deut 4:20), the
Levites (Num 3:12; Pss 8:16; 68:19 [Eng. 68:18]), Aaron (Lev 8:12),
Joshua (Num 27:18, 22), David (2 Sam 7:8; Ps 78:70), and Amos (Amos
7:15).116 Furthermore, Yahweh declares Zerubbabel to be his “servant”
(db(). Such language is also used with reference to Abraham (Gen
26:24), Isaac and Jacob (Exod 32:13), Moses (Num 12:7–8; Deut 34:5),
Joshua (Josh 1:1, 7; Judg 2:8), and especially David (2 Sam 7:5, 8; 1 Kgs
11:13; 2 Kgs 19:34). It is also used to refer to Israel’s future ruler in
Ezek 34:23 and 37:24–25. Furthermore, in declaring to Zerubbabel that
he will take him and set him as his signet ring, the prophet reverses the
judgment invoked upon Jehoiachin in Jer 22:24–27. There, due to the
latter’s unfaithfulness, the prophet declares that were he as precious as a
signet ring on Yahweh’s hand117 he would be cast off and abandoned to
(Exod 14:9, 23; 15:1, 19, 21), the annihilation of the opposing troops “each by the
hand/sword of his brother” (Judg 7:22, Gideon’s enemies; Isa 19:2 and Jer 14:16,
Egypt; and Ezek 38:19–21, Gog and Magog).
114. Cf. the shaking of the cosmos in Isa 13:13; Jer 10:10; 50:46; Ezek 26:10;
27:28; Joel 2:10; 4:16 (Eng. 3:16) and Yahweh’s campaign against the nations in Isa
19:2; Jer 46:16; Ezek 38:19–21 and Zech 14:13.
115. Chary, Aggée–Zacharie, Malachie, 34; Kessler, Book of Haggai, 223–26;
Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 101; Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, 9–14,
Malachi, 53. Chary (p. 34) rightly observes that this text is made up of commonly
used traditional images (“clichés traditionnels”).
116. For a fuller discussion, cf. Wolter H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel:
Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period (JSOTSup 304; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 216–18; Tollington, Tradition and Innovation,
137. Rose especially highlights the notion of appointment to a new task or respon-
sibility.
117. On the conditional clause here, cf. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel, 244–45.
If the text is understood as a real condition it underlines the divine pathos involved
in the rejection of Jehoiachin and the judgment of the nation. If the condition is
1
his enemies. The text further predicts his death in exile and affirms that
none of his progeny shall sit upon the throne of David (vv. 28–30). 118
However, Haggai now affirms that, in contrast to Jehoiachin, the David-
ide Zerubbabel would experience great exaltation (although the form of
that exaltation is largely left undefined). Unlike his predecessor, he had
demonstrated faithfulness to Yahweh (presumably in his obedience to the
call to support the temple reconstruction, 1:12–14).Yahweh furthermore
declares Zerubbabel to be his chosen one. The highly evocative term “to
choose” (rxb) connects Zerubbabel with other great worthies who have
been chosen by Yahweh. These include the nation as a whole (Deut 7:6;
14:2; 1 Kgs 3:8; Ezek 20:5), specific tribes (1 Chr 15:2; Ps 78:67), and
especially David and Jerusalem (Deut 7:6; 12:5, 11, 14, etc; 14:23; 18:6).
Especially noteworthy is the use of the language of election to indicate
restoration after judgment (e.g., Isa 14:1; Zech 1:17; 2:16 [Eng 2:12]).
Albert Petitjean insightfully notes: “In 1:14b–17 Zechariah announces
that Yahweh will now show, on Israel’s behalf, the ardent love implied
in election. This electing love explains and causes events whose goal is
the deliverance of Israel: the return of Yahweh…and new election.” 119
Thus Yahweh’s choice of Zerubbabel expressed here likely indicates the
renewal of his promises to the Davidic line and to the nation as a whole.120
It should be noted, however that these numerous continuity themes in
2:20–23 serve to address a matter of extreme dissonance. This pericope,
like 2:1–9 and 2:10–19, faces the tension between the present disappoint-
ing reality and the grandiose visions of both past and future contained in
the tradition. In 2:1–9 the disappointing appearance of the temple is
acknowledged, while in 2:10–19 its defiled state is dealt with. Here the
understood as contrary to fact it expresses disdain and rejection—even if Jehoiachin

were as precious as a signet (which he is not), he would still be discarded, but since
he is not, there is no doubt as to his doom.
118. Robert P. Carroll (Jeremiah: A Commentary [OTL; Philadelphia: West-
minster, 1986], 441–43) and Yohanan Goldman (Prophétie et royauté au retour de
l’exil [OBO 118; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1992], 231–35) have suggested that Jer 22:24–30 reflects a post-exilic debate
regarding the authority of Zerubbabel and the Davidic line. Carroll views Jer 22:26–
30 as a redactional extension appended to the judgment meted out to Jehoiachin in
Jer 22:24–25 so as to exclude his descendants from future political leadership.
Goldman, by contrast views these additions as serving to limit the judgment upon
Jehoiachin and his descendants to those born in Judah, thus legitimizing the tenure
of Zerubbabel. See also Kessler, Book of Haggai, 236–37.
119. Petitjean, Les Oracles du Proto-Zacharie, 81.
120. On the issue of the use of the perfect here, see Kessler, Book of Haggai,
226 n. 47, and 233.
political dimension of the community’s life is addressed. Yehud is a

province, not a nation, and Zerubbabel, albeit a Davidide, is the subaltern
governor of a petty province, not a king. How can the present state of
affairs be reconciled with Judah’s former existence as a kingdom, and
Zion theology’s ultimate hopes for a world at peace centered around
Jerusalem and its temple? Haggai gives a twofold response. First, here as
in 2:1–9, the prophet’s words indicate both an acceptance of the transi-
tional nature of the present moment—it does not reflect the transformed
world that Yahweh will one day bring into being—yet a tenacious
clinging to the hope of Yahweh’s future intervention. Second, drawing
from deeply rooted themes and forms from a variety of traditional
matrices, Haggai reassures his hearers that Yahweh’s glorious purposes
for Israel and its ruler, expressed in earlier traditions (cf. Mic 4:1–4; Isa
2:1–4; Pss 2; 110), and called into question by the realities of Persian
hegemony, would still find fulfillment.
Here again we encounter the minimization of the destruction of the
temple and of the deportation of a portion of the population, as well as
the absence of any mention of the Diaspora. Allusions to the past evoke
positive rather than negative themes. The renewal of Yahweh’s promise
to the Davidic line stresses hope for the future rather than the failures of
the past. The rejection of Jehoiachin in Jer 22:24–30 is alluded to only to
announce a new promise which turned rejection into renewed election.
As in 2:10–19, where the origin and nature of the community’s defile-
ment is not described in detail, here the rejection of Jehoiachin is alluded
to but not elaborated upon. Emphasis is placed on the hope now restored
in Zerubbabel. The community is enjoined provisionally to accept its
present context, with all its constraints and disappointments, in light of
the coming intervention of Yahweh, when the powers of the Gentile
nations would be reduced, and Yahweh’s chosen ruler exalted.
9. Conclusions and Reflections

The book of Haggai, then, bears witness to a somewhat distinct theo-
logical perspective within Early Persian Yehud. In it we have seen a
minimization of the themes of the people’s disobedience and Yahweh’s
judgment prominent elsewhere in the literature of the period. Rather, the
text focuses upon an optimism regarding the present and future, if indeed
the community will seize the moment and stand fast in hope. For ideo-
logical and theological reasons the disruptions of the early sixth century
thus form the backdrop rather than the foreground of the book. A variety
of techniques, especially involving the creative re-use of tradition, are
1
deployed within the text to set boundaries around matters related to the
earlier destructions and deportations, and to focus attention upon the
present and future. The book focuses on the hopeful news that the dead-
lock created by the community’s neglect of the temple had now been
resolved. Leaders and people had joined together and the reconstruction
of Yahweh’s house had begun (1:12–14). The people were exhorted to
persevere in their task despite discouragement, having the certainty of
Yahweh’s presence as they labored, as well as the hope of an unimag-
inably glorious future (2:1–9). All residue and impediments from the past
had been removed as the temple had been re-consecrated (2:10–19). And
despite Yehud’s position as a province within the Empire, and the
reduction of its Davidic leader to the status of a mere governor, the future
would be glorious, and Yahweh would humble the nations and exalt his
people and their ruler (2:20–23).
What might account for this distinctive perspective in Haggai vis-à-vis
other Persian-period texts, such as Zech 1–8, Ezra, Nehemiah and several
of the Psalms? Three reasons appear to me to be critical to an explana-
tion. The first is the differing foci of Haggai and Zech 1–8. Boda has
argued that the two texts have important thematic differences. He main-
tains that Haggai champions the temple restoration cause, “revealing the
fixation of the prophet and his narrator with the rebuilding project…
Each of the pericopae in Haggai is connected to the rebuilding project in
some fashion and every other topic is introduced in service of the larger
theme.”121 Zechariah’s interests, he states, are broader:
Zechariah reformulates the world of Jewish community and addresses the
question of identity in a way which…transcends the message of Haggai.
[He] expands restoration beyond a rebuilt temple…to include a renewed
city and province…and moves beyond physical issues to consider the
socio-religious rhythms necessary for life with a new temple and city…
[Zechariah] was viewed not merely as a prophetic voice encouraging the
rebuilding of the physical temple, but more importantly as a penitential
prophet calling for ethical renewal among the people.122
While Boda himself is clearly not expressing disdain for Haggai as a

prophet,123 his words, at first glance, are reminiscent of a lively tradition
of unwarranted negative evaluation of Haggai, when compared to
Zechariah, which exists in the critical literature. 124 While I fully agree
121. Boda, “Zechariah: Master Mason,” 50, 53.

122. Ibid., 53, 54.
123. Mark J. Boda, “Haggai: Master Rhetorician,” TynBul 51 (2000): 295–304.
124. Haggai was held to be a crass materialist, while Zechariah was more
spiritually minded. For Robert H. Pfeiffer (Introduction to the Old Testament [New
that Haggai and Zech 1–8 are distinct literary compositions which ought
to be read separately, and that Zech 1–8 contains social and penitential
motifs not found in Haggai, I find a purely temple-focused assessment of
Haggai (as a redacted book) inadequate in that it does not distinguish
between plot content and ideological purpose. I would argue that, while
the reconstruction of the temple forms the topical and dramatic vehicle
for the book’s plot, the text’s focus is on the success of Haggai as a
prophet.125 Such a focus serves to stress the need for the Yehudite com-
munity of the redactor’s day to move forward via obedience to and trust
in the prophetic word, as Haggai’s hearers had done, and as subsequent
generations would need to do, as long as the conditions of life under
Persian rule lasted. Thus, central to the book’s ideological purpose is an
apologia for the ongoing relevance of prophecy in the Persian period. In
Haggai, Yahweh is portrayed as active and powerful on a variety of
levels. He can bring drought, disease, and natural disaster (1:3–11; 2:16–
17), or prosperity (2:18). He can destabilize the natural elements, terres-
trial and celestial, such that the nations are thrown into panic and brought
to their knees and their wealth flows into his temple (2:6–9, 20–23). He
has delivered his people from bondage in Egypt (2:5), and his presence
dwells in their midst (1:13; 2:4). He appoints and exalts individuals
chosen for specific tasks (2:23). Yet, it would seem, that which Yahweh
cannot do by his power and might alone is effect change within the
York: Harper & Bros., 1941], 606–7) Haggai had little interest in the welfare of the
nations but rather favored their “subjugation and spoliation.” Fleming James
(“Thoughts on Haggai and Zechariah,” JBL 3 [1934]: 231) maintained that Haggai
had “no further interest in the nations than to get hold of their money; for the rest let
them kill each other off and be done with it (Hag 2:22).” Haggai is said to have
viewed the reconstruction of the temple as a sort of talisman—a guarantor of the
future weal of the community. Pfeiffer, for example, states that for Haggai “the
present prosperity and future glory of his people depended entirely on the rebuilding
of the temple… [Haggai’s] great concern was not the moral and religious wicked-
ness of the people, but adherence to rules of Levitical purity and the fulfillment of
ritual acts” (Introduction to the Old Testament, 602–3). One commentator opined
that “Haggai’s work was done when the work on the temple was revived. It was
otherwise with Zechariah… He devoted himself to the spiritual edification of the
community” (W. Emery Barnes, Haggai and Zechariah [Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1917], xlv). I cite these examples to illustrate the fact Haggai has
frequently been read as somehow more materialistically orientated that Zechariah.
For a fuller discussion see Kessler, Book of Haggai, 4–7.
125. Chary (Aggée–Zacharie, Malachie, 21) aptly comments: “Prophetic
preaching has been effective, an event rarely attested in the history of the people.”
Beuken (Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, 332) similarly expresses the importance of the
theme of prophetic success.
1
hearts of his people. It was only the prophetic word via Haggai through
which Yahweh was able to stir up the spirits of leaders and people, so
that the temple could be rebuilt and his relationship with his people could
move forward (1:12–15). Furthermore, the prophetic word was needed
on an ongoing basis to provide guidance, encouragement, direction, and
the nurturance of hope (2:1–22).
Thus the story of the temple’s reconstruction in Haggai is far more
than a chronicle describing the successful rehabilitation of a building.
After all, if such were the case the book’s ultimate purpose would simply
be to demonstrate how the Yehudite community succeeded in rebuilding
the temple, under Haggai’s leadership. While it certainly does emphasize
that historical reality, it goes far beyond the temple rebuilding itself and
presents a rich theology of divine–human interaction. The book thus
affirms that Yahweh still intervenes in history and speaks through the
prophetic word.126 His people may either ignore his words, or respond in
obedience and trust. The fate of the community is defined and deter-
mined by its ability to engage in this process—and the response of the
people to Haggai’s preaching would indicate that they were off to a good
start. Beyond this the book presents an ideology of hope in Yahweh
despite the bleakness and discouragement of the present. Like Zechariah
(Zech 4:10), Haggai refuses to countenance the despising of the day of
small things. The temple, though unimpressive, the “nation,” though a
weak province, and its Davidic ruler, though a subaltern governor and
not a king, were not to be despised. These were tokens in the present of
Yahweh’s pledge to do greater things in the future. Wolff is thus highly
accurate in viewing Zerubbabel as a persönlicher Hoffnungsträger, a
person whose very presence embodies hope for the future. 127 Thus I
would maintain that the themes of the disobedience of the ancestors,
Yahweh’s ongoing anger, and the devastations of 597–587 are down-
played simply because they do not contribute to, but rather distract from,
these more central concerns in Haggai.
126. The literature on the question of the cessation of prophecy is voluminous.

See provisionally Eric M. Meyers, “The Crisis of the Mid-fifth Century B.C.E.
Second Zechariah and the ‘End’ of Prophecy,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells:
Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual Law and Literature in Honor of
Jacob Milgrom (ed. David P. Wright, David N. Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz; Winona
Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 712–23; David L. Petersen, “Rethinking the End of
Prophecy,” in “Wünchet Jerusalem Frieden”: Collected Communications to the
XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament
(ed. Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunck; BEATAJ 13; Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang, 1988), 65–71; and Benjamin D. Sommer, “Did Prophecy Cease?
Evaluating a Reevaluation,” JBL 115 (1996): 31–47.
127. Wolff, Haggai, 86 (German edition).
Second, I would suggest that Haggai reflects an alternative, more

optimistic vision of life with Yahweh than is reflected in Zech 1–8 and
various other Persian-period texts. The very somber side of second tem-
ple Israelite spirituality with its emphasis upon Yahweh’s justice, the
people’s sinfulness and consequent misery, and the hope for future
deliverance, is indeed the dominant voice within the canon, and has been
well-studied in recent years.128 It has been suggested that this form of
piety arose in part due to the ongoing suffering of the people under
Persian rule, and beyond.129 Haggai, however, is profoundly optimistic
regarding change within Yehud, on the most practical of levels. Thus, the
crop failure and disease, low yields, and generally depressing economic
circumstances which had recently plagued the community were seen as
temporary measures, and the community was assured that a return to
better results in all these areas was not far off (1:3–11; 2:15–19). And it
should be noted that while this change for the better is sometimes set in a
more distant, eschatological context, as in 2:6–9, 20–23, it is also fore-
seen as transpiring in the ongoing, everyday economic life of the com-
munity, as in 1:3–11 and 2:15–19. This distinction between the more
proximate future, in which significant yet more realistic and modest
change may be expected, and the world situation subsequent to Yah-
weh’s great intervention, is carefully made in the book. 130 Thus, if indeed
this perspective noted in Haggai may be deemed to be an earlier voice
than that of Zech 1–8, then we may catch a glimpse of an earlier,
somewhat more optimistic perspective than that which developed in the
later, penitential tradition. Persian rule was not yet seen as oppressive
and odious. Rather, in this earlier moment there was a large measure of
congruence between the goals of the restoration community and those of
the Persian Crown.131 This being the case, there is a profound emphasis
on renewing and restoring the community to its former situation. In con-
trast to Zechariah’s invitation to discontinuity and dissociation, Haggai’s
words are framed so as to cultivate a perspective of profound continuity
with the best elements of Israel’s remembered past. Thus, faithfulness
and obedience to Yahweh in the present will bring modest yet tangible
gains in the near future—even amidst the ongoing realities of Persian
128. Cf. Ezra 9; Neh 9; Ps 106. For convenient survey of the key themes
involved, with bibliography, see Boda, “Zechariah: Master Mason,” 64.
129. Ibid., 63–64.
130. This distinction is not often noted; see André Caquot, “Le Judaïsme depuis
la captivité de Babylone jusqu à la révolte de Bar-Kokheba,” in Encyclopédie de la
Pléiade. Histoire des Religions II (ed. H.-C. Puech; Paris: Gallimard, 1972), 130.
1
131. Cf. Kessler, Book of Haggai, 259–61.
rule (2:15–19). And all of this, as just noted, stood in anticipation of

Yahweh’s great, coming intervention which would radically reorder
heavens and earth, Israel and the nations (2:6–9, 20–23).
Third and finally, Haggai’s lack of attention to matters such as the sins
of the ancestors and the judgments visited upon them, the existence of
the various Diaspora communities, as well as the book’s lack of specific-
ity concerning the actual state of the relationship between Yahweh and
his people, especially as it relates to the covenant, is likely indicative of
the general confusion which reigned at the time regarding (1) which
among the many groups within Yahwism could rightly lay claim to be
the remnant of promise,132 and (2) whether Yahweh’s covenant with the
nation at an earlier period could still be assumed to be functioning. The
canon bears witness to the various struggles over these matters. Jeremiah
24, Ezek 11, and Ezek 33 identify Yahweh’s presence with the 597
exiles, while a separate Jeremianic tradition, reflected in Jer 42:7–17,
appears to identify divine approval with those who remained in the
land,133 and Ezra and Nehemiah specifically exclude such people (Ezra 4
and 9). Jeremiah 42:18–22 expresses disdain for the Egyptian Diaspora
whereas Zech 8:7 expresses hope for their re-gathering. Furthermore, the
matter of the fate of the covenant and even the nature of how covenant
was understood is unclear in the various traditions. Was the first
covenant terminated in 587 (2 Kgs 24; Jer 31:31–34)? Did the covenant
continue with the exiles in Babylon (Ezek 11:14–21), or did it fall into
a lapsed state, awaiting the turning of the remnant which Yahweh had
graciously spared (Lev 26:40–45; Hos 11:9; Mic 4:4)? And to what
extent had the earlier notion of tyrb as a conditional, bilateral covenant
been supplanted by the use of the term to refer to a solemn oath or
promise.134 Given the fluidity which surrounded these matters it is hardly
surprising that they are ill-defined within Haggai. Avoiding many of
these uncertainties, Haggai’s redactor(s) chose to set the book’s action in
a theological context much like that of one of the prophetic books set in
the monarchic period, presupposing a functioning relationship with
Yahweh and holding out hope for the community through faithfulness to
132. For a survey of the various groups involved, see Kessler, “Persia’s Loyal
Yahwists,” 91–121.
133. On this see Christopher Seitz, “The Crisis of Interpretation Over the
Meaning and Purpose of the Exile: A Redactional Study of Jeremiah xxi–xliii,” VT
35 (1985): 78–97; idem, Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of
Jeremiah (BZAW 176; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989).
134. As suggested by S. David Sperling, “Rethinking Covenant in the Late
Biblical Books,” Bib 70 (1989): 50–73.
Yahweh and obedience to the prophetic word. Thus the book manifests a
profound restorationist impulse, one which profoundly seeks to minimize
the dissonance and uncertainty which confronted the Yehudite commu-
nity at the beginning of a new era in its experience of life with Yahweh.
To this end, via the creative use of traditional forms and vocabulary,
numerous links are created between the struggling Jerusalemite com-
munity, its leaders and prophets, and the Israel of tradition and memory.
In sum, then, the book of Haggai reflects a distinctive perspective
within the pastiche of emerging theological and ideological perspectives
in Early Persian Yehud. While its voice did not become a dominant one,
its witness may have captured for us a distinct moment in the life of the
restoration community.
1
TIME AND TRADITION IN THE BOOK OF HAGGAI
Frank Y. Patrick
The book of Haggai begins with a vague explanation by the people of

Yehud as to why they are unwilling to rebuild the temple. In 1:2, they
briefly assert that it is not the “time” (t() for the rebuilding project to
commence. This emphasis upon t( has aroused numerous explanations
as to why the people of early postexilic Yehud do not support the
rebuilding efforts.1 Although t( is a diverse word in the Hebrew Bible,
1. The possible reasons include misplaced priorities, economic difficulties, social

division, the seventy-year prophecy of Jeremiah, and the presence of another
worship site outside of Jerusalem. Unfortunately, I am unable to assess each of these
proposals here. See Peter Ross Bedford, Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid
Judah (JSJSup 65; Leiden: Brill, 2001), esp. 169–81; John Kessler, The Book of
Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud (VTSup 91; Leiden: Brill,
2002), esp. 122–27; idem, “Building the Second Temple: Questions of Time, Text,
and History in Haggai 1.1–15,” JSOT 27 (2002): 243–56; Hayim Tadmor, “‘The
Appointed Time Has Not Yet Arrived’: The Historical Background of Haggai 1:2,”
in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of
Baruch A. Levine (ed. Robert Chazan, William W. Hallo, and Lawrence H. Schiff-
man; Winona Lake, Ind.; Eisenbrauns, 1999), 401–8; James M. Trotter, “Was the
Second Jerusalem Temple a Primarily Persian Project?,” SJOT 15 (2001): 276–94;
Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25B; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987),
21; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Bethel in the Neo-Babylonian Period,” in Judah and the
Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 93–
107; Paul D. Hanson, Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Social Roots of
Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), esp. 209–79; Robert
G. Hamerton-Kelly, “The Temple and the Origins of Jewish Apocalyptic,” VT 20
(1970): 1–15; and Robert P. Carroll, “So What Do We Know About the Temple?
The Temple in the Prophets,” in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple and Community
in the Persian Period (ed. Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards; JSOTSup 175;
Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), 34–51. Although a consensus is far from view, there is a
growing awareness of the significance of t( in the discussion about the people’s
unwillingness to rebuild. Kessler (Book of Haggai, 123) rightly asserts that “central
to the issue [of the people’s statement in 1:2] is the sense of the word t( (time,
moment).”
PATRICK Time and Tradition in the Book of Haggai 41
this study will focus on the people’s understanding of t( as “a falling

together or juncture of circumstances favorable or suitable to an end or
purpose.”2 This “juncture of circumstances” is composed of observable
happenings that indicate to an onlooker that an expected outcome has
indeed arrived.3 When the people identify t( as the reason for not
rebuilding the temple, the people are expressing observations about the
current “juncture of circumstances” in early postexilic Yehud. Thus, the
people of Yehud assert in 1:2 that the “juncture of circumstances” that
they are awaiting before they rebuild the temple has yet to occur.
But what “juncture of circumstances” is being referred to by the
Yehudites in 1:2? Peter Ross Bedford’s recent analysis suggests that the
Yehudites are awaiting a clear indication from YHWH that the period of
judgment is over and the “divinely appointed, propitious time to rebuild”
had indeed arrived.4 Bedford’s assertion that t( is employed by the
people to express a specific time of restoration that will unfold at some
point in the future is both persuasive and helpful for our understanding
of Hag 1:2.5 This conception of t( is supported by the fact that the book
of Haggai clearly anticipates a future “time” of restoration.6 In 2:6 YHWH
2. John R. Wilch, Time and Event: An Exegetical Study of the Use of >eth in the
Old Testament in Comparison to Other Temporal Expressions in Clarification of the
Concept of Time (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 167. Wilch’s definition encapsulates the wide
semantic range of this word, which includes uses for an appropriate activity, a proper
occasion, and an appointed situation. Cf. “t(,” BDB, 773–74.
3. Wilch, Time and Event, 163.
4. Bedford, Temple Restoration, 174. According to Bedford, the people of Yehud
have legitimate ideological reasons for not rebuilding the temple. These ideological
and theological reasons are encapsulated by the people’s usage of t( in 1:2.
Although contested by Kessler and others, the theological understanding of the
usage of t( in 1:2 is supported by similar usages of t( in Ps 102:14; Ezek 30:3; and
Isa 49:8, as well as numerous parallels in other ancient Near Eastern sources. See
Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in
the Bible in the Light of Mesopotamian and North-West Semitic Writings (JSOTSup
115; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 140–43. Although Kessler’s earlier work counters
Bedford on this issue, his most recent work reflects a greater awareness of the
theological underpinnings of the people’s statement in 1:2: “It is quite likely that
ideological objections to temple reconstruction, or at least significant questions with
reference to the timing of such a project, did exist in the early Persian period”
(“Building the Second Temple,” 250–51). Also consult Kessler’s earlier criticisms in
Book of Haggai, 124–27.
5. Bedford, Temple Restoration, 173–78.
6. Clines agrees that “this saying of theirs [1:2] presumes that they think there is a
time, in the future, when the house should be rebuilt” (David J. A. Clines, “Haggai’s
Temple Constructed, Deconstructed,” in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple and
Community in the Persian Period [ed. Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards;
will initiate his mighty activities “in a little while.” 7 In 2:15 and 2:18 the
prophet employs the notion of “time” to encourage the people to ponder
the great hope that lies before them. In 2:20–23 the prophet speaks of a
future time, “on that day,” when Y HWH will act against the kingdoms of
the world.8 However, contrary to Bedford’s observations, the people’s
succinct statement in 1:2 does not reflect a populace that is “unsure of the
correct time to rebuild.”9 Instead, the people are convinced that the
“time” for rebuilding has yet to arrive. Why are they convinced of this
assessment? When the people conclude that it is not the “time” to rebuild
the temple, they are articulating their observations about the current state
of affairs in Yehud in comparison to the people’s expectations about a
coming time of restoration that is characterized by the unfolding of
specific events.10
If the people are indeed looking for specific events that indicate the
advent of an awaited “time” of restoration, then what are the indicators
and from where did these popular conceptions of the restoration flow? As
Schmid and Steck point out, “postexilic restoration prophecy did not
formulate its salvation perspectives from nothing.” 11 Instead, a wide
JSOTSup 175; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994], 60–87). Integral to his assessment is
the recognition of Haggai’s sense of “eschatological ‘time’” (61 n. 3).
7. “The phrase literally translated as ‘yet one, that a little one’ indicates the
immediacy of this coming event” (Robert P. Carroll, When Prophecy Failed: Reac-
tions and Responses to Failure in the Old Testament Prophetic Traditions [London:
SCM, 1979], 161). Likewise, Carol and Eric Meyers conclude that this phrase
“indicate[s] a sense of urgency” (Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 52).
8. This phrase is common for the prophets and is linked to the “Day of the Lord.”
See Claus Westermann, Prophetic Oracles of Salvation in the Old Testament (trans.
Keith Crim; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster, 1991), 255–57. Also note Gerhard von
Rad, “The Origin of the Concept of the Day of Yahweh,” JSS 4 (1959): 97–108.
9. Bedford, Temple Restoration, 177.
10. This notion is supported by the common association in the Hebrew Bible
between t( and a coming time of restoration. For example, note Ps 102:14 [Eng.
102:13] and Isa 49:8. Tollington’s detailed analysis of t( suggests that this term
might have “become a technical term in the postexilic period linked to the concept of
Yahweh’s return to his people” (Janet E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in
Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 [JSOTSup 150; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1993], 187 n. 2). Nogalski also detects this as well when he concludes that the
language of 1:2 “connotes a strong sense of expectation” (James D. Nogalski,
Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve [BZAW 217; Berlin: de Gruyter,
1993], 220).
11. Konrad Schmid and Odil Hannes Steck, “Restoration Expectations in the
Prophetic Tradition of the Old Testament,” in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish,
and Christian Perspectives (ed. James M. Scott; JSJSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 66.
array of prophetic traditions shaped the popular hopes during the post-
exilic period about the return of YHWH and the restoration of the people
of Yehud.12 Peter Ackroyd accurately concludes that “the expectation, so
amply expressed in the prophetic writings of the exilic and restoration
periods, that a new age was about to dawn, linked both with political
happenings and still more with the willingness of God to come again to
his people, is an aspect of thought which finds large-scale development
in the subsequent centuries.”13 A detailed examination of these inherited
traditions will inform our understanding of the popular expectations of
the restoration that existed in early postexilic Yehud.
In a variety of prophetic traditions in the Hebrew Bible, the restoration
of Israel is inaugurated by the overthrow and submission of foreign
nations.14 Interestingly, the same foreign powers that Y HWH had previ-
ously used as tools of judgment against Israel are now themselves the
objects of YHWH’s judgment. “The power of the nations that was useful
for YHWH’s judgment and that still surrounds the people of God and
Jerusalem must be broken by YHWH, corresponding to the respective
deliverance from Egypt…if salvation is to return for Israel.” 15 This divine
action sets the stage for Israel’s new beginning. This is vividly pictured
in Jer 29:8, which speaks of the restoration of Israel as a time when “I
will break the yoke off his neck, and I will burst his bonds, and strangers
On the topic of the restoration, see Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study
of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1968), particularly 232–56. For an interesting discussion of Mic 4–6 in rela-
tionship to a future restoration, see Moshe Weinfeld, “Zion and Jerusalem as Reli-
gious and Political Capital: Ideology and Utopia,” in The Poet and the Historian:
Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism (ed. Richard Elliott Friedman;
Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 75–115.
12. The idea of restoration is not limited to the prophetic traditions of the
Hebrew Bible. Cf. J. Gordon McConville, “Restoration in Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronomic Literature,” in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian
Perspectives (ed. James M. Scott; JSJSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 11–40.
13. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, 251.
14. It is also significant that the rebuilding of ancient Near Eastern temples
occurs only after the defeat of the king’s enemies. See Hurowitz, I Have Built You
an Exalted House, 133–34.
15. Schmid and Steck, “Restoration,” 50. Schmid and Steck conclude that this
results in a “cosmic universal judgment affecting all the inhabitants of the world”
(51–52). Cf. Donald E. Gowan, Eschatology in the Old Testament (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1986), 42–54. Gowan concludes that “the nations had produced Israel’s
predicament, and if the promise of restoration to their own land was to be mean-
ingful, it would have to include the victory of God’s will over the will of the great
empires” (42).
shall no more make a servant of him.” In addition, Jer 51:33 describes a

time (t() of punishment for foreign powers that will ultimately result in
the restoration of the people of Y HWH: “For thus says the LORD of hosts,
the God of Israel: Daughter Babylon is like a threshing floor at the time
when it is trodden; yet a little while and the time of her harvest will
come.”16 Likewise, Ezek 21:34 (Eng. 21:29) employs t( to describe a
coming “time of final punishment” that prefaces the restoration of God’s
people. These texts reflect common perceptions about the restoration that
permeated postexilic Yehud.17 Evidence of this influence is observable
in the book of Haggai. In 2:7 Y HWH promises to “shake all the nations.”
Likewise 2:21–22 speaks of the “shaking” of the “heavens and the earth,”
and the “overthrow” of the “kingdoms of the nations.” Thus, the people
of postexilic Yehud seem keenly aware that the overthrow of foreign
powers is the initial step to the grand restoration envisioned in the pro-
phetic corpus.
This reversal of political fortunes sets the international stage for the
renewal of the Davidic throne. Schmid and Steck observe that “naturally,
the king in Jerusalem also belongs to the restored institutions in the
Corpus propheticum as we have it.”18 Once the foreign powers are over-
turned, the Davidide could reign over Israel again in peace. 19 A promi-
nent example of this tradition is Isa 11:10–16, which contends that “on
that day the root of Jesse shall stand as a signal to the peoples… On that
day the LORD will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the
remnant that is left of his people…and [he] will assemble the outcasts of
Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the
earth.” In similar fashion, Jer 23:5–6 reflects this hope for a Davidic king
who “shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and
righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will
live in safety.” Although neither of these passages is directly alluded to
in the book of Haggai, the tradition from which these Davidic promises
flow is certainly evident in the book of Haggai, particularly 2:20–23. In
these verses Zerubbabel is identified as “my servant,” and is promised to
be “like a signet ring.” Although debated in recent scholarship, I agree
16. It is also significant that the usage of “a little while” in Jer 51:34 is very
similar to the language found in Hag 2:6. Also note Jer 46:21 and 50:31.
17. Cf. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, 153–55.
18. Schmid and Steck, “Restoration,” 54.
19. “A rebuilt temple and city with a legitimate scion of the house of David
would certainly have constituted the new age as anticipated by some prophetic
traditions” (Carroll, When Prophecy Failed, 162). Cf. Ackroyd, Exile and Restora-
tion, 252–53, and Gowan, Eschatology, 32–37.
with Rex Mason’s conclusion that “the balance of probability (it is no

more) seems to me to tilt towards a belief that Haggai thought, that when
Yahweh begins his universal reign in the completed temple, Zerubbabel
will succeed to royal status.”20 Thus, this final passage in Haggai reflects
the popular hope in postexilic Yehud that a coming Davidic king would
bring an end to the exile and would inaugurate the restoration of Judah.
The prophetic traditions concerning the future restoration also include
grand expectations of economic prosperity in which the land is revital-
ized and pours forth great abundance. 21 This is apparent in Jer 31:12–14,
which describes the people of YHWH as “radiant over the goodness of the
LORD, over the grain, the wine, and the oil, and over the young of the
flock and the herd.” In Ezek 36:30, God promises that “I will summon
the grain and make it abundant, so that you may never again suffer the
disgrace of famine among the nations.” In view of these grandiose images
of future bounty, it is not surprising that the people of Yehud equate the
restoration with a “life which is secure, adequate in sustenance, and
permanently guaranteed.”22 The postexilic influence of this “grand
program” is vividly portrayed in Zech 8:11–12:
But now I will not deal with the remnant of this people as in the former
days, says the LORD of hosts. For there shall be a sowing of peace; the
vine shall yield its fruit, the ground shall give its produce, and the skies
shall give their dew; and I will cause the remnant of this people to possess
all these things.
The influence of these magnificent agricultural expectations is also

evident in the book of Haggai. In 2:19 the prophet says, “do the vine, the
fig tree, the pomegranate, and the olive tree still yield nothing? From this
20. Rex A. Mason, “The Messiah in the Postexilic Old Testament Literature,” in
King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford
Old Testament Seminar (ed. John Day; JSOTSup 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1998), 342. In contrast, note Wolter H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messi-
anic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period (JSOTSup 304; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2000). Cf. J. J. M. Roberts, “The Old Testament’s Contribution to
Messianic Expectations,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and
Christianity (ed. James H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 39–51.
21. Schmid and Steck, “Restoration,” 54–55. See Isa 27:2–5; 30:23–26; 32:15–
20; 61; 62:1–9; Jer 32:32–44; and Ezek 36:33–35. Cf. Gowan, Eschatology, 97–118;
Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, 251–52; and Antonine De Guglielmo, “The Fertility
of the Land in the Messianic Prophecies,” CBQ 19 (1957): 306–11.
22. Schmid and Steck, “Restoration,” 54. This influence is evident in Zech 1–8,
which they describe as “a grand visionary restoration program for Jerusalem and the
land” (72).
day on I will bless you.”23 In addition, the prophet asserts in 1:9 that “you
have looked for much.” Why is it that people have “looked for much” in
the midst of their agricultural endeavors? Because of the popular notions
of the restoration that permeated the early postexilic period, the people
have high expectations for a glorious outpouring of God’s blessing that
will result in an abundant agricultural yield. 24
All of these grand presentations of a future restoration in the prophetic
traditions have one common source, the return of YHWH.25 Why? “Human
beings, even those who are faithful to Y HWH, cannot actually cause it
[the restoration]… YHWH will do it!”26 This thought is echoed in Zech
4:6: “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, says the L ORD of
hosts.” The notion of YHWH’s return is also a prominent concern of the
book of Haggai. For example, 1:13 and 2:4 affirm that “I am with you.”
This emphasis upon the return of Y HWH’s presence is particularly evi-
dent in 1:8, which links the return of Y HWH’s glory to the rebuilding of
the temple.27 The people of Yehud hope for the return of Y HWH’s pres-
ence to Jerusalem, which will instigate a new beginning for the people of
Yehud that will ultimately fulfill the grand expectations of the earlier
prophetic traditions. Thus, the “return of Y HWH to Jerusalem naturally
stands in the center” of the restoration of Judah. 28 In fact, a legitimate and
lasting restoration was only possible after the return of YHWH’s presence.
23. Cf. David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary (OTL;
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 93–96.
24. As Carol and Eric Meyers point out, this idea “is reiterated in Hag. 2:16,
where the discrepancy between expectation and reality is specified” (Haggai,
Zechariah 1–8, 25).
25. Perhaps the most vivid expression of this divine return is found in Ezek
43:2–5. At the climax of the book of Ezekiel, “the intensity of the divine presence
pours into Israel’s life again” (Terence E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old
Testament Perspective [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984], 66). This contrasts the
evacuation of the “glory” of YHWH from the temple as presented in Ezek 10.
26. Schmid and Steck, “Restoration,” 57. However, this does not fully diminish
the role of human obedience. Ackroyd focuses upon the response of the people as an
important feature of the restoration (Exile and Restoration, 254–56). Likewise,
Gowan focuses upon the “transformation of the human person” (Eschatology, 59–
96). Cf. Jer 31 and Ezek 36.
27. The usage of dbk in 1:8 is an effective rhetorical tool because it “draws upon
the ancient belief that God’s presence was made manifest in his ‘glory’” (Meyers
and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 28). Cf. Rex A. Mason, Preaching the Tradi-
tion: Homily and Hermeneutics after the Exile (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1990), 144; and Ronald E. Clements, God and Temple (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1965), 124.
28. Clements, God and Temple, 53. Cf. Gowan, Eschatology, 4–20. This is also
explicit in Ezek 37:26–28.
Ackroyd asserts that “the post-exilic period represents a natural develop-

ment…of the presence of God of which the Temple as such is the most
potent symbol… It is the outward sign of that manifestation of divine
presence and power which is the essential for any kind of reorganization
or establishment of life.”29 Influenced by the prophetic traditions about
restoration, it was commonly believed that Y HWH’s return would inaugu-
rate a “new age” that would result in a reversal of fortunes, including
economic prosperity, agricultural blessing, judgment upon the nations,
and a return of shalom.30
If these magnificent images of the restoration did indeed pervade the
imaginations of the people of Yehud, it should not be surprising that the
people in Hag 1:2 express their unwillingness to rebuild in terms of
“time.” Simply stated, the people are fully aware that their current cir-
cumstances look little to nothing like the grand images of restoration
pictured in their received prophetic traditions. 31 Instead of abundant crop
yields, the people have experienced terrible agricultural conditions in
Yehud. This is dramatically pictured in Hag 1:10, which contends that
YHWH has “withheld the dew” and caused the “earth [to withhold] its
produce.”32 In addition to agricultural disappointment, the political context

30. This emphasis upon shalom in the book of Haggai might be rooted in the
traditions of Jeremiah, which speak of the absence of shalom in both the community
and temple. Cf. Jer 4:10; 6:14; 8:11; 14:13; 16:5; 23:17. Sisson’s analysis (Jonathan
Paige Sisson, “Jeremiah and the Jerusalem Conception of Peace,” JBL 105 [1986]:
437–38) suggests that the absence of shalom is the result of a disruption of divine
order. Also note Claus Westermann, “Peace (Shalom) in the Old Testament,” in The
Meaning of Peace: Biblical Studies (ed. Perry B. Yoder and Willard M. Swartley;
trans. Walter Sawatsky; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 16–48;
John I. Durham, “Shalom and the Presence of God,” in Proclamation and Presence:
Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies (ed. John I. Durham and
Joshua R. Porter; Richmond: John Knox Press, 1970), 272–94.
31. Carroll (When Prophecy Failed, 157–68) suggests that the rebuilding of the
temple stalled because it did not meet the expectations aroused by the promises of
Second Isaiah. Similarly, Hoppe concludes that “the glorious portrait of Zion’s
future painted by Second Isaiah never materialized” (Leslie Hoppe, The Holy City:
Jerusalem in the Theology of the Old Testament [Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical
Press, 2000], 111).
32. For a more detailed discussion of the agricultural conditions of this period,
consult Charles Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and
Demographic Study (JSOTSup 294; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), esp.
288–94. The absence of economic prosperity most probably affected the idea of
rebuilding for another practical reason, the absence of resources to rebuild the type
of glorious temple envisioned by the people. Cook suggests that the people’s
disappointment is partially due to the high expectations expressed in the prophecies
is not that envisioned in the grand restoration. The reality of foreign rule
that is chronicled in the initial verses of the book of Haggai points to the
fact that the hopes for political independence had yet to materialize in
Yehud. In light of earlier prophetic works that tie the prophetic oracles to
the rule of a local Israelite/Judean ruler, this mode of dating time to the
Persian king is striking indeed!33 If Yehud is ruled by a foreign power,
then how can a Davidic ruler provide leadership for a restored Judah? 34
This absence of a local ruler contrasted sharply with the prophetic
images of restoration as well as common ancient traditions that magnify
the role of a local leader in the rebuilding of a temple. 35 In addition, how
can the temple be rebuilt and the restoration be inaugurated if there is no
shalom in Jerusalem?36 There appears to be no evidence of “a complete-
ness, a success…a situation which is both prosperous and secure…a state
of well-being which is a direct result of the beneficent PRESENCE of
God.”37 Instead of the overthrow of foreign power, the reinstatement of
of Ezekiel. “A new temple could be built, but the Zadokites would have to settle for
much less than the structure depicted in the visions of Ezekiel 40–48, unless God
intervenes” (Stephen L. Cook, Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social
Setting [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995], 115); contra Steven S. Tuell, “Haggai–
Zechariah: Prophecy after the Manner of Ezekiel,” in Thematic Threads in the Book
of the Twelve (ed. Aaron Schart and Paul Redditt; BZAW 325; Berlin: de Gruyter,
2003), 271–72.
33. Contrast the presentation in the book of Haggai to that found in Isaiah or
Zephaniah. Perhaps more remarkable is the absence of any explicitly negative
assessments about the reality of foreign rule. Cf. David L. Petersen, “The Temple in
Persian Period Prophetic Texts,” in Second Temple Studies I: Persian Period (ed.
Philip R. Davies; JSOTSup 117; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 125–44.
34. Bickerman contends that the lack of rebuilding might be related to the
presence of a “Gentile restorer” (Elias J. Bickerman, “The Edict of Cyrus,” JBL 65
[1946]: 267). See the response by Tadmor, “The Appointed Time,” 401–2.
35. Cf. David L. Petersen, “Zerubbabel and Jerusalem Temple Reconstruction,”
CBQ 36 (1974): 366–72; Arvid S. Kapelrud, “Temple Building, a Task for Gods and
Kings” Or 32 (1963): 56–62; and Richard S. Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient
Mesopotamia (Yale Near Eastern Researches 2; New Haven: Yale University Press,
1968).
36. It is significant that the rebuilding of the temple is linked to the advent of
shalom. In 1 Kgs 5:4, the appropriate time to rebuild the temple is when there is
“rest on every side…neither adversary nor misfortune.” In comparing the early
restoration period with the language linked to the building under Solomon, Rex
Mason concludes that shalom is “the necessary pre-condition for the building of the
temple” (Preaching the Tradition, 124).
37. Durham, “Shalom and the Presence of God,” 276–77. This, of course, links
the abandonment of YHWH to the absence of “shalom.” Sisson identifies the link
between divine presence and shalom when he concludes that “the removal of shalom
the Davidic kingship, the presence of shalom, and the overwhelming

abundance of agricultural yield, the people of Yehud face a daunting
situation of foreign rule, difficult economic conditions, and a meager
population.38
In response to their circumstances, the people express a “keen aware-
ness that not all the glorious things promised for Zion by earlier prophets
had by any means come true yet.”39 For the people of Yehud, “all the
signs in this bleak time told against the view that the favorable time
vouchsafed by God for such an enterprise [rebuilding the temple] had
already come.”40 Thus, the conditions in early postexilic Yehud created a
gap between the idealized restoration images of the prophetic traditions
and the realities of their meager circumstances. In Hag 1:2, the people
express their awareness of this gap by employing language that is com-
monly associated with the wisdom traditions of ancient Israel. 41 Specifi-
cally t( is often used in sapiential traditions with the infinitive construct
in order to indicate an “activity which is appropriate or inappropriate in
the time under consideration.” 42 By employing wisdom language that is
linked to the activity of human observation, the people express their
conclusion that the current time does not appear to be the glorious time
of restoration that they had envisioned. 43 Thus, the wisdom language
from Jerusalem coincided with the abandonment of Zion as the divine residence”
(“Jeremiah and the Jerusalem Conception of Peace,” 438).
38. The difficult realities of life in early Achaemenid Yehud affirmed “the non-
appearance of their expectations” for a grand restoration (Bedford, Temple
Restoration, 160).
39. Gowan, Eschatology, 4. In light of the situation in postexilic Yehud, “it must
have seemed perfectly legitimate to ask whether they had misunderstood, and to
think that their return to the homeland was premature and not part of the fulfillment
of the divine promises, after all” (Donald E. Gowan, Theology of the Prophetic
Books: The Death and Resurrection of Israel [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John
Knox, 1998], 164).
40. Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period.
Vol. 2, From the Exile to the Maccabees (trans. John Bowden; OTL; Louisville, Ky.:
Westminster John Knox, 1994), 451–52.
41. For example, Gen 29:7 employs language similar to Hag 1:2 in order to
express the idea of human observation and assessment. Cf. Kessler, Book of Haggai,
126–27.
42. John Kessler, “Building the Second Temple,” 248. Kessler compares this
construction in Hag 1:2 with that found in Eccl 3:2–8. He also notes similarities
between Hag 1:2 and Gen 29:7 and 2 Kgs 5:26.
43. Von Rad concludes that “they were of the opinion that men could easily be
trained to ascertain the correct time for a project, even in difficult cases, by means of
a careful assessment of the circumstances and a close examination of the situation”
highlights the fact that the people’s statement in 1:2 is a “human evalua-
tion” about the legitimacy of any restoration attempt at the present time. 44
In the eyes of the people of Yehud, the legitimate and hoped-for “time”
of restoration envisioned by the prophets had yet to come. Thus, the
people were unwilling to rebuild until there was a clear indication that
YHWH had returned and that the grand events pictured in the restoration
traditions of the prophets had begun to unfold. Until then, the “time” to
rebuild had not arrived.
The people’s assessment in Hag 1:2 suggests that the current state of
affairs in early Achaemenid Yehud looked more like an extension of the
exilic period than the period of restoration described in the various
traditions within the Hebrew Bible. Thus, the description of Yehud in
1:11 echoes the images of exilic conditions:
And I have called for a drought (brx) on the land and the hills, on the
grain, the new wine, the oil, on what the soil produces, on human beings
and animals, and on all their labors.
The depiction of the current postexilic situation as brx is significant in

that this is the same word employed by Jer 33:10 to describe the curse
conditions of the exile.45 By employing this language, the author parallels
the drought conditions of the early postexilic period with the curses of
the exile. Thus, it is not surprising that “the perception that Israel was
abiding under the curse is a pervasive theme in most post-exilic writ-
ings.”46 Instead of the grand restoration pictured in the prophetic tradi-
tions of the Hebrew Bible, all of the visible evidence suggests to the
people of Yehud that the exile has yet to end. The continued agricultural
disasters, the prolonged foreign rule, and the absence of shalom are all
indicators to the populace of YHWH’s continued absence and abandon-
ment.
(Gerhard von Rad, Wisdom in Israel [trans. J. D. Martin; London: SPCK, 1972],
141).
44. Kessler, Book of Haggai, 126. He adds that Hag 1:2 “refers not to a divine
judgment regarding whether or not an activity should be undertaken, but rather to a
human evaluation in response to the question, ‘Would the activity under considera-
tion be wise, prudent, appropriate or well situated in the existing circumstances?’”
(126). Thus, “it appears to them to be inappropriate for the task of temple recon-
struction” (Kessler, “Building the Second Temple,” 247).
45. For a more detailed discussion of brx, see Francis I. Andersen, “Who Built
the Second Temple?,” ABR 6 (1958): 24–25. Cf. Odil Hannes Steck, “Zu Haggai
1:2–11,” ZAW 83 (1971): 374–77.
46. Gary A. Anderson, Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel: Studies in
Their Social and Political Importance (HSM 41; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 98.
The book of Haggai is not the only text that expresses a realization of
the persistent effects of the exile during the Achaemenid period. 47 Like
Haggai, the book of Zechariah expresses a sense of the continuation of
the exilic conditions and divine abandonment:
How long, will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of
Judah, with which you have been angry these seventy years? (Zech 1:12)48
By asking “how long?” Zech 1:12 assumes that the exilic curses and the
abandonment of YHWH continued into the present.49 This observation is
further confirmed by the prophet’s words in Zech 4:8–10:
Moreover the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “The hands of Zerub-
babel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete
it. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you. For
whoever has despised the day of small things shall rejoice, and shall see
the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel.”
The suggestion that the rebuilding is “despised” by some exemplifies

the dissatisfaction many in the community had towards the rebuilding
47. Knibb’s analysis of the book of Daniel (Michael Knibb, “The Exile in the
Literature of the Intertestamental Period” HeyJ 17 [1976]: 271–72) suggests that
many people after the exile “[shared] the view that Israel remained in a state of exile
long after the sixth century, and that the exile would only be brought to an end when
God intervened in this world order to establish his rule.” Carroll observes that
“outside the canon of the Hebrew Bible are numerous books that do not recognize
any cessation of the so-called exile” (“So What Do We Know about the Temple?,”
50); cf. idem, “Israel, History of,” ABD 3:567–76. Smith concludes that “when some
of them were able to go back, the shock that the homeland was not the homeland of
their frozen memory jolted many of them into a realization that they were a perma-
nent diaspora” (Daniel L. Smith, The Religion of the Landless [Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1989], 63).
48. Tollington observes that “taken as a whole Zech. 1.12 indicates that the
community ought to see its present experience as part of an ongoing period of
judgment and punishment from Yahweh beginning with the exile and the destruction
of the temple” (Tradition and Innovation, 187–88). She concludes that “the final
clause of 1.12 makes clear that the absence of Yahweh’s mercy is perceived as
indicative of his anger towards his people” (185).
49. This style mirrors the laments of Psalms and Jeremiah. See Pss 6:4; 74:10;
80:5; 82:2; 90:13; 94:3; Jer 4:14–21; 23:26; 31:22; 47:5. Cf. Tollington, Tradition
and Innovation, 184–86. Also note an interesting discussion on the phrase “how
long” and its connection to divine punishment in J. J. M. Roberts, “Of Signs,
Prophets, and Time Limits: A Note on Psalm 74:9,” CBQ 39 (1977): 474–81. For a
discussion of “how long?” in relationship to the fulfillment of prophecy, see Carroll,
When Prophecy Failed, 168–72.
campaign.50 Lastly, Zech 7:3 asks whether the people “should mourn and
practice abstinence in the fifth month, as I have done for so many years?” 51
This question exposes the problem: “Is it a time of continued grief or a
time for hope and celebration?”52 Has the exile ended so that the people
no longer should mourn? Does the available evidence suggest that the
“hoped-for” time of restoration has come? According to Zech 7, the
answer was not obvious to the people of the early postexilic period in
Achaemenid Yehud.53 A similar perspective is also evident in the peo-
ple’s statement of Hag 1:2. The current difficulties in early postexilic
Yehud suggested to the people that the expected time of restoration was
still a distant hope, not a present reality.
Perhaps the most significant realization by the people of Yehud is the
continued abandonment of YHWH that is so vividly portrayed throughout
numerous texts describing the exilic period.54 In Isa 54:7–8, YHWH states
that
for a brief moment I abandoned you, but with great compassion I will
gather you. In overflowing wrath for a moment I hid my face from you,
but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you.
50. As evidenced by Hag 2:3 and Ezra 3:12–13, the absence of this grand
restoration aroused disappointment with the rebuilding project that did take place.
Clements’s work analyzes this disappointment: “Just how old this dissatisfaction
with the second temple was in Jewish thought we do not exactly know, but appar-
ently it existed from the very time of rebuilding.” He concludes: “The sense of
unfulfilled promise regarding the post-exilic temple is well reflected in Rabbinic
literature” (God and Temple, 126). Tollington concludes that this is the result of the
“meager materials available for the rebuilding and the small scale of the plans in
comparison with the grandeur of Solomon’s temple” (Tradition and Innovation,
153).
51. This reflects one of the four public fasts for the destruction of the temple. Cf.
Jer 52:12–13 and 2 Kgs 25:8–9. Also note Albertz, History of Israelite Religion,
2:377.
53. This confusion is reflected in the people’s waning commitment to the
rebuilding as the book of Haggai unfolds. For example, Hag 2:4 presents another call
to work, obviously indicating the people’s dwindling efforts.
54. John Kutsko (Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in
the Book of Ezekiel [Biblical and Judaic Studies 7; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
2000]) lists 1 Sam 4:21–22; Ps 78:59–61; and 2 Kgs 18:25–35 as examples of aban-
donment language. He concludes: “The anger of the gods at their own people and the
abandonment of their sanctuaries continues as a theological explanation into the
Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods” (109). Cf. Daniel Bodi, The Book of Ezekiel
and the Poem of Erra (OBO 104; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 183–218. Bodi points to Ps 78:60 and Jer 12:7 as the best
examples, although he lists many more.
In Jer 33:10–16, YHWH’s abandonment has resulted in the desolation

of the land:
Thus says the LORD: In this place of which you say, “It is a waste (brx)
without human beings or animals,” in the towns of Judah and the streets
of Jerusalem that are desolate, without inhabitants, human or animal,
there shall once more be heard the voice of mirth and the voice of glad-
ness… For I will restore the fortunes of the land as first, says the L ORD.
In Lam 2:7 YHWH is said to have “scorned his altar [and] disowned
his sanctuary.” Jeremiah 12:7 concludes that God has “forsaken my
house” and “abandoned my heritage.” Now forsaken, “the exiles were
clearly now cut off from that kind of experience of God.” 55 Perhaps the
most explicit language about YHWH abandoning the people and temple is
found in Ezek 8–10. In response to the “abominations in the temple,”
God leaves the temple:
Then the glory of the LORD went out from the threshold of the house and
stopped above the cherubim. The cherubim lifted up their wings and rose
up from the earth in my sight as they went out with the wheels beside them.
They stopped at the entrance of the east gate of the house of the LORD; and
the glory of the God of Israel was above them. (Ezek 10:18–19)56
This is a devastating blow to the people, as it is a “denial of that protec-

tive presence which maintained the people’s life and well-being through
the temple.”57 With YHWH’s protective presence lifted, foreign powers
ultimately overtake Judah. “The result (of the abandonment of Yahweh)
is that Israel’s enemies flow into the ‘spaces’ left by the divine with-
drawal, and Israel is delivered into their hands (Isa. 64:7; Jer. 12:7; Ezek.
39:23).”58 Once YHWH withdraws, there is no shalom, no prosperity, and
no legitimate hope for restoration.
Similar to the descriptions of divine abandonment in the exilic period,
the people in the postexilic period contend that Y HWH continues to aban-
don them. This observation appears to be confirmed by the continued
55. Paul M. Joyce, “Dislocation and Adaptation in the Exilic Age and After,” in
After Exile: Essays in Honour of Rex Mason (ed. John Barton and David J. Reimer;
Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1996), 52.
56. Cf. John T. Strong, “God’s Kabod: The Presence of Yahweh in the Book of
Ezekiel,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives (ed.
Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong; SBLSymS 9; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 69–95.
Also note Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, “Yhwh Sabaoth—The Heavenly King on the
Cherubim Throne,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays
(ed. Tomoo Ishida; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 109–38.
58. Fretheim, Suffering of God, 66.
absence of the expected restoration events. In view of this perceived

absence, it is not surprising that texts throughout this postexilic period
emphasize the imminent return of YHWH.59 For example, YHWH declares
in Zech 8:3 that “I will return to Zion, and will dwell in the midst of
Jerusalem.” Likewise, Zech 2:10 affirms that “I will come and dwell in
your midst.” Haggai 1:8 promises that “I will appear in glory.” 60 It is
significant that each of these texts is futuristic in tone. In light of the
promissory nature of the language in these passages, “one might infer
that such expectations attested to convictions that Yahweh was not fully
present at the temple in that writer’s time.” 61 Perhaps this is directly
related to the grandiose expectations that permeated the community
about the coming restoration. For many people in Yehud, only the rever-
sal of their difficult circumstances would arouse confidence of Y HWH’s
return and the legitimacy of the restoration efforts.
My analysis of Hag 1:2 suggests that t( is best understood in light of
the restoration traditions of the earlier prophets. This succinct statement
by the people reveals that the underlying issue facing the early postexilic
community as presented in the book of Haggai is a questioning about the
timing of the restoration. In comparison to the popular understanding
about how the restoration would look (which is informed by the varied
59. As Anderson correctly concludes, “The overriding theological issue for the
early post-exilic community is that of YHWH’s presence,” contending that this
absence is magnified “while Jerusalem and the Temple remain in ruins” (Anderson,
Sacrifices and Offerings, 93). Rex Mason’s analysis of Chronicles would appear to
support Anderson’s assessment. Mason concludes that the divine presence is “one of
the most frequently heard themes in the addresses” throughout the book of
Chronicles (Preaching the Tradition, 125).
60. Because of the limited usage of the Niphal form of dbk with YHWH as the
subject, the exact meaning of this verbal form is highly debated. Ackroyd translates
this Niphal form as “I will let myself be glorified” (Exile and Restoration, 160 n.
32). This passive translation is supported by the parallel Niphal usages of dbk in
Exod 14:4, 17, 18; Ezek 28:22; and 39:13. Interestingly, each of these passive uses
of dbk refers to YHWH being glorified by overcoming an opponent. For example, the
three uses in Exod 14 refer to YHWH gaining “glory” for himself by overcoming
Pharaoh and the Egyptian army. However, the Niphal form of dbk in Hag 1:8 does
not describe YHWH gaining glory by overcoming an enemy. This fact combined with
the lingering questions in Yehud about the presence of YHWH suggests that dbk is
employed in 1:8 to emphasize the return of YHWH’s presence to Yehud. Although
Kessler does not agree with this translation, he concedes that “the use of kbd with
Yahweh as subject implicitly conveys the promise of Yahweh’s presence in the
sanctuary built in his honour” (Book of Haggai, 136).
61. Petersen, “The Temple in the Persian Period Prophetic Texts,” 128. Cf.
Clements, God and Temple, 131.
traditions of the past and present), the people concede that the economic,
political, and religious environment in Yehud does not match the glori-
ous expectations aroused by these traditions of restoration found through-
out the Hebrew Bible. There is no king, no economic prosperity, foreign
rule, and a meager population.62 Thus, the current plight of the Yehudites
resembles a continuation of the curses from the exilic period of judgment.
The people have concluded that Y HWH has yet to return to the people,
thus assuring that any attempt to rebuild the temple would fall short of
their grand expectations. Thus, the people await a future period when the
conditions indicated that YHWH had indeed returned and that a legitimate
and lasting restoration was possible.
62. A more detailed analysis of Haggai’s response to the popular concerns

expressed in 1:2 reveals that the prophet Haggai disputes the people’s claim by
asserting that their motives for not rebuilding are not “excellent theological reasons”
(contra Bedford, Temple Restoration, 174). The prophet Haggai calls the people to
reassess their current circumstances in order that they might reconsider their conclu-
sions about the appropriate time to rebuild. Specifically, he argues that the return of
YHWH is at hand, and thus the glorious restoration envisioned in the traditions of the
Hebrew Bible is soon to follow.
THE KING IN HAGGAI–ZECHARIAH 1–8
AND THE BOOK OF THE TWELVE
Paul L. Redditt
It is well known that Haggai and Zech 1–8 articulate a hope for a future
king of Judah, presumably beginning with Zerubbabel. Their view of
kingship is positive; their message optimistic. What is not so widely
recognized, however, is how little that positive assessment of the king
carries over into the rest of the Book of the Twelve. Indeed, outside of
Haggai and Zech 1–8 precious little that could be called optimistic about
the ruling king of Israel or Judah appears in the Twelve. Four of the
collections1 attributed to prophets who flourished during the monarchy
(Hosea, Amos, Micah, and possibly Zephaniah) criticize their kings,
though that does not mean necessarily that they all opposed the monar-
chy. Among the other collections, five (Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum,
and Malachi), ignore the king of Israel or Judah altogether, and Nahum
speaks of God as king. Turning to the other side of the issue, outside of
Haggai and Zech 1–8, only Hos 3:5ab; Amos 9:11–15; Mic 5:1–4a (Eng.
5:2–5a); Hab 3:13(?); and Zech 9:1–10; 12:8 explicitly offer positive
opinions of the king.2 These affirmations deserve closer study, especially
since two appear in collections (Amos and Micah) that criticize the king.
Accordingly, the present study will investigate the presentation of kings
and monarchy in Hosea, Amos, Micah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai,
Zech 1–8, and Zech 9–14. It will argue (1) that Hosea, Amos, Micah, and
Zephaniah, individually and as a Book of the Four, typically viewed
individual kings negatively, anticipating their punishment; (2) that Hos
1. In this essay, the Book of the Twelve will be treated as an edited unity; the
individual collections attributed to the different prophets will be called “collections”
not “books” for the sake of clarity.
2. Mic 4:4 alludes to Zech 3:10, which has in view a messianic peace to be
initiated by the “Branch.” Zech 12:7, 10, 12, and 13:1 speak of the “house of
David,” but not in wholly positive terms.
1
REDDITT The King in Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 57
3:5ab plus 1:7 and 11, Amos 9:11–15, most of Mic 4–5 (though not
4:9–10) and possibly 2:12–13, and perhaps Zeph 3:14–20—with its
emphasis on the kingship of Y HWH—as well as possibly Zech 9:1–10
may be seen as additions bringing about an early Persian period “pro-
Davidic recension” of the developing Book of the Twelve in sympathy
with Hag 2:20–23 and Zech 4:6–10a, and 6:12; and (3) that the redactor
of Zech 9–14 tempers that optimism with criticism of the Davidides. In
the process, it will become clear that a focus on the king offers a sur-
prisingly good avenue into discerning aspects of the growth of the
Twelve.
The present study will accept the conclusions of various scholars that
at least three precursors to the Twelve appeared during its growth. 3 The
precursors consisted of (1) an early Babylonian period “Book of the
Four” (Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah), which probably went
through stages of growth itself; (2) a jointly redacted Nahum and Habak-
kuk; and (3) the Persian-period work Haggai, Zech 1–8, and Malachi,
which probably began with the jointly redacted Haggai–Zech 1–8. In
view of the focus of this volume on Haggai and Zech 1–8, this study will
begin with the king in Haggai and Zech 1–8 and use it as a secure anchor
for pro-Davidic thinking in the Twelve. Then it will investigate the
presentations of the king in the Four, distinguishing the thinking of the
original prophets from that of two later redactors: the redactor of the
Four and the redactor of a “pro-Davidic recension.” It will continue with
the concluding addition to Habakkuk and the probable contribution of
Zech 9:1–10 to Zech 1–8. It will conclude with a discussion of how the
redactor of Zech 9–14 modified the hopes of the pro-Davidic recension.
3. Research on this issue is becoming voluminous, so the reader is referred to

James D. Nogalski, Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 217;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), 3–12. See also Aaron Schart (Die Entstehung des Zwölf-
prophetenbuchs [BZAW 260; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998], 50–155), who advanced the
theory with the suggestion that there was earlier what might be called a “Book of the
Two” that included Amos and Hosea. Cf. Jörg Jeremias, “The Interrelationship
between Amos and Hosea,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and
the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts (ed. James W. Watts and Paul R. House;
JSOTSup 235; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 171–86. That issue is not
crucial for the present study, however. Surveys of the history of this research include
Paul L. Redditt, “Recent Research on the Book of the Twelve as One Book,” CurBS
9 (2001): 47–80. For a discussion focused on the Formation of the Book of the
Twelve Seminar of the Society of Biblical Literature, see idem, “Zechariah 9–14:
The Capstone of the Book of the Twelve,” in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Bib-
lical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14 (ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd; JSOTSup
370; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 305–32.
1. The King in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8

At the end of the exile, the prophets Haggai and Zechariah urged the
rebuilding of the temple, calling upon the people of Yehud and the
apparently royal figure Zerubbabel to fulfill the task. It is a commonplace
among critical scholars that Haggai and Zech 1–8 underwent a common
redaction, so they will be studied together. The fact that they are dated
quite precisely by their superscriptions gives this study a chronological
anchor for the hope for a new king.
a. The King in Haggai

Cyrus the Great (ca. 538 B.C.E.) permitted those Jewish exiles that so
chose to return to Judah and to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. Appar-
ently, the first group of returnees was led by Sheshbazzar 4 (Ezra 5:16),
who began to rebuild the temple, but did not finish the task. Haggai and
Zechariah urged Zerubbabel5 and Joshua to take up the task again in the
4. The name Sheshbazzar appears only in Ezra (Ezra 1:8, 11; 5:14, 16). It may
have derived from an Akkadian phrase and have meant something like “may
Shashshu (Šaššu) protect the father,” Shashshu being the name of the Akkadian sun-
god (cf. P.-R. Berger, “Zu den Namen rcb## und rc)n#,” ZAW 83 [1971]: 98–100).
In any case, the name was Babylonian. Further, some scholars think he was the same
person as Shenazzar, son of Jeconiah (1 Chr 3:17–18). See David J. A. Clines,
“Notes on Ezra,” in The HarperCollins Study Bible (ed. Wayne A. Meeks et al.; New
York: HarperCollins, 1989), 702 (note on Ezra 1:8). As such he would have seemed
a legitimate choice to Persians and Judeans alike to lead a group of repatriates back
to Jerusalem as a Davidic prince. If he was not the same person as Shenazzar, his
title “prince of Judah” is all the Old Testament told about him. The book of Ezra,
moreover, de-emphasized his role in the rebuilding of the temple, possibly because
he did not complete it. The task was left to Zerubbabel, presumably the nephew of
Sheshbazzar if he were indeed the same person as Shenazzar. Even their relationship
is not absolutely certain because Zerubbabel’s father was said to be Pedaiah in one
place (1 Chr 3:19), but Shealtiel elsewhere (Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 23; Ezra 3:2, 8;
5:2; and Neh 12:1).
5. Zerubbabel typically has been understood as a Davidic prince (based partly on
the genealogy in Matt 1:12), but neither Haggai nor Zechariah says so. By contrast, 1
Chr 3:16–19 lists him as the son of Pedaiah, the brother of Jehoiachin. Hence, while
he may not have been in the direct line for the throne, he still appears to have been a
descendant of David. On this issue see Jon L. Berquist, Judaism in Persia’s Shadow
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 63–65. John J. Collins (“The Eschatology of Zecha-
riah,” in Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic, and
Their Relationships [ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Robert L. Haak; JSPSup 46; London:
T&T Clark International/Continuum, 2003], 77–80) argues that the point of the
Zerubbabel passages in Zechariah is that the messianic Zerubbabel, who was already
in Judah, was about to assume the monarchy.
year 520 (Ezra 5:1–2; Hag 1:12–15), a task completed in 515 (Ezra
6:14–15).
The prophet Haggai predicted the overthrow of the Persian Empire
and the restoration of the Davidic monarchy in the person of Zerubbabel
(2:20–23), who was the appointee of Darius. 6 Haggai, however, never
used the word “king” of Zerubbabel, though he or more likely his
redactor did call Zerubbabel the hdwhy txp (the “governor” of Judah; 1:2,
14; 2:2, 21).7 Instead, in the last dated prediction Haggai said that God
would make Zerubbabel “like a signet ring” (Mtwx; 2:23), apparently
reversing Jeremiah’s rebuke against Jehoiachin (Jer 22:24–27). Janet E.
Tollington, however, adopts the view of Robert P. Carroll that the Jere-
mianic passage actually constituted a prophecy emphatically pronounc-
ing the end of Jehoiakim’s line in the person of Jehoiachin in order to
justify the accession of Zedekiah.8 More to the point here is her comment
that after the break of the exile, Haggai’s use of the term “signet ring”
signified God’s intention to renew the Davidic line in the person of
Zerubbabel.9 Since Zerubbabel is uniformly portrayed as a descendent of
Jehoiachin (whether through Pedaiah, as in 1 Chr 3:19, or Shealtiel, as
elsewhere), it was all the more important to emphasize God’s new begin-
ning. Besides, who else had a better claim to the throne than descendents
of Jehoichin, who had been carried away to Babylon in the First Deporta-
tion and sustained by God those first exiles may well have argued? The
sins of Jehoiakim may have doomed the reign of Jehoiachin in favor of
his uncle Zedekiah, but, Haggai opines, did not put an end to the dynasty
through Jehoiachin. Further, Haggai employed the epithet “my servant,”
6. While this statement would enjoy widespread agreement among scholars, it is

not without debate. Wolter H. Rose (Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expecta-
tions in the Early Postexilic Period [JSOTSup 304; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2000]) challenges it, arguing instead that Zechariah had in view a person
named Zemah (ch. 4) and that the word Mtwx in Hag 2:23 did not mean “signet ring,”
but “seal” (230–38). Even so, Rose thinks that Zech 3 and 6 predict a future king
(see the summary on pp. 140–41). For purposes of the present study, the identity of
the anticipated king is not crucial.
7. See Paul L. Redditt (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi [NCB; London: Harper-
Collins; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 5–8) and the literature cited there in con-
nection with hxp. It was derived from an Assyrian word meaning “lord of a district”
and was used in a number of pre-exilic Old Testament texts to refer to military
captains (BDB, 808).
8. Janet E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8
(JSOTSup 150; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 142–43; Robert P.
Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1986), 437–38, 441–43.
9. Cf. John Kessler, The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian
Yehud (VTSup 91; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 230–31.
which clearly was not limited to David, but in this context evokes God’s
estimation of David as the real founder of the dynasty and, hence, its
continuation through Zerubbabel. David L. Petersen calls attention to the
similarities between Hag 2:22 and two royal psalms, Pss 2 and 110. 10
Though an imperial appointee and the object of Haggai’s hope for the
future, Zerubbabel’s fate is unknown; there is no evidence that Zerub-
babel actually ruled over Jerusalem and Judah. What Haggai’s prediction
shows is only that the prophet anticipated that he would reign. Haggai
had no illusions about Judah’s puny power to improve its political situa-
tion or Zerubbabel’s power to ascend the throne on his own. 11 Rather, he
foresaw such improvement as the work of God after Judah rebuilt the
temple in Jerusalem (1:2–11) and God adorned it with the wealth of the
nations (2:6–9). One should, therefore, read Haggai as a prophet hoping
for the restitution of the God-ordained, pre-exilic institutions of monar-
chy and temple, which in his time were in ruins.
b. The King in Zechariah 1–8

Zechariah 1–8 offers a series of visions and exhortations to the exiles in
Babylon, with three passages being added somewhat later, two dealing
with Joshua the high priest (3:1–10; 6:11–13) and one with Zerubbabel
(4:6b–10a) as the text now stands. Their purpose was to legitimate the
status of the Zadokite priest Joshua as the new high priest in Jerusalem
and Zerubbabel as the new king.12 Of interest here is Zech 3:8 and 10,
which appear to be additions to an original vision concerning the priest
Joshua. Verse 8 uses the Hebrew word xmace[, the root meaning of which is
“to sprout.” The closest parallel to this term appears in Jer 33:15, which
reads: “I will cause a righteous Branch (xmace) to spring up (xAymic;)a) for
David.” I have previously argued that as the text stands now, the “Branch”
probably is Joshua, but it may originally have intended Zerubbabel. 13
10. David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary (OTL; Phila-
delphia: Westminster, 1984), 100.
11. Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Trans-
lation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25B; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
1987), 82.
12. For more on this topic, see Paul L. Redditt, “Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the
Night Visions of Zechariah,” CBQ 54 (1992): 249–59; more succinctly, idem,
Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 38–42; more thoroughly, Mark J. Boda, “Oil, Crowns
and Thrones,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 3 (2001): §§3 and 4. The secondary
nature of the Zerubbabel passage (in 4:6b–10a) and the second Joshua passage (in
6:11–13) is shown by the fact that they interrupt the flow of thought in their
contexts.
13. Originally in Redditt, “Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the Night Visions,” 253–54.
Mark J. Boda recently offered a new, more nuanced reading that the lan-
guage points to Joshua as the harbinger of the coming of another, royal
figure, whom Boda thinks is Zerubbabel. Indeed, the best other option is
that it refers to another, “future” Davidide.14 Meyers and Meyers suggest
that Zerubbabel was to share administrative control, second in command
to Joshua.15 It is more likely that the word “sprout” or “shoot” referred to
Zerubbabel. John J. Collins argues, therefore, that 3:8 indicates God was
about to re-establish the monarchy through him. 16 It seems likely, then,
that the author of the text had in view Zerubbabel, whose function is
emphasized in the next chapter.17 Furthermore, 3:10 depicts a kind of
messianic age that would begin “on that day” under a descendant of
David. This verse will become significant in connection with Mic 4:1–5;
right now it is sufficient to observe that it is a redactional note about the
restitution of the Davidic monarchy.
In Zech 4:6b–10a the prophet insists that Zerubbabel had founded the
temple and would complete it. On the surface there is nothing political
about this statement. Yet “founding” temples was a function of kings,
and Zerubbabel seems to have been a descendant of King David (regard-
less of whether he descended from Jehoiachin), so this statement may be
a thinly disguised affirmation of Zechariah’s hope for Zerubbabel. 18 If so,
Zechariah too was calling for the restoration of the pre-exilic monarchy
(and the high priest in 3:1–10) as the means to restoring God’s people
religiously as well as politically. Ironically, however, the building of the
temple resulted in the elevation of the priesthood in the absence of any
reigning royalty.19
14. Boda, “Oil, Crowns and Thrones,” §2.3.2.2.

15. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 203.
16. Collins, “Eschatology of Zechariah,” 78–79.
17. See also Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 210–11.
18. Scholars have long seen the reference in Zech 4:14 to the two olive trees
pouring out gold (NRSV conjectures “oil,” but the MT reads “gold”) as references to
two ruling figures, one political, one priestly. In fact, Petersen (ibid., 118) says they
have “uniformly read the text that way.” The word for “oil,” however, is not the
word for oil used in anointing, but to designate an agricultural product that signifies
God’s blessing. Hence, I have argued (“Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the Night Visions,”
250–51, and Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 68) that v. 14 belongs to the original
vision and is simply a reference to bounty. Petersen (p. 234) says the reference is to
leaders, both civil and religious; Rose (Zemah and Zerubbabel, 194–95) thinks they
are non-human suppliers of oil; Boda (“Oil, Crowns and Thrones,” §3.1.1–4) argues
that they are prophets.
19. One indicator of that change appears in Zech 6:11b, where scholars have long
argued that the name “Zerubbabel” originally stood instead of or alongside of the
name “Joshua,” and was removed by a later editor. The entirety of vv. 11b–13 looks
In Zech 6:11b–13, however, one does find the same two names as in
3:8, 10: Joshua and a royal figure designated as the Branch or Shoot.
Quite apart from the issue of how many crowns were to be made and for
whom, the verses postulate one with royal honor rebuilding the temple
and a priest at his side. It is difficult to read those verses as referring to
anyone other than Zerubbabel and Joshua. It is also clear that Zerubbabel
is considered royalty.
Berquist argues that Darius’s appointment of Zerubbabel and Joshua,
combined with the collusion of Haggai and Zechariah, resulted in Judah’s
recognition that imperial and divine power were closely aligned. 20 That
view perhaps aligns Haggai and Zech 1–8 too much with an international
power play, and does not square with the reading of Hag 2:20–23
proposed here. Still, in all likelihood the appointments of Zerubbabel and
Joshua and the rebuilding of the temple would not have occurred without
Darius’s intervention. It is not clear, however, that Haggai and Zechariah
saw Zerubbabel as the puppet of Darius, whatever the political reality
might have been. In any case, they seem to have seen in him the first step
toward the restitution of the monarchy. While Zerubbabel’s descent from
David is nowhere mentioned, it is probably safe to assume that hopes for
him built upon that lineage.
2. The King in Hosea, Amos, Micah and Zephaniah

With the hopes of Haggai and Zechariah ca. 520 in view, it is time to
back up to the beginning of the Twelve and investigate the view of the
king and of kingship in the collections named for Hosea, Amos, Micah,
and Zephaniah. These four collections seem to have been combined and
edited around the time of the fall of Jerusalem, given the similarity of
their superscriptions and the temporal proximity of the first three. David
Noel Freedman argued that the eighth-century prophets Isaiah, Hosea,
Amos, and Micah have similar headings in that all four contain two
parts: (1) a construct phrase which defines the experience of the prophet
and identifies either the prophet or YHWH as the source of the revelation,
and (2) a chronological indicator, in which one or more kings are listed. 21
like an addition, so that the crowns (the noun at the end of v. 11a is plural) were
actually intended for the persons mentioned in 6:10 and 14 (i.e. Heldai, Tobijah, and
Jedaiah), not Zerubbabel and/or Joshua. See Redditt, “Zerubbabel, Joshua and the
Night Visions”; idem, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 38–42, 76–79.
20. Berquist, Judaism in Persia’s Shadow, 135–36.
21. David N. Freedman, “Headings in the Eighth-Century Prophets,” AUSS 25
(1987): 9–13.
Zephaniah also begins with the same elements, and Nogalski suggests
that it belonged originally with the other three in a Deuteronomistic
precursor.22 In this corpus, Nogalski argues:
Hosea alternates between Yhwh’s pronouncements of judgment and
salvation for Israel. Amos presumes Israel’s recalcitrance in Hosea, and
announces judgment on Israel. Micah assumes Samaria’s destruction
from Amos as a warning to Judah of a similar fate if it does not change….
Zephaniah centers its message on Yhwh’s judgment, like Amos, but that
message is directed to Judah and Jerusalem.23
Nogalski was not the first or only scholar to speak of such a corpus;
Werner H. Schmidt had already suggested that Amos had undergone a
Deuteronomistic redaction, and Schart quickly followed Nogalski. 24 That
the collection is actually Deuteronomistic has been debated, 25 and is
irrelevant to this discussion; the conclusion that the four formed a
precursor to the Twelve seems solid. The following discussion will build
on that conclusion.
a. The King in Hosea

The superscription (Hos 1:1) sets the prophet’s career during the reign of
Jeroboam II of Israel, as well as the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and
Hezekiah of Judah. Since there is no obvious reason to date a northern
prophet in terms of southern kings, one must assume that the superscrip-
tion was added in Judah, probably as part of the editing process that
resulted in the Book of the Four. 26 An obvious editorial addition favoring
22. Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 84–89, 278. Cf. Hans Walter Wolff, Hosea
(Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 3–4; and Gene M. Tucker, “Prophetic
Superscriptions and the Growth of a Canon,” in Canon and Authority: Essays in Old
Testament Religion and Theology (ed. George W. Coats and Burke O. Long;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 69.
23. Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 274.
24. Werner H. Schmidt, “Die deuteronomistische Redaktion des Amosbuches:
Zu den theologischen Unterschiededn zwischen den prophetenwort und seinem
Samler,” ZAW 77 (1965): 168–93; Schart, Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs,
39–46. See Rainer Albertz (Die Exilszeit: 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. [Biblische Enzylko-
pädie 7; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001], 164–67) for a defense of that conclusion,
dating the Book of the Four in the early exilic period.
25. Ehud Ben Zvi (“Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘The Twelve’: A Few Prelimi-
nary Considerations,” in Watts and House, eds., Forming Prophetic Literature,
125–56) denies the validity of this conclusion and the validity of reading the Twelve
as a unified product designed to be read straight through.
26. Rainer Albertz, “Exile as Purification: Reconstructing the ‘Book of the
Four’,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (ed. Paul L. Redditt and
Aaron Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 245–50.
the Davidic monarchy also appears in the first-person narrative of

Hosea’s marriage (3:5ab), though its precise location in the growth of
Hosea should be delayed temporarily.27 Otherwise, Hos 3:1–5 anticipates
Israel’s spending time without a king, then returning and seeking God.
A disdain for the kings of Israel appears in several texts, where the
prophet reflects on the character of Israel’s rebellion against God by
observing that the northern kingdom had devoured their kings, all of
whom had fallen (7:7). That verse seems to have in mind the downfall of
the northern monarchy in 724. A few verses later one reads another divine
comment on the northern kings: “They made kings, but not through me;
they set up princes, but without my acquaintance [with them]” (8:4).
Anthony Gelston rightly argues that those texts condemn the people of
northern Israel for the way they replaced a series of kings from Zechariah
to Hoshea between 746 and 724, but do not necessarily imply a rejection
of the institution of monarchy per se. 28 Likewise, Gelston argues, four
verses in Hosea 10 (vv. 3, 7, 8, and 15) repudiate specific kings, while
several others refer to the Assyrian king (5:13, 10:6 and 11:5 explicitly).
One remaining text in Hosea about the Israelite king, however, is
13:11: “As for me, I gave you a king in my anger, and I removed [him]
in my wrath.” It might appear that the passage says monarchy was never
a good idea, and losing the king was both justified and perhaps even
purificatory. Gelston argues, however, that this text also merely con-
demns specific kings. He notes that monarchy is described as a “gift”—
albeit in God’s anger—but concludes that Hosea did not anticipate a
permanent end of the monarchy, on the grounds that Hos 3:4 says only
that Israel would remain without a king or prince “for many days.” Thus
the time without a king would be only temporary. Gelston himself recog-
nizes, though, that 13:11 could be read as a repudiation of the monarchy
and a prediction of its end. Moreover, the only reference to a king in 3:5
is to David, a reference that Gelston himself thinks is secondary. 29 Either
way, while 13:11 derives from the eighth century, it connects well with
27. Wolff (Hosea, 57–64) argues that 3:4–5 belong with 3:1–3 as constituent
parts of a genre called the memorabile. Nevertheless, the references to “David their
king” is so blatantly Judaic that one must attribute it to a later redactor, whose work
will eventually be called a “Pro-Davidic Recension” of the Book of the Four.
28. Anthony Gelston, “Kingship in the Book of Hosea,” in Language and
Meaning: Studies in Hebrew Language and Biblical Exegesis (ed. James Barr;
Leiden: Brill, 1974), 83–84. One may ask whether this passage looks back on the
end of the northern dynasty, the answer being “not necessarily.” Even if it does,
however, it need only be by a brief time. It is not necessary to ascribe it to the
redactor of the Four, though he would surely have approved its sentiments.
29. Gelston, “Kingship,” 82.
the motif of the redactor of the Four that Rainer Albertz calls “purifi-
cation by exile.” Hosea 13:11, thus, offered an anchor for this theology
in the earlier message of Hosea himself, who saw the monarchy in Israel
as highly problematic and its removal as necessary—at least temporarily.
b. The King in Amos

Like Hosea, Amos was also dated by the Redactor of the Four in terms of
a king of Judah during the time he flourished, Uzziah of Judah. The
collection concludes (Amos 9:11–15) with a clearly Judean hope for the
restitution of the fallen Davidic dynasty, a passage that Schart thinks fits
well with Haggai and Zechariah and most likely was appended to Amos
when the Four was attached to Haggai and Zech 1–8. 30
Two other texts, however, speak of the king and deserve attention
here, Amos 6:5 and 7:10–17. Amos 6:5 appears in a woe oracle con-
demning the indolently wealthy. It pronounces a woe upon those “sing-
ing idle songs to the sound of the harp,” and “like David composing for
themselves upon instruments of music.” Clearly, the verse criticizes
people contemporary with Amos for their indolence and insensitivity, but
it also seems to imply criticism of David. If what they did was wrong,
wouldn’t it have been wrong for David too? If so, 6:5 would be
incompatible with the hope for the fallen “booth of David” in 9:11, but
compatible with Amos. Once again, a passage earlier than the redactor of
the Four depicts the monarchy in less-than-favorable light.
The second passage is 7:10–17, in which king Jeroboam II remains
“off stage.” Amos is confronted by Amaziah, the priest of Bethel,
because Amos has announced God’s threat to remove the king by sword.
As the narrator tells his story, Amaziah sends word to the king, inform-
ing him of Amos’s prediction (v. 11). Then the narrator has Amaziah
turn directly to Amos to banish him from Israel and the temple in Bethel.
What is missing here, and must be supplied by the reader for the
narrative to cohere, is the king’s response that Amaziah should silence
and/or banish Amos. The king is conspicuous by his absence. Thus, not
only did Amos reject Jeroboam (assuming the basic historicity of the
account), but the narrator took so little note of Jeroboam that he did not
even include the king in this account. 31
30. Aaron Schart, “The Fifth Vision of Amos in Context,” in Redditt and Schart,
eds., Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, 58–59.
31. Hans Walter Wolff (Joel and Amos [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1977], 310–12) and Shalom M. Paul (Amos [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress,
1991], 240–52) both accept the narrative as basically historical, and Paul notes that
c. The King in the Book of the Four, Amos, and the Pro-Davidic Recen-
sion of Hosea /Amos
The redactor of the Four added an important passage in Amos, namely,
9:7–10, which portrays the purifying of Israel but says nothing of a new
king. It is difficult to assign anything to that redactor in Hosea. Both
Hosea and Amos as they stand, however, record a pro-Davidic hope,
found explicitly first in Hos 3:5ab, which adds the words “and David
their king” to the hope that Israel would repent or return to seek God, a
hope implied by the purchase of lover/adulteress in the rest of 3:1–5.
While it is not impossible that northerners would anticipate a Davidic
king, it is more natural to think that the hope for a Davidic king over
Israel was a southern hope. One should probably read two other verses in
that light. Hosea 1:7 reads like a southern addition, emphasizing God’s
pity on and salvation of the southern kingdom. Only four verses later
(1:11) we read of the people of Judah and the people of Israel gathering
and appointing for themselves one “head.” While the word “king” is not
used, the verse most likely anticipates a Davidic king over the reunited
people.
Likewise, Amos 9:11–15 speaks of the restoration of “the fallen booth
of David.” It also mentions the new king’s possession of Edom. Was this
act to be in response to Edom’s role in the fall of Jerusalem? In any case,
the Persian period saw the development in a few texts of an anticipation
of the renewed Davidic dynasty. We will continue to find such hopes
attached to the Four. Taken together, they constitute what might be
called a “pro-Davidic recension” of the Four.
d. The King in Micah and the Book of the Four

Micah, like the other collections in the Four, opens with a superscription
(from the redactor of the Four) dating the prophet: this time to reigns of
kings Jothan, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. There is no reference to a northern
king, even though the redactor notes that Micah spoke concerning Jeru-
salem and Samaria. The second use of the term “king” appears in the pun-
laden lament in 1:10–16, where Micah mentions a deception of the kings
of “Israel.” In 1:14 the name “Israel” refers to Judah, but in 1:5b to the
northern kingdom, suggesting that the two verses derive from different
hands.32 The passage makes no explicit charge against the kings, however.
in the narrative the king does not speak. He does not, however, attempt to draw
inferences from the omission about the narrator’s view of the king.
32. So, Albertz (“Exile as Purification,” 238) who argues that in 1:5a and else-
where outside of 1:5b–7 (and 1:13b) the terms “Jacob” and “Israel” refer to Judah.
He also considers 1:13b secondary because it coheres with the thought of 1:5b–7 that
Elsewhere Micah himself condemns the “heads” of the house of Jacob

(obviously genetic, not political Israel) and the “chiefs” of the house of
Israel (3:9), who built Zion with blood (3:10). Its heads gave judgment
for bribes, its priests taught for pay, and its prophets gave oracles for
money (3:11). There is here no explicit mention of the king, condemna-
tory or otherwise, but one may wonder what Micah might have thought
about a king who either allowed such behavior or was unable to prevent it.
These verses set up an explicit use of the word “king” in 4:9, where
one reads: “Is there lacking to you a king?” The continuing line reads:
“Has your counselor perished?” These questions are ambiguous, as a
glance at modern scholars will show. On the one hand, Delbert R. Hillers
understands the questions to be sarcastic, implying that there was a king,
but that he was ineffectual.33 On the other hand, Francis I. Andersen and
David Noel Freedman translate the first question as follows: “Thou didst
not have a king, didst thou?” 34 They argue that the context exudes deeper
pathos than mere sarcasm, and their translation mandates a time after the
fall of the Davidic dynasty.35 Micah 4:10aba, furthermore, predicts that
the daughter Zion would go forth from the city and camp in the open
country. The following sentence (in v. 10bb), however, speaks of an
exile to Babylon. Hillers correctly points out that the reference to Baby-
lon makes it difficult to assign this part of the verse to Micah because a
reference to Babylon, which was also subject to Assyria in the eighth
century, would be a stretch for an eighth-century prophet or his audience.
He thinks it more likely that this passage as it stands derived from the
time of Jeremiah.36 The disjuncture, however, between a prediction of
encampment outside the city in the wilderness of Judah and a prediction
of exile into Babylon is so stark as to invite further attention. 37
the northern kingdom led Judah to sin. For a treatment of the terms “Israel” and
“Jacob” in Micah, see Mark E. Biddle, “ ‘Israel’ and ‘Jacob’ in the Book of Micah:
Micah in the Context of the Twelve,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the
Twelve (ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney; SBLSymS 15; Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 146–65.
33. Delbert R. Hillers, Micah (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1984), 58–59.
34. Francis I. Andersen and David N. Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary (AB 24E; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 441.
35. Ibid., 495.
36. Hillers (Micah, 59) suggests the time of Jeremiah or else an eighth-century
prediction of Assyria’s overthrow of Judah with the name “Babylon” substituted
later. James Luther Mays (Micah: A Commentary [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster,
1976], 105) dates 4:9–10 during the reign of Jehoiachin or Zedekiah, the king
mentioned in v. 9. Cf. Daniel J. Simundson, “The Book of Micah,” NIB 7:567.
37. Andersen and Freedman, Micah, 447.
That prediction presupposes the rise of Babylonian power and its

practice of exiling conquered peoples. Hence, it cannot date earlier than
609, at or shortly after which time Jeremiah began threatening Judah
with exile. The lines (in 4:10bb) following the reference to Babylon,
however, contain the prediction of a rescue or redemption from Babylon.
So, taken together the lines seem to look back on the fall of Jerusalem
and forward to emancipation. In other words, the passage comes from the
hand of someone in exile. The ensuing verses (4:11–13) develop quite a
different motif, namely, the assembly of the nations against Jerusalem,
and seem to derive from a different hand than does the end of 4:10.
Based upon this analysis of Mic 4:9–10, it would appear that 4:9–10ba
(down through the prediction that Jerusalemites would have to leave the
city) possibly belonged to the original edition of this collection. It would
fit well at the end of the passage 3:1–13 and might have originally
concluded it. If so, the passage 3:1–13 + 4:9–10ba would conclude on an
explicitly anti-monarchical note. To whom, then, should 4:10bb (begin-
ning with the reference to Babylon) be assigned? Its author appears to
have lived during the exile and to have interpreted the birth pangs of the
daughter Jerusalem in Mic 4:9–10a as a reference to the exile to Baby-
lon. This motif sounds similar to the purifying motif of the redactor of
the Four isolated by Albertz and found in the next chapter in Mic 5:9–13
(Eng. 5:10–14). It is quite possible, then, that Mic 4:10bb (beginning with
the reference to Babylon) derived from his hand also. If so, the redactor
of the Four added the reference to Babylon in light of the events of 586,
in anticipation of what he intended to add in Mic 5:9–13 (Eng. 5:10–14).
One last reference to kings (Mic 6:16) needs discussing. Micah 6 as a
whole combines a variety of passages of diverse genres in a lengthy
condemnation of Jerusalem. At the end of the passage, God levels one
final charge against the people of the city. They had repeated the sins of
the northern kingdom in that they “kept the statutes of Omri, and all the
deeds of Ahab, and they had walked in all their counsels” (v. 16). Nogal-
ski notes the indebtedness of Mic 6:16 to the Deuteronomistic treatment
of those kings in 1 Kgs 16:21–28, 29–34; 20:35–21:29. 38 In other words,
at least Mic 6:16 (and Nogalski thinks much more of it) derived from the
redactor of the Four.
A condemnation of northern kings might not be surprising in a pro-
phetic voice from the south, but that condemnation also indicts the
people of Judah for succumbing to such behavior. For, following those
kings in their sin, “the city” (probably Jerusalem, but perhaps cities in
general) would bear the punishment of God. Their behavior also reflects
38. Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 142.

on their leaders, though they are not explicitly mentioned. That sinful-
ness of both Jerusalem and Samaria, however, appears already in 1:5a,
and not just in 1:5b–7 + 13b, with its reference to the transgression of
Samaria coming to Jerusalem, which belongs to the redactor of the
Four.39 Hence, the motif that Judah repeated the sins of Samaria develops
a point in the oldest part of the text (1:5a + 8–9) and provides the
redactor of the Four with an anchor in the earlier text for his additions.
In sum, the earliest level of Micah spoke of the deception of the kings
of Israel in 1:14 (as part of 1:5a + 8–16, exclusive of v. 13b) and the
injustice of the leaders of Judah, which possibly concluded with the taunt
about the king in 4:9–10ba. This latter text provided an anchor in the
early tradition to attach further reflection. The redactor of the Four seems
to have been responsible for the superscription (1:1), the addition of
Babylon as the destination of those leaving Jerusalem (4:10bb), and the
motif of the cleansing by exile because of the sins of Omri (i.e. at least
6:16, if not much more in Mic 6). He was also responsible for 1:5b–7 +
13b, which traces the sin of Judah back to Samaria but does not mention
the king.
e. The Pro-Davidic Recension of Micah

The most remarkable Mican text about rulers, however, is 5:1–4a (Eng.
5.2–5a). It opens with an address to Bethlehem of Ephrathah, from which
was to come a ruler, whose origin was from old (v. 2). Scholars debate
whether the reference is to one who will descend from David or to one
from David’s hometown in Bethlehem.40 Reading the verse as a reference
to David’s home and clan without its being a reference to David as well,
however, is too fine a distinction. The verse, therefore, appears to have in
mind David as the “once and future” ruler, who would rule and protect
the people “in the strength of YHWH” (5:3).
This passage is widely considered exilic,41 though it is not necessarily
so. Andersen and Freedman, Hillers, and Smith all treat the passage as
authentic.42 An investigation of its context shows that it follows three
consecutive passages addressed to Jerusalem and introduced with the
word “now”: 4:9, 12, 13. The first passage (4:9–10ba), down through the
prediction the inhabitants of Zion would go forth from the city and camp
in the open country, has been shown above likely to have belonged to the
39. Albertz, “Exile as Purification,” 238–40.

40. J. L. Mays, Micah (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 113.
41. E.g. ibid.
42. Andersen and Freedman, Micah, 470–71; Hillers, Micah, 65–67; Ralph L.
Smith, Micah–Malachi (WBC 32; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984), 45.
first edition of this collection. That passage appears to have been

expanded secondarily (in the remainder of 4:10bb) in the Persian period,
expressing the hope that God would rescue Zion from the hands of its
enemies. A similar motif appears in Mic 2:12–13. In v. 12, God promises
to gather Jacob safely, where is not stated, but Babylon is not out of the
question. Verse 13 seems to envision God in the role of a king leading an
army, bringing the people “out,” that is, from Babylon.
The second passage beginning with the temporal adverb “now” (4:11–
13) switches the focus back to Jerusalem and draws upon the theme of
God’s gathering the nations against Israel, a theme common to the exilic
(e.g. Ezek 38–39) and Persian periods (e.g. Zech 12:1–9 and 14:1–21).
Some scholars see this passage also as referring to the siege of 701, 43 but
the unqualified affirmation of Zion (v. 14) seems at odds with Micah or
with the view of the redactor of the Four that Jerusalem needed purging.
Actually, the passage resembles but goes farther than Amos 9:12, which
predicted that the revival of the Davidic monarchy would result in
Judah’s possessing Edom. Likewise, Mic 4:11–13 predicts that Judah
would “beat in pieces” the nations that assemble against it.
The third passage opening with the word “now” (Mic 4:14 [Eng. 5:1])
is fragmentary (NRSV emends on the basis of the LXX) and susceptible to
widely divergent interpretations, so any conclusions about this verse can
only be tentative. The word “king” is not used, but the word “ruler” is,
and the king is probably intended. 44 It opens with the third use of the
word “now” (cf. 4:9 and 11), and continues with the prediction of a ruler
from Bethlehem (5:1–4a [Eng. 5:2–5a]). The unit consisting of 4:9–10
proved to be redactional, combining a negative saying possibly from
Micah into a “now–then” sequence. The unit consisting of 4:11–13,
which seems to have derived from the hand of a redactor familiar with
the Zion tradition, follows that same “now–then” sequence. Micah 4:14
(Eng. 5:1) presumably forms another such unit with what follows in 5:1–
4a (Eng. 5:2–5a). There are problems, however, in understanding this
new unit.
The first issue needing clarification is whether the siege of the king is
literal (as in the years 701, 598 or 587) or figurative (some other kind of
hardship). This issue is compounded by the mention of the ruler’s being
struck on the cheek. That could be a figurative reference to the exile or
some other kind of humiliation, ritual or political. The time in view,
hence, could have been anywhere from the eighth century down to the
exile. One may suppose, however, that the ambiguity of the verse was
43. Smith, Micah–Malachi, 42.

44. Andersen and Freedman, Micah, 45–61.
advantageous to the author responsible for 5:1–4a (Eng. 5:2–5a), and

may have been the result of his tampering with an originally clearer
passage. In any case, it will be profitable to read it simply as the “now”
clause, the third in a row as the collection was redacted. Given the focus
of the entire passage on the new “ruler” and the emphasis on Bethlehem,
it—like the two previous passages—should be understood as belonging
to the pro-Davidic recension.
This brings the discussion to 5:1–4a (Eng. 5:2–5a), which anticipates
that a new David will restore the fortunes of his people, some of whom
seem to have gone into exile (v. 2 [Eng. v. 3]). The distinctive motif of
purification that Albertz ascribes to the redactor of the Four is lacking in
5:1–4a (Eng. 5:2–5a), though it does appear in 4:14 (Eng. 5:1) and 5:9–
13 (Eng. 5:10–14).45
What, then, should one make of this text? First, it is not an endorse-
ment of a reigning Judean king. Rather, it expresses the hope that a
future David would see the exiles return, at which time he would “stand
and feed his flock in the strength of Y HWH, in the majesty of the name of
YHWH his God” (v. 3 [Eng. v. 4]). The passage ends (5:4a) with a curi-
ous and maybe curiously short phrase: Mwl#$ hz hyhw (literally, “and this
shall be peace”). One could understand the phrase to mean that the state
of affairs for the remnant would constitute peace. NRSV, however, trans-
lates it “and he shall be the one of peace.” Taken that way, the phrase
might mean that having all God’s people living securely under the new
David would be the way to have peace. In either case, Mic 5:1–4a (Eng.
5:2–5a) takes its place at the end of a lengthy redactional piece culminat-
ing in the restitution of the Davidic monarchy.
Following Mic 4:9–5:4a (Eng. 5:5a) comes a passage predicting that
God would protect God’s people against the Assyrians (5:4b–5 [Eng.
5:5b–6]). It opens and closes with the hypothetical proposition that the
Assyrians will again attempt to invade Judah. In between, the passage
speaks of seven “shepherds” and eight “princes” of Judah, who would
protect the people from the Assyrians. At first glance the mention of the
Assyrians might seem to secure for the passage a date before 605, unless
one wishes to stipulate that “Assyria” is a surrogate for “Babylon”
(mentioned redactionally in 4:10ba). The problem is, though, that 5:4b–5
(Eng. 5:5b–6), especially if combined with 5:6–8 [Eng. 5:7–9], reads
much more like 4:11–13 than anything else in Micah. Hence, 5:4b–5
should be read as a passage from the Persian period, whose author
(unlike the redactor of the Four) specified Assyria as the enemy, just
as Micah would have. By implication, this passage too follows the
45. Albertz, “Exile as Purification,” 235.

“now–then” pattern: now (putatively in Micah’s time) the Assyrians are

besieging us, but then—that is, if they (or anyone else!) should try it in
the future—our own shepherd-rulers would defeat them. These verses
likewise probably arise from the pro-Davidic redactor, as do 5:6–8 (Eng.
5:7–9), which continue the theme of the remnant’s victory over its
oppressors.
One last passage needs mentioning (Mic 4:1–5), because it seems to
tie Micah to Zechariah. It is well known that Mic 4:1–3 reads like Isa
2:2–4. The attempt to determine who copied from whom is likewise well
known, and need not be reviewed here. What is important for this essay
is the observation that Isa 2:5 is rather similar to the separated verse Mic
4:5, in particular the reference to walking in the light/name of Y HWH.
Micah 4:4, however, interrupts the connection between Mic 4:3, 5 // Isa
2:4, 5 with a paraphrase of Zech 3:10, part of the addition to Zech 3
concerning the “Branch.”46 It would appear, therefore, that Micah bears
evidence of a redactional hand familiar with the hopes for the king in
Haggai and Zech 1–8, though Mic 4:4 does not use the word “king.”
What is more, Zech 3:8 and 10 seem to derive from a hand later than the
author of the rest of Zechariah, regardless of whether that chapter
belonged in the original series of visions between Zech 1:7 and 6:8. 47
Micah 4:1–5, however, is quite at variance from the anticipation of
daughter Zion’s “beating to pieces” many peoples found in 4:13, which
was ascribed to the pro-Davidic recension above. These verses seem to
echo the “Zion tradition” discussed by J. J. M. Roberts, which tradition
he thinks developed during the Davidic–Solomonic period. 48 He notes
but does not advocate the possibility that the element of an attack on
46. To be sure, several of the terms in Mic 4:4 occur also in Isaiah, possibly sug-
gesting that Isaiah, not Zech 3:10, might have been the source for v. 4. In response
one should note that in the MT only Mic 4:4, Zech 3:10, and 1 Kgs 5:5 (Eng. 4:25)
speak of persons being “under a/his vine and under a/his fig tree.” 1 Kgs 5:5 uses the
image in describing idyllic conditions under King Solomon, while Mic 4:4 and Zech
3:10 use the image in speaking of a new idyllic setting under a future king. The
connection between Mic 4:4 and Zech 3:10 seems likely.
47. I agree (Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 40–42) with the large number
of scholars that think there were originally only seven visions. For a defense of that
view, see Klaus Seybold, Bilder zum Tempelbau: Die Visionen des Propheten
Sacharja (SBS 70; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974), 57, 109; and Meyers
and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, liii–lx.
48. J. J. M. Roberts, “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition,” JBL 92 (1973):
339–44. He includes among those texts Isa 14:32; 17:12–14; 18:1–6; 29:1–8; 31:4–
9; Ezek 38–39; Joel 4:9–21; Zech 12:1–9; 14:3, 12–15; Pss 46:7–12 (Eng. 46:6–11);
and 76:4–10.
Jerusalem itself may represent a later development of the motif, and that
suggestion seems preferable, at least in the Mican collection. Micah 4:1–
5, therefore, seems to represent a blending of the Zion tradition (vv. 1–3,
5) with a specific hope for the “Branch,” the new David (v. 4). The idea
of Zion and its king obviously form a single tradition at one level, but the
addition of v. 4 to 1–3, 5 seems to (re-) introduce the connection in a text
whose parallel (Isa 2:2–5) speaks only of God’s work on behalf of Zion.
In other words, the redactor responsible for the pro-Davidic recension of
Micah employed Zion verses known also in Isa 2:2–5, tying them to his
pro-Davidic perspective by means of Mic 4:4, even though 4:3 did not
square very well with his own hopes as expressed in 4:13. This line of
reasoning also allows one to date the pro-Davidic recension of the Four
ca. 500, probably shortly after the promulgation of Haggai–Zech 1–8 and
perhaps the disappearance (at least from Haggai–Zech 1–8) of Zerub-
babel, but while hope for the restitution was alive and well.
If this line of thinking is correct, it is possible now to revisit 4:6–8
also. Verses 6 and 7 celebrate the coming of the new day to Jerusalem.
God will assemble the lame, that is, gather those God had driven into
exile, and reign over them in Jerusalem. The logic of the verse clearly
implies the return of the exiles to the city. Verse 8 then addresses Jerusa-
lem in an apostrophe. It reads:
And as for you [m.], O tower of the flock,
Ophel [acropolis] of the daughter Zion,
To you [m.] it [f.] will come,
The former dominion will come
Sovereignty to the daughter Zion.
The word translated sovereignty (tklmm) derives from the noun for king
(Klm), so it is tempting to translate “kingship to the daughter Zion.” That
form of address resembles God’s addressing the daughter Zion in Zech
9:9–10, suggesting a connection between Zech 9:1–10 and the pro-
Davidic redactor. This possible connection will be investigated further in
connection with Section 3 of the present study.
In sum, it appears that a substantial section of Micah, viz., most of
Mic. 4:1–5:8 (Eng. 5:9) (excluding 4:9–10), and probably 2:12–13 as
well, takes its place alongside Hos 3:5ab + 1:7, 11 and Amos 9:11–15 in
anticipating a renewed Davidic dynasty. It is these texts, therefore, that
stand closest in thinking about the king to Haggai and Zechariah, and
Mic 4:4 allows one to connect the pro-Davidic recension of the Four to
the last editorial revision of Zech 3.
f. The King in Zephaniah and the Book of the Four

Like the other collections in the Book of the Four, Zephaniah opens with
a superscription by the redactor of the Four, situating the prophet during
the reign of a Judean king. This time, however, the king was the seventh-
century figure Josiah, who received an endorsement in a saying attributed
to Jeremiah (22:15b–16). No such endorsement appears in Zephaniah,
whose condemnation of Jerusalem and Judah (along with all their
neighbors) is sometimes explained by suggesting that Zephaniah flour-
ished before the reforms of Josiah went into effect. Still, the genealogy
runs back from Josiah to Hezekiah, a line which has drawn considerable
scholarly attention. One such scholar, Nogalski, points out that the refer-
ence to Hezekiah (1) links Zephaniah to Micah and (2) echoes the posi-
tive appraisal of Hezekiah49 and Josiah in 2 Kings. It was the work of
these two kings that staved off the fate of Samaria. 50 Implicitly, perhaps,
the editor—clearly later than Zephaniah—criticized the monarchs sub-
sequent to Josiah.
Regardless, the fact remains that the collection named for Zephaniah
uses the word “king” only two other times. The first is 1:8, where Zeph-
aniah has YHWH threaten to punish “the officials, the king’s sons, and all
who dress in foreign attire.” Here the critique of the sons might be a
circumlocution for a criticism of the king himself. Even if one deduces
from the opening verses, which proclaim a hyperbolic universal judg-
ment, that the king would suffer, one must also recognize that the
prophet did not bother to say so. The second passage is 3:15, which calls
YHWH the “king of Israel” and belongs to a passage presupposing the
Exile (see 3:20) and predicting the restoration of Jerusalem. It does not
mention a human king. Instead, for the author of Zeph 3:15, kingly
power resides in YHWH.
Where does this passage fit in the development of the Twelve? Albertz
is helpful once more in showing that Zeph 3:1–13 concluded the Book of
the Four, and that 3:14–20 sounds like Deutero-Isaiah, and appears to
anticipate the return of the exiles (3:20). 51 Hence, it is probably safe to
ascribe it to the late exilic or beginning of the Persian period. Its message
is that the purging is over; God is king in their midst (v. 15), which
49. This statement assumes, of course, that King Hezekiah is the person in view
here, an assumption not all scholars are willing to make, though it is certainly
possible and Nogalski’s argument makes it even more viable.
50. Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 86–87, 185–85; see 2 Kgs 20:12–19 for
Hezekiah and 2 Kgs 23:26–29 for Josiah.
51. Albertz, Die Exilszeit, 296–301, and “Exile as Purification,” 241–42.
sounds like a step beyond Mic 2:12–13. Elements in 3:18–20 seem also
to pave the way to Haggai, as Nogalski argues. 52 Two promises from
v. 20 seem particularly relevant in that connection, viz., God would bring
home the outcast and restore the fortunes of the people before their very
eyes. Given the use of Zion in Mic 4:1–5, with the allusion to Zech 3:10
in v. 4, one may conclude that the redactor of the pro-Davidic recension
is a possible candidate as the author of Zeph 3:14–20, even though the
passage does not mention the king. At any rate, these verses breathe the
same air of optimism that permeates Haggai and Zech 1–8.
g. The King in the Thinking of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah:

Summary
What has become clear in this survey is that in the earliest versions of the
messages of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah the king plays a rela-
tively small role. In the message of Hosea himself, God established the
northern monarchy in divine anger, and God ended it, at least temporar-
ily (Hos 13:11), as a consequence of divine wrath. In the words of Amos
one finds an implied criticism of David in the remark about the wealthy
sitting around composing songs as David had (6:5). More telling is that
the king was otherwise simply off stage. Even in the passage where he
orders the banning of Amos from royal sanctuaries (7:10–17), he puts in
no appearance. The reader has to infer that the king banned Amos. Micah
rarely mentions the king, and where he does (4:9–10ba) the mood seems
sarcastic. Zephaniah mentions the king’s sons (a circumlocution for the
king himself?), though only in condemnation (1:8).
h. The King in the Thinking of the Redactor of the Four

The redactor of the Four seems not to have thought much more highly of
the king than did Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah. The redactor’s
voice breaks through in Amos 9:7–10, which portrays the purification of
Israel, but says nothing of a new king. It also breaks through in Mic
4:10bb, which notes that Babylon was the destination of those leaving
Jerusalem, and in 6:16, which condemns Judah for repeating the sins of
the northern kingdom in that they “kept the statutes of Omri, and all the
deeds of Ahab, and they had walked in all their counsels” (Mic 6:16). In
52. James D. Nogalski (“Zephaniah 3: A Redactional Text for a Developing

Corpus,” in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift; Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu
seinem 65. Geburtstag [ed. Richard G. Kratz, Thomas Krüger, and Konrad Schmid;
BZAW 300; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000], 218) concludes that Zeph 3:20 demonstrates
thematic links to Joel and makes a transition to Haggai.
Zeph 3:2–3 one reads condemnations of officials, judges, prophets, and

priests, but not kings. Perhaps the king was included implicitly, but he
was not mentioned explicitly.53
i. The King in the Pro-Davidic Recension of the Four

At some point (ca. 500?), the Book of the Four appears to have under-
gone a pro-Davidic recension, which resulted in the pro-Davidic com-
ment in Hos 3:5ab and sentiments in 1:7, 11, the prediction of the
restitution of the Davidic dynasty in Amos 9:11–15, the paraphrase of a
verse speaking of the Branch (Zech 3:10) in Mic 4:4, and the picture of
the new David in Mic 5:1–4a (Eng. 5:2–5a). In fact, it appears that a
substantial section of Mic 4:1–:8 (Eng. 5:9) anticipates a renewed
Davidic dynasty. Probably 2:12–13 derived from this hand too; it speaks
of YHWH as the real king of Judah. This passage makes clear that any
royal authority would be exercised in subservience to God. Similarly,
and finally, Zeph 3:14–20—with its emphasis on the kingship of
YHWH—might also derive from the pro-Davidic redactor since both
YHWH’s kingship and David’s rulership belong to the royal theology. In
its canonical context, moreover, it prepares the reader for the new day in
Judah announced in the next collection by Haggai and Zech 1–8.
3. The King in the Rest of the Book of the Twelve

a. The King in Habakkuk
Now the question becomes whether there are other texts belonging to the
pro-Davidic recension. How far does it extend in the rest of the Twelve?
I have already noted that the king does not appear in most of the
remaining collections. One exception, however, is the mention of the
king in Habakkuk. In the opening two chapters, he complains to God that
the Chaldeans scoff at kings and make sport of rulers (1:10), but he says
nothing specific about Judah’s kings. The poem in 3:3–15 is more ger-
mane. Nogalski notes that it celebrates God’s having come in fury in the
past to save God’s people and God’s “anointed” (3:13). 54 That poem has
two stanzas (3:3–7, 8–15), each of which contains a reference to God’s
defeat of “the waters” (3:8, 15). The poem also begins (3:3) with a refer-
ence to God’s coming from the area of Sinai, and concludes (3:15) with
language of God’s trampling the sea with God’s horses. This last verse
53. The redactor of the Four seems to have retouched Hosea fairly lightly (so
Albertz, “Exile as Purification,” 246–50).
54. James D. Nogalski, Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve (BZAW
218; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), 160–73.
echoes the song of deliverance in Exod 15, which employs the line
“horse and rider he has thrown into the sea” (Exod 15:1, 21). Thus, the
entire poem is framed by references to the exodus, couched in mythic
language. Nogalski also emphasizes the cultic connections of Hab 3,
made quite clear by (among other things) its threefold use of the word
selah found elsewhere only in the Psalter.55 So the poem, possibly from
the temple itself, celebrates God’s customary saving events.
It would appear that Hab 3:12–14 does not have just one event in
view, but several in which God had acted in the past to rescue God’s
people/anointed. At issue is whether the terms “people” and “anointed”
have the same or different referents. Help is available from the phrase
“the head of the wicked house” that follows the word “anointed.” That
phrase appears to refer to foreign heads of government, presumably the
governments in view in 3:12. If so, and if the usage is parallel in v. 13a,
the “anointed” one was the Davidic king or a series of kings. If so, the
emphasis in the hymn was on the fidelity of God in the past to rescue
God’s king and people. The most one can say, then, is that Hab 3:13a
endorses the Davidic monarchy, though not any particular king. The
verse seems, however, to be part of a larger hymn taken over by the
redactor of Nahum–Habakkuk when those collections were edited
together.56 It resembles in some ways the thinking that emerged in Zech
9:1–10 (see more below), but cannot be ascribed either to that redactor or
to the redactor of the pro-Davidic recension. At a minimum, however, it
is another witness to the royal tradition drawn into the Twelve at the
stage of a precursor.
b. The King in Zechariah 9:1–10

This study has shown that the pro-Davidic recension of the Four was
subsequent to and not part of the basic editing of the Four. When might
that recension have occurred? Hope for a new David must have lingered
with some Judeans, particularly (though not necessarily exclusively) with
those in exile in Babylon. Albertz notes that the release from prison of
Jehoiachin in exile (2 Kgs 25:27–30) would have encouraged the exiles
themselves, because it meant that if they were ever permitted to return
home, their king was free to go too. 57 In the Twelve, hope for Zerub-
babel, the Davidide assigned the task of rebuilding the royal temple in
Jerusalem, stirred the hopes of both Haggai and Zechariah. Their hopes
55. Ibid., 154–58.

56. Duane A. Christensen, “The Book of the Twelve: A History of Interpreta-
tion,” in Watts and House, eds., Forming Prophetic Literature, 154–58.
57. Albertz, Die Exilszeit, 95.
are closest in the Twelve to the hopes of the pro-Davidic redactor. It

stands to reason, therefore, that the pro-Davidic redaction took place in
dialogue with Haggai–Zech 1–8, perhaps when the Book of the Four was
attached to Haggai–Zech 1–8 (plus Malachi?).
If so, the Four was not the only precursor to the Twelve that was
developing. Mention has already been made in connection with Hab 3
that Nahum–Habakkuk seems to have been another precursor. So also
was the Haggai–Zech 1–8 corpus, with its endorsement of Zerubbabel. I
suggest that it quickly experienced further growth in Zech 9:1–10. The
prophets Haggai and Zechariah seem to have expected the monarchy to
resume under Zerubbabel, a hope/expectation that proved futile. Hope,
however, dies hard, and sooner or later further hope for a renewed
monarchy accrued to Zech 1–8 in the traditions that now form Zech 9:1–
10. It opens with a proclamation of the punishing work of the hand of
YHWH upon a series of cities in and around Judah. 58 It continues with a
prediction of the return of the king to Jerusalem (vv. 9–10). That king
would be triumphant but humble, and would cut off the chariot from
Ephraim and the war horse from Jerusalem. To be sure, nothing in those
verses names the house of David, but Zech 12:7, 8, 10, 12, and 13:1 all
do.59 It is probably a fair inference that 9:9–10 had the Davidic house in
view as well. That those verses derived from the pro-Davidic redactor of
the Four must remain open, though it would appear to be a distinct
possibility. In view of the apparent connection between Mic 4:1–5, 6–8
and these verses, the conclusion seems even more likely. Anyway, this
development perhaps took place around the time the Book of the Four
and Haggai–Zech 1–8 (+ Malachi?) were joined, whether ca. 500 or
later.
c. Reassessing Hopes for the King in Zechariah 9–14

These hopes, however, underwent a significant reassessment in Zech 9–
14 as it now stands. This collection, which probably dates from between
the career of Nehemiah and 400 B.C.E.,60 repeats many of the hopes asso-
ciated with the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, including the
58. It has sometimes been claimed that these cities delineate the path taken by
Alexander as he passed through Judah en route to Egypt. This suggestion does not
stand up to comparison with what is known of Alexander’s itinerary. See Pierre
Jouguet, Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World (Chicago: Ares, 1985), 21–
31; cf. Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 95–96.
59. In addition, Zech 14:5 mentions the pre-exilic King Uzziah of Judah.
60. Paul L. Redditt, “Nehemiah’s First Mission and the Date of Zechariah 9–14,”
CBQ 56 (1994): 664–78.
restoration of the land of Canaan to Israel (Zech 9:1–8; cf. Isa 44:24–28;
Jer 30:18–20; 31:4–6; 32; Ezek 36:7), the restitution of the monarchy
(Zech 9:9–10; cf. Isa 55:3–5; Jer 30:9, 21; Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24–25),
the return of all the exiles (Zech 9:11–12; 10:8–12; cf. Isa 43:1–7; Jer
30:10–11; 31:21–22; Ezek 36:8–12), the overthrow of foreign enemies
(Zech 9:13–16; cf. Isa 45:1–4; 47:1–15; Jer 30:11a; chs. 50–51; Ezek
38–39), and the reunion of northern and southern Israel (Zech 10:6–7; cf.
Jer 31:15–20, 27–30; Ezek 37:15–27).
Amazingly, Zech 9–14, as it now stands, challenges many of these
hopes. As noted two paragraphs earlier, it opened utilizing verses expres-
sing hope for a new king, “triumphant and victorious,” who would yet be
“humble” (9:9–10). The redactor of Zech 9–14 seems to have thought the
Davidides of his time did not live up to that billing. Before the monarchy
could be restored, the royal family would have to repent and be cleansed
(12:10–13:1). The same held true for the priests (12:13–14) and the
prophets (13:3–6). Exiles might return, but they could be “scattered”
again (13:7–9). God had overthrown the Babylonians, but other enemies
would attack in the future (12:1–6; 14:1–5, 12). The north and the south
would not reunite (11:7–11), at least not as long as the current leaders
(the shepherds of 10:1–3a; 11:4–17; 13:7–9) remained in control and
unrepentant.
The redactor paid particular attention to the “house of David.” One of
his inherited traditions ran as follows: “On that day Y HWH will shield the
inhabitants of Jerusalem so that those among them that stumble on that
day will be like David; and the house of David will be like God, like the
messenger [or angel] of God before them” (12:8). In other words, the
king would lead the army of Judah, which would be invincible. The
redactor was not so sure. He offered the following limitations: (1) the
glory of the house of David and of Jerusalem would not outshine Judah
(12:7); (2) the house of David had “pierced” someone, a deed for which
they would one day mourn (12:10). Indeed, the whole royal family, as
well as the houses of Nathan and Levi, plus the Shimeites and other
families needed to mourn (12:11–14) and be cleansed (13:1).
The author apparently had struggled to understand why the glorious
future the prophets had predicted did not come to fruition and concluded
that the fault lay with the leadership in Jerusalem, not with God and not
even primarily with the populace as a whole. The “true” Israel that would
reap the promises of God was not limited to those who returned from
exile or who wielded power, perhaps because those people were thought
to have “sold out” to the Persians. In contrast with the Zadokite view
articulated by Ezek 40–43 and intimated in Second Zechariah’s inherited
traditions in which Jerusalem stood as the holiest place in Judah (12:5;

14:8, 10), the redactor predicts that the holiness of the temple would
extend throughout Judah (cf. 12:7; 14:21). Furthermore, “in that day” all
nations would come to Jerusalem to worship God—or else! 61
This view of the house of David is not incompatible with messianic
expectations.62 It merely calls for a purified monarchy, as had other
voices before him. It does, however, make manifest a level of disen-
chantment with the hopes such as those expressed in the pro-Davidic
recension of the Four, Haggai–Zech 1–8, and Zech 9:1–10.
4. Conclusion
This essay has used the discussion of the king in Haggai–Zech 1–8 as a
secure anchor for pro-Davidic thinking in the Twelve. Both prophets saw
Zerubbabel as the king for the imminent time of salvation, but thought
YHWH alone would usher it in.63 Then this essay investigated the pres-
entation of kings and monarchy in Hosea, Amos, Micah, Habakkuk,
Zephaniah, Haggai, Zech 1–8, and Zech 9–14. It has argued (1) that
Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah, individually and as a Book of the
Four (in Mic 4:10bb and 6:16 at least64), typically viewed individual
kings negatively, anticipating their purging; (2) that several passages
(Hos 3:5ab + 1:7 and 11, Amos 9:11–15, most of Mic 4–5 [though not
4:9–10] and possibly 2:12–13, perhaps Zeph 3:14–20—with its emphasis
on the kingship of YHWH—and possibly Zech 9:1–10) may be seen as
additions bringing about an early Persian-period “pro-Davidic recension”
of the developing Book of the Twelve in sympathy with Hag 2:20–23 and
Zech 4:6b–10a, 6:12; and (3) that the redactor of Zech 9–14 tempers that
optimism with criticism of the Davidides. What this study reveals is a
61. For a fuller discussion of this reading of Zech 9–14, see Paul L. Redditt,
“The Two Shepherds in Zechariah 11.4–17,” CBQ 55 (1993): 676–86; and idem,
Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 102–3.
62. Stephen L. Cook (“The Metamorphosis of a Shepherd: The Tradition History
of Zechariah 11.17 + 13.7–9,” CBQ 55 [1993]: 454) argues that a critique of the
Davidides is compatible with ongoing messianic expectations. That argument is
correct, but it does not change the difference in flavor between Zech 9:1–10 and the
rest of Zech 9–14.
63. Karl-Martin Beyse, Serubbabel und die Königswartungen der Popheten
Haggai und Sacharja: Eine histgorische und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung
(AzTh 48: Stuttgart: Calwer, 1972), 40.
64. As mentioned above, other contributions by this redactor include the
superscriptions to all four collections, plus Amos 9:7–10 and Zeph 3:1–13 (which do
not mention the king).
remarkably nuanced series of views of Israelite–Judean kings and the

institution of monarchy by a series of prophetic voices (including redac-
tors) in response to changing conditions and hopes, resulting in an edited
working combining the Book of the Four with Haggai–Zech 1–8 (+
Malachi?). Eventually, Zech 9–14 tempered the hope for the Davidic
king by pointing out, among other things, the need for the royal family to
repent.
In the development of this argument, the recognition that Mic 4:4
paraphrases Zech 3:10 proved to be a clue to the indebtedness of the pro-
Davidic redactor to Haggai–Zech 1–8 and to a possible date for that
recension (ca. 500?). One implication of this study is that in some ways it
reverses the usual way of thinking about the history of the hope for a
new David in the Twelve, suggesting that these redactional texts in
Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah drew upon Haggai and Zech 1–8
rather than serving as traditional sources for that hope. This is not to say
there were no earlier royal prophetic texts in the Former and Latter
Prophets on which prophets and redactors in the Persian period could
draw. This is to say, however, that these particular texts seem to draw on
Haggai and Zech 1–8, or in the case of much in Zech 11–13, to modify
them.
A second implication of this study is that it raises the issue of the place
of the pro-Davidic recension in terms of the broader Persian (and
Greek?) period. Willem A. M. Beuken argued that Haggai–Zech 1–8
underwent a common redaction that bears signs of a hand that in terms of
themes, diction, and literary technique point toward the Chronicler. 65 The
Chronicler, however, was not just one person, but a group. Besides, there
are themes in Haggai that sound Deuteronomistic to Beuken, so he
concludes that the “Chronistic” group responsible for Haggai–Zech 1–8
was not the same as the one responsible for 1 and 2 Chronicles. 66 Haggai,
the spokesperson for those left behind in 597/586, and perhaps not taken
65. Willem A. M. Beuken, Haggai—Sacharja1–8: Studien zur Überlieferungs-

geschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 10;
Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967), 19, 35.
66. Rex A. Mason (“Some Echoes of the Preaching in the Second Temple:
Traditional Elements in Zechariah 1–8,” ZAW 96 [1984]: 235) finds these marks in
both Chronicles and Zech 1–8: the exposition of an agreed upon, authoritative
“text”; a reiteration of accepted theological teaching combined with an urgent call
for a response from hearers; similar stylistic devices (including rhetorical questions,
plays on words, and illustrations); and marked parallels in ideas and vocabulary. He
disagrees with respect to Haggai, however, concluding that Haggai agrees more with
Deuteronomistic usage (idem, “The Purpose of the ‘Editorial Framework’ of the
Book of Haggai,” VT 27 [1977]: 415–16).
into exile himself (so Beuken), flourished in 520 or so, and his hopes for
Zerubbabel expressed in 2:21b–23 fed into the larger edited work.
Beuken further concludes that the prophet Zechariah himself had little
interest in the temple or Joshua, though Zech 3 (an addition) displays
both.67
This line of argument is tenuous, but important to my topic. It would
not take long for interest in Zerubbabel to subside given the apparent
brevity of his time in the spotlight, so I posit a date of ca. 500 for the
recension, that is, about as early a date as seems likely. The ambiguity of
Zech 3:8, 10, with their reference to the Branch or Shoot, may reflect the
ambiguity of the period or else be a consequence of them. One might
suppose that those verses originally did have Zerubbabel in view, but
their use of a title instead of a name allowed them to continue service
beyond the late sixth century in a more general expectation of a Davidic
monarch.
67. Beuken, Haggai—Sacharja 1–8, 333.

LIFE WRITING IN EZEKIEL AND FIRST ZECHARIAH
D. Nathan Phinney
This study takes as its point of departure the fact that the books of
Ezekiel and First Zechariah make extensive use of the first-person form,
giving these books the marked characteristics of autobiography. Recog-
nizing this general formal similarity between the two books, one can
identify three types of autobiography shared by these two books: history-
like autobiography, visionary autobiography, and introductory auto-
biography. The study then goes on to explore more closely some of the
visionary autobiography found in Zech 2:1–3:10 and, comparing it with
the visionary autobiography in Ezekiel, concludes that Zechariah is care-
fully experimenting with autobiographical traditions he knows, particu-
larly with those found in Ezekiel. When this fact is considered together
with certain features of the social and historical situations of these two
prophets, it indicates that Zechariah, at least in part, consciously bor-
rowed and shaped techniques from Ezekiel and did so perhaps because
he saw himself as a counterpart to Ezekiel’s ministry. Moreover, the use
of autobiography by these two prophets attests to a unique concept of the
self and the role of the individual in Israelite society. In the midst of a
literature that tended to obscure the self, in Ezekiel and First Zechariah
we have brief examples of texts that reveal it, even if just slightly.
Perhaps this rise of the self is associated with the challenges of the exile
and return.
1. Autobiography in the Ancient World?

That it is even proper to speak of the existence of something called auto-
biography in the ancient world is far from axiomatic. However, since I
will be employing the term throughout this essay, I am compelled to offer
a brief rationale as to why it (or some similar term) may be appropriate
for the study of ancient literature and what may be gained by its use.
According to Smith and Watson, “the term autobiography was first
coined in the preface to a collection of poems by the eighteenth-century
1
English working-class writer Ann Yearsley.”1 The word itself, however,

and its analogue, self-biography, began to appear in variant forms and
places throughout the final decades of the 1700s, “with no sign that one
use influenced the other.”2 The first book ever to claim for itself the title
“autobiography” was The Autobiography of a Dissenting Minister, pub-
lished in 1834 by W. P. Scargill.3 In many ways, it might be simplest to
identify Scargill’s book as the true beginning of autobiography, and to
classify as autobiography only those books with that particular term in
their title. Few, however, would be so exclusive. As a result, according to
Olney, in scholarly discussion the identification of the “first autobiogra-
phy” seems to depend completely “on the rigor and twist of definition we
give to (the word) autobiography.”4
An additional problem with the term autobiography is related to the
fact that it arose in connection with a particular type of writing that was
being produced “at a particular historical juncture,” namely, the “early
modern period in the West with its concept of the self-interested individ-
ual intent on assessing the status of the soul or the meaning of public
achievement.”5 This means that there is a constant tendency to restrict the
application of this label to works that come from this period and reflect
the view of the self consonant with it. But, as Smith and Watson note,
“the relatively recent coinage of the term does not mean that the practice
of self-referential writing began only at the end of the 18th century.” 6
Moreover, as self-referential writing has developed in the later twentieth
and early twenty-first centuries, new terms have been coined.7
1. Sidonie Smith and Julia Watson, Reading Autobiography: A Guide for Inter-
preting Life Narratives (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001), 2.
2. Robert Folkenflick, “Introduction: The Institution of Autobiography,” in The
Culture of Autobiography: Constructions of Self-Representation (ed. Robert Folken-
flick; Irvine Studies in the Humanities; Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press,
1993), 5.
3. James Olney, “Autobiography and the Cultural Moment: A Thematic, Histori-
cal, and Bibliographical Introduction,” in Autobiography: Essays Theoretical and
Critical (ed. James Olney; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), 5. If we are
willing to be more flexible and use a German term, we can push the first self-declared
autobiography back to 1796, when a series of “autobiographies” under the title Selbst-
biographien berühmter Männer by Seybold was published. See Hans Rudolf Velten,
Das selbst geschriebene Leben: eine Studie zur deutschen Autobiographie im 16.
Jahrhundert (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, 1995), 7.
4. Olney, “Autobiography and the Cultural Moment,” 6.
5. Smith and Watson, Reading Autobiography, 2.
6. Ibid.
1
7. Ibid.
PHINNEY Life Writing in Ezekiel and First Zechariah 85
Autobiographical writing can encompass a variety of forms. In mod-

ern times, these include memoir, diary, journal, and letters. Autobio-
graphical writing abounded in the ancient world as well. Examples
include Egyptian tomb inscriptions written in the first person, which
recount the deeds and character of their authors, and royal inscriptions
detailing the achievements and conquests of kings. Tremper Longman
has identified a fictional Akkadian autobiographical form which contains
a historical as well as a didactic element.8 Specific biblical forms include
the prophetic vision account, the individual lament and individual hymn
of praise, and a special type of autobiographical narrative found in wis-
dom literature. A lengthier ancient example of autobiographical narrative
is the Egyptian Report of Wenamun.9
Broadly speaking, there are two competing ways in which autobiogra-
phy is defined. The standard approach considers such literature from the
standpoint of form or genre, with a clear emphasis on the bios (content
and form) which is very carefully defined. Employing this approach,
Philippe LeJeune defines autobiography as “a retrospective account in
prose which a real person makes of his own existence, accenting his
individual life, in particular the history of his personality.” 10 LeJeune
goes on to discuss these criteria in more detail, and then lists those types
of literary works which would not, under the genre-oriented definition,
be regarded as autobiography, including memoirs, biography, autobio-
graphical poems and personal journals. The point of the delineation is to
assert that the mere presence of first-person speech is not, by itself, an
adequate criterion to justify the classification of a work as an autobiogra-
phy. LeJeune does allow for some flexibility, realizing that any definition
of a genre is an ideal one, but in general he maintains a rigid stance. 11
Perhaps because of its rigidity, LeJeune’s definition, as helpful as it is,
does not seem to represent the direction which most scholarship has
chosen to take regarding autobiography. Olney notes that instead schol-
ars have transferred their focus from the bios to the autos.12 That is, they
8. Tremper Longman, III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and

Comparative Study (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1991).
9. Hans Goedicke, The Report of Wenamun (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1975).
10. Philippe LeJeune, “Le pacte autobiographique,” Poetique 14 (1973): 138.
11. As can be seen, this kind of method has the advantage of being able to limit
and very accurately describe autobiography, in a sense, placing it under a microscope
for more detailed analysis. However, one can see that this kind of approach might also
miss important works that a broader definition would include. Indeed, under this defi-
nition, it is certain that the book of Ezekiel could in no way be considered auto-
biography.
1
12. Olney, “Autobiography and the Cultural Moment,” 17–18.
have emphasized the “self” in autobiography, an emphasis that has

resulted in an ability to be very free in their understanding of bios.13
Autobiography now becomes any literature discussing any aspect of the
life of the self (internal or external) which is written from that self's
perspective—nearly any first-person speech.14 Olney notes that this move
toward the autos is also responsible for the proliferation of critical work
on autobiography.15
The upshot of this focus on the autos is that contemporary scholars of
autobiography tend to prefer a different set of terms to designate the
object of their study, terms that allow for the great diversity that can be
found in self-referential writing. Two such current terms are life writing
and life narrative, and while there is still some debate as to the distinc-
tions between these terms, they both indicate any of a great “variety of
types of self-referential writing.”16 Life narrative, then, as defined by
Smith and Watson, is “a set of ever-shifting self-referential practices that
engage the past in order to reflect on identity in the present.” 17 It is the
“historically situated practice of self-representation.”18 This definition fits
at least some of the Old Testament prophetic material quite well, and in
what follows the term life writing will replace the term autobiography.
2. Zechariah and Ezekiel as Life Writing

Beyond the obvious fact that both are written largely in the first person,
what enables us to identify First Zechariah and Ezekiel as examples of
life writing? While we must acknowledge that the first person form is a
13. Ibid, 19. They could include “the entire life of the individual up to the
moment of writing, the psychic configuration of the individual at the moment of
writing or the whole history of a people living in this individual autobiographer”
(e.g. “Hispanic autobiography”), or a host of others.
14. Like the genre-critical definition, this approach is not without its problems,
one of which is this tendency for the discussion truly to leave the realm of literature.
Perhaps the greatest problem, however, is that under a definition that emphasizes the
autos, nearly every written work can be considered autobiography, for, as Olney
notes, “behind every work of literature there is an ‘I’ informing the whole and
making its presence felt at every critical part” (ibid., 21).
15. Ibid., 7.
17. Ibid., 2.
18. Ibid., 14. An additional term that may prove more appropriate for ancient
material is the term ego document. This infrequently used term, coined by Jacob
Presser, a twentieth-century Dutch historian, tends to be restricted to informal,
personal documents (letters, diaries, etc.) written in the first person that reveal the
personal thoughts and feelings of the author.
1
necessary condition for life writing, it is not a sufficient one. The book of
Deuteronomy is written largely as a first person account, yet very few
today would suggest that it is best described as Moses’ own life writing.
The definition above requires that life writing be self-representative; and
most agree today that the figure of Moses in Deuteronomy is not a self-
representation, but is a portrayal of Moses created by another author.
Thus the question of authorship becomes very important in determining
whether a text should be considered an example of life writing. In
general we know that a particular text is life writing when we have some
sort of access to the author—the “I” of the text—outside the text. We
accept Descartes’ Confessions as autobiographical in part because we
know something about Descartes from other sources and hence believe
that he actually wrote the Confessions and that they are self-representa-
tive. Of course, things are much more difficult with first-person material
in the Old Testament. Purely external data (references from completely
outside the canon) are hard to come by, and partially external data
(references from other texts within the canon) cannot always be relied
on. So, to return to the question, can we consider Ezekiel and First
Zechariah as examples of life writing?
In both cases I believe the answer is yes. Prevailing views of Ezekiel
today hold that, by and large, the book is the work of a sixth-century
prophet from a priestly family who was taken to Babylon as a part of
Nebuchadnezzar’s deportation of 597 B.C.E.19 In short, there is a growing
consensus that the majority of the book comes from the prophet himself.
While it is possible that, as Torrey argued, the book of Ezekiel is a fourth-
century pseudepigraph made to look as if it had been written in seventh-
century Israel, this is not the dominant view of the book in current
scholarship.20 Thus, given the prevailing consensus that Ezekiel is the
author of the book, given that the book seems to be about things he did
and said, and given the book’s first person form, it seems logical to
conclude that the book is in fact an example of Israelite life writing.
While the question of the unity and authorship of First Zechariah is
perhaps more debated, several scholars have made compelling cases for
Zecharian authorship and editor-ship. Perhaps the most persuasive recent
argument has been offered by Tollington.21 Meyers and Meyers also
19. Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (AB 22; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983). Even Zimmerli’s
assessment of the book includes a very large core of authentic material.
20. Charles Cutler Torrey, Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy (New
Haven: Yale University Press; London: Oxford University Press, 1930).
21. Janet E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8
(JSOTSup 150; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 25–47.
1
strongly advocate this view.22 While this is not the place to rehearse their
arguments, I find myself persuaded by them, and so the situation for
Zechariah seems to me the same as the situation for Ezekiel. Zechariah
1–8 seems to have been written by and about the late sixth-century
prophet Zechariah. It is also written in the first person. Hence, I am
persuaded that it too is an example of Israelite life writing.
3. Life Writing in Ezekiel

Elsewhere I have considered in some detail the great diversity of life
writing present in the Old Testament and have identified a variety of
types.23 Of these types, four are present in the book of Ezekiel. I call
these history-like autobiography, visionary autobiography, introductory
autobiography, and subjectivized autobiography.24 Since three of these
types also appear in Zechariah, it will be important to understand the
characteristics of each type and to have a sense of the location and
frequency of these types in Ezekiel. I define history-like autobiography
as first-person material that relates activities and behaviors of the prophet
which, to all appearances, occur in real space and time (as opposed to
within a vision). The history-like autobiography in Ezekiel divides into
three main categories. The first of these includes the “elders of Israel”
material, the brief statements in 8:1; 14:1, and 20:1 that narrate Ezekiel’s
contact with the elders. The second type of material occurs immediately
following the conclusion of certain vision accounts (3:15 and 11:25); and
the third type of material, more heterogeneous than the first two, includes
several texts which narrate Ezekiel’s activities in the external world
(24:15–27, which narrates the death of Ezekiel’s wife; 12:5–7, in which
Ezekiel executes instructions to carry out baggage for exile; and 33:21–
22, which narrates the arrival of the messenger from Jerusalem).
The second type of autobiography found in Ezekiel is visionary auto-
biography, which I define as the first-person description of a visionary
experience. The visionary autobiography includes Ezekiel’s four visions,
22. Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Trans-
lation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25B; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
1987).
23. D. Nathan Phinney, “The Prophetic Persona in the Book of Ezekiel:
Autobiography and Portrayal” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 2004), 73–104.
24. For the sake of simplicity, I have used the term autobiography to label these.
In the case of each of these labels, the term autobiography is simply a one-word way
to say “first person writing.” I do not mean to imply that this material is somehow
more restrictive than life narrative (defined above). Rather these are labels for types
of material that make up the life narrative in Zechariah and Ezekiel.
1
all of which are narrated in the first person (1:1–3:14; 8:1–11:25; 37:1–
14; chs. 40–48). Ezekiel’s visions represent a development from other
pre-exilic prophetic visions in that they are more elaborate. In them the
prophet moves about, describes what he sees, and on occasion speaks.
Because of their complexity, the visions are the most developed and
extensive examples of autobiography in the book.
The next type, introductory autobiography, appears throughout the
entirety of the book (49 occurrences), and its form is quite regular.
Though sometimes it includes additions, it usually appears as yhiy:wA
rmo)l' yla)' hwhy-rbad,: and serves specifically to introduce oracles (which
the prophet must pass on to his audience) and sign actions. Used in this
way, it bridges the gap between the first two types of autobiography. It
functions as a transition of sorts, providing a jumping off point for the
oracles which follow it. The introductory autobiography is a way for
Ezekiel to move from the human world into the realm of divine messages.
Finally, Ezekiel contains moments of subjectivity, or subjectivized
autobiography, that is, autobiographical statements which give momen-
tary insight into the prophet’s personal emotions (4:14; 9:8; 11:13; 21:5).
These examples of autobiography allow the reader to glance behind the
curtain of office or formality and give the reader insight into what the
prophet thinks and feels. In these passages the reader can hear the voice
of the prophet exclaiming or complaining to Yahweh, and in them we get
some idea of the difficulties that Ezekiel must have faced as he fulfilled
his prophetic duties. Because the book is so replete with autobiographical
types, it has as a whole the feeling of life writing.
4. Life Writing in Zechariah

The book of Zechariah contains three of the autobiographical types found
in Ezekiel: visionary autobiography, introductory autobiography, and
history-like autobiography. And First Zechariah contains such an abun-
dance of the first two that it, like Ezekiel, can be identified as an example
of Israelite life writing. In the present study, I will discuss all of the
examples of autobiography in Zechariah and describe the self-portrayal
they offer.
The lone example of history-like autobiography in the book of Zecha-
riah actually occurs in the latter half of the book, Second Zechariah, and
will be mentioned here only for the sake of completeness. It is found in
Zech 11:7–14, where the prophet narrates a sign action. The first-person
verbs here are extraordinarily dense, occurring at least once in every
verse. The prophet becomes the shepherd of a flock doomed to slaughter
(11:7) and, after difficulties with other shepherds, resigns his post (11:9)
1
and breaks his two staffs named Favor (11:10) and Unity (11:14). Again,
all of these actions are narrated in the first person. This section is similar
to Ezek 12:5–7 in which the prophet narrates the performance of a sign
act (carrying out the baggage of exile). What is intriguing about this
autobiographical passage from a literary-critical standpoint is that it is
the only occurrence of autobiography in all of Second Zechariah; the
autobiographical form is a much stronger characteristic of First Zecha-
riah.25 It seems to me that this passage could indicate a potential link
(editorial or otherwise) between Second and First Zechariah. Sweeney
suggests that this passage “may well be derived from Zechariah” him-
self.26 In addition to this lone example of history-like autobiography,
Zechariah also has several examples of introductory autobiography.
Most of these occur in the second half of ch. 6 and in the latter part of the
prose inclusio section (7:1–8:23). These chapters contain a series of
oracles punctuated by three samples of introductory autobiography. The
first of these brief autobiographical statements occurs in 6:9 where it
introduces an instruction to perform a sign act (6:10–15). The form of the
introductory autobiography found here is identical with the form which
is most common in Ezekiel (rmo)l' yla)' hwhy-rbad: yhiy:wA) but differs slightly
from other introductory autobiography in Zechariah. Zechariah is told
to collect silver and gold from certain exiles and to use it to make a
crown which he is to place on the high priest Joshua. The performance
of this sign action is never narrated. Although the current tendency is to
regard 6:9–15 as a concluding component of the “night vision” section of
Zechariah, the appearance of introductory autobiography at the begin-
ning of this portion binds it more closely to the material that follows. I
also think this introductory autobiography makes it less likely that this
material is added as a part of a redacted politico-theological treatise as
suggested by Redditt.27
In Zech 7:1 a date formula appears in conjunction with a third-person
introductory formula (“the word of Yahweh came to Zechariah”). Meyers
and Meyers note that this date formula functions as a structural marker
to set off the final section of First Zechariah, although if this is correct,
it breaks apart the otherwise cohesive grouping of the introductory
25. Where, as in Ezekiel, there is the narration of the divine instruction to

perform sign actions without the first-person report of the performance of those sign
actions.
26. Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets (2 vols.; Berit Olam; Collegeville,
Minn: Liturgical Press, 2000), 2:565–66.
27. Paul L. Redditt, “Zerubbabel, Joshua and the Night Visions of Zechariah,”
CBQ 54 (1992): 249–59.
1
autobiography.28 The second example of introductory autobiography

occurs in 7:4 to introduce the prophet’s response, presumably to the
query made by Sharezer in 7:1–3. The introductory autobiography in 7:4
differs slightly from the autobiography in 6:9. Here the prophet adds
twO)bfc; to the phrase. This formula will become the standard one used by
Zechariah in the rest of this section.
Following another third-person introductory statement in 7:8, the
introductory autobiography appears again in 8:1, and has a form identical
with the autobiography in 7:4. This introductory autobiography intro-
duces a series of seven hopeful statements about Jerusalem (in 8:2, 3, 4,
6, 7, 9, 14) all of which begin with the phrase twO)bfc; hwhy rma)f hk@o.29
The same first-person formula occurs again in 8:18, followed now by a
series of three statements introduced by the same phrase (8:19, 20, 23).
Mark Boda has suggested that this final section (chs. 7–8) of Zechariah is
a rhetorical unity and as such forms a bridge between First and Second
Zechariah.30 His view of these formulas (both first person and third
person formulas) is that they are the result of the activity of redactors and
he offers a helpful explanation for the insertion of the third person
formulas.31 The first-person formulas, although they are less intrusive, are
still somewhat clunky, breaking up the long series of messenger formulas
that extends from 8:2–23, and for this reason seem editorial. However, I
tend to think that if these formulas are editorial, they are the result of the
prophet’s own activity in compiling his book. And I suggest that the
reason for the first person formulas (editorial or no) has to do with the
dominance of the first-person vision material found earlier in the book.
The appearance of these first-person formulas binds the non-visionary
material in 6:9–8:23 together and links this material with the other first
person material in the book, making the whole text (Zech 1–8) function
as an example of ancient Israelite life writing.
How does this material portray Zechariah? If these brief statements
are examples of life writing (defined as historically-situated practices
of self-representation) how does the prophet represent himself? The
phrases are brief, but they seem to contribute two things to Zechariah’s
28. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, l–li. If the sequence of intro-
ductory formulas does seem broken by the date formula of 7:1, this fact supports the
idea of the date formula as secondary to the original first-person presentation.
29. The second statement (in 8:3) begins with a slight variant, “thus says the
LORD” (hwhy rma)f hk@o).
30. Mark J. Boda, “From Fasts to Feasts: The Literary Function of Zechariah
7–8,” CBQ 65 (2003): 390–407.
1
31. Ibid., 401.
self-portrayal. First, in these texts, Zechariah portrays himself as having

received messages from Yahweh, specifically, hwhy-rbad:. He claims that
the words he speaks and the sign act he (presumably) performed come
directly from Israel’s God.32 By employing introductory autobiography,
Zechariah represents himself as an authentic prophet. Second, the absence
of introductory autobiography in the first part of the book (Zech 1–6) and
its presence in the final two chapters portrays the prophet as subject to
dual modes of divine revelation. Apparently, Zechariah believed that his
prophetic activity should be expressed in two distinct modes, possibly
because his intermediary experiences were of two different types. Thus
the prophetic vision as divine communiqué is separated formally from
the divine word as communiqué. The absence of vision material in the
sections containing introductory autobiography (and vice versa) indicates
that Zechariah understood these two intermediary experiences (or at least
their verbal expression) to be of fundamentally different types.33 How-
ever, maintaining this strict separation between oracle and vision in
Zechariah is made more difficult by passages that look like oracles but
appear within the visions: 1:14b–17; 2:5; 2:6–13; 3:7; 3:8–10; 4:6–10;
and 5:4. Bruehler highlights these passages as an important part of his
discussion of 4:6–10, which he is ultimately able to integrate into its
visionary context, though he maintains that vv. 9–10a are an editorial
insertion.34 Texts like this that appear oracular and are original pose no
problem for the distinction I suggest. Zechariah has chosen to subordi-
nate these speeches within visions, and so omits the key first-person
“word of the LORD” formula which marks them as introductory auto-
biography.
By far the most prevalent type of autobiography present in Zechariah
is visionary autobiography. It occurs exclusively in chs. 1–6 in a series
of eight discrete units: Zech 1:8–1:17; 2:1–4 (Eng 1:18–21); 2:5–17
(Eng. 2:1–13); 3:1–10; 4:1–14; 5:1–4; 5:5–11; and 6:1–8.
32. Because of certain anomalies in its presentation, Tollington (Tradition and

Innovation, 122–24) suggests that this sign-action described in 6:9–14 may not be
merely a sign-action. Regardless, it is still introduced by an autobiographical intro-
duction and this introduction portrays the instruction to perform it as having a divine
source.
33. One anomalous piece of introductory autobiography occurs in 4:8. While all
the other introductory autobiography serves to introduce non-visionary material,
here, within a vision, the prophet uses the form of autobiography associated with the
reception of an oracle. I discuss this passage in more detail below.
34. Bart B. Bruehler, “Seeing Through the Myniy(' of Zechariah: Understanding
Zechariah 4,” CBQ 63 (2001): 430–43.
1
The first unit of visionary autobiography begins in 1:8, “I saw during

the night” (hlfy:l2aha ytiy)irF). Zechariah proceeds to describe what he sees (a
man sitting upon a red horse in a myrtle glen), and following this
description, a second first-person verb introduces a question (1:9): “And
I said (rma)owF) what are these, my lord?” Zechariah first sees and then
speaks, asking for an explanation of his vision. At first glance it seems
that Zechariah’s question is addressed to the man in the myrtles; how-
ever, a new figure, of which the reader is heretofore unaware, responds to
the question. Already in these two verses we find two significant depar-
tures from the visions of Ezekiel. First, the clarifying question, “What
are these, my lord?” (or something very much like it), which first appears
here, will actually be a familiar feature of all Zechariah’s visions. 35
Ezekiel, however, never asks for an explanation of what he sees. 36 He
rarely converses, and when he does, it is only with his guide, who usually
seems to be Yahweh.37 Ezekiel does not ask questions of his guide but
Zechariah does.
Second, Zechariah receives his reply not from the man (#$y)ihf) of
whom, the reader presumes, he asked the question, but rather from an
angel (yb@i rb'do@ha K7)fl;m@aha) of whom the reader was heretofore unaware.
This surprise appearance of the divine guide is a departure from
Ezekiel’s visions in which the reader is formally introduced to the divine
guide from the first (Ezek 8:2–3; 40:3–4). It may be that the introduction
to the divine guide has disappeared from the text or that by the time of
Zechariah, the prophet is able to borrow on the Ezekiel traditions in such
a way that no introduction is required. Regardless, where Ezekiel
carefully introduces the reader to his divine guide, Zechariah assumes
that the reader expects him.38
35. Though all of Zechariah’s visions contain some sort of clarifying question,
the form and even the speaker of the question is highly variable.
36. While Ezekiel does ask something that looks like a clarifying question in 9:8
and 11:13 (“Ah sovereign LORD, will you indeed destroy the whole remnant of
Israel?”), this question is not asked for the purpose of soliciting an explanation of
what is seen. It is a very different kind of question from Zechariah’s, “What does
this mean?”
37. But note 43:6 where, as he listens to his guide, “a voice” speaks from within
the temple. Also, Ezekiel speaks to figures other than his guide when he addresses
the bones and the wind in Ezek 37. Neither of these examples, however, is a true
conversation.
38. The question still remains whether we are to identify two figures here or one.
It seems that at the end of Zech 1:10 there are two individuals with whom Zechariah
converses: a man and an angel. However, in 1:11 these two figures merge. Appar-
ently the angel of Yahweh is standing among the myrtle trees, and it is he who
speaks to Zechariah. However, just a few verses later (1:14), the two angels split
1
The second unit of visionary autobiography begins in 2:1 (Eng. 1:18),

where two more first-person verbs appear. Zechariah raises ()#o%f)ewF) his
eyes and sees ()rE)'wF). Following the pattern of the first unit, in 2:2 (Eng.
1:19) he asks (rma)owF) a question of the angel. Then a second phase of this
unit begins in 2:3 (Eng. 1:20), where the prophet is one of the double
objects of a hiphil verb of seeing (yni)'r:y2awA): “Yahweh showed me four
smiths.” In 2:4 (Eng. 1:21) Zechariah responds to what he sees by again
saying (asking) something to the angel. Again there are several interest-
ing differences between this vision and Ezekiel’s visions. First, Ezekiel
is never the object of a Hiphil verb—he is never shown something, but
always says “I saw” ()rE)'wF). He also is never queried by his guide as to
what he sees before he describes the scene. When questions come—
“Mortal have you seen these things?”—they come only after the descrip-
tion (Ezek 8:5–6, 7–12, 16–17).
The third unit of visionary autobiography begins in 2:5 (2:1 Eng.) as
the prophet lifts his eyes and sees again here (as in 1:8) a man doing
something (here with a measuring line). In 2:6–13 (Eng. 2:2–9), he
queries the man directly (as in 1:9), witnesses a conversation between his
heavenly guide and another angel, and hears an oracle.
The fourth unit of visionary autobiography begins in 3:1 where the
prophet is shown (ynI)'r:yA2wA) Joshua, the high priest, before the heavenly
court. The individual presenting Joshua to Zechariah is unspecified, but
assuming that 3:1 is parallel to 2:2, it is most likely Yahweh. Zechariah’s
response to the vision is unique; instead of asking a question, he speaks
in 3:5 (rma)owF) directly to a group of beings identified in 3:4 as “those who
were standing before him” (wynFpfl; MydIm;(&ha). The identity of this group is
ambiguous. They could be Joshua’s attendants or some group of heav-
enly beings who are subject to Zechariah’s angel. Regardless, Zechariah
speaks unbidden directly to this group, instructing them to “put a clean
turban on his head.” In comparison with the visions of Ezekiel, this is
somewhat unusual. While Ezekiel does speak in his visions to characters
other than the divine guide, he does so only when bidden (Ezek 37).
Showing more independence than Ezekiel, Zechariah, unbidden, takes on
an active speaking role in this vision.
The fifth unit of visionary autobiography (4:1–14) is unusual in
several ways.39 First, Zechariah, is awakened by his angel “as from
sleep” (wOtnF#$%;mi), but “wakes” to find himself in a vision. Second, there is
again. Here a distinction is made between “the angel of the LORD” (hwhy K7)fl;m@ah)a and
“the angel who was speaking with me” (yb@i rb'do@ha K7)fl;m@aha).
39. In addition to the unusual sequence of autobiographical elements, there is
also the problem of the “oracular insertion” of 4:6b–10a.
1
an additional layer to the initial conversations between Zechariah and his

heavenly guide. Zechariah’s ability to see the heavenly vision seems to
be inaugurated by the angel (4:2) who asks, “What do you see?”
Zechariah responds with a first-person verb (rma)owF) and describes what he
sees: a lampstand, bowls, and two olive trees. Following the description,
the vision seems to return to the pattern of the earlier visions (1:8; 2:2, 4)
where the prophet responds to what he sees by asking a question which
leads immediately to an explanation. Here, however, for the first time in
the vision sequence, the angel answers Zechariah’s question with a
question, “Do you not know what these are?” (4:5), thus adding a layer
of conversation to this unit of autobiography. Zechariah responds (rma)owF)
to the angel’s query that he does not know what these are and the angel
explains to him by giving an oracle to Zerubbabel (4:6–10). The vision-
ary autobiography here is more conversational; the verb rma)owF appears
three times. The emphasis on Zechariah’s speech is further strengthened
in the rest of this section. As I noted earlier, in 4:8 we find an example of
introductory autobiography, usually reserved for prophetic oracles
outside a vision. Additional verbs of speaking appear in 4:11 and 4:12. In
both cases Zechariah asks (rma)owF) questions of the angel. The angel
replies in 4:13 with the same question he asks in 4:5 (“Do you not
know?”) and Zechariah again responds (rma)owF) that he does not. In this
unit of visionary autobiography, Zechariah portrays himself as a speaker
and a rather independent one. Interestingly, he also portrays himself as
someone who does not understand, apart from guidance, the secrets of
the divine realm.
Taken together, Zechariah seems to be telling his audience that what
he knows about the divine realm, he knows only because of God’s own
explanation (through the angels). In addition, by emphasizing speech in
the fifth and sixth visionary autobiographical units, Zechariah subtly de-
emphasizes his function as a visionary prophet and highlights his
abilities to present the word of Yahweh. This material, though strictly
visionary, prepares us for the oracular material that appears in 6:9–8:23.
Zechariah apparently is not just a prophet who sees visions. This sixth
unit of visionary autobiography (5:1–4) continues the conversational
style of 4:1–14, but also borrows formal elements from 2:1–3 (Eng.
1:18–21). The major change from that second passage is the addition of
the first-person verb bw%#$)fwF. The short unit contains a total of four first-
person verbs. In 5:1, there are three. Zechariah again looks up and sees a
flying scroll (h)er:)ewF ynAy(' )#o%f)ewF bw%#$)fwF). After describing to the reader what
he sees, Zechariah is asked by the angel to repeat what he sees. One first-
person verb follows (rma)owF) as Zechariah explains again what he sees, this
time in greater detail, to the angel.
1
The seventh unit of visionary autobiography begins in 5:5, and also is

unique. Here, as in 4:1, the angel takes the initiative, but takes even more
than in that fifth unit. Instead of inaugurating the vision by asking a
question as in 4:2 (“What do you see?”), the angel simply instructs
Zechariah to do what he has been doing independently in all of the other
visions: “Lift up your eyes and see.” However, the prophet here does not
offer any explanation of what he sees. He simply responds, “What is it?”
The vision enters a second phase in 5:9. Here, Zechariah, having regained
some independence, again looks up and sees ()rE)'wF ynay(' )#o%f)ewF) the two
women with wind in their wings. He again takes the initiative to ask
(rma)owF) a question about where the basket is being taken. Here the ques-
tion is directed to the angel and serves to clarify further the vision.
The final unit of visionary autobiography follows a formal pattern
identical to the second unit (2:1–4 [Eng. 1:18–21]). Thus the second and
the eighth units form a kind of inclusio, with the first unit (1:8–17) func-
tioning as an introduction.40 Beyond their form, the two visions also
correspond in that both use the number four (four horns and smiths in
the second unit; four chariots in the eighth). As in the second unit, the
final unit begins with Zechariah lifting up his eyes and seeing (bw%#$)fwF
h)er:)ewF ynay(' )#o%f)ewF) four chariots with four different sets of horses. He
responds to his vision by asking (rma)owF) the simple question, “What are
these?” (6:4; cf. 2:2), allowing the angel to explain the meaning of the
vision.
Considering these eight units together, we can see that in one sense the
visionary autobiography is quite regular. In spite of the diversity and
complexity of Zechariah’s visions themselves, there is a relatively pre-
dictable set of first-person verbs that the prophet uses to describe his
visionary experiences. Unsurprisingly, one of the frequently appearing
words is )rE)'wF/h)er:)ewF, which occurs six times throughout the vision
section in 1:8; 2:1 (Eng. 1:18), 5 (Eng. 2:1); 5:1, 9; and 6:1. In every case
but the first vision (1:8) the phrase ynay(' )#o%f)ewF appears with )rE)'wF/h)er:)ewF
(2:1 [1:18 Eng.], 5 [Eng. 2:1]; 5:1, 9; 6:1). Finally, the Hebrew verb
bw%#$)fwF is used twice (5:1 and 6:1). It functions adverbially—translated as
“again”—but retains the form of a first-person singular verb and is a
component of the visionary autobiography. The employment of these
verbs of seeing in the visionary autobiography and their frequency is not
surprising, since the focal point of the prophet’s activity is what he sees.
40. This is a variation of Meyers and Meyers’s 7 + 1 theory of the visions

(Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, lii–lvii). I am suggesting a 1 + 7 arrangement.
1
The other prominent first-person verb that appears in the vision

material is the verb rma)owF. The frequency of this verb is somewhat of a
surprise, given the fact it occurs in the context of series of visions. The
verb rma)owF occurs fifteen times in the vision material, over twice as often
as )rE)'wF/h)er:)ewF (1:9; 2:2 [Eng. 1:19], 4 [Eng. 1:21], 6 [Eng. 2:2]; 3:5; 4:2,
4, 5, 11, 12, 13; 5:2, 6, 10; 6:4). In every case where the verb of seeing
appears, a verb of speaking appears in close proximity (either before
or after). These verbs of speaking are usually associated with what the
prophet sees. In fact, nearly all of the things the prophet says are
responses to what he has seen (or been shown).
To sum up the self-portrayal that emerges from the visions, we see a
prophet who is active and engaged in the divine world presented to him,
and a prophet who frequently takes initiative, asking questions of figures
in his visions and on occasion giving orders to them (3:5). It is even
more interesting that, in spite of his many visionary experiences, Zech-
ariah emphasizes the spoken word over what he has seen. For Zechariah
it is not enough to see visions. To be meaningful these visions require
explanations which the prophet must seek out. Zechariah portrays
himself as active in seeking those explanations. Instead of waiting for the
angel to explain the import of the vision, Zechariah actively pursues an
explanation. Zechariah portrays himself as aggressively seeking out
God’s message for the people.
Although there is great similarity in the actions taken by the prophet in
the vision autobiography—as represented by the first-person verbs in this
section—the visions themselves exhibit subtle but sometimes substantial
variations. Most of Zechariah’s visions follow a standard pattern in
which the prophet sees something and then asks the angel for an explana-
tion of what he sees. A closer look at the four examples of visionary
autobiography in 2:1–3:10 will reveal an example of what should be
understood as Zechariah’s standard form of visionary autobiography, as
well as a series of variations on this standard form in which the prophet
appears to be exploring somewhat systematically the limits of the genre.
The standard pattern for Zechariah’s vision is found in 2:1 (Eng.
1:18). In 2:1 the two verbs )#o%f)ewF and )rE)'wF are used to indicate the
beginning of the vision. Zechariah then describes what he sees. After this
description the prophet asks the angel a question designed to elicit an
explanation of the vision—“What are these?”—or some simple variant.
The angel then explains the meaning of the vision to the prophet. In
addition to Zech 2:1–3:10, this standard form appears in 5:19 and 6:1.
The remaining three visions in this series depart from this form in
various ways.
1
Zechariah 2:3, though it is generally considered part of the vision

which begins in 2:1, exhibits a slight variation from this standard form. It
begins, not with the prophet seeing something, but with Yahweh
showing the prophet something. The prophet is not the subject but the
object of the verb. Zechariah 2:5 has a standard introduction (the prophet
lifts up his eyes and sees a man with a measuring line). Here, however,
the question is different. In Zech 2:6 the prophet asks a question (“Where
are you going?”) not of the angel, but of a man in his vision. In Zech 3:1
he varies both the introduction and the question, returning to the “he
showed me” formulation of 2:3 for the introduction and taking a
dramatic new direction in the question. In the vision which begins in 3:1
Zechariah asks no question at all, but instead prophesies directly to the
people of his vision, ordering them to put a clean turban on Joshua, the
high priest (Zech 3:5). Zechariah continues to play with the standard
form in the next three visions (4:1–14 is the most radical and creative
departure) before he returns to the standard form to complete the series
(5:19 and 6:1). All of these variations strike me as careful and calculated,
but they do not seem to serve a purpose in the prophetic message con-
tained within the visions. Rather, they strike me as examples of the liter-
ary creativity of an individual familiar with the autobiographical form
and familiar with the genre of prophetic visions. The diversity of the
visions is thus a sort of meta-portrayal of Zechariah. By displaying his
well-crafted diversity, Zechariah tells the reader that he is a skilled
vision-writer (or is trying to be) and that he is familiar both with the
symbolic vision literature of the early pre-exilic prophets and with the
autobiographical form of Ezekiel.
5. Zechariah and Ezekiel: Bookends on the Exilic Experience

In many ways, the historical experiences of Ezekiel and Zechariah could
not have been more different. These two prophetic figures lived in the
context of different world empires and experienced different social and
political events. Ezekiel, a victim of the Babylonian deportation of 597
B.C.E., endured the physical humiliation and trauma of exile, and also
experienced the difficulty of adjusting to life in a foreign culture. He saw
the Jerusalem temple as a doomed institution, spoke of its destruction,
and ultimately felt the theological shock of its demise. He also lived
through the removal and humiliation of the Judean king Jehoiakim and,
together with most of the exiled community, saw his replacement,
Zedekiah, as an illegitimate and ultimately doomed puppet. Zechariah,
on the other hand, active approximately eighty years later, watches the
1
Persians undo much of the Babylonians’ unpleasant work. Zechariah’s

age at the time of Cyrus’s rise and decree are difficult to determine, but
he certainly experienced the hope and jubilation that followed in the
wake of the Persian conquest and Cyrus’s tolerant policies. Instead of
experiencing humiliation and exile, he experienced the enthusiasm of
homecoming. Instead of the destruction of the temple, he witnessed and
even encouraged its rebuilding and rededication. In many ways the
historical events that these two prophets experienced could not have been
more different. Yet there are important similarities that bind them.
The most notable of these relates to the prophet’s experience of Israel
as politically subordinate to a foreign power. While Judah was frequently
at the mercy of foreign powers throughout its history, prior to 597 its
political autonomy had never been directly and clearly curtailed.
Certainly, earlier rulers made treaties that obligated them to foreign
rulers (in spite of prophetic protests), but with the Babylonian replace-
ment of Jehoiakim and later destruction of the Jerusalem palace and
temple, it became clear to all that Judah was no longer an independent
nation, nor master of its own destiny. What Ezekiel thought about this is
actually quite difficult to say. What is noteworthy is that, unlike his
prophetic predecessors and contemporaries whose oracles against the
nations include all Israel’s enemies, regardless of status, Ezekiel’s book
does not contain an oracle against Babylon. In fact, Ezekiel’s oracle
against Tyre (26:7–14), read from a Babylonian perspective, is an oracle
supporting Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar. Moreover, when Ezekiel
learns that the assault on Tyre has failed (29:17–20), he prophesies that
Egypt will be given to Nebuchadnezzar as a consolation. While neither
of these prophecies is clearly pro-Babylonian, there is in Ezekiel’s
message at least a tacit acceptance of Babylonian hegemony and of the
central place the Babylonian rulers will take in the affairs of the Jews
living both in the Babylonian homeland and in Judah. Whatever the
reason, Ezekiel does not regard the Babylonian empire as an appropriate
target for prophetic imprecation. Perhaps he was frightened for his life,
but this is far from clear. It is more likely that Ezekiel shared a view
similar to that of the Second Isaiah, saw the Babylonians as Yahweh’s
instrument, and believed that because of this the new political structure
should be appreciated and respected.
Interestingly, Zechariah also does not directly criticize the Persian
rulers or governmental structure. For Hanson, this indicates a change in
the direction of classical prophecy, which tended to challenge the status
quo of the central political authority, whether foreign or domestic, and to
cast visions of a glorious future of political independence. He maintains
1
that Zechariah and his community are a part of a “post-exilic hierocracy”

which tended toward the pragmatic.41 This group recognized the limita-
tions placed on them by the Persians and sought to develop a functional
Israelite society within those limitations. While Meyers and Meyers
agree with Hanson’s assessment of Zechariah’s group’s behavior, they
attach a much more positive value to it than Hanson does. They note that
Zechariah does not critique the Persian powers, but rather accepts that
Persian hegemony is part and parcel of what the citizens of Judah will
have to live with.42 Persian rule, in part because of its policy of religious
tolerance, was a system within which the Judahites could work. “We can
only say that the unique circumstances of the restoration period and
Persian government represent a situation that differed fundamentally
from the monarchic period in which classical prophecy had emerged.” 43
“With society lacking a king and a palace, there was no course but to
develop another society with different emphases.”44
The long and short of this is that, regardless of how one might evalu-
ate their approach, Ezekiel and Zechariah share a very similar political
reality. Both of them live during a time in which Judah’s political inde-
pendence (and apparent hope of the return of that independence) has
largely disappeared. Moreover, both of these prophets seem to recognize
that fact and to accept it as part of Yahweh’s intention for his people.
Because of this interpretation of political events, they readily integrate
Israel’s subordinate political position into their prophetic theology and
proclamation. Both of these prophets accept that dominance by a foreign
power is a new political reality within which Israelite theology will have
to work.
A second feature that binds these two prophets historically and then
literarily is their concern for the temple. Again, this concern looks very
different. Ezekiel, from a priestly family and convinced that the cult and
temple precincts have been seriously violated, witnesses (vicariously) the
temple’s destruction. As Ezek 8–11 indicates, Ezekiel thinks that this
destruction is merited and is the logical consequence of Yahweh’s depar-
ture from that building and city. As many have noted, the significance of
the temple’s destruction cannot be overestimated, and Ezekiel’s concern
41. Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Social Roots
of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975). Hanson uses the
conflict between these groups (hierocratic and visionary) to explain the origin of
apocalyptic.
42. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, xliv.
43. Ibid., xliii.
1
44. Ibid., xliv.
not only with the temple but with other priestly matters indicates the
importance of this building to him. Zechariah also is greatly concerned
with the temple, but for very different reasons. If the temple’s destruction
is one of Israel’s greatest tragedies, then its rebuilding would have been
one of its greatest triumphs. Zechariah’s involvement in this process
indicates its importance to him.
In addition to these two features, both prophets experienced the diffi-
culty of dealing with a society in upheaval. For Ezekiel this is obvious.
For Zechariah, regardless of the exciting possibilities offered by the Per-
sians, the restructuring of Judean society was also extremely challenging.
Judging from Ezra–Nehemiah’s narration of the returnees’ situation, the
political and social situation faced by Zechariah was in many ways no
less difficult than the political and social situation faced by Ezekiel. Both
prophets sought to make sense of two very challenging periods of Israel-
ite history.
So, I suggest that although their historical contexts differ to a great
degree, these two prophets actually shared a great deal. Whether Zech-
ariah was aware of all of these similarities is difficult to say. However,
given the fact that he did produce an example of life writing with such
marked similarity to Ezekiel’s, it seems likely that he was aware at least
of Ezekiel’s text and that his own writing was influenced by it. Given the
similarities between these two prophets, it is perhaps not surprising that
Zechariah might feel a kinship with Ezekiel and in developing his own
vision might look to the experience and prophetic work of that prophet.
In many ways the two prophets are bookends on a very significant time
period in Israelite history. Ezekiel is the prophet of destruction and exile.
Zechariah is the prophet of return and rebuilding.
6. The Function of Life Writing in Ezekiel and Zechariah

Margaret Odell explores the possibility of assigning a genre other than
“prophecy” to the book of Ezekiel, maintaining that “an adequate com-
prehension of the meaning of a literary work requires the identification of
its genre,” and that for Ezekiel as a whole “very little of that work has
been done.”45 Odell argues that understanding the book as simply a col-
lection of oracles “does little to explain how the collection works.” 46 In
her search for an appropriate genre for the book of Ezekiel, she considers
45. Margaret S. Odell, “Genre and Persona in Ezekiel 24:15–24,” in The Book of
Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives (ed. Margaret S. Odell and
John T. Strong; SBLSymS 9; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature), 196.
1
46. Odell, “Genre,” 197.
but then rejects “autobiography.” Part of the reason for her rejection of
this label is based on the idea that “autobiography as such did not exist in
the ancient world.”47 However another part of her argument is that for the
term to be meaningful as a genre label, one needs to be able to explain
how the genre would have functioned in Ezekiel’s time. Although much
work remains to be done to answer this question for Ezekiel and
Zechariah, replacing the term “autobiography” with “life writing” may
make that function easier to suggest.
I have suggested that we have in the books of Ezekiel and Zechariah
examples of life writing, defined as the “historically situated practice of
self-representation.”48 Many have found it problematic to acknowledge
the existence of ancient autobiography in any form because there seems
to be so little interior information provided in ancient first-person docu-
ments. There seems to be an impoverished or absent concept of the self.
While it may be tempting to say that the concept of the self is absent in
the ancient world, Polk correctly notes that this is an oversimplification. 49
Neurologists have suggested that concepts of self are components of
biology and that all normally functioning people have a rudimentary
concept of self even from birth.50 It seems certain, then, that people in the
ancient world were aware of their “selves.” What was more likely dif-
ferent was the importance placed on highlighting the self. In the Western
world, particularly the early Modern period, it became fashionable and
perhaps philosophically important to draw attention to the self. The self
became a subject of interest. But we ought not to assume that this interest
was or ought to be shared by all. In fact, even in contemporary society
there are religious groups interested in something more like self-forget-
fulness than self-attention.
Perhaps a better explanation for the absence of Western autobiography
in the ancient world is less a different concept of the self and more a
different sense of the importance of drawing attention to the self. In all
biblical first-person writing, the self tends to be hidden. In Deuteronomy,
the “I” is not a real self, but only the figure of Moses; in Qohelet, the
“I” is an anonymous teacher; in the Psalms, the “I” is an unknown
47. Ibid., 208.

49. Timothy Polk, The Prophetic Persona: Jeremiah and the Language of the
Self (JSOTSup 32; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1984), 169. Polk argues that
what he calls Jeremiah’s “language of the heart” clearly attests to a concept of the
self.
50. Ulrich Neisser, “Five Kinds of Self-knowledge,” Philosophical Psychology 1
(1988): 36–50.
1
worshipper or lamenter. In fact, it is first in the prophets that the “I” can
be linked to specific historical individuals, and even here the self of the
prophets in question appears only a little bit, peeking around the corner,
as it were.51 And so by considering prophetic life writing we learn a bit
about the ancient view of the self, namely, that most felt it not to be a
subject meriting close literary scrutiny.
Although the self is not highlighted in Ezekiel and Zechariah to the
same extent as it is in twenty-first century Western first-person literature,
something different is happening in these texts. It may be that the rise of
prophetic life writing during the exile can be explained in part by the
decline of Israelite autonomy, as well as the decline of the Israelite king-
ship. The decline of the old system meant the rise of a new system, with
new individuals to provide leadership and to replace the king as a central
figure in the culture.52 The priesthood, according to Meyers and Meyers,
achieves this function, and it is interesting that both Ezekiel and Zech-
ariah likely have priestly connections.53 Perhaps the rise of prophetic life
writing relates to this vacuum. These prophets, instead of the king,
become the individuals at the center of exilic and post exilic society, and
their written works become the res gestae of this new period.
51. The same may be said of the Ezra and Nehemiah memoirs.
52. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, xliv.
53. Tollington allows that Zechariah may have been a “priest turned prophet”
(Tradition and Innovation, 61).
1
ZECHARIAH’S SPIES AND EZEKIEL’S CHERUBIM
Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer
1. Introduction
There are many literary links between Zechariah’s vision report (Zech
1:7–6:8) and the book of Ezekiel. This study focuses on but one of these
links, namely the similarity between the various descriptions of the
cherubim in the book of Ezekiel and the description of the horses and the
riders in Zechariah’s vision report. As this study will show, the overall
similarity, both graphic and conceptual, between these descriptions
suggests that Ezekiel’s portrayal of the cherubim influenced the literary
representations of the horses in Zechariah’s vision report.
I shall begin by determining the likelihood that the author of Zech-
ariah’s vision report was familiar with the book of Ezekiel. Thereafter, I
shall address two general parallels between Ezekiel’s cherubim and
Zechariah’s horses and riders: (1) the shared setting of both groups, that
is, the heavenly court and the divine council, and (2) the shared task of
both groups, namely, to function as God’s military servants who execute
his commands. Turning then to the more specific aspects of comparison,
I shall first discuss three visual and conceptual points of contact between
the description of Ezekiel’s cherubim and that of Zechariah’s patrols:
The concept of God’s spirit/wind,
The concept of chariots,
The word “eyes.”
Secondly, using the book of Job as a third element of comparison, we
shall look at the shared theme of God’s rebelling scout:
The satan of Job, the patrols of Zechariah, and the cherubim of
Ezekiel are all patrolling forces who report their findings to the
heavenly council.
All three texts contain either the outright idea of a “fallen”
member of the heavenly council (the cherub in Ezek 28:14) or
the seed to such a thought (the satan in Job 1–2 and Zech 3:1–2).
Lastly, we shall compare the attitude towards the high priest found in
Ezek 28:11–19 and Zech 3.
1
TIEMEYER Zechariah’s Spies and Ezekiel’s Cherubim 105
2. Textual Allusions and Their Direction

Following the mainstream of current Ezekiel scholarship that dates the
bulk of the book to an author living in Babylon during the exile, 1 Ezekiel
clearly precedes the date given in Zech 1:7. Furthermore, Zechariah’s
and Ezekiel’s shared exilic and priestly background makes it likely that
Zechariah was familiar with the writings of Ezekiel,2 although possibly
not in their exact present form. Thus, nothing excludes that Zechariah’s
vision report could have been influenced by parts of the book of Ezekiel.
In fact, several scholars detect such influence.3 In particular, there is little
doubt that Zechariah’s portrayal of the man with a measuring stick
(hdm lbx) in his hand (Zech 2:5–9 [Eng. 2:1–5]) draws on the picture in
Ezek 40:3 of the man holding a measuring rod (hdm hnq), at the same
time as it also challenges it.4 Likewise, as the image of the woman in the
basket in Zech 5:5–11 depends upon the description of the statue of
1. See, e.g., Ronald E. Clements, “The Chronology of Redaction in Ezekiel 1–

24,” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation
(ed. Johan Lust; BETL 74; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986), 282–94;
Andrew Mein, Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2001), 41–50.
2. Although the narrator of a given passage is not necessarily the same as the
author of the same passage, I agree with Daniel I. Block (“In Search of Theological
Meaning: Ezekiel Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium,” in Ezekiel’s Hierar-
chical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality [ed. Stephen L. Cook and Corinne L.
Patton; SBLSymS 31; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004], 230), that it is
overly sophisticated to make such a separation with regard to an ancient text. Thus,
I equate the narrator of the book, i.e., Ezekiel the prophet, with the author of the
majority of the material in the book bearing his name. Likewise, I equate Zechariah
the prophet and thus the presumed narrator of the vision report, with the author of
Zechariah’s vision report (Zech 1:7–6:8).
3. See in particular Risto Nurmela, Prophets in Dialogue: Inner-Biblical Allu-
sions in Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14 (Åbo: Åbo Akademiska Förlag, 1996), 45–46, 49–
54, 58–61, 69–72, 91–103. See also Cameron Mackay, “Zechariah in Relation to
Ezek 40–48,” The Evangelical Quarterly 40 (1968): 197–210.
4. See Mackay, “Zechariah in Relation to Ezek 40–48,” 199; Christian Jeremias,
Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja: Untersuchngen zu ihrer Stellung im Zusammenhang
den Visionsberichte im Alten Testament und zu ihrem Bildmaterial (FRLANT 117;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 164–76; Tryggve D. N. Mettinger, The
Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies (ConB 18;
Lund; CWK Gleerup, 1982), 110–11; David L. Petersen, “Zechariah’s Visions: A
Theological Perspective,” VT 34 (1984): 195–206 (esp. 203). See also Janet E.
Tollington (Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 [JSOTSup 150;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], 104–5), although she rejects a direct link between the
two texts.
1
jealousy in Ezek 8:5, it also provides an inner-biblical response to it. 5

One could naturally argue—given that these texts are all vision reports—
that the similarities are due to genre rather than to direct influence.
However, as can be seen from the types of similarities—pertaining more
to content than to style—the parallels go beyond those of genre.
With regard to Job 1–2, our third text of comparison, the situation is
more difficult as no exact dating of the book is possible given our current
data. Nonetheless, as can be seen by the reference to the character of Job
in Ezek 15:1, Ezekiel evidently shows familiarity with at least some form
of the tradition of the righteous Job. 6 It further follows that the later Zech
1:7–6:8 also knew of such a tradition.
To conclude, Zechariah could have been, and probably also was,
familiar with at least an early form of both the book of Ezekiel and Job
1–2. Accordingly, both texts would have been able to influence
Zechariah’s own composition.
3. God’s Abode: The Garden of Eden,

the Cosmic Mountain, and the Divine Council
This study proposes that Zechariah’s portrayal of the horses and their
riders draws upon Ezekiel’s portrayal of the cherubim, a proposition that
rests upon several factors. I shall begin here by discussing the description
of God’s abode, first in the Hebrew Bible in general, and then as it
appears in Ezekiel and Zechariah in particular. I shall further demon-
strate that Ezek 28 and Zechariah’s vision report, and only these two
texts, combine the motifs of God’s garden, the cosmic mountain, and the
divine council.
Two images of God’s abode prevail in the Hebrew Bible: (1) God’s
garden (e.g. Gen 2–3 and Ezek 28:13) and (2) God’s mountain (e.g. Isa
14:13 and Ezek 28:14). Furthermore, as the Psalter and the book of Ezek-
iel stress, each of the two images has an earthly equivalent: (1) Jerusalem
corresponds to the image of God’s mountain (Ps 48:1–3; Ezek 20:40)
and (2) the temple corresponds to the Garden of Eden (Ps 46:5; Ezek
47:1–2).7
5. Johannes Schnocks, “Eine intertextuelle Verbindung zwischen Ezechiels

Eifersuchtsbild und Sacharjas Frau im Efa,” BN 84 (1996): 59–63.
6. See, e.g., the discussion in Marvin H. Pope, Job: Introduction, Translation,
and Notes (AB 15; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965), xxxii–xl.
7. See further Edward Noort, “Gan-Eden in the Context of the Mythology of the
Hebrew Bible,” Paradise Interpreted: Representations of Biblical Paradise in
Judaism and Christianity (ed. Gerard P. Luttikhuizen; Themes in Biblical Narratives
1
The Hebrew Bible often juxtaposes the motif of God’s mountain with
that of the heavenly council (e.g. Isa 14:13–14), a juxtaposition that is
also found in other ancient Near Eastern texts. 8 In particular, many
prophets are described as having visionary access to the heavenly council
(e.g. 1 Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:1–13), and Jer 23:18 and 23:22 describe access
to the heavenly council as a sign of true prophethood. Ezekiel sees God’s
glory and the actions of the cherubim (Ezek 1:1; 1:4–3:15), and Zech-
ariah not only witnesses the proceedings in the heavenly council but also
participates in them (Zech 3:5 MT).
The Hebrew Bible contains several descriptions of the heavenly
council, and its members are called by various epithets, among others
God’s sons (Ps 82:6), his servants (Mytr#m, Ps 104:4; Mydb(, Job 4:18;
44:26), spirits (1 Kgs 22:21), angels/messengers (Cylm K)lm, “mediator,”
Job 4:18; 33:23), witnesses (Myd() etc. Moreover, it is very likely that the
cherubim, although never stated explicitly, were regarded as members of
the council, on account of the description of them as guardians of God’s
abode (Gen 3:24, see below) and on account of their role as God’s
servants and messengers, living in his immediate proximity. The same is
likely to be true also for the seraphim (Isa 6:2–6). 9 The members of the
divine council mostly work anonymously, with the exception of the
“satan” and the “angel of the Lord.” The descriptions of the divine coun-
cil in the Hebrew Bible are akin to those of the surrounding lands of
Canaan and Mesopotamia. In contrast to Canaanite and Mesopotamian
texts, however, which depict the council as democratic, the various
biblical texts, owing to their basically monotheistic outlook, describe the
divine council as ruled supremely by God. As a result, its members enjoy
little independence as all the decisions of the council are imposed by
God.10
2; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 27, with cited bibliography; Carol A. Newsom, “A Maker of
Metaphors: Ezekiel’s Oracles Against Tyre,” in Interpreting the Prophets (ed. James
Luther Mays and Paul J. Achtemeier; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 197–98; Jon D.
Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM 10;
Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press), 7–36; Kalman Yaron, “The Dirge over the King of
Tyre,” ASTI 3 (1964): 40–45; E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., The Assembly of the Gods:
The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (HSM 24; Chico,
Calif.; Scholars Press, 1980), 154–58.
8. Mullen, Assembly of the Gods, 113–280 (esp. 175–86); and John Day, Yahweh
and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOTSup 265; Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-
demic Press, 2000), 26–29.
9. Mullen, Assembly of the Gods, 207–8 n. 164.
10. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (HSM 5; Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 66–87; Mullen, Assembly of the Gods, 192.
1
The council was thought of as having two primary tasks. First, the
council was to act militarily, as implied by its collective name “host of
heaven” (Mym#h )bc, e.g., 2 Kgs 22:19). The execution of the judgment
was often carried out by God, aided by his host (e.g. Deut 33:3 [wy#dq lk
Kytrbdm )#y Klgrl wkt Mhw Kdyb]; Judg 5:20; Ps 89:6–9). Secondly, the
council was to act judicially, its chief concern being justice on earth. The
prophet served as the messenger of the divine council and proclaimed its
decisions to the people of Israel (Job 1–2; Zech 3; Ps 82). 11
Ezekiel 28:11–19 and Zechariah’s vision report combine the motif of
God’s garden with that of God’s mountain and his divine council.
Ezekiel 28:11–19 identifies the Garden of Eden with God’s mountain, as
can be seen from the expressions tyyh Myhl)-Ng Nd(b (“you were in Eden,
God’s garden,” v. 13) and tyyh Myhl) #dq rhb (“you were upon God’s
holy mountain,” v. 14, cf. v. 16), and, through its reference to a cherub,
with that of the divine council, though only indirectly.
Likewise, Zechariah’s vision report combines the three images. In the
first vision, Zechariah’s horses and rider(s) return to a garden-like place
filled with shrubs and myrtle (Zech 1:8). As I have argued elsewhere,
this place is best identified with Eden, the ante-room of the heavenly
abode.12 In the final vision, the horses and their riders set out again, now
from a place described as two copper-colored mountains (6:1). The
difference between the two visions, however, does not reflect a change of
scenery but rather a change of time. Zechariah’s first vision takes place at
night while his last vision takes place at dawn. Thus, Zechariah depicts
the same place although seen in two different lights. 13 Furthermore, while
the first vision stresses the Edenic aspect of God’s abode (1:8), the last
vision emphasizes its aspect as the Cosmic Mountain (6:1), thus combin-
ing both parts of the imagery. In addition, the vision reports also incorpo-
rate aspects of the divine council, as can be seen by Zechariah’s fourth
and fifth visions (Zech 3–4, see further below). 14 Thus, just as Ezek 28
11. Miller, Divine Warrior, 67–69, 76–81 (discussion of Deut 33:2–3), 98–100
(discussion of Judg 5:20), Mullen, Assembly of the Gods, 175–209, 226–44.
12. See Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, “A Busy Night at the Heavenly Court,” SEÅ 71
(2006): 195, with supporting bibliography.
13. Following Leonard Rost (“Erwägungen zu Sacharjas 7. Nachtgesicht,” ZAW
58 [1940–41]: 227–28), who argues that Zechariah’s vision report portrays the
events of one single night. For further details, see my discussion in “Busy Night,”
188–89, 93–95, with accompanying bibliography.
14. See especially N. L. A. Tidwell, “Wa’omar (Zech 3:5) and the Genre of
Zechariah’s Fourth Vision,” JBL 94 (1975): 353–55. I regard Zech 3 as an integral
part of Zechariah’s vision report. For arguments supporting this view see, e.g., Joyce
G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary
1
combines the imagery of Eden with that of God’s mountain and that of
the heavenly council, so does Zechariah’s vision report. 15
To conclude, the juxtaposition of Eden, God’s mountain, and the
divine council is found only in Ezek 28:11–19 and in Zechariah’s vision
report (the garden image in Zechariah’s first vision, the setting of the
divine council in the fourth and the fifth vision, and the mountain
imagery in the eighth vision). This rare combination of motifs suggests
that Zechariah was familiar with Ezek 28:14 and that part of his
description of his visionary experience depended upon it.
4. Ezekiel’s Cherubim and Zechariah’s Horses

Turning now to the more particular parallels between Zechariah’s
description of the horses and their riders and Ezekiel’s description of the
cherubim, Zechariah’s vision report neither mentions the word cherubim
nor contains any description of creatures that overtly resemble them. In
contrast, cherubim occur abundantly in the book of Ezekiel (Ezek 1; 16 8–
10; 28). Nonetheless, I shall demonstrate here that Ezekiel’s description
of the cherubim influenced Zechariah’s description of the horses with
their riders and chariots. I shall first discuss the motif of the cherubim in
general, and then look at three connecting points between the accounts in
Ezekiel and in Zechariah.
a. What are the Cherubim?

The motif of cherubim is attested about ninety times in the Hebrew Bible,
always in sacral contexts. There is no uniformity as to the cherubim’s
appearance apart from all of them being described as winged creatures.
Instead, as Haran points out, “the cherubim’s image was not fixed in every
detail, but was subject, within certain limits, to variation.” 17 In ancient
Near Eastern art and literature, the so-called composite creatures with part
(TOTC; Leicester: Intervarsity, 1972), 85; Paul L. Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah,

Malachi (NCB; London: Marshall Pickering, 1995), 41; Carol L. Meyers and Eric
M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (AB 25B; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987), liv–lvi.
15. Cf. Mackay (“Zechariah in Relation to Ezek 40–48,” 204), who hints at a
connection between the holy mountain in Zech 6 and Ezek 28:14 although he does
not develop the idea further.
16. For the identification of the “creatures” of Ezek 1 with the cherubim, see
further below.
17. Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry
into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly
School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 259.
1
human and part animal features are reminiscent of the biblical cherubim.
These composite creatures can be divided into three categories—the
bipeds, the quadrupeds and the birds—that, each in their own way,
resemble the various biblical descriptions of the cherubim. At the same
time, there is no single persuasive identification of them. Thus, given our
present knowledge, the biblical cherubim are unparalleled in the ancient
Near East.18
The biblical texts depict the cherubim in two ways: (1) as two-
dimensional depicted beings that adorn the fabrics in the Holy of Holies
(Exod 26:1; 31; 36:8, 35) and form part of the relief (1 Kgs 6:29; 7:28,
32, 35, 36, cf. 2 Chr 3:7; Ezek 41:18–20, 25); and (2) as three-dimen-
sional living beings. My focus here is on the latter category. The living
cherubim are described as having different roles:19 (1) guarding the source
of life (Gen 3:24); (2) drawing God’s chariot (2 Sam 22:11 = Ps 18:11;
Ezek 1:5–20; 10:1–22); and (3) serving as God’s throne (1 Kgs 6:23–28;
8:6–8).20 As apparent from their distinct roles, the cherubim are depicted
as God’s servants, and, as such, it is likely that they were considered part
of the heavenly council (see above). This assumption is supported by
their appearance in the architecture and on the decorations of the Holy of
Holies. Pictures of cherubim appear on the fabrics (Exod 26:1; 31; 36:8,
35), and two enormous olivewood cherubim overlaid with gold virtually
fill the Holy of Holies and cover the Ark of the Covenant (1 Kgs 6:23–
28; 8:6–7).
Interestingly, although the cherubim are God’s servants, the Hebrew
Bible does not portray them as being either good or evil. 21 Rather, they
18. See, e.g., David N. Freedman, and Michael P. O’Connor, “bwrq,” TDOT
7:314–18. See also Moshe Greenberg, “Ezekiel’s Vision: Literary and Iconographic
Aspects,” History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cunei-
form Literatures (ed. Hayim Tadmor and Moshe Weinfeld; Jerusalem: Magnes;
Leiden: Brill, 1984), 163–64.
19. For a slightly different view see James E. Miller (“The Mælæk of Tyre
[Ezekiel 28,11–19],” ZAW 105 [1993]: 498–99) who distinguishes more distinctly
between different kinds of the living cherubim.
20. Dale Launderville, “Ezekiel’s Cherub: A Promising Symbol or a Dangerous
Idol?” CBQ 65 (2003): 167; and Haran, Temples, 254. See also Kalman (“Dirge over
the King of Tyre,” 32) who differentiates between the shielding cherubim portrayed
in the Holy of Holies and those living ones who defend Eden and serve as God’s
vehicle, but acknowledges that the boundary between the two groups is unclear; also
John T. Strong, “God’s Kābôd: The Presence of Yahweh in the Book of Ezekiel,” in
The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives (ed. Margaret S.
Odell and John T. Strong; SBLSymS 9: Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2000), 87–88.
1
21. Freedman and O’Connor, TDOT 7:311.
are considered as having the potential of being both (see Ezek 28:14, 16
below).22 This duality fits well with what we know of the ancient Near
Eastern composite beings who, as Launderville points out, “were orderly
when associated with a particular god; but when separated from a god
and operating independently, they were rebels that could upset the order
of the inhabited world.” Thus, the cherub in Ezek 28:14, 16 can be seen
as ignoring his subservience to the God of Israel and thus unleashing its
violent side.23
b. Visual Similarities between Ezekiel’s Cherubim and Zechariah’s

Horses
The cherubim feature in two of Ezekiel’s vision reports, namely, in his
inaugural vision report (1:4–28) and in his first temple vision report (8:1–
11:25).24 These two reports stand in an exegetical relationship with each
other as much of the temple vision interprets the inaugural vision. 25
22. Contra Kalman (“Dirge over the King of Tyre,” 31) who argues against the
reading of the MT of Ezek 28:14 on the exegetical grounds that “nowhere in the O.T.
is a single cherub mentioned who acts independently and not as a servant of God.”
23. Launderville, “Ezekiel’s Cherub,” 168, 171–72. The same idea, although
from a different perspective, is voiced by Stephen L. Cook, “Creation Archetypes
and Mythogems in Ezekiel: Significance and Theological Ramifications,” in SBL
Seminar Papers 38 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 129–34, 138–42.
24. Although Ezek 8:1–11:25 is probably composite in nature, the person respon-
sible for the final form of the book of Ezekiel arranged it as a single composition.
See further Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel. Chapters 1–24 (NICOT; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 272–74; Ronald M. Hals, Ezekiel (FOTL 19; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 47; and Moshe Greenberg, “The Vision of Jerusalem in
Ezekiel 8–11: A Holistic Interpretation,” in The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God’s
Control of Human Events: Presented to Lou H. Silberman (ed. James L. Crenshaw
and Samuel Sandmel: New York: Ktav, 1980), 143–63; and idem, “Ezekiel’s
Vision,” 163.
25. For the idea of Ezek 8:1–11:25 reusing the imagery of Ezek 1, see Othmar
Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: Eine neue Deutung der Majestätsschilderung
Jes 6, Ez 1 und Sach 4 (SBB 84/85; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977). See
also Meindert Dijkstra (“The Glosses in Ezekiel Reconsidered: Aspects of Textual
Transmission in Ezekiel 10,” in Lust, ed., Ezekiel and His Book, 55–77) who argues
that the vision report in Ezek 10 was originally independent of the one in Ezek 1.
The additions to Ezek 10 seek to harmonize the text according to Ezek 1 (p. 77). See
also David J. Halperin (“The Exegetical Character of Ezek. x 9–17,” VT 26 [1976]:
29–41): “x 9–17 intends to contribute […] to the understanding of its own Vorlage—
the description […] in vv. 15–21” (p. 131); and Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 315–17. For a
similar understanding, see also Cornelius B. Houk, “The Final Redaction of Ezek-
iel 10,” JBL 90 (1971): 42–54. From a different angle, H. Van Dyke Parunak (“The
1
Ezekiel 1 presents a complex picture of anonymous “beings” or “crea-

tures” (twyx), and the reader only receives a vague notion of composite
beings with multiple heads and wings. Ezekiel 10 clarifies this picture, in
particular with regard to their identity—that is, they are cherubim—and
with regard to the function of several items in their vicinity such as the
burning coals and the wheels.26 Thus, although it is possible that the
vision in Ezek 1 originally spoke about some other beings, I will follow
the author’s/redactor’s cue and read Ezek 1 through the lens of Ezek 10,
as Zechariah in all likelihood did.
At the most basic level, following the reading of the MT, the beings of
Ezek 1 have human form, each with four faces and four wings. They are
equipped with human hands underneath the wings, they have calf
hooves, and they move back and forth without turning. In contrast, the
horses in Zech 1 and 6 are described, as far as the reader can tell, as
regular horses, and they are certainly not winged. 27 Thus, there is virtu-
ally no overlap between the two descriptions with regard to the overall
appearance of the creatures. There are, however, other, more specific
parallels between the two sets of descriptions that suggest that Ezekiel’s
portrayal of the cherubim influenced Zechariah’s description of the
horses, riders, and chariots in his vision report. I shall here discuss three
similarities between Ezekiel’s cherubim (Ezek 1; 10) and Zechariah’s
horses and riders (Zech 1:7–12, 4:6, 10 and 6:1–8), namely, the motifs of
wind/spirit, wheels/vehicle, and eyes.
c. The Wind/Spirit
The motif of God’s wind/spirit is found in both Ezekiel and Zechariah’s
vision reports. The cherubim are connected with the winds in Ezek 1 and
8–11; and the horses and their riders are connected with the wind in Zech
6:1–8.28
The Hebrew Bible often associates wind with theophany. Notably, Isa
29:6; Jer 23:19; 30:23; Zech 9:14; Job 38:1 and 40:1 all depict God as
coming in a “storm” (hr(s), and Ps 104:3 (cf. Isa 19:1) depicts God as
Literary Architecture of Ezekiel’s Mar’ôt ’Ĕlōhîm,” JBL 99 [1980]: 66–67, 69,

including n. 14) argues that the changes between Ezek 1 and Ezek 10 are not due to
different authorship of the two visions but a need to adapt the old motif that empha-
sizes God’s transcendence to the new setting of the temple context.
26. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 90.
delphia: Westminster, 1984), 140–41.
28. Mettinger (Dethronement, 105) notes this connection but does not explore it
further.
1
riding upon the clouds. In conjunction with this imagery, God is depicted
as riding in a chariot (Ps 77:19; cf. 2 Kgs 2:11). 29 2 Samuel 22:11 // Ps
18:11 adds the cherubim to this picture, as it describes how God mounts
the cherub and how he is seen upon the wings of the wind (brkyw
xwr- ypnk-l( )ryw P(yw bwrk-l(). In this verse, the parallelism identifies
the cherubim as the wind.
As in 2 Sam 22:11, there is a connection between the winds and the
cherubim in Ezekiel, although less explicit:
Ezek 1:4 describes seeing a stormy wind (hr(s xwr) coming
from the north. The word “north” here is most likely not a geo-
graphical destination but instead a figure for God’s mountain
and the place of his heavenly council (e.g. Isa 14:13). 30 Out of
this wind emerge the cherubim. Ezekiel thus sees the arrival of
the cherubim, identified as the stormy wind, coming straight from
the heavenly abode.
Ezek 1:12 connects the wind/spirit with the cherubim, stating
that wkly tkll xwrh hm# hyhy r#) l) (“wherever the wind/
spirit would go, [the cherubim] would go”). The wind/spirit is
then to be identified with either the cherubim themselves or with
the life-force within them.
Likewise, both interpretations are possible for Ezek 1:20–21
(Mynpw)b hyxh xwr yk Mtm(l )#ny Mynpw)hw [“and the wheels
would rise with them because the wind of the being was in the
wheels”]). Unless we are speaking of two different winds/spirits,
the wind that compels the cherubim to move is within the
cherubim themselves. Thus, again, the wind/spirit is either to be
identified with the cherubim themselves, or with the life-force
within the cherubim.31
In the case of Zechariah’s vision report, Zech 6:5 similarly identifies the
horses and their riders and chariots with God’s four winds. 32 This refers
to the totality of God’s omnipotence and the universality of his realm.
29. Ibid., 105.

30. Cf. Keel, Jahwe-Visionen, 141–42.
31. See Daniel I. Block (“The Prophet and the Spirit: The Use of rwh in the Book
of Ezekiel,” JETS 32 [1989]: 29, 32, 36–37) who argues that Ezekiel switches
between the several meanings of a given word within a single context. Thus Block
claims that Ezekiel separates between the meaning of xwr in 1:4 (“wind”) and the
meaning of the same word in 1:19–21 and 10:17 (“God-given life-force”).
32. Note, also that earlier in the same passage, the horses and the chariots act in
order to still God’s “wind/ anger” (6:7). In addition, there is a further connection to
the four winds of heaven in Zech 2:10 (Eng. 6) where they indicate the four direc-
tions of the compass.
1
God, through his horses, horsemen and chariots, can reach all of the four
compass directions.33
d. The Wheels and the Chariots

The motif of chariots and their function as military vehicles is inherent in
the idea of wheels in Ezek 1 and 10, the “wheels” (Mynpw)) of ch. 1 being
identified as the “circles” (lglg) of ch. 10, and it is explicit in Zech 6:1–8.
Again, as in the case of the wind, the motif of chariot in conjunction
with the cherubim goes back to 2 Sam 22:11 (= Ps 18:10) and Pss 77:19
and 104:3. God is described as riding upon a cherub in 2 Sam 22:11, in
a chariot in Ps 77:19, and upon a cloud in Ps 104:3. Combining the
imagery of these passages, Mettinger convincingly argues that the cherub
in 2 Sam 22:11 most likely refers to God’s cloud chariot. Accordingly,
the scene portrays God’s arrival in his war chariot. 34 The idea of God
riding a vehicle is comparable to the vehicular imagery associated with
Canaanite deities such as Baal and with the Babylonian Marduk. Accord-
ingly, we may surmise that the images of God riding a cloud (Isa 19:1), a
chariot (Ps 104:3) and a cherub (2 Sam 22:11 // Ps 18), as well as Ezek-
iel’s depiction of the cherubim, are variations on the same theme, namely,
God setting out in his military power. 35
As in 2 Sam 22:11, Ezek 10 fuses the imagery of God riding on a
cloud and in a chariot. It is possible to see this fusion as a matter of
textual redaction, as does Keel who distinguishes between the view of
the single cherub in the primary layer of Ezek 10 (vv. 2, 4, 7, 18a, 19ba
and 11:23), and the plural cherubim in the redactional layer. In the
former, God rides directly on the cherub (10:4), while the wheels denote
the clouds, the thunder, and the lighting. In contrast, the redactional layer
of Ezek 10, not being able to disregard the already existing wheels of
Ezek 1, created a plural description of the cherubim carrying a platform
that carried God.36 Alternatively, it is possible that the description of the
cherubim in Ezek 10 highlights both aspects of God’s travels as found in
the Psalter, placing them side by side in order to stress God’s might.
Zechariah 6:1–8 also contains chariot imagery. In this last vision, in
contrast to the first vision, the horses and the riders are equipped with
chariots, and they are ready to set out to obey God’s command and to do
battle against the nations.37 As we shall see, there are three connecting
33. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 322–23.

34. Mettinger, Dethronement, 34–35.
35. W. Boyd Barrick, “The Straight-Legged Cherubim of Ezekiel’s Inaugural
Vision (Ezekiel 1:7),” CBQ 44 (1982): 546.
36. Keel, Jahwe-Visionen, 190–91, 271.
1
37. Cf. the discussion in Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 265–67.
points between these Zecharian chariots and the ones connected with
Ezekiel’s cherubim.
The first point of contact is Hab 3:8b (Kytbkrm Kysws-l( bkrt yk
h(w#y, “that you ride upon your horses, your chariots of salvation”). It
seems likely that this verse served as the catalyst for transforming the
cherubs into horses, in that it portrays God as riding not upon the
cherubim, as in 2 Sam 22:11, but upon horses. 38 The imagery of chariots
further looks forward to the idea of wheels in Ezek 1 and chariots in ch.
10. This is probably the earliest fusion of the mythological military
image of cherubim with the more mundane military image of horses.
The second point of contact is that of the prominent military function
of the heavenly council. As discussed above, one of its two chief tasks
was to fight alongside God. Psalm 68:18 is of particular significance in
the present context, as it describes God’s council members as having
chariots. As can be surmised from Zech 1:7–13 and 6:1–8, the horses’
main task was military, that is, to do reconnaissance and to execute the
will of the divine council. Furthermore, as I have argued elsewhere, the
horses, or rather their riders, were part of the heavenly council, as made
explicit by the reference to God’s seven “eyes” in Zech 4:10. 39 Thus, we
see how Zechariah’s vision report alludes to and also develops the motif
of God’s council members as God’s army who execute his will. Ezekiel
1 makes a similar connection. As v. 24 (hnxm lwqk hlmh lwq)40 empha-
sizes, the cherubim were part of God’s army. Moreover, Strong detects
military aspects of the cherubim in Ezek 8–11 as a whole where they
serve as the chariot of God’s dwbk in his battles.41 Likewise, in Gen 3:24,
where the cherubim serve as armed guardians, the military role of the
cherubim is stressed. Thus, we discover that the imagery of the horses
and their chariots in Zechariah and the imagery of the cherubim in
Ezekiel are both linked to God’s executive military power.
e. The Eyes
Both Zechariah’s horses and Ezekiel’s cherubim are described in terms
of “eyes” (Ezek 1:18; 10:12 and Zech 4:6a, 10b). This correspondence
belongs with the wider theme of God’s patrolling forces (see below).
38. Note, however, that Haran (Temples, 253) rejects the idea of God as riding
upon the horses as foreign to the Hebrew Bible. Instead, he suggests that God rides
in the chariot to which the horses are harnessed.
39. Tiemeyer, “Busy Night,” 203–4.
40. As shown by Werner A. Lind (“A Text Critical Note to Ezekiel 1: Are
Shorter Readings Really Preferable to Longer?” JETS 27 [1984]: 138), this verse is
unlikely to be a later addition.
1
41. Strong, “God’s Kâbôd,” 84–88.
Ezekiel 1:18 describes the wheels of the cherubim as having “eyes”

(Myny() all around their rims (Nt(br)l bybs Myny( t)lm Mtbgw). These
eyes are best understood as symbols of the cherubim’s all-seeing char-
acter and constant watchfulness,42 although they may also have had a
physical dimension as eye-shaped gem stones that gave them a sense
of majesty and awesomeness (Mhl h)ryw Mhl hbgw Nhybgw, “as for their
rims, they had height and they had fear”). 43 This characterization of
the cherubim as all-seeing and awe-inspiring fits their role in Ezek 1 and
8–11 as God’s servants and as the executers of his will. Ezekiel 1 por-
trays the cherubim as surrounding God’s throne, thus stressing their
intimate knowledge of God’s decisions, while Ezek 10:1–8 shows their
participation in the execution of God’s will, as they interact with the six
men who carry out God’s commands (cf. Ezek 9:1–11).
Zechariah’s portrayal of the horses and their riders also contains the
motif of all-seeing eyes. The motif of God’s patrolling forces forms a red
thread throughout Zechariah’s vision report, beginning with the return of
the horses and their report in Zech 1:10–11, leading on to their appear-
ance at rest in the heavenly court in Zech 4:2–3, 10 and their setting out
again, this time to execute the decision of the heavenly court in Zech
6:7.44 In particular, Zech 4:10 describes God’s patrols as “eyes,” thus
alluding to the ancient Near Eastern image of “roaming eyes” that
denoted the imperial network of espionage.45
f. Conclusion
To sum up, three visual motifs connect Zechariah’s horses and their
riders and chariots with Ezekiel’s cherubim, namely, the motifs of wind,
chariots, and spying eyes. None of these three instances, however, is a
case of direct textual allusion where Zechariah would purposefully have
picked up themes from Ezekiel in order to enhance his own message.
Instead, the textual relationship is better understood as having taken
place on a more subconscious level, where Zechariah, familiar with the
descriptions of the cherubim in the book of Ezekiel, transforms these
descriptions into something new in order to illustrate his own visionary
experience. Ezekiel’s descriptions of the cherubim are therefore best
viewed as part of the textual pre-history of Zechariah’s vision report.
42. Greenberg, “Ezekiel’s Vision,” 167; idem, Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary (AB 22: New York: Doubleday, 1983), 58
43. E.g., Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 100–101. For the grammatical understanding of
Ezek 10:8, see Nahum W. Waldman (“A Note on Ezekiel 1:18,” JBL 103 [1984]:
614–18) who understands the Nhybgw as a casus pendens (cf. vv. 10, 11, 13).
44. See further my “Busy Night,” 189–90, 200.
1
45. A. Leo Oppenheim, “The Eyes of the Lord,” JAOS 88 (1968): 173–80.
5. Ezekiel 28:11–19: A Fallen Patroller

In addition to Ezek 1 and 8–11, Ezek 28:11–19 contains a reference to a
cherub. I shall here define the character of this cherub, and then explore
what Zechariah does with this image. To begin with, we need to establish
the best reading of Ezek 28:14 and 16, as that reading determines the
character and the function of the cherub. Subsequently, I shall discuss the
role of “the satan” (N+#h) in Zech 3 and how he in fact can be identified
with the rider of the horses mentioned in Zech 1:8–11. Furthermore, I
shall demonstrate that a comparison with the prologue of Job sheds fur-
ther light on the issue. Finally, based on these findings, I shall conclude
that Zechariah picked up the ambiguous motif of the cherubim in
Ezekiel—the cherub in Ezek 28 who opposes God’s decision and the
cherubim in Ezek 1 and 10 who do God’s work—and forged a new idea
of God’s horses and riders who, although normally serving God as his
intelligence force, also have the potential of working against him.
The idea of a member of the heavenly council who either advocates an
action against humankind or who acts on God’s command against them
is attested in several places in the Hebrew Bible. Notably, 1 Kgs 22:19
records how the prophet Micaiah sees God sitting upon his throne,
surrounded by “the entire host of heaven” (Mym#h )bc lk), and how “the
spirit” (xwrh) offers to entice Ahab by telling him untruths. Likewise,
Job 2:3 tells how “the satan” (N+#h), one member of the heavenly coun-
cil, incites God against Job. Finally, “the satan” (N+#h) in Zech 3:1–5
advocates the punishment of the high priest Joshua, only to be overruled
by God.46 As we shall see, evidence suggests that the cherub in Ezek
28:11–19 falls in a similar category. He is a trusted inhabitant on God’s
cosmic mountain and in the Garden of Eden—thus likely to be a member
of the divine council—who chooses to act in a manner not pleasing to
God.
a. The Reading of Ezekiel 28:14 and 16

Ezekiel 28:11–19 is an oracle against the king of Tyre, set in the Garden
of Eden, God’s garden, and upon God’s mountain (Myhl) #dq rh), the
place of the heavenly council. It is presented to us in two different
versions, the MT and the LXX. The LXX of Ezek 28:11–19 presents a
fairly smooth reading whereas the corresponding MT contains plenty of
textual difficulties. There is also significant variation between the two
46. Cf. Neil Forsyth, The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1987), 110–17.
1
versions. The key issue concerns the metaphor describing the king of
Tyre, who is either likened to a cherub (MT), or described as a man living
in close proximity with a cherub (LXX). This cherub/human being lives in
God’s abode and, as he rebels against God, God expels him from there.
The reading of the MT brings to mind Isa 14:12 and the fallen star of
light, as well as Ps 82 and God’s demotion of his heavenly courtiers, 47
while the reading of the LXX is reminiscent of Gen 2–3 and the expulsion
of the primal couple out of Eden. 48
In the present context, we shall look at three verses relevant to us,
namely, vv. 13, 14 and 16, and determine which version Zechariah had
access to. There are three key questions: (1) What is the textual relation-
ship between the two versions?49 (2) If the two versions are interrelated,
which version depends on which? And (3) which version did Zechariah
read?
In the MT of v. 14 the initial phrase kwsh #mm bwrk t) is set off from
the rest of the verse by the atnach accent, the next word Kyttnw is
followed by the revia accent, and the zaqeph qaton accent separates the
phrase tyyh Myhl) #dq rhb from the phrase tklhth #) ynb) Kwtb. This
punctuation, together with the Masoretic pointing, suggests reading the
initial phrase as a nominal sentence.50 Furthermore, the first word, t), is
best understood as the second person masculine singular pronoun, either
as an unusual variant of ht) as in Num 11:15 and Deut 5:27, 51 or to be
47. E.g., Tryggve D. N. Mettinger, King and Messiah (ConBib 8; Lund: CWK
Gleerup, 1976), 271–75; Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary (AB 22A; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 591.
48. E.g., Newsom, “Maker of Metaphors,” 196–98; and John A. McKenzie,
“Mythological Allusions in Ezekiel 28:12–18,” JBL 75 (1956): 326.
49. See, e.g., Pierre-Maurice Bogaert (“Le Chérub de Tyr [Ez 28,14.16] et
l’hippocampe de ses monnaies,” Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten
Israel: Festschrift für Siegfried Herrmann zum 65. Geburtstag [ed. Rudiger Liwak
and Siegfried Wagner; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991], 31–32) who argues that the
MT and the LXX are two distinct versions of the oracle that are internally consistent.
As this paper will show, this argument can be sustained in part. Verse 14 serves as
the point of origin for both versions, after which they develop separately.
50. The best reading is suggested by the Masoretic accents: “You were like a
covering cherub, and I placed you, you were on the Holy Mountain of God, you
walked among the stones of fire.” There is thus no reason to propose alternative
structures, e.g., Mettinger (King and Messiah, 270–71) who breaks up the expression
Myhl) #dq rhb, and Kalman (“Dirge over the King of Tyre,” 29–30) who translates
tyyh Myhl) as “you were a god”.
51. See Noort, “Gan-Eden,” 22–23, including n. 17; and James Barr, “‘Thou art
the Cherub’: Ezekiel 28.14 and the Post-Ezekiel Understanding of Genesis 2–3,” in
1
vocalized as t@f).a 52 Alternatively, as Ezekiel’s use of Hebrew, in particular

with regard to the distinction between masculine and feminine, is some-
times rather free,53 a feminine form used for a masculine subject should
not surprise us. Yet again, as Ezekiel uses t) to indicate the nominative,
especially in the beginning of a sentence in several places (e.g. Ezek
47:17–19), it is possible that we have a similar use here. In any case, the
text certainly equates the king of Tyre with the cherub.
Regarding v. 16, the MT reads Nksh bwrk Kdb)w and the chief textual
issue is whether the alef in Kdb)w is part of the root or the first person
singular imperfect prefix, or both. If it is both, as BDB contends, then
this is an unusual although grammatically possible Piel form, “to
destroy,”54 and should be translated as “I (i.e. God) destroyed you, O
covering cherub,” identifying the king of Tyre with the cherub, and
understanding ksh bwrk (“covering/ guardian cherub”) as a vocative
expression in apposition.55 This understanding is further supported by the
Vulgate and by the Targum.56 In view of this, the MT undoubtedly likens
the king of Tyre to a cherub, although using unusual and somewhat
contracted grammar.
Continuing with the LXX, Ezek 28:14 reads meta_ tou= xeroub e!qhka& se
(“I placed you with the cherub”), the expression “I placed you”
corresponding to the verb wnnwk in MT v. 13bb. Is this an independent
reading or is it related to the reading of the MT? Two factors favor a
shared tradition of v. 14. First, the Hebrew word t) underlies both
traditions. The MT uses the first meaning “you,” while the LXX presup-
poses the second meaning “with.” Secondly, both traditions share the
same verbs although they make them syntactically different. The MT
attests to Kyttnw (“and I set you”), the initial waw clearly indicating the
Priest, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second
Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp (ed. Eugene C. Ulrich, John W.
Wright, and Robert P. Carroll; JSOTSup 149; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 215–16.
52. H. J. van Dijk, Ezekiel’s Prophecy on Tyre (Ez. 26,1–28,19): A New
Approach (BibOr 20; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968), 119–20.
53. See, e.g., Ezek 2:9 where the normally feminine word dy is treated as a
masculine, as well as Ezek 7:6bb where the use of the feminine participle h)b
presumably refers back to the masculine word Cq unless it anticipates the following
f.sg. noun hrypc in the following 7a.
54. BDB, 2a. The perfect form of the same verb is attested in Ezek 6:3 with God
as its subject, and the infinitive is attested in 22:27, although not with God as its
subject. See also GKC §23d, 68k.
55. Cf. Knud Jeppesen, “You are a Cherub, but no God!” SJOT 1 (1991): 91.
56. Vulgate (et ejeci te de monte Dei, et perdidi te, o cherub protegens) and
Targum ()klm Knydb)w).
1
beginning of a new phrase, while the LXX treats the verb as belonging to
the preceding clause.57 It remains for us to determine whether the MT
revocalized an original “with” or whether the LXX misunderstood an
original “you,” and whether the LXX disregarded an already existing
waw, or whether the waw of the MT is a later scribal error. While many
scholars advocate the reading of the LXX as the preferable one of Ezek
28:14,58 there are two good reasons for regarding the MT of v. 14 as the
original reading, First, the immediate context contains a high number of
noun phrases in the surrounding vv. 2, 3, 9, 12, and 15. Thus, the noun
phrase “you are a cherub” (bwrk t)) of the MT fits well.59 And, secondly,
the MT accords with the rest of the Bible where cherubim are described
as God’s companions, not of humans. 60
The LXX of Ezek 28:16 attests to the reading kai\ h!gage/n se to_ xeroub
ek me/sou li/qwn puri/nwn (“and the cherub led you out of the midst of the
stones of fire”). There is less overlap between the MT and the LXX here
than in v. 14, although it is possible that the verb h!gage/n (“lead”), could
be a misreading of Hebrew Kyb) (“bring”), a possible form of the Hiphil
of )wb, or of Kkrd) (“I will lead you”).61 Instead, we are probably
dealing with two separate yet interrelated reading traditions, originating
in v. 14 but then branching out.
Ezekiel 28:13 also has a bearing on the issue. This verse contains a list
of jewels that is reminiscent of the twelve jewels in the high priest’s
breast-plate (Exod 28:17–20; 39:10–13), and it can be assumed that Ezek
28:13 consciously seeks to connect the cherub/king of Tyre with the
Jerusalem high priesthood.62 Again, however, the MT and the LXX differ
57. As Barr (“Thou art the Cherub,” 219) points out, given that the Greek
translators often felt free to disregard waws, the LXX provides no evidence that it had
before it a text in which this waw was not present.
58. E.g., A. A. Bevan, “The King of Tyre in Ezekiel xxviii,” JTS o.s. 4 (1903):
505; Levenson, Program of Restoration, 25; Newsom, “Maker of Metaphors,” 198;
Day, Yahweh and the Gods, 176 n. 92; Friedrich Fechter, Bewältigung der Katas-
trophe. Untersuchungen zu ausgewählten Fremdvölkersprüchen im Ezechielbuch
(BZAW 208; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992), 166; and Kalman, “Dirge over the King of
Tyre,” 30–31. As the last astutely states, “All the difficulties are solved if one reads
with the LXX.” That is true. In fact, as the LXX depends on the MT, its purpose—as a
translation—is precisely to make sense of the MT. This, however, does not make the
LXX the original reading.
59. See further Jeppesen, “You are a Cherub,” 83–94, esp. 93.
60. Cook, “Creation Archetypes,” 128.
61. These suggestions were made by my colleague Dr. Peter D. Williams,
University of Aberdeen.
62. See, e.g., Bevan, “King of Tyre,” 504–5; Robert Wilson, “The Death of the
King of Tyre: The Editorial History of Ezekiel 28,” in Love and Death in the Ancient
1
from one another. While the MT contains a list of nine of the jewels,
listed in an order that deviates slightly from the list in Exodus, the LXX
contains all twelve jewels plus silver and gold, and they follow the order
of the Exodus list. Is the less than perfect correspondence of the MT
original and the list in LXX a harmonization, or is the LXX original while
the MT is either faulty or a conscious attempt to lessen the impact of the
allusion? Besides, did the author of Ezek 28 have access to the present
text of Exodus or to an earlier version that might have corresponded to
the MT of Ezek 28?63
Stordalen has recently made a thorough attempt to establish the
primacy of the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX of Ezek 28:11–19. In his
view, the MT is a later, Hellenistic emendation of and extension of this
Vorlage for two reasons. First, the editor of the MT sought to reduce the
link to the high priest and thus removed some of the jewels from the list
in v. 13 and scrambled the order of the remaining ones. (2) The same
editor sought to portray the king of Tyre as divine rather than as human,
in an attempt to harmonize Ezek 28:11–19 with the apocalyptic tendency
of the time (fourth century B.C.E. and possibly later) of portraying leaders
of nations as angelic or semi-divine (e.g. Dan 10:13). Thus, the MT
repointed the word t) in v. 14 to make the king of Tyre divine, and
added the expression Kkwsh x#mm for the same purpose.64
In response, unless one agrees with the late dating of Ezek 28, as I do
not (see further above), Stordalen’s second point disappears. Regarding
his first point, it is in my opinion far more likely that the LXX of v. 13 is a
Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope (ed. John H. Marks and Robert M.
Good; Guilford, Conn.: Four Quarters, 1987), 214–18; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2
(trans. Ronald E. Clements; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 82; Mettinger,
King and Messiah, 272; Kalman, “Dirge over the King of Tyre,” 35–36; Launder-
ville, “Ezekiel’s Cherub,” 176; Terje Stordalen, Echoes of Eden. Genesis 2–3 and
Symbolism of the Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (Leuven: Peeters, 2001),
338–40; and Noort, “Gan-Eden,” 25 n. 27. For a contrary opinion, see Hugh R. Page,
Jr. (The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion: A Study of Its Reflexes in Ugaritc and Biblical
Literature [VTSup 65; Leiden: Brill, 1996], 148–58) who argues that Ezek 28:11–19
reflects a myth of an astral rebellion without any link to Exodus.
63. For a detailed discussion, see Fechter (Bewältigung, 173–74) who argues
that the author of Ezek 28 quoted Exod 28 from memory rather than directly from a
text.
64. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 334–48. See also Bogaert, “Le Chérub,” 31. With
regard to the dating of the oracle, Bogaert argues that the original oracle, directed
against the Jerusalem high priest, was reapplied (in the MT) to Tyre after Alexander’s
capture of Tyre on account of the resemblance of the cherub with the sea-horse
(pp. 33–35).
1
harmonizing attempt, with or without deeper motives, than that a later

editor would remove items from an existing list.65
To conclude, the MT of Ezek 28:13, 14, and 16 contains the original
reading. It likens the king of Tyre to a cherub, and it describes how this
cherub is driven out of Eden and away from the cosmic mountain owing
to its haughtiness. In contrast, the LXX is a later tradition that originated
in a misreading of v. 14 of the MT. Moreover, only this later tradition
alludes to Gen 3:24 and to the expulsion of primal man from Eden. 66 In
fact, it is plausible that the Greek translator, influenced by the tradition in
Gen 3:24, translated Ezek 28 in a manner reminiscent of the Genesis
account.67 Furthermore, as the LXX derives from the MT rather than from
another Hebrew Vorlage, it follows, as Zechariah would have read or
heard the Hebrew text, that he understood the text as “you were a
covering cherub,” etc. Hence, we may surmise that any allusion made by
Zechariah to the text of Ezekiel would be to the MT.
b. The Literary Links between Ezekiel 28:14, 16; Job 1–2, and
Zechariah’s Vision Report
The portrayal of the cherub of Ezek 28:14, 16, the satan in the prologue
of the book of Job, and the satan in Zechariah’s vision report are similar
in many respects. I shall first give a brief sketch of the satan as presented
in Zechariah’s vision report, and then discuss the similarities between
this, the satan in Job, and the cherubim in Ezekiel. I shall then conclude
that the portrayal of God’s heavenly patrols in Zechariah’s vision report
depends upon the traditions of Ezekiel and Job.
(1) The satan in Zechariah’s vision report. I have suggested elsewhere

that the satan in Zech 3 is best identified as one of the patrolling scouts.
This identification is based on a comparative study of Zechariah’s vision
65. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 582. Greenberg instead assumes that the list in the
MT has suffered the loss of one line, i.e., three jewels, in the course of textual
transmission. See also Kalman, “Dirge over the King of Tyre,” 35–36.
66. Cf. Anthony J. Williams (“The Mythological Background of Ezekiel 28:12–
19,” BTB 6 [1976]: 49–61) who, although translating Ezek 28:14 as “with an
anointed guardian cherub,” argues convincingly that Ezek 28 has comparatively little
to do with Gen 2–3. See also Miller, “Mælæk of Tyre,” 497–99.
67. Cf. Barr (“Thou art the Cherub,” 221–22) who argues that the present
understanding of Gen 2–3 as a story of human revolt against God stems from the
combination of Ezek 28 with Gen 2–3; and Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 590–91. For
an alternative view, see John Van Seters (“The Creation of Man and the Creation of
the King,” ZAW 101 [1989]: 340–41) who argues that Ezek 28 precedes the account
in Gen 2–3.
1
report and the account in Job 1–2. First, the verb Klhth (“to roam,
patrol”) is used for the satan in Job 1:7 and 2:2, and for the patrolling
forces in Zech 1:10, 11; 6:7. Secondly, both the satan in Job 1–2 and the
satan in Zech 3 are present at the heavenly court and influence God’s
decision. Thirdly, both texts portray the satan as a divine agent under
God’s jurisdiction. This results in the scenario where the satan, identified
as the rider of Zechariah’s first vision, returns to the ante-room of the
heavenly abode after having “roamed” the earth, in order to report his
findings to the heavenly council (1:8–11). The same patroller is then
brought to the council where he gives his report and prepares to act on
the report (Zech 3:1). His case, based on his report, is, however, rejected
owing to God’s mercy (Zech 3:2). He and his patrols then rest in the
heavenly abode (Zech 4:4, 10) until the patrollers, the satan presumably
among them, set out again, this time to execute the verdict (Zech 6:1–8,
cf. Job 1:12).68
(2) The parallels. There are two striking parallels between the descrip-
tion of the cherubim in Ezekiel and those of the satan in Zechariah and
Job: their constant motion between the heavenly council and the earth,
and their ability to be both good and evil.
Beginning with the motif of constant motion, we find that all the three
entities, namely, the cherub of Ezek 28, the satan of the prologue of Job,
and the satan of Zechariah’s vision report, are in continuous movement
back and forth between the earth and God’s abode/the divine council.
The satan in the book of Job, as one of the “sons of God” (1:6), is part of
the heavenly council. In between his visits, he “roams” (Klhth) the earth
(1:7; 2:2) and “strolls” (Cr)b +w#m) upon it (1:7) to then report back his
findings. After delivering his information, he awaits new instructions
and then sets out to implement them (Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7). Likewise, the
cherubim, as God’s servants, are members of the heavenly council, and
they live in proximity to the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:24) if not in it (Nd(b
tyyh Myhl)-Ng, Ezek 28:13). As the satan in the book of Job, the cherub in
Ezek 28:14 “roams,” although only in the Garden of Eden (#)-ynb) Kwtb
tklhth). The cherubim of Ezek 1 are also in constant movement (vv. 8,
12, 14, 19–21, 24) between God’s abode (Ezek 1:4, see above) and the
earth, as are the cherubim of Ezek 8–11 who move at God’s command,
bringing God’s glory away from the temple (10:19) to a mountain
outside the city (11:22–23).
The description of the patrolling riders in Zechariah’s vision report
picks up this idea. The patrols “roam” (Klhth) the earth (Zech 1:10, 11;
1
68. Tiemeyer, “Busy Night,” 203–4.
6:7) to then return to the Garden of Eden (Zech 1:8–11) and report to the
heavenly council (Zech 3:1–2). They, as God’s servants (hwhy yny(, Zech
4:10), then rest in God’s abode (Zech 4:10) after “strolling” (My++w#m)
about (4:10), before setting out again (Zech 6:1–8) to carry out God’s
new instructions. Thus, Zechariah’s vision report reuses the two verbs
“roam” and “stroll” from the activities of the satan in the prologue of
Job. Moreover, it picks up the singular cherub of Ezek 28 who also
“roams,” and fuses it with the constantly moving group of cherubim in
Ezek 1 and 10–11 who execute God’s commands. The result is one of
horses and riders who, as God’s servants, roam the earth (Zech 1; 6).
Furthermore, the cherubim in Ezekiel, the satan in Job, and the satan
in Zechariah sometimes have an opinion that differs from that of God.
The cherub in Ezek 28:11–19 rebels openly against God, while the satan
in Job 1–2 challenges God’s view regarding Job more subtly. Again,
Zechariah’s vision report picks up this theme in its portrayal of the satan
in Zech 3. Although still under God’s jurisdiction, the satan’s opinion
concerning Joshua’s fate is at variance with that of God. This duality fits
with what we know of composite creatures in ancient Near Eastern texts.
As discussed above, the cherubim, in the same way as other Near Eastern
composite creatures, have the potential of being both good and evil. Thus,
as long as the cherub works together with God, he is one of his servants,
but as soon as he begins taking his own initiative and acting contrary to
God’s will, he is cast out. The satan in Job and in Zechariah is still on
God’s side—he is “a shady but necessary member of the Politburo” 69—
but the reader nonetheless begins to feel uneasy in his presence.
(3) A critical disposition towards the priesthood. Ezekiel 28:11–19 and

Zechariah’s vision report (Zech 3) share a critical disposition towards the
Jerusalem priesthood. As discussed above, the list of precious stones in
Ezek 28:13 alludes to the list in Exod 28:17–20 (// 39:10–13) denoting
the twelve precious stones that span Aaron’s “breast-piece of judgment”
that Aaron should carry “when entering into the sanctuary for continuous
remembrance before the Lord” (dymt hwhy-ynpl Nrkzl #dqh-l) w)bb,
v. 29). Given the close similarity in content between the two lists, as well
as its shared tripartite structure, it is unlikely that the similarity is acci-
dental (see above). What, then, is its significance?
Scholars in general note the priestly power of ancient Near Eastern
kings and accordingly assume that the allusion to Exodus serves to
1
69. Forsyth, Old Enemy, 112.
underline the clerical power of the king of Tyre.70 Looking at the issue
from a different angle, however, Wilson suggests that Ezek 28:11–19
was originally an oracle against the Jerusalem priesthood that was only
secondarily applied to the king of Tyre. Wilson’s claim is based on
several factors, among others. First, the Israelite terminology and frame
of reference—the cherubim and the defilement of sanctuaries—suggest
an Israelite religious concern. Second, the connection between God’s
mountain and Jerusalem (Ezek 20:40) implies a Jerusalem concern. This
connection is strengthened by the title of the cherub, “covering cherub,”
that is the name of the cherubim flanking the Ark of the Covenant in the
Holy of Holies. Wilson further identifies the “stones of fire” (#) ynb)) in
Ezek 28:14 as the coals of fire on the altar (cf. Ezek 10:2 [#) ylxg]).
Third, the idea of a “seal” (Ezek 14:12) brings royal power to mind (Jer
22:24; Hag 2:23). As Wilson argues, it is likely that this title would have
been taken over by the priests in exilic circles. Fourth, an oracle that
criticizes the high priest for hubris fits Ezekiel’s critique of the priest-
hood elsewhere in the book (5:11; 21:7; 23:38–39; 25:3). 71 Furthermore,
these allusions to the priests would have been lucid to Ezekiel’s immedi-
ate audience, as many of them shared his priestly profession. 72
Wilson’s interpretation has received a fair amount of criticism. Van
Seters, for example, has criticized it partly because he finds it unlikely to
connect the priest to the mythological Adam in Eden, and partly because
he views the jewelled pectoral as part of the priestly apparel to be a post-
exilic development.73 Given the primacy of the MT, however, there is no
need to connect the king of Tyre with the Adam of Gen 2–3. Further-
more, it is overall unlikely that Exod 28 post-dates Ezek 28. From a
different angle, Block regards the link between the Garden of Eden and
the Mountain of God with Jerusalem to be strained, as Ezek 28:11–19
makes no explicit mention of the priestly chest-piece or the temple cult
of Jerusalem, and given that Ezek 28 stands apart from the critique of the
priesthood in Ezek 8–11. In addition, he holds it to be unlikely that
Ezekiel and his audience would have tolerated the image of a pagan king
dressed up in the high priestly costume. Instead, the gem-stones in Ezek-
iel symbolize “every precious stone” and serve as a concrete example of
70. E.g., Bevan, “King of Tyre,” 504–5; Kalman, “Dirge over the King of Tyre,”
39–40, 45, with accompanying bibliography.
71. Wilson, “Death of the King of Tyre,” 211–18; followed by Steven S. Tuell,
“Presence and Absence in Ezekiel’s Prophecy,” in Odell and Strong, eds., The Book
of Ezekiel, 116. See also Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 355–56, 394–97.
72. Wilson, “Death of the King of Tyre,” 216.
1
73. Van Seters, “Creation of Man,” 336 n. 16.
his wealth.74 As I argued above, however, it is difficult to deny the link to

Exod 28. Furthermore, concerning the issue of the priestly costume, it is
in fact not the earthly king of Tyre who is dressed in it but the meta-
phorical cherub, and that is presumably less troublesome for Ezekiel’s
audience. On the positive side, the connection between Jerusalem and the
temple with God’s cosmic mountain and the Garden of Eden is firmly
cemented (see above) and thus speaks in favor of a connection between
Ezek 28 and the Jerusalem temple.
In my view, the oracle is multi-faceted. On the surface, this oracle
speaks of the real king of Tyre and, as such, it belongs in its present
place among the other oracles against foreign rulers. At the same time,
the choice of metaphor, namely, the cherub, as well as the allusion to
Exod 28, draws the attention to the Jerusalem temple. The cherub is
identified with the covering cherub of the Holy of Holies, and he is
dressed in the costume of the high priest. As such, the oracle clearly criti-
cizes both the earthly and the heavenly aspects of the temple personnel.
Not only has the high priest, the chief administrator of the cult of Y HWH
on earth, gone astray, but so has one of God’s heavenly servants. 75
Together, this oracle presents a powerful message against hubris in the
world at large, in the Jerusalem temple, and in the heavenly realm.
Returning now to the main issue of this study, what does Zechariah do
with the link to Exod 28? First of all, given Zechariah’s own priestly
background (Zech 1:1),76 it can be presumed that Zechariah noted the
link. Furthermore, as the overall message of Exod 28 concerns the
priestly function of atoning for the people of Israel, the link in Ezek 28
connects the cherub at God’s cosmic mountain with the priesthood and
their atoning function. In my view, this connection lingers in Zechariah’s
mind and influences the report of his fourth vision (Zech 3), which
describes how God’s scout—that is, the satan, identified with Ezekiel’s
future fallen cherub—advocates punishment of the high priest Joshua.
Joshua, however, is cleansed because of God’s mercy, and the whole
land is cleansed through him and his colleagues (v. 9). As I have shown
elsewhere, Zech 3:9 is likely to be an early description of the Day of
74. Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48 (NICOT; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 110–12.
75. For a related view see Mark S. Smith (The Origins of Biblical Monotheism:
Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts [New York: Oxford
University Press, 2001], 171–72) who, following the MT, sees the priestly connota-
tions of Ezek 28:11–19 to be an example of “an inner (northern?) polemic directed
against the Jerusalem cult.”
1
76. See, e.g., Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 109.
Atonement, in part due to the connection between the Cyc in Exod 28:36
and 39:30 in Zech 3:9 and the stone (Nb)) that is placed before Joshua.
This stone is best identified with the stone of the high priestly costume
and connected with the high priestly function of carrying the guilt of the
people.77 The connection between Ezek 28 and Exod 28 thus continued to
influence the writings of Zechariah, although indirectly, as I regard as
likely that the link to Exod 28 in Ezek 29 led to Zechariah’s use of Exod
28 in Zech 3.78
6. Conclusion
In this study I have looked at the possibility that the motif of the
cherubim in Ezekiel—both the cherubim of Ezek 1 and 8–11 who faith-
fully serve God and the cherub of Ezek 28 who rebels against him—
influenced the portrayal of the horses and their riders and chariots in
Zechariah’s vision report. This influence is not a matter of direct textual
allusions, where the later author picks up motifs or phrases of earlier
works in order to enhance his own message. Instead, this is a matter of
more indirect influence. I suggest that Zechariah was familiar with the
motif of the ambiguous cherubim of the book of Ezekiel, and modelled
his description of the horses and their riders and chariots in his visions
after them.
77. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, “The Guilty Priesthood (Zech 3),” in The Book of
Zechariah and Its Influence (ed. Christopher M. Tuckett; Aldershot, England: Ash-
gate, 2003), 9–11.
78. Interestingly, if we follow the reading of the LXX, we reach a different
possibility. According to this reading, Zechariah picks up the idea of the cherub as
the divine patroller. However, the parallel is now between the human king of Tyre
and the high priest Joshua. In the LXX of Ezekiel, the cherub is throwing the human
priestly figure out of paradise from among the fire stones. Similarly, in Zech 3, the
satan is proposing to throw out the high priest Joshua owing to his and his colleagues
sins. Here, however, the angel is opting for mercy and, as Joshua is a brand plucked
from the fire, he is cleansed.
1
“THE WHOLE EARTH REMAINS AT PEACE”
(ZECHARIAH 1:11):
THE PROBLEM AND AN INTERTEXTUAL CLUE
Al Wolters
Zechariah 1:7–17 describes the first of the eight night visions found in
chs. 1–6 of the book of Zechariah. In this first vision, we are initially
introduced to a rider, seated on a chestnut horse, who is accompanied by
an indeterminate number of other horses of different colors. It seems that
the prophet is himself accompanied by an interpreting angel, of whom he
asks what these horses mean, and he is told that they are “those whom
the Lord has sent to patrol the earth.” 1 The text then proceeds as follows:
11Then they [presumably the riders of the horses] spoke to the angel of the
LORD who was standing among the myrtle trees, “We have patrolled the
earth, and lo, the whole earth remains at peace (t+q#w tb#y).” 12Then the
angel of the LORD said, “O LORD of hosts, how long will you withhold
mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which you have been
angry these seventy years?” 13Then the Lord replied with gracious and
comforting words to the angel who talked with me.
Thereupon the interpreting angel explains to Zechariah the content of

these gracious and comforting words.
In this brief quotation we take note of three significant speeches: the
report of the horsemen (v. 11), the complaint of the angel of the Lord
(v. 12), and the Lord’s response (v. 13, which is then elaborated in
vv. 14–17). There is something surprising about each of these speeches.
The report of the horsemen is surprising because it states that peace
reigns throughout the world, even though the date of the vision puts it in
a time of great political upheaval in the Persian Empire. The complaint
of the angel of the Lord is surprising because it takes this peaceful
condition of the world as evidence that the Lord is withholding his mercy
1. Unless otherwise noted, biblical passages in English will be cited according to

the NRSV.
1
WOLTERS “The Whole Earth Remains at Peace” 129
from Jerusalem. Finally, the response of the Lord is surprising because it

counters this seemingly unreasonable complaint with a promise of the
return of his favor.
In the present essay I propose to take a closer look at the first of these
surprises (the horsemen’s report of peace), with a brief look at the second
surprise (the angel’s complaint), while recognizing that it is really the
third surprise (the return of the Lord’s favor) which constitutes the main
point of the first vision. Accordingly, the question we will address is the
following: In what sense was there peace in the world at the time of
Zechariah’s visions? In order to deal with this question, we need to take
note of the date of the vision, and to review what is known of the state of
the ancient Near East at that time. It turns out that we can date the vision
with great precision, and that the state of the world—at least the world
known to the Jews at that time—appears to have been anything but
peaceful.
Verse 7 gives the date of this vision in very precise terms: “on the
twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month, the month of Shebat, in the
second year of Darius.” The precision of this date is matched by the
precision with which it can nowadays be converted to our own calendar.
Commentators are agreed that the Persian date of the vision corresponds
to February 15, 519 B.C.E.2 As it happens, we are reasonably well-
informed about world events in the years leading up to February 519
B.C.E. Cyrus the Great had died ten years before, in 530, after having
established the largest empire the world had ever known, stretching from
Greece to India. The ensuing decade, precisely the ten years from
Cyrus’s death to the time of Zechariah’s visions, are aptly called “The
Critical Decade” by the historian J. M. Cook. 3 As he puts it, “The ten
years after Cyrus’s death were crucial to the survival of the empire.” 4
After an initial period of imperial expansion, during which Cyrus’s son
Cambyses invaded and annexed Egypt, there was a period of great
political turmoil and instability in the empire. Cambyses was killed in
522 as he hurried back from Egypt to face the challenge of a pretender to
the throne. Thereupon the throne was seized by Darius I, who killed the
2. See, e.g., Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction

and Commentary (TOTC; Leicester: Intervarsity, 1972), 94, and Carol L. Meyers
and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8 (AB 25B; Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1987), 108. However, since in the time-reckoning of the ancient Near
East the day began at nightfall, not midnight, and since the first vision may well have
been received before midnight, it is possible that the correct date for the first vision
in our calendar is actually February 14, not February 15.
3. John M. Cook, The Persian Empire (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1993), 44.
1
4. Ibid., 43.
pretender, and then proceeded to quell a whole series of rebellions which

broke out all over the empire.
A detailed listing of these revolts and their suppression is given in the
famous Behistun inscription, the trilingual account of Darius’s early
victories which in the nineteenth century provided the key to the decipher-
ment of Akkadian. In it Darius boasts of having won nineteen battles and
captured nine rebel kings in the space of a single year (522–521).5 A
careful analysis of the Behistun inscription shows that it was produced in
two stages: the first stage depicted and described the exploits of that
single remarkable year, and was chiseled into the rock face between early
520 and sometime in 519; the second stage was an addendum added in
518, after two further victories by Darius over the Elamites and the
“pointed-hat Scythians,” and includes references to these victories as
well.6 In relation to Zechariah, this means that the prophet’s visions were
received at about the time the first stage of the Behistun inscription was
being completed, and prior to Darius’s two further campaigns. In other
words, Zechariah’s visions are dated in the middle of the great upheavals
which were threatening the Persian Empire during the first few years of
Darius’s reign. It seems very paradoxical that the horsemen of the first
vision should report at that time that the whole world was “at rest and in
peace.”
We might be tempted to resolve the paradox by emphasizing, not the
political condition of the Persian empire at that time, but the spiritual
condition of the world in general. After all, a prophetic vision is primar-
ily a religious message, and the horsemen explicitly state that it is “the
whole earth” (Cr)h-lk) which is at rest and in peace. But such an inter-
pretation would make the horsemen’s report sound even more paradoxical,
because the world at large in the sixth century B.C.E. was characterized
by the spiritual and intellectual revolutions of the so-called “Axial Age.”
The English expression “Axial Age” is a translation of the German
Achsenzeit, a term coined by the twentieth-century German philosopher
Karl Jaspers, but designating a phenomenon which was first observed by
the eighteenth-century French orientalist A.-H. Anquetil-Duperron. 7 It
5. Ibid., 56.
6. See Josef Wiesehöfer, Der Aufstand Guamatas und die Anfänge Dareios I
(Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1978), 228–29.
7. See Dieter Metzler, “A.-H. Anquetil-Duperron (1731–1805) und das Konzept
der Achsenzeit,” in Achaemenid History VII: Through Travellers’ Eyes: European
Travellers on the Iranian Monuments (ed. Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Jan
Willem Drijvers; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1991),
123–31.
1
refers to the fact that the sixth century B.C.E. saw the almost simultane-
ous rise, in widely disparate Asian and European cultures, of a number of
thinkers and spiritual leaders of world-historical importance. This was
the time of Confucius and Lao-Tze in China, Buddha in India, Zarathus-
tra in Persia, Jeremiah and the other sixth-century prophets in Israel, and
the Presocratic philosophers in Greece. As Anquetil put it in 1771: “This
[was an] age, which can be regarded as a momentous era in the History
of the human race. There occurred in nature at that time a kind of
revolution which produced in various parts of the earth Geniuses which
were to set the tone for the universe.”8 The spiritual “revolution” to which
Anquetil refers, and which did indeed “set the tone” for large segments
of the human race for millennia thereafter, represented (at least for the
cultures outside of Israel) an unprecedented break with the past in a
whole series of different cultural contexts in the then-known world. With
the exception of China, all of the cultures affected were within the con-
fines of the Persian Empire, and thus within the purview of the Jews at
that time. Especially the religion of Zoroastrianism, which spread like
wildfire in the sixth century, and which may well have been the official
religion of their Persian overlords, would have been well known to the
Jews at that time.9 They would have been well aware that the spiritual
climate of the wider world known to them was anything but quiet or
peaceful.
Given the tumultuous state, both politically and spiritually, of the
world at that time, how are we to interpret the report of the horsemen in
Zechariah’s first vision? In what sense was it true that in February 519
B.C.E. the whole earth was “at rest and in peace” ( NIV)? Let me briefly
survey some of the more common answers which commentators have
given to this question, and then propose a solution of my own.
One solution, at least with regard to the political upheavals early in
Darius’s reign, is to regard the vision as referring, not to a time contem-
poraneous with the prophet, but to an earlier or later time. There are a
number of ways in which this has been proposed. Van Hoonacker saw
Zechariah transported, as in an ecstatic state, to the time of the exile. 10
8. Cited in ibid., 125: “Ce siècle, qui peut être regardé comme une époque
considérable dans l’Histoire du genre humain. Il se fit alors dans la nature une espèce
de révolution qui produisit dans plusieurs parties de la terre des Génies qui devoient
donner le ton à l’univers.”
9. On Zoroastrianism and the Persians, see Josef Wiesehöfer, Ancient Persia
(London: I. B. Tauris, 1996), 94–101; Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A
History of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 550–51.
10. See Albin Van Hoonacker, Les douze petits prophètes (Paris: Victor Lecoffre,
1908), 590.
1
Others have taken the account of the first vision to have been actually
written before the upheavals of the beginning of Darius’s reign. This is
the tack taken by Mitchell in the International Critical Commentary, and
by a number of others.11 A variant of this approach adopted by some
commentators is to accept the date of the vision, but to take it neverthe-
less to be describing an earlier or later time. 12 The difficulty with all of
these proposals is that they go against the most natural sense of the text,
which clearly dates the first vision to the second year of Darius, and has
the horsemen report on the present condition of the earth.
A second solution is to take the horsemen’s report to refer to the
political situation of the Persian Empire after Darius had quelled the
rebellions of 522–521, and thus to minimize (explicitly or implicitly) the
destabilizing effects of his subsequent campaigns against the Elamites
and Scythians, as recorded in the addendum of the Behistun inscription.
This is probably the most widely held position in twentieth-century com-
mentaries, represented for example by Elliger and Meyers and Meyers.13
Although this solution to the paradox is widely adopted, there are
decisive reasons for not accepting it. First of all, by minimizing the sig-
nificance of Darius’s later campaigns against the Elamites and Scythians,
it fails to appreciate the threat which these enemies posed to the stability
of the empire. Although the Scythians were peripheral to the imperial
11. Hinkley G. T. Mitchell, J. M. Powis Smith, and Julius A. Brewer, A Critical

and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah (ICC;
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 121–22; Rex A. Mason, The Books of Haggai,
Zechariah and Malachi (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 37;
Paul L. Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1995), 53–54.
12. Thus J. van Andel (De kleine profeten [Leeuwarden: Amsing, 1881], 277)
takes the first vision to describe the situation before Babylon’s fall, while Douglas R.
Jones (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: Introduction and Commentary [TBC; London:
SCM Press, 1962], 59) considers it likely that Zechariah is here depicting a time still
in the future.
13. See Karl Elliger, Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten II: Die Propheten
Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi (ATD 25; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1949), 108–9, and Meyers and Meyers, Haggai,
Zechariah 1–8, 115, 130. For others who adopt this view, see Baldwin, Haggai,
Zechariah, Malachi, 96; Klaus Seybold, Bilder zum Tempelbau: Die Visionen des
Propheten Sacharja (SBS; Stuttgart: KBW, 1974), 95; Kenneth L. Barker,
“Zechariah,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 7, Daniel and the Minor
Prophets (ed. Frank E. Gaebelein et al.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 611;
Robert B. Chisholm, Interpreting the Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1990), 238; Eugene H. Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. An Exegetical Com-
mentary (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 104.
1
holdings, Elam was situated in the heartland of the Persian empire, and a
successful revolt there would have been nothing short of disastrous for
Persian control of the empire.
But there is another consideration which is especially telling against
this interpretation. If the report of the horsemen meant simply that Darius
was once again firmly in control of the Persian Empire, it would in effect
be repeating widespread imperial propaganda which Zechariah’s hearers
would know to be false within months, even before the date of Zech 7:1.
When the first stage of the Behistun inscription, with its account of the
victories over nine rebel kings, had been completed in early 520 (or pos-
sibly 519) B.C.E., copies of it in various languages were sent throughout
the empire.14 An Aramaic version has been found in Egypt, and an
Akkadian version in Babylonia.15 There is little doubt that the same text
must also have been sent to the province of Yehud, where Zechariah
resided, and that its contents would have been made known to the Jews
either shortly before or shortly after February 15, 519, the date of Zech-
ariah’s visions. The message of this widely distributed text was basically
the following: “I, Darius, have quelled all revolts, and am firmly in
control.” In other words: “All quiet on the imperial front.” Since this
message must have been made known to the Jews at about the same time
as Zechariah’s visions, the report of the horsemen in the first vision, if it
did have reference to imperial political stability, would have sounded
like Darius’s propaganda, which was moreover almost immediately
falsified by the reports of further upheavals in connection with the
Elamites and the pointed-hat Scythians.16 It seems unlikely that such
already falsified propaganda would have been included in the published
form of Zechariah’s prophecies.
A third solution to the paradox is to deny any connection between the
report of the horsemen in the first vision and the political events going on
in the first years of Darius’s reign. This is a point that is forcefully made
in the recent German commentary on Zech 1–8 by Robert Hanhart, who
explicitly speaks of the Zusammenhanglosigkeit, the absence of any
14. On the date, see Rykle Borger, Die Chronologie des Darius-Denkmals am
Behistun-Felsen (Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. I.
Philologisch-historische Klasse; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 112.
On the distributed copies, see Briant, Cyrus to Alexander, 123.
15. Briant, Cyrus to Alexander, 123.
16. Charles L. Feinberg, The Minor Prophets (Chicago: Moody, 1990), 276:
“The riders report that all the earth is enjoying peace. The early years of Darius’s
reign were marked by repeated rebellions throughout the Persian Empire, but at this
time all was quiet again.”
1
connection, between the horsemen’s report and the contemporary politi-

cal situation of the Persian Empire.17 The same point had been made
already, though less emphatically, by Julius Wellhausen, who comments
on Zech 1:11 as follows: “A reference to the contemporary disturbances
in the Persian Empire can be concluded only e silentio; it is remarkable
how little they are in evidence.” 18 In my judgment, this more careful
formulation by Wellhausen hits the nail on the head; the first vision of
Zechariah may refer tangentially to the political turmoil of the day, but it
is not the primary point of the horsemen’s report that the whole earth is
at peace. The dramatic discovery of the Behistun inscription in the
nineteenth century, with its detailed enumeration of the uprisings which
were suppressed by Darius, has proved to be something of a red herring,
and has caused many biblical exegetes in the twentieth century to lose
their sense of perspective in interpreting the first vision. 19
The same point holds with respect to the spiritual revolutions of the
Axial Age. Although the Jews would have been aware of some of these
movements, especially Zoroastrianism, it probably never occurred to
Zechariah or his audience to connect them with the horsemen’s report. If
the report said that the whole earth was at peace, then it must have been
referring to something other than the decidedly un-peaceful develop-
ments which they were witnessing in the Persian Empire and beyond.
If there is no direct connection between Zechariah’s first vision and
either the political turmoil surrounding Darius’s accession or the spiritual
and intellectual revolutions of the day, then the paradox sketched above
can be said to have been resolved, and we must look elsewhere for an
interpretation of the statement that the whole earth was “at rest and in
peace.” Before presenting our own proposal, I will briefly outline two
further approaches that have commonly been taken, but which we find
unpersuasive.
The first of these finds the key to the enigmatic “peace” of Zechariah’s
vision in the second chapter of Haggai, where the prophet twice predicts
a geopolitical shaking which will usher in the Messianic age:
17. Robert Hanhart, Sacharja 1–8 (BKAT 14/7.1; Neukirchen–Vluyn:

Neukirchener, 1991), 68.
18. Julius Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten (4th ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963
[orig. 1892]), 179: “Bezugnahme auf die damaligen Unruhen im Perserreich kann
man hier nur e silentio erschliessen; es ist sonderbar, wie wenig man davon merkt.”
19. This is correctly seen by Lars G. Rignell, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja:
Eine exegetische Studie (Lund: Gleerup, 1950), 42; and Meredith G. Kline, Glory in
Our Midst: A Biblical-theological Reading of Zechariah’s Night Visions (Overland
Park, Kans.: Two Age, 2001), 32–33.
1
For thus says the LORD of hosts: Once again, in a little while, I will shake
the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land; and I will shake all
the nations, so that the treasure of all nations shall come… (Hag 2:6–7)
Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I am about to shake the
heavens and the earth, and to overthrow the throne of kingdoms; I am
about to destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the nations… (Hag 2:21–
22a)
Some exegetes bring these verses to bear on the universal peace and
quiet which is reported in Zechariah’s first vision, and therefore interpret
that peace as the absence of the longed-for shaking. On this view, the
horsemen have been unable to detect any messianic stirrings in the
nations of the world. This is the interpretation which we find in a whole
range of interpreters, from Keil and Wellhausen in the nineteenth century
to Jeremias and Webb in the twentieth and twenty-first. 20 It is often
combined with the second solution to the paradox that was discussed
above, namely that the initial stirrings of revolt had been suppressed by
Darius, and that therefore the first signs of the hoped-for shaking had not
ushered in the Messianic age, but had instead come to nothing. We find
this combination of Haggai’s “shaking” prophecies with the Persian
rebellions, for example, in Sellin and many others. 21
Despite its great popularity, there are serious objections to the inter-
pretation of Zechariah’s “peace” as the absence of Haggai’s “shaking.”
20. Carl F. Keil, Biblischer Commentar über die zwölf kleinen Propheten (3d ed.;
Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament; Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1886),
540; Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten, 179; Christian Jeremias, Die Nachtgesichte
des Sacharja: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Stellung im Zusammenhang der
Visionsberichte im Alten Testament und zu ihrem Bildmaterial (FRLANT 117;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 30; Barry G. Webb, The Message of
Zechariah: Your Kingdom Come (The Bible Speaks Today; Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity, 2003), 71–72. Others who adopt this interpretation are Theodor F. D.
Kliefoth, Der Prophet Sacharjah (Schwerin: Stiller, 1862), 23; Charles H. H.
Wright, Zechariah and His Prophecies (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1879), 20;
Samuel R. Driver, The Minor Prophets (NCB; Edinburgh: Jack, 1906), 185; Rignell,
Nachtgesichte, 42; Merrill F. Unger, Zechariah: Prophet of Messiah’s Glory (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 29.
21. Ernst Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch, Zweite Hälfte: Nahum-Maleachi (3d
ed.; Leipzig: Scholl, 1930), 484; Jan Ridderbos, De kleine Profeten, Derde Deel:
Haggai, Zacharia, Maleachi (Korte Verklaring der Heilige Schrift; Kampen: Kok,
1935), 49–50; Feinberg, Minor Prophets, 276; D. Deden, De kleine profeten (De
Boeken van het Oude Testament; Roermond/Maaseik: Romen & Zonen, 1953–56),
323; Theophane Chary, Aggée–Zacharie–Malachi (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1969), 61;
A. S. van der Woude, Zacharia (POuT; Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1984), 37.
1
In the first place, the shaking of which Haggai speaks clearly does have
political overtones, especially in Hag 2:21–22, where we read of the
Lord overthrowing the throne of kingdoms and destroying their strength.
As we have demonstrated above, this is exactly the kind of political and
military turmoil that was going on in the Persian Empire at that time, and
it therefore makes no sense to speak of the absence of that kind of “shak-
ing” in the first two years of Darius’s reign. In the second place, the two
prophecies of Haggai which speak of the coming “shaking” were chrono-
logically very close to the first vision of Zechariah. The first prophecy
was delivered on October 17, 520 B.C.E., and the second on December 18
of the same year, which means that they came four months and two
months, respectively, before Zechariah’s visions on the following
February 15.22 Given this brief lapse of time, it seems unlikely that the
point of Zechariah’s first vision should be disappointment and complaint
about the non-arrival of an eschatological prophecy made just weeks
before, even one prefaced with the words “in a little while.” In the third
place, as Junker points out, the central message of the first vision is the
return of the Lord’s favor in the immediate future, with the rebuilding of
the temple (vv. 14–17).23 It would be very odd if that same vision began
with the angelic announcement that God’s promised shaking had not yet
arrived.
The second exegetical approach that I find unpersuasive is that which
interprets the report that “the whole earth remains at peace” as a descrip-
tion of the prosperity of pagan nations as contrasted with the depressed
state of Yehud at that time. This interpretation has an honorable pedi-
gree, going back at least to David Kimchi and Calvin, 24 and counts
22. On the dates of these two prophecies, see, for example, Meyers and Meyers,
Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, xlvi, 49, 66.
23. Hubert Junker, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten, II. Hälfte: Nahum Habakuk
Sophonias Aggäus Zacharias Malachias (HSAT; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1938), 123:
“Jedoch Zacharias will ja seinen Zuhörern die Überzeugung beibringen, daß Jahve
bereits jetzt Israel seine Huld wieder zugewandt hat. Im Vertrauen darauf soll das
Volk jetzt mutig am Tempel bauen. Es ist also nicht wahrscheinlich, daß er noch auf
den Sturz der heidnischen Weltmächte als Zeichen der göttlichen Huld für Israel
wartet.”
24. On Kimchi, see A. M’Caul, Rabbi David Kimchi’s Commentary Upon the
Prophecies of Zechariah (London: James Duncan, 1837), 6. On Calvin, see Iohannes
Calvinus, Praelectiones in duodecim Prophetas quos vocant minores in Iohannis
Calvini opera quae supersunt, Vol. XLIV (Corpus Reformatorum, Vol. 72; ed.
Guilielmus Baum et al.; Brunsvigae: Apud C. A. Schwetschke et Filium, 1890), 137
(English translation: John Calvin, A Commentary on the Twelve Minor Prophets.
Vol. 5, Zechariah & Malachi [Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1849], 34).
1
among its more recent proponents such scholars as Junker and Kline. 25
However, it can hardly be accepted. For one thing, it assumes without
textual support that “all the earth” excludes Yehud, and implies a con-
trast between the two. It is true that the expression Cr)h-lk is variable in
its meaning in Zechariah, sometimes apparently meaning “the whole
land” and restricted to Yehud (see, e.g., Zech 5:3 and 7), but there is no
precedent for its meaning the whole earth but Yehud. For another, there
is no evidence that all or most of the countries of the then-known world
were better off than Yehud. It is true that the returning Jews were experi-
encing hard times, but there is nothing to suggest that they alone, in all
the world, were in such straitened circumstances.
It would be tedious to prolong the list of unconvincing interpreta-
tions.26 I have discussed the main exegetical proposals of the commenta-
tors, and conclude that the horsemen’s report in Zech 1:11 should be
related neither to the political or spiritual upheavals of the Persian
Empire, nor to Haggai’s prophecies of the eschatological shaking of the
world, nor to a contrast of a prosperous pagan world with a hard-pressed
Jewish nation. The time has come to put forward my own suggestion.
My proposal is to read the report of the horsemen as an allusion to Isa
14:7, which reads as follows in the NRSV: “The whole earth is at rest and
quiet; they break forth into singing.” A glance at the MT makes clear that
the correspondence between this verse and Zech 1:11 is even closer than
the English translation indicates:
Isa 14:7a Cr)h-lk h+# hxn
Zech 1:11c t+q#w tb#y Cr)h-lk
25. Junker, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten II, 123, Kline, Glory in Our Midst, 32–
33.
26. For example, the view that the peace of the whole world represents the
absence of war (so Ebenezer Henderson, The Twelve Minor Prophets: Translated
from the Original Hebrew with a Critical and Exegetical Commentary [London:
Hamilton, Adams, 1845; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980], 371; August Köhler, Der
Weissagungen Sacharjas erste Hälfte, Cap. 1–8 [Erlangen: Deichert, 1861], 68;
Conrad J. Bredenkamp, Der Prophet Sacharja [Erlangen: Deichert, 1879], 8), or
their impunity (so Henry Cowles, The Minor Prophets with Notes, Critical, Explana-
tory, and Practical [New York: Appleton, 1866], 299; Peter C. Craigie, Twelve
Prophets. Vol. 2, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and
Malachi [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985], 165), or their arrogant complacency (so
Hellmuth Frey, Das Buch der Kirche in der Weltwende: Die kleinen nachexilischen
Propheten [BAT; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1948], 55). Some have a combination of these,
while George L. Robinson (The Twelve Minor Prophets [New York: Doran, 1926;
repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967], 148) claims that the report “was true only in the
sense that all opposition to the Jews in rebuilding their Temple was at an end.”
1
The subject of the sentence is Cr)h-lk in both texts, and is construed in

both cases with twin verbs—two perfects in Isaiah and two participles in
Zechariah. In both cases, the second verb is a form of +q#, and the first
verbs are closely allied in meaning, since both xwn and b#y refer to a kind
of settled repose.27 The two verses are virtually synonymous, and could
both be translated: “The whole earth rests and is quiet.” It is a reasonable
assumption, given the presence of biblical intertextuality elsewhere in
Zechariah, and his high regard for what he calls “the former prophets,”
that Zech 1:11 contains a deliberate allusion to Isa 14:7. 28 This conclusion
is reinforced by another phrase from the first vision which is reminiscent
of Isa 14. In Zechariah’s words, “the LORD will again comfort Zion and
again choose Jerusalem” (Zech 1:17c), there is a clear echo of Isaiah’s
words “the LORD will have compassion on Jacob and will again choose
Israel” (Isa 14:1a). Especially the phrase Ml#wryb dw( rxbw at the end of
the first vision looks like a deliberate reminiscence of l)r#yb dw( rxbw
at the beginning of Isa 14. In fact, that particular sequence of verb,
adverb and preposition occurs only here in the MT.29
In addition, Zechariah’s night visions appear to allude to Isa 14 in
other places as well. Zechariah 1:13 (Eng. 2:9) (“they shall become
plunder for their own slaves”) is reminiscent of Isa 14:2 (“the house of
Israel will possess the nations as male and female slaves”) and Zech 2:15
(Eng. 2:11) (“Many nations shall join themselves [wwlnw] to the LORD on
that day, and shall be my people”) is reminiscent of Isa 14:1 (“aliens will
join them [hwlnw] and attach themselves to the house of Jacob”).
Nevertheless, it is a striking fact that almost all commentators have
overlooked the close verbal correspondence between Zech 1:11 and Isa
14:7, and the possible significance of this correspondence for the inter-
pretation of the enigmatic report of the horsemen. The only exception I
27. Köhler, Weissagungen, 64: “Beide Verba dienen zum Ausdruck des Begriffes
ruhig daliegen.”
28. On intertextuality in Zechariah, see Janet E. Tollington, Tradition and
Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah (JSOTSup 150; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1993), and R. Nurmela, Prophets in Dialogue: Inner Biblical Allusions in
Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14 (Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press, 1996). For a general
discussion of allusions to Isa 13–14 in Zech 1–8, see also H. G. M. Williamson (The
Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction [Oxford:
Clarendon, 1994], 174–75), who speaks of “other possible allusions to earlier texts
in Zechariah (e.g. cf. 1:11 with Isa. 14:7).” My thanks to Mark Boda for this
reference.
29. Abraham Even-Shoshan, A New Concordance of the Bible (Jerusalem:
Kiryath Sepher, 1983) s.v. rxb.
1
am aware of is the sixteenth-century Protestant theologian Oecolam-

padius, whose comment on Zech 1:11 consists largely of a citation of Isa
14:5–7.30
If the wording of the horsemen’s report is a deliberate allusion to Isa
14:7, then we must take a closer look at the context in which the latter
occurs. Briefly put, the context is the taunt-song against the king of
Babylon, and the “peace” of the whole earth refers to the relief from the
oppression at the hands of the king of Babylon—the relief which the
earth is now experiencing at his death. That this is the meaning of the
earth’s “peace” emerges clearly from the use of the verb hxn in 14:7a,
and from the parallel colon in 14:7b. The verb hxn (Qal perfect of the
root xwn) must be understood in the light of the verb xynh (Hiphil
infinitive of the same root) in 14:3, which reads as follows in the NIV:
“On the day the LORD gives you relief (xynh) from suffering and turmoil
and cruel bondage, you will take up this taunt against the king of Baby-
lon.” The “peace” which the whole earth experiences is a relief from
cruel oppression at the hands of the king of Babylon. That is why the
parallel colon reads “they break out in singing.” The condition in which
the earth now finds itself is one of exuberant joy at the demise of the
despotic king of Babylon.
This interpretation is further supported by the meaning of the verb
+q#, which is used here. As Christian Jeremias points out, this verb
usually refers to a state of being freed from war, oppression, or destruc-
tion, and often has Cr) as subject.31 It is often used in Joshua and Judges,
as in “the land had rest (h+q#) from war” (Josh 11:23) and “the land had
rest (+q#tw) forty years” (Judg 3:11). In the context of Isa 14, therefore,
30. See Ioannes Oecolampadius, In minores quos vocant prophetas (Geneva,

1558), 172: “Perambulauimus, aiunt, terram, & quiescit omnis terra. Ceciderat enim
& Babylon, contra cuius regem sumitur parabola Esa.14. Contriuit Dominus bacu-
lum impiorum, virgam dominantium, cædentem populos in indignatione plaga
insanabili. Conquieuit & siluit omnis terra, gauisa est & exultauit, abietes quoque
lætatæ sunt super te. Et Hiere. 50. Capta est Babylon.& 51 Cecidit Babylon” (“They
say ‘We have traversed the earth, and the whole earth is quiet.’ For Babylon also had
fallen, against whose king is taken up the proverb in Isaiah 14, ‘The Lord has broken
the staff of the wicked, the scepter of rulers, which struck down the peoples in wrath,
with an incurable blow. The whole earth was at rest and quiet, it rejoiced and
exulted, the fir trees also were glad over you’ [Isa 14:5–8a]. Also Jer 50[:1],
‘Babylon has been captured,’ and 51[:8], ‘Babylon has fallen.’ ”)
31. Jeremias, Nachtgesichte, 30 n. 38: “Das 1, 11 gebrauchte Wort +q# bezeich-
net meistens das Befreitsein von Krieg, Bedrückung, Vernichtung, oft mit Cr) als
Subjekt: s. Jos. 11,23; 14,15; Ri 3,11.30; 5,31; 8,28; Jes 14,7; Jer 30,10; 46,27;
47,6.7; 48,11; Ez 38,11; 2 Chr 13,23; 14,4.5; 20,30.”
1
the concept of the whole earth at peace refers to the lands of the
Babylonian Empire being freed from their oppressor. It may be that the
taunt-song of Isa 14 was originally addressed in the eighth century to the
Assyrian ruler Tiglath-pileser, who had assumed as one of his titles “king
of Babylon.”32 But there can be little doubt that the Jews of the Babylo-
nian exile in the sixth century would have applied this text to their own
situation, especially since Isa 14:1–2 speaks of a return of the Jews to
their homeland. For them, the “king of Babylon” who is mocked in this
taunt-song could only be Nebuchadnezzar and his successors, especially
Nabonidus, the last king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire before it fell to
Cyrus the Great. For the Jews of the restoration, therefore, the joyful
condition described in Isa 14:7 referred to the situation of all those
peoples who had suffered under the yoke of the Neo-Babylonians, and
who had been freed from that yoke by Cyrus and the Persians. They
themselves had experienced, less than two decades before Zechariah
received his visions, the fulfillment of the promise of the return which
was associated in Isa 14 with the taunt-song satirizing the fall of the king
of Babylon. For the last two decades they had lived in a world character-
ized by the prophetic pronouncement: “The whole earth is at rest and
quiet.” There might be individual wars and revolts within the Persian
Empire, but in terms of God’s overall redemptive plan, which had been
so dramatically vindicated in the recent past by the fall of Babylon to the
Persians and the return of the Jews, the situation of the world was one of
freedom from Babylonian oppression. I take that to be the point of the
report that the horsemen bring in Zechariah’s first vision.
It might be objected against this interpretation that the liberation from
Babylonian oppression had happened some twenty years earlier, and was
no longer a reality of immediate relevance to the ancient Near East.
However, there are three considerations which blunt the force of this
objection. The first is the fact that twenty years is a very short time in the
succession of empires, and that many nations at the time of Zechariah’s
visions were still vividly aware of the difference it made to live under the
relatively benevolent and enlightened rule of the Persians rather than the
harsh and despotic government of the Neo-Babylonians. The Persian
concept of tolerant imperial rule was something unprecedented in the
history of the world, and its benefits were a matter of daily experience for
the Jews.33
32. This is the position argued in John H. Hayes and Stuart A. Irvine, Isaiah, the
Eighth-century Prophet: His Times and His Preaching (Nashville: Abingdon, 1987),
227–29.
33. On the remarkable tolerance of the Persian kings, see Klaus Koch, “Weltord-
nung und Reichsidee im alten Iran,” in Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im
1
The second consideration that we need to bear in mind is the revolts of

Nebuchadnezzar III and IV in the years just prior to Zechariah’s visions.
Although the various rebellions which broke out upon Darius’s accession
are not of immediate relevance for interpreting the first vision, we can be
sure that both Zechariah himself and the other Jews of his day would
have been keenly aware of two of them, since they immediately affected
Babylonia, where the majority of the exiled Jews still lived. In 522,
shortly after Darius’s accession, a man calling himself Nebuchadnezzar,
and claiming descent from the famous Neo-Babylonian king of that
name, proclaimed himself king of Babylon. He was captured and exe-
cuted by Darius shortly after December 18, 522 B.C.E.34 In the following
year another rebel, claiming to be the same person as the recently
executed Nebuchadnezzar, proclaimed himself king of Babylon, and he
in turn was captured (on November 27, 521) and executed. 35 The sig-
nificance of these two rebellions is that they involved two men (perhaps
one person in the public mind) who put themselves up as king of Baby-
lon, and would undoubtedly have represented a real threat to the Jews
who still lived in Babylonia. When the attempts of these two Nebuchad-
nezzars to seize power had been thwarted by Darius, the Jews (who had
presumably followed these developments with considerable anxiety)
would no doubt have called to mind the taunt-song against the king of
Babylon in Isa 14, with its joyful message of the earth freed from Baby-
lonian oppression. Since these events took place less than three years
before Zechariah’s vision, it is likely that the Jews had recently been
reminded of the relevance of Isa 14, and the blessings of living in a
world freed from the Babylonian yoke.
But a third consideration is perhaps the most decisive. As Mark Boda
has recently pointed out, the enemy in view in the cycle of night visions
in Zech 1–6 is still consistently Babylon. Although the city had fallen to
Cyrus twenty years earlier, her fall had been a relatively bloodless one. It
could hardly count as the crushing defeat which the earlier prophets of
Israel had predicted would befall her as punishment for the suffering she
had inflicted upon the Jews. It was only in the more recent suppressions
of revolts in Babylon by Darius that these prophetic predictions were
coming to their true and decisive fulfillment. In a sense the defeat of
Babylon which had been begun by Cyrus in 539, was finally completed
by Darius in 522 and 521. It was only then that the defeat of the “king of
Perserreich (ed. Peter Frei and Klaus Koch; OBO 55; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1984), 52–53.
34. Borger, Chronologie, 117.
1
35. Ibid., 118.
Babylon” was accomplished in a definitive way, and that the whole earth
could be said to be “at rest and quiet,” as Isaiah had predicted. 36
We can now also understand why a positive report by the horsemen is
followed in the vision by the angel’s complaint about God withholding
mercy from Jerusalem. There is a discrepancy between the long-term
redemptive-historical situation of the world at large, freedom at last from
the Babylonian oppression, and the short-term situation of the Jews in
Jerusalem, which was characterized by spiritual, political, and economic
troubles. The Jews themselves were part of the world which now enjoyed
post-Babylonian liberty, they were part of “the whole earth” which was
“at rest and quiet,” and yet their immediate condition was pitiful. They
were like many non-whites in post-apartheid South Africa today, who are
frustrated by the discrepancy between the joyful reality of living in a
newly democratic state, and the depressing reality of everyday existence.
In the case of the Jews in Zechariah’s day, their frustration was height-
ened by the fact that the temple had lain in ruins for almost seventy
years, and a great deal needed to happen if the temple were to be rebuilt
before the seventy years of God’s promise were completed.
A final detail of Zechariah’s first vision becomes clear when we
interpret the horsemen’s report in the light of Isa 14. In the third speech
of the vision (the divine response) the Lord says: “I am extremely angry
with the nations that are at ease” (Zech 1:15). The words “that are at
ease” render the Hebrew adjective Mynn)#h, which is taken by some com-
mentators as being synonymous with t+q#, “at peace,” in v. 11.37 This is
a mistake, however. Although there may be contexts where the meaning
of the root N)# overlaps with that of +q# (see, e.g., Jer 30:10), the former
unlike the latter often has a negative connotation, implying complacency,
insolence, and pride.38 It is clearly this negative connotation which is
operative in Zech 1:15, where the Lord is angry with the nations who
exhibit such characteristics. We must therefore distinguish carefully
between what is said in 1:15 about “the nations,” meaning by this the
36. Mark J. Boda, “Terrifying the Horns: Persia and Babylon in Zechariah 1:7–
6:15,” CBQ 67 (2005): 22–41 (anticipated in his Haggai, Zechariah [The NIV
Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004], 193–94). The view of
Darius as completing Cyrus’s work in defeating Babylon according to prophetic
prediction is also put forward in Konrad Schmid and Odil Hannes Steck, “Restora-
tion Expectations in the Prophetic Tradition of the Old Testament,” in Restoration:
Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (ed. James M. Scott; JSJSup 72;
Leiden: Brill, 2001), 41–81 (73–74).
37. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 96, 99–100; Meyers and Meyers,
Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 121; Webb, Zechariah, 70, 71.
1
38. See, e.g., Amos 6:1; Isa 37:29; and Ps 123:4 in the NIV.
oppressors of Israel, and what is said in 1:11 about “the whole world,”
meaning by this the peoples who had themselves suffered oppression.
The conclusions of the present study can be summarized as follows.
When the horsemen of Zechariah’s first vision report that they find the
whole earth “at peace,” this does not refer in general to the contemporary
political disturbances in the Persian Empire, nor to the absence of the
eschatological “shaking” which had been predicted by Haggai, nor to the
prosperous condition of pagan nations in contrast to Yehud. Instead, it is
an allusion to Isa 14:7, and designates the situation of the nations who
had recently seen the demise of their erstwhile oppressor.
1
SUSTAINED ALLUSION IN ZECHARIAH 1–2
Michael R. Stead
1. Introduction
While there is a near-universal consensus that Zech 1–8 is aware of, and
alludes to, earlier prophetic works, there is an ongoing debate about the
extent and significance of this phenomenon. 1 In part, this debate turns on
the question of how a genuine reuse of earlier material might be detected.
For example, Nurmela argues that the only objective evidence of reuse is
in verbal repetition of rare words or phrases from another text. 2 Nurmela
criticizes the methodology of other approaches (citing Mason and Tolling-
ton) because their inclusion of thematic connections and/or tradition
influences can sometimes go beyond that which can be established on the
basis of strict verbal parallels.3
1. There are different methodological approaches to this phenomenon, reflected

in conceptual differences between “inner-biblical allusion,” “intertextuality,” and
“tradition-historical analysis.” It is beyond the scope of this essay to address this
issue, though for an argument that it is legitimate to combine elements of all three
approaches, see my doctoral dissertation: “Zechariah and the ‘Former Prophets’: An
Intertextual Examination of the Re-Use of the Prophetic Tradition in Zechariah 1–8”
(University of Gloucestershire, 2007), §2.3. Cf. David L. Petersen, “Zechariah 9–14:
Methodological Reflections,” in Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion
in Zechariah 9–14 (ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd; JSOTSup 370; London:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 210–24.
2. Risto Nurmela, Prophets in Dialogue: Inner-Biblical Allusions in Zechariah
1–8 and 9–14 (Åbo: Åbo Akademis, 1996), 27. A similar approach is also taken by
Richard L. Schultz, “The Ties That Bind: Intertextuality, the Identification of Verbal
Parallels, and Reading Strategies in the Book of the Twelve,” in Thematic Threads
in the Book of the Twelve (ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin:
de Gruyter, 2003), 28. He argues—somewhat ironically, given the title of the book
containing his article—that a method based on “thematic allusions” is too vague, and
that “verbal parallels that offer a more extensive textual basis for positing an inten-
tional interrelationship is a more viable approach.”
3. Risto Nurmela, “The Growth of the Book of Isaiah Illustrated by Allusions in
Zechariah,” in Boda and Floyd, eds., Bringing Out the Treasure, 245–47.
1
STEAD Sustained Allusion in Zechariah 1–2 145
However, Nurmela’s method is itself not immune to criticism, because

it is based on the assumption that Zech 1–8 alludes to other texts by
means of verbal repetition, thereby assuming the thing it seeks to prove.
However, if indeed Zech 1–8 reflects the “tradition in transition” (to pick
up the title of this volume), then perhaps it is possible that earlier tradi-
tions have been reutilized and transformed in ways that a method based
on strict verbal repetition is unable to detect.
This is an issue which I have explored more fully in my doctoral
dissertation.4 In it, I develop a method for detecting the reuse of earlier
prophetic material in Zech 1–8 which is sensitive to the manner in which
texts are actually used in Zech 1–8, by working inductively from the
clearest known examples of allusion. I have included five examples in
the appendix to the present study, from which it is clear that there are
almost no instances in Zech 1–8 of citation or direct quotation. Instead,
what we find are fragments or “echoes” of other texts, which have been
transformed in the process of reuse, often by the substitution of some
words with their cognates or synonyms. This observation has significant
methodological implications. A method which restricts itself to verbal
repetition will ignore the presence of synonyms, and so exclude from
consideration one characteristic pattern of reuse in Zech 1–8. Thus, the
nature of textual reuse in Zech 1–8 suggests that a broader method, which
can also recognize the repetition of themes or traditions, is required.
However, this brings us back to Nurmela’s criticism of Mason and those
with similar views, that this kind of an approach is too subjective because
it is not falsifiable. My answer to this objection was to develop a new
computer-based search engine which allows thematic searching (i.e.
searching for synonyms) based on recent developments in identifying
semantic domains in Biblical Hebrew.
This present essay seeks to develop some of these conclusions by
examining one pattern of allusion in Zech 1–2 which goes beyond verbal
repetition. My argument is that one of the ways in which Zech 1–2 refers
to other texts is by means of sustained allusion, that is, multiple scattered
references to another text. I shall demonstrate this with reference to two
particular texts, Lam 2 and Isa 54.
2. The Connections Between Lamentations 2:1–17

and Zechariah 1:6–2:9 (Eng. 1:6–2:5)
In Zech 1–2, there are a number of parallels with Lam 2. While one or
even a few of these parallels might be regarded as mere coincidence, the
1
4. See further Stead, “Zechariah and the ‘Former Prophets’,” §2.6.
sheer weight of connections makes a persuasive cumulative case for a

deliberate and sustained allusion in Zech 1–2 to Lam 2. 5 My aim in this
section is to outline some of these parallels, and then to suggest the
possible rhetorical effect of this sustained allusion to Lam 2.
a. Example 1: Zechariah 1:6b and Lamentations 2:17a

Mmz r#) hwhy h#(
Yahweh has done as he purposed. (Lam 2:17a)
wnt) h#( Nk…tw#(l tw)bc hwhy Mmz r#)k
Just as Yahweh of Hosts purposed to do…thus he has done to us.
(Zech 1:6b)
Outside of Zechariah, this language of Yahweh’s purpose (Mmz) to bring
judgment on his people is rare. It only occurs in this sense in Jeremiah
and Lamentations (see Jer 4:28; 23:20; 30:24; Lam 2:17). However, the
Jeremian references are all a declaration of God’s prospective intention
to judge, whereas only Lam 2:17 is (like Zech 1:6b) a retrospective
acknowledgment, by those who have been judged, that Yahweh has done
what he purposed.6 I recognize that there is a wider debate as to whether
these words purport to be the words of the “fathers” referred to in 1:6a
(in which case they record the repentance of that former generation), 7 or
whether they are an historical postscript to Zechariah’s words in Zech
1:1–6a (in which case they record the repentance of Zechariah’s own
generation).8 However, for present purposes it is not necessary to reach a
5. It is generally accepted that Lam 2 was written before Zech 1–2. See Paul
House’s treatment of Lamentations in Duane A. Garrett and Paul R. House, Song of
Songs/Lamentations (WBC 23B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 283–303, for a
summary of the various positions on the dating of Lamentations. House concludes
that a majority of modern scholars agree that the book was written by 540–520
B.C.E., and perhaps even completed within a few decades after the fall of Jerusalem.
6. Albert Petitjean (Les Oracles du Proto-Zacharie: Un programme de restau-
ration pour la communauté juive après l’exil [Paris: Librairie Lecoffre; J. Gabalda;
Louvain: Éditions Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1969], 51) connects Zech 1:6b with the
“Jeremian tradition,” citing Jer 51:12 and Lam 2:17.
7. See, e.g., Hinckley G. T. Mitchell, J. M. Powis Smith, and Julius A. Bewer,
Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
(ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 113; David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zecha-
riah 1–8 : A Commentary (OTL; London: Westminster, 1984), 134; and Eibert J. C.
Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of
Watchers and Apocalyptic (OtSt 35; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 85–86.
8. See, e.g., Willem A. M. Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8: Studien zur Über-
lieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie (SSN 10; Assen: Van
conclusion one way or the other.9 Whether it is the repentance of Zecha-

riah’s generation, described in terms recalling the repentance of those in
exile, or whether it alludes to that generation’s repentance directly, my
point is that on either of these two interpretations Zech 1:6b makes its
point by reference to the language of Lam 2:17.
b. Example 2: Zechariah 1:12b and Lamentations 2:6 etc.

htm(z r#) hdwhy yr( t)w Ml#wry-t) Mxrt-)l ht)
[How long O Yahweh] will you not show mercy to Jerusalem and the
cities of Judah, with whom you have been angry? (Zech 1:12b)
The final word of this verse (ht@fm;(azF) suggests a connection to Lam 2:6,
which declares that Yahweh spurned both king and priest in anger (M(azA).
When one considers the thirty-four instances of M(z and its cognates, it is
only in Ezekiel, Lamentations, and Zechariah that the word is used to
refer to the punishment of exile as the expression of Yahweh’s anger
against his people.10 While the instances in Ezekiel (21:36; 22:24, 31)
have other important conceptual links with the wider context of Zech-
ariah,11 only Lam 2:6 and Zech 1:12b use M(z to refer retrospectively to
the judgment of exile.
Gorcum, 1967); 103–4; Petitjean, Oracles du Proto-Zacharie, 50; Rex Mason, The
Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1977), 33; Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A
New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25B; Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1987), 96–97; and Mark J. Boda, Haggai, Zechariah (NIV Application
Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 176. The argument sometimes
levelled against the first interpretation (see, e.g., A. S. van der Woude, “Seid nicht
wie eure Väter: Bemerkungen zu Sacharja 1:5 und seinem Kontext,” in Prophecy:
Essays Presented to Georg Fohrer on His Sixty-fifth Birthday, 6 September, 1980
[ed. John A. Emerton; BZAW 150; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980], 171) is that it creates a
logical difficulty by exhorting Zechariah’s generation to not be like their fathers
(v. 4), yet at the same time urging them to “repent” (v. 3), which is something that
their fathers had done (v. 6b). However, it appears to me that this objection does not
sufficiently take into account the textual connection with Lam 2:17. Clearly, there
was a former generation who were able to utter these words, and so v. 6b might be
continuing his description of that former generation, who repented only after
judgment had fallen. See my concluding comments about a generational shift.
9. For a fuller discussion of Zech 1:6b in the context of Zech 1:1–6, see Stead,
“Zechariah and the ‘Former Prophets’,” §4.2.
10. Ps 102:11 also describes Yahweh’s M(azA as a judgment (in the exile?), but in
individual rather than corporate terms.
11. See Ezek 21:36 (Eng. 21:31) with its “craftsmen of destruction” (y#$'rFxf
tyxi#$;ma); cf. Zech 2:3 and the “craftsmen” (My#$irFxf) who cast down the four horns.
1
Further echoes of Lam 2 can be heard in Zech 1:12b. For example,

Zech 1:12b describes Yahweh’s anger at “Jerusalem and the cities of
Judah” (hdFw%hy: yr"(f t)'w: MyIla#$fw%ry:-t)e hdFw%hy:). Lamentations 2:2 describes
Yahweh’s destruction of “the fortified cities of Daughter Judah” (yr"c;b;mi
hdFw%hy:-tba),12 and, in the same context, Yahweh’s anger at “Daughter
Jerusalem/Zion” (Lam 2:1, 4, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18). 13
Another connection is suggested by the description of Yahweh as “not
showing mercy” (Mx"rAt;-)$l). Elsewhere this phrase is only used in pre-
exilic contexts related to Yahweh’s withdrawal from his people (or a sub-
set thereof) to punish their sin.14 But if the search is widened to include
synonymous phrases, then an exilic parallel can be found at several
points in Lam 2. Lamentations 2:2, 17 (lmaxf )$l) and 2:21 (t@fl;mfxf )$l)—
“without mercy”—are clear conceptual parallels to the phrase, which are
applied (as in Zech 1:12b) to the judgment of the exile in particular.
c. Example 3: Zechariah 1:16b and Lamentations 2:8 etc.

Ml#wry-l( h+ny hwqw
And the measuring line will be stretched over Jerusalem. (Zech 1:16b)
Many commentators recognize an allusion here to Jer 31:38–39 and/or

Ezek 40:2. However, in terms of textual parallels, by far the closest
parallels are with 2 Kgs 21:13 and Lam 2:8. These passages each use the
vocabulary of “stretching” (h+n) and “measuring line” (wq). In addition,
2 Kgs 21:13 also includes the phrase “over Jerusalem” (Ml#wry-l(). By
comparison, the connections with Jeremiah and Ezekiel are scant.
Ezekiel 40:3 has no vocabulary in common with Zech 1:16b, and the
only word in common with Jer 31:39 is the “measuring line” (hwq).15
Presumably, commentators find an allusion to Jer 31/Ezek 40 because
of the positive connotation of the measuring line (i.e. a “rebuilding”
line), whereas in Lam 2 and 2 Kgs 21 the metaphor works in the opposite
direction (i.e. a line of judgment). The context of Zech 1:16 clearly
12. I take it that rcfb;mi in this context to be understood similarly to the more
typical “city of fortification” (rcfb;mi ry(i). See especially Jer 34:7 and the general
usage of Josh 10:20; 19:29, 35; 1 Sam 6:8; 2 Kgs 3:9; 10:2; 17:9; 18:8; Jer 1:18; 4:5;
5:17; 8:14; Ps 108:11; Dan 11:5; 2 Chr 17:19.
13. Zech 2:14 (Eng. 2:10) also later echoes the phrase “Daughter of Zion”
(NwOy,ci-tb@a).
14. Apart from Zech 1:12, otherwise only in Hos 2:6; Isa 9:16; 27:11; and Jer
13:14.
15. Though, interestingly, both Zechariah and Jeremiah do not have the typical
spelling (wq), but rather have hwq, which is otherwise attested only in 1 Kgs 7:23.
demands a positive connotation. However, perhaps this is to miss the

very point that Zech 1 is making. As at other points in the chapter,
Zechariah is reversing Lam 2. Zechariah 1 is deliberately echoing the
phraseology of the negative measuring line in order to stress that a great
reversal is about to take place, signalling that Yahweh is about to undo
the destruction of 586 B.C.E.16
I suggest that this verse takes up the negative image from 2 Kgs 21:13
and Lam 2:8 (which I take to be a reapplication of 2 Kgs 21:13), and
inverts it by further allusion to Jer 31:38–39 (flagged by the imitation of
the unusual spelling of hwq).
d. Example 4: Zechariah 1:17b and Lamentations 2:13 etc.

Myl#wryb dw( rxbw Nwyc-t) dw( hwhy Mxnw
Yahweh will again comfort Zion and again choose Jerusalem. (Zech 1:17b)
The promise of comfort for Zion (Mxn + NwOy,ci) only otherwise occurs in
Isa 51:3 and Lam 2:13. Rather than choosing between either Isa 51:3 or
Lam 2:13 as the antecedent text for the promise in Zech 1:17, perhaps we
should recognize both, acting in concert. Isaiah 51 (understood in the
wider context of Isa 40–55) may well provide the frame of reference for
understanding the promise of Yahweh’s “comfort.”17 But Isa 40–55 does
not provide the background for the re-choosing of Jerusalem (rxabfw%
MIla#$fw%ryb@i dwO(), because in Isa 40–55 the language of “choosing” (rxb)
always refers to people, not to the city of Jerusalem. 18 Instead, the full
16. On the effect of the ambiguous metaphor here, see further Petersen, Haggai
and Zechariah 1–8, 156–57, and Mark Cameron Love, The Evasive Text: Zechariah
1–8 and the Frustrated Reader (JSOTSup 296; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1999), 177–78.
17. The motif of Yahweh’s comfort (Mxn) only occurs in prophetic texts, princi-
pally Isa 40–66. Isa 40:1 establishes the programmatic place of words of Mxn in the
chapters that follow (see especially Isa 49:13; 51:3, 12; 52:9; 61:2; 66:13). I agree
with Holger Delkurt (Sacharjas Nachtgesichte: Zur Aufnahme und Abwandlung
prophetischer Traditionen [BZAW 302; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000], 82) that Zech 1
takes up the message (and messenger) of Isa 40–55, and thereby reactivates the
Isaianic promise of comfort.
18. In Isa 40–55 rxb occurs nine times, predominantly in connection with
Yahweh’s choice of his servant. Elsewhere, particularly in Deuteronomy and
Deuteronomistic texts, the language of Yahweh’s “choice” of Jerusalem has clear
connotations as the place of the temple. See Deut 12:5 (plus a further 20 times in
Deuteronomy), 1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 36; 14:21; 2 Kgs 21:7; 23:27; cf. Jer 7:12). To say
that Yahweh will “again choose Jerusalem” is, in effect, a promise of a rebuilt
temple (as also in Zech 2:16–17 [Eng. 2:12–13]).
1
connotations of “comforting Zion” and “choosing Jerusalem” are to be

understood with reference to Lam 2. Lamentations 2:7 records not Yah-
weh’s “choice” of the city of Jerusalem, but its antithesis, his deliberate
“rejection” (xnz)19 of the city which is expressed in terms of the build-
ings—altar, sanctuary, and walls—rather than the inhabitants. Zechariah
1:17 expresses the reversal of all this. Yahweh’s “comfort of Zion” and
“choice of Jerusalem” are to be understood in terms of the rebuilding of
the city/temple (see Zech 1:16).
e. Example 5: Zechariah 2:4 and Lamentations 2 passim

w#)r )#n-)l #y)-ypk hdwhy-t) wrz-r#) twnrqh hl)
Mywgh twnrq-t) twdyl Mt) dyrxhl hl) w)byw
htwrzl hdwhy Cr)-l) Nrq My)#nh
These are the horns that scattered Judah, so that no head could be raised;
but these [craftsmen] have come to terrify them, to strike down the horns
of the nations who lifted up a horn against the land of Judah to scatter her.
(Zech 2:4 [Eng. 1:21])
In Zechariah’s second vision he sees four horns (NrEqe) which have
scattered God’s people so that “no one could raise his head,” 20 followed
by “ four craftsmen” (My#$irFxF h(fb@fr:)a; Zech 2:3 [Eng. 1:20]) who have
come to terrify and throw down (hdy) those horns.
Lamentations 2 provides the conceptual background for much of this
imagery. Yahweh has cut off “every horn of Israel” (l)'rF#&;yI NrEqe lk@o, Lam
2:3) and “lifted up the horn of your foes” (K7yIrFcf NrEqe Myrih', Lam 2:17). He
has thrown down (K7yli#$;hi)21 the splendor of Israel (Lam 2:1), and
humiliated its people: “The young girls of Jerusalem bow (dry Hiphil)
their heads to the ground” (Lam 2:10).
Zechariah 2 both repeats and reverses Lam 2. It repeats the imagery of
the “horns” and the resultant humiliation—“bowed heads”—but also
19. For rxb and xnz used as antonyms, see 1 Chr 28:1–10. Note especially the
stress on Yahweh’s choice (rxb) in vv. 4, 5, and 6 (and v. 10), which stands in sharp
contrast to the possibility of Yahweh’s rejection (xnz) in v. 9. Similarly, Ps 89 paints
antithetical pictures of Yahweh’s anointed by contrasting “chosen” (rxb, v. 20) and
“rejected” (xnz, v. 39).
20. Love (Evasive Text, 187–92) has an extensive discussion on the possible
intertexts of this phrase. It is somewhat surprising therefore, given Love’s focus on
intertexts with Lam 2 in the immediately preceding pages, that he does not draw any
connection with Lam 2:10, especially since the other intertexts he locates are much
less clear when compared to Lam 2:10.
21. This is a word for “throw down” that is different from though synonymous
with the one used in Zech 2:4. However, the word hdy does appear in the next chapter
of Lamentations (3:53), which is the only other instance of this verb in the Piel.
reverses the imagery of being “lifted up” and “thrown down.” Now it is
the nations that will be “thrown down,” removing those who prevent the
people from lifting their head. However, Lam 2 is not the only source of
imagery in these verses. Interwoven with this imagery from Lam 2 is
imagery taken from other contexts, which results in a mixed metaphor.
For example, the “craftsmen” are a contraction of the “craftsmen of
destruction” (tyxI#$;ma y#$'rFxf) in Ezek 21:36 (Eng. 21:31), perhaps operating
in conjunction with Isa 54:16.22
f. Example 6: Zechariah 2:8b–9 and Lamentations 2:3, 7–9 etc.

hkwtb hmhbw Md) brm Mlw#ry b#t twzrp
hkwtb hyh) dwbklw bybs #) tmwx hwhy-M)n hl-hyh) yn)w
Jerusalem will dwell in unwalled villages, from the multitude of man and
beast in her. For I will be a wall of fire around her, says Yahweh, and I
will be for glory within her. (Zech 2:8b–9 [Eng. 2:4b–5])
22. See also Christian Jeremias (Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja: Untersuchun-
gen zu ihrer Stellung im Zusammenhang der Visionsberichte im Alten Testament und
zu ihrem Bildmaterial [FRLANT 117; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977],
160–61): “Die bildhaft-übertragene Weise, in der sie hier in Sacharjas 2. Nacht-
gesicht erscheinen, wäre zutreffend ausgedrückt in der Formulierung ‘Verderben
schmiedende Männer’. Allerdings begegnet diese nicht bei Sacharja, sondern in
einer jüngeren, nicht von Ezechiel stammenden Ergänzung im Ezechiel-Buch:
otyx#$m y#$rx…Ez 21,36. Die Berührung zwischen dieser EzechielStelle und
Sacharjas 2. Nachtgesicht beschränkt sich aber nicht auf die übertragene Rede-
weise von den My#$rx, sondern betrifft auch den Zusammenhang, in dem diese
vorkommt. So geht es auch im Kontext von Ez 21,36 um eine gegen Israel auf-
gebotene Feind-, Gerichtsmacht, die durch ein Bild verkörpert wird: durch das
Schwert (also nicht wie bei Sacharja durch Hörner). Und ebendiese Feindmacht
wird von Gott in die Hand einer sie vernichtenden Gegenmacht gegeben, die als
My#$rx bezeichnet wird. Diese trotz aller Unterschiede festzustellenden Berührun-
gen in Grundzügen der Komposition und im Thematischen werden sich nicht auf
direkte Beeinflussung oder sogar Abhängigkeit zurückführen lassen. Inhaltlich-
thematisch steht dahinter offenbar ein in exilischer und frühnachexilischer Zeit
verbreitetes Problem, eine mehrfach lautgewordene Frage und auch Hoffnung.”
Jeremias also has a helpful analysis of the usage of #$rx (p. 160 nn. 20 and 21).
Klaus Seybold (“Die Bildmotive in den Visionen des Propheten Sacharja,” in Stud-
ies on Prophecy: A Collection of Twelve Papers [VTSup 26; Leiden: Brill, 1974],
104) registers a connection to the “blacksmiths” of Isa 54:16 as well as Ezek 21:36.
Delkurt (Sacharjas Nachtgesichte, 101) also lists these two passages as the possible
source of Zechariah’s imagery. See also Robert Hanhart (Sacharja [BKAT 14/7;
Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1998], 102–3). For others who see a parallel
between Ezek 21:36 and Zech 2:3, see Mitchell, Smith, and Bewer, Haggai, 133;
Janet A. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8
(JSOTSup 150: Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 226; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, 139.
1
Yahweh’s promise is that Jerusalem will dwell in open country (twOzrFp%;,

i.e. unwalled villages). For protection, Yahweh will be a wall of fire
around the city. Zechariah 2:8–9 contains a deft reversal of two meta-
phors in Lam 2.
In Lam 2 the city also has no walls (hmfwOx) because “Yahweh deter-
mined to lay in ruins the wall of daughter Zion; he stretched the
measuring line” (Lam 2:8). Lamentations 2:7–9 is an extended reflection
on the havoc wreaked on the walls of Jerusalem. Furthermore, in Lam
2:3 Yahweh is a “fire” within the city, in that he has “burned like a
flaming fire in Jacob” (bybisf hlfk;)f hbfhfle #$)'k@; bqo(jyAb@; r(ab;y,IwA, Lam 2:3).
Zechariah 2:8–9 has taken up these metaphors of destruction and
judgment, and has inverted them so that they now speak of Yahweh’s
protection of his people. Again, Lam 2 is not the only source of imagery
behind these verses. The vocabulary of “unwalled villages” (twOzrFp@;) only
otherwise occurs in Ezek 38:11,23 but again with the reverse connotation.
Dwelling in open country is not a sign of vulnerability (as per Ezek 38),
but of the overflowing blessings of Yahweh. Similarly, various lines of
tradition converge to produce this “wall of fire” imagery. 24
g. Example 7: Zechariah 2:12b and Lamentations 2:2–4

wny( tbbb (gn Mkb (gnh yk
For the one touching you is striking the pupil of my eye. (Zech 2:12b)
The phrase wny( tbbb (gn Mkb (gnh is unusual. The “pupil” (hbfb@f) is a
hapax legomenon. Its meaning would seem to be best explained by
23. Jeremias (Nachtgesichte des Sacharja, 170) also makes this connection.
24. Jeremias (ibid., 174–76) argues that multiple lines of tradition converge to
produce this metaphor: (1) the flaming sword guarding the Garden of Eden (Gen
3:24); (2) priestly tradition—Yahweh’s theophanic appearance in fire and light; (3)
Zion tradition—fire as the Yahweh’s weapon for Zion’s protection (Pss 46 and 48).
While I affirm these conclusions, I also wish to extend them somewhat. In this list,
we should also include a number of other passages with a similar “protecting fire”
theme. (1) The “pillar of fire,” which protected Israel from the Egyptians (Exod
14:19–20, 24). (2) The chariots of fire that encircled Elisha for protection (2 Kgs
6:17). This passage has in common with Zech 2:9 the phrase “fire surrounding”
(bybisf #$)'). (3) The fire at the giving of the Law at Sinai (Deut 5:23–24). This
passage, like Zech 2:9, associates fire with Yahweh’s “glory” (wOdbok;2). (4) The
reversal “fire” imagery in Lam 2:3 (as discussed above). We cannot identify a single
source text behind Zech 2:9 because all of the texts just listed (and perhaps more)
contributed to the fund of imagery in circulation in Zechariah’s day which made his
particular metaphor of “a wall of fire surrounding…” intelligible to its first hearers
(and likewise to us). I conclude that a diversity of imagery and tradition elements lie
in the background of Zech 2:9.
analogy with the phrase “apple of his eye” (wOny(' NwO#$y)ik@;) in Deut 32:10
and Ps 7:2, cf. Ps 17:8 (NyI(f-tb@a NwO#$y)ik@;). Apparently, it describes the most
precious part of the eye. If this is so, then I would argue for another layer
of allusion to Lam 2:2–4. According to Lam 2:4, Yahweh has “slain all
the treasures of (the) eye” (NyI(f-yd@'maxjmalk@o grohjy,AwA). This metaphor can be
understood by its parallels in Ezekiel. In Ezek 24:16 the prophet’s wife is
the treasure of his eyes, and stands as a symbol for the people’s delight in
the temple (24:21, 25). Lamentations 2:2–4 describes Yahweh “striking”
((gn) the treasures of their eyes (i.e. the dishonoring [llx, Lam 2:2] of
“Daughter Zion”). This imagery is reversed and reapplied in Zech 2:12.
Yahweh’s people are the pupil (i.e. treasured part) of his eye,25 and those
who “strike” ((gn; cf. same word in Lam 2:2) them will be plundered
(Zech 2:13), which Yahweh will do for the “sake of his honor” (rxa)a
dwObk@f, Zech 2:12).26
h. Example 8: A Wider Connection (Lamentations 2:10–11 and

Zechariah 8:4–5)
In addition to the connections already identified in Zech 1–2, there is a
further clear allusion to Lam 2 in Zech 8:4–5. 27 In Lam 2:10–11 the
“elders of Daughter Zion” (NwOy,ci-tba yn'q;zI) “sit” (b#$y) in lament, the young
25. Dominique Barthélemy (“Les Tiqqune sopherim et la critique textuelle de

L’Ancien Testament,” in Congress Volume: Bonn, 1962 [VTSup 9; Leiden, Brill,
1963], 285–304) has argued, followed by Carmel McCarthy (The Tiqqune Sopherim
and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament
[OBO 36; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1981], 61–70) that the original reading was “my eye” as indicated by the logia
recording a tiqqun on Zech 2:12, but that this was changed to “his eye” early in the
first century C.E. Russell Fuller (“Early Emendations of the Scribes: The Tiqqun
Sopherim in Zechariah 2:12,” in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew
Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins, Presented to John Strugnell
on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday [ed. Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins,
and Thomas H. Tobin; Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1990], 21–28)
has re-evaluated this claim, arguing that the tiqqun on Zech 2:12 may in fact indicate
euphemism, not an emendation. Further, Fuller (who was the editor of Qumran
Scroll 4Q12e) argues that the reading in 4Q12e on Zech 2:12 supports the MT
reading wOny(' (Fuller, Early Emendations, 26). The majority of Greek and Latin
versions support the MT reading.
26. The combination only occurs elsewhere in Ps 73:24. In a lengthy examina-
tion of this phrase Kloos argues that the preposition rxa)a in this construction can
denote purpose; and thus that the purpose of the “sending” was “for the sake of
Yahweh’s glory” (dwObk@f rxa)a). He concludes that “a striking parallel is to be found in
Ezek. xxxix 21” (Carola J. L. Kloos, “Zech 2:12 Really a Crux Interpretum?,” VT 25
[1975]: 736).
1
27. Nurmela (Prophets in Dialogue, 197–99) registers this as a sure allusion.
girls have “their heads bowed to the ground” (N#$f)ro CrE)flf w2dyrIwOh), and
children faint “in streets of the town” (hyFr:q twObxOr:b@i), that is, Jerusalem.
In reversal of this image, in Zech 8:4–5 the “elders,” both men and
women (twOnq'z:w2 MynIq'z:), “shall again sit” (w2b#$;y" d(o) in “the streets of
Jerusalem” (MIla#$fw2ry: twObxor:b@i), and the children shall play in “the streets of
the city” (ry(ihf twObxor:w2). Yet again, Zechariah uses the imagery of Lam 2
in order to reverse it, to declare the exile’s end.
i. Observations on the Sustained Allusions to Lamentations 2 in

Zechariah 1–2
Although any one of these eight connections might be explained as a
coincidence, the cumulative effect of all eight makes a persuasive case
that there is a deliberate and sustained allusion to Lam 2 in Zech 1–2.
Sustained allusion creates a powerful rhetorical effect. To illustrate,
consider Milton’s Paradise Lost. It would miss the whole point only to
recognize that the work contains a few scattered allusions to Gen 1–3.
The reality is that Gen 1–3 (and a plethora of other biblical passages)
provides the conceptual framework for the work as whole. I suggest that
the book of Zechariah is another such work which makes use of sus-
tained allusion in order to create a conceptual framework for the work as
a whole. While many of these allusions have been individually recog-
nized by other scholars, no one has examined their composite effect.
Ben-Porat has argued that the effect of an allusion is the “simultane-
ous activation of two texts.”28 If so, then the sustained allusions in Zech
1–2 give warrant for Zech 1–2 against the wider context of Lam 2. (My
assumption is that Zechariah’s first audience did this more or less sub-
consciously, in the same way that modern readers of Paradise Lost
automatically use what they recall of Gen 1–3 to frame their reading of
Milton.) The rhetorical effect of the sustained allusion to Lam 2 is to
recall the devastations of exile, and thereby provide the metaphors which
will be systematically reversed when Yahweh acts to restore his people:
The “measuring line” is used to rebuild rather than to judge, the “horns
of the nations” are now the ones being cast down, Yahweh himself will
be their “wall,” and a fire of protection, not a fire of destruction, will be
kindled.29
Further, if I can take this connection between Lam 2 and Zech 1–2 as
sufficiently established, then it opens the door to two more lines of
28. Ziva Ben-Porat, “The Poetics of Literary Allusion,” PTL: A Journal for
Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1 (1976): 107.
29. For a (partially) different interpretation of the way that Zech 1–2 reverses
Lam 2, see Love, Evasive Text, 182, 185.
connections, which are admittedly of a more speculative nature. They

only suggested themselves when I intentionally read Lam 2 looking for
other possible connections with the wider context of Zech 1–8. However,
I argue that these may have been more obvious to an audience who had
grown up during the time of the exile singing the laments of Lam 2.
First, perhaps there are other overtones of the reversal motif. Lamenta-
tions 2:6–9 is an extended reflection on the destruction of Jerusalem and
its temple (“destroyed his tabernacle, scorned his altar, disowned his
sanctuary,” etc.). Thus it is not surprising that Zech 1–8, which has a
keen interest in the rebuilding of the temple, should take up Lam 2 and
reverse many of its metaphors. Lamentations 2:6 describes how Yahweh
has “spurned king and priest in the heat of his anger.” Could it be that
Zechariah’s focus on Zerubabbel and Joshua is a reflection on the fact
that this “spurning” has now been reversed by Yahweh (see especially
Zech 4:12; 6:9–15)? Likewise, is Zechariah’s own experience of “night-
visions” intended to be understood as a reversal of Lam 2:9, which refers
to “her prophets who find no vision from Yahweh” (w%)c;mf-)$l hfy)eybin:
hwFhy:m' NwOzxF)? Furthermore, this reversal theme might also help to explain
the unusual word (cb in Zech 4:9,30 which describes how Zerubbabel’s
hands will “finish-off” ((cb) the temple. Elsewhere this word typically
has a negative connotation. Perhaps its use in Zech 4 is an ironic reversal
of Lam 2:17, where, in doing what he purposed, Yahweh has “finished”
((cb) his word. In the context of Zech 4 Yahweh has announced a new
word—not a message of judgment but of restoration—and this is what
Zerubbabel will “finish” by the completion of the temple.
A second possible line of connection is in the identity (or lack thereof)
of the “enemy nations.” In Zech 2:1–4 [Eng. 1:18–21]) “four horns”
symbolize the nations who have scattered Judah, and much interpretive
ink has been spilled on trying to identify these enemies. However, in this
vision as well as the rest of the book the enemies are nowhere named. I
agree with Boda that the nation of Babylon was the original referent of
the imagery that Zechariah has used.31 Boda also argues that Babylon
continues to be the target of the Zecharian polemic, because the nation of
Babylon has not yet received the punishment which the prophets had
30. The verb (cb occurs sixteen times, and typically has a negative connotation
(i.e. “cut off,” “finish off”). Though it is possible it could have this sense (given the
construction context), Isa 10:12 provides a parallel where the word clearly has the
more neutral sense of “finish” (NwOy,ci rhab@; w%h#&'(jma-lk@f-t)e ynFdo)j (c7abay:-yk@i hyFhfw:)—though
even in that context it is Yahweh finishing his judgment!
6:15,” CBQ 67 (2005): 22–32.
1
promised. However, this explanation does not explain why Babylon is

not explicitly named. Perhaps the pattern of Lam 2 provides the answer. 32
In Lamentations the nation of Babylon is nowhere mentioned. Instead,
the lament concerns unnamed foes (MyrIc,f i.e., plural). Yahweh has exalted
the “horn of [Jerusalem’s] foes” (K7yIrFcf NrEqe MyrIh'). Although Babylon
must surely have been the dominant foe for the audience of Lam 2, it is
interesting that Babylon remains unnamed, perhaps indicating that the
focus of the book is on the situation of God’s people rather than the
punishment of her foes.33 I suggest that Zech 1–2 has appropriated this
same focus from Lam 2, in that the emphasis of the passages about the
nations is on the restoration of God’s people rather than on the destruc-
tion of her enemies. And so, when Zech 1–8 adopts the anti-Babylonian
imagery and rhetoric of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and others, it is transformed
by viewing it through the lens of the book of Lamentations.
All of these connections reinforce the conclusion that Zechariah was
written with Lam 2 in mind, and so our understanding of Zechariah will
be enhanced when we are attuned to this.
3. The Connections Between Isaiah 54:1–12

and Zechariah 1:15–17
I wish now to explore another possible case of sustained allusion in the
book of Zechariah. I have chosen Isa 54 for two reasons. First, it
demonstrates a variation on the pattern of sustained allusion. Whereas
the allusions to Lam 2 are scattered over twenty-five verses of Zechariah,
the allusions to Isa 54 are concentrated in a smaller range, and with a
greater degree of thematic coherence. Secondly, in this case the treatment
of the source text is different. Whereas Zechariah reverses the negative
metaphors of the exile in Lam 2, Zechariah affirms and adopts the
program of restoration in Isa 54. In the analysis that follows, I shall treat
Isa 54 as a single, coherent unit which predated Zech 1–8. 34
32. Delkurt (Sacharjas Nachtgesichte, 76) takes a yet different approach, arguing
that the shift from “Babylon” to “many nations” is a function of the influence of
Ezekiel (esp. chs. 26–28) on the prophecies of Zechariah.
33. Though one nation—Edom—does get specifically named in Lam 4:21–22.
34. Although many scholars would not demur at this, I acknowledge that some
have argued for a much longer redactional process for Isa 54. For example, Odil
Steck has argued that that the chapter originally consisted of Isa 54:1, 4–8, and that
vv. 2–3, 9–10, and vv. 11–16 were added in successive redactions over a three hun-
dred-year period, as Isa 56–66 were added to the book of Isaiah (“Beobachtungen
zur Anlage von Jes 54:1–8,” ZAW 101 [1989]: 282–85). Steck regards these particu-
lar verses in Isa 54 as subsequent additions because they focus on the repopulation
Other scholars have already noted many clear lines of connection

between Zech 1:12–17 and other parts of Deutero-Isaiah, particularly Isa
47:6 and 52:8–9. In Isa 47:6 Yahweh had given his people into the hand
of Babylon in his “wrath” (Pcq; cf. Zech 1:15), but Babylon overstepped
the mark (cf. Zech 1:15) by showing them no mercy (MymixjrA; cf. Zech
1:12), and so now Babylon faces her time of judgment. 35 Isaiah 52:8–9
promises that Yahweh will return (bw#$; cf. Zech 1:16) to Zion to comfort
her (Mxn; cf. Zech 1:13).36 Furthermore, some scholars have also noted
some specific connections between Isa 54 and Zech 1:12–15, particularly
Delkurt:
Sach 1,12–15 verbindet die Aussagen Deuterojesajas. So wird die Zeit
des Gerichts als Ausdruck des Zorns Jahwes verstanden (Jes 47,6; 54,8;
Sach 1,15). Das Gericht war jedoch begrenzt (Jes 54,7f; Sach 1,15) und
unerheblich gegenüber dem, was jetzt folgt (Jes 54,7b.8b; Sach 1,14.15).
Die Babylonier werden als Gehilfen Jahwes gedeutet, die allerdings zu
weit gegangen sind und darum nun Strafe verdienen (Jes 47,6; Sach
1,15). Die Babylonier haben kein Erbarmen gezeigt (Jes 47,6; vgl. Sach
1,15); demgegenüber ist Jahwe derjenige, von dem Erbarmen zu erhoffen
ist (Jes 54,7f; vgl. Sach 1,12.14).37
of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the wall, which he believes to be at issue between
515 and 445 B.C.E. (on this, see further Odil Hannes Steck, “Tritojesaja im
Jesajabuch,” in Studien zu Tritojesaja [ed. Odil Hannes Steck; BZAW 203; Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1991], 15). In the scope of the present essay, I can do no more than note
this difference in approach, and refer the reader to my doctoral dissertation (“Zecha-
riah and the ‘Former Prophets’,” §3.2.3) where I treat this matter more fully. I argue
there that the evidence of Zechariah makes some telling points against Steck’s
hypothesis, because the rebuilding, re-establishment, and repopulation of Jerusalem
are clearly the issue at the heart of Zech 1:16–17 and Zech 2:8, which demonstrate
that these were live issues at a period much earlier than Steck’s hypothesis allows.
35. Jeremias, Nachtgesichte des Sacharja, 153; Delkurt, Sacharjas Nacht-
gesichte, 76–77; Nurmela, Prophets in Dialogue, 47–48; Hanhart, Sacharja, 88–89;
and Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 154–55.
36. Petitjean, Oracles du Proto-Zacharie, 58–61. Nurmela (Prophets in Dialogue,
48–49) notes the same connections but argues that Isa 52 is dependent on Zechariah.
37. Delkurt, Sacharjas Nachtgesichte, 77: “Zech 1:12–15 connects with the
statements of Deutero-Isaiah. Thus the time of the judgment is understood as a sign
of the Yahweh’s anger (Isa 47:6; 54:8; Zech 1:15). However, the judgment was
limited (Isa 54:7–8; Zech 1:15) and insignificant compared to what now follows (Isa
54:7b, 8b; Zech 1:14–15). Babylon was interpreted as Yahweh’s assistant, but they
went too far and therefore are now deserving of punishment (Isa 47:6; Zech 1:15).
Babylon did not show pity (Isa 47:6; see Zech 1:15); this is in contrast to Yahweh,
from whom pity is to be expected (Isa 54:7–8; see Zech 1:12, 14)” (my translation).
See also Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 154–55; Hanhart, Sacharja, 88–89;
Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8, 242 n. 4. Similarly, Jeremias (Nachtgesichte des
1
I agree with all of these observations, and wish to go one step further. In
particular, I will examine the connections between Isa 54 and Zech 1:15–
17 (taking vv. 16–17 to be integral to the oracle). 38 In both passages, we
see the same sequence of ideas, moving from “reversal” to “rebuilding.”
Reversal—from wrath to mercy Zech 1:15–16a Isa 54:7–9
Rebuilding Zech 1:16b–17 Isa 54:11–12 (+ 54:2–3)
a. Reversal: Zechariah 1:15–16a and Isaiah 54:7–8

+(m ytpcq yn) r#) Mynn)#h Mywgh-l( Pcq yn) lwdg Pcqw
Mymxrb Ml#wryl ytb# hwhy rm)-hk Nkl
And I am wrathing great wrath at the nations at ease, at whom I was a
little wrathful… Therefore, thus says Yahweh, I have returned to Jerusa-
lem with mercy. (Zech 1:15–16a)
I judge that there are five points of correspondence between these verses
and Isa 54:7–8.
(1) Noun Pceqe and Verb Pcq in Close Proximity. In both Zech 1:2 and
1:15 the intensity of the anger of Yahweh is conveyed by the duplication
of the Hebrew root, using both the noun and verb forms, literally
“Yahweh wrathed wrath.” I have deliberately chosen this somewhat
awkward translation in order to reflect the peculiarity of the Hebrew
construction. Apart from Zech 1:2 and 1:15, the only other place where
noun Pceqe and verb Pcq are used in proximity to each other is Isa 54:8–9.
This suggests that the usage in Zechariah is a deliberate echo of Isa 54,
designed to signal Zechariah’s appropriation of this earlier text.
Sacharja, 139): “In diesem Gedanken steht Sacharja Deuterojesaja nahe: in Jes 54,8
(vgl. auch v.7) heißt es ganz ähnlich im Blick auf die Exilszeit, daß Jahwe im Zorn
einen Augenblick ((gr) sein Angesicht verborgen hatte, jetzt aber bleibend Israel
sein Erbarmen zuwendet.”
38. There has been a growing consensus among recent commentators that Zech
1:16–17 should be interpreted as integral to its context. As helpfully summarized in
Beuken (Haggai-Sacharja 1–8, 231–37), the prevalent view prior to 1967 was that
Zech 1:16–17 was a later addition. Against that position, Beuken argues that it is
surely incorrect to reject the original connection of vv. 14–15 with v. 16, though he
regards v. 17 to possibly be an attached saying (243–44). Two years later Petitjean
went one step further, arguing for the unity of the pericope in vv. 14–17 (Oracles du
Proto-Zacharie, 75). Since that time, there has been a growing consensus that vv.
16–17 come from a “Zecharian milieu” and that they are to be read as integral to the
context of vv. 12–17; see Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 152–53, 155, 157–
58; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 122, 124. For a mediating position,
see Tollington, Tradition and Innovation, 37–39.
(2) Reversal of Wrath. Zechariah 1:2 described Yahweh’s “exceeding

wrath” (Pceqf Pcaqf) against the former generation. But Zech 1:15 now uses
the same unusual noun + verb construction (Pceqe Pc'qo) to announce that it
is now the nations instead who will experience “great wrath” (lwOdg@f Pceqe).
At the same time, Isa 54 also announces the end of the time of wrath for
God’s people. Though in the past Yahweh has hid his face in the over-
flowing of his wrath (Pceqe Pce#$eb@;), now he has forsworn wrath (yt@i(;b@a#$;nI
Pcoq@;mi) against his people.
(3) Juxtaposition of Wrath and Mercy. Zechariah 1:15–16 juxtaposes

Yahweh’s “great wrath” (lwOdg@F Pceqe) against the nations with his return
“in mercies” (MymixjrAb@;) to Jerusalem. In the same way, Isa 54 announces
“great mercies” (Mylidog@; MymixjrAb;w%) and the end of the time of “wrath”
(Pceqe). The combination of MymixjrA and lwOdg@F in proximity to each other is
rare,39 and the combination of the three words, “great,” “wrath,” and
“mercies” (lwOdg@F, MymixjrA and Pcq), is unique to Isa 54 and Zechariah. In
Zechariah, the combination occurs in both Zech 1:12–15 and Zech 7:9–
14. I shall make further comment on the significance of the connection
with Zech 7:9–14 below.
(4) Contrast of Great and Small. Both passages demonstrate the reversal
theme using synonymous pairs of opposites: “little”/“great” (+(fm@;/lwOdg@f)
and “small”/“great” (N+oqf/lwOdg@F). In Zech 1 the contrast is between “great
wrath”/“little wrath” against the nations, whereas in Isa 54:7 the contrast
is between the “small” moment of God’s abandonment and the present
time of “great” mercy.
(5) The Exile as a Limited Period of Wrath. The final parallel is at a

thematic level, rather than at the level of vocabulary. Both passages
understand the exile to be a limited period of God’s wrath (cf. the “brief
moment” of Isa 54:7 which parallels the “seventy years” of withheld
mercies in Zech 1:12).
b. Rebuilding: Zechariah 1:16b–17 and Isaiah 54:2–3, 11–12

Ml#wry-l( h+ny hwqw…hb hnby ytyb
bw+m yr( hnycwpt dw( tw)bc hwhy rm) hk rm)l )rq dw(
Ml#wryb dw( rxbw Nwyc-t) dw( hwhy Mxnw
39. Apart from Isa 54 and Zech 1, the combination only occurs in Jer 16:5–6; Ps
145:8–9; Neh 1:10–11; 9:31–32; and Zech 7:9–14.
1
My house will be built in it…and the measuring line will be stretched

over Jerusalem. Proclaim further: …“My cities shall again spread out 40
from the good.” And Yahweh will again comfort Zion and again choose
Jerusalem. (Zech 1:16b–17)
I judge there to be three points of connection between these verses and

Isa 54.
(1) “Comforting” Zion by Rebuilding Jerusalem. Explicit promises of

“rebuilding Jerusalem” are relatively infrequent,41 and nowhere else apart
from Isa 54 is the comfort of Zion linked to her rebuilding. 42 In Zech
1:17b Yahweh’s comforting (Mxn) of Zion is clearly an outworking of the
rebuilding of the city promised in Zech 1:16b–17a. Isaiah 54:11–12
echoes this same emphasis, in that the answer to a non-comforted ()$l
hmfxfnU) Jerusalem in 54:11a is the promise of reconstruction in 54:11b–12
(“set stones,” “lay foundations,” restored “gates” and “walls”). Similarly,
I have already examined the “measuring line” metaphor with respect to
Lam 2, but I now return to the fact that in Zech 1 the metaphor has a
“reconstruction” (not “destruction”) theme. Again, this is conceptually
parallel to the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem promised in Isa 54:11–
12, and perhaps there are even echoes in the phraseology of Isa 54:2–3.
Elsewhere “stretching the line” has a negative connotation, but in Isa
54:2–3 the curtains are stretched (h+n), and the cords (rtfym') made long
in rebuilding (i.e. positive connotations).
(2) A City “Spreading Out” from the Good. The imagery in Zech 1:17a
of a city that “spreads out” is further explained in Zech 2:8, where the
city overflows into the “open country”43 because of the prosperity within.
The conceptual source for both Zech 1:17 and Zech 2:8 is Isa 54:2–3,
40. This is an unusual use of “scattered.” The word usually has negative connota-
tions (e.g. Jer 13:24; 18:17). The only other usage similar to this one is in Prov 5:16.
41. Jer 30:18; 31:4, 28, 38–40; Pss 69:36; 102:16; Isa 45:13; 54:11; 60:10; 61:4;
Ezek 36:33–36; Amos 9. See further Jeremias (Nachtgesichte des Sacharja, 168–72)
on the rebuilding of Jerusalem.
42. There are three other passages in the Hebrew Bible which use the language of
both comfort and rebuilding together (see Jer 31:13, 38–40; Ps 69:21, 36; Isa 61:2–
4), but these themes are not linked as they are here, such that the comfort of Zion is
her rebuilding.
43. In Zech 2:8, the word is twOzrFp;%, that is, “unwalled villages.” The only prior
usage of this word is in Ezek 38:11. Zech 1–2 also contains an extended allusion to
Ezek 38–39, stressing a reversal of roles between Israel and her aggressors.
Dwelling in open country is now not a sign of vulnerability, but of the overflowing
blessings of Yahweh.
with its picture of Zion “enlarging the place of her tent” (MwOqm; ybiyxir:ha
K7l'h/)f) and “spreading out to the right and the left” (ycirop;t@i lw)mo#&;w% Nymiy)F .44
Furthermore, if Petitjean is correct to argue that the unusual hncwpt
(“spread out”) in Zech 1:17a is a corruption of hncrpt (i.e. third person
feminine plural of Crp),45 then there would be a further direct lexical link
with Isa 54:3, which also describes Jerusalem “spreading out” (Crp).
(3) Sequence of Thought. The sequence of thought in Zech 1:15–17

moves directly from the reversal of wrath (1:15–16a) to the reconstruc-
tion of temple and city (1:16b–17). Isaiah 54 follows this same sequence,
with Isa 54:7–10 picking up the same “wrath” and “mercy” themes (as
discussed above), and then moving on to the promise of the reconstruc-
tion of Jerusalem in 54:11–12. The vocabulary here is reflected in other
“reconstruction” texts in Zechariah—for example, “laying a foundation”
(dsy) and “stones” (Nbe)e) (see Isa 54:11 cf. Zech 4:7–10).
c. A Further Connection Between Isaiah 54 and Zechariah 1–8

I have already noted above that Zech 7:9–14 (with Isa 54:7–9 and Zech
1:12–15) uniquely shares the combination of the three words, “great,”
“mercies,” and “wrath” (lwOdg@f, MymixjrA, and Pcq) in proximity to each
other. However, there is a second layer of allusive connections between
Isa 54 and Zech 7. In Zech 7:14 Yahweh says “I stormed them (Mr'(jsf)')
to the nations.” This unusual description of “storming” (typically
rendered “I scattered them with a whirlwind” or the like) is paralleled in
Isa 54:11, where Yahweh describes Zion as “afflicted one, storm-tossed
(hrF(jso; same verb) and not comforted.” Of the seven times that this verb
occurs,46 only in Zech 7:14 and Isa 54:11 does it refer to Yahweh’s
“storming” against his people.47 Furthermore, there is another connection
with the theme of “desolation.” In Zech 7:14 there is a double reference
to this theme. The effect of Yahweh scattering-by-whirlwind was that the
land was “desolate” (Mm# Niphal) and made a “desolation” (hm@f#$a).
Similarly, in Isa 54 Zion is a “desolate woman” (hmfm'wO#$, Isa 54:1) whose
sons will inhabit the towns made desolate (Mm# Niphal, Isa 54:3). I
would argue that the repeated themes of “great,” “wrath,” “mercies,”
“storm-tossed,” and “desolate” (twice), taken together, amount to a clear
allusion to Isa 54 in Zech 7:9–14.
44. Jeremias (Nachtgesichte des Sacharja, 172–73) notes this connection, listing
Isa 49:18–22 as well.
45. Petitjean, Oracles du Proto-Zacharie, 68–69.
46. 2 Kgs 6:11; Hos 13:3; Hab 3:14; Jonah 1:11, 12; Isa 54:11; Zech 7:14.
47. Meyers and Meyers (Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 404) also note the connection
based on r(s (“stormed”).
1
Thus, the pattern of allusion is similar to that which was discovered

above for Lam 2. In this case, there is a concentration of allusions in a
small number of verses (1:15–17), which is further reinforced by a
further sustained allusion in Zech 8. Taken together, this is persuasive
evidence of a sustained allusion to Isa 54.
d. Other Connections Between Isaiah 54 and Zechariah 1–8

If we may safely proceed on the assumption that Zech 1–8 was written
with Isa 54 in mind, then it is possible to identify other points of connec-
tion between the two texts. For example, Zech 3 opens with Yahweh’s
“rebuke” (r(g) of the Satan, because Yahweh has chosen Jerusalem. I
suggest that this rebuke of Satan can be understood as an outworking of
Yahweh’s promise in Isa 54:9 to not “rebuke” his people. 48 In the next
verse Yahweh promises that he will not “withdraw” (#wm) his steadfast
love (Isa 54:10), and this terminology is echoed in Zech 3:9 in the
promise that sin will be “withdrawn” (#wm). To find these two unusual
words used in two compatible contexts suggests a connection.
Perhaps, then, we might go one step further and suggest that the com-
bination of “gemstone” imagery with the rebuilding of city and temple in
Isa 54:11 provides us with a clue to a conundrum that has long perplexed
Zechariah scholars. The most likely parallel for the engraved stone given
to the high priest in Zech 3:9 is the engraved gemstones of Exod 28:11, 49
whereas the stones (Nbe)e) in Zech 4:7, 10 clearly are related to the
reconstruction of the temple. But perhaps if we recognize Isa 54 as a
background text, then we are provided with a key to combining both of
these images. In Isa 54:11 Yahweh promises to “lay the foundations”
(dsy; cf. Zech 4:9) of the city with sapphires, and to rebuild her pinna-
cles, gates, and walls with precious stones. Perhaps the gemstone before
Joshua is a double allusion, an affirmation of his priestly role (recalling
Exod 28:11), and at the same time a metaphor for the reconstruction of
the city/temple (recalling Isa 54:11).
It is also possible to detect connections between Isa 54 and the vision
of a man measuring Jerusalem in Zech 2:5–9. Though the primary
allusion in Zech 2:5–9 is undoubtedly to the man with a measuring reed
in Ezek 40:3, this picture has also been nuanced with further overtones
48. The word lxAnF only occurs fourteen times. In the instances that precede
Zechariah, only in Isa 54:9 and Ps 119:21 is it used to refer to God’s rebuke of his
people (or a subset thereof). Love (Evasive Text, 196) makes a similar connection
between Isa 54:9 and Zech 3 (inter alia).
49. Or perhaps the engraved rosette of the diadem on the priest’s turban in Exod
39:30–31.
from Isa 54. The promise in Isa 54:1 of a “multitude of sons” (MynIb@; Myb@irA)
finds echo in the “multitude of men and beasts” (hmfh'b;w% MdF)f brom') in
Zech 2:8. Similarly, the promise in Isa 54:2 that Zion will “enlarge”
(bxr) and lengthen” (Kr)) finds expression in the measurement of her
“breadth” (h@b@fx:rF) and “length” (h@k@fr:)f).50
Finally, the feminine imperative “Sing!” (Nnr) only occurs in five
places (Isa 12:6; 54:1; Lam 2:19; Zeph 2:14; 3:14). In the third example
in the appendix, I argue that Zech 2:14 is an appropriation of both Isa
12:6 and Zeph 3:14. But perhaps we can go one step further. The remain-
ing two instances of the feminine imperative of Nnr are in Isa 54 and Lam
2, and given all of the other connections between these texts and Zecha-
riah, perhaps we should understand Zech 2:14 as an appropriation of
these texts as well. The mournful cry (Nnr) of Lam 2:19 over the devasta-
tion of children has been replaced by the song of the (formerly) barren
woman over her many children (cf. Isa 54). Similarly, the song of Zech
2:14 occurs in the context of the return to Zion of those who have been
scattered to “daughter Babylon.” This theme of “rejoicing-over-the-
repopulation-of-Zion,” which is not present in either Isa 12:6 or Zeph
3:14, is a common thread that links Isa 54 and Zech 2:14. 51
6. Some Implications and Conclusions

To this point in the essay my focus has been on establishing the fact of
sustained allusions to Lam 2 and Isa 54 in Zech 1–8. My argument has
been a cumulative one. While any individual connection noted above
might merely be a coincidence, the multiple points of connection with
Lam 2 and Isa 54 must be part of a deliberate sustained allusion.
The fact of sustained allusion, in and of itself, has some important
implications. These two examples establish that sustained allusion is a
textual feature of Zech 1–8. Thus, if Zechariah is a text which is written
with other texts in mind, then to understand it we need to read it with
other texts in mind, or, to change the image, we need to read Zechariah
through the lens of other texts. At the points at which we find Zech 1–8
obscure or awkward, perhaps looking for background allusions to the
“former prophets” will help to resolve the ambiguity. Moreover, we
50. This combination is not unusual per se. Cognates of the words Kr) and bxr
are paired seventy-four times, as a typical way to measure width and length. How-
ever, in the majority of other cases, the stress is purely on the numerical results,
whereas in both Isa 54 and Zech 2, the measuring is clearly understood as a
metonym for the size of the city.
1
51. For a discussion of Nnr (fem. impv.), see Nurmela (Prophets in Dialogue, 56).
should be particularly cognizant of the texts which Zech 1–8 repeatedly

alludes to, as this suggests that these texts should provide the background
(or conceptual framework) against which Zech 1–8 should be under-
stood.
I also note that the sustained allusions detected have spanned the
various sections of Zech 1–8 (i.e. the introduction in 1:1–6, the visions
and oracles in chs. 1–6, and the sermonic material in chs. 7–8), which
may tend to suggest a commonality of authorship of these elements, or at
least that a subsequent redactor noticed and reinforced the sustained
allusions. The recognition of this pattern of sustained allusion also has
implications for the composition of the source text. For example, with
respect to Isa 54, a sustained allusion to Isa 54 in Zech 1–8 would seem
to be more likely than a “circularity of allusion” between the two. 52
Beyond these implications arising from the patterns of sustained
allusion in Zech 1–8, we may also draw some conclusions about the
effect of the particular allusions to Lam 2 and Isa 54. These two texts
provide important poles, one negative and one positive, upon which Zech
1–8 hangs its message.
a. Lamentations 2
This text provides Zechariah with a set of “destruction-and-exile” meta-
phors, which Zech 1–8 systematically reverses in order to show that
Yahweh is about to undo the exile: the “measuring line” is used to
rebuild rather than to judge; the “horns of the nations” are now the ones
being cast down; Yahweh himself will be their “wall”; Yahweh will
“comfort Zion” by rebuilding her; and Zion is the treasure of his eye. In
addition, Zechariah’s appropriation of Lamentations makes an important
statement about that generation’s “time” in salvation history. As noted
above, Lamentations refers to Yahweh’s anger (M(z, Lam 2:6) and
purposes of judgment (Mmz, Lam 2:17) from the perspective of those still
experiencing them, whereas Zechariah refers to these things in retrospec-
tion. In its appropriation of Lam 2, Zech 1–8 thereby further reinforces
the message that the old era is over.
52. For example, if Steck (“Beobachtungen”) were right about the stratified
development of Isa 54, then Zechariah first alluded to Isa 54:4–8 (picking up the
“end of the time of wrath” and Yahweh’s “mercy”), but then subsequent redactors of
Isa 54 have returned the compliment, and alluded to Zech 1 in an adjacent passage
(the “expansion of Jerusalem” theme and the unusual “wrathed wrath”), and then yet
another redaction has picked up the language of Zechariah: “storm tossed,” “desola-
tion,” and the “reconstruction of Jerusalem.”
b. Isaiah 54
This text promises the end of the period of wrath, the expansion of the
city, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Zechariah 1–8 affirms and adopts
this program of restoration as its conceptual framework for the future of
Jerusalem. Again, the appropriation of this in Zech 1–8 makes an
important statement about the “time.” According to Zech 1–8, what Isa
54 had promised is soon to be a present reality. That is, we might say that
Zech 1–8 understands the generation of 520 B.C.E. to be the “sons”
promised to barren Lady Zion (Isa 54:1, 13). A generational shift has
taken place. Yahweh was very angry with the “fathers” (Zech 1:3), but
Zechariah’s generation are living in the era of the promised “sons.”
Thus we see that, by means of sustained allusion, Zech 1–8 invokes
Lam 2 and Isa 54 in order to reinforce the message that the exile is over,
and the restoration of Jerusalem is at hand.
APPENDIX
The Patterns of Textual Re-use in Zechariah 1–8
In order to ascertain how Zech 1–8 characteristically uses other texts, I
have identified what I judge to be generally accepted examples of
allusion. By examining these known examples, we are in a position to
draw some conclusions about the patterns of textual reuse in Zech 1–8.
a. Example 1: Zechariah 1:4c and Jeremiah 25:5–753

Mkyll(m (rmw h(rh wkrdm #y) )n-wbw#
hwhy-M)n yl) Mt(m#-)lw
Turn now, each from your evil way and from the evil of your deeds…
Yet you did not listen to me, says Yahweh. (Jer 25:5, 7)
53. Nurmela (Prophets in Dialogue, 39–40) categorizes Jer 25:4–5 (and 35:15)
as a “sure allusion.” Tigchelaar (Prophets of Old, 77) says that “the closest analogy
is to be found in Jer 25:5.” Cf. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 95; and
Hanhart, Sacharja, 24. Tollington (Tradition and Innovation, 205) argues that the
phrase “strongly suggests Jeremianic origin or influence,” listing Jer 18:11b; 25:5;
and 35:15 as parallels. Similarly see Boda, Haggai, Zechariah, 178; and Joyce G.
Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC;
Leicester and Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 1972), 90. Petersen (Haggai and
Zechariah 1–8, 132–33) argues that Zech 1:4 is an appropriation of Jer 11:18; 25:5;
35:15; and Ezek 33:11, as the “sort of thing such prophets said” rather than a single
quotation.
1
My(rh Mkyll(mw My(rh Mkykrdm )n wbw#

hwhy-M)n yl) wby#qh-)lw w(m# )lw
Turn from your evil ways and your evil deeds
But they did not listen or give heed to me, says Yahweh. (Zech 1:4)
Zechariah 1:4 reports the message of the “former prophets” using a form
of words with closest parallels to Jer 25:5–7. The bold highlighting
above indicates a lexical link between the two passages. The only lexical
elements not shared in common between both verses are the word #$y)i in
Jer 25:5 and the phrase w%by#$iq;hi-)$lw: in Zech 1:4.54 However, it should
also be noted that this purported quotation shows a number of minor
differences: person (second to third), number (singular to plural), and
substituted cognates (the adjective (rA for the noun (aro). Though there are
also some similarities to Ezekiel,55 it is unlikely that Ezekiel is intended
as the primary intertext, because Ezekiel never uses the phrase “Yahweh
of Hosts,” and yet this phrase is included in Zech 1:4b as part of the mes-
sage of the “former prophets” (and this same phrase also occurs in Jer
25:4a).
The likelihood of specific connection with Jer 25 is further strength-
ened by other shared themes in the wider context of each chapter—the
“seventy years,” (see Zech 1:12 and Jer 25:11) as well as the view that
the instruments of Yahweh’s judgment are themselves to be punished for
overstepping the mark (see Zech 1:12–14 and Jer 25:12–14).
Zechariah 1:4 is an abbreviated summary of Jer 25:5–7, which itself is
expressed to be a summary of the message of the prophets of an earlier
generation (see similarly Jer 35:15), the terms of which are echoed in
Jeremiah’s own preaching (cf. Jer 18:11). By citing Jer 25, Zech 1:4 can
thus cite a single prophet (Jeremiah) as an encapsulation of the message
of the “former prophets.”
b. Example 2: Zechariah 6:15 and Deuteronomy 28:156

Mkyhl) hwhy lwqb (m#t (wm#-M) hyhw
And it will be, if you diligently listen to the voice of Yahweh your
God. (Deut 28:1)
54. The phrase w%by#$iq;hi-)$lw: is paralleled elsewhere in Jeremiah (Jer 6:19).

55. E.g. Ezek 33:11, noted by Beuken (Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, 97–98), Petersen
(Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 132–33), and Meyers and Meyers (Haggai, Zechariah
1–8, 95).
56. Noted by, among others, Mason, Haggai, 64; Nurmela, Prophets in
Dialogue, 189–90; Tollington, Tradition and Innovation, 46–47; and Meyers and
Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 365–66.
Mkyhl) hwhy lwqb Nw(m#t (wm#-M) hyhw

And this will be, if you diligently listen to the voice of Yahweh your
God. (Zech 6:15)
Zechariah 6 has recast Deut 28 in the plural form, and has taken what
had been the introduction to a promise of blessing regarding obedience to
Yahweh’s commands, and applied it as the conclusion to a specific
promise (regarding temple rebuilding).
c. Example 3: Zechariah 2:14 and Isaiah 12:6 (and/or Zephaniah

3:14–15)
Rejoice (ylihjca) and sing (yn%IrowF), O inhabitants of Zion (NwOy,ci),
For (yk@i@) great in your midst (K7b@'r;qib@;) is the Holy One of Israel (Isa 12:6).
Sing (yn%Irf) O daughter Zion (NwOy,ci-tb@)a ; shout, O Israel!
Rejoice (yxIm;#&i) and exult with all your heart, O daughter Jerusalem!...
Yahweh is in your midst (K7b@'r;qib@;) (Zeph 3:14–15).
Sing (yn%Irf) and rejoice (yxim;#&iw:), O daughter Zion (NwOy,ci-tb@a)!
For (yk@i) behold, I am coming and will dwell in your midst (K7k'wOtb@;), says
Yahweh (Zech 2:14 [Eng. 2:10]).
Zechariah 2 bears clear parallels to Isa 12:6 and/or Zeph 3:14 (a call to
female-personified inhabitants of Zion to sing and rejoice because
Yahweh is in the midst of his people). 57 However, the actual direct
lexical links with Isa 12:6, shown above in bold, are surprisingly sparse.
In addition to the verbal parallels, there are two sets of synonyms:
“rejoice” (ylihjca/yxIm;#&i) and “in your midst” (K7k'wOtb;/K7b@'r:qib@;) shown above
in italics; and also parallel phrases which identify the inhabitants of Zion
(NwOy,ci tbe#$ewOy/NwOy,ci-tb@a) and her God (hwFhy: is the l)'rF#&;yI #$wOdq;).
There are slightly more connections with Zeph 3:14–15, where the
phrase “daughter of Zion” also occurs, as well as the same word for
“rejoice” (yxim;#&i)—though the causal yk@i is not present in Zeph 3:15. How-
ever, it does not matter whether Isa 12 or Zeph 3 (or, as I think, both) are
the source texts for Zech 2:14, since in either case we would come to
similar conclusions about the kinds of transformations Zech 2 has
wrought in its process of textual reuse. Zechariah 2:14 has substituted at
least one word for its synonym (K7k'wOtb; for K7b@'r:qib@;) and has substantially
57. Nurmela (Prophets in Dialogue, 56–58) says that Zech 2:14 is a “sure
allusion” to Isa 12:6 and regards Zeph 3:14–15 as a later adaptation of Zech 2:14.
Tollington (Tradition and Innovation, 232) notes possible connections with both Isa
12:6 and Zeph 3:14, as do Petersen (Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 179) and Baldwin
(Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 110). Meyers and Meyers (Haggai, Zechariah 1–8,
167) note Zeph 3:14 but not Isa 12:6.
1
shifted the sense of the passage, from being about Yahweh presently “in
the midst” (as per Isa 12 and Zeph 3) to a promise that Yahweh is about
to come, and has also recast the passage as words spoken by Yahweh,
rather than words spoken about Yahweh.
d. Example 4: Zechariah 8:21–22 and Isaiah 2:358

Many peoples (Myb@ira Mym@i(a) shall come and say (w%rm;)fw:…w%kl;hfw:)
“Come, let us go (w%kl;) up to the mountain of Yahweh, to the house of the
God of Jacob.” (Isa 2:3)
The inhabitants of one city shall come, saying (rmo)l'…w%kl;hfw:)
“Come, let us go (K7wOlhf hkfl;n") to entreat the favour of Yahweh, and to
seek Yahweh of Hosts; I myself am going.” Many peoples (Myb@ira Mym@i(a)
and strong nations shall come to seek Yahweh of hosts in Jerusalem, and
to entreat the favour of Yahweh. (Zech 8:21–22)
Again, the direct lexical links are somewhat sparse, consisting of “many
peoples” (Myb@irA Mym@i(a) and the construction “come…and say ‘come, let
us…’” However, there are unmistakeable conceptual parallels between
both passages: “Jerusalem” is the location of the “mountain of Yahweh,”
the “God of Jacob” is the same person as “Yahweh of Hosts,” and the
“inhabitants” in Zech 8:21 are same group as the “many peoples” of the
nations in Isa 2:3 (shown by the parallelism of Zech 8:22). Both passages
share the relatively rare theme of the nations making pilgrimage to Zion.
e. Example 5: Zechariah 2:5–6 and Ezekiel 40:359 (and Zechariah 1:16

and Jeremiah 31:38–39)
…and behold a man (#$y)i-hn%"hiw:)…and in his hand (wOdyFb@;) was a linen
cord (Myt@i#$;p@i-lytip;w%) and a measuring reed (hd@fm@iha hn"q;w%). (Ezek 40:3)
58. For simplicity’s sake, I have focussed on Isa 2:3 rather than the parallel
passage in Mic 4:2. (On this, see Dominic Rudman, “Zechariah 8:20–22 and Isaiah
2:2–4//Micah 4:2–3: A Study in Intertextuality,” BN 107–8 [2001]: 50–54). It does
not substantially change the outcome of this analysis if Micah was the prior passage.
Nurmela (Prophets in Dialogue, 89–90) lists Zech 8//Isa 2 as a “sure allusion.” See
also Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 155; Mason, Haggai, 72; Petersen,
Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 317; Boda, Haggai, Zechariah, 397 (citing Isa 2//Mic
4). For those who link Zech 8:21–22 to the wider “pilgrimage to Zion” tradition (of
which Isa 2 is a part), see Mitchell, Smith, and Bewer, Haggai, 216, who also notes
connections to Isa 45:14–20, Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, 179; Petitjean, Oracles
du Proto-Zacharie, 429–31. Cf. Tollington (Tradition and Innovation, 236) who
identifies Isa 2:3 and Mic 4:2, but leaves open the question of interdependency.
59. So also Delkurt, Sacharjas Nachtgesichte, 105–7; Jeremias, Nachtgesichte
des Sacharja, 164; and Nurmela, Prophets in Dialogue, 51–52. Meyers and Meyers
(Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 151) refer generally to Ezek 40–42 rather than specifically
…and behold a man (#$y)i-hn%"hiw:), and in his hand (wOdyFb;w) was a measur-
ing line (hd@fmi lbexe). (Zech 2:5 [Eng. 2:1])
In addition to the connections highlighted above with bold (lexical
matches) and italics (synonyms), it should also be noted that in the
immediate context there is another set of connections. The man in Ezek-
iel also proceeds to measure “width” (bxaro, 40:6) and “length” (K7rE)o,
40:7), which is the same vocabulary used to describe the task of the man
in Zech 2:6. However, there are also some key differences between the
two passages. The man in Ezekiel is measuring the temple, whereas the
man in Zechariah is measuring Jerusalem. This difference suggests that
an adaptation of Ezekiel is taking place. 60
Seven verses earlier, Zechariah has used another construction/measur-
ing metaphor, but in this instance, the lexical and conceptual links are to
Jer 31:38–39.
The city shall be rebuilt (hnb) for Yahweh …
and the measuring line (hwq) shall go out farther. (Jer 31:38–39)
My house shall be built (hnb) in it, says Yahweh of hosts,
and the line (hwq) shall be stretched out over Jerusalem. (Zech 1:16)
Zechariah duplicates Jeremiah’s unusual spelling of hwq (otherwise
typically wq) and uses the same metaphor to describe the extended limits
of the city of Jerusalem. However, Zechariah adds “my house (ytiyb@')
shall be built in it.” Temple rebuilding is not a concern reflected in the
Jeremiah passage, though it is the subject of the vision of Ezek 40–48. If
we read Zech 1:16 and 2:7, they are a composite metaphor combining the
imagery and concerns of both Jeremiah and Ezekiel into a single image.
f. Zechariah 1–8 and the Reuse of Texts

From these five examples, we may deduce three observations about how
Zech 1–8 uses texts.
(1) Loose Quotation. Zechariah rarely quotes clause-for-clause, nor even

word-for-word, but instead freely adapts a source text. Not only does
to Ezek 40:3. David L. Petersen (Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 169–72; idem,
“Zechariah’s Visions: A Theological Perspective,” VT 34 [1984]: 195–206) notes the
connection with Ezek 40–48, but argues that Zechariah’s version “appears to
challenge notions of restoration in Ezek 40–48,” contra Tollington (Tradition and
Innovation, 104–5), who argues that there is no dependency.
60. See Peterson (Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 116–19) for the argument that
Zechariah presents an “alternative vision of restoration” to Ezekiel. Similarly,
Delkurt (Sacharjas Nachtgesichte, 138–40) argues that it represents a correction to
the expectations of Ezek 40–48.
1
Zechariah adapt tense and person (singular/plural), but he also substitutes

cognate forms (e.g. in Zech 1:4 adjective (rA for noun (aro) and synonyms
(e.g. see Example 3 above).
(2) Multiple Sources. Zechariah interweaves multiple source texts into

one new composite picture, for example, the construction/measuring of
Zech 1–2 is a combination of Ezek 40 and Jer 31. To use a musical
analogy, while one dominant intertext might provide the melody line,
this is often nuanced by overtones of other, less distinct intertexts.
(3) Variation on a Theme. This involves reworking and extending a

metaphor across a passage. Zechariah does not copy his source text word
for word, but instead takes enough of its words, themes, and metaphors
to ensure that the reader hears echoes of the original, then creatively
works these elements into a new composition, in the same way—to use
another musical analogy—that a composer creates a variation on a
theme. For example, consider the reworking of Isa 2:3 in Zech 8:20–23
in Example 4 above.
These three observations suggest that Zechariah is a text written with

other texts in mind. I do not suppose that the author of Zech 1–8 deliber-
ately set out to encode a specific set of allusions, but rather that these
other texts were so much part of his textual worldview—a worldview
shared by his first audience—that he could freely allude to them in order
to construct meaning. This process implies a degree of literary free-play
in the re-use of existing traditions, which means that we need methods
which are capable of detecting this.
HOY, HOY: THE PROPHETIC ORIGINS
OF THE BABYLONIAN TRADITION IN ZECHARIAH 2:10–17*
Mark J. Boda
1. Introduction
In his commentary on the books of Haggai and Zech 1–8, David Petersen
singles out two prophetic tradition streams, Isaiah and Ezekiel, as key to
the development of Zech 1–8. On the one side, Petersen argues that the
Zecharian tradents present “an alternative to or a revision of the notions
of restoration present in Ezek. 40–48.” 1 On the other side, however, he
argues that there is “shared discourse between the prophetic traditionists
of the Isaianic circle, the prophet Zechariah, and those preserving
Zechariah’s visions and oracles.”2
Marvin Sweeney’s recent commentary takes this claim for Isaianic
impact to a new level.3 While it is true that Sweeney admits that Zecha-
riah cites other prophetic books (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos,
Haggai), he gives pride of place to the book of Isaiah. This inter-
prophetic connection can be discerned from the outset of the book of
* The numbering system of the MT will be used in the present study. Most
English translations number these verses as Zech 2:6–13.
1. David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary (OTL;
London: SCM, 1985), 119.
2. Ibid., 122; also note Petitjean’s conclusion on the oracles in Zech 1–6:
“Fortement marques par l’influence des prophètes antérieurs, principalement de
Jérémie, d’Ézéchiel et du Second Isaïe, les oracles de Zacharie experiment cependant
une pensée dense et originale” (Albert Petitjean, Les Oracles du Proto-Zacharie: Un
programme de restauration pour la communauté juive après l’exil [Paris: Librairie
Lecoffre/J. Gabalda; Louvain: Éditions Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1969], 441).
Minn.: Liturgical, 2000); note also idem, “Zechariah’s Debate with Isaiah,” in The
Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century (ed. Marvin A.
Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 335–50, where
Sweeney focuses exclusively on the influence of Isaiah on the entire book of Zecha-
riah. His lack of attention to Jeremiah and Ezekiel is surprising.
1
Zechariah, where Sweeney finds the genealogy of a prophet Zechariah

who is called “son of Berechiah.” According to Sweeney, this serves as a
play on the character “Zechariah son of Jeberechiah” who served as a
witness to the birth of Isaiah’s son in Isa 8:1–4, an identification which
“is apparently intended to point to Zechariah’s book as a representation
of the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies at the time of the building of the
second temple and beyond.” 4 This evidence, however, does not stand
alone, for Sweeney concludes that the “book of Zechariah alludes exten-
sively to passages from the book of Isaiah to make the point that Isaiah’s
prophecies are about to achieve their fulfillment.” 5 He notes that while
the book of Isaiah prophesied the fall of Assyria and Babylon, the book
of Zechariah looks to the fall of Persia. Thus Sweeney calls the authors
of Zechariah “early readers of Isaiah” who “sought to cast Zechariah as
the witness to the fulfillment of Isaiah’s message.” 6 He does note, how-
ever, that these readers “appear to have been heavily influenced by
Micah as well as by other prophetic writings, particularly Jeremiah.” 7
A passage that has often been used to bolster this claim for Isaianic
influence is the prophetic oracle found in Zech 2:10–17. For Petersen, the
evidence for this claim is exemplified by the similarity of the reference to
the escape of Zion in Zech 2:11 to Isa 51:16, the reference to the singing
upon the return of YHWH in Zech 2:14 as typical of Isaiah (with the
language similar to Isa 12:6), and the reference to Gentiles joining the
covenant people in Zech 2:15 echoing the language of Isa 56:6–7.
Petersen admits that in the final case there is some discontinuity: “The
distinctions that will be maintained according to Isa. 56:7 (and for that
matter Isa. 2:1–4) will, according to Zech. 2:15 [11 E.], be abrogated.” 8
Sweeney adds more details to Petersen’s evidence. According to
Sweeney, the reference to Daughter Babylon “draws heavily upon that of
the book of Isaiah which frequently portrays Jerusalem and Babylon as
women who suffer various misfortunes and restorations…and calls upon
the exiles to leave Babylon for Jerusalem” (citing Isa 3:25–4:1; 47;
49:18; 52:1–2; 54 for “Daughter Babylon/Zion” and Isa 48:20; 49:8–13;
51:9–11; 52:11–12 for leaving Babylon). 9 The submission of the nations
to YHWH at Jerusalem throughout 2:10–17 “corresponds well to Isaiah”
(Isa 2:2–4, 6–21; 42:1–9; 45:9–14; 49:1–26; 51:1–11; 60–62), the
4. Sweeney, The Twelve, 2:563–64.

5. Ibid., 2:563.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid., 2:564.
1
9. Sweeney, The Twelve, 2:588.
BODA Hoy, Hoy 173
imagery of God raising his hand against enemies of Israel found in Zech
2:13 is also used in Isa 11:15 and 19:16, the exhortations to Daughter
Zion in Zech 2:14 are “reminiscent of Second Isaiah” (citing 42:11;
44:23; 49:13; 52:8, 9; 54:1; 61:7; cf. Isa 9:2; 12:1; 24:14; 26:19; 35:2, 6;
66:10).10 As with Petersen, finally, the revelation that “many nations”
will be “joined to YHWH” is akin to Isaiah, as Sweeney puts it: “Such a
scenario corresponds to the overall outlook of Isaiah which envisions the
nations coming to Zion together with Israel/Jacob to acknowledge
YHWH’s world-wide sovereignty” (citing Isa 2:2–4; 25:6–10; 56:1–8;
60–62; 66:18–24).11
The purpose of the present study is twofold. First, it is to test these
claims for Isaianic influence on Zech 2:10–17 by searching for the key
traditions that lie behind this passage. We will discover that the influ-
ential tradition is clearly prophetic, but extends well beyond Isaiah.
Secondly, the purpose is also to describe the intertextual techniques
evident in the use of these prophetic traditions. We will discover that the
Zecharian tradent(s) incorporate earlier prophetic language from pas-
sages whose larger context is significant to the ideological program of
Zech 2:10–17 in particular and Zech 1:7–6:15 in general.
2. Reading Zechariah 2:10–17 with the “Earlier Prophets”

a. Zechariah 2:10–11
hwFhy:-M)un; NwOpcf CrE)em' w@snUw: ywOh ywOh Attention, attention, Flee from the
Mket;)e yt2i#o;rAp%' MyIma#f%$ha twOxw@r (b@ar:)ak@; yk@i land of the north, declares the Lord,
hwFhy:-M)un; for as the four winds of the heavens I
have scattered you, declares the
Lord.
.lbeb@f-tb@a tbe#$ewOy y+il;m@fhi NwOy%ci ywOh Attention, Zion, escape you who
dwell in Daughter Babylon.12
The oracle opens with the words ywOh ywOh (2:10), calling the audience to
attention with a word that is repeated again at the beginning of 2:11. This
doublet style is typical in Hebrew Bible, where the imperative is the most
common word type for such constructions (Judg 5:12; 2 Sam 16:7;
20:16; Pss 47:7; 137:7; Prov 30:15; Song 7:1; Isa 40:1; 51:9, 17; 52:1,
11; 62:10; Lam 4:15; Ezek 3:1; 33:11; Nah 2:9; Hab 1:5). The use of
double interjections is found elsewhere only in Ezek 16:23 where the
closely related word ywO) is used to gain the attention of the audience. The
10. Ibid., 2:589–90.

11. Ibid., 2:590.
1
12. On the translation of “Daughter Zion,” see n. 21 below.
doublet style is very common in Isa 40–66 and thus this may betray
influence from this corpus, but it must be admitted that “interjections”
per se are never doubled in Isaiah. The verbs “flee” (swn) and “escape”
(+lm) are found together at several places in the Hebrew Bible (Gen
19:20; 1 Sam 19:10; 30:17; 1 Kgs 20:20; Isa 20:6; Jer 46:6; 48:6, 19;
51:6; Amos 9:1). However, as is evident in this list it is most common as
a collocation in the Oracles Against the Nations in Jer 46–51, and Jer
51:6 is the only place that uses both verbs to call for flight from Babylon
(cf. swn in 50:16 and +lm in 51:45, 50 all in reference to flight from
Babylon).13
The location from which this flight will take place is clearly identified
as the NwOpcf CrE)e and lbebf@-tb@a. The phrase NwOpcf CrE)e is a regular component
of the Jeremianic tradition, where it is identified with Babylon, the
enemy of Israel and the one used of YHWH to discipline the people (Jer
3:18; 6:22; 10:22; 16:15; 23:8; 31:8; 46:10; 50:9; cf. Zech 2:10; 6:6, 8).
The phrase lbebf@-tb@a only occurs four other times in the Hebrew Bible (Ps
137:8; Isa 47:1; Jer 50:42; 51:33). 14 Zechariah 2:10 and 2:11 place these
two phrases in parallel, betraying influence from the Jeremianic tradition.
Both phrases are found in Jer 50–51 (NwOpcf CrE)e: 50:9; cf. 50:3, 41; 51:48;
lbebf@-tb@a: 50:42; 51:33), but interestingly it is linked to another people
who are now identified as the enemies of Babylon. The term “Zion” for
the disciplined people of Israel is a regular component in both Isaiah and
Jeremiah traditions (Isa 40:9; 41:27; 46:13; 49:14; 51:3, 11, 16; 52:1, 2,
7, 8; 59:20; 60:14; 61:3; 62:1, 11; 64:9; 66:8; Jer 3:14; 4:6, 31; 6:2, 23;
8:19; 9:18; 14:19; 26:18; 30:17; 31:6, 12). However, it is only in Jer 50–
51 that Zion is described in relationship to an escape from a place
specifically identified as Babylon (Jer 50:5, 28; 51:10, 24, 35). 15 Finally,
the collocation lbebf@-tb@a tbe#$ewOy at the end of Zech 2:11, which consists of
the collective feminine singular participle tbe#$ewOy followed by the term tb@a
in construct with the name of a city/land, is found elsewhere only in the
Jer 46–50 corpus (Jer 46:19; 48:18).16
13. For this see David J. Reimer, The Oracles against Babylon in Jeremiah 50–
51: A Horror Among the Nations (San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press,
1993), 271.
14. See also Reimer (ibid., 270–71) for both NwOpcf CrE)e and lbebf@-tb@a.
15. Petersen (Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 176–77) makes reference to Isa 51:16
as typical of Deutero-Isaiah’s use of Zion, but does not pursue the details of the
vocabulary.
16. See Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25B; Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1987), 164.
1
BODA Hoy, Hoy 175
The motif of the MyIma#$%fha twOxw2r (b@ar:)a is found in 1 Chr 9:24; Jer 49:36;
Ezek 37:9; Dan 8:8; 11:4; and Zech 6:5. In Jer 49:36, this motif is used
in a similar way to Zech 2:10, that is, the four winds of heaven are asso-
ciated with the exile of a people and are the destination of a scattering of
the people. It should be noted that Jer 49:36 uses the synonym hrz
instead of #$rp; however, the use of #$rp here may be a purposeful
allusion to Persia, a homonym.
The vocabulary of Zech 2:10–11, then, bears striking similarity to that
of Jer 50–51 and the larger complex of the Oracles against the Nations in
Jer 46–51 and the Jeremianic tradition in general. 17 The Isaianic tradition
does not figure prominently in these two opening verses. 18
b. Zechariah 2:12–13
twO)bfc; hwFhy: rma)f hko yk@i For thus says the Lord Almighty, after
Mket;)e Mylil;#o$%ha MyIwOg2ha-l)e dwObk@f rxa)a glory he sent me to the nations which
.wOny(' tbabfb;@ (Ag"nO Mkeb@f (Ag"n2Oha yk@i plundered you, for the one who touches
you touches the pupil of his eye.
Mheyl'(j ydIyF-t)e PynIm' ynIn:hi yk@i For behold I am raising my hand against
Mheyd'b;(al; llf#$f w2yhfw: them and they will be plunder to their
.ynIxflf#$; twO)bfc; hwfhy:-yk@i Mt@e(;dAywI slaves and you will know that the Lord
Almighty has sent me.
The root ll#$ is used on many occasions in the Hebrew Bible, where it is
usually employed to refer to the simple act of despoiling a defeated
enemy. The nuance found in Zech 2:12–13, that is, that those who once
despoiled will now be despoiled by their former subjects, is restricted
elsewhere to Ezek 39:10 and Hab 2:8. 19 Ezekiel 39:10 is the best
17. Reimer (Oracles against Babylon, 270–71) noted several of these links
between Jer 50–51 (46–51) and Zech 2:10–17 and others that will be noted
throughout the present study.
18. Meyers and Meyers (Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 163) argue that 2:10 “can very
well have been influenced by” both Jer 50–51 and Deutero-Isaiah (e.g. Jer 50:8, 28;
51:6, 45; Isa 48:20). Bernard Gosse (Isaïe 13,1–14,23: Dans la tradition littéraire du
livre d’Isaèie et dans la tradition des oracles contre les nations—Étude de la
transformation du genre littéraire [OBO 78; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988], 208) highlights links between Jer 51:7 and Zech
2:10, 11; 50:42; 51:33 and Zech 2:11. Risto Nurmela (Prophets in Dialogue: Inner-
Biblical Allusions in Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14 [Åbo: Åbo Akademi University,
1996], 54–56) claimed that Jer 50–51 was reliant on Zech 2:10–17, but the evidence
for the dating of Jer 50–51 presented below (n. 32) makes this unlikely.
19. Reimer (Oracles Against Babylon, 271) cites Jer 50:10 which uses ll#$.
Tollington makes the helpful observation that this concept is found elsewhere in
1
candidate of these two because in it the Israelites are specified as the

ones who enjoy the reversal, while in Hab 2:8 it is more generally the
nations who remain.
The collocation Pwn Hiphil + dyF occurs only elsewhere in Isa 11:15;
13:2, and 19:16, the first in reference to Y HWH’s return of the exiles from
Mesopotamia, the second in reference to God’s judgment on Babylon,
and the third in reference to God’s judgment on Egypt. 20 Isaiah 13:2 is
the closest conceptually to the use in Zech 2:13, for in both the action is
one of judgment against a nation, and that nation has just been identified
in 2:10–11 as Babylon.
The prophetic confirmation formula ynIxflf#$; twO)bfc; hwFhy:-yki@ Mt@e(;dAywI is
unique to Zech 1–6, appearing at 2:12, 15; 4:9, and 6:15. The first part,
Mt@e(;dAywI (“then you will know”), appears regularly in prophetic material,
especially in the book of Ezekiel in the phrase hwFhy: ynI)j-yk@i Mt@e(;dAywI (Ezek
6:7, 13; 7:4, 9; 11:10, 12; 12:20; 13:9, 14, 21, 23; 14:8; 15:7; 16:62;
17:21; 20:38, 42, 44; 22:16, 22; 23:49; 24:24; 25:5, 7; 35:4, 9, 12; 36:11;
37:6, 13, 14; 38:23; 39:6, 7, 22, 28; cf. Ezek 38:16; Isa 43:10; 45:3;
49:23; 60:16). The second part, ynIxflf#$; twO)bfc; hwFhy:-yki@, is reflected in the
phrase K1yle)' ynixflf#$; hwFhy: (“the LORD has sent me to you”), which appears
elsewhere in Exod 3:13, 14, 15; 7:16; Jer 42:21; Zech 4:9; 6:15; cf. 2 Kgs
8:9 (where a king sends a messenger). This phrase draws on the founda-
tional narrative for prophecy, the calling of Moses. The shift in Zech 1–6
of the wording of the phrase from Ezekiel, however, moves the focus
from the people knowing something about Y HWH (Ezekiel) to them
knowing something about YHWH’s prophet. The influence of Ezekiel,
however, is evident.
The Ezekielian tradition very likely lies behind the difficult phrase
dwObk@f rxa)a (“after glory”) as well. Ezekiel 39:21–29 uses the word dwObk@f
(“glory”) to refer to God’s punishment of Judah, a punishment that the
nations will see.21 The prophet declares, however, that he will restore
“Jacob,” having compassion upon them. Thus the meaning here is that
dwObk@f rxa)a (“after glory”), that is, after God’s punishment of Judah, he
then sent the prophet against the nations who have plundered them.
Common to most of these key words/phrases in Zech 2:12–13 is Ezek
38–39, a passage that, although shrouded in mystery, is linked to the
Ezek 39:10 and Isa 14:2 (leaving out Hab 2:8). Isa 14:2, however, uses the verb hb#$
(Janet E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8
[JSOTSup 150; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], 229).
20. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation, 229 n. 1.
21. Meyers and Meyers (Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 165) note that dwObk@f (“glory”) is
a term “characteristic of priestly writing and also of Ezekiel.”
1
BODA Hoy, Hoy 177
punishment of Judah in exile and the reversal of this punishment on their

enemies and the rescue of Judah from exile. It is possible that Isa 13:2 is
the influence behind ydIyF-t)e PynIm'.
c. Zechariah 2:14–16
NwOy%ci-tb@a yxim;#oiw: ynI2rF Shout and rejoice, O Daughter Zion22 for
K7k'wOtb; yt@in;ka#$fw: )bf-ynIn;hi yki@ behold I am coming and I will dwell in
.hwFhy:-M)un; your midst, declares the Lord.
)w2hha MwOy%b@a hwFhy:-l)e Myb@irA MyIwOg w2wl;nIw: And many nations will be joined to the
K7k'wOtb; yt@in;ka#$fw: M(fl; yli w2yhfw: Lord in that day and they will be my
.K7yIlf)' ynIxalf#;$ twO)bfc; hwFhy:-yk@i t@;(adAyFw: people and I will dwell in your midst and
you will know that the Lord Almighty
has sent me to you.
wOql;xe hdfw2hy:-t)e hwFhy: lxanFw: And the Lord will inherit Judah as his
.MIlf#$fw2ryb@i dwO( rxabfw2 #$deq2oha tmad:)a l(a portion in the holy land and will again
choose Jerusalem.
Zechariah 2:14 represents a form identified by Crüsemann as Aufruf zur

Freude, a form that can be traced through the following passages: Isa
12:4–6; 54:1; Joel 2:21–24; Lam 4:21; Zeph 3:14; Zech 2:14; 9:9 (cf.
Hos 9:1).23 This form consists of three basic elements. First, it begins
with an imperative drawn from a limited pool of verbal roots, the most
common being: lhc, (wr, #y#, xm#, lyg, Nnr, each inciting joyful shouts.
Second, this imperative is addressed usually to a city/land personified as
a woman and less frequently to male figures (Israel, sons of Zion) or
animals. Thirdly, the imperative and vocative, is followed by the particle
yk (“for/because”) which introduces a clause providing the reason for the
exhortation. Of the occurrences of the form cited above, there is no
22. For the translation “Daughter Zion” as an appositional genitive or genitive of

association (and earlier “Daughter Babylon” in v. 11), see GKC §128k; Jouön §129f;
as well as W. F. Stinespring, “No Daughter of Zion: A Study of the Appositional
Genitive in Hebrew Grammar,” Encounter 26 (1965): 133–41; Adele Berlin,
Lamentations: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox,
2002), 11–12; contra F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, “The Syntagma of bat Followed by a
Geographical Name in the Hebrew Bible: A Reconsideration of Its Meaning and
Grammar,” CBQ 57 (1995): 451–70; see the excellent review in H. Kim, “The
Interpretation of NowOy@cI-tb@a (Daughter Zion): An Approach of Cognitive Theories of
Metaphor” (Master’s diss., McMaster Divinity College, 2006).
23. Frank Crüsemann, Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in
Israel (WMANT 32; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 55–65; cf.
Katrina J. A. Larkin, The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the
Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology (CBET 6; Kampen: Kok, 1994),
73. Hos 9:1 is clearly influenced by this form, but addresses a male figure: “Israel.”
1
question that Zeph 3:14 and Zech 9:9 are the closest to Zech 2:14.
However, it appears that these two passages show signs of reliance on
Zech 2:14.24 It is Isa 12:6 that stands out from the others, the only other
one addressed to a female inhabitant related to Zion (NwOy%ci tbe#e$wOy, “inhabi-
ant Zion”). It uses one of the two imperatives found in Zech 2:14 (yn2iro,
“shout for joy”), uses the particle yk to introduce the reason clause
(contra Zeph 3:14 and Zech 9:9), and, similar to Zech 2:14, identifies the
presence of God in their midst (K7b@'r:qib;@) as the motivation for the joy.
The verb hwl (“be joined,” v. 15) appears only twelve times in the
Hebrew Bible (Gen 29:34; Num 18:2, 4; Esth 9:27; Ps 83:9; Qoh 8:15;
Isa 14:1; 56:3, 6; Jer 50:5; Dan 11:34; Zech 2:15). In light of previous
connections in Zech 2:10–11, at first one may be drawn to Jer 50:5,
which describes people seeking to join themselves to Y HWH in an ever-
lasting covenant. The people in Jer 50:5, however, are not “many
nations,” as in Zech 2:15, but rather the “sons of Israel” and the “sons of
Judah.” Instead, the references in Isaiah (14:1; 56:3, 6) link Gentiles with
this verb.25 The greater likelihood of this connection to Isaiah is increased
when one observes further connections to Isa 14 in the use of the phrase
b@; dwO( rxab@f (Zech 2:16; Isa 14:1; elsewhere only Zech 1:17), the verb lxn
(Zech 2:16; Isa 14:2), the noun hmfdf)j (Zech 2:16; Isa 14:1, 2), and the
common motifs of the reversal of captive/captors (Isa 14:2) and judg-
ment upon Babylon (chs. 13–14). In light of this, Isa 12–14 appears to be
the dominant source for vv. 15–16, 26 even if again Jer 50 (esp. v. 5) may
have influenced some of the vocabulary (hwl).27
24. I have argued this in a recent oral paper, “The Daughter’s Joy: Zion as
Redactional Leitmotif in a Latter Phase of the Book of the Twelve,” read at the
Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, The Book of the Twelve Prophets
Section (Washington, DC, November 2006). See also Risto Nurmela, Prophets in
Dialogue, 214–16; idem, “The Growth of the Book of Isaiah Illustrated by Allusions
in Zechariah,” in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion and Zechariah
9–14 (ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd; JSOTSup 304; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2003), 248–49.
25. Petersen (Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 181–82) chooses Isa 56:6–7 as “the
strongest parallel expression to this text, apart from inner-Zechariah resonances,”
even though Zech 2:15 goes beyond Isa 56 in abrogating the distinctions between
Israel and the nations.
26. Cf. Reimer, Oracles Against Babylon, and see especially Hugh G. M.
Williamson (The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and
Redaction [Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, 1994],
174–75) who argues for the reliance of Zechariah on Isa 14:1–2: “In my opinion,
however, these similarities are to be explained in terms of Zechariah grappling with
the apparent non-fulfillment of some aspects of earlier prophecies concerning the
1
BODA Hoy, Hoy 179
d. Zechariah 2:17
hwFhy: yn'p,;mi r#ofb@f-lk@f sxa Hush all flesh before the Lord for he has
.wO#$d:qf NwO(m2;mi rwO(n' yk@i roused himself from his holy dwelling.
The interjection sha (“be still/silent”) is used seven times in the Hebrew
Bible (Judg 3:19; Neh 8:11; Amos 6:10; 8:3; Hab 2:20; Zeph 1:7; Zech
2:17). Of these, Hab 2:20 resonates with the use in Zech 2:17, with its
address to “all people” (Zech 2:17: r#ofbf@-lk@f; Hab 2:20: CrE)fhf-lk@f) and
reference to a holy dwelling (Zech 2:17: NwO(m; wO#$d:qf; Hab 2:20: lkayh'
wO#$d:qf).28 Furthermore, both Hab 2:20 and Zech 2:17 function as conclu-
sions to their respective prophetic messages.29 However, Nurmela has
observed that both r#ofbf@-lk@f and wO#$d:qf NwO(m; appear in Jer 25:30–31, a pas-
sage that looks to the punishment of the nations, and, as we have seen
already above, to the judgment of Babylon. 30 In light of this, it is very
likely that Zech 2:17 has been influenced by both Hab 2:20 and Jer
25:30–31.
e. Overview
The evidence above suggests that Zech 2:10–17, rather than relying
predominantly on Isaiah, is actually drawing upon several key passages
in the earlier prophetic tradition: Jer 25; 50–51; Ezek 38–39; Isa 12–14,
and Hab 2. Of these, only Isa 12–14 is consistently linked by scholarship
to “Deutero-Isaiah.”31 Conspicuous by its absence is any firm allusion to
the core of Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 40–55).
end of the exile.” Although this may be true for the “seventy years” of 1:12 (in
relationship to Jer 25:11; 29:10), this does not appear to be the case here in Zech
2:10–17. Rather, the present punishment of Babylon is seen as the evidence of the
fulfillment of prophecy.
27. For Jer 50, see Reimer, Oracles Against Babylon, 270–71. Notice also the
use of lxn + qlx for the language of inheritance and lot in Jer 51:19.
28. See also Tollington (Tradition and Innovation, 39), although she makes
clear: “It is possible that the words of Zechariah have been influenced by these
earlier prophetic uses but there is no indication of direct dependency on either of
them.”
29. Ibid.
30. Nurmela, Prophets in Dialogue, 63. The phrase wO#$d:qf NwO(m; also appears in
Deut 26:15; 2 Chr 30:27; and Ps 68:6.
31. Williamson, Book Called Isaiah, 118–25, 156–83; cf. Knud Jeppesen (“The
ma∞∞ā< Babel in Isaiah 13–14,” PIBA 9 [1985]: 63–80) who writes: “if there are
Deutero-Isaianic interpolations in Isa. 1–39, this text is one of the most obvious
examples” (cited, affirmed, and bolstered by Williamson, Book Called Isaiah, 165).
1
3. Reading the “Earlier Prophets” with Zechariah 2:10–17

The first half of this study has highlighted evidence of intertextual links
between Zech 2:10–17 and the “earlier prophets.” The second section
now mines these “earlier prophets” to discern why the one(s) responsible
for Zech 2:10–17 chose their lexical stock from these particular passages.
a. Jeremiah 50–51
This investigation has highlighted the influential role played by Jer 50–
51 in the development of Zech 2:10–17. Bellis has demonstrated that Jer
50–51 consists of six poems which existed originally in two collections
(ch. 50 and ch. 51) drawn together by a third editor, or six poems assem-
bled by one editor.32 This collection of poems looks to the destruction of
Babylon for its abuse of Jerusalem and Judah. The enemy who will carry
out this divine judgment is identified as the king(s) of the Medes (51:11,
28), as well as Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz (51:27), the latter three
being kingdoms conquered by the Median king Cyaxares II. The poems
express an expectation that Babylon will soon be overthrown. Notwith-
standing the subscription of Jer 51:59–64, this evidence has suggested to
many scholars that these prophetic pieces originated in the period
between the fall of Jerusalem and the fall of Media to the Persians (587–
550) and most likely in the unsettled period between the death of Nebu-
chadnezzar and the Persian conquest of Media by Cyrus (562–550). 33
32. Alice Ogden Bellis, The Structure and Composition of Jeremiah 50:2–51:58
(Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen Biblical Press, 1995), 216.
33. Ibid., 15–17; similarly Martin Kessler, Battle of the Gods: The God of Israel
versus Marduk of Babylon: A Literary/Theological Interpretation of Jeremiah 50–51
(SSN 42; Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003), 206; and K. A. D. Smelik, “The
Function of Jeremiah 50 and 51 in the Book of Jeremiah,” in Reading the Book of
Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence (ed. Martin Kessler; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisen-
brauns, 2004), 96. For an excellent review of modern scholarship, see Kessler, Battle
of the Gods, 13–35. Wilhelm Rudolph (Jeremia [3d ed.; HAT 12; Tübingen: Mohr
(Siebeck), 1968], 299) dates this corpus to 559–538 B.C.E.; John Bright (Jeremiah:
Introduction, Translation, and Notes [AB 21; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965],
60) dates it to the period prior to 539; Robert P. Carroll (Jeremiah [OTG; Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1989], 853–54) said it could be prior to 539, but that the language
allows for later dates; William L. Holladay (Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book
of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26–52 [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989],
414) dates it to 594 B.C.E. as per the subscript in 51:59–64; Douglas R. Jones
(Jeremiah [NCB; London: Marshall Pickering, 1992], 521, 523) dates it to the ear-
lier part of the decade before until after the fall of Babylon; Terence E. Fretheim
(Jeremiah [Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, Ga.: Smith & Helwys,
2002], 621) entertains the idea that there could have been a shift in Jeremiah’s stance
toward Babylon after 597 B.C.E., but that references to the temple in 50:28 and 51:11
1
BODA Hoy, Hoy 181
A leitmotif that binds these poems together is the emphasis upon

“vengeance” (50:15, 28; 51:6, 11, 36), 34 a leitmotif that is related to the
destruction of the temple. Noteworthy is the taunt of Jer 51:25–26, which
not only addresses Babylon as a “mountain” that will be destroyed (cf.
Zech 4:6b–10a) but also warns that it will never be rebuilt, using
vocabulary familiar from ancient Near Eastern restoration inscriptions. 35
This intersection of rebuilding language alongside that of vengeance for
the destruction of the temple, may help us to understand why Jer 50–51
was so important to the one(s) responsible for Zech 2:10–17. 36 The
rebuilding of Jerusalem and especially its temple was needed because of
the destructive actions of Babylon. The signal that the vengeance of the
temple had been fully satisfied was not merely the rebuilding of the tem-
ple under Persian patronage, but also the exacting of promised punish-
ment on the ones who had destroyed it.
b. Jeremiah 25
In the LXX tradition (which some see as original), Jer 50–51 is much
more closely associated with Jer 25 than can be seen in the MT tradition
since LXX Jer 25:1–32:38 has the order: MT Jer 25:1–13; 49:34–39; 46:2–
25, 27–28; 50:1–46; 51:1–64; 47:1–7; 49:1–5, 23, 27, 38–33; 48:1–45;
25:15–38. As can be seen quite readily if the LXX precedes the MT, the
indicate that 587 had taken place and that, thus, “it is possible that such texts repre-
sent a later editing of earlier oracles.” David S. Vanderhooft (The Neo-Babylonian
Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets [HSM 59; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
2000], 189–90, 202) dates this to the late exilic era, being written by an author who
knew something of Babylon’s specific architecture. There are “some intriguing indi-
cations, most notably Jer 51:32, which suggest that the writer had already witnessed
the fall of Babylon to the Persians” (202). Bellis (Structure and Composition, 15),
however, would appear to disagree, arguing in words first addressed to Carroll that
“a provisional terminus ad quem is clearly 539, when Cyrus peacefully took over
Babylon and all predictions of a violent overthrow of Babylon such as are found in
Jeremiah 50–51, become pointless.”
34. The reference in 50:28 is not found in the Septuagint and may be a later
addition under the influence of 51:11; see Bellis, Structure and Composition, 215.
35. Mark J. Boda, “From Dystopia to Myopia: Utopian (Re)visions in Haggai
and Zechariah 1–8,” in Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic Texts (ed. Ehud Ben Zvi;
Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 92; Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical
Society; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 210–48; Mark J. Boda and
Jamie R. Novotny, eds., From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Tem-
ple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible (AOAT; Münster: Ugarit-
Verlag, forthcoming).
36. See the links cited by Reimer (Oracles against Babylon, 270–71) between
Jer 50–51 and Zech 2:10–17.
1
MT has taken what was originally a bracket (25:1–13, 15–38) around the
entire oracular complex against the nations and has fused it together,
separated it from the oracles and reordered the oracles. If the MT pre-
cedes the LXX, then the LXX has reordered the oracular material and
drawn it into the middle of ch. 25. In either case, what is interesting is to
see the importance placed on Babylon in the material in Jer 25 which
either was designed originally as a unified piece or as a bracket around
the nations section.37
The first half of the chapter (MT 25:1–13) is clearly looking beyond
the exile of Judah to the future of Israel. It emphasizes that Y HWH will
use Babylon’s Nebuchadnezzar to gather together “all the armies of the
north” in order to exact punishment on Israel. However, it states that in
seventy years YHWH will in turn punish the king of Babylon. The focus
in MT 25:1–13 is clearly on Babylon first as Divine Punisher and then as
Divinely Punished.
The focus in MT 25:15–38 (LXX 32:15–38) expands to all the nations
on earth. As in vv. 1–13, so in vv. 15–38 the focus on the nations is
placed at first in the context of God’s punishment on Jerusalem (25:28).
However, then the punishment is expanded with the question to “all the
nations of the earth”: “should I let you go unpunished?” (25:29). This
international flavor is showcased from the outset of the section as the
prophet takes the cup of God’s wrath to Judah before proceeding to
Egypt, Uz, Philistia, Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, Sidon, Dedan, Tema,
Buz, Arabia, Zimri, Elam, Media, and Babylon. The naming of Babylon,
however, is clearly climactic in the list because MT 25:26a offers a
37. J. Gerald Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (HSM 6; Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1973); Emanuel Tov, “Some Aspects of the Textual and
Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah,” in Le Livre de Jérémie: le prophète et son
milieu, les oracles et leur transmission (ed. Pierre M. Bogaert; BETL 54; Leuven:
Peeters, 1981), 145–67; James W. Watts, “Text and Redaction in Jeremiah’s Oracles
against the Nations,” CBQ 54 (1992): 432–47; Robert P. Carroll, “Halfway through
a Dark Wood: Reflections on Jeremiah 25,” in Troubling Jeremiah (ed. A. R. Pete
Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman; JSOTSup 260; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 73–86; Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Jeremiah at the
Turning-point of History: The Function of Jer. xxv 1–14 in the Book of Jeremiah,”
VT 52 (2002): 459–82; Martin Kessler, “The Function of Chapters 25 and 50–51 in
the Book of Jeremiah,” in Diamond, O’Connor, and Stuhlman, eds., Troubling
Jeremiah, 64–72; Menahem Haran, “The Place of the Prophecies against the Nations
in the Book of Jeremiah,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and
Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft,
Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Weston W. Fields; VTSup 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003),
699–706; cf. Bernard Gosse, “The Masoretic Redaction of Jeremiah: An Explana-
tion,” JSOT 77 (1998): 75–80.
1
BODA Hoy, Hoy 183
summarizing statement about the prophet’s journey to all the kings

before finally stating in 25:26b that the king of Babylon drank from the
cup. Thus, in both sections of MT Jer 25 Babylon is the key player, and in
both, after the punishment of Judah and Jerusalem, Babylon will receive
punishment. The Zecharian tradents’ use of tradition from Jer 25:30–31
is then not surprising, as it lays the prophetic foundation for the belief
that the present punishment of Babylon by Persia was a fulfillment of
God’s promises of old. It also reveals that the command for “all flesh” to
pay attention to YHWH who has roused himself from the “holy habita-
tion” should strike fear in the nations as the punishment that began
“against his own land” (Jer 25:30) will now “reach the ends of the earth”
(25:31).
This passage in Jeremiah not only emphasizes Babylon in its vision
for future punishment of the nations, but appears to be doing so in order
to answer a searching question for those in exile, one which is cited in
25:28: “should I let you [all the nations of the earth] go unpunished?”
This Jeremianic tradition reveals that although Judah and Jerusalem were
worthy of their punishment (25:1–11, 18, 29a), the unrighteous instru-
ments used to bring this punishment will also be punished (25:12–14,
19–26, 29b–38). Furthermore, the importance of MT Jer 25 is that it
offers insights into the timing of the divine plan for restoration, with the
time identified as “seventy years” and the key turning point of events as
the punishment of Babylon.
c. Ezekiel 38–39
The analysis of Zech 2:12–13 revealed possible links to the Ezekielian
tradition and in particular to Ezek 38–39. This passage speaks of a day
when a future prince of Magog will rise up and invade a land called the
“the mountains of Israel” which has recovered from war and is inhabited
by people gathered from the nations (38:8). 38 The evil scheme of this
prince includes invading and plundering (lla#$f l$l#;$li) a “land of unwalled
villages” (twOzrAp%;). This prince Gog along with his hordes, however, will
meet defeat on those mountains of Israel (38:17–39:20) and the Israelites
will instead “plunder those who plundered them” (-t) w@ll;#$aw: Mheyl'l$;#$e;
39:22). The defeat of this enemy Gog of Magog is intricately linked to
the revelation of God’s glory (dbk; 39:13, 21), also expressed as God
showing himself holy (#$dq; 38:16, 23, cf. 39:7–8). The passage is honest
about the exile of Israel as punishment (39:21–24), but also about the
restoration of Israel as an expression of the zeal of God ()nq, 39:25).
God will gather them from the nations and pour out his spirit on them.
1
38. This is clearly Israel, see 38:14; 39:2, 4.
The final section of 39:23–29 reminds the reader that these events will
occur after the restoration of Israel from an exile brought on by their sin.
Thus, the defeat of Gog is a sign of God’s favor on restored Israel.
The precise identity of Gog of Magog has been a point of great debate.
Gog is identified as one who will come from what is called “the far
north” (NwOpcf yt'k@;r:yA; 38:6, 15; 39:2). The enemy from the “north” is a con-
sistent leitmotif in Hebrew literature, referring to powerful Mesopotamian
powers. The collocation “recesses of the north” (NwOpcf yt'k@;r:yA), however, is
found elsewhere only on two occasions and in both cases refers to the
place of the divine assembly on the “heights of Zaphon,” once in the
famous Zion psalm, Ps 48 (v. 3), and again, interestingly, in the taunt
against the king of Babylon in Isa 14:13. Is this then the geographic
origin of Gog? Are he and his cohorts sent from the divine assembly?
Probably not. Rather, what we have in this collocation is a combining of
usually differentiated phrases which identify the location of a powerful
Mesopotamian enemy. For instance, the geographic origins of the enemy
in Jer 6:22 as well as of the returning remnant of Israel in Jer 31:8 are
traced in parallel lines to the “land of the north” (NwOpcf CrE)e) and to “the
recesses of the earth” (CrE)f-yt'k@;r:yA). Furthermore, the force used to bring
judgment on Babylon in Jer 50:41 is identified as a people from “the
north” (NwOpcf), an area identified in the next line as “the recesses of the
earth” (CrE)f-yt'k@;r:yA). This evidence suggests that words usually employed
in parallel lines to refer to Mesopotamian lands have been fused together
in a nominal construction. This evidence, combined with the fact that the
book of Ezekiel, which places the prophet at the time of the Babylonian
empire, contains no prophetic oracle against Babylon, suggests that Gog
of Magog is a figurative or coded reference to Babylon. 39 If this can be
accepted, Ezek 38–39 looks to the destruction of the enemy that had once
brought legitimate divine punishment on Judah. 40
A closer look at the structure of this section of the book of Ezekiel
reveals the important role that Ezek 38–39 plays in its literary context.
39. It is possible that this is a coded reference to Babylon (Magog), similar to

Sheshach in Jer 25:26; 51:41 and Leb-Kamai in Jer 51:1, both of which use an
encoding system called Athbash. Cf. J. Boehmer, “Wer ist Gog von Magog? Ein
Beitrag zur Auslegung des Buches Ezechiel,” ZWT 40 (1897): 321–55; and now
Margaret S. Odell, Ezekiel (Smith & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, Ga.:
Smyth & Helwys, 2006), 472–77; but see the critique in Daniel I. Block, The Book
of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 434 n. 36
40. The comments of Odell (Ezekiel, 9) are important: “Thus unlike his contem-
porary Jeremiah, Ezekiel does not promote Babylon as a source of peace, at least not
in the way that Jeremiah does… If Jeremiah counseled accommodation to a new life
in exile, Ezekiel saw life among the Babylonians as a life of endurable shame.”
1
BODA Hoy, Hoy 185
After a series of oracles against the nations in Ezek 25–32, Ezek 33

finally describes the fall of the city of Jerusalem. The chapters that
follow, however, look to a promised restoration from exile to the land
(cf. 36:24) and this restoration will involve a new heart/spirit (36:26–27)
and repopulation of the devastated land (36:37–38). Ezekiel 37 looks to
the resurrection of a valley of dry bones, an image which symbolizes the
return of Israel to the land (37:12–14). This return is linked to the resto-
ration of the Davidic line (37:22–25). The passage ends with the promise
of the eternal covenant in 37:26–28 to which is intricately attached the
promise of a new temple: “I will put my sanctuary among them forever”
(37:26); “my dwelling place will be with them” (37:27); and “when my
sanctuary is among them forever” (37:28). This passage appears to be
preparing the way for the vision of the new temple in chs. 40–48, but
before that vision complex is presented, chs. 38–39 with their focus on
God’s victory over the nations are inserted.
The one(s) responsible for Zech 2:10–17 appear(s) to be sensitive to
the literary flow of the book of Ezekiel. The anticipated renewal of the
community after the exile will be typified by the restoration of the
sanctuary,41 but in order for this to happen there must first be a great
victory of God over the nations. Zechariah 2:10–17 identifies the punish-
ment of Babylon as evidence of the key victory that must proceed the
construction of the Second Temple.
Furthermore, it is interesting that the first phase of the vision of the
restored Temple in chs. 40–48 (chs. 40–42, that which precedes the key
appearance of God’s glory in ch. 43) is dominated by the vision of a man
with a measuring line who measures a wall. This is fascinating in light of
the fact that the oracle under discussion follows Zech 2:1–5, which has a
visionary journey that involves a man with a measuring line in his hand
measuring the city wall of Jerusalem. The fact that the wall in Ezek 40–
48 is only constructed around the temple area may indicate that there is
an expansion in expectations connected with this wall in the Zechariah
vision, so that it would ultimately include the whole city. This expansion,
however, does not make illegitimate the link to the Ezekielian tradition.
The reference to the attack of Gog against the Israelite land of “unwalled
villages” (38:11) may also be reflected in the preceding vision of Zech
2:5–9 in which Jerusalem is to be an “unwalled village” because of
41. See now Odell (ibid, 9) who interprets the book of Ezekiel in line with
ancient Near Eastern building restoration forms. There is thus great importance
attached to the temple and city reconstruction in the shape of the book. See further
idem, “ ‘The Wall is No More’: Architectural and Ritual Reform in Ezekiel 43:8,” in
Boda and Novotny, eds., From the Foundations.
1
God’s protection. They are to have no fear of Babylon, for Babylon will
be defeated by God in their time.
Ezekiel 38–39, with its depiction of the punishment of Babylon, is key
to the restoration of the temple and city and the return of God’s presence
in Ezek 25–48. It is not surprising that it was attractive to those
Zecharian tradents seeking to interpret the events of their own times.
d. Habakkuk 2
The analysis of Zech 2:17 above identified striking similarities with Hab
2:20, a passage that calls for the silencing of the nations in connection
with God’s renewed presence in the temple. The book begins with the
lament of the prophet over God’s lack of judgment on injustice within
the prophet’s community (Hab 1:2–4). The divine assurance to the
prophet is that he plans to raise up a foreign nation (Babylon) to exact
punishment (1:5–11). This answer, however, only raises a further
complication and so the prophet questions why God would use such an
evil agent to bring justice only to have that agent inflict further injustice
among the people (1:12–2:1). The Lord replies that he will in turn exact
punishment on this foreign agent (2:2–20). The grand finale of the book
is a prayer of Habakkuk which begins by rehearsing God’s past theophany
which brought deliverance for Israel (3:2–15) and ends by declaring
trusting patience as he awaits God’s future theophany (3:16–19), echoing
the declaration of 2:4b that “the righteous will live by his faith.” 42
The particular verse that is alluded to in Zech 2:17, namely, Hab 2:20,
is the final verse in the lament-debate between God and his prophet and
serves as a transition to the final prayer which celebrates God’s saving
appearance. It presages, thus, the appearance of God to bring judgment
on the unjust foreign agent (Babylon). 43 Again the one(s) responsible for
42. This final prayer (or at least 3:2–15) is often seen as predating the rest of the
book due to its archaic style and themes. However, it plays a significant role in the
final form of the book and for some contains intertextual links to chs. 1–2; cf.
Theodore Hiebert, God of My Victory: The Ancient Hymn in Habakkuk 3 (HSM 38;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); see Richard D. Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk,
Zephaniah (Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary; Chicago: Moody, 1991); Rex A.
Mason, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Joel (OTG; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994);
and Adele Berlin, Zephaniah: A New Translation with Introduction and Com-
mentary (AB 25A; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 14, 259–268; J. J. M. Roberts,
Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, Ky.:
Westminster John Knox, 1991).
43. That the Neo-Babylonian empire is in view is argued well by Roberts (ibid.,
84) even if the oracles in 2:6–20 were originally directed at others; cf. Francis I.
Andersen, Habakkuk: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB
1
BODA Hoy, Hoy 187
Zech 2:10–17 has/have drawn language from a larger literary construct

that looks to the punishment of Babylon after Babylon has in turn meted
out God’s judgment on Israel.
The themes found in Habakkuk as a whole are also evident throughout
the night visions, in particular, disillusionment over God’s use of an
unrighteous foreign servant to carry out his punishment (cf. Hab 1:12–
2:1 with Zech 1:15) and hope for a great reversal in which those who
were plundered will now plunder their overlord (cf. Hab 2:8 with Zech
2:12). The use of Hab 2:20, with its focus on God’s presence “in his holy
temple,” is significant in that it precedes the theophany of Hab 3 in
which God threshes the nations in anger, rescues his people and anointed
one, and crushes the leader of the land of wickedness (Hab 3:12–14). 44
For the one(s) responsible for Zech 2:10–17, the temple-city project is
inseparably linked with God’s judgment on Babylon. 45 Zechariah 2:10–
17 is thus claiming that the “appointed time” had now arrived for the
fulfillment of Habakkuk’s revelation which was written down on tablets
(Hab 2:2).
e. Isaiah 12–14
The analysis of Zech 2:15–16 highlighted several connections to Isa
14:1–4, a text which functions, in the words of Vanderhooft, as “an
editorial link between the foregoing chapter and the poem preserved in
14:4b–21; vv. 1–2 provide a coda for Isa 13 and vv. 3–4a introduce the
subsequent poem.”46 Isaiah 13–14 functions as the introduction to the
25; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 18–19: “There is much in the prophecy that does
not fit into this neat scheme.” Andersen (pp. 24–27) provides a superb review of the
debate over the date of this material (ranging from the Assyrian to Seleucid periods),
and settles on a date between 605 and 575 B.C.E.
44. As Roberts (Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, 128) has noted: “The verse
[Hab 2:20] serves as a transition to the vision in chapter 3, a vision that may be
understood as arising in the context of continued communal worship in the temple…”
45. See Vanderhooft (Babylon, 163) who notes the close relationship between
the themes of Hab 1–2 and Neo-Babylonian imperial ideas and practices, especially
these: “the idea that the king rules by divine fiat; that the one-way flow of material
wealth and captives into Babylonia results from the recognition of Babylon’s
greatness by subject peoples; and that the king honors his deities through building
programs.”
46. Ibid., 128. For redactional theories on Isa 13–14, see variously, Ronald E.
Clements, Isaiah 1–39 (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 129–37, John D. W.
Watts, Isaiah 1–33 (WBC 24; Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1985), 184–86, 195–96;
John Goldingay, Isaiah (NIBC; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001), 97–98, and
especially Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic
Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 214–34; Hans Wildberger,
1
nations complex of Isa 13–23. Interestingly, another oracle against Baby-

lon appears in Isa 21 in this complex, there referred to as “the Desert by
the Sea,” with the words at 21:9 reading: “Babylon has fallen, has fallen!
All the images of its gods lie shattered on the ground!”
The section in Isa 13:1–22, immediately preceding 14:1–2, describes
the overthrow of Babylon by “the Medes” (13:17), focusing on the city
of Babylon “the jewel” within the Babylonian empire (13:19). 47 The
expectation is for total destruction (like Sodom and Gomorrah) and
annihilation of the population (13:19–22). Isaiah 13 thus functions as the
foundation for the Restoration described in 14:1–2. Isaiah 14:1–2 looks
to YHWH’s compassionate choosing of Israel demonstrated through
resettling them in their own land. Foreigners will join Israel and then
nations will return the people to their own land. Isaiah 14:2 looks to a
great reversal in which captors become captives. The Isaianic oracle
against Babylon ends with a taunt to be taken up by the returned remnant
of Israel (14:3–23). The one(s) responsible for Zech 2:10–17 has/have
incorporated a limited amount of lexical stock from Isa 14:1–2, focusing
on the restoration of God’s people Judah after exile, but have chosen
these words because they are part of a larger complex related to the
punishment and destruction of Babylon.
Isaiah 13–27 (trans. Thomas H. Trapp; Continental Commentaries; Minneapolis:

Fortress, 1997), 12–18, 33–36; and Vanderhooft, Babylon, 124.
47. Views on the origins of chs. 13–14 range from the Assyrian period to the
Babylonian period—some arguing that it was directed at the Babylon of Merodach-
Baladan (Erlandsson) or originally at Assyria and then redirected against Babylon;
cf. Seth Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon: A Study of Isaiah 13:2–14:23
(ConBOT 4; Lund: GWK Gleerup, 1970)— to the Persian period. Brevard S. Childs
(Isaiah [OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001], 123, cf. 116) says:
“The theology expressed in 14:1–2—the election of Israel, the return to the land, the
reversal of the oppressor—are all elements that are similar to those of Second
Isaiah.” Sweeney holds that 14:1–2 reflects the late sixth century when the return
begins (Isaiah 1–39, 231–33), so that 13:1–14:23 was “edited into their present form
in the mid- to late 6th century, in that they anticipate the fall of Babylon to the
Medes and the end of the Babylonian ruling house” (234); see also Gosse (Isaïe
13,1–14,23, 201) who places this in the Persian period, and Christopher T. Begg
(“Babylon in the Book of Isaiah,” in The Book of Isaiah—Le livre d’Isaïe: Les
oracles et leur relectures: Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage [ed. Jacques Vermeylen;
BETL 81; Leuven: University Press and Peeters, 1989], 121–25) and Wildberger
(Isaiah 13–27, 34) who place it just before or after the fall of Babylon to Persia.
However, see the superb critique of such late date theories (especially that of Gosse)
in Williamson, Book Called Isaiah, 156–83; cf. Vanderhooft, Babylon, 124. The
reference to the Medes in ch. 13 especially discourages such a late date. It must
predate the fall of Media to Cyrus.
1
BODA Hoy, Hoy 189
This connection to Isa 13–14 helps us understand why Zech 2:14

draws from Isa 12:6 for the exhortation to Daughter Zion to rejoice at the
return of God’s presence. Isaiah 12:6 is the verse that immediately
precedes the prophecy concerning Babylon in Isa 13–14, concluding a
section focused on praise in 12:1–6. 48 This praise in turn (“in that day,”
12:1a) follows a section of Isaiah that looks to the restoration of the
remnant from exile (10:20–11:16). It is interesting that in this section
two figures are key to the return of the remnant: Yahweh Sebaoth, the
Holy One of Israel, as well as the “shoot” (11:1) or “root” (11:10) of
Jesse. It is interesting that in Zech 2:10–3:10, the first figure to “come”
()wb hnh) is Yahweh (2:14) who then promises to cause another figure to
come ()wb hnh), a figure who is identified as “Zemah,” a Davidic royal
(3:8). Both are essential to the return of the people to the land as well as
the prosperity for which they long.
f. Overview
Reading the “earlier prophets” in light of Zech 2:10–17 has highlighted
the significance of the broader context of the lexical stock incorporated
by the Zecharian tradent(s). The evidence suggests that the one(s)
responsible for Zech 2:10–17 was/were doing more than just incorporat-
ing random earlier prophetic lexical stock. In each case we have seen how
the broader context of the passages from which this lexical stock has
been drawn contains links to the overall message of Zech 2:10–17 within
Zech 1:7–6:15. All of these passages (Jer 25; 50–51; Ezek 38–39; Isa
12–14; and Hab 2) are part of an enduring anti-Babylonian tradition in
the Hebrew Bible. Jeremiah 25 and Ezek 38–39 are also concerned with
the expected restoration of Israel to the land after the exile and Jer 50–51;
Ezek 38–39, and Hab 2 also highlight issues related to the temple and the
return of God’s presence. All the passages allude to the necessary punish-
ment of the enemies of Israel and, in particular, Babylon, in order for this
to be accomplished. Thus, Zech 2:10–17 is applying earlier prophetic
tradition to present events, showing that the punishment of Babylon in
the events surrounding Darius’ rise to the throne is expected by the
earlier prophets and demands a response by the people of God in exile.
48. J. Vermeylen, Du prophète Isäie à l’apocalyptique: Isäie, I–XXXV, miroir

d’un demi-millânaire d’expérience religieuse en Isräel (Études bibliques; Paris:
J. Gabalda, 1977), 280–82, highlights the redactional role of Isa 12 in relation to
chs. 13–23, while Childs (Isaiah, 114) notes the literary role, observing how Isa
11–12 “provide a transition to chapters 13–23,” especially with the allusions to vari-
ous nations: Assyria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Philistia, Edom, Moab, and Ammon. William-
son (Book Called Isaiah, 118–25) identifies Second Isaiah as the one responsible for
Isa 12.
1
3. Implications
In a recent article I have contended that the majority of pericopae within
Zech 1:7–6:15 make some reference to the judgment of Babylon. 49 In that
work I traced the history of the Babylonian revolts that arose in the wake
of the overthrow of Pseudo-Smerdis (Gaumata) by Darius and the firm
and brutal Persian responses. I also referred in general to the develop-
ment of the prophetic tradition contra Babylon, highlighting that a key
signal of restoration would have been the judgment of Babylon for their
abuse of Israel during exile. The evidence of the present article reveals
that this Zecharian reflection on Babylon’s fate is drawn explicitly from
a substantial body of earlier prophetic literature. In this we see the
emphasis on the “words of the earlier prophets” (1:4–6; 7:7, 12) in the
Prose Sermon inclusion of Zech 1:1–6 and 7:1–8:23, now reflected in the
oracular material within the Night Visions.
Furthermore, the kinds of inner-biblical allusion techniques and
sources reflected in the oracle in Zech 2:10–17 are also strikingly similar
to those long recognized in Zech 9–14. Here one finds, as in Zech 9–14,
a pastiche of lexical stock drawn in from the “earlier prophets.” Further-
more, there is sensitivity in both to the broader context of the source
text.50 This is further evidence that the one(s) responsible for the second
phase of the Zecharian tradition (Zech 9–14) was/were not as innovative
and distinct from the one(s) responsible for Zech 1–8 as was once
thought.51
Finally, Zech 2:10–17 shows evidence not only of mining the books of
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Habakkuk, but also of drawing on pas-
sages that are considered among the latest redactional forms of these
books. This suggests that those responsible for the book of Zechariah
may have been instrumental in the assembling of the prophetic canon, or
at the least may represent the first generation that was relying on a com-
bined prophetic corpus.
6:15,” CBQ 67 (2005): 22–41.
50. As I have argued elsewhere for the redactional shepherd units of Zech 9–14:
Mark J. Boda, “Reading Between the Lines: Zechariah 11:4–16 in its Literary
Contexts,” in Boda and Floyd, eds., Bringing Out the Treasure, 277–91; Mark J.
Boda and Stanley E. Porter, “Literature to the Third Degree: Prophecy in Zechariah
9–14 and the Passion of Christ,” in Traduire le Bible hébraïque: De la Septante à la
Nouvelle Bible Segond / Translating the Hebrew Bible: From the Septuagint to the
Nouvelle Bible Segond (ed. Robert David and Manuel Jinbachian; Sciences bibliques
15; Montreal: Médiaspaul, 2005), 215–34.
51. See Mark J. Boda, “From Fasts to Feasts: The Literary Function of Zechariah
7–8,” CBQ 65 (2003): 390–407.
1
ZECHARIAH AND THE SATAN TRADITION
IN THE HEBREW BIBLE
Dominic Rudman
1. Introduction
Although the figure of Satan as an evil being in fundamental opposition
to God is well-known from the New Testament and early Jewish litera-
ture, his appearances in the Hebrew Bible, notably in Zech 3, Job 1–2
and 1 Chr 21, are marked with a greater degree of ambiguity. In the first
two of these texts, this being is denoted by the term “the Satan” (N+#h).
The use of the definite article in these locations has generally been taken
by scholars to indicate a function or office held by this being. 1 The root
N+#, which underlies the noun and its derived verb, does not occur in any
of the cognate Semitic languages, forcing scholars to determine the
meaning of the root from the contexts in which it appears in the Hebrew
Bible. Fortunately, although not common, they appear frequently enough
to suggest a meaning “to accuse, slander” for the verb, and “accuser,”
“slanderer,” or “adversary” for the noun.2
The purpose of this essay, however, is not to examine the meaning of
the root, but to explore the depiction of the character referred to as
“Satan” or “the Satan” in its three occurrences in the Hebrew Bible, pay-
ing particular attention to Zechariah. It is commonly accepted in biblical
scholarship that this figure is the forerunner of the embodiment of evil in
the New Testament and Jewish literature. Most scholars understand his
1. Gerhard von Rad, “dia&boloj, B: The OT View of Satan,” TDNT 2:73–74;

Meir Weiss, The Story of Job’s Beginning: Job 1–2, a Literary Analysis (Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1983), 36; James A. Wharton, Job (Westminster Bible Companion; Louis-
ville, Ky.: Westminster, 1999), 16; Steven S. Tuell, First and Second Chronicles
(IBC; Louisville, Ky.: John Knox, 2001), 86. A broader discussion of these issues is
to be found in Peggy L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven: Satan in the Hebrew Bible
(HSM 43; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 25–43.
2. Victor P. Hamilton, “Satan,” ABD 5:986.
role in Zech 3 and Job 1–2, however, as morally neutral. Only in 1 Chr
21, where the term N+# appears without its definite article, is this charac-
ter seen as being malign. Accordingly, most scholars accept a theory for
a Satan tradition that sees the character in his earliest form as a func-
tionary operating within the divine council who fulfils a distinct legal
role, that of chief prosecutor of individual human beings before God
(Zech 3; Job 1–2). Over time, it is held, this tradition changed. From
being the adversary of wrongdoers and the inciter of God to punish them,
the Satan became the inciter of wrongdoers and the adversary of God. 3
As this tradition changed and the function of the Satan in the divine
council was lost, the definite article preceding the term was dropped and
what was originally a job description became a proper name (1 Chr 21). 4
The tradition finds its full flowering in the New Testament and Rabbinic
literature, where Satan appears as the supreme evil power in fundamental
opposition to God.
As neat as this scholarly narrative may appear, it still hangs on only
three texts. In only one of them does the Satan speak (Job 1–2), and even
then, his conversations are brief, and the motivation for his activity is
clouded. This study will consider each of the three main texts in which
the Satan/Satan appears, with a view to exploring common themes and
ideas that link the passages in question.
2. Text and Context

a. Zechariah 3
The focus of the third chapter of Zechariah, in which the character of the
Satan appears, is on the priesthood, specifically on Joshua, the High
Priest of the community in Jerusalem. The action itself takes place in the
setting of a court of judgment, not unlike that of Job 1–2. The main theme
of the chapter is the purification of the Judean priesthood in preparation
for a renewal of their leadership role within the restored community.
Most scholarly treatments of Zech 3 have focused on the place of 3:1–7
within the overall vision cycle of Zechariah, with many scholars denying
it a place in the earliest stratum of the text.5 Although there may be good
3. Cf., e.g., Francis I. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary (Leices-

ter: Intervarsity, 1975), 83; and Jacob M. Myers, I Chronicles: Introduction,
Translation, and Notes (AB 12; New York: Doubleday, 1965), 147.
4. Kurt Galling, Die Bücher der Chronik, Ezra, Nehemia (ATD 12; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954), 61; Myers, I Chronicles, 145.
5. Karl Elliger, Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten II: Die Propheten Nahum,
Habakuk, Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi (ATD 25; Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 120; Christian Jeremias, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja:
1
RUDMAN Zechariah and the Satan Tradition 193
reason for this position, it is not relevant to the present study, which will
instead consider the depiction of the scene between Joshua, the angel of
Yahweh and the Satan in the context of Job 1–2 and 1 Chr 21.
As the chapter opens, Joshua, the High Priest, is depicted standing
before the angel of Yahweh in the divine court, with the angel apparently
taking on the role of judge. As in other passages in the Hebrew Bible, the
angel is identified with Yahweh to the extent that their identities almost
merge, so that it becomes clear that the deity himself is in charge of the
proceedings.6 The expression ynpl dm( is used elsewhere of standing in
front of a judge in a court of law (Num 27:2; cf. Num 5:16, 18, 30).
Here, it may also carry another level of meaning. A person who stood in
front of a king was understood to be in his service (Gen 41:46; 1 Sam
16:22; 1 Kgs 1:2; 10:8; Prov 22:29; Dan 1:5). 7 Since Yahweh was
understood as exercising kingship over the world, the same expression
could be used of serving God (1 Kgs 17:1; 18:15; 2 Kgs 3:14; 5:6). The
identification of the angel of Yahweh with Yahweh himself suggests that
both senses of the expression may be implied here, describing Joshua as
defendant in a legal dispute and as servant of God.
If the depiction of the figure of the High Priest arraigned before a court
is surprising, the manner in which his appearance is described is more so.
He is said to be wearing “filthy garments” (My)c Mydgb, Zech 3:3).
Matters of ritual purity were taken very seriously in ancient Israel. An
individual could become impure through contact with a corpse (Num
19:11, 16, 19; 31:19, 24; cf. m. Kelim 1.1–4), with animal carcasses,
especially those designated “unclean,” such as pigs (Lev 11), from
diseases (Lev 13–14), from sexual discharges (Lev 15), or from some
transgression (Lev 4:1–6:7; 18:6–23; 19:31; 20:2–5; Num 35). The
greater the holiness of a person, the greater the restrictions on their
behavior. An ordinary person was permitted to handle a corpse (e.g. to
prepare it for burial), though by so doing they would become unclean for
a week (Num 19:11, 16, 19). Priests were not permitted to come into
contact with corpses except for those of close relatives (Lev 21:1–4). A
high priest was forbidden contact with any corpse, under any circum-
stances (Lev 21:10–11). The adjective My)c occurs only in Zech 3, but
Untersuchungen zu ihrer Stellung im Zusammenhang der Visionsberichte im Alten

Testament und zu ihrem Bildmaterial (FRLANT 117; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1977), 201–3; Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Zechariah 1–8: A
New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25B; Garden City, N.Y.:
6. See Janet E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah
1–8 (JSOTSup 150; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 95.
1
7. Dominic Rudman, “Qohelet’s Use of ynpl,” JNSL 23 (1997): 143–50.
the related noun h)c elsewhere refers to human excrement (Deut 23:14
[Eng. 23:13]; Ezek 4:12; cf. the Qere of 2 Kgs 18:27; Isa 36:12) or vomit
(Isa 28:8). The strength of the term underpins both the seriousness of the
sins associated with Joshua, and the necessity of Yahweh’s intervention
in removing them. Bearing in mind the strictures elsewhere on ritual
purity for the priesthood in general, and the high priest in particular, the
state of uncleanness suggested by Joshua’s filthy clothes raises questions
about his ability to take on priestly duties, and therefore on his fitness to
hold office. Nevertheless, the source of Joshua’s contamination is not
stated explicitly, and several explanations of its significance have been
offered.
Some texts imply that the Gentile lands around Israel were viewed by
Jews as being impure. Amos threatened the Israelite priest Amaziah that
he would die in an “unclean land”—a grim fate for a priest of Yahweh
(Amos 7:17). Joshua’s garments might therefore symbolize his former
life in exile in Babylon.8 Yet the term “guilt” (Nw(), associated with them
usually denotes deliberate wrongdoing, not an accidental contraction of
impurity (Lev 5:1; 16:21; 20:17, 19, etc.). It is difficult to substantiate the
argument that Joshua’s condition stems simply from his presence in
Babylon.
Another possibility is that the state of Joshua’s clothes symbolizes the
crimes that led to the exile. In other words, they represent the collective
guilt of the people.9 Elsewhere, the Hebrew Bible emphasizes the role of
priest in taking on the sin of the people as a whole (Num 18:1), 10 and the
fact that the uncleanness is associated with Joshua’s clothes rather than
the high priest himself militates in favor of this interpretation.11 However,
the guilt (Nw() of the people is later removed in the vision of the woman
and the ephah in Zech 5, implying a different subject here.
8. Wilhelm Rudolph, Haggai—Sacharja 1–8—Sacharja 9–14—Maleachi (KAT

13/4; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1976), 95.
9. Karl Marti, “Zwei Studien zu Sacharja: I. Der Ursprung des Satans,” TSK 65
(1892): 216, 231, 242; Miloš Bič, Das Buch Sacharja (Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1962), 22; Willem A. M. Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8: Studien zur
Überlieferungsgeschichte der frünachexilischen Prophetie (SSN 10; Assen: Van
Gorcum, 1967), 22; Lars G. Rignell, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja: Eine exe-
getische Studie (Lund: Gleerup, 1950), 101, 105; Tollington, Tradition and
Innovation, 156.
10. This function was linked with the turban worn by the high priest (Exod 28:36;
see Hinckley G. T. Mitchell, J. M. Powis Smith, and Julius A. Brewer, A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah [ICC; Edin-
burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912], 150).
1
11. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation, 156.
The third possibility is that Joshua’s clothing represents the guilt of

the priesthood. While Petersen is correct in his observation that the filth
of Zech 3:3 clings to the garments of the high priest rather than to the
man, the guilt that it represents is said to belong personally to Joshua
(Zech 3:4). These two aspects of the description can be reconciled if we
understand the clothes to be priestly robes and therefore to represent
Joshua’s office, and their contamination to reflect the corruption of
Joshua’s forebears in the years before the exile (cf. Ezek 8). The giving
of new priestly garments would then represent not so much the purifi-
cation of an individual man as the establishment of a purified priest-
hood.12 As the latest representative of that body, the guilt of his priestly
predecessors continued to be attached to Joshua. The cleansing of the
high priest, and of the priesthood as a whole, was a necessary event if
they were to assume a leadership role in the restored community and
perform their proper offices in the sanctuary.
The significance of a high priest contaminated to the extent described
in Zech 3 should not be underestimated. The implication of a priesthood
rendered unclean is that it could no longer fulfill its proper function of
removing uncleanness from the sanctuary or sin from the people. The
ultimate consequence of this contamination would be to render it impos-
sible for God’s presence to remain in the sanctuary. 13 That such is the
general thrust of the passage is also suggested by the words of the angel
of Yahweh to the Satan. The rebuke issued by the angel is offered on the
basis that Yahweh has “chosen Jerusalem” (Zech 3:2). The idea referred
to here is Yahweh’s selection of Jerusalem (and specifically the Tem-
ple) as his earthly dwelling place. In common with other peoples of the
ancient Near East, the people of Judah thought of their temple as being
located at the center of the cosmos. The people believed also that Mount
Zion, where the Temple was built, was the place where heaven and earth
converged, and the place from which their God ruled. 14 The cosmic cen-
ter was, in addition, a moral center, for it contained the tablets on which
the law was written as well as the presence of the deity whose law it
12. Some commentators see here the investiture of Joshua as high priest; see,
e.g., Herbert G. May, “A Key to the Interpretation of Zechariah’s Visions,” JBL 57
(1938): 179; Bič, Sacharja, 118; Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, 284; Edgar W.
Conrad, Zechariah (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1999), 93.
13. David P. Wright, “Day of Atonement,” ABD 2:73.
14. Richard J. Clifford, “The Temple and the Holy Mountain,” in The Temple in
Antiquity: Ancient Records and Modern Perspectives (ed. Truman G. Madsen; Provo:
Brigham Young University, 1984), 107–24; Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An
Entry into the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985), 111–75.
1
was.15 Thus, the Psalmist stressed the importance of both “clean hands”
and a “pure heart” to approach the Temple (Ps 24:3–4). 16 In a sense, the
Temple also represented creation. The use of animal and plant motifs in
decoration, as well as the molten sea, contributed to this idea. 17 If the
destruction of the Temple in 587/6 B.C.E. by the Babylonian army can be
seen as an overthrow of creation itself, the implication of Zechariah’s
assertion that Yahweh has chosen Jerusalem was that the creation’s heart
would be restored and chaos banished.
Although not stated overtly, then, the outcome of Joshua’s appearance
before the angel of Yahweh is significant for the priesthood, the Judean
community, and the world as a whole. At issue is nothing less than the
question of whether Yahweh will restore creation’s center and banish the
forces of chaos. Seen in this light, the Satan’s appearance in Zech 3
opposing Yahweh’s plans takes on a new significance. The Satan himself
does not speak directly, and the precise nature of his objections to God’s
plan can only be guessed at. Some commentators have suggested that the
Satan’s argument is that Jerusalem had been permanently rejected by
Yahweh and therefore should not be restored. 18 Yet the text makes it
clear that the charges brought by the Satan related to Joshua, not to the
city or its people (Zech 3:1).19 Moreover, the manner in which Joshua is
depicted in his filth-stained priestly garments indicates that the Satan’s
objections were not without some justification.20 By questioning Joshua’s
15. Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 172; John M. Lundquist, “Temple, Covenant and
Law in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible,” in Israel’s Apostasy and
Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison (ed. Avraham Gileadi; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 293–305.
16. Carol L. Meyers, “Temple, Jerusalem,” ABD 6:360.
17. Ibid. The same idea underlies the later descriptions of Josephus, himself a
priest (Life 1). The outer parts of the sanctuary represented the sea and the land, with
the third part construed as “a heaven peculiar to God” (Ant. 3.181). The four colors
of the temple curtain (blue, purple, crimson and white—2 Chr 3:14) represented the
four elements, while the curtain itself depicted a panorama of the cosmos (B.J.
5.212–13). See Margaret Barker, “Beyond the Veil of the Temple: The High-Priestly
Origins of the Apocalypses,” SJT 51 (1998): 3–4; also Dominic Rudman, “The
Crucifixion as Chaoskampf: A New Reading of the Passion Narrative in the
Synoptic Gospels,” Bib 84 (2003): 106–7.
18. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 185.
delphia: Westminster, 1984), 195.
20. Contra David S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic
(OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 237. Joyce G. Baldwin sees the Satan as
antagonistic to Yahweh rather than Joshua (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Intro-
duction and Commentary [TOTC; London: Tyndale, 1972], 113).
1
right to take up the position of high priest, the Satan throws doubt on the
legitimacy of the priesthood as a whole, as well as the fundamental
structure of the society that Joshua led. The fact that the Satan’s charges
meet with Yahweh’s rebuke (r(g), however, is significant. In the Hebrew
Bible, the most common objects of Yahweh’s rebukes are the forces of
chaos. Yahweh rebukes the nations (Ps 9:6 [Eng. 9:5]; Isa 17:3) and the
chaos waters (Ps 106:7, 9; Isa 50:2; Nah 1:4). 21 By uttering a rebuke,
Yahweh identifies the Satan with the forces of chaos hostile to creation,
and to Israel. The implication is that the Satan, as depicted in Zech 3, is
not to be seen as some faceless functionary of the divine assembly, but as
an ally of the forces of chaos, an adversary both of the high priest, Israel,
and perhaps of God.22
Such a reading, hinging as it does on the interpretation of a single
word, may be seen as tenuous, but it is no more so than building a narra-
tive for the development of the character of the Satan from zealous
prosecutor to embodiment of evil on the basis of three brief appearances
in the Hebrew Bible. In fact, as I shall shortly argue, the link between
Satan/the Satan with the forces of chaos is also evident in the remaining
two texts and underlies his final incarnation as God’s adversary par
excellence in the New Testament and later Jewish literature.
b. Job 1–2
The action of the book of Job opens in 1:6 with the scene in which the
“sons of God” come to present themselves before Yahweh. Among these
beings is one who is again termed “the Satan.” As with the depiction in
Zechariah, commentators are divided as to the nature of this being. Some
view him as an honest state prosecutor who applies justice by the strict
letter of the law.23 Often, however, the Satan is accused of over-zealous-
ness or cynicism in this role.24 Others view the Satan as essentially malign
21. André Caquot, “r(g,” TDOT 3:49–53.

22. Cf. Stephen L. Cook who sees a “maliciousness” in the Satan’s behavior that
marks him out as an “actual enemy of God” (Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The
Postexilic Social Setting [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995], 130).
23. Weiss, Story of Job’s Beginning, 36; Wharton, Job, 17. In this context, com-
parisons are often made with the roving secret police of the Persian administration,
who spied on the emperor’s subjects and reported instances of disaffection or
disloyalty; see Naphtali H. Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job: A New Commentary (rev.
ed.; Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher, 1967), 38–45; cf. A. Brock-Utne, “ ‘Der Feind’: Die
alttestamentliche Satansgestalt im Lichte der sozialen Verhältnisse des nahen
Orients,” Klio 28 (1935): 219–27.
24. Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1985), 89.
1
and to some extent opposed to God, 25 but not yet the full-blown incarna-
tion of evil that appears in later Jewish and Christian writings. The more
extreme position, that the Satan of Job (and logically, of Zechariah) is
identical with the New Testament or Rabbinic Satan, is rare. 26
In order to understand the character and role of the Satan in Job,
several issues need to be addressed. The first has to do with the identity
and role of the beings described as the “sons of God” (Job 2:1; 38:7; Gen
6:2; cf. the expressions Myl) ynb [Pss 29:1; 89:7] and Nyhl) rb [Dan 3:25])
and whether the Satan should be understood as belonging to their num-
ber. The position of Weiss here is probably the most helpful, namely,
that the “sons of God” are beings belonging to God’s entourage, and that
they are called “sons” in the same way that members of a prophetic
group are called “sons of the prophets” and those who are members of a
company of gatekeepers, apothecaries and so on are called “sons of gate-
keepers” (Myr(#h ynb, Ezra 4:2) and “sons of apothecaries” (Myxqrh ynb,
Neh 3:8).27 In other words, they are individual beings belonging to the
class “god” in the same way that the expression Md)h ynb refers to indi-
viduals belonging to the class “man” (1 Sam 26:19). Elsewhere, they are
simply referred to as “gods” (Myhl), Ps 82:1, 6). Yahweh, for the writer
of Job, is one of these “gods,” but he is also the supreme God, and his
control of these “gods,” the world, and human affairs is absolute. 28
Whether these “sons of God” were understood as having been created by
Yahweh, as servants as some assert,29 or whether they are a survival from
a polytheistic past,30 is outside the reach of the present study and has no
bearing on the discussion about the Satan.
The scene described in Job 1:6–12 is apparently a session of the
heavenly council, much like that described in 1 Kgs 22:19 and Dan
25. Andersen, Job, 83; John E. Hartley, The Book of Job (NICOT; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1988), 72.
26. Edouard Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job (trans. Harold Knight;
London: Nelson, 1967), xxix–xxx, lxxviii; Gustav Hölscher, Das Buch Hiob (HAT
17; Tubingen: Mohr, 1937), 3; Robert L. Alden, Job (NAC 11; Nashville: Broadman
& Holman, 1993), 53.
27. Weiss, Story of Job’s Beginning, 32.
28. Samuel R. Driver and George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commen-
tary on the Book of Job (ICC; repr., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950), 10; Wharton,
Job, 15.
29. Franz Delitzsch, Job (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 53; Dhorme, Com-
mentary on Job, 5; Hartley, Book of Job, 71.
30. Driver and Gray, Job, 10; Artur Weiser, Das Buch Hiob (ATD 13; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951), 30; Marvin H. Pope, Job: Introduction,
Translation, and Notes (AB 15; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965), 9.
1
7:9–10, at which the members reported to Yahweh and received new

orders.31 The Satan would seem to be depicted as a member of this group.
However, the wording of the phrase, “One day the sons of God came to
present themselves before Yahweh, and the Satan also came among them
(Mkwtb),” is sometimes taken to mean that the Satan is not being depicted
as a regular member of the divine assembly. Anderson argues, for exam-
ple, that the Satan is an “intruder” and that the fact that Yahweh asks him
his business indicates that he has no right to attend the council. 32 Others
argue that this position ignores the literary necessities of the narrative.
God’s initial question to the Satan serves merely to initiate the dialogue
that must take place between them.33 At any rate, it should be noted that
there is a degree of ambiguity associated with this being from the first.
As with Zechariah, most commentators on Job see the Satan as essen-
tially carrying out the function suggested by his title. He is a roving
agent responsible for uncovering and bringing to God’s attention
instances of malfeasance.34 Accordingly, the purpose of the Satan’s
appearance in the divine council is taken as being to report on what he
has seen on earth. That this is so is not stated explicitly in the text, how-
ever. Indeed, the question and answer between God and the Satan in Job
1:7 is actually quite innocuous. It is only the context provided by God’s
reference to Job’s morality that suggests such a role. God’s question—
“Have you considered my servant Job? There is no-one like him on the
earth, a blameless and upright man who fears God and turns away from
evil” (1:8)—is often considered as a challenge to the Satan, 35 and such it
may be. Yet, there are several aspects of this assessment worthy of
comment, ones that mark Job out as special in a different sense. First, Job
is termed “my servant,” placing him in such select company as Abraham
(Ps 105:6, 42), Moses (Exod 14:31), David (2 Sam 7:5), Isaiah (Isa
20:3), and Zerubbabel (Hag 2:23). 36 Further, as Clines points out, the
assessment that “there is no-one like him in all the earth” is language
usually limited to God. Only here, in Job 2:3, and in 1 Sam 10:24 is it
used of humans. For Clines, the assessment is no more than the rhetoric
31. Driver and Gray, Job, 9; Pope, Job, 9–10; Weiss, Story of Job’s Beginning,
32; Habel, Book of Job, 89; Hartley, Book of Job, 71.
32. Andersen, Job, 82; James L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Intro-
duction (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981), 101.
33. David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20 (WBC 17; Dallas: Word, 1989), 19; Alden,
Job, 54.
34. J. H. Eaton, Job (OTG; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 1; Wharton, Job, 16.
35. Pope, Job, 11; Wharton, Job, 17.
1
36. Pope, Job, 12; Habel, Book of Job, 90; Hartley, Book of Job, 73.
of epic storytelling.37 Nevertheless, it does mark Job out as being, in a

sense, godlike. There are other parallels between Job and God.
The first word used to describe Job in Job 1:1, and repeated in 1:8;
2:3; 8:20; 9:20–22 is Mt, usually translated “integrity” but actually deriv-
ing from a Hebrew root meaning “complete.” Its related term hmt
appears in Job 4:6; 27:5; and 31:6. Job is a man who is depicted as being
“complete” in a moral sense.38 He is at peace with God and the world. He
is also said to be “upright” (r#y) and one who “fears God.” Such lan-
guage is characteristic of the wisdom theology of the book of Proverbs
(Prov 1:7; 2:5–8; 3:7; 16:6; 21:8). 39 A fundamental tenet of this theology
is that such behavior inevitably resulted in worldly success, in terms of
wealth, status, and long life.
Job’s inner completeness is echoed by the completeness of the world
around him. Indeed, one might be forgiven for thinking that the opening
of the book of Job presents a picture of the eschaton. The hero has an
ideal family of seven sons and three daughters, making ten children in
all. Three, seven and ten are all numbers signifying completeness in the
Hebrew Bible (seven children [1 Sam 2:5; Ruth 4:15]). This complete-
ness extends to his material possessions. The sum of each pair of animals
is ten (five plus five, seven plus three).40 He has large numbers of ser-
vants to run his household, tend his livestock and look after his business
ventures. When this is considered in the context of the parallels between
Job and God, it is hard not to imagine him as presiding, like a mini-god
(or perhaps, God’s vice-regent) over his own little world. 41 Like God’s
own creation, this world has a protective boundary placed round it (Job
1:10), preventing the ingress of the forces of chaos (cf. Isa 38:10; Jon 2:7
[Eng. 2:6]; Pss 9:14 [Eng. 9:13]; 107:18; Job 38:10, 18). While Job fol-
lows God’s law, the law protecting his mini-creation holds. The phrase
“you have blessed the work of his hands” recalls Deut 24:19 (cf. Deut
33:11; Isa 19:25), which makes this promise to those who uphold the
covenant.
The idea of Job as presiding over his own mini-creation extends also
to the priestly function that he undertakes with regard to his family. He is
portrayed as the perfect priest who goes beyond the demands of Israelite
law.42 The piety of Job and his family is underlined by the fact that Job’s
37. Clines, Job 1–20, 24.

38. Rick D. Moore, “The Integrity of Job,” CBQ 45 (1983): 17–31 (28).
39. Habel, Book of Job, 86.
40. Ibid., 87.
41. A similar phenomenon has been noted in Eccl 2 (Arian J. C. Verheij,
“Paradise Retried: On Qohelet 2:4–6,” JSOT 50 [1991]: 113–15).
1
42. Habel, Book of Job, 88.
main concern over his children’s behavior is related to what they are
thinking rather than what they are doing. He “sanctifies” (#dq, Job 1:5)
and sacrifices regularly on behalf of all of them in case they have “cursed
God in their hearts” (Job 1:5). His priestly mediation on behalf of his
family is the counterpart of his later mediation on behalf of his friends
(Job 42:7–9) but it also marks him out, like the Israelite/Judean priest-
hood in a later period, as the maintainer of order within his world. Job’s
priestly function within his family, then, is a more limited version of that
held by Joshua in Zech 3. Perhaps it is more than coincidence that both
Job and Joshua attract the hostile attention of the Satan.
Evidence of the Satan’s chaotic nature is circumstantial, but it is there.
Job rules over, and acts as priest for, a world presented as an idealized
creation. Nevertheless, the forces of chaos and destruction remain, a fact
witnessed by the presence of God’s protective boundary around Job’s
world. The very fact that the Satan complains about the presence of this
boundary (Job 1:10) seems significant. It becomes more so still when the
Satan urges God not simply to remove the boundary, but to destroy Job’s
world (“But stretch out your hand now and touch all that he has, and he
will curse you to your face,” 1:11). With these words, the Satan is not
just advocating the maintenance or spread of chaos within the world, he
is urging the Creator to tear up the moral law that governs the cosmos
and become chaotic himself. The most surprising aspect of the story at
this point is that the Creator agrees—albeit by placing Job in the Satan’s
power (“in your hand,” Job 1:12).
The Satan’s use of power is delineated in Job 1:13–19. Job’s donkeys
and oxen are carried off by the Sabaeans, and the servants tending them
slaughtered. His sheep and servants are burnt up by “the fire of God.”
The camels are carried off, and those who tend them are slaughtered by
the Chaldeans. Finally, his offspring are killed when a desert wind
destroys their house. Most commentators describe these events in a
highly literal way. Thus, comment on the Sabaeans usually focuses on
their geographical or historical location. 43 The same is true of the
43. The problem that has preoccupied most commentators is that the Sabaeans
are usually identified as a people living in southwest Arabia (Weiser, Das Buch
Hiob, 32), in approximately the area of modern day Yemen. The distance of this
location from Uz is over a thousand miles, making a raid on Job unlikely. Various
solutions to this problem have been offered. One is that the text refers to a different
Sabaean people in North Arabia (Dhorme, Commentary on Job, 9–10; Pope, Job,
13), or an earlier settlement of the same people. Others suggest that the Sabaeans
may have had trading outposts in northern Arabia. Certainly, Saba (Hebrew: Sheba)
is associated with Tema (6:19; cf. Isa 21:13–15; Jer 25:23) and Dedan (Gen 10:7;
25:3) is associated with this area in the Hebrew Bible. Another view is that since the
1
Chaldeans.44 The wind that destroys the house of Job’s children is often
related to the sirocco, a hot desert wind blowing from the east. 45 How-
ever, the sheer destructiveness of the wind, which blows on all sides of
the house at once, points to its extraordinary nature. 46
One point about the human agents of Job’s misfortune that is over-
looked by almost all commentators is the association of the nations with
the forces of chaos elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Thus, for example,
the nations are linked with chaos imagery in Jer 6:22–23; Isa 8:5–8;
17:12–14; Ps 65:8 (Eng. 65:7). Bearing in mind the history between
Judah and Babylon, one might aver that this is particularly true in the
case of the Chaldeans. One of the few commentators who takes this idea
seriously is Weiss, who ignores the historical probability of an attack by
the Sabaeans and Chaldeans and focuses instead on the mythic elements
of the story. The point is that the Satan has summoned his agents of
destruction from the ends of the earth. Sheba in the south is considered
the most remote spot on earth (Jer 6:20; Joel 4:8). The Chaldeans come
from the remote east.47 The choice of these people by the author indicates
that what is happening to Job is extraordinary. It is a very uncommon
Bedouin raid. The Chaldeans are well-organized. The timing of the
attacks on the same day gives the appearance that the Sabaeans and
Chaldeans are working together (indirectly, they are, through the Satan).
This is an attack by the chaotic nations of the earth on Job’s creation.
They come from the ends of the inhabited earth where the forces of
chaos have their border with the created world. Thus, from the implicitly
positive eschatology of Job 1:1–5, the reader is moved into the negative
eschatology of Job 1:13–19.48
The chaotic element of the story is reinforced by the appearance of the
destructive wind in Job 1:19. Significantly, the source of this wind is
stated to be the desert (rbdm). Wilderness, where little or nothing grows,
and which is not conducive to human life, is understood as being chaotic
in Hebrew thought precisely because it is lifeless. Thus, the word wht,
Sabaeans were famous traders (1 Kgs 10; Isa 60:6), this must be a passing caravan
(Habel, Book of Job, 92; cf. Andersen, Job, 86)
44. Thus, they are said to be the nomadic kaldu from the Persian Gulf area
mentioned in the Assyrian and Babylonian histories (Dhorme, Commentary on Job,
11; Weiser, Das Buch Hiob, 32; cf. Clines, Job 1–20, 32–33), the forerunners of the
Neo-Babylonian empire (Hartley, Book of Job, 77 n. 16).
45. Driver and Gray, Job, 18; Alden, Job, 60.
46. Clines, Job 1–20, 33.
47. Weiss, Story of Job’s Beginning, 51.
48. Cf. Wharton, Job, 20: “If verses 1–3 confront us with an extreme caricature of
human blessedness, vv. 13–19 confront us with an extreme caricature of human loss.”
1
used with the related term whb in Gen 1:2 to describe the cosmos prior to
God’s ordering and creative activity, is regularly applied to such areas
(Deut 32:10; Job 6:18; 12:24 = Ps 107:40), or to a future devastation
(with the idea that life has been wiped out, Isa 24:10; 34:11 [+whb];
40:23; Jer 4:23 [+whb]).49
The most significant element of the destruction that is wrought on
Job’s possessions in this context is that it is total. Five hundred yoke of
oxen and five hundred donkeys seems a lot for a passing caravan of
Sabaeans to deal with, and they certainly could not have survived a jour-
ney across the desert to get back to Saba. One also wonders how the
Chaldeans could have coped with three thousand camels. These techni-
calities are beside the point for the narrator, however. What matters is
that they are lost to Job. Likewise, the fire from heaven that consumes
the sheep—seven thousand of them—is more than the blast of lightning
that most commentators imagine here.50 This is the language of epic
storytelling, not historical reporting. The destruction visited on Job’s
livestock also encompasses his servants who are all killed save the mini-
mum four necessary to report the calamities that have befallen.
The totality of the devastation wrought on Job’s world is further evi-
dence that what has befallen is to be understood as an attack by the
forces of chaos. On a personal level, the death of his sons and daughters
leaves him with no progeny. This event is significant not simply for the
personal grief that must afflict Job at the loss of his children, but because
it condemns his name to extinction. While the process of death was
viewed in ancient Israel as a movement from the created world to the
world of chaos,51 the horror of this was mitigated in two ways: by the
experience of a long and prosperous life beforehand, and by leaving
descendants (preferably numerous in number) who would keep one’s
memory alive after one had gone (cf. 2 Sam 18:18). 52 The death of Job’s
children therefore promises Job’s final extinction. He will become as if
he had never been.53
49. Dominic Rudman, “Reflections on a Half-Created World: The Sea, Night and
Death in the Bible,” BBS 19 (2000): 42.
50. Robert Gordis, The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job (Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1965), 16; Pope, Job, 14; Hartley, Book of Job, 76; Alden,
Job, 59.
51. Dominic Rudman, “The Use of Water Imagery in Descriptions of Sheol,”
ZAW (2001): 240–44.
52. Kent H. Richards, “Death,” ABD 2:109.
53. Cf. LXX Job 2:9, in which Job’s wife refers to this idea: “After much time, his
wife said to him ‘…Behold, your memory is already blotted out from the earth, the
sons and daughters, the travail and pangs of my womb, whom I reared with toil in
1
Job’s final trial in the second chapter operates on a more personal level
still. Having failed to gain his point by removing Job’s personal posses-
sions and wiping out his offspring, the Satan is given licence by God to
attack Job himself. The attack this time takes the form of a malignant
skin disease ((r Nyx#, Job 2:7; cf. Exod 9:9–11; Lev 13:18–20, 23; Deut
28:27, 35; 2 Kgs 20:7//Isa 38:21). Again the totality of Job’s affliction is
stressed—he is affected from head to foot. The symptoms he describes
elsewhere (Job 2:8, 12; 7:4, 5, 13–15; 19:17, 20; 21:6; 30:17, 27, 30)
make it clear that he has been brought as near to death as a human being
can get without actually being dead. A further significant effect of such
an illness is the social one. Whether interpreted as divine displeasure or
not, such a disease could result in the sufferer being cast out of the
ordered world of human society (cf. Job 42:11), and therefore to enter the
world of chaos.54
If it is true that the Satan of Job is a functionary of the divine council,
then one may well ask what his function is. It is certainly something
more than a simple prosecutor, or even a spy. Prior to the first wave of
calamities, God states: “All that he has is in your power (dy)” (Job 1:12).
Later, he states that “He (Job) is in your power (dy)” (Job 2:6). This
power manifests itself in the onset of the forces of chaos: the nations, a
wind from the wilderness, a consuming fire that destroys everything in
its path, and disease. He is not given control over these chaotic powers
by God. He already has this power, and he uses it to devastating effect. 55
He is simply given permission to turn it on Job. The evidence is circum-
stantial admittedly, but it indicates that the Satan of Job may be closer to
the character in Chronicles and even the New Testament than most
commentators have suggested.
vain…’ ” The fact that Job’s wife is untouched by the Satan can be ascribed, like the
survival of a few servants, to narrative necessity. She has two roles. The first is to
goad Job, tempting him to “curse God and die,” and in so doing to fulfill the predic-
tion of the Satan (Job 2:9). Later, she will be the means by which Job’s family is
rebuilt (Job 42:13). At this stage of the story, though, such a possibility seems
remote. With ten adult offspring, Job’s wife, for all the reader knows, may be past
the age of bearing further children (cf. Clines, Job 1–20, 51).
54. Thus, for example, the outcast demoniac of Gerasa is represented as living
among the dead in tombs (Matt 8:8; Mark 5.1; Luke 8:27; see Dominic Rudman,
“The Significance of the Phrase ‘Fishers of Men’ in the Synoptic Gospels,” IBS 26
[2005]: 106–18 [113]).
55. Ideas on the portrayal of Satan in the New Testament, particularly in the con-
text of being granted power by God, are discussed in my earlier studies: “Authority
and Right of Disposal in Luke 4.6,” NTS 50 (2004): 77–86; and “Significance of
‘Fishers of Men’,” 113.
1
c. 1 Chronicles 21
In 2 Sam 24:1 the narrator relates a tale in which Yahweh’s anger is
kindled against David, and Yahweh incites him to carry out a census of
his subjects, specifically of those eligible for military service (24:9). The
object of Yahweh’s action is to make David transgress and so to become
liable for punishment. Despite David’s confession that he has “sinned”
()+x, 24:10), and his request that his resulting “guilt” (Nw(, 24:10) be
removed, the people are punished with a plague, which stops only when
Yahweh intervenes. The main focus of the story, however, is David’s
subsequent purchase of the site where the plague was halted (24:18–25).
This location, the threshing-floor of Araunah, later becomes the site of
the Temple. In 1 Chr 21, which is parallel to this text, several changes
are made to the narrative, the most significant of which is the substitution
of the term N+# to denote the individual who acts as the catalyst for
David’s census. The fact that the term N+# appears without the definite
article has led most commentators to conclude that it is a proper name,
and that it refers to a being who is the embodiment of evil, a precursor to
the character of Satan in later Jewish and Christian tradition. 56 In more
recent years, however, some commentators have suggested that the term
N+# refers either as a common noun to human adversaries (cf. 1 Sam
29:4; 2 Sam 19:23; 1 Kgs 5:4; 11:9–14, 23, 25), or to an unspecified
single adversary who was about to attack Israel.57
Two main arguments have been advanced by commentators in favor
of the latter interpretation. The first is that the Chronicler nowhere else
makes use of the concept either of Satan or the Satan in his writing. 58 The
second is the specific context provided by David’s census, which appears
to be concerned primarily with numbers available for military service (1
Chr 21:5).59 Such a census would be a logical first step in mobilizing an
army to resist an invading army.
Nevertheless, there are also arguments that can be made in favor of the
idea of the term N+# referring to a celestial satan. The portraits of David
and Solomon in Chronicles are idealized, far more so than is the case in
the books of Samuel and Kings.60 David, like Solomon, is portrayed as a
56. Myers, 1 Chronicles, 147; John A. Thompson, 1, 2 Chronicles (NAC 9;

Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 160–61.
57. John H. Sailhamer, “1 Chronicles 21:1—A Study in Inner-biblical Interpre-
tation’, TJ 10 (1989): 33–48; Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary (OTL;
Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 374–75.
58. Ibid.
59. Day, Adversary, 43; Thompson, Chronicles, 161.
1
60. Day, Adversary, 43; Thompson, Chronicles, 115.
second Moses. He received divine revelation (e.g. 1 Chr 28:11–19) and

updated the Mosaic law to the circumstances of his own time (e.g. 1 Chr
15:23).61 No mention is made of less laudable aspects of David’s
character, such as his adultery with Bathsheba and subsequent murder of
her husband (2 Sam 11–12), his dysfunctional family (2 Sam 9–20) or
the dubious route by which Solomon came to the throne (1 Kgs 1–2). 62
Such omissions may reflect a conscious attempt to clean up David’s
image, or may simply be the result of the Chronicler’s lack of interest in
such matters.63 Whatever the reason, however, the effect is the same. The
earliest kings of Israel are depicted as presiding over a golden age.
Although many commentators have seen in the substitution of the term
N+# for Yahweh in 1 Chr 21:1 an attempt by the Chronicler to avoid
imputing evil actions to God, 64 elsewhere he retains other stories that are
suggestive of divine ambiguity (e.g. 1 Kgs 22:19–23//2 Chr 18:18–22).
In the light of this, it seems more reasonable to suggest that the use of the
term has another purpose. One of the most characteristic aspects in the
Chronicler’s theology is his belief in humanity’s responsibility for their
actions. This belief is expressed in ideas of reward, retribution and
repentance. Generally speaking, kings who uphold the covenant are
depicted as enjoying, alongside military success, the accomplishment of
building projects and large families. Those who do not suffer military
reverses, sickness and subjects plotting their downfall. 65 Frequently,
those who have diverged from carrying out Yahweh’s will are warned.
Repentance on the part of the king lessens Yahweh’s punishment (e.g. 2
Chr 12:5–12; 33:10–13).
The significance of the Chronicler’s alteration of his source in 2 Sam
14 probably has to do with this idea of human responsibility. Rather than
being Yahweh’s puppet, as is the case in Samuel, the David of Chronicles
is tempted to carry out an act that he knows to be wrong, and which he
has been specifically warned against (1 Chr 21:3).66 The effect of apply-
ing the term N+# to a human adversary would certainly be consonant with
61. Martin J. Selman, 1 Chronicles: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC;

Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1994), 29.
62. Ibid., 35.
63. Tuell, Chronicles, 5. Cf. Isaac Kalimi, An Ancient Israelite Historian:
Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place and Writing (SSN 46; Assen: Royal Van
Gorcum, 2005), 25.
64. Rudolph Kittel, Die Bücher der Chronik (HAT 6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1902), 80; Kurt Galling, Die Bücher der Chronik, Ezra, Nehemia (ATD
12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954), 61; Myers, 1 Chronicles, 147.
65. Thompson, Chronicles, 37–38.
1
66. Tuell, Chronicles, 86.
the Chronicler’s belief in human responsibility, since it would shift the

entire blame for subsequent events to David’s door. Nevertheless, it
would also go against the general thrust of the Chronicler’s idealized
portrayal of David. If the term N+# is understood to refer to a celestial
satan (i.e. to Satan), however, it has two main implications. First, the
onus for the disaster that strikes Israel still falls largely upon David,
because David listened to Satan’s promptings. At the same time, how-
ever, it is also arguable that David’s guilt is mitigated because he did not
himself conceive the sin of which he later stands accused. The effect is
to make David a precursor of Judah’s bad kings, but also to distance
him from them. As is the case with his future descendents, David’s sin
threatens to destroy Jerusalem.
A further piece of evidence in favor of this understanding of the term
N+# is the use of the verb tws to describe the action of this individual.
Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, this verb implies some form of personal
communication, usually by direct speech, with the aim of making an
individual behave in a specified way (Deut 13:6; Josh 15:18; Judg 1:14;
1 Sam 26:19; 1 Kgs 21:25; Job 2:3; 36:16). Moreover, this verb often has
connotations of cunning or deceit. Often, someone who incites in this
way does not simply impel an individual to carry out a specific action,
they do so with an ulterior or self-serving motive (2 Kgs 18:32; 2 Chr
18:2, 31; 32:11, 15; Isa 36:18; Jer 38:22; 43:3). Only in Job 38:18 is
there a use of the verb that implies an individual reacting in response to
an abstract idea (anger enticing an individual to mock something). This
could be said to form a parallel to David reacting to news of an enemy
mobilizing in 1 Chr 21, but the overall weight of evidence militates
against it.
If the verb tws in 1 Chr 21:1 does imply some form of personal com-
munication, as it does in almost every other instance of its use in the
Hebrew Bible, it makes the likelihood that N+# refers to either a human
enemy or a troublemaker within the kingdom much more remote. The
phrase, “Then N+# stood up against Israel and incited David to count the
people of Israel,” implies that this figure, out of hostility to Israel,
prompted David with the express purpose of making him carry out his
fatal census. The verb seems to carry its frequent nuance of the prompter
having his own agenda, for it also implies that this figure knew that
David’s acquiescence would have negative consequences for Israel. This
N+# seems to know Yahweh a little too well to be one of David’s human
opponents. The fact that the verb tws is associated with the Satan in Job
2:3, where he is said to have incited God against Job, adds further weight
to this suggestion (as well as hinting at an ulterior motive for the figure
in that book). Overall, it would seem that the term N+# in 1 Chr 21 refers
1
to a celestial satan, either a single indefinite satan chosen by God to

provoke David (cf. 2 Sam 24:1), or a figure referred to by the proper
name Satan.
Traditionally, commentators, probably influenced by a desire to make
a neat link between the satan figure in the Hebrew Bible and that in the
New Testament, have favored the second of these possibilities. The
change in title evident in Chronicles from the Satan to Satan is seen as a
significant marker in the development of this character from being the
adversary of individual human beings to becoming the adversary of God.
Yet, the text of 1 Chr 21:1 states that “Satan stood up against Israel.”
Satan’s enmity in this text is directed not against God, but against a peo-
ple, and, as I have suggested, it seems reasonable to assume that Satan’s
incitement of David is done with the express purpose of provoking
Yahweh’s anger against Israel. Satan is Israel’s enemy here in the same
way that the Satan can be seen as Judah’s enemy in Zech 3. He seems to
act as he does in those instances because he is hostile to creation, and
because Israel is creation’s center (note that Job rules over an alternative
center of creation). If this is the case, then Satan’s plan is almost a
complete success. Large swathes of the population die, and Jerusalem
itself comes within an ace of being destroyed.
Moreover, there seems to be a deliberate irony in the way that Satan
tempts David. In launching upon a census, David is acting to strengthen
Israel, God’s people, and the center of creation against the hostile nations
that surround them. A census by its very nature is a device that aids in
the imposition of order. It establishes numbers and locations of people,
and it allows a ruler to govern more effectively by enabling human
resources to be utilized more efficiently. The irony is that in acting to
preserve Israel, David unwittingly comes close to causing its destruction.
By trying to impose order, David contravenes Yahweh’s law and, like
Satan, becomes an agent of chaos.
3. Conclusions
This study suggests that the basic nature of Satan in Chronicles is the
same as that of the Satan in Zechariah and Job. In Zech 3, the Satan
attempted to prevent the restoration of the priesthood, and by extension
of a properly functioning community and Temple. He allied himself with
the forces of chaos by attempting to dissuade God from establishing a
new meta-creation. In Job, the Satan successfully argued God into aban-
doning the moral law governing and upholding creation, and unleashing
the forces of chaos on another meta-creation—Job’s world. In Chronicles,
1
Satan uses a more indirect approach, but the purpose is the same. He is
overtly hostile to Israel, and, by extension, to creation itself. God’s people
are to be wiped out and the center of creation, Jerusalem, destroyed. In
none of these texts is the Satan or Satan able to assault creation on his
own part. In Zechariah he speaks to God in the hope that he can make the
deity extend the term of the chaotic status quo that already exists. In Job
he is able to bring the forces of chaos to bear only after he receives
express permission from God. In Chronicles he tries to provoke God into
overthrowing his own order. The irony is that this final act provides the
means by which creation’s center will be strengthened. The Temple will
be the place from which God imposes order on creation, and where his
people can atone for their sins and become holy. It is open to question,
however, whether Satan or the Satan’s inability to put his own designs
into practice directly is a function of him being, in general, subject to
Yahweh, or whether he is to be understood as being, like the forces he
represents, bound from affecting the world.
Although superficially different, the fundamental similarities in the
depiction of the Satan in the three texts in which he appears make it
difficult, if not impossible, to trace a trajectory for the development of a
Satan tradition in the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, scholars can draw
conclusions about the theological or literary purposes of the use of this
figure in biblical texts. With regard to Zech 3, it is clear that the author is
using the Satan tradition to express fundamental ideas of order and
chaos, and specifically the way in which God proposes to end the chaos
of exile and subjugation to the nations, and re-establish his creation on a
new footing. The fact that the Satan is used in this manner indicates the
importance that Zechariah attached to the restoration of the priesthood,
and, by inference, to the Temple itself. This theme is more in evidence in
Haggai, where a ruined Temple is linked with a devastated land which
yields no produce (1:9–11), and a rebuilt one leads to agricultural plenty
and the overthrow of the forces of chaos in the shape of the nations
(2:19–22), but it is also alluded to in Zechariah (1:16–21). It also serves
as a veiled criticism of those in the community who may have opposed
the pre-eminence of the priesthood, linking opposition to Joshua, as it
does, with those forces in opposition both to creation and the Creator. 67
67. The view that the Satan represents dissonant voices within the community
opposed to the restoration of the Zadokite priesthood is advanced by Day (Adver-
sary, 121; cf. Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Social
Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975], 32–279).
1
TRACES OF TRADITION IN ZECHARIAH 1–8:
A CASE-STUDY
Michael H. Floyd
Seminal scholarship on Zech 1–8 during the past four decades has made
major advances in the traditio-historical study of this text. The pioneer-
ing work of Willem Beuken still shapes the way scholars think about the
role of tradition in the formation of this text, but subsequent studies by
Rex Mason, David Petersen and Janet Tollington pose significantly
different views.1 A critical comparison of the work of these four scholars
raises questions not only about the traditio-historical study of Zech 1–8
in particular, but also about the traditio-historical study of prophetic
literature in general. Here I will contrast the work of Beuken, Mason,
Petersen and Tollington, focusing on their interpretations of Zech 4:1–14
as an example, and drawing out the implications of this comparison for
traditio-historical method.
1. Introduction
Tradition history emerged as a subdiscipline of Old Testament scholar-
ship because of what source and form criticism revealed about the
composition of biblical narrative. Source criticism showed that the
narratives were generally written centuries after the time they described,
and form criticism showed that the late written texts still reflected oral
conventions of narration. There was thus some basis for inquiring about
the conditions under which narratives originated and circulated prior to
1. Willem A. M. Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8: Studien zur Überlieferungs-

geschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie (SSN 10; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967);
Rex A. Mason, Preaching the Tradition: Homily and Hermeneutics after the Exile
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); David L. Petersen, Haggai and
Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984); Janet E.
Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 (JSOTSup 150;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993).
FLOYD Traces of Tradition in Zechariah 1–8 211
their collection, transcription and redaction. The concept of oral tradition,

which Old Testament scholarship borrowed from the study of folklore,
provided the backdrop against which to imagine how events gave rise to
stories that were creatively reshaped and connected as they were retold
over time. The plausibility of this model rested on the universality of
story-telling in so-called pre-modern societies. Given this approach,
“tradition” describes the process through which the hypothetical original
oral form of a narrative developed into its final written form, as well as
the factors that influenced the various stages of development. 2
As this set of historical-critical methods was extended from narrative
to other forms of literature, the same conceptual model was used. Just as
source criticism showed that biblical narratives were written long after
the time they described, it also showed that prophetic books were written
at some distance from the time of the prophet for whom they were named.
Just as form criticism showed that the late written texts still reflected oral
conventions of narration, it also showed that prophetic books still
reflected the oral conventions of prophetic oracular speech. Thus in the
case of prophetic literature, too, there was apparently some basis for
assuming that oracles originally spoken by a prophet were creatively
reshaped and reconfigured—just as narratives were—prior to and/or
during their redaction. However, a problem emerged when the concept of
oral tradition was invoked as the context in which the original words of a
prophet developed into the written text of the book named for him. In the
case of prophecies, there was no obvious setting for their transmission
analogous to the setting of story-telling for the transmission of narratives.
Although source- and form-critical analysis made it plausible to
assume that “tradition” was as important in the development of prophetic
literature as it was in the development of narrative literature, it was nec-
essary to imagine a context in which prophecies would have been retold,
as it were, much like stories. This need gave rise to the hypothesis of
prophetic disciples. Prophets were supposed to have surrounded them-
selves with followers to whom they entrusted the preservation of their
oracular utterances, and these disciples passed them on to later genera-
tions. In this context prophecies were creatively reshaped and connected,
just as narratives were by story-tellers. Eventually these reinterpreted
2. Douglas A. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel: The Development

of the Traditio-Historical Research of the Old Testament, with Special Considera-
tion of Scandinavian Contributions (SBLDS 9; Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical
Literature, 1973); Klaus Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form-
Critical Method (trans. S. M. Cupitt; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1969),
78–91.
1
prophecies were collected, transcribed and redacted by scribal schools,

which turned these prophetic texts into prophetic books. 3 The main prob-
lem with this hypothesis is that there is no clear evidence that prophets
ever had such disciples, which raises the question of whether the concept
of oral tradition provides the best explanation for the development of
prophetic literature. It is plausible to suppose that collected and tran-
scribed oracular speeches once formed the kernel that eventually grew
into prophetic books, but the process of development for prophetic
literature cannot simply be assumed to have been the same as the process
of development for narrative literature. 4
The question is how to conceptualize tradition and its role in the pro-
duction of prophetic books. Were prophecies preserved and elaborated in
an oral process analogous to popular story-telling? If not, what other
kinds of processes might have been involved? We will explore answers
to this question in the limited terms of a single test-case, examining how
the four major interpreters of Zech 1–8 named above have conceptual-
ized the tradition process lying behind Zech 4:1–14. We will compare
the various concepts of tradition that are operative in their exegesis of
this vision report and the difference this makes in their overall under-
standing of the text, and then critique their views in light of recent
studies that have a bearing on the tradition history of prophetic books.
2. Willem Beuken
In his ground-breaking work on Zech 1–8 Beuken depended heavily on
the hypothesis of prophetic disciples mentioned above. He supposed
three major stages in the development of prophetic literature: (1) the
original words of the prophet for whom the book was named, (2) the
preservation of these words in a circle of prophetic disciples, and (3) the
redaction of the preserved tradition by a literary school. As Beuken
imagined this process, it was not simply a transition from prophetic
speeches to prophetic writings. He recognized that, in addition to the
types of prophetic speech that form critics had begun to identify, there
were other types of prophecies that were probably written to begin with.
He also thought that at least some prophets bequeathed their prophecies
3. Sigmund Mowinckel, Prophecy and Tradition (Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1946);

Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, Mündliche und schriftliche Tradition der vorexilischen
Prophetenbücher als Problem der neueren Prophetenforschung (Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1959); Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition, 210–20.
4. Michael H. Floyd, “Prophecy and Writing in Habakkuk 2,1–5,” ZAW 105
(1993): 462–81.
1
to their disciples in written form. He also recognized that the disciples, in

addition to preserving the legacy of their prophetic master, also played a
creative role in the transmission process. They reinterpreted the prophe-
cies entrusted to them in light of the ongoing course of events, thus
anticipating the reinterpretive work of the redactors who reshaped the
collected oracles into their final form. 5
In his exegesis of the prophecies in Zech 1–8 Beuken usually does not
attempt to assign particular segments of text to these three stages. Rather
he identifies developments that can generally be seen to have emerged
through such a process. This is particularly evident in his treatment of
Zech 4:1–14, which entails no less than five developmental stages—his
descriptions of the tradition process are typically not this detailed—but
avoids fruitless speculation about particular dates for the various stages,
or which stages should be assigned to disciples and which to redactors,
etc. Beuken wants to show that traditio-historical analysis thus broadly
construed, combined with form-critical insights, can take interpretation
beyond the kinds of conclusions that can be drawn from source-critical
analysis alone.6
Source critics typically note that the question posed in 4:6aα is not
answered until 4:10b, and that the intervening oracular material in 4:6aβ–
10a is incongruous in relation to its immediate context. They have thus
concluded that 4:1–6aα + 10b–14 is the original form of the prophecy,
and that 4:6aβ–10a is a secondary addition. Beuken argues that this is
problematic in two respects. First, neither the form nor the content of
4:6aβ–7 or 4:8–10a requires either oracle in itself to be relegated to the
status of secondary material. Second, this supposedly original form of
the vision report is anachronistic because it implies that the roles of gov-
ernor and high priest were defined in terms of anointing, which would
hardly have been possible in the time of Zechariah himself because it
would have implied rebellion against Persian hegemony. He therefore
proposes an alternative hypothesis that more or less reverses the conven-
tional source-critical view.
Beuken notes that prophetic vision reports typically can include
oracles explicating the import of the symbolic scene, and argues that in
this light the oracles in 4:6aβ–7 and 4:8–10a concerning the completion
of the temple rebuilding project can be seen to explicate the symbolic
scene of the temple lampstand whose seven lights represent “the eyes of
Yahweh which range through the whole earth” (4:10b). Such oracles
provide a more fitting complement and conclusion to the vision itself
5. Beuken, Haggai—Sacharjah 1–8, 3–10, 15–26.

1
6. Ibid., 258–74.
than the dialogue in 4:11–14, which shifts the focus to a completely dif-
ferent aspect of the scene. Beuken thus postulates a five-stage devel-
opmental process in which the material in 4:11–14 is gradually added
and rearranged in relation to the material in 4:1–10, so as to reinterpret a
prophecy originally concerned with completion of the temple as a proph-
ecy also concerned with the royalty of Yehud’s provincial authorities:
Stage 1 4:1–6aα + 10b + 6aβ–7
Stage 2 4:1–6aα + 10b + 6aβ–7 + 8–10a
Stage 3 4:1–6aα + 10b + 6aβ–7 + 8–10a + 11, 13–14
Stage 4 4:1–6aα + 6aβ–7 + 8–10a + 10b + 11, 13–14
Stage 5 4:1–6aα + 6aβ–10a + 10b–14
Beuken locates this shift in emphasis within the context of a “Chronistic

milieu,” a literary school with the same ethos as the circles that produced
the books of Chronicles and the documents usually associated with them.
This ethos was characterized by such concerns as preoccupation with the
temple and its ritual, viewing the temple’s significance in terms of
covenant, identification with the Davidic line, and association of the
spirit of God with prophecy, etc.
3. Rex Mason
Rex Mason recognizes the advance made by Beuken but offers a some-
what different view of the tradition process through which the prophecies
of Zechariah passed in the formation of Zech 1–8. He takes as his
starting point Gerhard von Rad’s identification of a common form in
many of the speeches in Chronicles, by virtue of which von Rad
described them as “Levitical sermons.” The Chronicler, claimed von
Rad, modeled the speeches attributed to many of his main characters—
including prophets, priests and kings—on the kind of preaching the
Levites practiced as they exercised the teaching office they held in
Second Temple times.7 Mason doubts major aspects of this hypothesis,
questioning whether the Chronicler’s speeches can all be subsumed
within a single genre, whether there is a clearly identifiable sermon genre,
and whether the Levites ever held a formally defined teaching office.
However, he finds that the Chronicler’s speeches are nevertheless char-
acterized by clusters of common themes and formal features that reflect a
kind of rhetorical practice. This rhetorical practice can be loosely
7. Gerhard von Rad, “The Levitical Sermon in I and II Chronicles,” in The

Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken; New
York: McGraw–Hill, 1966), 267–80.
1
described as sermonic in the sense that it expounds texts with incipient

scriptural authority, exhorting hearers to heed their message. 8
Mason’s modification of von Rad’s hypothesis provides an alternative
to Beuken’s supposition of prophetic disciples and literary schools. The
practitioners of the sermonic rhetorical style reflected in the speeches
of Chronicles were custodians of authoritative written texts who also
expounded them orally, reinterpreting their significance in relation to the
changing situations of new hearers. In such a context Mason imagines
that the original words of Zechariah (as well as other prophets) could
have been received as authoritative text, expounded orally in preaching
to reinterpret them for new hearers in changing situations, and then
rewritten so as to capture the effects of this reinterpretive activity. In its
final form, Zech 1–8 thus echoes the homiletical practice of Second
Temple times but does not incorporate within itself the text of actual
sermons or of speeches closely modeled on actual sermons. Mason does
not say much about the identity or nature of the group engaged in such
activity, but he envisions them working within the pale of the Second
Temple.9
In the interpretation of Zech 4:1–14 Mason takes as his starting point
the conventional view questioned by Beuken, that 4:1–6aα + 10b–14 is
the original vision report, and the interruptive oracles in 4:6aβ–7 and
4:8–10a are secondary expansions. He then analyzes 4:6bβ–10 in terms of
affinities with the addresses in Chronicles. He finds two major thematic
commonalities: (1) an assurance in 4:6b of the effective power of God’s
spirit, as mediated through prophetic messengers (cf. 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14;
24:20; 36:22); and (2) the explicit identification of Zerubbabel as temple
builder, an aspect of the Davidide’s role starkly emphasized by the
Chronicler. Also, like the addresses in Chronicles, this expansion of Zech
4:1–6aα + 10b–14 expounds proto-canonical prophetic texts in an actual-
izing reinterpretation. Zerubbabel’s “leveling” of a “mountain” of rubble
and opposition (4:7) fulfills the Isaianic promise that “every mountain
and hill shall be made low” (Isa 40:4; cf. Isa 49:11), and perhaps also the
Jeremianic promise that Yahweh will level the “destroying mountain” of
Babylon (Jer 51:24–26). In these regards 4:6aβ–10 is also similar to
other expansionary material in Zech 1–8, such as 3:6–10 and 7:11–14.
Thus it can be read as part of the Zechariah tradition, developed through
and indirectly reflecting the preaching activity associated with the
Second Temple.
8. Mason, Preaching the Tradition, 7–144.

1
9. Ibid., 197–234.
According to Mason’s interpretation of 4:1–14, the original form of

the vision report in 4:1–6aα + 10b–14 ascribed a quasi-royal status to the
two leaders of provincial Yehud, the governor Zerubbabel and the high
priest Joshua. Subsequent expansion in 4:6aβ–10a clarified the nature of
their responsibilities. Their power does not lie in armed might, but in the
significance and influence of the completed temple. This institutional
development is the immediate fulfillment of prophetic hope for Yehud. 10
Mason has objected to Bueken’s location of the final form of Haggai
in a Chronistic milieu. Although he suggests that Zech 1–8 may have
more of an affinity with Chronicles than Haggai, the same objections
would nevertheless apply, mutatis mutandis, to Beuken’s location of the
final form of Zech 1–8 in the same Chronistic milieu. Mason points out
that many of the formulaic terms and themes, which Beuken identifies as
characteristically Chronistic, are not peculiar to Chronistic documents,
but occur also in documents that can be generally described as Deuter-
onomistic. This is certainly the case with regard to the concept of the
“spirit of Yahweh” in 4:6b. Mason suggests that Haggai and Zech 1–8 be
seen in the context of a broader stream of tradition that includes but is
not limited to Chronistic documents.11
4. David Petersen
Petersen does not explain in detail his view of the tradition process that
shaped Zechariah 1–8, but his few claims in this regard suggest a rather
different model. Like Mason, and in contrast to Beuken, he takes as his
starting point the conventional distinction between the visionary and
oracular materials in Zech 1–6, assuming that the former are original and
that the latter are secondary. As we have seen, Beuken and Mason regard
both the arrangement and supplementation of the original prophecies to
be the work of oral tradents, although Beuken characterizes this as disci-
ples’ transmission of the master’s prophetic speeches and Mason char-
acterizes it as preaching on an authoritative prophetic text. In contrast,
Petersen attributes the basic arrangement of the original prophecies to
Zechariah himself and the secondary additions to literary redaction. He
thinks it probable that the prophet dreamed all eight visions of chs. 1–6
in a single night. According to Petersen, the report of this experience and
of the oracular inquiry described at the beginning of ch. 7 constituted the
textual core of Zech 1–8, which was later subjected to an undeterminable
10. Ibid., 208–10.

11. Rex A. Mason, “The Purpose of the ‘Editorial Framework’ of the Book of
Haggai,” VT 27 (1977): 412–21.
1
number of scribal revisions. It is implied that the prophet himself may

have produced this core in written form. Petersen leaves little if any
room for oral tradition in the production of Zech 1–8. For him, tradents
of the Zechariah tradition are basically scribal redactors. 12
Petersen’s interpretation of 4:1–14 resembles Mason’s. Both regard
4:1–6aα + 10b–14 as the original prophetic vision report, and the oracles
in 4:6aβ–10a as secondary additions that revise the significance of the
vision. Unlike Mason and many other interpreters, however, Petersen
does not think that the phrase “sons of oil” ascribes royal status to the
two figures flanking the lampstand. This is not the loaded terminology of
messianic anointing, but phraseology that instead connotes the leader-
ship’s duty to provide oil for the lampstand. The vision puts the two
figures—standing for Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the high
priest—on the same level and in the same position vis-à-vis the lamp-
stand, indicating that their roles are more or less equal. The oracular
additions in 4:6aβ–10a, however, focus on Zerubbabel so as to exalt his
role over Joshua’s.13
Petersen does not locate the redaction of Zech 1–8 in terms of
Deuteronomistic and/or Chronistic influences. Instead, he contrasts the
view of the restored temple’s significance expressed in Zech 1–8 with the
view of its significance expressed in Ezek 40–48. 14
5. Janet Tollington
Tollington collapses the distance between the prophet and the production
of Zech 1–8. She acknowledges that oral transmission is conceivable
with regard to some of the eighth-century prophets, but she argues that
by the late monarchial period writing had become so widespread that oral
transmission would have been unnecessary. Like Beuken, she does not
think that oracular material is necessarily secondary, but she recognizes
that in some cases—for our purposes notably including 4:6aβ–10a—
oracular material has been secondarily inserted. In fact, she envisions
such insertions in terms of a rather complicated five-stage composition
process, which she describes in detail: (1) the vision cycle including
oracles attached to the first and fourth visions (1:8–17 and 4:1–14); (2)
additions including 1:1–6 as introduction and chs. 7–8 as conclusion,
plus 2:10–17 and 6:15; (3) 4:6aβ–10b added or moved from a former
position; (4) 6:9–14 inserted or altered to its present form; and (5) 3:8–10

13. Ibid., 214–44.
1
14. Ibid., 113–20.
and 8:23 added. For Tollington, secondary addition does not mean
secondary authorship. She argues that virtually all the content of Zech 1–
8 “may have derived from the prophet,” with the exception of 4:12, 8:23,
and the present form of 6:9–14. Zechariah 1–8 “was initially compiled
during [the prophet’s] active ministry.” Aside from the addition of 4:12
and 8:23, as well as the insertion or alteration of 6:9–14, the entire com-
position process “may have been carried out by Zechariah or someone
working alongside him.” 15
Tollington thus redefines the concept of tradition in relation to the
production of Zech 1–8. For her, tradition is not the process by which the
original deposit of prophetic utterances was transmitted and reinterpreted
until the composition of the text in its final form. It is rather the extent to
which Zechariah follows earlier prophetic precedents. And this is a
literary rather than oral process. The prophecies of Zechariah’s predeces-
sors were already in the form of authoritative texts, and the influence of
tradition is evident in the extent to which the text written by Zechariah
was continuous with them in major respects. Tollington analyzes Zech
1–8 with regard to the way Zechariah exercises prophetic authority, the
style and form of his prophecies, his relationship to the leadership of the
restoration community, his view of the exile as divine punishment, and
his portrayal of Israel and Yahweh in relation to the nations. In sharp
contrast with the conventional scholarly view that postexilic prophets do
not measure up to the precedent set by their “classical” forebears,
Tollington finds that despite some innovation on Zechariah’s part with
respect to the style and content of his prophecies, there is no sharp
discontinuity between him and the “classical” prophets. 16
Tollington’s notably different concept of tradition does not lead to a
radically different interpretation of Zech 4:1–14. By holding that 4:6aβ–
10a could have been part of the vision report from the outset, in which
case it would have been secondarily moved to its present position, she
seems to acknowledge the cogency of Beuken’s points, that vision
reports can typically include oracular material, and that 4:6aβ–10a can be
attributed to Zechariah himself rather than a tradent. However, she does
not follow Beuken in arguing that 4:6aβ–10a was the original conclusion
to the vision report, and that 4:11–14 is secondary material. Tollington
attributes all the material in ch. 4 (except v. 12) to Zechariah himself.
She does not speculate about the original position of 4:6aβ–10a, but only
observes that it appears to have been inserted into its present context. She
sees its function in relation to this context much like Petersen. The main
15. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation, 47.

1
16. Ibid., 48–248.
point of the vision in 4:1–6aα + 10b–14 is to affirm the diarchy of Zerub-

babel the governor and Joshua the high priest, represented by the two
figures in equivalent positions vis-à-vis the divine presence symbolized
by the lampstand. The insertion of 4:6aβ–10a serves to clarify this by
defining Zerubbabel’s particular role as temple builder. She also simi-
larly argues that, although this role has royal connotations, it does not
emphasize Zerubbabel’s Davidic descent or assert any royal prerogatives
on Zerubbabel’s behalf. The main difference is that Tollington ascribes
this amendment of the vision, by means of juxtaposing it with the oracles
in 4:6aβ–10a, to Zechariah himself rather than redactors or other kinds of
tradents.17
6. Analysis
As we can see from the preceding review, scholars have used the term
“tradition,” as it applies to the study of prophetic literature, in two some-
what different senses. First, it refers to the process through which a
prophetic book was produced, particularly when its final form seems
distanced in time from the prophetic figure for whom it is named. The
book itself is thus the result of work done by tradents who developed and
expanded the prophet’s original message. With regard to the use of
speech and/or writing, this process of reinterpretation can be imagined
in various ways: (1) as mostly a shift from oral transmission by the
prophet’s disciples to written redaction by literary schools (Beuken);
(2) as the rewriting of the prophet’s transcribed message in light of how
his words have been homiletically expounded over time (Mason); and
(3) as a largely literary process in which the prophet’s words were soon
transcribed and then subjected to a series of scribal redactions (Petersen),
etc.
Second, “tradition” also refers to the socio-cultural context of the trans-
mission process, the influence of which is reflected in the production of
the document. This can be described in terms of genre, as writers follow-
ing predecessors who have produced the same sort of literature out of the
same sort of raw material—in this case writers who have produced
prophetic books out of reports of prophetic experience. The influence of
tradition, defined in this way, is measured by continuity and discontinu-
ity with respect to distinctive features that a prophet and his prophetic
book have in common with their predecessors (Tollington). Alternatively,
the socio-cultural context of a prophetic book’s production can also be
described in terms of ideology, as a circle where a particular theological
1
17. Ibid., 144–54, 175–78.
viewpoint is cultivated—in this case, for example, the Chronistic milieu

proposed by Beuken, or the group advocating a more politically charged
view of the restored temple’s significance than what Ezekiel envisioned,
as proposed by Petersen. The influence of tradition, defined in this way,
is evident in formulaic terminology and themes that are characteristic of
a distinctive ideological orientation.
These two understandings of tradition are hardly antithetical but are
rather, as Odil Hannes Steck has pointed out, two sides of the same
coin.18 There is no reason to play one off against the other but, as we
have seen in the foregoing case study, the way in which one aspect of
tradition is handled may have implications for the other. For example, in
supposing that Zechariah himself is the writer of Zech 1–8, Tollington
minimizes the importance of tradition in the first sense and thus in effect
privileges tradition in the second sense. In any case, my purpose here is
not to argue for the approach of any one of the scholars discussed above.
It is rather to consider the alternatives they represent in light of more
recent studies that have some bearing on the tradition history of prophetic
literature, and then to reconsider critically the views of the four scholars.
First of all, as recent discussions of the oral-written dichotomy have
shown, it is not possible to generate a model for the production of a
particular kind of literature on the basis of sweeping generalizations
about traditional society, oral culture, or the prevalence of literacy in the
ancient world.19 This tendency was evident at the inception of the
tradition-historical study of prophetic literature, in the assumption that
oral story-telling provided a model that could be generalized to other
genres throughout Israelite society. This same sort of generalizing still
persists, even in works that criticize earlier tradition history for this
particular assumption.20 It is true that literacy in the ancient world was
less widespread and more of a specialized art than literacy in the modern
world. However, it does not necessarily follow that Israelite prophets
18. Odil Hannes Steck, “Theological Streams of Tradition,” in Tradition and

Theology in the Old Testament (ed. Douglas A. Knight; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1977), 183–214.
19. Michael H. Floyd, “‘Write the revelation!’ (Hab 2:2): Re-imagining the
Cultural History of Prophecy,” in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near
Eastern Prophecy (ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd; SBLSymS 10; Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 122–25; cf. Joachim Schaper, “Exilic and Post-
Exilic Prophecy and the Orality/Literacy Problem,” VT 55 (2005): 324–42.
20. For example, Susan Niditch (Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite
Literature; LAI; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996) criticizes Hermann
Gunkel for his simplistic assumptions regarding oral tradition even as she herself
continues to theorize in terms of a similarly simplistic oral–written dichotomy.
1
must have passed on their oracles to their disciples in oral form, as

Beuken’s model assumes. Similarly, it is true that the use of writing
became more culturally prominent in the late monarchial period, but this
in itself does not increase the probability that Zechariah would have
written the book named for him, as Tollington assumes. Writing was
known in the ancient Near East long before Israel came on the scene, and
the Israelites made use of writing in various if sometimes limited ways
throughout their history. Thus we cannot think in terms of absolute shifts
from oral speech to written texts, nor can we predicate particular literary
developments on such shifts. Instead, we have to imagine that speech and
writing were used in various patterns for various purposes, sometimes
exclusively and sometimes complementarily, and that these patterns may
have changed over time. Within such a socio-cultural context, the devel-
opment of a particular type of literature may entail a particular pattern of
oral-written usage.
With regard to the general question of whether prophets wrote the
books named for them, and the specific question of whether Zechariah
wrote Zech 1–8, the answer does not turn on whether writing was known
to them or whether they made use of it. Writing would have been known
to all the Israelite prophets, and we know that at least some of them had
their prophecies written down by scribes—and some may have even
written down their own—for a variety of purposes: to provide a script of
prophecies to be read when the prophet could not be physically present to
deliver them (Jer 36:5–10); to transmit prophecies to addressees who
were far from the prophet (Jer 29); to stand as a witness against those
who had rejected the prophet (Isa 30:8); and to record prophecies so that
they could be studied in anticipation of their fulfillment (Hab 2:2), etc.
When we read a prophetic book, however, such transcripts are not what
we find—or at least they are not all that we find.
Each prophetic book begins either with a superscription referring to
the prophet for whom it is named, or with a narrative briefly reporting on
the prophet for whom it is named. These introductions are in a third-
person biographical style rather than a first-person autobiographical
style. From this fact it is evident that these books do not present them-
selves as documents written by their prophetic namesakes, but as docu-
ments concerning these prophets written by others. In several cases the
introductory voice locates the prophet during the reign of some particular
past king(s), thus distancing the prophet historically from the reporter.
This underscores the retrospective viewpoint that is generally charac-
teristic of prophetic books, whether its extent is to be imagined in terms
of centuries or just years. Thus each prophetic book presents itself as a
document about a particular prophet, written by someone else looking
1
back on the prophet from a (short or long) historical distance. 21 One

might argue that this is a fictional device by means of which prophets
could write about themselves without being overtly autobiographical, but
in several instances—most notably Isaiah—this is obviously not the case.
Thus unless there is some reason to think that a particular prophetic book
may be an exception in this regard, prophetic books can be assumed to
have been written from a retrospective viewpoint by someone other than
the prophet.22
In the case of Zech 1–8, it does not really matter that the text can
arguably be dated to a time very soon after Zechariah’s prophetic activ-
ity, or even to a time when he was still alive. The main introduction in
1:1, as well as the subsequent introductions to the major sections of the
text in 1:7 and 7:1, all report prophetic activity and locate it in the past
during the reign of Darius, thus maintaining the convention of a third-
person retrospective viewpoint. The extent of the distance between the
prophesying Zechariah and the reporting voice is not clear, but their
voices are clearly different, and the former clearly stands at a point in
time earlier than the latter. Thus the perspective from which the book is
written is the perspective of someone other than Zechariah. Tollington’s
argument for Zechariah’s authorship seems not to have taken fully into
account this fundamental aspect of the book’s form.
This does not necessarily gainsay her argument that virtually all of the
text’s prophetic material comes from Zechariah himself. It only high-
lights the necessity of considering tradition in the first sense, which asks
how the original words of the prophets might have been transmitted and
reinterpreted until the last writer put the book in its final form. As we
have seen from the proposals regarding Zech 1–8, this process can be
imagined in various ways, as taking a relatively long or short time; as
giving more weight to the prophet and less to subsequent tradents, or
vice versa; as involving more oral and less written modes of transmis-
sion, or vice versa, etc. Even if it is probable that Zech 1–8 as such was
written by someone other than Zechariah, it might still be possible that
the prophet himself had virtually all of the present text put in written
form very soon after the prophetic experience on which the text was
based, so that there would be only one other writer with a minor but still
21. Gene M. Tucker, “Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of a Canon,” in

Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology (ed. George
W. Coats and Burke O. Long; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 56–70.
22. A plausible case for Ezekiel is made by Ellen F. Davis in Swallowing the
Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy (JSOTSup
78; Bible and Literature Series 21; Sheffield: Almond, 1989).
1
crucial redactional role to play in shaping the final form of the book. Can
we now say anything about the probability of this model of Zechariah’s
literary development, reflecting a position similar to Tollington’s, rela-
tive to the kinds of alternatives proposed by the other three interpreters
of Zech 1–8 that we have considered?
To judge such probabilities we must consider the roles of prophets and
scribes, and how they could be interrelated. As we have seen, the form
typically taken by prophetic books presupposes that prophecies were
written down. This would entail some kind of interaction between proph-
ets as speakers of prophecies and scribes as practitioners of writing. It is
not impossible that some of the canonical prophets were also scribes and
thus could have initially transcribed their own oracles. However, there
are only a couple of indirect references to this possibility in contrast with
several explicit references to prophets resorting to scribes. We must
therefore generally suppose that in most cases oracles originally spoken
by prophets who did not write were subsequently written down by
scribes who did. In any case, even if a prophet was the initial transcriber
of his own oracular speeches, the form typically taken by prophetic
books suggests that some other scribe(s) gave the book its final form.
Because prophetic books are retrospective reinterpretations rather than
mere scribal transcripts of what prophets once said, the distinctions
between a prophet’s words and subsequent scribal additions may have
been effaced to such an extent that any recovery of the original core as
such is unlikely. However, even in such cases we may nevertheless
inquire into the general nature of the process by which a prophetic book
took shape.
To this end let us now consider tradition as a formative element in the
production of prophetic literature in light of what recent studies of the
interaction of prophets and scribes. Initially the discussion will deal with
tradition in the second sense defined above, that is, the socio-cultural
context in which prophecies were transmitted and prophetic books were
produced. Subsequently the discussion will turn to tradition in the first
sense defined above, that is, the compositional process by which pro-
phetic books were produced.
7. The Socio-Cultural Context of Prophetic–Scribal Interaction

Traditio-historical scholarship has often attributed the production of
major documents with distinctive ideologies to various “schools”—an
Isaianic school, a Priestly school, a Deuteronomistic school, etc.—mean-
ing circles of like-minded literati. Beuken’s attribution of Zech 1–8 to a
“Chronistic milieu” reflects this tendency, although his avoidance of the
1
term “school” shows his reluctance to claim that Zech 1–8 was produced
by the same group that produced Chronicles. He apparently supposes that
there might have been several groups with an outlook similar to that of
the group that produced Chronicles. The concept of various ideologically
oriented “schools” has often been invoked without considering that
literary production in the ancient world was a specialized technology
requiring certain material and social conditions. This use of the concept
somewhat anachronistically assumes that it was common for different
scholarly groups to produce documents reflecting their own ideological
viewpoints. Recent investigation of the social world of biblical times,
based on a disciplined integration of archeological data and social theory,
necessitates a reconsideration of this assumption.
The social-world approach has emphasized that in ancient society
literacy was a skill practiced by a particular profession entailing a
particular set of institutional and social relationships. The work of scribes
included not only the composition of texts but also the material produc-
tion of the documents—clay tablets, leather scrolls, papyrus sheets,
etc.—on which texts were inscribed. Scribes were a relatively elite group
in the sense that many were patronized by royal courts and temples, the
two main centers of power in ancient Near Eastern society. The main-
tenance of the profession required not only educational institutions in
which scribes could train their successors and enculturate the closely
related ruling class, but also scriptoria in which documents could be
produced as well as archives or libraries in which they could be stored. 23
Scholars have therefore searched for evidence of this kind of institutional
nexus, focusing on the question of when the existence of scribal schools
can be attested in Israel.24 The terms in which this investigation has been
framed must now be significantly revised in light of David Carr’s recent
study, which shows that elementary scribal training was often done
through apprenticeship in a household context, and that even secondary
education could take place in relatively informal settings as well as in
organized groups of teachers and students with their own meeting
places.25 The existence of schools in this specific institutional sense is
23. See Ehud Ben Zvi, “Introduction: Writing, Speeches and the Prophetic
Books—Setting an Agenda,” in Ben Zvi and Floyd, eds., Writings and Speech, 5–16,
and his extensive bibliographical citations.
24. This research is helpfully reviewed by Lester L. Grabbe, Priests, Prophets,
Diviners, Sages: A Socio-Political Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel
(Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995), 171–74.
25. David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and
Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), passim.
1
thus not the only indication of scribal activity’s extent. It is nevertheless

one important indication, for which there is some telling evidence.
This evidence, recently summarized by William Schniedewind, shows
a dramatic rise in literary activity in the eighth century, externally con-
ditioned by Assyrian hegemony and internally conditioned by the
urbanization of Judah during the reign of Hezekiah. This contrasts
starkly with the impoverishment evident in the remains of the Neo-
Babylonian and Persian periods, suggesting an absence of the social and
material conditions that were necessary for literary activity. Against this
background Schniedewind imagines a scenario in which the production
of biblical literature flourished in the late monarchial period, withered
under the Babylonians and Persians, and then revived in the Hellenistic
period when conditions were again favorable—in sharp disagreement
with the current scholarly consensus which dates the bulk of biblical
literature to the Persian period.26 Taking into account much the same
evidence, Ehud Ben Zvi nevertheless maintains a more conventional
view. He recognizes that any significant literary activity was unlikely
under the extreme hardships of the early Persian period, but he argues
that the improvement of conditions in the later Persian period, combined
with the willingness of the Persians to invest considerable resources in
just such a culturally stabilizing project, makes it likely that most biblical
literature was produced from about the middle of the fifth to the middle
of the fourth century.27
I find Ben Zvi’s scenario more persuasive, but in any case the upshot
of this research for Zech 1–8 is that during the early Persian period, when
this text presumably began to take shape, there could not have been
various “schools” of like-minded literati, each producing documents
reflecting a different ideological perspective. Even in the later Persian
period, assuming Ben Zvi’s scenario of then more favorable conditions,
this could not have been the situation. As he points out, given the
extremely small number of scribes capable of producing literary texts,
and given that they would have done so in conjunction with the other
functions that they served in the imperial administration, the diversity of
perspectives in biblical literature cannot be explained in terms of either
socio-temporal separation or partisanship. We must instead suppose that
26. William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualiza-
tion of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 64–194.
27. Ehud Ben Zvi, “The Urban Center of Jerusalem and the Development of the
Literature of the Hebrew Bible,” in Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to
Crete (ed. Walter E. Aufrecht, Neil A. Mirau, and Steven W. Gauley; JSOTSup 244;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 194–209.
1
an extremely small and essentially homogenous group of writers culti-

vated a limited but varied repertoire of literary forms and theological
views because this was “necessitated by…the actual theological world
of these literati, which may be characterized as one in which multiple
claims are intertwined and shed light on one another.” 28
In light of the brute social and material facts concerning the probable
nature and extent of scribal literary activity in the early Persian period, it
is difficult to suppose that Zech 1–8 expresses the view of one “school”
among others, or that its redaction embodies a succession of such views.
It is also unlikely that this text reflects, in comparison with others, any
significant partisan differences with respect to Persian hegemony. There
could be differences with regard to the theological significance of Persian
rule, but not with regard to its very legitimacy. It is more probable that
this text was produced by the same small scribal group that produced
most of the other biblical documents in their present form, in an attempt
to negotiate the range of theological differences that would be viable
within their Judean constituency, given the ideological limits imposed by
their political situation.
8. The Compositional Forms of Scribal-Prophetic Interaction

As we have seen, it is necessary to distinguish the kind of scribal activity
that transcribes and simply records prophetic speeches from the kind of
scribal activity that recomposes and thus reinterprets such records.
Armin Lange has proposed that texts produced by the former be called
written prophecy, and that texts produced by the latter be called literary
28. Ibid., 205. In a recent study that utilizes the social model of a scribal school
Raymond F. Person (The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Litera-
ture [SBL Studies in Biblical Literature 2; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2002]) argues that the scribal group active in the early Persian period is historically
continuous with the late pre-exilic group that produced the Deuteronomic History
and Jeremiah, and can thus be characterized as “the Deuteronomic School.” This
group would have produced not only literature that was Deuteronomic in the narrow
sense, but also literature with a compatible viewpoint that might nevertheless have
previously been attributed to some other “school” (including Zech 1–8; see pp. 140–
42). He supposes that the Deuteronomic School eventually disappeared and was
replaced by a group with a fundamentally different, more priestly perspective, which
produced Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and eventually the Pentateuch. Person thus
continues to explain the diversity of biblical literature in terms of socio-temporal
separation, but he nevertheless recognizes that there could probably have been only
one group of scribes at a time, and that their work must have encompassed at least
some limited range of ideological diversity.
1
prophecy.29 He documents examples of the former throughout the ancient

Near East, but finds examples of the latter only in Judea and Greece.
Having made this distinction, it becomes clear that the few explicit bibli-
cal references to the writing of prophecies all fit the category of written
prophecy,30 and that we have no explicit description of the production of
literary prophecy. Taking the most notable example, Jer 36 tells us how
some of Jeremiah’s prophecies came to be recorded (i.e. written proph-
ecy), not how the book of Jeremiah was produced (i.e. literary prophecy).
The record produced by Jeremiah’s dictation of previous prophetic
speeches to Baruch presumably became part of the raw material that was
somehow recomposed in the process of producing the book, but the book
itself did not result from just such dictation—not even from multiple
instances of it. The production of the book entailed something more. A
traditio-historical approach to prophetic literature would have to consider
the contexts and functions of the scribal activity that produced both writ-
ten prophecy and literary prophecy. In each case, what types of scribes
were involved, and to what use did the put the texts that they produced?
In pre-exilic times there would have been a variety of possible social
locations for both kinds of scribal activity. Schniedewind emphasizes
that the royal courts would have wanted to record and preserve those
prophecies that had some bearing on the destiny and legitimization of the
dynasty, particularly in the southern kingdom from the time of Hezekiah.
He acknowledges that temples could also have been centers of scribal
activity with similar interests, but he downplays their importance in the
history of biblical literature.31 I believe that he too quickly dismisses
temples as possibly significant locations of scribal activity, particularly
with regard to the production of prophetic literature. And with regard to
the pre-exilic situation we also need to keep in mind that besides the
royal sanctuary in Jerusalem there were also several other temples that
might have had enough resources to patronize scribes. 32 Carr’s work
broadens this description of both contexts and functions. In addition to
29. Armin Lange, “Literary Prophecy and Oracle Collection: A Comparison

Between Judah and Greece in Persian Times,” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic
Texts in the Second Temple Period (ed. Michael H. Floyd and Robert L. Haak;
Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 427; New York: T&T Clark
International, 2006), 248–75.
30. E.g. Isa 8:1; 30:8; Jer 36; Hab 2:2.
31. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book, 84–90.
32. Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry
into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly
School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 26–42.
1
palaces and temples, we must reckon with household workshops as

possible locations not only for the production of texts, but also for their
storage. And in addition to legitimizing the dominant centers of power,
we must also recognize that literary texts could also serve the important
educational function of enculturating social elites at various levels. 33
In the post-exilic period the number of possible locations for both
kinds of scribal activity would have been severely reduced, perhaps to
just one very small group connected with the restored temple. In view of
Carr’s documentation of scribal activity in households we cannot assume
that such a group would necessarily have had an absolute monopoly on
textual production, even under the straitened conditions of resettlement.
However, the composition of texts with the theological agenda of adapt-
ing Israelite traditions to the new conditions imposed by Persian hege-
mony would probably have been centered in an at least quasi-official
cadre of scribes somehow associated with the temple. Texts produced by
this group would have had at least the two major functions emphasized
by the scholars we have considered, namely, legitimization of the new
imperially mandated polity and educational enculturation of Yehud’s
now predominantly clerical elites. I would suggest, however, that this
generalization needs to be qualified in several respects.
Schniedewind’s emphasis on writing as a projection of state power is
well taken, and this could at least partly explain the production of written
prophecy. Written prophecies with this or some similar function are
found elsewhere in the ancient Near East. In light of these examples, it
is plausible to suppose—as Schniedewind argues—that Judahite royal
archives began to keep records of prophecies foretelling the fall of
Samaria because they would have implicitly justified the ongoing exis-
tence of the Davidic dynasty. It is similarly plausible that the post-exilic
temple establishment would also have wanted to archive prophecies that
legitimated its authority. However, this does not readily explain the
phenomenon of literary prophecy. Why would a scribal group with only
this agenda engage in the reinterpretation as well as the transcription of
prophecies? I have argued elsewhere that scribes who did this kind of
rewriting were themselves involved in the practice of prophetic divina-
tion.34 This, too, can serve as a projection of state power, but it cannot be
reduced to that. Interest in prophetic divination for its own sake must
have been at least partly the reason for the transcription of prophecies in
33. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, 111–42.

34. Floyd, “Writing and Prophecy,” 477–81, and idem, “The Production of
Prophetic Books in the Early Second Temple Period,” in Floyd and Haak, eds.,
Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts, 276–92.
1
the first place, so that they could provide case-studies, as well as a major
reason for their reinterpretation.
Carr’s treatment of the educational function of literary texts breaks out
of the oral–written dichotomy, recognizing that the oral is not necessarily
opposed to the written, and that writing can serve to facilitate rather than
replace the oral performance of texts. He focuses on the use of written
texts in an educational process in which literacy is a means to memoriza-
tion rather than an end in itself. From examples in wisdom literature he
develops a model of texts designed for this purpose and attempts to
extend this model to the production of other kinds of literature as well.
This bolsters his larger thesis that scripture developed as a curriculum for
counter-cultural enculturation. I regard Carr’s recognition of the possible
complementarity of written text and oral performance as a significant
breakthrough in the discussion of textuality, and I find his overall thesis
persuasive. But his use of a single model, in which rote memorization is
the primary mode of oral performance for which written texts of all kinds
could be designed, is problematic. This is particularly the case when it
comes to prophetic literature. Carr himself recognizes that the divinatory
function of prophetic texts may entail their use in a different sort of
educational process.35
I suspect that this educational process is reflected in the conventional
liturgical use of proto-canonical scriptures. In Neh 7:72b–8:12 this pat-
tern of usage is described: (a) a written text is brought into the assembly;
(b) selections from the text are ceremonially read aloud by a minister
from a prominently located lectern; (c) responses demonstrate recogni-
tion of this act as a manifestation of divine presence; and (d) the signi-
ficance of what has been read is explained to the people by a minister.
This is the ritualization of a kind of instruction that entails the teacher’s
reading from a textbook and then explaining to students the significance
of what has been read. The capacity to explain the text implies that the
teacher is familiar with it and has already studied it. He may have even
virtually memorized the text but, as the physical presence of the textbook
shows, the point is not memorization per se. It is rather to demonstrate
the teacher’s capacity to generate patterns of sound from written signs, as
well as his discursive understanding of the matters to which these words
refer. The goal is neither to get the students to memorize the text nor to
give them the ability to read it for themselves, but for them to listen to the
teacher’s interpretation of the text and be persuaded. 36 In Neh 7:72b–8:12
35. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, 151.

36. Cf. James L. Crenshaw, “The Primacy of Listening in Ben Sira’s Pedagogy,”
in Wisdom, You Are My Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., on
1
the text that is read is a torah portion, not a selection from a prophetic
book. However, if torah texts were being used in this way as prophetic
books were being produced, and if prophetic books then came to be used
in the same way, it is likely that this is the use for which they were
primarily designed rather than a use secondarily imposed on them. 37
In sum, we can imagine that prophetic books were written by a small
group of scribes associated with the Second Temple. From their pre-
exilic predecessors in various centers of scribal activity they probably
inherited written records of prophecy which they turned into literary
prophecy, as well as texts that had already been turned into literary
prophecy which they further elaborated. They were closely involved with
contemporary prophets, quickly recording their oracles and reinterpreting
them in light of unfolding events. They produced texts to be used for a
kind of prophetic divination modeled on an educational process. Just as a
scribal teacher would prepare for class by studying a textbook, read
aloud from it to a gathering of students, and then authoritatively explain
to them what they had just heard him read, the designated reader/inter-
preter of literary prophecy would similarly prepare for worship by study-
ing a prophetic book, read aloud from it to a gathered assembly, and then
authoritatively explain to them what they had just heard him read. In the
process, he would be giving an oral reinterpretation of the text analogous
to the kind of written reinterpretation embodied in literary prophecy itself.
9. Conclusion
This section will critically reconsider the major differences among the
four scholars whose work on Zech 4:1–14 we reviewed above. How do
these differences look in light of the foregoing generalizations about the
tradition history of prophetic literature? To begin with, it no longer
seems plausible to assume that Zech 1–8 represents the viewpoint of one
among several groups with different ideologies, or that its various stages
of development reflect partisan differences with respect to the legitimacy
of Persian hegemony. If the diverse viewpoints within the biblical cor-
pus are rather to be seen as the work of one and the same group, who
the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday (ed. Michael L. Barré; CBQMS 29;
Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1997), 172–87.
37. We do not know when the haftarah selection from the prophetic books came
to be read in much the same way as the torah portion in the synagogue liturgy.
Naomi G. Cohen (“Earliest Evidence of the Haftarah Cycle for the Sabbaths between
zwmtb z"y and twkws in Philo,” JSS 48 [1997]: 225–49) has found evidence that this
custom is rooted in the Second Temple period.
1
developed the diverse traditions they inherited so as to define the

allowable extent of pluralism within their post-exilic political limits,
Mason’s objection to Beuken’s argument for a “Chronistic milieu” gains
a new underpinning. He observed that the Chronistic tendencies identi-
fied by Beuken cannot be seen as opposed to a Deuteronomistic view-
point. Such a “distinction without a difference” can be readily explained
in terms of the multivocal discourse promoted by the small group of
literati that characterized the social world of Persian Yehud.
It also no longer seems plausible to imagine an extended phase of oral
transmission by disciples. Revelations were apparently written down by
a scribe who overheard their oral delivery to their original addressee(s)
or took dictation directly from the prophet, etc. They were transmitted in
writing, initially as records of what a prophet once said (written proph-
ecy) and subsequently as recomposed reinterpretations of the implica-
tions for a later time (literary prophecy). The almost entirely scribal nature
of prophecy’s transmission directly undercuts Beuken’s hypothesis of
oral transmission by disciples and agrees with the purely redactional
development assumed by Petersen. At the same time, however, it also
indirectly undercuts another traditio-historical assumption most clearly
evident in Petersen’s work, that the oracular material in Zech 1–8 is
secondary to the visionary material.
The tendency to regard the oracular material as secondary—whether
in the sense of its being attributable to later tradents or its being attribut-
able to the prophet but subsequently inserted—is rooted in Hermann
Gunkel’s Romantic preconception of oral genres as pristine expressions
of a single type of discourse that are manifest in a text’s klein’ste
Einheiten. The exegetical separation of oracular from visionary material
reflects Gunkel’s preconception of Mischgattungen as secondary devel-
opments in the history of genres. 38 Despite Beuken’s heavy theoretical
emphasis on oral transmission, he sees that these preconceptions are
fallacious with regard to the vision report. He recognizes that this genre
can typically include oracular commentary on whatever the prophet has
envisioned, and that the combination of these two types of discourse is
not necessarily a secondary development.39 In contrast, although Petersen
puts no emphasis on oral transmission as such, describing Zechariah’s
tradents entirely in terms of scribal redactors, he maintains the problem-
atic assumption of the oracular material’s secondary status. 40
38. Hermann Gunkel, Die israelitische Literatur (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche

Buchgesellschaft, 1963 [orig. pub. 1906]).
39. Beuken, Haggai—Sacharja 1–8, 237–58.
1
Tollington has dispensed with both this assumption and the theory of
oral transmission, and has treated Zech 1–8 as an essentially written
composition. In these respects her analysis is consistent with the implica-
tions of the research we have reviewed. However, as noted above, she
has not reckoned sufficiently with the fact that literary prophecy is
rewritten, not just written. If this oversight were corrected, much of her
analysis would still be cogent. This implies that although literary proph-
ecy bears the marks of its rewritten character, showing that it is based at
least to some extent on previously transcribed records of prophecy, it
may not be possible to distinguish the original records from their
subsequent reinterpretation. This is because the original records could
have been, in effect, recomposed in the process of being reinterpreted. If
so, the kind of analysis done by Beuken, sorting out various stages of
development in the text of Zech 4:1–14, is called into question. In the
case of Zech 4:1–14, however, the textual “seams” are so obvious that, if
they are not due to the kind of incremental addition and rearrangement
presupposed by Beuken, they still require an explanation of some sort. 41
Mason’s work interestingly anticipated recent research in supposing
that the form finally taken by the written text is related rather than
opposed to the spoken word. The foregoing review of this research also
implies a connection between the formation of the text and preaching,
but it is the opposite of the one proposed by Mason. He envisions preach-
ing as the reinterpretive activity that turned written prophecy into literary
prophecy. Scribes presumably heard what preachers were doing with
written prophecy and then rewrote the text in keeping with what they had
heard. This is perhaps a plausible scenario, but the scenario suggested
above instead imagines that scribes rewrote written prophecy, turning it
into literary prophecy, to provide preachers with the kind of text that
would lend itself to similar reinterpretation in sermons. Is oral preaching
the impetus for the transformation of written into literary prophecy, or is
oral preaching made possible by this otherwise purely literary trans-
formation?
In his leaning toward the former of these two alternatives, I suspect
that Mason is influenced by a Romantic prejudice against literati.
The suggestion that…[traditional] material is the result not only of a
purely literary activity but springs from and reflects the living process of
‘preaching the tradition’ surely does bring it to life and show something
of its importance in the faith and life of a living community. It is all too
41. I have argued that the vision report serves to reinterpret the oracles rather
than vice versa (Michael H. Floyd, Minor Prophets: Part 2 [FOTL 22; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2000], 384–85), but there could perhaps be other explanations.
1
easy for academic biblical scholars, using the techniques of literary criti-
cism, to present the development of the biblical in purely literary terms.
It is almost as though we discern our counterparts sitting at some oil-lit
desk in an ancient prototype of the Bodleian Library engaged in a purely
intellectual exercise of up-dating the text…42
In other words, scribes are drudges. Wellhausen and Gunkel would

surely approve of such sentiments, and they still run deep among their
heirs. However, ancient literati should not be assumed to have excluded
themselves from “the faith and life of a living community” just because
many modern literati have.43 Elsewhere I have suggested that the kind of
allusions to which Mason himself has so suggestively called attention, in
which one prophetic text creatively echoes another, 44 are literary connec-
tions that emerge from the close and studious reading of texts rather than
aural connections that emerge from hearing them read.45 Thus I lean
toward the second of the alternatives posed above, but even if I am
correct this is not necessarily a conclusive argument. These alternatives
may not be mutually exclusive.46
We can draw several provisional conclusions from this case-study in
the traditio-historical criticism of prophetic books. First, the kind of
tradition that figures in the production of prophetic books is more scribal
and elite than oral and popular. Prophetic speech was soon written down
by scribes, transmitted by scribes, and finally rewritten by scribes in
order to create the documents that now comprise the prophetic corpus.
Second, the ideological diversity that is evident within the prophetic
corpus, and within the canon as a whole, is largely the construct of one
group of literati rather than a dialogical give-and-take among various
“schools” of thought. In pre-exilic times mantic scribal activity was
probably dispersed among various groups in various places, but in the
post-exilic period it came to be concentrated in just one small group in
Jerusalem. They inherited the pre-exilic diversity and reinterpreted it
42. Mason, Preaching the Tradition, 261.

43. As a form critic, I certainly count myself among the heirs of Wellhausen and
Gunkel, and I consider the Romantic critique of Enlightenment rationalism still
necessary. But on this point Wellhausen and Gunkel need correction. See Floyd,
“‘Write the revelation!,’” 130–41.
44. For example, the allusions to Isa 40:4 and Jer 51:24–26 that he finds in Zech
4:6bβ–10 (see p. 215 above).
45. Michael H. Floyd, “Deutero-Zechariah and Types of Intertextuality,” in
Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14 (ed. Mark J.
Boda and Michael H. Floyd; JSOTSup 370; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2003), 242–44.
1
46. Ben Zvi, “Introduction,” 16–24.
within the limits imposed by Persian hegemony. Third, many of the tex-
tual “seams” previously discerned on source- and form-critical grounds,
which have been taken as evidence for a traditio-historical distinction
between the original speeches of prophets and subsequent stages of
literary redaction, can instead be explained in terms of the rhetoric of
prophetic speech or the purely literary compositional technique of pro-
phetic reinterpretation.47 This does not mean that prophetic books were
not originally rooted in prophetic speech, or that reinterpretation could
not have taken place in stages, but it makes the reconstruction of original
prophetic speech and subsequent redaction a doubtful enterprise. Fourth,
although Zechariah and other post-exilic prophets worked in close
association with the mantic scribal production of books named for earlier
prophets, this does not seem to have substantially altered the process
with respect to the books named for them. A book based on the oracles
of a post-exilic prophet is no less a rewrite than a book based on the
oracles of an earlier prophet, although the reinterpretive process may
have been considerably telescoped in the former case.
The new turns recently taken by the traditio-historical study of pro-
phetic literature now need to be folded back into the discussion of the
tradition history of Zech 1–8, which has been so fruitfully advanced by
the scholars reviewed in this case-study. It will be interesting to see what
new directions the study of Zech 1–8 will then take, and what difference
this will make for our understanding of specific prophecies like Zech
4:1–14.
47. Is this perhaps another instance of John Barton’s “disappearing redactor”

(Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study [rev. ed.; Louisville, Ky.:
Westminster John Knox, 1996], 56–58)?
1
SIN AND ATONEMENT IN ZECHARIAH’S NIGHT VISIONS
Holger Delkurt
As is indicated by the headline of the first vision (Zech 1:7), Zechariah

received his night visions on “the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh
month in the second year of Darius,” which is February 15, 519 B.C.E. in
our calendar. Due to the military victories of the Persian Cyrus over the
Babylonians, the Exile had ended approximately twenty years earlier.
The return to Judah was a time of great expectations and hopes to recreate
life as it was back before the exile. But, as the book of Haggai discloses,
progress was slow. There was starvation among the population, and com-
pletion of the temple was severely postponed. The transition from Second
to Third Isaiah makes clear that the expectations of a salutary turn of
events, which had inspired the generation of those exiled, remained
unfulfilled several decades after the return to the Promised Land. Was
Yahweh still punishing Israel for its offenses which had led to the defeat
by the Babylonians, the destruction of the temple, and the deportation of
the elite? Especially the lamentation in Zech 1:12 shows that the Israelites
were longing desperately for the beginning of their salvation: “Yahweh
Sabaoth, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and from the
towns of Judah, with which you have been angry these seventy years?”
The question of the guilt of Israel and the forgiveness of Yahweh is
found throughout Zechariah’s cycle of visions. Two of the original seven
approach this question explicitly, namely the fifth (5:1–4) and sixth (5:5–
11) visions,1 but it is already pressing in the first vision (1:7–17) and
implicit in all the others. My thesis is that Zechariah is here alluding to
his prophetic predecessors who had announced to the people the coming
of judgment and explained its coming as the result of certain offenses in
the past. These allusions are rarely visible at first sight; only the know-
ledge of their antecedents helps to identify them. The night visions
include several images that are not comprehensible on their own. An
1. The later-added vision 3:1–7 also explicitly tackles the question of sin and
atonement, but from an angle different from the two older texts. Because of space
limitations Zech 3 cannot be discussed in the present study.
1
examination of the vocabulary suggests that Zechariah takes specific and

often easily identifiable terms from his predecessors and fits them into
the imagery of the visions.
1. Zechariah 5:1–4
The fifth vision is divided into two parts. In the first (vv. 1–2), Zechariah
sees a flying scroll. In the second (vv. 3–4), Zechariah gets an interpre-
tive explanation of the observed phenomena: not too long from now all
those who stole things as well as those who swore falsely will meet their
punishment, and this punishment will be effected by a curse which
Zechariah equates with the image of the scroll that he saw in the first part
of the vision. The text of the vision poses some riddles when seen on
only a superficial level. How are scroll, curse, theft and false oath related
to each other?
Zechariah first tells what he sees. The center of attention is a flying
scroll. Even though a scroll itself belongs to the realm of general expe-
rience, the “flying” of the scroll leaves this realm. Responding to the
question of the angelic messenger, Zechariah reports the measurements
of the scroll: it is twenty cubits wide and ten cubits long. 2 These are
unusual dimensions for a scroll.3 Also, the ratio of two to one is extra-
ordinary and shows that this is not a scroll taken from standard expe-
rience. How does Zechariah know the length and width? Because the
scroll is in full flight he cannot possibly measure it, and no one would
expect that he could possibly guess the exact dimensions of a moving
object.4 Since it would be impossible for Zechariah actually to observe
the scroll so closely, this information could only have come from the
angelic interpreter.
The image of the flying scroll is mysterious. Many exegetes are of the
opinion that the scroll is not in itself the key to a better understanding of
the vision.5 According to this point of view, the symbol of the scroll is so
2. This equals about 10m wide and 5m long in today’s measurement (G. Schmitt,
“Maße,” BRL2, 204).
3. Not so much the length (the Qumran Isaiah scroll, for example, is 7.34m long)
but the width is unusual; see Ernst Würthwein, Der Text des Alten Testaments (4th
ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1973), 10.
4. Mitchell probably differs when he writes: “It was open—for in v. 2 the
prophet gives, not only its width, but its length—presenting as it passed through the
air, the appearance of a great sheet of leather” (Hinckley G. T. Mitchell, J. M. Powis
Smith, and Julius A. Bewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai,
Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912], 168).
5. Robert Hanhart, Sacharja (BKAT 14/7; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener,
1998), 337.
1
DELKURT Sin and Atonement in Zechariah’s Night Visions 237
common that its capacity to connote something specific to the audience

cannot be taken for granted. But is this really the case? The term hlgm
(“scroll”) is found twenty-one times, twenty of which are in prophetic
books.6 Apart from the occurrences in Zech 5:1–2, it can be found
fourteen times in Jer 36 and four times in Ezek 2:9–3:3.
In Jer 367 Yahweh gives the prophet the task of writing on a scroll
what he has thus far proclaimed (v. 2). Jeremiah dictates the words to his
deputy Baruch (v. 4) and orders him to present them to the people on the
next day of fasting (vv. 5–8). Baruch carries out the order and reads the
words of Jeremiah to the people in the forecourt of the temple (vv. 9–10).
The second reading in front of the scared officials (vv. 11–20) is followed
by the third one in front of King Jehoiakim who then orders the scroll to
be burned (vv. 21–26).8 On the order of Yahweh Jeremiah creates another
scroll, again dictates the words to Baruch, and adds new words to the old
ones (vv. 27–32).
The contents of the scroll are not mentioned. It is remarkable that a
story which covers the proclamation of Jeremiah in such detail does not
mention the contents anywhere.9 However, the reaction of those who hear
the words, the scared officials, and King Jehoiakim’s order to destroy the
scroll (vv. 23–26) all lead to one conclusion: the scroll contained an
6. The one non-prophetic reference can be found in Ps 4:8. It is unclear what the
scroll represents in this case.
7. This chapter shows little editorial revision. The primary tale is part of the so-
called “biography by Baruch” (third-person reports that consistentently tell of the
sufferings of Jeremiah): vv. 1, 2*, 4–6, 8–28, and 32 (Axel Graupner, Auftrag und
Geschick des Propheten Jeremia: Literarische Eigenart, Herkunft und Intention
vordeuteronomistischer Prosa im Jeremiabuch [BThSt 15; Neukirchen–Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1991], 102–7). Verses 3, 7, and 31 are surely Deuteronomistic addi-
tions (cf. Winfried Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45
[WMANT 52; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981], 49–50; Graupner, Auftrag
und Geschick, 102–7) Other editorial revisions that are not Deuteronomistic include
v. 2* and vv. 29–30 (ibid.). Have they been handed down by followers of Jeremiah,
as Winfried Thiel states (“ ‘Vom Norden her wird das Unheil eröffnet’. Zu Jeremia
1,11–16,” in Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 65.
Geburtstag [ed. Volkmar Fritz, Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, and Hans-Christoph
Schmitt; BZAW 185; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989], 243–44)?
8. Is Jehoiakim trying to undo the word of God by destroying the scroll, so that
his deed is “an action of magical significance,” as Susan Niditch states (The Symbolic
Vision in Biblical Tradition [HSM 30; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983], 84)? It is
more likely that the king wants to stop the public spread and proclamation of the
message—a motivation that is consistent with his officials’ ordering Baruch to go
into hiding together with Jeremiah (v. 19).
1
9. Graupner, Auftrag und Geschick, 107.
announcement of disaster against the people. 10 The disaster has already

been decided by God and, as is shown by the re-creation of the scroll,
cannot be averted by human actions.
Zechariah’s use of the term hlgm lets the scholarly reader or listener
think directly of the story of Jer 36, with which there are several similari-
ties. The scroll stands for upcoming disaster, and it is a symbol for the
punishing act of God. In both texts the scroll contains announcements
of punishment which originate from Yahweh. The exact wording of the
scroll is not told either in Jer 36 or in Zech 5, and it is not exactly recon-
structable. However, this is not necessary for the understanding of both
texts. The only important fact is that in each text the scroll is the expres-
sion of the upcoming disaster. Therefore it can be assumed that the
receivers of Zechariah’s fifth vision, given the background of Jer 36,
would already expect a punishing act of God on the basis of the image of
the scroll itself, even before hearing the interpretive explanation that
follows.
The second prophetic text in which the term hlgm appears is Ezek 2:9–
3:3. In a vision Ezekiel describes a scroll on which a message of “wail-
ing, sighing, and pain” is written (2:10). Therefore it obviously contains
a message of punishment just like Jeremiah’s scroll. This singular
similarity between Ezekiel and Jeremiah, which antedates Zechariah,
leads to the conclusion that Ezekiel has taken the motif of the disaster-
bringing scroll from Jer 36.11 Following the presentation of the scroll, the
prophet is given the order by Yahweh to eat it in order fully to absorb
God’s words. Afterwards he is to proclaim them in front of the people
(3:1–3).
There are also similarities between Ezekiel’s vision and Zech 5:1–2.
In both cases the scroll is found in the framework of a vision. Similarly,
the experience of the vision begins with hnhw h)r)w (“and I saw, and
10. Only the second scroll seems to contain the words against King Jehoiakim
himself, but see (though probably not original) vv. 29–31. “Since the scroll seems to
have contained only threats, oracles of salvation must be excluded, as must stories
about Jeremiah in the third person and, of course, all later redactional sayings”
(Werner H. Schmidt, Old Testament Introduction [2d ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter; New
York: Westminster John Knox, 1999], 233).
11. The dependence of Ezekiel’s vision on Jer 36 is also carefully acknowledged
by Walther Zimmerli: “No one can prove anything here; however, one cannot
suppress the mentioning of these associations to better understand certain charac-
teristics of Ezekiel’s imagination” (Ezechiel [2d ed.; BKAT 13; Neukirchen–Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1979], 79 [author’s translation]). Since Jer 36:9 states that the
proclamation happened around the turn of 603/2, Ezekiel—especially as a priest—
could have been a witness of the event.
1
behold…”; Ezek 2:9 and Zech 5:1). As in Jer 36, the effect of Ezekiel’s
scroll is mentioned but not its content, which leads to the conclusion
that it contains a message of disaster.12 Therefore the scroll itself—as
in Jeremiah and later in Zechariah—is synonymous with a message of
disaster.
With the image of the scroll Zechariah follows the tradition of his
prophetic predecessors, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, especially with regard to
the scroll’s symbolic prediction of a punishing act by God. It neither
connotes “temple libraries”13 and the law scrolls to be found there, nor
the reorganization of the temple-cult and the growing importance of the
priesthood in enforcing the law. 14 The image has more of a prophetic
than a priestly background. Starting with v. 3, the explanation of what
the scroll stands for begins. It is the curse which is to come down on the
whole earth. The curse affects thieves and those who swear falsely. The
act of theft, described here as bng, involves—just as it does anywhere else
in the Old Testament when no object follows—the illegal possession of
property belonging to another person. 15
“To swear falsely” (rq#l (b#)16 is, on the one hand, antisocial beha-
vior on the part of the oath-taker.17 On the other hand, since the name of
God is called upon, a false oath is also a desecration of the name. 18 Even
though the mentioned offenses are quite formal and are of legal char-
acter, it is probable that Zechariah is influenced by his prophetic pre-
decessors. A connection between theft and swearing falsely can be found
in Jer 7:9 and Lev 19:11–12.19 Jeremiah asks accusingly about “stealing,
murdering, committing adultery, swearing falsely, offering sacrifices
12. Ibid., 77.

13. Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25B; Garden City, N.Y.:
14. “The temple context provided by the peculiar dimensions of the scroll…
reflects the reorganization of the administration of social justice in the absence of
monarchic authority. The priesthood was inexorable in carrying out the stipulations
recorded in the Law… The association in this vision of the <ûlām or temple forecourt
area with the flying scroll would represent the revival of the priestly role in the
administration of justice” (ibid., 279–80).
15. Werner H. Schmidt, Holger Delkurt, and Axel Graupner, Die Zehn Gebote im
Rahmen alttestamentlicher Ethik (EdF 281; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch-
gesellschaft, 1993), 122–24.
16. Apart from 5:4, see also Jer 7:9; Lev 5:(22), 24; 19:12; and Mal 3:5.
17. Ingo Kottsieper, “(b#,” ThWAT 7:985.
18. Schmidt, Delkurt, and Graupner, Die Zehn Gebote, 80–85.
19. E.g. Dominic Rudman (“Zechariah 5 and the Priestly Law,” SJOT 14 [2000]:
199) suspects that Zech 5:1–4 alludes to Lev 19:11–12.
1
to Baal, and walking after other gods that you have not known…”20
Jeremiah 7:9 echoes Hos 4:2 where the prophetic complaint alleges evi-
dence of guilt with regard to similar offenses: “There is swearing, decep-
tion, murder, stealing and adultery.”
The three offenses last mentioned are the things prohibited, word for
word, in the sixth to eighth commandments of the Decalogue. 21 Whereas
the offense of “deception” (#xk) is similar to the ninth commandment
and is—at least technically—an expansion of that commandment, “to
swear” (hl)) has similarities with the third commandment, if the misuse
of God’s name is at the center of attention. In this way, even in the early
stages of written prophecies, commandments could be assembled and
connected freely. Jeremiah 7:9 also contains a short list of the sixth to
eighth commandments. It differs, however, in describing “false oath”
(rq#l (b#) as the offense parallel to “swearing” (hl)) and “deception”
(#xk) in Hos 4:2. Both lists have one thing in common: they do not
prohibit specific behavior by saying “thou shalt not,” but rather justify
the upcoming punishment by God with reference to numerous offenses
committed by the addressees in the past, which they can relate to as just
reasons for their punishment. In both cases the prophets have chosen
offenses that they consider grave.
In contrast, Lev 19:11–35 lists prohibitions which the addressees are
expected to follow at all cost, and to which they are personally obligated
to adhere in the present as well as the future: “You shall not steal; you
shall not deceive and lie to one another; you shall not take a false oath in
my name; and you shall not profane the name of your God. I am Yahweh”
(Lev 19:11–12). Leviticus 19:11–12 is probably to be dated later than Jer
7:9,22 and most likely takes the prophetic text into account as well. 23
20. The italicized accusation of praising alien gods is most likely to be credited
to the Deuteronomistic editor of the book of Jeremiah; see Winfried Thiel, Die
deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (WMANT 52; Neukirchen–Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1973), 111; also Jörg Jeremias, “Der Begriff ‘Baal’ im Hoseabuch
und seine Wirkungsgeschichte,” in Hosea und Amos: Studien zu den Anfängen des
Dodekapropheton (FAT 13; Tübingen: Mohr, 1996), 98–99.
21. Especially the seldom-used verb for killing, xcr, makes clear that this
parallel is not incidental (Schmidt, Delkurt, and Graupner, Die Zehn Gebote, 107–
13). Does Hosea take these three commandments as a precondition? This would
explain why the prophet can confront his listeners with certain offenses and can
make their guilt clear to them. Thus those three offenses should have been around as
a short series even before the final version of the Decalogue (ibid., 27–28).
22. For the setting of Lev 19 in the post-exilic period, see Klaus Grünwaldt, Das
Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26: Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie
(BZAW 271; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 379–81; Mark J. Boda (Haggai/Zechariah
[New International Version Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1
All investigations lead to the fact that Zech 5:3–4 refers to Jer 7:9 and
not to a text of law from the Pentateuch. Theft and swearing falsely are
in close connection to the disaster. In Jer 7:9 these offenses—among
others—serve as a justification for the upcoming judgment (v. 14*), and
in Zech 5:3–4—in connection with the vision cycle—as justification for
the seventy years of disaster having not yet ended (Zech 1:12) and the
expected bliss having not begun.
Zechariah does not accuse anyone of violating the “old law of God.” 24
The connection to the Decalogue is not a direct one,25 but is made through
Jer 7:9 where only a pre-traditional version of the Decalogue and not the
Decalogue itself has been taken into account. 26 As seen in Hos 4:2 and
Jer 7:9, in Zech 5:3–4 one can list offenses which are directed against
God or fellow humans or both.
In Zechariah’s penultimate vision sin is named explicitly, too. He first
sees an ephah, which the angelus interpres explains as the “guilt (Nw()27
of all on earth.” A leaden lid is taken from the ephah and a woman can
be seen, whom the angelic interpreter describes as “wickedness” (h(#r).
Because the ephah is equated with “guilt,” it is connected with something
negative. Could Zechariah, in a clear sense, equate the ephah with “guilt”
2004], 295) also acknowledges an allusion to Jer 7:9 (see n. 29) but sees Lev 19 as
reference for Zech 5:3–4.
23. Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, 232–34; in detail see Holger Delkurt,
“Eine Zusammenfassung des Dekalogs in Sach 5,3?,” in Recht und Ethos im Alten
Testament—Gestalt und Wirkung: Festschrift für Horst Seebass (ed. Stefan Beyerle,
Günter Mayer, and Hans Strauss; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999), 201–3.
24. E.g. Christian Jeremias, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja: Untersuchungen zu
ihrer Stellung im Zusammenfassung der Visionsberichte im Alten Testament und zu
ihrem Bildmaterial (FRLANT 47; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977),
190–91. The prohibition of theft can already be found in the old môt–yûmat series
(Exod 21:12, 15–17) in a non-theological context. Only in the final edition of the
Decalogue—not in the time before the exile—does the prohibition get put into a
theological context by the divine “I” of the prologue as well as by the first and sec-
ond commandments. Nor can the prohibition of false oath be considered as “divine
law.”
25. E.g. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 248–49: “Zechariah, like
Jeremiah (chap 7) and Hosea (chap 4) before him, is citing the Decalogue.”
26. See specifically Delkurt, “Eine Zusammenfassung des Dekalogs.”
27. MT MnFy(' is to be changed with LXX and S to MnF$w(j. For specific justification,
see Holger Delkurt, Sacharjas Nachtgesichte: Zur Aufnahme und Abwandlung
prophetischer Traditionen (BZAW 302; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 246–47 n. 3.
1
if he were not hinting at some kind of culpable behavior connected with

this unit of measure?
In twenty-two of the thirty references to “ephah” (apart from the five
in Zech 5:5–11) the term is used as a general measure of capacity for
grain of all sorts. One ephah amounts to approximately twenty liters. 28 A
general understanding of an ephah as a container is not suggested by any
of the references.29 A striking fact, however, is that the other eight refer-
ences are all concerned with the problem of the right versus the deceitful
ephah.30 The accumulation of such references in several kinds of literature
leads to the conclusion that fraud by manipulation of the ephah-measure
was a serious problem. The supposedly oldest example is Prov 20:10:
“Two kinds of weight-stones and two kinds of ephah-measures—both
are an abomination to Yahweh.” This proverb is one of four that treat
wrong measurement as an “abomination to Yahweh.” 31 The numerous
instances of calling upon the name of Yahweh in connection with this
kind of fraud also lead to the conclusion that it was severe. 32 The point of
these proverbs is taken into the works of the prophets in Amos 8:5 33 and
Mic 6:10–11, both of which are announcements of judgment:
[Hear this…,] you who say: “When will the new moon be over, that we
may sell grain? And the sabbath, that we may offer wheat for sale, that
we may make the ephah small and the shekel great, and deal deceitfully
with false balances.” (Amos 8:5)
28. Schmitt, “Maße,” 205.

29. E.g., Peter C. Craigie, Twelve Prophets (Daily Study Bible—Old Testament;
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 2:138. The interpretation of the ephah as a temple
(Shlomo Marenof, “Note Concerning the Meaning of the Word ‘Ephah,’ Zechariah
5:5–11,” AJSL [1931–32]: 264–67) does not make any sense.
30. Lev 19:36; Deut 25:14, 15; Ezek 45:10, 11; Amos 8:5; Mic 6:10; and Prov
20:10. There is no proof in these texts for the statement of Margaret Barker (“The
Evil in Zechariah,” HeyJ 19 [1978]: 25): “The symbol of the new cult was not the
Ark but the ephah, the symbol of trade and commerce.”
31. Apart from Prov 20:10, see also 11:1; 16:11; and 20:23. Regarding the
expression, see Alexander B. Ernst, Weisheitlilche Kultkritik: Zu Theologie des
Sprüchbuchs und der Prophetie des 8. Jahrhunderts (BThSt 23; Neukirchen–Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1994), 60–68.
32. These are not just some unimportant allusions to proverbs. Proverbs’
recognition of the reprehensibility of tampering with measures as an “atrocity to
Yahweh” provides the context assumed by the (books of the) prophets in accusing
the people of this offense.
33. Also Barry G. Webb (The Message of Zechariah: Your Kingdom Come [The
Bible Speaks Today; Leicester: InterVarsity, 2003], 100–101) is referring to Amos
8:5–6.
1
Can I forget34 the deceitful bath35—treasures of wickedness—and the

scant ephah that is accursed? Shall I acquit [the person] with wicked
scales and with a bag of deceitful weights? (Mic 6:10–11)
It is not certain that either of the prophecies of punishment containing

Amos 8:5 or Mic 6:10–11 come from the prophet himself. Doubts occur,
not because of the contents of either passage, but for linguistic reasons. 36
In any case, however, both have to be dated before the beginning of the
exile so that they were known by Zechariah.
In both cases the specific charge of a reduction of the ephah is found
in the context of an accusation within a prophecy of punishment. It is
used as a justification of the upcoming penalty imposed by Yahweh
(Amos 8:7; Mic 6:13–15) and is part of the varied social critique of both
prophetic books. Amos 8:5 criticizes, apart from the manipulation of the
ephah, the changing of the scale (Mynz)m) and of the shekel (lq#) which
is used to weigh (precious) metals. Only the term ephah is the same in
Amos 8:5 and Zech 5:5–11. In Mic 6:10–11, apart from the ephah, there
are references to the bath, scale (Mynz)m), and weight-stones (Mynb)).
Strikingly, in all three cases37 the deceitful change of measurement is
characterized with the term (#r (“wickedness”). Thus there are three
conceptual similarities between Mic 6:10–11 and Zech 5:5–11: the ephah
and weight-stones as well as the term “wickedness” ([h](#r). These
terminological likenesses, as well as the connection between ephah and
culpable offense, puts Zechariah in line with his predecessors. Therefore
the keyword “ephah,” especially in connection with “guilt” (Nw() and
“wickedness” (h(#r), should hint at the justification of the upcoming
disaster for readers or listeners of Zechariah, just as it does for readers or
listeners of Amos and Micah.38
However, the ephah is identified with guilt not only by the use of (#r,
as one could guess from Mic 6:10–11, but also by the use of Nw(. This
term is found 230 times in the Old Testament, much more often than
34. See BHS apparatus.

35. See BHS apparatus.
36. In Amos 8:4–7 scholars of Amos probably take up and extend Amos 2:6–7
(see Hans W. Wolff, Amos [3d ed.; BKAT 14/2; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener,
1985], 374). Less powerful are arguments against the originality of Mic 6:9–15*. It
clearly belongs to the series of “accusations of Micah against social, economic, and
legal suppression of the poorer classes by the rich, especially by big landowners
from Jerusalem,” while the edited version complains about “specific theological
[offenses] directed against Yahweh” (Jörg Jeremias, “Die Deutung der Gerichts-
worte Michas in der Exilszeit,” ZAW 83 [1971]: 349–50 [author’s translation]).
37. One of them is a gloss.
1
38. Boda, Haggai/Zechariah, 303 n. 2.
either (#r (thirty times) or the synonymous feminine form h(#r (fifteen
times).39 It usually refers to human guilt40 and, as has been shown several
times, has a broad range of meaning. 41 The word Nw( describes the guilt
that is incurred by offenses against law or commandments (Hos 7:1; Isa
1:4, etc.), or by the failure to reach a certain goal (Jer 11:10, etc.). It
always calls attention to the guilty deed, and only to a smaller extent to
the mentality of guilt. There is no sharp distinction between guilt towards
other humans or God since any behavior toward fellow humans is beha-
vior toward God, too. The connection between Nw( and punishment is
pretty close. Punishment is not an action which happens later, but a
direct impact of the deed (Prov 5:22, etc.). Therefore guilt bears heavily
on the shoulders of humankind (Isa 1:4, etc.) and can express itself as an
illness which leads to rack and ruin (Isa 1:6, etc.).
The context also suggests another reason for the choice of the term Nw(
(instead of a form of (#r): this makes possible the use of the widely
attested expression “to bear guilt” (Nw([b? )#n), while the expression
h(#r/(#r )#n is not found.42 The phrase Nw(=b?)#n is found thirty-five
times in the Old Testament, eighteen times in the texts of the Priestly
source (including the Holiness Code) and nine times in Ezekiel; 43 and in
the books of the prophets it is found twice in Hosea and once in Micah
and Isaiah.44 The usage in Ezekiel and the Priestly source differs char-
acteristically from the other references. Here one has to “bear” the guilt
one has brought upon himself—which means taking it upon oneself 45—
in which case the responsibility for the guilt has to be acknowledged as
well.46 The other references mostly use the term to mean “forgive guilt,”
39. The derivative of the root (#r that is found most often is the noun (#$frF
(“wickedness”), which occurs more than 260 times.
40. The term t)+x occurs about as frequently as (#r, but much more often in its
plural form. “t)+x is probably the lone deed, the explicit sin, which, when accumu-
lated, lead to Nw( as an enduring consequence” (Klaus Koch, “Nw(,” ThWAT 5: 1167).
41. See especially Rolf Knierim, Die Hauptbegriffe für Sünde im Alten
Testament (Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 1965).
42. However, the phrases t)+x )#n and (#p )#n are also found.
43. Ezek 4:4, 5, 6; 14:10; 18:19, 20 (×2); and 44:10, 12.
44. In prophetic books: Hos 14:3; Mic 7:18; Isa 33:24; additionally Exod 34:7;
Num 14:18; Pss 32:5; 85:3. Sometimes the expression occurs elliptically without the
object Nw(, as in Gen 18:24, 26 and Isa 2:9.
45. See also Bernd Janowski, Stellvertretung: Alttestamentliche Studien zu einem
theologischen Grundbegriff (SBS 165; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk,
1997), 35–39.
46. Knierim, Hauptbegriffe, 219–22; David N. Freedman, B. E. Willoughby,
and Heinz-Josef Fabry, “)#n,” ThWAT 5:626–43 (633–37); Koch, “Nw(,” 1160–177
(1171,1173–175).
1
in which case the subject is God. He forgives the guilt by “carrying it

away.”47
In Zech 5:9 the expression hpy)h t) )#n is used for the carrying away
of guilt from Judah. If the ephah can be equated with “guilt,” then in this
case hpy) can be substituted for Nw( so that the idea of Nw( )#n is pre-
sented.48 With this Zechariah takes up a classical topic from the area of
forgiveness of sins and presents it in a new way. Here the concept of
“abolishing guilt” is incorporated into a new image and impressively
illustrated. Which of the two ways of interpreting Nw( )#n does Zechariah
express with his image? Hardly the priestly one since in this case no
responsibility is borne for deeds done. It is rather the abolishment of guilt
in the sense that one finds in the non-priestly texts. Especially close to
the idea of Zechariah is a late text from the book of Micah:
Who is a God like you, who takes up/pardons iniquity (Nw( )#n) and
passes over the rebellious act ((#p) of the remnant of his possession? He
does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in unchanging love.
He will again have compassion on us; he will tread our iniquities (Nw()
under foot. Yes, you will cast all our49 sins (t)+x) into the depths of the
sea. (Mic 7:18–19)
This hymnic passage describes the forgiveness of sins with the tradi-
tional expression Nw( )#n as well as (#p-l( rb(. The forgiveness is for
the “remnant,” the Israel which survived the exile. Had the judgment
in 2 Kgs 21:14 been announced to the “remnant of his possession,” then
the repeal of the punishment was nothing less than a recall of the total
verdict and by this a renewal of the existence of life. 50 The salutary word
Mic 7:18–19 is not contrary to Micah’s message, but announces salva-
tion after the disaster for all those who have suffered and survived the
judgment. Here the process of forgiveness of sins is presented spatially-
visually. The offenses (t)+x) are taken away from the environment of
the Israelites and are sunk into the depths of the sea 51 where they shall be
buried for all time.52 The executor is Yahweh himself. This imagery
47. Freedman, Willoughby, and Fabry, “)#n,” 637–40.

48. Also Floyd, “The Evil in the Ephah,” 65.
49. Change following BHS.
50. Hans W. Wolff, Micha (BKAT 14/4; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener,
1982), 205.
51. Here the term Kl# (Hiphil) is used, as well as in Zech 5:8 where an escape of
the woman out of the ephah is to be prevented.
52. Is this an allusion to Exod 15:4–5 where the Egyptian army is drowned in
“the depths of the ocean” as they pursue the Israelites (Wolff, Micha, 207; James L.
1
shows that “guilt” is not just something spiritual—no judgment of

values—but can rather be seen as something like a solid substance 53
In Zechariah’s vision the guilt is not sunk into the sea but brought to
the land of Shinar, which stands for Babylon. The term “Shinar” is found
a total of eight times in the Old Testament, 54 whereas the usual term
“Babel” can be found approximately three hundred times. While “Babel”
is found nearly exclusively in relation to the conquest of Judah by the
Babylonians and the following exile, the historical background for the
Shinar references can only be recognized in Dan 1:2.55 The name “Shinar”
is hardly used as a contemporary reference to the Babel of the present,
but more likely refers to the Babel of long ago.
In Zechariah, “Babel” is found two times, but not in the visions. In
2:11, the exiles remaining in Babylon are ordered to return to Judah,
while 6:10 mentions several leaders who have returned from Babylon.
Thus Zechariah uses “Babel” for events in relation to contemporary
history, which makes the use of the archaic “Shinar” in 5:11 even more
striking. Does this not suggest that the Babylon of contemporary history
is not the one referred to in 5:11, but that another Babylon is meant? At
the time of Zechariah’s proclamations Babylon was not an actual threat
to Judah since it had been defeated by the Persian king Cyrus. An act of
“revenge” is no longer required; God himself has already “avenged” his
people.56 Thus in this case it is unlikely that the sin shall be brought to
Babylon. When the ultimate eradication of sin is in view, it would be sur-
prising if it were only brought to a land so near to Israel. Could it not
then return to Judah in no time? A greater distance would more likely be
expected.
If, as this conclusion suggests, “Shinar” describes the empire of pri-
meval times, which is remembered especially because of its arrogance
Mays, Micah [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], 167–68 and passim), or is

this to be understood more generally as a place to which no one has access (cf. Amos
9:3)?
53. Klaus Koch, “Sühne und Sühnevergebung um die Wende von der exilischen
zur nachexilischen Zeit,” in Spuren des hebräischen Denkens: Beiträge zur
alttestamentlichen Theologie (ed. Bernd Janowski and Martin Krause; Neukirchen–
Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991), 224; idem, “Nw(,” 1164.
54. Apart from Zech 5:11, it appears also in Gen 10:10; 11:2; 14:1, 9; Josh 7:21;
Isa 11:11; and Dan 1:2.
55. While Babel is mentioned 16 times in the Aramaic part of Daniel and once in
the introduction (1:1), Shinar is found only in 1:2. Christian Uehlinger (“Die Frau im
Efa [Sach 5,5–11]. Eine Programmvision von der Abschiebung der Göttin,” BK 49
[1994]) calls this usage here an ancient scholarly variation on the country Babylon.
1
56. See Isa 47 and Jer 51 et al.
towards God, then another interpretation lies at hand. Sin is being taken
to a land which stands for arrogant and sinful behavior in earliest times.
Thus a connection is established to the time which marks the beginnings
of Israel in the Pentateuch. By referring to primeval times, sin is banished
from the present history of Israel and brought to a far, lost realm from
where it can never return and where it belongs. 57 In this respect the inten-
tion of Zech 5:11 is especially close to Mic 7:19 where humans are made
no longer susceptible to sin58 by sinking it into the depths of the sea and
thus making its return no longer seem possible. 59 The reference to the
“depths of the sea” has mythical connotations (cf. Amos 9:3), 60 in com-
parison with which the similar connotations of the land of Shinar become
apparent.
Interpretations which see this vision only in terms of expelling a Baby-
lonian goddess back to her country of origin, and which narrow the guilt
down to only an offense against the first commandment,61 are improba-
ble—as are interpretations based on an exclusively ritual background. It
is much more likely that the topic here is more extensive as well as
radical: the elimination of all guilt and its imprisonment in a safe place,
from where it cannot do harm anymore. With this, its power over not
only Jerusalem and Judah, but the rest of humankind as well, is broken.
The action of Yahweh is not limited to the arena of his own people.
57. As in Isa 11:11, the circle between the beginning and the end would now be
closed.
58. The verdict of Koch (“Sühne und Sündenvergebung,” 224) on Mic 7:18–19,
that sin is thrown into the sea because sin and sea are both powers in opposition to
God and therefore belong together, can be—given the interpretation above—applied
analogically to Shinar and sin in Zech 5:5–11.
59. Janowski (Stellvertretung, 34 –35) sees Zech 5:5–11 as reflecting “rites of
elimination”—as opposed to “rites of substitution”—a religious-scientific category
of ritual to which Mic 7:19 can be assigned as well. One peculiarity of these “rites of
elimination” is “the spatial removal of the…disaster back to the country from where
it originated ” (author’s translation).
60. A close parallel can be found in a Hittite text (KUB XXXIII 66 Vs II, Z. 3–
10): the disastrous elements are disposed of in a sea which is even beneath the realm
of the dead. However, Zech 5:5–11 exceeds this image since here the evil itself is
sunk.
61. For the various arguments, see Boda, Haggai/Zechariah, 304–8. For exam-
ple, Meyers and Meyers (Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 303) suspect that the topic is the
expulsion of Asherah because the name is anagrammatically suggested by h(#r.
According to Mitchell (Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 174), it is the goddess
Ishthar/Astarte that is taken out of the country—another name with a similar-
sounding consonantal cluster. For a detailed critique of such views, see Delkurt,
Sacharjas Nachtgesichte, 261–65.
1
The colors of the horses in the first vision are surprising. Not all of them
can be found in reality. The horses that are introduced in 1:8 have three
different colors. The horse of the man standing among the myrtles is red
(Md)), as well as some of the horses standing behind him; the other
horses are light red (qr#) and white (Nbl). The interpretation of the colors
has occupied the exegetes of the book of Zechariah very intensively.
Nevertheless this question has not found an answer that convinced all of
them.62 One often reads that the colors identified for the horses are the
normal range of colors found in nature. 63
Undoubtedly white and red are natural horse colors; but the second
color, qr#, is not used for horses or any other animals in the Old
Testament.
Zechariah does not write any unnecessary details; he only tells what is
really needed for the scene. It would be surprising if such detailed
description of the colors was by pure chance, particularly since horse
colors also play an important role in the last vision (6:1–8). So I will try
another explanation. Does Zechariah allude to some Old Testament
texts? In the first vision, the colors are named only in 1:8. In what subse-
quently happens they have no role to play. This supports the assumption
that Zechariah will rouse certain associations. Accordingly, it seems to
make sense to examine the tradition-history.
The way these three colors are used in texts of the Old Testament is
not very consistent. There is no standardized symbolism of colors, as
there is in the surrounding cultural context. The second color, “light red”
(qr#), occurs very infrequently. The identical form q$r#f& occurs only in
Isa 16:8 and is there used to describe a light-colored and choice type of
grapes.64 Also, the two occurrences of qr"#& (Isa 5:2; Jer 2:21), as well as
the one occurrence of hqfr"#& (Gen 49:11), are used for grapevines as
opposed to the fruit itself. Only Zech 1:8 uses a form of qr# for a color.
The two instances of qr"#& in Isa 5:2 and Jer 2:21 are metaphorical
references to the people of Israel. In both texts the prophets accuse Israel
of having sinned against Yahweh. So grapes and grapevines occur both
times in descriptions of guilt. Does Zech 1:8 speak of qr# to allude to the
62. A selection of proposals are listed in Delkurt, Sacharjas Nachtgesichte,

39–43.
63. E.g. Boda, Haggai/Zechariah, 194.
64. Athalya Brenner, Colour Terms in the Old Testament (JSOTSup 21; Shef-
field: JSOT Press, 1982), 114–15.
1
sins the Israelites committed in former times? As Zechariah chooses this

very seldom used word—referring to a color only here—instead of one
of the other existing terms for red or natural horse colors, this inter-
pretation seems to be very likely.
The use of Md) (“red”) is similarly infrequent and imprecise. 65 The
adjective Mdmd) (“reddish”) that is used to describe a form of leprosy is
derived from the same root.66 There is also the verb Md) (“to be red”)
which is mostly used to describe the red fleece of rams, 67 but can also
describe the color of wine (Prov 23:31 [Hithpael]), healthy skin (Lam
4:7), and warriors’ shields (Nah 2:4 Pual), as well as the color of crimson
that is equated with sin (Isa 1:18 [Hiphil]).
The occurrences of the adjective Nbl (“white”), most of which appear
in Lev 13 to describe leprosy (twenty times), give no clue for its meaning
in Zech 1:8. Nbl is also used in Gen 30:35 and 37 for the color of goats
and wooden rods, in Gen 49:12 for milk, in Exod 16:31 for coriander
seed, and in Qoh 9:8 for clothes. The verb Nbl is mostly used in a
different sense. Only in the later text of Joel 1:7 does it describe the color
of the branches of a vine after it is destroyed. In the other occurrences
(Isa 1:18; Ps 51:9; Dan 11:35 [Hiphil]; 12:10 [Hithpael]) it is used in a
figurative sense for the removal of sin. Since atonement is a subject
of the visions in 5:1–4 and 5:5–11 (as well as in 3:1–7), I will consider
whether the colors of the horses can be understood to have this conno-
tation. Both verbs, Md) (“to be red”) and Nbl (“to be white”) occur in Isa
1:18. The verse stands in the context of a judgment speech: “ ‘Come now,
and let us reason together,’ says Yahweh: ‘When your sins are as scarlet,
how shall they become as white (Nbl [Hiphil]) as snow? And when they
are red (Md) [Hiphil]) like crimson, how will they be (white as) wool?’”
Mentioning these colors in this context has an educational aim: Isaiah
wants to bring his contemporaries to an understanding with an example
from everyday life. The verdict comes from a lawsuit. The prophet fights
against the common opinion that sin can be wiped out with the radical
question: How can guilt vanish?!68
65. Except Zech 1:8 and 6:2. See Gen 25:30 (a meal of lentils); Num 19:2 (color
of cows); 2 Kgs 3:22 (color of the water when the sun rises = color of blood); Isa
63:2 (color of a garment after the pressing of wine = color of blood); Cant 5:10
(color of a person—perhaps with red hair; see Roland Gradwohl, Die Farben im
Alten Testament: Eine terminologische Studie [BZAW 83; Berlin: Töpelmann,
1963], 7).
66. Lev 13:19, 24, 42, 43, 49; and 14:7.
67. Exod 25:5; 26:14; 35:7, 23; 36:19; and 39:34 (Pual).
68. Werner H. Schmidt, Zukunftsgewißheit und Gegenwartskritik: Studien zur
Eigenart der Prophetie (2d ed.; BThSt 51; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2002),
1
What is the comparative point of this imagery? In this text “red” is

equated with sin and “white” with atonement. As the connection between
“red” and sin occurs only here, it is unlikely that this equation is com-
mon. The red of scarlet and crimson is colorfast and cannot be decolor-
ized.69 So Isaiah presumably means to say that since it is impossible to
decolorize things that were colored red with scarlet and crimson, it is
also impossible to make sins vanish. In later times the phrase “to make
white” could be equated with “to make atonement.” Probably taking up
Isa 1:18, the prayer of Ps 51:9 asks: “Purify me with hyssop, and I shall
be clean. Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” 70 The cleansing by
God will achieve a radical freeing from sins, so that the supplicant will
become “as white as snow.”71
Such color imagery can only be found in the thematic context of sin
and atonement. When Zechariah gives the horses in his first vision these
three colors, does he—alluding to Isa 1:18; 5:2, and Jer 2:21—want to
remind Israel of its guilt in the past? If the Old Testament is the point of
reference for the colors, this is the most probable derivation—and Isaiah’s
word clearly had an effect on Ps 51 and probably on the book of Daniel,
too.
Another possible allegorical interpretation is opened by the order of
the colors. The succession from dark red to light red and then to white
might suggest the act of atonement that Yahweh carries out after the
Babylonian exile with those who had gone through the judgment, a topic
which stands out as a central theme in Zech 5.
Why is the “man between the myrtles” sitting on a red horse? If the
colors are used for the stages of atonement, the emphatic position of
“red” could mean that Zechariah’s contemporaries are still living in the
44–45. Cf. Georg Sauer, “Die Umkehrforderung in der Verkündigung Jesajas,” in

Wort—Gebot—Glaube: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für
W. Eichrodt (ed. Hans Joachim Stoebe, Johann Jakob Stamm and Ernst Jenni;
ATANT 59; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1970), 293: “To become white like snow,
light like wool, this is impossible as the cult can no longer clean from the blood guilt
(v. 18). The failure of the people shows that there is no more hope for salvation”
(author’s translation).
69. See also Jer 2:22, where similar imagery says that it is impossible for the
Israelites to clean the dirt from their sins even with a lot of soap.
70. See also Dan 11:35 and 12:10.
71. Werner H. Schmidt, “Individuelle Eschatologie im Gebet: Psalm 51,” in
Vielfalt und Einheit des alttestamentlichen Glaubens 2 (ed. Axel Graupner, Holger
Delkurt, and Alexander B. Ernst; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1995), 54. Does
the supplicant already think of being freed from blood guilt (v. 16) so that the
contrast with white is red here, too?
1
stage of sin and that atonement has not yet begun. This would agree with
the vision in 5:1–4, which expects the punishment by a curse of those
who are swearing falsely and stealing, with the vision in 5:5–11, which
announces the abduction of sin to the land Shinar, and with the vision in
3:1–7, which tells of the atonement of the High Priest Joshua, who has to
take off his old, dirty clothes and is then dressed in a new, clean garment.
4. Conclusion
The starting question of the book of Zechariah (1:12) is: Why hasn’t the
time of salvation started by now, although the end of the exile dates back
some twenty years? In the course of his night visions Zechariah answers
this question: The sins which led to the punishment of Israel and the
exile in Babylon have not yet been completely atoned for. Zechariah
alludes to several traditions of the Old Testament but frequently to his
prophetic predecessors. Although he is probably from a priestly house, it
is conspicuous that he neither uses cultic language when he describes
how Yahweh will make atonement for Israel, nor expects atonement to
happen in a single cultic act.
In order to demonstrate to his contemporaries how serious Israel’s
offenses had been, Zechariah again and again alludes to the announce-
ments of disaster made by his prophetic predecessors. Their criticism of
Israel was legitimate, and the execution of the judgment shows that they
were authorized messengers of God. The wrong behavior they criticized
has not come to an end: stealing and swearing falsely, for example, which
were among the most important causes for God’s judgment, are still
burdens for Israel in Zechariah’s times. Before salvation can begin, the
offenses of the Israelites have to be eliminated. As the Israelites are
incapable of this despite their dramatic experiences of the judgment,
Yahweh himself is going to eliminate their sins. Therefore, he will not
only punish those Israelites who are guilty of severe misdemeanors—he
is also going to take away sin itself by depositing it in a mythic area. It is
thus abolished not only from Israel but from the entire earth. The last
vision in Zech 6:1–8 comes to the following conclusion: not until the
land is freed from sinners (5:1–4) and sin (5:5–11) by Yahweh’s com-
mand will he extend his realm of action beyond Israel by also pouring
out his spirit there.
1
AN EPHAH BETWEEN EARTH AND HEAVEN:
READING ZECHARIAH 5:5–11
Johannes Schnocks
“Zechariah’s most complex and difficult vision,” 1 the penultimate among

the “night visions,” to this day remains a controversial text. On the one
hand, this is due to an unusual combination of unique visionary images: a
large measuring jar for grain of 20–24 litres with a leaden weight of
about 30 kilograms serving as a lid; 2 a woman sitting within this ephah
interpreted as iniquity; and finally two winged women who are to
transport this contraption to a house in the environs of Babylonia, which
house has yet to be specially built for this purpose. Interpretation is ren-
dered difficult by the fact that comparable textual parallels exist neither
for the images nor for their understanding. Furthermore, there is a high
degree of semantic and philological ambiguity. As a consequence, a great
variety of solutions has been proposed from ancient translations through
the medieval commentaries to contemporary readings. Their validity can
only be tested by the question of whether they appear plausible within
the context of the cycle of visions itself as well as in comparison with the
prophetic tradition.
In this essay, first of all, I would like to show the places of indeter-
minacy in the text or—to use the expression of Wolfgang Iser—its
“blanks” and discuss the resulting readings. 3 For this purpose I will pre-
sent some interpretations which have been partly forgotten today, and
evaluate them on the immediate textual level. In a second step, the ques-
tion of additional criteria for understanding the text will be raised. On the
1. Ben C. Ollenburger, “The Book of Zechariah,” NIB 7:780.

2. Johannes Renz, Die althebräischen Inschriften, Teil 2: Zusammenfassende
Erörterung, Paläographie und Glossar (Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik
2/1; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995), 45–46; Mark Allan
Powell, “Weights and Measures,” ABD 6:905.
3. Cf. Wolfgang Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response
(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press 1980).
1
SCHNOCKS An Ephah between Earth and Heaven 253
one hand, this may be the way in which Zech 5:5–11 fits into its original
literary and historical context, namely, the visionary cycle and the early
post-exilic period.4 On the other hand, the traditions which might have
been referred to here may also be of importance.
1. The Hebrew Text

What is the “blank” that readers have to fill with their own interpreta-
tion, if they want to comprehend the text? The vision starts somewhat
abruptly with yb rbdh K)lmh )cyw. It is not very remarkable that )cy, a
technical term for the appearance of persons or things in the visionary
world of the night visions, 5 is applied to the angelic interpreter (cf. as
well Zech 2:7), nor that the visionary action starts with the appearance
and the speech of the angel without the sort of introduction found in
4. The primary context must be limited to the basic strand of the visionary cycle,
the definition of which is largely uncontested today: Zech 1:8–15; 2:1–4, 5–9; 4:1–
6aa, 10b–14; 5:1–4, 5–11; 6:1–8; cf. Klaus Seybold, Bilder zum Tempelbau: Die
Visionen des Propheten Sacharja (SBS 70; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974),
23, and recently the similar definition by Jakob Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen des
Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition (BZAW 360; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2006). For an innovative approach to this visionary cycle, cf. now Rüdiger
Lux, “Bilder in Texten: Bild-anthropologische Aspekte der Nachtgesichte des
Sacharja,” in Behutsames Lesen: Alttestamentliche Exegese im interdisziplinären
Methodendiskurs (FS Christof Hardmeier; ed. Sylke Lubs et al.; Arbeiten zur Bibel
und ihrer Geschichte 28; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlangsanstalt, 2007), 322–39.
5. Willem A. M. Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8: Studien zur Überlieferungs-
geschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie (SSN 10; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967),
248 n. 3. Occurring 15 times (Zech 2:7; 5:3–6, 9; 6:1, 5–8) in the basic strand of the
visionary cycle, )cy is a keyword (Horst Dietrich Preuss, “)cy,,” ThWAT III [1982],
801). Seybold (Bilder zum Tempelbau, 36) has pointed out that the accumulated
instances of this verb in the whole cycle strengthen the impression that the position-
ing of the individual visions produces a spatial structure. He therefore can compre-
hend the series of visionary images as a gallery in the sense of a temple decoration
and relate them to individual parts of the temple building (109). The spatial dimen-
sion of the concentric structure becomes even more distinct when the distribution
of Klh (Zech 1:10–11; 2:6; 5:10; 6:7), )wb (Zech 2:4; 5:4) and dm( (Zech 1:8, 10–
11; 4:14) is added. Then movements from the whole world towards and away from
Jerusalem may be found, where the candelabra and the olive-trees of the middle
vision have to be understood as the center of the world. For a concentric reading of
the cycle, see Christoph Uehlinger, “Die Frau im Efa (Sach 5,5–11): Eine Pro-
grammvision von der Abschiebung der Göttin,” BK 49 (1994): 99–100; also
Françoise Smyth-Florentin, who further elaborates the concept in “L’espace d’un
chandelier: Zacharie 1,8–6,15,” in Le livre de traverse: De l’exégèse biblique à
l’anthropologie (ed. Olivier Abel; Patrimoines; Paris: Cerf, 1992), 281–89.
1
Zech 2:1, 5; 5:1, 9; 6:1 (cf. also Zech 4:1). It is remarkable, however, that
only here is this introduction pointedly transformed into an order. 6 This
observation is strengthened by the fact that the prophet answers the order
in quite a singular manner by posing a question himself (v. 6). Therefore,
not only the vision, but even the act of seeing itself has to be explained to
him. These are the first questions which the text itself does not answer: Is
Zechariah unwilling or unable to interpret the first image of his vision? If
this is so, why? And does the reason lie within its subject or within
himself? These questions are connected with the irritating fact that hpy),,,
the key term in the angel’s answer, is used with the determinative article
and thus introduced as something already known, whereas it had in fact
not been mentioned before.
The next difficulty is presented by Mny( (v. 6). A question arises from
the semantics of Ny(: How can a measuring jar for grain be interpreted as
“eye” or “outward appearance/visible side” (cf. Exod 10:5, 15; Lev
13:55; Num 11:7; Ezek 1:4, 7, 16, 22, 27; 8:2; 10:9; Dan 10:6)? Also, to
what noun does the third person masculine plural pronominal suffix
refer? Are the thief and the perjurer of v. 4 the ones who are meant here?
But how then does this unusual intertwining of the two visions come
about?7 And why, of all things, is the ephah the eye of thieves and
perjurers? Would it therefore make more sense to conclude from the
following Cr)h-lkb that the inhabitants of the land are meant here? 8
Throughout the whole vision, and especially from v. 8 onwards, a
difficulty arises from the fact that all objects and their interpretations
possess the feminine gender. One by one they are: hpy), Ny(,9 h#), and
h(#r.10 As a consequence, the noun to which a feminine pronoun refers
cannot always be clearly determined.11 This is especially true for the third
6. Cf. h)rw Kyn( )n )# (Zech 5:1) to (h))r)w yny((-t)) )#)w (Zech 2:1, 5; 5:1,
9; 6:1).
7. Robert Hanhart (Sacharja 1–8 [BKAT XIV/7; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neu-
kirchener, 1998], 364–65) builds his interpretation visibly on an interconnection,
strongly favored by him, with Zech 5:1–4. It seems, however, problematic that
Hanhart’s interconnection depends almost entirely on an alteration of the text to
Mnw(.
8. Uehlinger, “Die Frau im Efa,” 95.
9. Cf. GesB 582.
10. The other feminine nouns are: trp( rkk, trp( Nb), the two My#n and their
Mypnk, hdsx and hxwnm. They do not cause similar problems in their context. It is
remarkable though how carefully the whole vision is dressed up with feminine
words.
11. The third person masculine plural pronominal suffix Mh- (v. 9) and the
pronoun hmh (v. 10) in this context clearly refer to the two winged women, who are
exclusively connected with feminine verb forms throughout the text. This is a
1
person feminine singular pronominal suffix in v. 11b, where one would

expect the ephah to be meant, but the woman or even iniquity could also
possibly be indicated. “By far the most troubling element of Zechariah’s
seventh vision is the role women play in it… The outright misogyny in
this text cannot be ignored.”12 Even on a linguistic level, this vision—
which has wickedness as its main theme—so obviously wears feminine
garb that one cannot avoid the impression that a factual connection is
intended. On this level, too, a reading will have to cope with this special
challenge. It is characteristic of all these problems that they cannot be
satisfactorily explained as traces of growth. Therefore operations of
literary criticism have not proved helpful. 13
2. The Septuagint
Commentators usually point to the LXX only in connection with v. 6,
since it seems to have read the more easily comprehensible Hebrew text,
Mnw(, “their sin,” instead of the difficult Mny(, “their eye.” In order better
to answer the question of whether the Greek Vorlage really had Mnw( or
whether the change from yod to waw was the translator’s interpretation,
the Greek text has to be appreciated more fully.
The objects of the vision are explained by the angelic interpreter in a
very similar manner in v. 6 and v. 8, at first as a)diki/a, then as a)nomi/a.
The two words appear again in the LXX text of Zech 3:4 and 3:9. In ch. 3
they are a translation of the Hebrew Nw(. However, this is not a random
choice of equivalents. In accordance with Zech 5:6, in Zech 3:9 the
promise is made that God will collect pa~san th\n a)diki/an th~j gh~j e0kei/nhj
on one day, while there is no equivalent in the Hebrew text for pa~san.
Further, hxtp, “its (the stone’s) engraving,” 14 is translated without the
possessive pronoun as bo&&qron, “pit,” so that it points forward to the
following sentence rather than looking backwards to the first half of the
verse. Thus, Zech 3:9 in the Greek text can be understood in a com-
pletely new sense, namely, that the pit is meant for all the injustice of the
land which God will search out in one day. This promise is continued in
grammatical irregularity that is quite common in Biblical Hebrew and therefore need
cause no consternation. See GK § 32n; 135o.
12. Ollenburger, “Book of Zechariah,” 781.
13. For an attempted explanation of this sort, see Heinz-Günther Schöttler, Gott
inmitten seines Volkes: Die Neuordnung des Gottesvolkes nach Sacharja 1–6 (TThSt
43; Trier: Paulinus, 1987), 134–40, and Christoph Uehlinger, “Figurative Policy,
Propaganda und Prophetie,” in Congress volume Cambridge, 1995 (ed. John A.
Emerton; VTSup 66; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 344 (without any argument).
1
14. Cf. the engraved stones on the priestly vestments in Exod 28 and 39.
the Greek in Zech 5:5–11, when the injustice of all the country appears to
have been collected in one me/tron which is then carried away. The
translator had obviously coordinated both texts by small alterations, so
that these texts now present themselves as a system of references which
is not as pronounced in the Hebrew text.
However, the question of the Hebrew Vorlage from which the Greek
text of Zech 5:6 was translated teaches us to be cautious. It is by no
means certain that the LXX was already translating Nw( or that a translator,
who was able to render hxtp quite freely in Zech 3:9, could not be
responsible for reading Ny( as Nw(.15 Keeping these uncertainties in mind
when judging the LXX reading, there is no alternative to the lectio
difficilior, namely, the well-attested Hebrew text Mny(.16
In the text of the following verses it is conspicuous that by rendering
hpy) with me/tron17 the two images of the vision (ephah and woman) have
no longer the same feminine gender as in the Hebrew. The hitherto
ambivalent grammatical relations have thus become definite, with far-
reaching consequences. In the Hebrew text of v. 8, according to the rules
of grammar, the possessive pronoun in hyp relates back to the last noun,
that is, hpy); but in the Greek text au)th~j can relate only to the woman,
not to me/tron. The meaning of the verse is thus fundamentally changed.
In the Hebrew text the woman is locked into the ephah by means of the
15. Nowadays it is uncontested that the translators of the LXX already worked
according to some of the hermeneutic principles of Jewish exegesis. Among these
were al-tiqre or emendation (David Instone Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions
in Jewish Exegesis Before 70 CE [TSAJ 30; Tübingen: Mohr, 1992], 180). For an
overview of the implementation of these principles in translating the psalms, see
Johannes Schnocks, Vergänglichkeit und Gottesherrschaft: Studien zu Psalm 90 und
dem vierten Psalmenbuch (BBB 140; Berlin: Philo, 2002), 33–34.
16. More observations in favor of this decision are provided by Uehlinger, “Die
Frau im Efa,” 95; Ollenburger, “Book of Zechariah,” 778, 780; Michael H. Floyd,
Minor Prophets, Part 2 (FOTL 22; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 391, 393–94;
and Ulrike Sals, Die Biographie der “Hure Babylon”: Studien zur Intertextualität
der Babylon-Texte in der Bibel (FAT 2/6; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 179–81.
Recently Holger Delkurt (Sacharjas Nachtgesichte: Zur Aufnahme und Abwandlung
prophetischer Traditionen [BZAW 302; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000], 246–47 n. 3) and
Hanhart (Sacharja 1–8, 353–55) have stuck to the change to Mnw(. The latter’s
interpretation also builds heavily on this reconstructed text. Since the Peshitta very
often depends on the LXX, it cannot support the reading Nw( in only one Hebrew
manuscript against the lectio difficilior of the MT. Qumran does not have the text.
17. In seventeen instances this is the LXX’s standard rendering of hpy), followed
by oifi in eight instances as well as other translations. Ezek 45:13 shows that these
two translations may coexist peacefully. It is interesting for Zech 5:6 to see that in
Mic 6:10, hmw(z Nwzr tpy)w is rendered by kai\ meta_ u#brewj a)diki/a.
1
leaden lid,18 while in the LXX the leaden talent is thrown into her mouth.
In the Greek text the violence used against the woman therefore appears
to be more direct. It is difficult to decide whether this action equals an
execution.19 The only certainty which we have is that the woman is
talked of no more in the rest of the vision. In Zech 5:9–11 ( LXX), only
the fate of the me/tron is mentioned, while the Hebrew text remains more
open to interpretation.20
The focus of the LXX reading recurs, with only minor differences, also
in modern scholarship. The principal content of the vision is wickedness
or iniquity, symbolized by a woman, who is rendered powerless and
forced into exile in a foreign country. Verse 11 clearly emphasizes the
safe storing of the me/tron, not the installation of a sanctuary.
3. Targum and Rashi

The Targum of this vision presents us with a paraphrase that differs
widely from the Hebrew text. This interpretation seems to have been
triggered firstly by the ephah, which as a grain measure induces a sym-
bolic reading with a view to trading with falsified measures. Secondly,
there is the connection of the vision with Shinar/Babylonia (v. 11) as the
place of exile. Thus the whole action of the vision is transposed from the
ephah to the people who “were trading with false measure” (wwhd [)m(]
)rq#d )tlykmb Nybhyw Nybsn, vv. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). 21 The vision can now
18. Beuken (Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, 254) even considers this action of the angelic
interpreter in the Hebrew text as not important. According to him, it only re-estab-
lishes the status quo of the first scene and therefore possesses only stylistic signi-
ficance.
19. Violence is also manifest in the Hebrew text. Sals (Die Biographie der
“Hure Babylon”, 185–86) shows that the action equals a confining of the woman in
a coffin. Diana Edelman (“Proving Yahweh Killed His Wife [Zechariah 5:5–11],”
BibInt 11 [2003]: 338) discusses the act in connection with the interpretation of the
woman as a goddess “as an attempt to silence her permanently and prevent her mouth
from being ritually opened once she arrived at her new sanctuary in Babylonia.”
20. A great amount of disagreement also reigns with respect to the bird in v. 9:
hdysx, “stork” (MT); r#n, “eagle” or “vulture” (Targum), e!popoj, “hoopoe” (LXX);
and milvus, “kite” (Vulg). The reason for this is unknown. All these birds have in
common is that they appear in the lists of unclean animals in Lev 11 and Deut 14.
21. For the Aramaic text, see Alexander Sperber, ed., The Bible in Aramaic. Vol.
3, The Latter Prophets According to Targum Jonathan (Leiden: Brill, 1962) 483–84;
and for an English translation, see Kevin J. Cathcart and Robert P. Gordon, The
Targum of the Minor Prophets: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus,
and Notes (ArBib 14; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1989), 196–97.
1
explain the exile as a consequence of the misconduct of pre-exilic times,

which is denoted exemplarily by the falsified measure. In the Targum the
exiled community is already mentioned in the cycle of visions in Zech
1:8, and the theme is therefore only taken up again from a different point
of view. As a biblical text of reference within the Targum, Mic 6:10
especially springs to mind. This is the only other place in the Targum,
outside of Zech 5:6–10, where the combination of hlkm and rq# occurs;
and in the Hebrew text only here is the falsification of the ephah qualified
as (#r (cf. h(#r, Zech 5:8). In Micah there is also a connection between
the falsification of measures and divine punishment.
A reading of Zech 5:5–11 that concentrates exclusively on the ephah
and the possibility of its falsification is motivated by the use of the word
hpy) primarily in prophetic and legal texts, such as Lev 19:36; Deut
25:14 (twice), 15; Ezek 45:10; Amos 8:5; Mic 6:10, and Prov 20:10
(twice). All other instances of the word deal with indications of quantity
or definitions of measures. Thus, ephah is tightly linked to the notion of
the falsification of measures. It is equally important that the ephah plays
a central role in everyday life (Ruth 2:17; Amos 8:5) as well as for the
preparation of sacrifices (e.g. Ezek 45:13, 24; 46:5, 7, 11, 14). A dimin-
ished ephah therefore leads to fraudulent trade, which especially harms
the poor (Amos 8:5), and also to wrong cultic practice. So the motif
becomes part of two important traditions in prophetic preaching, namely,
social criticism and criticism of the cult.
An exegesis of Zech 5:5–11 taking this direction stresses the relevance
of Torah and prophecy for practical life. It can therefore be found not
only in the historicizing variant of the Targum, but also in the later
Jewish exegetical tradition of Rashi. As early as the first mentioning of
the ephah (v. 6), his commentary stresses the fact that the ephah does not
simply appear as a vessel, but as a measure. On the difficult passage at
the end of v. 6, “And he said: This is their eye in the whole land,” Rashi
comments as follows: “And in order to delay what I had seen he said:
This is the measure in which they will be punished, those whose eyes are
in the whole land in order to steal and to deceive, to diminuish the ephah
and to enlarge the shekel and it was measured up to them, Sea against
Sea.”22
The background of this commentary is clearly Amos 8:5. The inter-
pretation of the difficult Mny(, on the other hand, underlines a figurative
aspect of Ny(. With this word caring attention is ascribed to God in Zech
4:10; 9:8; and 12:4. In the present context the same word conversely
ascribes the attribute of impatient zeal to the defrauders. The aim is a just
1
22. Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac, called Rashi, sub loco (my translation).
retribution.23 The reading of the ephah in the sense of a falsified measure

is so dominant in Rashi’s interpretation of the vision that in the following
text he also subsumes the woman under this concept. At the beginning of
v. 8, “And he said: This is the iniquity,” he comments as follows: “This
woman, whom you see inside the ephah, is a measure in the way of the
iniquity which the iniquitous practice inside it. And behold, now they are
given into its insides, in order to be punished inside the Sea itself, within
which they have measured—measure against measure.”
The woman is thus reduced to a symbol into which all the problems of
the text are being condensed.24 She is the falsified measure as well as a
symbol for the culprits who have to be punished. She is thereby lifted
onto such an abstract level that any further reading of the woman as an
object of the vision becomes superfluous. On the other hand, Rashi’s
reading stresses the aspect of retribution for the malefactors, so that he in
a sense ethicizes the term h(#r and relates the vision to Zech 5:1–4. The
ephah now takes over a double function corresponding precisely to the
concept of talion. As a means of fraud it characterizes the kind of guilt,
and as a means of a visionary punishment it symbolically puts the
principle of talion into operation.
4. The Viewpoint of Religious History

As shown in the foregoing discussion, the readings from antiquity and
the medieval ages were focused almost entirely on the ephah. Never-
theless, they have not been able to explain satisfactorily the end of the
visionary action, the transport of the ephah to the land of Shinar. There-
fore in modern exegesis a similar concentration on the ephah would not
be entirely convincing. Instead, the last verse of the vision is often taken
as a starting point and is interpreted in religio-historical terms. The tyb
in v. 11 is then understood to be a temple, 25 and hnkm to be a cult base for
the woman locked into the ephah. In this sense the woman—or rather her
figurine26—is seen as either a goddess (vv. 7–8), or as an overall symbol
of idolatry.27 The vision would then be the most important instance of an
early post-exilic argument on the veneration of goddesses in Judah,
23. For the construction h)sb h)s see Deut 19:21.

24. Cf. 2 Kgs 4:40: “There is death in the pot.”
25. Uehlinger continues: “Thus all doubts are removed: The woman is a goddess
(respectively an idol)” (“Die Frau im Efa,” 97 [my translation]).
26. Ibid., 96. Cf. also idem, “Figurative Policy,” 345–47.
27. For a good overview of the many variants of this interpretation, see Edelman,
“Proving Yahweh Killed His Wife.”
1
perhaps even in the newly-to-be-built temple of Jerusalem. It would

express the expulsion of a goddess and testify to a monotheistic revolu-
tion from above.28 Zechariah as a representative of those returned from
exile would be distinctly furthering the position that there is no room for
a goddess in post-exilic Jerusalem. The woman, and with her every kind
of idolatry, is to be taken to Babylonia safely locked up. There her cult
may be continued in a specially built temple and on her own cult stand. 29
To characterize Shinar in this manner as a place of idolatry is in the
tradition of Gen 11:1–9, and at the same time implies a depreciation of
those Judaeans who have not yet returned.30
This reading entails its own way of filling some of the “blanks” in the
text. The whole vision is focused onto the woman’s fate and its inter-
pretation, in such a way that she is read as the relative noun whenever
possible while the ephah fades into the background as a rather unspecific
vessel. Thus the sentence “this is their eye (or view) in all the land” (v. 6)
in this reading points forward towards v. 7. It is this woman onto whom
all the inhabitants of the land gaze fixedly.31 The hesitant beginning of
the vision could also be explained by the confusion of the prophet who is

29. A similar reading has recently been favored by, for example, Mark J. Boda
(“Terrifying the Horns: Persia and Babylon in Zechariah 1:7–6:15,” CBQ 67 [2005]:
28), Ollenburger (“Book of Zechariah,” 779), Uehlinger (“Die Frau im Efa”) and
Christian Jeremias (Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja. Untersuchungen zu ihrer
Stellung im Zusammenhang der Visionsberichte im Alten Testament und zu ihrem
Bildmaterial [FRLANT 117; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977], 197).
Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers (Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary [AB 25B; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987])
have enlarged this concept by additional elements. Following Marenof they connect
hpy) to Sumerian “E-pa,” which refers to “a cult room for a statue of a god atop a
Mesopotamian temple edifice” (296) and read h(#r as an anagram of hr#) (303).
To my mind, however, the equation of ( and ) is highly problematic. Cf. the well-
supported critical standpoint in Christian Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschließlich-
keitsanspruch YHWHs: Beiträge zu literarischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und
ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion (2 vols.; BBB 94; Weinheim:
Beltz Athenäum, 1995), 1:523–24, 529–32; idem, “YHWH und die Göttin bei den
Propheten. Eine Zwischenbilanz,” in Der eine Gott und die Götter. Polytheismus
und Monotheismus im antiken Israel (ed. Manfred Oeming and Konrad Schmidt;
ATANT 82; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2003), 66–70; Hanhart, Sacharja 1–8,
363–64; and Delkurt, Sacharjas Nachtgesichte, 268.
30. To Michael H. Floyd the vision satirizes the establishment of “Jewish temple
cults outside Jerusalem that feature the anthropomorphic image of a goddess” (“The
Evil in the Ephah: Reading Zechariah 5:5–11 in Its Literary Context,” CBQ 58
[1996]: 68). Cf. also Floyd, Minor Prophets, 394–96.
1
at first unable to see the central object of the vision, the woman herself.
Or else he might, as a confessed monotheist, be unwilling to look at her.
It then follows that v. 11 will also be read as clearly relating to the
woman, even though the next feminine relative noun is the ephah (v. 10).
The verse is thus saying that there will be built a house, presumably a
temple, for the woman in Shinar, in which, after its completion, she will
be set up on her own cult stand.
The advantage of this interpretation, compared to the model of forged
measures, doubtlessly lies in the fact that it provides an explanation of
the entire vision. However, the problem is, first, that the existence of a
corresponding cult has not yet been confirmed from other independent
sources. The vision itself would be the most important proof for such a
surmise. Second, the semantics of the vision do not tend unequivocally in
this direction. Admittedly, in most instances hnwkm does have a cultic
connotation, as in Ezra 3:3, where it denotes the foundation of the altar,
and in other places, where it serves as a technical term for the mobile
trestles of the bronze vats in the temple.32 However, as in Sir 41:6 and
44:1, the word obviously may also mean quite matter-of-factly a human
dwelling. So, even though hnwkm might refer to a base for the statue of a
god, proof is lacking for such an interpretation here. Its plausibility rests
entirely on reading the vision as a denunciation of idolatry. 33 Further, this
interpretation has to accept that the keyword of the vision, the ephah, is
to be understood only as a “vessel,” and not as the measure it is assumed
to be everywhere else in the Hebrew Bible.34
5. Prophetic Traditions
Considering the variety of possible interpretations, the search for tradi-
tio-historical parallels should start out with the undisputed elements. 35
32. Cf. in this sense also the use of Nwkm, for example, in Exod 15:17; 1 Kgs 8:13;
Ezra 2:68; and Dan 8:11.
33. It is remarkable in this context that in 1 Sam 5:3 the placement of the statue
of Dagon in Ashdod is not denoted by hnwkm, but by Mwqm.
34. The suppression of this dimension of the word by translators and exegetes,
however, has got a long tradition. Already Jerome only here translates hpy) as
amphora, while in other instances he unfailingly renders it as a measure, usually as
oephi but also as modius (Lev 19:36; Deut 25:14–15; Judg 6:19; 1 Sam 1:24; Isa
5:10) or mensura (Prov 20:10; Amos 8:5; Mic 6:10). In Num 5:15 it remains
untranslated.
35. It is here that I see the problem with Delkurt’s proposition (Sacharjas Nacht-
gesichte, 272–76) to regard Isa 6 as an important traditio-historical background of
the vision, because this connection relies primarily on the taking away of guilt (Nw()
1
From an overall view of the visionary cycle, the oracles at the end of the
first vision (Zech 1:14–15 and 1:16–17 36) possess a programmatic signi-
ficance. In a situation immediately after the exile it was paramount to
define anew the relationship between YHWH, Judah and the Gentiles, and
thus to make possible a new beginning for Jerusalem in the presence of
YHWH. This theological intention is visibly expressed in the newly
erected temple, so that the visionary cycle has been aptly described as “a
sort of sanctuary legend, a document of foundation and legitimization for
the second temple.”37
A closer explanation of the vision in Zech 5:5–11 can be derived from
its position within the concentrically constructed cycle. On the one hand,
it stands in symmetry with Zech 2:1–4, which deals with the final
repulsion of the Gentiles who have destroyed Judah. On the other hand,
in a linear way of reading, it stands between the vision of the curse-
inscribed scroll (Zech 5:1–4), which deals with the subduing of the thief
and the perjurer, and the vision of the chariots (Zech 6:1–8), which go
out into the world as the four winds. In contrast, the visionary transport
of the ephah to Shinar deals with an action between peoples or countries.
As already in Zech 2:1–4, the vision acts on a level between day-to-day
conflicts and cosmic events, a perspective which includes the whole of
Judah.38
in Isa 6:7 and therefore on the (to my mind problematic) reconstruction of the text of
Zech 5:6. The inclusion of Isa 6 in Zech 3:1–7 (cf. Nw( and rws Isa 6:7; Zech 3:4; cf.
ibid., 164, 168–71) is much more convincing. For the same reasons the termino-
logical differences between Zech 5:5–11 and Mic 7:18–20 are greater than Delkurt
(ibid., 255–56, 276) would imply, since the transfer of Nw( )#n (Mic 7:18) onto
hpy) t) )#n (Zech 5:9) would work only if one presupposed the identification of the
ephah with Nw( in v. 6. On the other hand, Delkurt is arguing correctly that the theme
of taking away guilt and ungodliness closely connects Mic 7:18–20 to Zech 5:5–11.
This is supported by the fact that both texts date approximately from the same period
(ibid., 276 with n. 175).
36. For the relation of the individual oracles in Zech 1:16–17 to the whole
visionary cycle, see ibid., 137–38.
37. Seybold, Bilder zum Tempelbau, 100 (my translation).
38. Smyth-Florentin (“L’espace d’un chandelier,” 284–85) likens the structure of
the cycle to the image of a candelabra, the middle axis of which (Zech 3–4) stands
for the vertical dimension of God’s presence in heaven and in the temple, while the
lateral arms represent the horizontal dimension: from the universe (1:8–17) through
the nations (2:1–4) to the city of Jerusalem (2:5–9) respectively to the house of an
individual person (5:1–4), and from then on again through the nations (5:5–11) to
the universe (6:1–8). This image, which of course contains some problems as well,
clarifies especially well the centrifugal aspects of Zech 5:5–11.
1
Another aspect that connects all readings of the vision is the carrying
away of h(#r.39 As the semantic variations of this word have been
looked at time and again,40 it will suffice to note only those aspects that
will lead the argument further on. It is interesting that the instances of
this word are concentrated in the book of Ezekiel, which corresponds
with the traditio-historical observation that this book is closely connected
to the visionary cycle.41
With regard to communities as well as to individuals, h(#r is opposed
to hqdc.42 For example Jerusalem may surpass the Gentiles in h(#r as a
negative quality (Ezek 5:6) and thus provoke God’s judgement before the
eyes of the nations (v. 8).43 This is a very telling example because Jeru-
salem is addressed in the midst of the surrounding countries (v. 5). This
is precisely the perspective which characterizes the position in the cycle
of night visions of Zech 5:5–11. With regard to individual iniquity, h(#r
occurs in connection with a limitation of liability for transgressions over
the generations (Ezek 18:20, 27; 33:12, 19). On the contrary, in the col-
lective confessions of sins in Jer 14:20, the masculine equivalent (#r,
the orators’ iniquity, is equalled to the guilt of their fathers (wnytwb) Nw().
These examples are of interest in so far as they deal with the problem of
an injustice overstepping the generations, which may also be in the
background of Zech 5:5–11. The fact that h(#r is being deported may
point to its denoting a misconduct which had been rife in Jerusalem and
39. There are several parallels to the laws on cleansing from leprosy in Lev 14.
Volkert Haas (“Ein hurritischer Blutritus und die Deponierung der Ritualrückstände
nach hethitischen Quellen,” in Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen
Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament: Internationales Symposion Ham-
burg, 17.–21. März 1990 [ed. Bernd Janowski, Klaus Koch, and Gilmot Wilhelm;
OBO, 129; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1993], 79–83) mentions an Assyrian letter
which prescribes the transport of iniquitous materials into foreign countries, and
Hittite rituals in which vessels are sealed with leaden lids.
40. E.g. Jeremias, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja, 195–96; Helmer Ringgren,
“(#r,” ThWAT 7:675–84; Delkurt, Sacharjas Nachtgesichte, 261.
41. Cf. Seybold, Bilder zum Tempelbau, 84–65; Jeremias, Die Nachtgesichte des
Sacharja, 107–8. Even Delkurt (Sacharjas Nachtgesichte, 322), although he stresses
the close proximity to Deuterojesaja, sees an even closer connection with Ezekiel in
vocabulary and motive.
42. According to Gillis Gerleman (“(#r,” THAT 2:814) and Ringgren (“(#r,”
676) this polarity is characteristic for all derivates of the root (#r.
43. Cf. Walther Zimmerli (Ezechiel 1–24 [2d ed.; BKAT 13/1; Neukirchen–
Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1979], 136), who attributes the verses to Ezekiel himself. With
regard to content, the phrase points towards Deut 9:4–5, which connects the question
of h(#r and hqdc with the title to own the land. However, this text might well be
younger than Zech 5.
1
in Judah, respectively, for a long time and which could not be extin-
guished otherwise. Thus h(#r could be the reason for divine wrath
expressing itself in the exile. It therefore has to be completely discon-
tinued or, in terms of the vision’s personifying metaphor, it has to be
deported from Judah.
So far, nothing has been said about what kind of iniquity the text is
talking about. It seems hardly possible to pin down h(#r and (#r to
specific areas of misconduct, since as the opposites of justice they are
rather indeterminate. In the context of our reading of Zech 5:5–11, it is
important that Mic 6:10–11 uses (#r in connection with the falsification
of the epha and of weights.
In summing up the significance of h(#r for Zech 5:5–11, it seems
most aptly understood as an overall iniquity, which characterizes Judah
as a nation and which had been denounced in pre-exilic accusations. Its
extinction is a prerequisite for and at the same time an expression of the
fact that YHWH has chosen Jerusalem once again (Zech 1:17). It is
interesting to note that although Zechariah’s use of this term is linked
closely to Ezekiel’s (Ezek 5:6), Zechariah’s usage entails neither the
concept of a land made impure by pre-exilic sins (cf. Ezek 36) 44 nor the
concept of excluding sons from liability for their fathers’ sins (Ezek 18),
but rather proposes its own interpretation.
Would it be possible to make a stronger traditio-historical argument
for the thesis that the vision continues from a collective iniquity, which is
therefore comparable to Judah’s pre-exilic guilt? In this context I have
pointed out the linguistic connection with Ezek 8. 45 In Zech 5:5–11 the
introduction to the vision, which in all other instances stereotypically
connects the night visions,46 is instead turned into a dialogue about the
envisioned images. Even though the pairing of )#n and Ny( is quite
common, the request (h)rw) Kyny( )n )# appears only four times in the
Hebrew Bible, and then only voiced by God or by an angel. Genesis
13:14 marks the beginning of the promise of the land to Abraham; Gen
44. Ernst Sellin (Das Zwölfprophetenbuch [KAT 12; Leipzig: Deichert, 1922],
462) already saw this as an integration of Ezek 36; 37; and 39:29. Jeremias (Die
Nachtgesichte des Sacharja, 196) sees a parallel in content in Ezek 36:25–28, which
he dates to the time of exile. Delkurt (Sacharjas Nachtgesichte, 322) also opts for an
interdependence, but at the same time points out difficulties of dating the texts.
45. Johannes Schnocks, “Eine intertextuelle Verbindung zwischen Ezechiels
Eifersuchtbild und Sacharjas Frau im Efa,” BN 84 (1996): 59–63.
46. Only in Zech 1:8 the whole cycle starts with hlylh yty)r. In the central
vision of the cycle there is a variation in Zech 4:2 by the use of a formula known
from Jer 1:11, 13; 24:3; Amos 7:8; 8:2 (cf. also Zech 5:2).
1
31:12 forms part of one of Jacob’s dream visions. Ezekiel 8:5 and Zech
5:5 are quite closely connected in several ways.47 They both are prophetic
visions, there is a connection with the temple of Jerusalem, and the
visions both deal with misconduct. 48 Furthermore, both texts contain the
rare phrase Mym#h Nybw Cr)h Nyb (appearing only in 1 Chr 21:16; Ezek
8:3; Zech 5:9; cf. differently 2 Sam 18:9). Wellhausen’s explanation,
frequently cited, that the air is meant here because there is no other word
for it in Hebrew,49 does not satisfy. Birds as creatures of the air are
clearly classed with the sky by Mym#h-Pw(, and )#n with the noun xwr
denotes a lifting up into the air without this addition. 50 Therefore one
should rather comprehend the phrase as meaning an intermediate sphere
exclusive to the visionary context. 51 In Ezek 8:3, as in Zech 5:9, a vision-
ary action between Jerusalem and Babylon is depicted, 52 and in both
cases xwr is the driving force.
The first temple vision of Ezekiel certainly represents a text that had
grown in several stages. The connections named here all relate to the
basic strand of Ezek 8:1–6,53 which is therefore certainly to be dated
before Zechariah.54 It is noteworthy that in Zechariah there are no allu-
sions to the cultic outrages seen in Ezek 8. On the other hand, with lms
h)nqh (Ezek 8:3, 5) the zeal of YHWH is evoked at the beginning of the
47. Janet E. Tollington (Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8
[JSOTSup 150; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993], 98–99) discusses the
connections with Gen 31 and Ezra 8; she is very careful, however, in drawing
conclusions.
48. The corresponding notice of realization also connects Ezek 8:5 and Zech 5:9,
but is less specific.
49. Julius Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten (4th ed; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963),
184.
50. This is true for the visionary contexts (1 Kgs 18:12; 2 Kgs 2:16; Ezek 3:12,
14; 11:1, 24; 43:5) as well as for other movements in the air (Exod 10:13, 19; Job
30:23; Isa 41:16; 57:13; 64:5).
51. Cf. Jeremias (Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja, 53 n. 36) who supposes this
sphere to be also evoked in Dan 8:5. Michael H. Floyd evaluates this “super-
terrestrial but not quite heavenly” perspective in Zech 5 in the context of Zech 1:7–
6:15 (“Cosmos and History in Zechariah’s View of the Restoration [Zechariah
1:7–6:15],” in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim
[ed. Henry T. C. Sun and Keith L. Eades; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 138–39).
52. Thus Hanhart, Sacharja 1–8, 360.
53. For further details see Schnocks, “Eine intertextuelle Verbindung,” 61–62.
54. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld’s detailed analysis (“Die Tempelvision Ez 8–11 im
Licht unterschiedlicher methodischer Zugänge,” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual
and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation [BETL 74; Leuven: University Press,
1986], 157–58) sheds vv. 2–3a and 4 as secondary.
1
vision. His zeal now programmatically appears in a positive manner for

Israel in the oracle of the first vision (Zech 1:14). 55
Even though Zechariah seems to presuppose Ezekiel, he presents the
reader with a totally different theological design. 56 For Zechariah, a new,
enduring, and happy relation to God is made possible for Judah by
YHWH’s removal of h(#r. He thus destroys the possibility that Israel
might once more relapse into pre-exilic misconduct. This removal of
iniquity from Israel is a consequence of Y HWH’s zeal for his people, as
was his zeal against his people a consequence of pre-exilic iniquity. This
kind of a theology of grace is alien to the book of Ezekiel.
6. Conclusion
The question remains of how these hints are to be integrated into the
three interpretations of the Hebrew text represented firstly by the LXX,
secondly by Targum and Rashi, and finally by the modern reading which
sees it as the expulsion of a goddess. The LXX establishes a link to Zech
3 and altogether offers a rather indeterminate interpretation of h(#r. The
latter may still be found in modern scholarship and is wholly in keeping
with the semantic findings (see Ezek 5:6).
Targum and Rashi represent a reading which has to be understood
traditio-historically as well, because they interpret the root (#r in
connection with hpy) wholly from Mic 6:10–11. This viewpoint has the
merit of being the only one to integrate completely the visionary element
of the ephah. An allusion to falsification of measures could be integrated
into the open interpretation of h(#r by the first model, but it does not fit
into a reading related to idolatry. Targum and Rashi should also teach us
with regard to other explanatory models that there is obviously no
reading which is able to explain all elements of the text in an evenly
satisfactory manner.
The third model might have the advantage that with Ezek 8 a text is
brought to bear which has been seen in connection with the veneration of
a goddess at the temple of Jerusalem. However, this connection has been
disproved convincingly, and moreover may not be transferred to a
55. The interpretation of y#dqm l(m hqxrl (Ezek 8:6) as an indication of desti-
nation is more difficult, since it can be understood either as a removal of YHWH from
his sanctuary or as a distancing of the people from the said sanctuary (cf. Moshe
Greenberg, Ezechiel 1–20 [trans. M. Konkel; HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2001],
198). However, at least the spatial separation between YHWH and the people, evoked
here and connected with the temple, is being revoked according to Zech 1:16.
56. Delkurt (Sacharjas Nachtgesichte, 138–40) similarly sees the integration of
Ezek 40–48 into Zech 2:5–9 as a correction.
1
post-exilic veneration of a goddess in Zechariah. 57 Given the total lack of

archaeological evidence of a post-exilic veneration of a goddess in
Judah, the most important evidence for its existence would then be Zech
5:5–11 itself.
As the semantics of h(#r may in no way be limited to cult outrages,
and certainly not to idolatry, the entire weight of proof for an interpreta-
tion as a goddess or her figurine lies with the explanation of Zech 5:11.
But this is not compelling since some scholars have assumed a cultic
interpretation for v. 11, while at the same time reading it, not as the
woman’s original status as a goddess, but as anti-Babylonian polemics. 58
Others in their turn have doubted such a cultic reading of the last verse
with well-founded arguments.59
If the traditio-historical connection with the fall of Jerusalem and the
exile (Ezek 5:6; 8) is taken seriously, it can be shown that the setting up
of an object from Judah on a stand in a Babylonian house does not
necessarily imply its cultic veneration. When excavating the new palace
of Nebuchadnezzar II, Koldewey came across a large collection of
different monuments from different ages. They most probably are booty
from subjected territories, which had been stood up in a kind of castle
museum to demonstrate the power of the Babylonian kings. It was open
to visitors and demonstrably still in use under the Persian kings. 60 Similar
museums in temples and palaces are known from Lagash and Assur. 61 It
is quite probable that in early post-exilic times the existence of such
institutions was known in Jerusalem. Thus an understanding of tyb in
v. 11 as “temple” is not disproved, but it should be equally clear that this
hypothesis cannot support more far-reaching interpretations while the
archaeological evidence offers an alternative reading.
57. For Ezek 8, see John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan
(JSOTSup 265; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 62. Frevel (Aschera und
der Ausschließlichkeits-anspruch YHWHs) rejects a relation to the goddess for Ezek 8
as well as for Zech 5.
58. Thus already Hartmut Gese (“Anfang und Ende der Apokalyptik, dargestellt
am Sacharjabuch,” ZTK 70 [1973]: 31), who here discovers the birth of the
“Babylonian Whore,” and most recently Sals: “In Babylonia that which anywhere
else is wickedness turns into a goddess” (Die Biographie der “Hure Babylon”, 193
[my translation]).
59. Delkurt, Sacharjas Nachtgesichte, 263–68.
60. Cf. Eckhard Unger, Babylon: Die heilige Stadt nach der Beschreibung der
Babylonier (2d ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970), 224–28; Joan Oates, Babylon: Stadt
und Reich im Brennpunkt des Alten Orient (trans. D. and H.G. Niemeyer; Bergisch
Gladbach: Lübbe, 1983), 182–83.
1
61. Unger, Babylon: Die heilige Stadt, 227.
The function of v. 11 in the vision is twofold. It stresses the fact that

the ephah, filled with iniquity, is safely deposited, and that this happens
in the very land of the exile. Thus the action of Zech 5:5–11 may be
understood as the sending of h(#r into exile, in contrast to Ezek 5 and 8.
The historical events of exile and return of the guilty people are now
contrasted with the exile of the guilt.
The difficulties of reading Zech 5:5–11 could not be entirely removed
in this essay. However, strategies of reading have evolved which deal
more adequately than others with the vision itself, its direct surround-
ings, and the prophetic tradition. In conclusion, I would like to sum them
up. The beginning of the vision, which had at first seemed quite extra-
ordinary with the appearance of the angelic interpreter and the dialogue
about the emerging ephah, may now be explained quite convincingly
from the connection with Ezek 8. What the prophet sees is revealed to
him only slowly and is accompanied from the beginning by an explana-
tory dialogue. This retarding element has already been noted by Rashi.
Perhaps it might be motivated by the fact that in being shown the h(#r,
as Ezekiel had previously been shown the outrages of the pre-exilic
temple, Zechariah was confronted with something hard to understand and
extremely problematic—something to which he would much rather have
closed his eyes. The ephah itself certainly has a double function. First, in
the vision itself it is seen simply as a vessel. Secondly, however, as a unit
of measure it plays an important role in the interpretation of Targum and
Rashi. This is a specific trait which also can well be explained traditio-
historically. Perhaps v. 6 points to this abstract meaning which enables
the ephah in its first appearance to connote a falsification of measure. By
means of this, social iniquity is seen as part of the then emerging overall
wickedness.
The interpretation of Mny( remains a problem. Taking into view the
basic strand of the visionary cycle (see n. 4 above), Ny( appears only once
again apart from the formulaic introduction to the visions. This is in the
explanation of the central vision (Zech 4:10), where it is also associated
with Cr)h-lkb.62 Using the meaning of “outward appearance” or “visible
side” for Ny( (Lev 13:55), a correspondence in the sense of a pun with the
different nuances of meaning of Ny( might be guessed at. The ephah is
seen as that which the seven eyes of God have detected when roaming
62. This connection can be found as early as Rabbi David Qimchi, called Radaq,
who sub loco explains (Zech 4:10): “There is an eye upon them that sees their deeds,
and so he sees on the whole earth, like he said above: they are the eyes of Y HWH
which run to and fro over the whole earth.” Floyd (“The Evil in the Ephah,” 55–59)
adds a number of observations, drawing, however, different conclusions.
1
over the whole land. The suffix would then have to refer to the inhabi-
tants of the land. It might be translated thus: “And he said, ‘This is what
has become visible in them in the whole land.’” This explanation is
supported by the vision of Joshua in Zech 3, which was probably added
later. It is positioned ahead of the central vision and thus functions as a
reading guide. Here again seven eyes appear, which are now engraved
into a stone laid down by Joshua. The constellation is interpreted by the
promise that God himself will take away the guilt of the land in one day
(Zech 3:9). This promise is fulfilled in Zech 5:5–11. 63 The connection on
the level of the canonical text was already made by the LXX, albeit by
idiosyncratic means.
If this interpretation is correct, then the h(#r as the central content of
the vision is all the iniquity that could be found in the land. This wicked-
ness, however, does not lead into exile, but is exiled itself, to make
possible a new beginning. The relation to exile had already been made
quite clear by the Targum. To restrict the iniquity to cultic misconduct,
especially to a veneration of a goddess in post-exilic Jerusalem and
therefore to regard the woman as a goddess or her figurine can neither be
allowed nor disallowed when keeping the open semantic structure of the
vision in mind. However, it has been shown that this interpretation
cannot be supported by either traditio-historical, semantic, or religio-
historical findings. The vision itself cannot be cited as an instance of
veneration of goddesses because there are other possible readings which
are plausible without hypotheses of comparably far-reaching conse-
quences.
Therefore the general character of h(#r is that of an abstract noun,
which is supported by its feminine gender. 64 It is thus not suprising that
iniquity is represented by a woman, who will most probably be seen in
analogy to “Dame Wisdom” in the book of Proverbs. 65 This analogy,
however, will only slightly alleviate the misogyny of the vision. The two
stork-winged women who depose of the h(#r can contribute very little
to clarify matters. It is not clear whether they belong to the sphere of
“Shinar,” fetching the ephah thither, or whether they are servants of
YHWH and in that function contradict a thorough misogyny of the text. 66
63. Sals (Die Biographie der “Hure Babylon”, 180) sees similar connections but
refrains from a diachronic differentiation.
64. GK §122 q.
65. Cf. Prov 7:4; 8:12; 9:1-5 and Gese, “Anfang und Ende der Apokalyptik,” 31.
66. Here the ambivalence of the stork comes to bear. Its naming as hdysx, a
word based on dsx, connotes it as a faithful bird, while the food laws name it among
the unclean animals. Perhaps a functional explanation is to be preferred which sees
the stork as a strong bird capable of covering long distances.
1
The vision has revealed itself as a text continuing prophetic traditions

in form and content. Even though terminologically quite close to Ezekiel,
theologically it differs from him by presenting the searching out and the
freeing from injustice as God’s deed and a result of his mercy for Judah
and Jerusalem.
1
TARGUM JONATHAN’S READING OF ZECHARIAH 3:
A GATEWAY FOR THE PALACE
Marvin A. Sweeney
1. Introduction
Throughout much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, biblical
scholars have focused their efforts on reading biblical texts in relation to
the socio-historical contexts in which they were originally produced.
Such attempts have yielded considerable results in understanding the
outlooks and concerns of biblical texts in relation to the settings which
they were designed to address. In the case of the book of Zechariah, such
work points to the priority of Zech 1–8 as material that potentially comes
from the hand of the priest and prophet, Zechariah ben Iddo, whose
visions depict and interpret the construction of the Second Temple in
Jerusalem during the late-sixth century B.C.E.1 It also points to the later
character of Zech 9–14 as proto-apocalyptic material that potentially
comes from later hands concerned with depicting divine intervention in
the world following the construction of the new Temple.
Although the focus on the purportedly original concerns expressed in
biblical literature has advanced considerably scholarly understanding of
biblical texts, the conclusion of the twentieth and the outset of the
twenty-first century have seen increasing focus on the reading of biblical
texts in later periods.2 Examples of such work include the canonical
reading of texts in their final, literary forms—from either a synchronic or
a diachronic basis—in an effort to ascertain the impact that this literature
might have on later generations of readers. 3 My own work on the final
1. For an introductory discussion of recent research on Haggai and Zechariah, as

well as a full bibliography, see Mark J. Boda, Haggai and Zechariah Research: A
Bibliographic Survey (Tools for Biblical Study; Leiden: Deo, 2003), especially
3–34.
2. See Marvin A. Sweeney, Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apoca-
lyptic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); idem, The Prophetic
Literature (Interpreting Biblical Texts; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005).
3. E.g. Edgar W. Conrad, Reading the Latter Prophets: Toward a New Canoni-
cal Criticism (JSOTSup 376; London: Continuum, 2003).
1
form of the book of Zechariah is designed to pursue such an agenda, but

it is limited to the Masoretic version of the book. 4 Such work plays an
important role in ascertaining how the book as a whole might be read or
interpreted among later Jewish (and possibly Christian) readers, but it
does not fully address the dimensions by which a biblical text might be
read in later religious contexts. Apart from scholarly interpretation and
exposition, biblical texts tend to be read in translation by the religious
communities that look to them for guidance. In the case of ancient
Jewish communities, the Greek Septuagint and the Aramaic Targums
were especially important versions. In the case of Christian communities,
the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Latin Vulgate, among
others, were especially important.
Although much text-critical work focuses on reconstructing the
earliest form of the biblical text,5 such work tends to treat the Greek,
Aramaic, Syriac, or Latin versions simply as modifications of the pur-
portedly original Hebrew text. In such cases, concern with the original
text governs the reading of the versions as a piecemeal expression of
individual issues of concern. More recently, interpreters have come to
recognize the literary and interpretative dimensions of the textual
versions, particularly their constructions of the biblical texts qua texts, as
an increasingly important area of interpretation. 6 My own work on the
textual versions of Zephaniah has attempted to demonstrate how each
version might be read as an interpretation of the book of Zephaniah as a
whole, particularly how each version applies and adapts the message of
Zephaniah to the concerns of later times, for example, the rise of the
Seleucid or the Hasmonean dynasties, the destruction the Second Temple,
Jewish life in exile, the anticipated return of Christ in Christian versions,

Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2000), 2:559–709; cf. Edgar W. Conrad, Zechariah
(Readings; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999).
5. E.g. Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2d rev. ed.;
Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2001).
6. For examples of such work on the Septuagint, see Arie van der Kooij, The
Oracle of Tyre: The Septuagint of Isaiah 23 as Version and Vision (VTSup 71;
Leiden: Brill, 1998); cf. Kristin de Troyer, Rewriting the Sacred Text: What the Old
Greek Texts Tell Us About the Literary Growth of the Bible (Text-Critical Studies 4;
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003). For an example of such work on
Targum Jonathan, see Jostein Ådna, “The Servant of Isaiah 53 as Triumphant and
Interceding Messiah: The Reception of Isaiah 52:13–53:12 in the Targum of Isaiah
with Special Attention to the Concept of the Messiah,” in The Suffering Servant:
Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (ed. Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhl-
macher; trans. Daniel P. Bailey; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 189–224.
1
SWEENEY Targum Jonathan’s Reading of Zechariah 3 273
and so on.7 Each version of Zephaniah constitutes a literary rendition of

the text with its own literary structure and presentation, theological con-
cerns, and hermeneutical perspectives that can tell us much about how
Zephaniah was read by later generations in later historical and religious
contexts.
There is tremendous potential for such work in Zechariah as well.
Space precludes a full treatment of the textual versions of Zechariah, but
consideration of Targum Jonathan’s rendition of Zechariah indicates the
potential for such work. Targum Jonathan on the Prophets is already
well-known for its interpretative rendition of the Hebrew text of the
prophetic books, but work on the interpretative character of Targum
Jonathan has tended to focus on treatment of individual readings and the
fundamental issues or themes associated with such readings, for exam-
ple, the holy presence of G-d, halakhic observance, and the like. 8 But the
sheer volume of textual variation in Targum Jonathan on Zechariah
suggests that the author/translator was interested in more than readings
of individual verses. By introducing numerous changes in its reading of
Zechariah,9 Targum Jonathan effectively reconstitutes the text of Zecha-
riah to produce a new literary work. Although based on the underlying
Hebrew Vorlage of Zechariah, Targum Jonathan on Zechariah essentially
produces a new version of Zechariah that addresses the needs and
concerns of the Jewish people in relation to the late first-century or early
second-century context in which it was produced. 10
7. Marvin A. Sweeney, Zephaniah: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis:

Fortress, 2003), especially 1–41.
8. For discussion of Targum Jonathan, see Leivy Smolar and Moses Aberbach,
Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, and Pinkhos Churgin, Targum
Jonathan to the Prophets (The Library of Biblical Studies; New York: Ktav, 1983);
see also, Philip Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scripture,” in
Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient
Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. Martin Jan Mulder; CRINT 2/1; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1988), 217–53; Étan Levine, “The Targums: Their Interpretative Character
and Their Place in Jewish Text Tradition,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Vol. 1/1,
Antiquity (ed. Magne Sæbø; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 323–31.
9. For an introduction, translation, and notes on Targum Jonathan to Zechariah,
including discussion of its variations from the Hebrew text, see Kevin J. Cathcart
and Robert P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets: Translated, with a Criti-
cal Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes (ArBib Bible 14; Wilmington, Del.: Michael
Glazier; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989), 183–226. For a critical edition of Targum
Jonathan to Zechariah, see Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic. Vol. 3, The
Latter Prophets According to Targum Jonathan (Leiden: Brill, 1962), 477–99.
10. For the dating of Targum Jonathan to the period between the Zealot revolt
against Rome in 66–74 C.E. and the Bar Kochba revolt in 132–135 C.E., see Cathcart
1
In order to demonstrate this contention, the present study will focus on

Targum Jonathan’s reading of Zech 3, which portrays Satan’s challenge
to the high priest Joshua ben Jehozadak. It begins with consideration of
the Hebrew version of this text, which portrays Joshua ben Jehozadak’s
ordination as high priest for service in the new Jerusalem Temple. It then
considers Targum Jonathan’s reading of this chapter, which focuses on
past sins of priestly marriage to unsuitable women in an effort to moti-
vate the priesthood for holy service in the heavenly Temple. In this man-
ner, Targum Jonathan on Zech 3 lays groundwork for the visionary ascent
tradition of Merkavah mysticism in which the mystics, in true priestly
fashion, attempt to discern the divine will so that they might instruct the
people in divine expectations.
2. Masoretic Zechariah 3
Zechariah 3 presents the fourth vision in the sequence of Zechariah’s
visions concerning the significance of the reconstruction of the Temple. 11
In keeping with the formulation of Zechariah’s visions, the angel who
speaks with Zechariah throughout the vision sequence shows him a
vision of the High Priest, Joshua ben Jehozadak, with the Satan or
“Accuser” figure standing to his right. The Satan points to Joshua’s state
of ritual impurity, which renders him unable to officiate in the Temple.
An English translation of the passage follows:
1) And he showed me Joshua, the High Priest, standing before the angel of
YHWH, and the Satan standing by his right to accuse him. 2) And Y HWH
said to the Satan, “YHWH rebukes you, O Satan, and YHWH rebukes you,
the One who chooses Jerusalem. Is this not a brand saved from the fire?”
3) And Joshua was dressed in filthy garments while standing before the
angel. 4) And he spoke up and said to those standing before him, saying,
and Gordon, Targum of the Minor Prophets, 16–18, cf. 12–14; cf. Robert P. Gordon,
Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets: From Nahum to Malachi (VTSup 51;
Leiden: Brill, 1994). N.B., the time period for the composition of the Targum to the
Twelve Prophets ranges from the early first century C.E. through the end of the
Talmudic period prior to the rise of Islam (Sweeney, Zephaniah, 29–31; Churgin,
Targum Jonathan, 9, 237–51, 279).
11. See also my treatment of Zech 3 in Twelve Prophets, 2:592–604; cf. Michael
H. Floyd, Minor Prophets, Part 2 (FOTL 22; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 370–
77. For other key treatments of Zech 3, see David L. Petersen, Haggai and
Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 186–214;
Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8 (AB 25B; Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987), 178–227; and Robert Hanhart, Sacharja (BKAT
14/7.3; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1992), 166–240.
1
“Remove the filthy garments from upon him!” And he said to him, “See! I
have caused your guilt to pass from upon you, and (I) am dressing you in
festal robes.” 5) And I said, “Let them place a pure turban upon his head,”
and they placed a pure turban upon his head, and they dressed him in
garments. And the angel of YHWH was standing by. 6) And the angel of
YHWH invested Joshua, saying, 7) “Thus says YHWH eba<ot, ‘If in my
ways you walk and if my charge you keep, then you will both govern my
Temple and supervise my courts. And I will grant you the right of access
among those standing here. 8) Hear now, O Joshua, the High Priest, you
and your colleagues standing before you, for they are human portents that
I am bringing my servant, ema. 9) For behold the stone which I have
placed before Joshua. On one stone are seven eyes. Behold, I am engrav-
ing its inscription,’ oracle of YHWH eba<ot, ‘and I will erase the guilt of
that land in one day. 10) On that day,’ oracle of YHWH eba<ot, ‘each man
will call to his neighbor to (come) under (his) vine and to (come) under
(his) fig tree.’ ”
This narrative presents a vision of Joshua ben Jehozadak’s ordination as

High Priest in the Temple of YHWH. Although some interpreters struggle
with the role of the Satan figure in this passage, 12 it is essential to remem-
ber that he has not yet achieved the status of the demonic opponent of
YHWH who afflicts the righteous in later tradition and prompts them to
abandon G-d. In the present narrative, the Satan figure is nothing more
than a heavenly attendant of YHWH, modeled on the royal informers of
the Babylonian and Persian courts, who points to Joshua’s ritual impu-
rity, which renders him unfit to serve as priest in the holy Temple.
The literary structure of this narrative is designed to portray the proc-
ess by which Joshua is ordained as High Priest with authority to oversee
the Jerusalem Temple.13 Following the initial waw-consecutive state-
ment, wayyar<ēnî <et yehôšu>a…, “and he showed me Joshua…,” the
narrative employs a series of participial clauses to portray the major
characters of the narrative and to introduce the three major literary
components of the narrative. Thus, vv. 1–2 employ the participle >omēd,
“standing,” to describe Joshua the High Priest standing before the angel
of YHWH and the Satan standing to his right. Verses 1–2 thereby intro-
duce the action of the narrative by presenting Y HWH’s rebuke to the
Satan figure at the outset of the ordination process. Although some inter-
preters see YHWH’s statement as an indication that the primary issue of
this text is a confrontation between YHWH and Satan, the narrative does
12. For discussion of the Satan figure in this passage, see especially Hanhart,
Sacharja, 180–84.
13. See ibid., 184–89; James C. VanderKam, “Joshua the High Priest and the
Interpretation of Zechariah 3,” CBQ 53 (1991): 553–70.
1
not disclose the true issue at hand until v. 3 when it discloses Joshua’s
filthy garments and their replacement with clean or pure garments at the
behest of the angel of YHWH. The dressing of the priest in pure ritual
garments is the central act of the priestly ordination ceremony in which
the priests are ordained for service at YHWH’s altar (see Exod 29; Lev 8).
YHWH’s rebuke of the Satan essentially dismisses his charge that Joshua
is ritually impure and unfit to serve at the Temple—not because it is not
true, but because the status of the priest is about to change as a result of
the following acts. YHWH’s rhetorical question draws upon a phrase from
Amos 4:11 (see also Isa 7:4) to identify Joshua as “a brand saved from
the fire.” Such a statement presupposes the common imagery of a burn-
ing stick pulled from a fire and thus saved from consumption in the
flame. In the present instance, it presupposes the role of the priest as a
representative of his people, who are considered profane before Y HWH
and thus in need of purification to deliver them from divine wrath. It is
the role of the priest to represent the people before Y HWH (and YHWH
before the people). He therefore plays an essential role in ensuring the
purity or holiness of the people before Y HWH. In order to carry out this
role, he must be pure or holy himself. Priestly ordination is intended to
ensure his purification so that he may carry out this role on behalf of the
people.
The second major section of the vision report narrative in Zech 3
appears in vv. 3–5bα, which describe the replacement of Joshua’s filthy
clothes with clean or pure ritual garments. The passage employs a com-
bination of the participles lābuš, “dressed,” and >ōmēd, “standing,” to
portray Joshua dressed in filthy garments while standing before the angel
of YHWH at the outset of the subunit. The narrative action of changing
Joshua’s garments then proceeds from this basis. As noted above, the
removal of impure garments and their replacement with holy garments,
particularly the priest’s tunic and his headpiece, are central acts of the
ordination ceremony described in Exod 29 and Lev 8. The terminology
differs in each case. Exodus 29 and Lev 8 employ the terms kuttōnet,
“tunic,” and me>îl hā<ēpōd, “robe of the ephod” (Exod 28:4; cf. Lev 8:7)
for the priestly garments and hāminepet, “the headdress” (Exod 29:6;
Lev 8:9), for the priestly headgear. By contrast, Zech 3 employs the
terms maalāôt, “festal garments” (cf. Isa 3:22, where the term refers to
lady’s garments), and ānîp, “turban” (cf. Isa 62:3, where the term refers
to a royal headdress, and Isa 3:23, where it refers to a lady’s headdress)
respectively. Zechariah 3 appears to employ general terminology for
these garments whereas Exod 29 and Lev 8 employ the technical termi-
nology of the Pentateuch’s priestly literature to describe the respective
1
garments. Nevertheless, it is clear that both sets of texts have priestly

vestments in mind. The appearance of the first person waw-consecutive
verb, wā<ōmar, “and I said,” to introduce the command to place the tur-
ban on Joshua’s head, suggests that Zechariah functions as both narrator
and participant in the textual presentation of this event.
The third and final major section of the vision report in Zech 3
employs the participle >ōmēd, “standing,” once again to portray the angel
of YHWH standing by as the subsequent action proceeds in vv. 5bβ–10.
The angel plays a primary role in conveying Y HWH’s charge to Joshua
which effectively authorizes him to supervise Y HWH’s Temple as the
High Priest. Verse 6 employs the waw-consecutive verb, wayyā>ad,
literally, “and he witnessed.” The verb >wd, “to assure,” often appears in
a legal context to refer to legal testimony or witnessing (see Deut 4:26;
30:19; 31:28), and generally refers to admonishing, warning, enjoining,
etc. Here, it functions as an introduction to the angel’s presentation of
YHWH’s words, and thereby indicates that the angel enjoins or commis-
sions Joshua to serve by conveying the following statement by Y HWH in
vv. 7–10. The angel begins YHWH’s statement with the so-called mes-
senger formula, kōh <āmar yhwh ebā<ôt, “thus says YHWH eba’ot,” to
authenticate the following words as those of Y HWH. YHWH’s statements
per se begin with a commissioning statement that outlines the conditions
under which Joshua will exercise authority as High Priest, that is, he
must observe YHWH’s expectations. Although the language employed
here does not specify what those expectations might be, the use of the
term darkey, “my paths,” appears frequently as a reference to observing
YHWH’s instructions (e.g. Deut 8:6; Josh 22:5; Judg 2:22; 1 Kgs 2:3;
2 Kgs 21:22). The term mišmartî, “my charge,” refers specifically to the
duties or charge of the priests in the Temple and at the altar (see Lev
8:35; 22:9; Num 1:53; 3:7; 18:5; Ezek 40:46; 44:15). Y HWH’s commis-
sion to Joshua includes the granting of mahlekîm, literally, “causing to
walk,” among those who stand (before the angel or Y HWH). Although
mahlekîm is a somewhat problematic term that normally refers simply to
walking (Ezek 42:4) or a journey (Neh 2:6), in the present instance it
seems to refer to a special privilege on the part of Joshua as High Priest
to walk among or between his colleagues standing here during the course
of activities portrayed in Zech 3. Leviticus 16 indicates that the High
Priest alone has a special role to enter the Holy of Holies once a year at
Yom Kippur to present YHWH with a sin offering on behalf of the people
(and the priests). The special role indicated by the use of the term
mahlekîm in Zech 3 suggests just such a role. This would indicate that
mahlekîm refers to special access, such as that portrayed in Lev 16, to
Joshua as the High Priest.
1
Verses 8–10 then turn to YHWH’s statement of the significance of

Joshua’s appointment as High Priest. This segment of Y HWH’s speech
begins with a typical call to attention formula, addressed to Joshua and
his priestly colleagues, that points to Y HWH’s future actions once Joshua
is ordained. YHWH states that Joshua’s colleagues are <anšê môpet, “men
of portent” or “human portents,” of something yet to come. In this case,
the installation of the priesthood points to Y HWH’s future act in bringing
a figure identified here as ema, “branch,” a term employed in prophetic
literature to refer to a future Davidic monarch who will preside over a
restored nation of Israel on behalf of Y HWH (see Isa 11; Jer 23:1–8;
33:14–26). The term apparently derives from the imagery of a stump
from which new branches grow in Isa 11 metaphorically to portray the
rise of a new Davidic monarch in the aftermath of Assyrian invasion and
conquest. It also apparently refers to the Davidic figure, Zerubbabel, who
accompanied Joshua ben Jehozadak to Jerusalem and played a major role
in rebuilding the Temple. Zerubbabel’s name is derived from an
Akkadian term, zēr bābili, which means “seed/branch of Babylon.” The
references to a future Davidic monarch as ema apparently envision
Zerubbabel’s designation as Davidic king once the Temple is rebuilt
(see, e.g., Hag 2:20–23; cf. Zech 6:9–15). Once the Temple was rebuilt,
Zerubbabel disappeared from the scene and scholars have been at a loss
to explain definitively what happened to him.
The stone with seven eyes also serves as a sign of Y HWH’s future
actions. Although the significance of this term is debated, it apparently
refers to the î zāhāb āhôr, “the rosette of pure gold” or “the diadem,”
that is set upon the turban of the High Priest in Exod 28:36–38. The High
Priest’s diadem is inscribed with the words qōdeš layhwh, “holy to
YHWH,” to signify the Priest’s holy status (see Exod 28:36). The refer-
ence to the “seven eyes” would then refer to the seven individual conso-
nants that comprise this inscription. 14 The portrayal of this diadem as
“stone” rather than as “gold” apparently draws upon the imagery of the
>aeret, “diadem,” in Isa 28:5–6 which will be placed on the head of the
righteous ruler of Israel and Judah. The diadem is described as “the
fading flower (î) of its glorious beauty” in Isa 28:1 and later in Isa
28:16 it is identified with the foundation stone in Zion which will see to
the city’s deliverance from threat. The imagery employed in Zech 3:8–10
apparently draws on a series of intertextual references to portray the
diadem of the High Priest as a symbol of Y HWH’s intentions to restore
the Davidic monarchy in the aftermath of the restoration of the Temple.
14. Contra my interpretation of this image in relation to the lights of the Temple
Menorah (Twelve Prophets, 2:603).
1
The concluding reference to the future when Israelites/Judeans call for

their neighbors to sit with them under their vines and fig trees draws
upon the language of Mic 4:4, which employs this image to refer to a
time of peace that will result from YHWH’s judging the nations that
threaten Israel (cf. Isa 2:2–4; 11:1–16; Jer 23:5–6).
Altogether, the vision report in Zech 3 recounts Zechariah’s experi-
ence of a visionary event. It is retrospective in that it presupposes that
this experience must have taken place in the past, but it is also prospec-
tive in that it points forward to the ordination of Joshua ben Jehozadak as
High Priest and to the subsequent restoration of the Davidic monarch
once the new Temple and its priesthood are consecrated.
3. Targum Jonathan Zechariah 3

Targum Jonathan’s rendition of Zech 3 presents a markedly changed
text.15 Although it is based upon a Hebrew Vorlage that is virtually iden-
tical to the Masoretic text, its many modifications point to a new textual
construction that emphasizes the need for Joshua ben Jehozadak to expel
wives who were unsuitable for the priests as a prelude to the revelation
of the restoration. The Aramaic text may be translated as follows:
1) And he showed me Joshua, the High Priest, before the angel of YHWH,
and the Sinner was standing by his right hand to accuse him. 2) And
YHWH said to the Sinner, “YHWH rebukes you, O Sinner, and YHWH
rebukes you, the One who chooses to cause His Shekhinah to dwell in
Jerusalem! Is this not a firebrand saved from the fire place?” 3) And
Joshua had sons who had married to themselves wives who were not fit
for the priests, and he was standing before the angel. 4) And he answered
and said to those who were serving before him, saying, “Speak to him,
that he may drive out the wives who are not fit for the priests from his
house.” And he said to him, “Behold! For I have removed from you your
sins, and I have dressed you in righteous deeds.” 5) And he said, “Place a
pure turban upon his head!” And they placed a pure turban upon his head,
and they caused him to marry a wife who was fit for the priests. And the
angel of YHWH was standing by. 6) And the angel of YHWH invested
Joshua, saying, 7) “Thus says YHWH eba<ot, ‘If in the paths which are
good before Me you walk, and if the charge of My Memra< you execute,
then you shall govern those who serve in the house of My Sanctuary, and
you shall oversee My Courts. And at the resurrection of the dead, I will
15. See Sperber, Bible in Aramaic, 3:480–82, for the critical text of Targum
Jonathan for Zech 3. For a translation of Targum Zech 3 and discussion of its varia-
tions from the Hebrew, see Cathcart and Gordon, Targum of the Minor Prophets,
190–93.
1
resurrect you, and I will grant to you feet walking between these
seraphim. 8) Hear now, Joshua, the High Priest, you and your colleagues
who sit before you, for they are men (who are) fit to do for them a sign.
For I am bringing My Servant, the Messiah, that he may be revealed. 9)
For behold, the stone which I placed before Joshua. Upon one stone are
seven facets to it. Behold, I reveal its facets,’ says Y HWH eba<ot, ‘And I
will remove the sin of that land in one day.’ ” 10) “At that time,” says
YHWH eba<ot, “You shall call, each to his neighbor, to (sit) under the
fruit of his vines and to (sit) under the fruit of his fig trees.”
Although Aramaic lacks the waw-consecutive verbal formation that

plays such an important role in forming the syntactical structure of
Biblical Hebrew, the noun clauses in vv. 1, 3, and 5bβ continue to play
the same key roles as their Hebrew counterparts in defining the basic
literary structure of this text. Following the conjunctive verbal formation,
we<azeyanî yāt, “and he showed me,” in v. 1, the conjunctive noun
phrase, yehôšûa> kāhanā< rabā< qā<êm, “Joshua the High Priest was
standing…,” introduces vv. 1–2 as the first major literary subunit of this
text. The subunit continues to portray the ordination ceremony of Joshua
ben Jehozadak as in the Hebrew text, but the changes introduced into the
reading of this text by the Targumist change the character of the pres-
entation. The first is the identification of the Satan figure, that is, Hebrew
haśśāān, as Aramaic aā<, “the Sinner,” although the verb employed to
portray his denunciation of Joshua continues to be the Aphel infinitive,
le<asānā<, “to accuse him,” analogous to the Hebrew, leśinô. The effect
of such a change is to ensure that the evil character of the Satan figure is
clear in this text. He is not merely an “opponent” or “denouncer” as the
Hebrew term haśśāān would suggest, but a sinful figure who prompts
sin in others, as indicated by the following portrayal of the priests as
having compromised their sanctity by having married women who were
not fit to be the wives of priests. The second change is the substitution of
the phrase de<itre<î le<ašrā<āh šekînetêh, “who chose to cause His Shekhi-
nah to dwell (in Jerusalem),” in place of the Hebrew habbōēr, “who
chooses (Jerusalem).” Such a change serves the characteristic theological
agenda of the Targum to protect the sanctity of Y HWH by avoiding any
suggestion of anthropomorphic action. 16 The use of the term Shekhinah
(“Presence”) to express the divine presence in the world thereby serves
as a metaphorical expression that enables the Targumist to avoid stating
16. For discussion of the translational characteristics and theological concerns

expressed in Targum Jonathan, see Cathcart and Gordon, Targum of the Minor
Prophets, 1–9; Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 111/339–125/353; Smolar and Aber-
bach, Studies, 129–227.
1
that YHWH Oneself actually appears to human beings in Jerusalem or

anywhere else on earth. The phrase, “(is this not) a brand saved from the
fire place,” is identical to the Aramaic text of Amos 4:11.
Although vv. 3–5bα continue to portray the ordination of Joshua ben
Jehozadak, the Aramaic text changes the terms by which his ordination is
carried out. Whereas the Hebrew text of vv. 3–5aα focuses on the change
from filthy to pure garments to mark his purification, the Aramaic text
substitutes the issue of priestly marriage to women who are unfit wives
for priests. Whereas the Hebrew text describes Joshua as hāyâ lābuš
begādîm ô<îm, “(and Joshua) was dressed in filthy garments,” the
Aramaic text substitutes the phrase, hawâ lêh benîn dinsîbān lehôn nešîn
delā< kāšrān likhûnetā<, “(and Joshua) had sons who married to them-
selves women who were not fit (kosher) for the priests.” This statement
presupposes Ezra 10:18, which states that Joshua ben Jehozadak and his
brothers had married foreign women. 17 Such a marriage is prohibited to
priests in ancient Israel and Judah, insofar as a priest is to marry only a
virgin from his own people (kî <im betûlâ mē>ammāyw) according to Lev
21:14. Cathcart and Gordon argue that the Targumist’s understanding of
“filthy garments” as “wives unfit for priests” derives from references in
Deut 27:20; Ruth 3:9; and Ezek 16:8 that indicate the custom of claiming
a wife by throwing one’s garment over her. 18 Of course, such an associa-
tion provides the justification for introducing the criterion of priestly
impropriety at the time of the building of the Second Temple. The
Targumist chooses not to charge Joshua ben Jehozadak directly as in
Ezra 10:18—he is after all identified here as the High Priest—rather, the
Targumist portrays Joshua’s sons as the ones who are married to unfit
women. In this respect, the Targumic text points to an identifiable sin on
the part of the priests and calls for Joshua to see to it that his sons
divorce the wives in question so that they might be purified from profane
action and therefore consecrated as priests for service in the holy Tem-
ple. It is noteworthy that the house of Eli lost its priestly role as a result
of the sins of his sons, Hophni and Phineas, who among other things are
charged with lying with the women who served at the sanctuary (1 Sam
2:22). Insofar as Jer 7:12–15 indicates that the sanctuary at Shiloh was
destroyed as a result of the people’s wickedness, it would seem that the
Targumist—writing in the aftermath of the destruction of the Second
17. Cathcart and Gordon, Targum of the Minor Prophets, 191. For discussion of
the Haggadic background to this modification, see Gordon, Studies in the Targum to
the Twelve Prophets, 108–16.
18. Cathcart and Gordon, Targum of the Minor Prophets, 191; cf. Hanhart,
Sacharja, 169.
1
Temple in 70 C.E.—surreptitiously identifies the sins of the priests as a

potential cause for the Temple’s destruction in later times.
Nevertheless, Targum Jonathan makes it very clear that the issue at
hand is purification of the priestly line of Joshua ben Jehoazadak, not an
attempt to assign blame for the destruction of the Second Temple. Verses
4–5aα portray the commands that Joshua see to the divorce of the unfit
wives as part of the process by which he and his family are purified and
consecrated for holy service in the Temple. Whereas the Hebrew texts
portrays the angel’s statement el hā>ōmedîm lepānāyw, “to those stand-
ing before him,” the Aramaic text employs the phrase ledimšāmešîn
qodāmôhî, “to those serving before him,” to emphasize an address made
to the priests who would be serving in the Temple rather than an unspeci-
fied group of bystanders. The command that Joshua drive out of his
house the wives who are unfit for priests then becomes an act of purifi-
cation in which Joshua oversees his sons’ divorce from their unfit wives,
which in turn prepares his house for holy service in the Temple. In keep-
ing with the Hebrew text, the actions portrayed here are characterized as
removing the sins of Joshua, although the Targum’s collective portrayal
indicates that the entire house of Joshua ben Jehozadak is involved.
Although the Hebrew text indicates the removal of the filthy garments
and their replacement with maalāôt, “festal/priestly robes,” the Targum
employs the term zākewān, “righteous deeds, righteousness,” to empha-
size the moral dimension symbolized by the change in garments. The
Targum further changes the initial wā<ōmar, “and I said,” in v. 5 to
wā<amār, “and he said,” to eliminate confusion in the sequence of
statements. The Hebrew text is somewhat awkward at this point in
suggesting that Zechariah is both narrator and participant in the text,
whereas the Targum portrays Zechariah strictly as narrator. The text then
proceeds with the command to set a clean turban on Joshua’s head and to
make him marry a wife suitable for the priests in place of the Hebrew
expression, “and they dressed him in garments.” This becomes the only
instance in which the Targum suggests that Joshua had married an unfit
woman as his sons had done (cf. Ezra 10:18).
The third and final major section of this text in vv. 5bβ–10 again
portrays Joshua’s charge as High Priest, but the Aramaic text modifies a
number of statements to emphasize its own reading of the passage. Most
notably, it points to the future resurrection of the dead in the days of the
Messiah, the revelation of the Messiah himself, Joshua’s future role
among the Seraphim in the heavenly Temple, and the means by which
the enigmatic stone mentioned in this passage will reveal this destiny.
The passage begins as in the Hebrew with notices that the angel is stand-
ing by and that he conveys the statements by Y HWH that invest Joshua as
1
High Priest. Modifications in the protasis or the initial conditions laid

down for Joshua in v. 7aα include the change from Hebrew <im bidrākay
tēlēk, “if in my paths you walk,” to Aramaic <im be<ôrān detāqenān
qodāmay tehāk, “if in paths which are good/righteous before Me you
walk,” and the change from Hebrew we<im <et-mišmartî tišmōr, “and if
my charge you observe,” to Aramaic we<im yāt māarat mêmerî tîãar,
“and if the charge of My Memra< you keep.” Both changes protect the
holiness of YHWH by eliminating any suggestion of anthropomorphism.
The former instance indicates distance from the divine presence by
stating that the righteous paths are before YHWH and not paths on which
YHWH might literally walk, and the latter employs the characteristic
expression Memra’ to hypostatize divine presence in the form of YHWH’s
speech or expression.19 Modifications also occur in the statement of the
apodosis in v. 7aβ–b, which defines Joshua’s role as High Priest in
charge of the Temple. A simple modification from Hebrew tādîn <et-bêtî,
“you shall govern My House,” becomes Aramaic tedîn ledimšamešîn
bebêt maqdešî, “you shall govern those who serve in the house of My
Sanctuary.” Such a change specifies Joshua’s role in overseeing the
priests. A more substantive modification occurs in the final portion of the
verse, wenātattî lekā mahlekîm bên hā>ōmedîm hā<ēlleh, “and I will grant
you access among these standing (here),” to Aramaic ûb<aāyût mîtayā<
<aênāk we<atên lāk raglîn mehālekān bên sirpayā< hā<ilên, “and at the
resurrection of the dead, I will grant to you feet walking between these
Seraphim.” This is a particularly important modification because it
demonstrates that the Targumist does not read this text in relation strictly
speaking to the rebuilding of the Second Temple but to the days of the
Messiah (see below) when the dead will be resurrected and Joshua will
serve in the heavenly Temple. The designation of “those standing” as
“Seraphim” draws upon the portrayal of the heavenly retinue in Isaiah’s
vision of YHWH (Isa 6) and points to the time beyond that of the Second
Temple. The Targumist renders the problematic mahlekîm, “access,” with
the more literal raglîn mehālekān, “feet walking,” to indicate simply
Joshua’s presence among the heavenly retinue in the future.
The concluding statements concerning the signs of Y HWH’s actions in
vv. 8–10 likewise modify the Hebrew text to point to the future days of
the Messiah. The Targumist modifies the Hebrew statement concerning
the role of Joshua’s colleagues as <anšê môpēt, “men of sign,” to the
more complicated Aramaic phrase gûbrîn kāšerîn lemā>abār lehôn nisā<,
“men fit (kosher) to do for them a miracle.” Whereas the Hebrew phrase
19. For discussion of the concept of the Memra< in Targum Jonathan, see Smolar
and Aberbach, Studies, 130–31.
1
indicates that Joshua’s colleagues are signs or testimony that Y HWH will
act to remove the guilt of the land—they are after all priests, and the
atonement for wrongdoing is a major part of their role—the Targum
portrays them as fit or worthy of sign. That is, they do not themselves
demonstrate YHWH’s intention to act on behalf of the people; instead
they are now fit as a result of their purification to have miracles done by
YHWH for them. YHWH’s act becomes far more distant in the Targum.
Whereas the Hebrew maintains that YHWH is bringing >abdî ema, “my
servant, the Branch”—a clear reference to Zerubbabel, the Davidic heir
to the throne, who is understood to be the object of Messianic prophecies
concerning the coming of the ema or “Branch” figure—the Targum
identifies this figure as <abdî mešîā< weyitgelēy, “My servant, the
Messiah, who will be revealed.” The Targum therefore shifts the terms of
this text from an identifiable, historical, royal figure of the time of the
building of the Second Temple to an unspecified future messianic figure
to be revealed in days to come. To serve this purpose, the Targum also
modifies the references to the stone with seven eyes, apparently the
engraved diadem worn on the turban of the High Priest. Whereas the
Hebrew text refers to this stone as <eben <aat šib>â >ênāyim, “one stone
(with) seven eyes,” a reference to the seven letters that would constitute
the inscription “holy to Y HWH” in Hebrew, the Targum renders this
expression in Aramaic as <abnā< adā< šib>āh āzyān lah, “one stone
which has seven facets.” Although the term āzyān, “facets,” suggests a
precious stone with seven reflective surfaces, the understanding of this
image cannot be limited simply to the esthetic qualities of precious
stones. The term āzyān is based on the root zy, “to envision, perceive,”
and it is generally read as a reference to envisioning the divine, clearly
based on the Hebrew term “eyes,” that is, the stone becomes a means to
discern divine purpose in the rendition of Targum Jonathan. Indeed, this
function is reinforced by the reformulation of the Hebrew phrase hinenî
mepatēa pittuāh, “behold, I am engraving its inscription,” a reference
to the inscription on the High Priest’s diadem, to the Aramaic ha<anā<
gālēy āzāytah, “behold I am revealing its facets/visions.” Such a
rendition of course emphasizes the role of the stone in envisioning the
coming days of the Messiah. The final modification of the text from
Hebrew, “you shall call, each to his neighbor, to (sit) under a vine and to
(sit) under a fig tree,” to “you shall call, each to his colleague, to (sit)
under the fruit (pêrê) of his vine and to (sit) under the fruit (pêrê) of his
fig tree,” simply fills out an otherwise enigmatic statement, that is, one
sits under fruit, not under the vine and fig tree themselves.
1
4. Conclusion
Although Targum Jonathan’s rendition of Zech 3 is in the first instance
an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew text, the many substantive changes
introduced into the Aramaic text point to a highly interpretative version
of Zech 3. Interpreters often tend to treat the Targum and other versions
of the Hebrew Bible as variations of the basic Hebrew text, but it is
important to recognize the extent to which the Targumist has created a
new literary text, which is dependent on the earlier Hebrew version but
which also displays its own set of theological concerns and viewpoints.
The above analyses of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts raise several
important issues.
First, the Hebrew text of Zech 3 presents a largely retrospective
account of the prophet’s visionary experience that looks forward to the
ordination of Joshua ben Jehozadak, the priestly figure who returned to
Jerusalem with Zerubbabel to rebuild the Temple during the early reign
of King Darius I of Persia (see Ezra 2–3), as High Priest for service in
the newly constructed Temple. The text is retrospective insofar as it
presents a vision that Zechariah purportedly experienced at some time in
the past. It is prospective in that the vision points forward to an event that
will be realized at some point in the future. When its retrospective and
prospective aspects are considered together, the Hebrew version of Zech
3 must be set in a very limited historical context that spans the period
from Joshua ben Jehozadak’s return to Jerusalem in 522 B.C.E. through
the completion of the Temple in 515 B.C.E. Zechariah 3 looks forward to
the coming of a royal figure named only as ema, “Branch,” a reference
to the Davidic figure Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel who returned to Jerusalem
at the same time to participate in the rebuilding of the Temple and the
restoration of Jerusalem. When read in relation to Zech 1–8, Zech 9–14
lays out an anticipated scenario of Y HWH’s intervention in the world in
the aftermath of the restoration of the Temple and the Davidic monarchy
to force the recognition of divine power and sovereignty by the nations at
large. Although Hag 2:20–23 anticipates Zerubbabel’s role as King under
YHWH’s authority, he apparently never ascended the throne for reasons
that must remain unknown. Despite the proto-apocalyptic pretensions of
Zech 9–14 and the book as a whole, Zech 3 must continue to be read in
relation to a relatively narrow historical framework.
Targum Jonathan’s version of Zech 3 shares certain characteristics
with its Hebrew predecessor, but it also deviates substantially. It is
retrospective insofar as it reports Zechariah’s vision in terms similar to
those of the Hebrew text. It reinforces its retrospective viewpoint by
pointing to the causes of Joshua’s impurity, namely, the marriages of the
1
priests, including Joshua ben Jehozadak, to foreign women who were not
suitable marriage partners for the priests (Ezra 10:18). In this respect, the
Targumist has played an important interpretative role in specifying what
specifically had compromised the priest’s holy status by considering
other sources concerned with the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem
and drawing conclusions from them. The Targumist takes care to specify
that Joshua’s sons are the primary culprits, although v. 5 suggests that
Joshua himself had married an unfit wife. Such a presentation changes
the terms by which the text presents the ordination of Joshua ben
Jehozadak. Any priest would have to be ordained for service at the altar;
the absence of a legitimate altar prior to the construction of the Second
Temple would preclude such ordination for Joshua until the Temple was
built. Prior to ordination, Joshua would have been viewed as unfit to
serve at the altar. But Targum Jonathan’s rendition of the vision eschews
any notion that this is Joshua’s initial ordination as a priest; indeed, the
text already refers to him as “the High Priest,” which suggests some sort
of prior ordination or status even though the Temple had not yet been
rebuilt. But by specifying that Joshua and his sons were married to unfit
women, the Targumist identifies illicit marriage as the primary cause of
Joshua’s impurity, addresses the problem, and sees to it that Joshua is
rendered fit to serve at the altar during the course of the vision. This is
not the ordination of a new priest; it is an ordination that purifies an
already established priest. Unlike the basic premise of ordination that one
is impure until properly consecrated, it is also an ordination that points to
a specific and deliberate sin that would have rendered Joshua unfit for
service at the altar. Our Targumist, drawing on Ezra 10:18, implicitly
asserts that Joshua had deliberately compromised his holy status and that
Joshua had to be purified as a consequence of this act.
This raises a further aspect of the retrospective character of the
Aramaic text; Targum Jonathan is written in the aftermath of the destruc-
tion of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 C.E. Whereas the Hebrew
version of Zech 3 anticipates the inauguration of the new Temple,
Targum Jonathan presupposes its demise. By pointing to a deliberate sin
on the part of Joshua ben Jehozadak and his priestly line, the Targumist
raises Joshua’s conduct as a potential cause for the demise of his own
priestly line as well as the demise of the Temple. Although Joshua ben
Jehozadak’s descendants served as High Priests in the Temple for several
centuries, the line was removed and replaced during the course of the
Hasmonean revolt against the Seleucid Empire. 20 The first move was by
20. For discussion of the history of the priesthood during the Second Temple
period, see James C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the
Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004).
1
the Seleucid Antiochus IV who removed the High Priest Onias III (?–175
B.C.E.) and replaced him with his brother Jason (175–172 B.C.E.) in order
to gain greater access to Temple funds.21 Antiochus later removed Jason
and replaced him with Menelaus 172–162 B.C.E.), who was a priest but
not of the line of Joshua ben Jehozadak, based on Menelaus’s bribe and
offer of more funds. Menelaus’s successor, Alcimus/Yaqim (162 or 160–
159 B.C.E.) was also not of the line of Joshua. With the rise of the
Hasmonean family to the High Priesthood, beginning with Jonathan in
152 B.C.E., the line of Joshua ben Jehozadak had come to an end. The
disruption of the High Priestly line preceded the destruction of the Tem-
ple itself in 70 C.E. Although the disruption of the high priestly line can
hardly be seen as the historical cause of the Temple’s destruction, it
forms a component in a sequence of events that saw the decline of the
Temple and its ultimate demise.
These considerations point to the prospective character of the Aramaic
text. Whereas the Hebrew text of Zech 3 has a relatively limited pro-
spective character in relation to the establishment of the Second Temple,
the Aramaic text is not so constrained. The fictive setting of the narrative
remains in the time of the construction of the Second Temple, but having
been written in the aftermath of the Temple’s destruction, it takes much
greater liberty in envisioning the future. This is evident first of all in the
wording of Joshua’s commission in v. 7 that Y HWH will grant him feet to
walk between the Seraphim. The commission begins by stating that it
will be realized at the time of the resurrection of the dead, so the reader
already knows that the Targum envisions a time well beyond the period
of the Second Temple. By referring to the Seraphim, the Targumist draws
on Isaiah’s vision of YHWH’s retinue in Isa 6 to specify that Joshua’s role
will be realized well beyond his own lifetime when he serves in the
heavenly Temple where the Seraphim are to be found. The orientation
to the distant future is further specified by the statement in v. 8 that
Joshua’s colleagues are men worthy of a sign or miracle, particularly
when that miracle is defined as the future coming of the Messiah; indeed,
Targum Jonathan makes sure to alert the reader that the Messiah is yet to
be revealed. Such a contention moves well beyond the standard historical
interpretations of the ema figure in the Hebrew text; by the time of the
aftermath of the Temple’s destruction, it could be safely concluded that
Zerubbabel was not the Messiah, even if he was the ema figure.
1
21. For the following, see ibid., 188–239.
Although many interpreters are content to focus on the messianic

element as the key issue in this text, 22 the matter does not end there. The
role of the High Priest and the Temple are crucial here. Our text presents
the High Priest and Temple as portents for the coming of the Messiah
and the future redemption of the land of Israel through the agency of the
heavenly Temple and Joshua’s future service there among the Seraphim.
This points to the turban that is placed on his head during the course of
the ordination ceremony and Targum Jonathan’s treatment of the diadem
or stone inscribed with the expression, “Holy to Y HWH,” that is placed
atop the High Priest’s turban. The Hebrew text clearly understands the
diadem and its inscription as a sign that the re-establishment of the Tem-
ple serves YHWH’s purposes to grant peace to the land of Israel. Targum
Jonathan, however, sees in the diadem a means to envision the future
manifestation of the heavenly Temple, the Messiah, and the eschatologi-
cal peace for the land of Israel. As noted in the discussion above, the
Targum’s rendition of “the seven eyes” of the stones as “the seven
facets” employs the, Aramaic term āzyān, based on the root zy, “to
envision, perceive.” The Aramaic term is a standard term for prophecy
and visionary experience, and it thereby conveys the notion that the
diadem functions as a means to envision the future. Indeed, the Aramaic
text in v. 9 makes sure to state that the seven facets of the stone provide
the means by which YHWH reveals the future, including the coming of
the Messiah and the eschatological peace for the land of Israel. The
Targum clearly portrays the Temple and the High Priest as agents of
visionary experience and revelation concerning YHWH’s plans for future
acts of restoration and blessing. Such an assertion would well express the
hopes of the surviving Jewish population of the land in the aftermath of
the failed revolt against Rome (and even more so in the aftermath of the
failed Bar Kochba revolt of 132–135 C.E.).
These aspects are striking, particularly when readers consider the role
of the Temple and priesthood in relation to visionary experience. Indeed,
Lev 16—with its emphasis on the High Priest’s vision of Y HWH in the
Holy of Holies at Yom Kippur and its concern with the scapegoat cere-
mony that plays such an important role in the atonement of the people of
Israel and its security over the course of the coming year—points to the
priesthood and Temple as agents of visionary experience, revelation, and
future blessing. It is therefore particularly important that scholars are
coming to recognize this role as well. One might note recent work that
22. In addition to the standard commentaries on Zechariah, see Samson H.

Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation. The Messianic Exegesis of the
Targum (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College; New York: Ktav, 1974).
1
points to the priestly context of apocalyptic literature and thereby chal-

lenges assertions that apocalyptic derives primarily from prophecy that is
opposed to the priesthood. 23 One might also note that apocalyptic
literature of the late Second Temple period has much in common with
the Merkavah literature of the early Rabbinic period, insofar as both
attempt to envision the heavenly world in an effort to discern divine will
and purpose. Indeed, the Merkavah literature appears to develop out of
earlier apocalyptic texts and concerns.24 Finally, one might note that the
Merkavah literature, for example, the Heikhalot Rabbati, identifies a
priestly figure, Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha, purportedly the descendant of
the later High Priests, as the visionary mystic or agent of divine revela-
tion and the third gate of the Temple as the locus of such revelation. 25
Although Targum Jonathan’s rendition of Zech 3 is a far cry from the
developed visionary experience of the apocalyptic literature of the
Second Temple period and the Heikhalot literature of the Rabbinic
period, its construction of the role of the High Priest and the Temple in
such experience leaves much to ponder.26 With its portrayal of the High
Priest and the Temple as portents of the yet-to-be-realized heavenly
Temple, Targum Jonathan’s rendition of Zech 3 presents a text that leads
its reader to consider issues and images raised in the apocalyptic and
23. Stephen L. Cook, Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995); idem, The Apocalyptic Literature (Interpreting
Biblical Texts; Nashville: Abingdon, 2003).
24. See Ithamar Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (AGJU 14;
Leiden: Brill, 1980), who argues that the Merkavah/Heikhalot literature develops out
of earlier apocalyptic literature.
25. Heikhalot Rabbati 16:2. For a critical edition of Heikhalot Rabbati, see
Shlomoh Aharon Joseph Wertheimer, Batei Midrashot (2d ed.; Jerusalem: Mosad
Harav Cook, 1950), 1:67–161; see also Peter Schäfer, ed., Synopse zur Hekhalot-
Literatur (TSAJ 2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981), §§81–306. A partial English
translation of the Wertheimer edition of the Heikhalot Rabbati appears in David R.
Blumenthal, Understanding Jewish Mysticism: A Source Reader (New York: Ktav,
1978), 53–91. For discussion of the Heikhalot Rabbati, see Gruenwald, Apocalyptic
and Merkavah Mysticism, 150–73. For the tradition that R. Ishmael ben Elisha was a
priest, see Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York:
Schocken, 1972), 356 n. 3; Rachel Elior, The Three Temples: On the Emergence of
Jewish Mysticism (Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004), 240–46;
Gary G. Porton, The Traditions of Rabbi Ishmael (SJLA 19/1–4; Leiden: Brill,
1976–82), especially 4:212–18, who expresses great caution in reconstructing the
details of R. Ishmael’s life.
26. For recent discussion, see Elior, The Three Temples, who argues that dis-
enfranchized priestly circles were instrumental in developing the Heikhalot litera-
ture.
1
Heikhalot texts. Insofar as the Targums were produced for public reading
in the synagogue, our text could easily serve as an enticement or gateway
to the reading of such purportedly esoteric texts. Further research on this
matter has the potential to illumine the interrelationship between the
publicly read Targumic literature and the esoteric Heikhalot texts.
1
THE GREEK TEXT OF ZECHARIAH:
A DOCUMENT FROM MACCABEAN JERUSALEM?*
Thomas Pola
This study presents a selection of verses expressing a theologically new

understanding of the prophecies of the book of Zechariah in its Greek
version compared with the MT. Its thesis is that the book of Zechariah
was translated into Greek in Jerusalem (and not in Alexandria), obvi-
ously in view of the life of Judas the Maccabee († 161 B.C.E.). The
Maccabean dating of the LXX as whole, but located in Alexandria, was
first proposed by Graetz in 1891.1 There was only little acceptance of this
thesis,2 although it was resumed concerning Zech 9–14 by Lamarche in
1961.3
1. A Methodological Change Concerning the Exegesis of the LXX

First of all, there was little interest in the LXX of the Minor Prophets in
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Secondly, all scholars in the
nineteenth century and in the first half of the twentieth century were
merely interested in the variants of the LXX compared mainly with the
MT and other versions. All variants were collected, combined with a
short introduction. This is the concern of authors like Vollers (1880),
Stekhoven (1887), Kaminka (1928), Treitel (1929), and Jansma (1950). 4
* First presented at the meeting of the European Association of Biblical

Scholars (EABS), Groningen University (Netherlands), July 2004.
1. Heinrich Graetz, “The Genesis of the So-called Septuagint, the First Greek
Version of the Pentateuch,” JQR 3 (1981): 150–56.
2. Cf. Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the
Greek Version of the Bible (trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 57–58.
3. Paul Lamarche, Zacharie IX–XIV: Structure littéraire et Messianisme (Paris:
Gabalda, 1961), 21–22.
4. Karl Vollers, Das Dodekapropheton der Alexandriner, Erste Hälfte: Naûm,
Ambakûm, Sophonias, Angaios, Zacharias, Malachias (Berlin: Mayer & Müller,
1880); J. Z. Schurmanns Stekhoven, Die alexandrijnsche vertaling van he Dodeka-
propheton (Leiden: Brill, 1887); Armand Kaminka, “Studien zur Septuaginta an der
1
There was also much discussion about the Greek Zechariah in the
philological commentaries, especially in Mitchell (1912) 5 and Rudolph
(1976).6
Compared to this formerly text-critical utilization of the LXX, the
method changed in the second half of the twentieth century. Scholars
became interested in introductory questions and even in working out a
theology of the LXX and its background in the Jewish community of
Alexandria. As the history of the oral transmission of the Targum tradi-
tion still raises many questions, the theological self-understanding of the
LXX is an important contribution to the earliest reception history of the
Hebrew Old Testament.
This was easier once the short edition of Alfred Rahlfs (1935) was
supported by the succeeding volumes of the critical edition of the
“Göttinger Septuaginta” beginning in 1926. 7 To be precise, the late
Joseph Ziegler dedicated himself to the Greek Text of the Minor Proph-
ets. In 1934, Ziegler demonstrated that the Book of the Minor Prophets
was translated into Greek by a single author. 8 Characteristic for this
author is the translation of tw)bc by pantokra/twr instead of saba(i)wq
in the Greek Isaiah.9 The majority of contemporary scholars still follow
Hand der zwölf kleinen Prophetenbücher,” MGWJ 72 (1928): 49–60, 242–73;

Leopold Treitel, “Wert und Bedeutung der Septuaginta zu den 12 kleinen
Propheten,” MGWJ 73 (1929): 232–34; and Taeke Jansma, “Inquiry into the Hebrew
Text and the Ancient Versions of Zechariah ix–xiv,” OtSt 7 (1950): 1–142.
5. Hinckley G. T. Mitchell, J. M. Powis Smith, and Julius A. Bewer, A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah (ICC;
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912; 2d ed. 1937; repr. 1980).
6. Wilhelm Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, 9–14, Malachi (KAT 13/4; Güter-
sloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1976).
7. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scienti-
arum Gottingensis editum, Göttingen 1926–. See especially vol. 13 by Joseph
Ziegler, Duodecim prophetae (2d ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967
[1943]).
8. Joseph Ziegler, “Die Einheit der Septuaginta zum Zwölfprophetenbuch,” in
Sylloge: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Septuaginta (MSU 10; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1971), 29–42; repr. from Verzeichnis der Vorlesungen an der Staatl.
Akademie zu Braunsberg im Wintersemester 1934/35 (Kirchhain, 1934), 1–16. He
repeated this thesis in later publications, especially “Zur Dodekapropheton–LXX,” in
Sylloge, 587–89; repr. from ETL 38 (1962): 904–6.
9. Kaminka, “Studien zur Septuaginta,” 50–51; Ziegler, “Zur Dodekapropheton–
LXX,” 587/904; Cécile Dogniez, “Le Dieu des armées dans le Dodekapropheton:
quelques remarques sur une initiative de traduction,” in IX Congress of the Inter-
national Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Cambridge 1995 (ed.
Bernard A. Taylor; SBLSCS 45; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 19–36.
1
POLA The Greek Text of Zechariah 293
Ziegler’s opinion.10 Subsequently the Minor Prophets have been dis-

cussed by Dogniez (1999 and 2007) and Muraoka (2002). 11 The Greek
translation of the book of Zechariah as a whole has been discussed by
Cimosa (1997) and more recently by van der Kooij (2003). 12
2. Peculiarities of the Greek Zechariah

For the purpose of this study the opinion that the Minor Prophets were
translated by a single ancient scholar is fundamental. Even if the text-
critical reconstruction of the original text of the book of Zechariah under-
lies many problems, it is methodologically less problematic to ask for the
theological self-understanding if there was a single translator and not
many. Moreover, as the translator of the Minor Prophets used to translate
very literally,13 the passages expressing an understanding very different
from the Hebrew may result from mere misunderstandings or alternative
understandings of the sometimes enigmatic Hebrew without any theo-
logical implications, or (which is more relevant for our purposes) from
an understanding of the Hebrew which drove the translator to support a
new theological understanding. According to van der Kooij, the trans-
lator must have been a learned scribe. 14 He knew the text of the Minor
Prophets and he saw his task not merely as translating but also as trans-
forming it into a message relevant for the Jews of his own time.
As the division of the book into three parts is indicated by 9:1 and
12:1, the date of the Hebrew chs. 9–11 in the early Hellenistic time and of
10. Folker Siegert, Zwischen Hebräischer Bibel und Altem Testament: Eine
Einführung in die Septuaginta (Münsteraner judaistische Studien 9; Münster: LIT,
2001), 41; Takamitsu Muraoka, “Introduction aux douze petits prophètes,” in Les
Douze Prophètes: Osée (ed. Eberhard Bons, Jan Jooster, and Stephan Kessler; La
Bible d’Alexandrie 23/1; Paris: Cerf, 2002), ix–x.
11. Cécile Dogniez, “Fautes de traduction, ou bonnes traductions? Quelques
examples pris dans la LXX des Douze Petits Prophètes,” in X Congress of the
International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo 1998 (ed.
Bernard A. Taylor; SBLSCS 51; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 241–
61; idem, “Le Dieu des armées dans le Dodekapropheton”; Muraoka, “Introduction
aux douze petits prophètes,” ix–x.
12. Mario Cimosa, “Observations on the Greek Translation of the Book of
Zechariah,” in IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and
Cognate Studies, Cambridge 1995 (ed. Bernard A. Taylor; SBLSCS 45; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1997), 91–108; Arie van der Kooij, “The Septuagint of Zechariah as
Witness to an Early Interpretation of the Book,” in The Book of Zechariah and Its
Influence (ed. Christopher M. Tuckett; Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), 54–55.
13. Ziegler, “Zur Dodekapropheton–LXX,” 587/904; Siegert, Zwischen Hebrä-
ischer Bibel und Altem Testament, 333.
1
14. Van der Kooij, “The Septuagint of Zechariah,” 54–55.
chs. 12–14 in the third century B.C.E. (or even later) means that there was
only little time between the acceptance of the final form of the Hebrew
Zechariah and its translation into Greek. This explains why a new under-
standing becomes evident especially in the framing of the book and in its
third part.
a. An Example of Literal Translation

As the visions in Zech 1–6 (Hebrew text) are composed in a rigid struc-
ture which consists of many formulas well known from earlier prophecy
(compare especially the headings of the visions, except ch. 3), it is not
surprising that the translator of the Twelve translated them literally with
respect to both single words and the word order. Moreover, even a
formula which is restricted to the book of Zechariah, the Formel des
Sendungserweises in Zech 2:13, 15; 4:9; and 6:15, was recognized as a
formula and was translated accordingly.15
b. A Peculiar Frame of the Greek Zechariah (1:6b and 14:3)

The LXX translation of Zech 14:3 corresponds literally to the Hebrew
text:
MT .Mrfq; MwOyb@; wOmxjl@fhi MwOyk@; Mh'hf MyIwOg2b@a Mxal;niw: hwFhy: )cfyFw :
NKJ Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as He
fights in the day of battle.
LXX kai\ e)celeu&setai ku/rioj kai/ ku,rioj kai. parata/cetai e)n toi=j e!qnesin
Rahlfs e)kei/noij kaqw_j h9me/ra parata/cewj au)tou= e)n h9me/ra pole&mou
And the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations as in the
day of his fight on the day of a war.
See also parata&sswmai in 14:14. Compared to that there is a peculiar

translation of Hebrew Mmz, “consider, purpose, devise,” in Zech 1:6b by a
military term, parata&sswmai:
MT w2nlf twO#o(jla twO)bfc; hwFhy: MmazF r#$e)jk2a w2rm;)y&,wA w2bw2#$y,FwA
.w2nt@f)i h#of(f Nk@' w2nyl'lf(jmak;w2 w2nyk'rfd;ki
NKJ So they returned and said: “Just as the Lord of hosts determined to
do to us, according to our ways and according to our deeds, so He
has dealt with us.”
LXX kai\ a)pekri/qhsan kai/ ei]pan kaqw_j parate/taktai ku/rioj
Rahlfs pantokra&twr tou= poih=sai kata_ ta_j o(dou_j u(mw=n kai\ kata_ ta_
’Epithdeu&mata u(mw=n ou#twj e)poi/hsen u(mi=n
15. Thomas Pola, Das Priestertum bei Sacharja: Historische und traditions-
geschichtliche Untersuchungen zur frühnachexilischen Herrschererwartung (FAT
35; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 110, 261.
1
And they16 answered and said: “Just as the Lord the Almighty drew
up to do17 according to your18 ways and according to your habits, so
He has done you.19”
According to the revised edition of the dictionary of Lust, Eynikel, and

Hauspie, in the LXX parata&sswmai means “to set oneself in array
against.”20 The remaining use of this word is in Zech 8:15, once again
corresponding to Hebrew Mmz. The translator of Zech 1:6 obviously com-
bines the eschatological judgment theology of the latter chapters of the
book with the salvation theology of chs. 1–8. To be precise, he insists
that the same Lord is both making salvation for his people and fighting
for his people in the last days. The salvation theology of the first part of
the book was actualized. If there was any hope at all, it was a military
one—according to the translator.
c. Greek Zechariah and Greek Amos: The Theological Frame of the

Greek Minor Prophets
An almost insignificant plural (supported by the Vulgate, also) instead of
the Hebrew singular in Zech 14:1, attracted the attention of Jansma. 21
MT hwF$hyla )b@f-MwOy hn%'hi
NKJ Behold, the day of the Lord is coming
LXX i0dou_ h9me/rai e!rxonta tou= kuri/ou
Rahlfs
Behold, the days of the Lord are coming
The plural of this formula appears twenty-one times in the Hebrew text
(e.g. Jer 7:32, etc.), so it is not unusual. As the formula is very frequent
in Zech 13–14, the plural in the LXX should not be overlooked. More-
over, according to Jansma, the plural in Zech 14:1, in the closing chapter
16. The subject of this sentence is different in the editions of Rahlfs (subject: the
prophets) and in the Göttingen edition (subject: the audience). The latter sees no
rhetorical difference between the command and its execution on the level of the use
of variants. See the following notes.
17. “To us” is missing in 4Q80, frg. 3, too.
18. Göttingen edition: “our…and…our.”
19. Göttingen edition: “us.”
20. Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, A Greek–English Lexicon of
the Septuagint (rev. ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003), s.v. para-
ta&ssw. See Num 1:45; Gen 14:8; Ps 26 [27]:3; JudgB 1:3; 5:20; cf. JudgA 20:22.
Consequently, the meaning of parata&sswmai in 1:6 should not be adopted to the
Hebrew context (“to stand mentally prepared”; Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek–
English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Chiefly of the Pentateuch and the Twelve
Prophets [Leuven: Peeters, 2002], 437).
1
21. Jansma, “Inquiry into the Hebrew Text,” 128–29.
of the book, might be influenced by the most prominent judgment

prophet within the Minor Prophets, Amos, as the plural version of this
formula appears in Amos 4:2; 8:11, and 9:13 (Hebrew text). As the
Minor Prophets were translated by a single author, there must be an
intention behind this phenomenon of intertextuality. In short, the goal of
the judgment prophecy of Amos, formerly directed against Israel, is the
apocalyptic judgment prophecy concerning the whole world in
Zech 14—according to the translator.
d. Stress of Universalism in the Greek Zechariah

Three times, the LXX of Zechariah stresses a universalistic tendency or
even turns a dualistic expression of the Hebrew text into a universalistic
one, namely, in Zech 2:15 and 14:13, 17.
Zechariah 2:15
MT K7k'wOtb; yt@in;ka#$fw: M(fl; yli w2yhfw: )w2hha MwOy,b@a hwFhy:-l)e Myb@ira MyIwOg w%wl;niw:
NKJ Many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and they shall
become My people. And I will dwell in your midst.
LXX kai\ katafeu/contai e!qnh polla_ e)pi\ to_n ku/rion e0n th= h(me/ra
Rahlfs e)kei/nh| kai\ e!sontai au0tw~| ei0j lao_n kai\ kataskhnw&sousin e0n
me/sw| sou
And many nations will escape to the Lord in that day and they shall
become a people for him. And they will dwell in your midst.
In the Hebrew text of Zech 2, vv. 10–13 are clearly dualistic but vv. 14–
17 are universalistic. The LXX stresses the universalistic character by
turning K7k'wOtb; yt@in;ka#$fw;, “I will dwell in your midst” (the subject is Y HWH
in this Priestly formula), into the plural kai_ kataskhnw&sousin, “and they
(i.e. the nations) shall dwell in your midst.”
Zechariah 14:13
MT Mheb@f hbf@rA hwFhy:-tmaw2hm; hyeh;t@i )w2hha MwOy%b@a hyFhfw:
.w2h('r" dyA-l(aa wOdyF htfl;(fw: w2h('r" dyA #$y)i 2 w2qyzIxvhew:
NKJ It shall come to pass in that day that a great panic from the Lord
will be among them. Everyone will seize the hand of his neighbor,
and raise his hand against his neighbor’s hand.
LXX kai\ 1Estai e)n th= h9me/ra| e)kei/nh e!kstasij kuri/ou e)p’ au0tou\j mega/lh
Rahlfs kai\ e0pilh/myontai e#kastoj th=j xeiro_j tou~ plhsi/on au)tou~
kai\ sumplakh/setai h( xei\r au)tou~ pro_j xei=ra tou~ plhsi/on au)tou~
1
And22 in that day panic concerning the Lord will be great among
them.
Everyone will seize the hand of his neighbor, and his hand will
grasp for the hand of his neighbor.
Zechariah 14:17
MT MIla#$fw2ry:-l)E Cre)fhf twOxp;,#$;mi t)'m' hlE(jyA-)$l r#$E)j hyFhfw:
.M#$EgF%ha hyeh;yI MhEyl'(j )$lw: twO)bfc; hwFhy: K7lEmEl; twOxjt@a#$;hil;
NKJ And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not
come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, on
them there will be no rain.
LXX kai\ e@stai o#soi e)a_n mh_ a0nabw~sin e0k pasw~n tw~n fulw~n th=j gh=j ei!j
Rahlfs Ierousalhm
tou~ proskunh=sai tw~| basilei= kuri/w| pantokra&tori
kai/ ou[toi e)kei/noij prosteqh/sontai
And it shall be: whichever of all the tribes of the earth23 do not
come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord Almighty:
Even they will be added to them.
Again, the context of the Hebrew text in vv. 13–15 and concerning Egypt
in vv. 17–19 is dualistic. In contrast to that, v. 16 is universalistic: “And
it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which
came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the
King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles” (NKJ).
The translator or his scholarly tradition must have been influenced
mainly by this verse as can been seen by the peculiarities of vv. 13
and 17. In v. 13, instead of the dualistic formula “and his hand will rise
against his neighbor’s hand” (i.e. they will kill each other as a result of
the divine judgment) the Greek says “his hand will grasp for the hand of
his neighbor.” The reader of these lines may object that the orthography
of Hebrew l( and l) frequently gets muddled up especially in exilic and
postexilic texts.24 But in v. 17 the concluding sentence of the Hebrew
text, “on them there will be no rain” (which means that they will die by
the judgment of YHWH), is replaced(!) by the Greek “even they will be
added to them.” A clearly dualistic sentence is turned into a universalis-
tic one. This is comparable with Greek Deut 32:43 where Hellenistic
proselytism is the background, too. In the light of this new interpretation,
the change of l(, “against,” to l) in Zech 14:13 seems to be no normal
case of the well-known text-critical and orthographic problem of l)/l(.
22. “It shall come to pass” is missing.

23. Or alternatively “land.”
24. Walther Zimmerli, Ezechiel (2d ed.; BKAT 13; 2 vols.; Neukirchen–Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1979), 1:6.
1
In short, universalism is stressed in Greek Zech 2:15. The LXX of

Zech 14:13 and 17 maintains universalism against the Hebrew text, per-
haps supported by v. 16.
e. Was Zechariah Translated in the Time of the Maccabees and In

Judah?
Most striking is the Greek version of Zech 14:14.
MT MIlf#$fw2ryb@i Mx'l@ft@i hdfw2hy;-Mgaw:
bybsf MyIwOg2ha-lk@f lyx' Psa@)uw:
.d)om; brolf MydigFb;w2 PsEkEwF bhfzF
NKJ Judah also will fight at Jerusalem. And the wealth of all the
surrounding nations Shall be gathered together: Gold, silver, and
apparel in great abundance.
LXX kai\ o( Ioudaj parata&cetai e&n Ierousalhm
Rahlfs kai\ suna&cei th_n i0sxu_n pa&ntwn law~n kuklo&qen
xrusi/on kai\ a)rgu&rion kai\ i0matismo_n ei0j plh=qoj sfo&dra
And25 Judas will draw up in Jerusalem and will collect the
wealth of all the surrounding nations: Gold, silver, and apparel in
great abundance.
Instead of the Hebrew, “Judah (i.e. hdfw2hy: +be#$') also will fight at Jerusa-
lem. And the wealth of all the surrounding nations shall be gathered
together” (passivum divinum), the Greek says: “And Judas [an individual
called ‘Judas’ instead of hdfw2hy: +bE#'$, with the Greek definite article in the
Rahlfs edition] will draw up (take up position) in Jerusalem and he (and
not YHWH) will collect the wealth of all the surrounding nations,” etc.
This is an allusion to Judas the Maccabee who died in 161 B.C.E. There
is another argument confirming this: The mentioning of the Sukkoth
Feast in the vv. 16 and 18–19 seems to mirror the first Sukkoth after the
rededication of the temple mentioned in 2 Macc 10:6—in the eyes of the
Greek translator. However, the actualizing hope concerning Judas the
Maccabee explains the above-mentioned military terminology applied to
the frame of the Greek Zechariah (1:6b and 14:3).
The LXX turns hdfw2hy: (“Judah”) into the name “Judas” also in Ps
60(59):9 = 108(107):9. This “Judas” was identified by Schaper with the
evolving Hasmonaean dynasty as yqqxm, “lawgiver” (NKJ), and is trans-
lated into Greek by “my king,” that is, “Judas, my king.”26 In consequence
25. Mg, “also, too,” remains untranslated.

26. Joachim Schaper, “Der Septuaginta-Psalter als Dokument jüdischer
Eschatologie,” in Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum (ed. Martin
Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer; WUNT Second Series 72; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1994), 50–54, 60–61; idem, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (WUNT,
Second Series 76; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 42–45.
1
of this Jerusalem must have been the place of the translation of the
Psalms into Greek. In view of the fate of Moab, Siegert concludes the
identification with the son of Hyrcanus († 104 B.C.E.), Jehuda, called
Aristobulos I, who reigned for one year, as the latest possibility for any
identification of the “Judas” of Ps 60(59) = 108(107). 27
But let us now return to the consequences of the identification of the
“Judas” of Zech 14:14 for the theology of the Greek Zechariah as a
whole. We should take notice of a remarkable change in Zech 9:9, the
famous messianic announcement, which is in the Hebrew text directed
against a hero warrior who used to go by horse, in view of the vv. 1–8 to
be identified with Alexander the Great:
(#$fwOn (passive): saved, humble → sw&|zwn (active): saving
In the Greek text the announced king destroys all weapons and makes
peace for Jerusalem and Judah by actively saving it. Perhaps this change
was inspired by Isa 45:21.28 Did the translator of the Greek Minor
Prophets identify Judas the Maccabee with the king of Zech 9:9–10?
Moreover, there is no literal translation in Greek Zech 12:6:
MT rymi(fb@; #$)' dyp,ilak;w% Myci('b@; #$)' rwOy%kik@; hdfw2hy: yp'l@u)a-t)e My#oi)f )w2hha MwOy2b@a
bybisf Mym@i(ahf-lk@f-t)e lw)$m#o;-l(aw: NymiyF-l(a w2lk;)fw:
.MIlf#$fw2ryb@i hfyt@'x;t@a dwO( MIlf#f$w2ry: hbf#$;yFw:
NKJ In that day I will make the governors of Judah like a firepan in the
woodpile, and like a fiery torch in the sheaves; they shall devour all the
surrounding peoples on the right hand and on the left, but Jerusalem
shall be inhabited again in her own place—Jerusalem.
LXX e)n th=| h(me/ra| e0kei/nh| qh/womai tou_j xilia/rxouj Iouda w(j dalo_n puro_j
Rahlfs e0n eu&loij
kai\ w(j lampa&da puro_j kala&mh
kai\ katafa&gontai e)k deciw~n kai\\ e)c eu0wnu&mwn pa&ntaj tou_j laou_j
kuklo&qen
kai\ katoikh&sei Ierousalhm e!ti kaq’ e(auth&n
In that day I will make the commanders of thousand (soldiers) of Judah
like a torch of fire in the woodpile, and like a fiery torch in the sheaves.
And they shall devour all the surrounding peoples to the right hand and
to the left, but Jerusalem shall still29 be inhabited in her own place.30
Hebrew #$)' rwOy%kik@;, “like a firepan,” is translated into w(j dalo_n puro_j,
“like a torch of fire,” which is a quotation from Greek Zech 3:2 (which is
27. Siegert, Zwischen Hebräischer Bibel und Altem Testament, 316.

28. Cimosa, “Observations,” 99.
29. Or: “again.”
1
30. The last word (Myl#wryb, “in Jerusalem”) is missing.
another quotation from Hebrew Amos 4:11). But the meaning is inverted.
In Zech 3:2 (Amos 4:11), Judah suffered the judgment of Y HWH, but
now (in Greek 12:6) Judah becomes the instrument of the global
judgment of YHWH. This new interpretation fits well into the situation of
the war of the Maccabees: The final judgment of all nations will be
delivered by Jerusalem and Judah, namely by Judas the Maccabee.
Arie van der Kooij found Simon the Maccabee, the High Priest (143–
134 B.C.E.), behind the Greek Zechariah, especially in 9:9–10 and 14:16
in comparison to Tob 13:13 and 14:5; 1 Macc 13–14; and esp. 1 Macc
14:36: “In his time and under his leadership the nations were success-
fully evicted from the land; so too were those who had occupied the city
of David in Jerusalem.”31 This supports my interpretation of the Greek
Zechariah which dates from the Maccabean period.
But what about the place of the translation? If the Maccabees are the
historical background of the translation of Zechariah into Greek, the
Jewish community in Alexandria must have keenly observed the
Hellenistic crisis under Antiochus IV and the struggle of the Maccabees
in Jerusalem. And were they as much concerned about the Hellenization
of the temple as the authors of the book of Daniel were? The alternative
is to think about Jerusalem as the place of the translation of the LXX of
the Minor Prophets.32
3. Summary
Although the Greek Zechariah within the Minor Prophets was translated
literally, it stresses the identity of YHWH in chs. 1–8 and the remaining
chapters struggling in a military way for his people. As the MT prophe-
sies a crucial historical situation at the end of time, the Greek Zechariah
sees the goal of the judgment theology of Amos in the apocalyptic judg-
ment prophecy of Zech 14 (esp. v. 1). Moreover, the Greek translation
sees the victory in this struggle effected by Judas the Maccabee (14:14),
who was possibly identified with the announced king of 9:9–10. He (or
one of his successors) will save Jerusalem and Judah from all enemies
and the remaining nations will return to Zion with devotion in order to
pray to YHWH. Consequently the translator of the Minor Prophets might
have worked in Jerusalem and not in Alexandria.
31. Van der Kooij, “The Septuagint of Zechariah,” 62–63.

32. Since 1923 the thesis of a “Palestinian origin” of the LXX cannot be sup-
ported because the evidence of Alexandrian philological influence on the LXX is
overwhelming (Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 58–59).
1
A REVIEW
Willem A. M. Beuken
The following review forms the personal impression of an interested

reader. I realize that my comments cannot detract from the thorough
research on which the essays in this volume are based, and I hope that
these remarks do justice to the intentions of the authors.
It would be presumptuous to suggest any redrafting or refashioning.
Besides, not a single one of the studies is in need of that. This review
offers no more than thoughts—hopefully useful thoughts—that have
arisen during my comparative reading of all the contributions.
After all, I am content with having been invited to review this volume.
It turned out to be an instructive and thought-provoking task.
I appreciate Boda’s study because it takes precise semantic research as
the basis of intertextuality. In this way, the door to an endless array of
more or less vague connections is closed. This does not mean that I would
reject the methodological approach of Stead in his contribution to the
present volume. On the contrary, these two methods are complementary
and research on Haggai–Zechariah may greatly profit by their joint appli-
cation.
The programmatic character of Isa 12 with regard to the specific
position of the prophet (vv. 1–2) and the proclamation of Y HWH’s deeds
to the nations (vv. 4–5), which is entrusted particularly to Zion (v. 6),
forms an interesting background for Zech 2:14–16 (pp. 177–78). This
interpretation implies indeed that the nations in Zech 2 develop from
“being plunder” (v. 13) to “joining to Y HWH” (v. 15). Moreover, the
opposition “Zion–Babylon” (“bare hill”), which forms a hinge between
Isa 12 and Isa 13, may lie at the basis of Zech 2:11.
Since it is likely that the book of Isaiah as a whole, although not to the
exclusion of other Major and Minor Prophets, has influenced the Zecha-
riah tradition, the other passages in Isaiah which refer to the position of
“foreigners” and “nations” might be taken into account (p. 188; Isa 56:3;
60:10; 61:5; 66:20).
1
Delkurt’s study is to be appreciated for its careful analysis of the

semantics concerned as an indispensable base for tracing the prophetic-
historical background of the two visions in Zech 5 and the one in Zech
1:8–15. After reading this essay, one cannot help being eager to know
how “sin and atonement” function in the other night visions of Zechariah.
Another point of curiosity concerns the word “curse” in Zech 5:3. This
important phrase has affinities with the whole field of “sin” and “atone-
ment,” especially in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Moreover, it constitutes a
remarkable parallel to the explanation of the woman in the ephah: “This
is the curse / the wickedness” (5:3, 8). In this connection, if one does not
follow the emendation of MT “their eye” into “their guilt” (with LXX) in
5:6, how would that influence the overall picture?
From the point of view of the tradition and redaction of prophetic
oracles, Floyd’s chapter is a very interesting and challenging study. One
cannot but agree with the author’s conclusion that contemporary scholar-
ship has arrived at a better understanding of the process by which the
prophetic books came into being. It is no longer possible to distinguish
neatly between a phase of oral transmission of original prophecies by
disciples or adepts and one of subsequent redactional activity by scribes.
The relationship between speech and writing is much more complicated,
depending also on the variegated socio-cultural situations at the court
and in the temple before and after the exile.
Against this background the hypothesis of various “ideological
schools” can certainly be questioned. On the other hand, the supposition
that “an extremely small and essentially homogenous group of writers
cultivated a limited but varied repertoire of literary forms and theological
views” (p. 226) is a conclusion that goes too far, at least in my view. I
cannot imagine that these scribes, however cultivated they were, would
be able to split themselves up into various theological paradigmata and
literary styles even if they mastered the full terminological stock. The
whole process of Fortschreibung, which as such can hardly be denied if
we rescind from concrete redaction-historical options regarding the
individual prophetic books, postulates that scribes belonged in some way
to a group that cultivated the heritage of specific prophets or tried to
continue their trajectories of thought and expression.
I would like to take just one example and to confront Professor Floyd
with the recent study of Judith Gärtner.1 Is it conceivable that two funda-
mentally different understandings of the coming judgment and what it
1. Judith Gärtner, Jesaja 66 und Sacharja 14 als Summe der Prophetie: Eine tra-
ditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Abschluss des Jesaja- und
des Zwölfprophetenbuches (WMANT 114; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2006).
1
BEUKEN A Review 303
involves for Israel, Zion, and the nations would be laid down in two
different books and nevertheless stem from the same milieu? Is this not a
projection of a multi-cultural and multi-religious modern attitude back
into an epoch in which people did not adhere to such values and could
not afford such a way of thinking? Should literary prophecy not basically
have differed according to whether it was practiced in Babylon or Yehud?
Moreover, how should one interpret, in a later period, the divergences
between Isaiah Hebrew (pre-MT and Qumran) and Isaiah LXX if the
circles from which they stem had no different views and vocabularies?
I admit that I have no answer to the question of how the scribes, the
designers of the prophetic books, were related to the prophets whose
heritage they tried to transmit in the form of large literary compositions
whose transmission through the dark period of the exile is sparsely
documented. Nevertheless, I still advocate the thesis that there were
some specific guilds or fraternities committed to a specific prophet or
specific prophets. Only in the case of the Dodekapropheton does a
scribal group that overarches various prophets from various times and
places come to the fore.
Kessler’s essay fills a long-felt need by clarifying the differences
between Haggai and Zech 1–8 with regard to their views on the specific
period of Israel’s history in which they lived. For too long scholars have
assumed that the authors faced exactly the same problems. This study
takes the historical development of the early post-exilic epoch into
account. It testifies to a thorough knowledge of the early Persian era and
also of the various traditions on which these two prophets base them-
selves. As such, it also forms an important preliminary contribution to
the study of the redaction of the Dodekapropheton.
Coming, however, to Kessler from the previous essay of Floyd, one
cannot but be struck by their divergent hermeneutical points of departure.
Professor Kessler holds an impressive record of studies devoted to the
traditions used in the book of Haggai, but in this study he takes the
synchronic approach. He does not concentrate on the possibility that the
text mirrors the dissimilar theological views of the historical prophet and
the redactor(s). These two seem to coincide in his analysis. Yet, if I am
not mistaken, one could track down the differences in their perspectives
by applying the quite adequate distinction between plot content and
ideological purpose as demonstrated in this very essay (p. 35). In that
case the purpose would mirror the interest of the redactors but the plot
would reflect the message of Haggai himself. I would not detract in any
way from the arguments and conclusions of this study, but I would be
interested in getting to know how the author reacts to Professor Floyd’s
1
vision of the impact of the scribes who have built up Haggai’s prophe-
cies into a book. Kessler seems to minimize this distinction, at least here,
for the sake of the topic, “an alternative voice from early Persian
Yehud.” Did the scribes contribute nothing or might they have been the
same as those who redacted Zech 1–8?
In spite of the fact that Patrick’s study investigates just one term of
Haggai, namely, “time” (t(, 1:2), against the background of the pro-
phetic books, it occupies a special methodological place within the
volume since it calls attention to the early exilic prophetic traditions. In
general, present-day research on the prophetic books tends to focus on
their post-exilic redaction in the Yehud epoch. It may be true that former
exegesis was too optimistic with regard to the feasibility of situating
texts in the pre-exilic, early exilic, late exilic or post-exilic period, but in
our days there is a danger of lumping these various periods together into
one era. Nevertheless, we know that the political and socio-economic
circumstances and consequently the theological interpretation of Israel’s
existence changed from epoch to epoch.
Phinney’s chapter is another fine case study of this innovative volume.
Applying what is known about autobiography in the ancient world to the
Scriptures turns out to be quite productive with regard to the phenome-
non of biblical “life writing” and the variety of types it involves. While it
is questionable whether the distinction between introductory and vision-
ary autobiography is waterproof for all the prophetic books, the dif-
ference between visionary and history-like autobiography allows for a
clear-cut comparison of Zechariah with Ezekiel. After my comments on
the preceding essays it will not be a surprise that I welcome the pointed
conclusion of this study. The political and social differences between
the eras in which these prophets lived strongly nuance the theological
similarities between their visions. Zechariah’s visionary autobiography is
not a second revised edition or a literary imitation of Ezekiel’s, but is
founded on a new ecstatic experience which is expressed in new reli-
gious metaphors. Zechariah is not an epigone, he is a seer in his own
right. The scribes who are responsible for the book named after him did
not make him comply with an example derived from the Major Prophets.
It goes without saying that this study offers a model for comparing
Zechariah with Amos and Jeremiah.
Pola’s study is an excellent example of present-day Septuagint
research. The Old Greek text of Zechariah is examined for the way in
which the supposedly single Greek translator of the Minor Prophets
understood the Hebrew text and applied the latter to the situation of the
Jewish community in Jerusalem at the time of Judas the Maccabee. It
1
BEUKEN A Review 305
would also be interesting to confront the conclusions of this study with

the outcome of Floyd’s work. Of course, the scribes who stood at the
cradle of the Hebrew text of Zech 1–8 belonged to an earlier period of
the post-exilic epoch than the Greek translator of the Dodekapropheton.
Yet I would like to make a case for the thesis that the professional self-
understanding, the theological background, and the literary skills of the
earlier redactors and those of the later translators were in line. Both
groups were literati, acquainted with specific prophetic traditions, and
responsible for the interpretation and application of that heritage to their
times. If it is possible for us to distinguish between various Old Greek
translators as far as theology, language, literary style, and socio-histori-
cal situation goes, can it not be presumed, then, that their predecessors,
the scribes who produced the Hebrew Bible, were also “specialized
keepers” of particular prophetic traditions?
It is not my task or intention to confront the contributors of this
volume with the conclusions of their colleagues, but I see it as a merit of
this book that it creates important challenges with regard to the incor-
poration of the corpus propheticum as part of the biblical canon.
Redditt’s essay is, as far as method goes, a classical redactions-
geschichtliche study. Its innovative value is that it describes the role of
Haggai–Zech 1–8 in the development of the book of the Minor Prophets
by means of a specific theme, the position of the (Davidic) king. One
merit is the fact that it clearly distinguishes between the antecedents of
this theme, that is, the negative statements on the monarchy in the so-
called Book of the Four, and the subsequent redactionally added pas-
sages which anchor the pro-Davidic tendency in Haggai–Zech 1–8.
Although not indicated in the title of the study, the attention paid to the
point of view of Zech 9–14, “optimism tempered with criticism of the
Davidides,” completes the picture.
Redditt’s study asks for follow-up research on the question of whether
the Septuagint version of the Minor Prophets has taken up this issue by
streamlining the ideology of the Davidic king further, or perhaps even in
other directions (e.g. early Messianism). This would surely generate
another essay, yet this sort of examination could function as a counter-
check, especially in complicated questions such as the relationship
between Mic 4:1–5 (especially v. 4) and Zech 3:10, for which interpre-
tations other than the one offered by the author seem feasible, at least to
me (cf. pp. 72, 75).
Rudman’s brief but accurate study is welcome since it demonstrates
that mutually independent textual corpora, such as Zechariah, Job and
Chronicles, have some important concepts in common. This holds true
1
for the figure of satan/Satan if only its cosmological background (holi-

ness and chaos as opposed to creation) is taken into account. It would be
interesting to look more specifically into the process by which the Satan
figure, as explained here, is followed up in the New Testament and
Rabbinic literature.
The search for inner-biblical “quotations” in the prophetic books, so
much en vogue nowadays, is strongly promoted by Stead’s study insofar
as it tries to structure the grey area of allusions, resonances and thematic
affinity without resorting to the exclusive criterion of strict verbal paral-
lels, but by adopting the criterion of sustained allusions, that is, cumula-
tive although scattered use of synonyms. In my view, this constitutes real
progress since the requirement of lexical correspondences was widely
considered as being too strict. The extension of criteria offered by this
study will prove to be very useful in the research of other prophetic
books.
Schnocks’s study of the very difficult vision of the ephah (Zech 5:5–
11) belongs certainly to the core essays of the volume. It constitutes an
exemplary model of hermeneutics as it confronts the Hebrew text with
both its subsequent Wirkungsgeschichte (LXX, Targum, Rashi) and its
traditionsgeschichtliche antecedents, especially in Ezechiel. It is most
instructive to see that in the case of the transport of the ephah to Shinar
the religio-historical approach which reads the vision as a denunciation
of idolatry, functions as a sort of loop-hole for solving the textual prob-
lems. These can better be explained by tracing the term in the visionary
passages of Ezechiel. It is most tempting to confront again with the study
of Floyd Schnocks’s conclusion: “Even though Zechariah seems to pre-
suppose Ezekiel, he presents the reader with a totally different theo-
logical design” (p. 266). I still cannot imagine that the redactional and
canonical process which, from the theological and literary point of view,
resulted in a number of variegated prophetic books, would have taken
place without specialized circles of literati. These continued the tradi-
tions of the different prophets while the context of the postexilic epoch
brought about a certain leveling of concepts and terminology.
Nevertheless, Stead’s essay leaves behind the question of prius et
posterius. Can it be taken for sure that Zech 1–2 is later than Lam 2,
Isa 54 and the other allegedly “reapplied” texts? I would certainly not
plead for a reversal of the retrospective look with regard to these specific
passages, but I simply raise the hermeneutical question because I find it
difficult to prove both suppositions. This impasse leads to other ques-
tions: Do we have to agree on dating biblical texts before we can pass on
to investigating the sequence of their dependency? Or can we abstain
1
BEUKEN A Review 307
from that entire operation and limit ourselves to describing analogies

between passages which derive significance from the context of the
biblical canon? The last paragraph of the essay uses terminology which
seems to do justice to the hermeneutical problem at stake: “I do not sup-
pose that the author of Zech 1–8 deliberately set out to encode a specific
set of allusions, but rather that these other texts were so much part of his
textual worldview—a worldview shared by his first audience—that he
could freely allude to them in order to construct meaning” (p. 170).
Could it be that he was not even aware of his “allusions”?
The multi-faceted character of the volume is confirmed by Sweeney’s
case study on Targum Jonathan’s reading of Zech 3. It makes a valuable
counterpart to Pola’s essay on LXX Zechariah. As far as content goes,
Sweeney’s work illustrates the versatility of interpretation which allowed
the Targumic scribes to apply biblical texts to the needs and public
discourse of their times, far beyond the interpretive limits of these texts
themselves. Therefore, they can certainly not be accused of the obsequi-
ous attitude of translators, as previous generations of scholars liked to do.
Sweeney’s study invites scholars, moreover, to take it as a model for
other studies aimed at charting the Targum of Zechariah to its full extent.
The study of the relationship between the publicly read Targumic lit-
erature and the esoteric Heikhalot texts constitutes another perspective
(pp. 289–90).
I find it difficult to give unqualified assent to Tiemeyer’s essay, skil-
fully argued though it certainly is. Only after reading it several times was
I able to determine my ambiguous feelings. I propose them here with
great respect for the provocative research underlying the essay and with
serious reserves concerning my personal ideas. My doubts regard, first of
all, the conclusion. With the final conclusion I can agree: “This influence
is not a matter of direct textual allusions, where the later author picks up
motifs or phrases … Instead, this is a matter of more indirect influence. I
suggest that Zechariah was familiar with the motif of the ambiguous
cherubim of the book of Ezekiel…” (p. 127; cf. also the conclusion on
p.116). These sentences do justice to the fact that the literary contexts in
which the presumed common elements function are very different.
However, dispersed throughout the essay I come across statements of
literary dependency: “Zechariah’s vision report was familiar with the
book of Ezekiel” (p. 104; cf. p. 105); “I will follow the author’s/redac-
tor’s cue and read Ezek 1 through the lens of Ezek 10, as Zechariah in all
likelihood did” (p. 112); “Which version did Zechariah read?” (p. 118).
Secondly, some presumed issues of familiarity between Zechariah and
Ezekiel look to be overrated, in my opinion at least:
1
Woman “wickedness” (Zech 5:8) and statue “jealousy” (Ezek 8:5)

have, after all, different names (pp. 105–106). I noticed that also
in the study of Schnocks, to which the essay at stake refers (BN 84
[1996]), the connection between these two texts is proposed with
great caution.
Is it a general characteristic of cherubim to be members of God’s
council (pp. 106–108)? In some places they are just throne attri-
butes and their function certainly diverges from that of seraphim.
The evidence that Zech 1:8 would refer to a garden-like place is
scant (p. 108). Also the change of time from night (1:8) to dawn
(6:1), but unfortunately I had no access to the author’s 2006 article
in SEÅ, which seems to prove the latter thesis.
The thesis that Ezekiel’s cherubim influenced Zechariah’s descrip-
tion of the horses relies partly on the motif of wind (pp. 112–13).
In Ezek 1, however, wind is a “life-forc,” a metereological phe-
nomenon, in Zech 6 it is a geographical destination. These func-
tions vary considerably on the metaphorical level itself.
In my view, the intertextual connections pointed out in this essay can
certainly not be dismissed but they ask for further research with regard to
the nature of their dependency.
Wolters’ essay is another proof of the fact that quite often common
assumptions about a given passage await careful analysis and that they
turn out, once that has been performed, to play an important new role in
the interpretation of the larger context. The conclusion to this study is
quite convincing. Zechariah 1:11 (“The whole earth remains at peace”)
can hardly be explained against the background of Persian history. The
verse is rather to be read in intertextual relationship to Isa 14:7. At this
point, however, a methodological question arises: Is it certain that his-
torical dependency plays a role here? Is the Isaianic text the earlier one,
that is, the provider of the expression “to remain at peace”? It will be
very difficult, I should say even impossible, to arrive at a conclusion with
regard to the historical precedence of these texts. Several contributions to
the volume have dealt with the problem of prius et posterius in the field
of allusions. Maybe we will have to be content with supposing here a
specific expression which derives from the post-exilic worldview.
This volume covers the broad array of contemporary fields of interest
and exegetical approaches concerning Haggai–Zech 1–8. The balance
between research on specific textual passages and research on general
topics and aspects regarding one or both of these passages is appreciated.
For that matter, complementarity can also be observed in particular
areas. What most catches the eye, in this regard, is the question of the
1
BEUKEN A Review 309
methods by means of which it is possible to verifiably establish quota-

tions, allusions and “influence” (Fortwirkung) from prophetic sources
(see the essays by Kessler and Schnocks). This question forms part of the
larger issue that dominates the volume. It would be interesting subject
matter for follow-up research to determine how these two characteristics,
“allusion” and “influence,” should be distinguished: as phenomena of
mental intent (hardly traceable by linguistic procedures), literary skill, or
just of group language? In any case, these studies make it clear that in
this field a lot of research waits to be done.
In this context, the tradition and redaction history of the Book of
the Twelve, which is the primary literary matrix of Haggai–Zechariah,
deserves special attention (as in Redditt’s essay). Appropriately, research
on the continuation of the tradition history of these books in the text of
the ancient versions (LXX, Targum, and further on) is not lacking (Boda,
Delkurt, Sweeney). The study of LXX Haggai–Zechariah in particular
will provide deeper insight into the growth of the Dodekapropheton.
This volume would have bypassed an essential field of interest if the
historical period in which Haggai and Zechariah developed their activi-
ties had not figured in it. It is known that research on this era encounters
the problem that little information from historical sources is available. In
the last decade, however, new light has been shed on both the Persian
Empire and postexilic Yehud as part of this period. It is essential to the
representative character of the volume that this thread has been taken up,
going so far as to precisely distinguish between Haggai’s and Zecha-
riah’s lifetimes (Tiemeyer, Wolters).
It comes as a surprise that the relationship between Zech 1–8 and Zech
9–14 has received rather subordinate attention (Boda, Redditt). Yet, the
question of whether “Deutero-Zechariah” (including “Trito-Zechariah”?)
can be envisaged as Fortschreibung of Proto-Zechariah, or whether it
should be explained by a completely different literary model, is even
more pressing in the light of this volume. Taken all in all, the volume
asks for a continuation in the cooperation of its contributors. The avail-
able resources are rich.
1
FOOTPRINTS TO THE POST-EXILIC PROPHETS
Rex Mason
Reading the contributions to this volume has been an immensely enjoy-

able and encouraging undertaking. It is encouraging, first, to see the very
healthy state of contemporary scholarly study of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Each contribution is marked by the most disciplined and well-founded
scholarship, yet, in each case, meticulous scholarship is illuminated by
imaginative flair. This is an important quality which can give rise to
creative new insights and, in doing so, lift academic study above the
mere pedanticism of the modern day Gradgrind.
For me, more personally, it is encouraging to see how creative and
enduring the study of what sometimes used to be called “inner-biblical
exegesis” has proved to be.1 Today we may speak more of “tradition-
history,” or the “story of the development of tradition.” 2 Whatever we
call it, it is based on the observation of the use and re-use of certain
language, themes and motifs which can be traced through various texts,
wherever we can date those texts in certain sequences with any degree of
confidence. Thus every writer, editor, and collector of especially later
texts can be seen to be drawing upon the developing “story” of earlier
generations, seeking to relate it to events contemporary with his or her
own time. Eventually this living process to which all Scripture bears
witness—as all rock formations bear witness to millennia of seismic
events and many old buildings betray the work of the hands of the
successive generations which have used them—“solidifies” into a text
1. It was Professor Peter R. Ackroyd who first introduced me to this term in the
early days of my study with him, and his name merits an honoured place in any
volume dedicated to the study of the development of tradition within the Bible. See,
for example, his “Meaning and Exegesis,” in Words and Meaning (FS D. Winton
Thomas; ed. Peter R. Ackroyd and Barnabas Lindars; London: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1968), 1–14, and “The Chronicler as Exegete,” JSOT 2 (1977): 2–32.
2. I find Michael H. Floyd’s discussion of tradition history in the first pages of
his contribution particularly illuminating.
MASON Footprints to the Post-Exilic Prophets 311
regarded as final and authoritative by the community which produces it.

Even then, of course, the living process, the flow of interpretative tradi-
tion, does not cease, as the history of Rabbinic exegesis, the use of the
Hebrew Scriptures in the New Testament, and the exegetical work of
later Christian exegetes shows.3 And so anyone who examines closely
the present text of the books of Haggai and Zech 1–8 (let alone Zech 9–
14) will see strands woven into them whose course can be tracked
through earlier texts. Thus footprints may be found through so much of
this earlier work, which lead to the books that are the subject matter of
the present volume. That is the truth I have tried to express in the title I
have given to this response of mine.
With this method of biblical study, whatever term we use to describe
it, as with all methods, there lurks the danger of the subjective. Where
one scholar finds an echo of a word, phrase, or theme from an earlier
text, another may see merely chance overlap or common dependence
upon a common source. That is where I welcome the care which the
contributors to this volume have shown. Yet I think they are right to
question the very strict insistence on exact verbal, syntactical and gram-
matical identity which some have demanded. 4 Mark Boda, for example,
argues that those responsible for Zech 2:10–17 were not employing mere
earlier prophetic lexical stock but, by their use of broader contextual
links, were drawing on earlier traditions on a much broader scale to
relate them to those living in the time of Persian control (see especially
p. 189 above). And Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer makes a more general point
when she finds a link between Zechariah’s horses with their riders and
chariots and Ezekiel’s cherubim. Such a link involves the more general
motifs of wind, chariots and spying eyes rather than “direct textual
3. As the contributions to this volume of Thomas Pola, Dominic Rudman,

Johannes Schnocks and Marvin A. Sweeney, in particular, show so interestingly and
attractively. In some ways, Paul L. Redditt’s examination of the redaction methods
by which Haggai and Zech 1–8 have been incorporated into the Book of the Twelve
provides further insight into this “later” exegesis. There is no doubt that there was
systematic arrangement of “the Twelve” so as to present a certain canonical effect,
but I have to confess to reservations about the claims of some contemporary redac-
tion critics to be able to uncover the various layers of redaction with a great deal of
precision. John Barton’s “disappearing redactor” is a real character to be reckoned
with! See his Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (rev. ed.; Louis-
ville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996), especially pp. 56–58.
4. For example, Risto Nurmela, “The Growth of the Book of Isaiah Illustrated by
Allusions in Zechariah,” in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion and
Zechariah 9–14 (ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd; JSOTSup 304; Sheffield,
2003), 245–59.
1
allusion.” Some may well argue that this makes the case for allusion so
broad as to be no longer capable of proof. That is why Boda’s insistence
on the importance of taking the whole context of the two related texts
into account is so important.
Even so, as I have argued elsewhere,5 the business of detecting the use
of an earlier text in a later one can never be too precise, if only for the
very obvious reason that written “sources” were not as readily available
or accessible then as now. Where written texts are studied to the point
where they exist mainly in the memory and even in the subconscious of
a later generation, then, as Tiemeyer says, “The textual relationship is
better understood as having taken place on a more subconscious level”
(p. 116).
I think this is a very much more difficult concept for a younger gen-
eration of scholars than for some of us who are older. As I said in the
article cited in n. 5, some of us who grew up as children when I did,
especially in the context of strongly biblical, evangelical church commu-
nities, were used to two things which no longer exist for anyone today.
We were “educated” by learning whole passages of Scripture which we
were required to recite each week, and we all had a common source. Just
one version of the Bible was in common use, and that was the King
James Version. So its language, its syntax, and the rhythms and cadences
of its sentences all formed a very real part of our mental furniture. Thus,
when one of the group said something like, “When I was in Egypt,” this
immediately telegraphed to the others an understanding that the speaker
was referring to the time before she or he had undergone an evangelical
conversion. It is this “freemasonry of the text” which has to be allowed
for in the minds of speakers, writers, editors and their hearers/readers of
the Hebrew Bible when we are examining the influence of one text upon
another.
And this raises the interesting point about just who these tradents were
who wrote down, collected, preserved, handed on, and who then com-
mented on and sought to make relevant to their own time, the words of
the prophets. And, further, it raises the issue of the process by which they
did it. How far was this an oral process, and/or how far was it chiefly a
written process by professional scribes? And it is here that I find Michael
H. Floyd’s contribution so interesting and valuable. In the case of most
of the extant prophetic collections in the Hebrew Scriptures, it would
seem somewhat overcritical to argue that there never was an historical
person to whom the collection was attributed. We cannot prove that any
5. See my “Response,” in Boda and Floyd, eds., Bringing Out the Treasure,
344–52.
1
prophet is not a purely literary creation, but certainly with Haggai and
Zechariah it seems more likely that they were actual people who lived
and worked more or less when and where their books locate them. Nor
can it seriously be doubted that prophets communicated their messages
largely in oral form. We do have at least some instances where prophets
are described as also writing an oracle, or having it committed to writing
by another, but we cannot know how widespread a practice this was. But,
obviously, all our present collections are written ones, and equally
clearly, as we have them they contain not only “original” words of the
prophets themselves, but also later comment and editing. As such they
bear witness to a process of inner-biblical exegesis. I have argued else-
where that, among the main forms of such “exegesis” of a prophet’s
original words, the following four seem paramount: (1) the insertion of
glosses; (2) the way the material has been arranged; (3) direct quotations
drawn from earlier written material; and (4) the reuse of earlier themes
and traditions.6 These are mainly scribal activities, as is, of course, the
production of any written text, and I think Floyd’s emphases on the
importance of the work of scribes, especially in the post-exilic period,
are extremely helpful and plausible. He may well be right that I have
been “influenced by a Romantic prejudice against literati” (p. 232). I
confess rather proudly to being a romantic, though I hope after all the
hours I spent in the Bodleian I am not anti-scribal! However, the clear
rhetorical devices which are plain to see in all the prophetic books surely
indicate that something of the original preaching activity of the prophet
shows through in the written form of the books that bear their names.
But, equally, it has seemed to me for many years, that the strong parallels
between the rhetorical devices in what von Rad called the “Levitical
sermons” in the books of Chronicles and in the final form in which we
have these books, betokens a strong preaching activity behind the work
of the scribes. The impassioned way they seek to make earlier words
relevant for later generations, the strong appeal for response to the
challenge of the continuing word of God,7 the rhetorical devices by which
they seek to make their spoken words interesting and compelling for
listeners, all suggest to me a continuing oral activity behind the ongoing
scribal process.
6. Rex. A. Mason, “Inner-Biblical Exegesis,” in A Dictionary of Biblical Inter-

pretation (ed. Richard J. Coggins and James L. Houlden; London: SCM; Phila-
delphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), 314.
7. It should surprise no one by now when I say that one of my favorite pieces of
Peter R. Ackroyd’s scholarly output was his article entitled “The Vitality of the
Word of God in the Old Testament,” ASTI 1 (1962): 7–23.
1
I wonder if it is permissible here to draw some kind of parallel from

the Gospels in the New Testament, for all the difference of literary form
between the Gospels and the prophetic collections of the Hebrew Scrip-
tures? Here, too, it would seem perverse to deny the existence of a real
historical person behind the literary activity in which his ministry is
described. But, as with the prophets, concluding with certainty just what
the “original” words of Jesus were is a notoriously difficult process.
Clearly he did preach, and his words were recorded. Indeed, Gospel
scholarship posits several collections of sayings, or logia, in the present
works. Equally clearly, material has been added at later stages, and pro-
ducing the final form of the Gospels was a scribal activity. Indeed, inter-
estingly, we can discern the same four elements of “exegesis” within the
Gospels as were suggested above: (1) glosses or additions which bear the
signs of a later date; (2) the arrangement of the material by careful edit-
ing and structuring of each Gospel; (3) direct quotation, especially from
the Hebrew Scriptures; and (4) the re-use of earlier biblical themes and
motifs. New Testament redaction criticism has shown clearly how each
Gospel has been shaped and presented to express a particular and indi-
vidual message to the Christian Church. But who can doubt that behind
this literary activity lies the preaching of the early Church, as with
urgency and passion its messengers sought to show afresh the relevance
of the words of Jesus in a new age and setting, to urge hearers to remain
faithful in the face of persecution and the apparent delay in the fulfilment
of the divine promises and to encourage them in continuing the ministry
of Jesus by word and deed? It seems to me by no means fanciful to
suggest that we can detect something of the same homiletic purpose
behind our written prophetic collections. But I must assure Michael
Floyd that I take a much more positive attitude towards scribes than the
Gospels sometimes seem to do!
There is another broad area of inner-biblical exegesis which has been
interesting me more recently. I would ask not only was it employed (the
answer to that can scarcely by now be in doubt) but why it was so widely
employed, especially in the post-exilic period. The essays in this volume,
with their close and detailed examination of the use of earlier traditions
in these two books, provide a mine of material for addressing this wider
issue, and to illustrate that it seems best to mention certain aspects of
several of the individual contributions. It is not my aim here to engage
with each author in detailed discussion over the treatment and exegesis
of every text cited, or to indicate where I agree and where I disagree (and
where, also, I find myself doing a bit of both!). That would be tedious
and an abuse of the editors’ hospitality. But I hope I can select and
abstract without misrepresenting their overall argument.
1
Boda, in his examination of Zech 2:10–17, concludes that the passage

applies “earlier prophetic tradition to present events, showing that the
punishment of Babylon in the events surrounding Darius’ rise to the
throne is expected by the earlier prophets and demands a response by the
people of God in exile” (p. 189). The practice of inner-biblical exegesis
here, therefore, accomplishes several things. First, it establishes the
divine authority of the words spoken by the earlier prophets. I fully agree
with his final observation that the practice presupposes at least the begin-
ning of an authoritative canon of written scripture. Second, it assures
listeners and readers who find themselves in challenging and often
depressing circumstances that the original authoritative prophetic word
is still relevant and still an active force shaping events. These events are
thus all under divine control and working out according to the divine plan
(a perfect example of “the continuing vitality of the word of God”). And,
third, it calls for a response of faith and endurance from those who now
hear that word still addressing them through a later prophetic mouthpiece.
Thus the authenticity of the contemporary prophet is established. He is a
genuine successor in the line of the prophetic figures of the past.
These broader points receive detailed illustration in many of the other
articles. Holger Delkart’s treatment of the themes of sin and atonement
in Zechariah’s night visions shows how, by reference to earlier prophetic
passages, they offer an explanation for the current disappointment of the
returned exiles with the way things have turned out. It demonstrates
again that the Babylonian exile took place because of the enormity of the
sins of an earlier generation, and its after-effects continue because of the
continuing sin tolerated in the community. Only a divine act of grace in
the cleansing and removal of that sin can usher in the new age. Thus,
here, inner-biblical allusion offers theodicy and seeks “to justify the
ways of God to men.”
Kessler places emphasis on the stress on continuity between past and
present in the book of Haggai, and, by describing Haggai’s success as a
prophet again places him firmly in the prophetic succession. “The book
thus affirms that Yahweh still intervenes in history and speaks through
the prophetic word” (p. 36). But such optimism, which makes Haggai
something of an alternative voice, also places a burden of responsibility
on the prophet’s hearers, for they must “seize the moment and stand fast
in hope” (p. 33).
Frank Y. Patrick’s examination of “Time and Tradition” in the book of
Haggai again shows how the prophet and those who have worked on the
tradition are addressing the sense of disillusionment and frustration in the
post-exilic era. His suggestion that the people’s complaint that the “time”
has not come to rebuild the temple has an eschatological overtone and
1
their lack of action is because they are awaiting phenomena associated

with the new age is an interesting one. I had always assumed that they
felt it was not yet “the time” because they lacked the resources and had
more immediate problems to address. I am not sure whether he has quite
convinced me but, either way, it is understood, as he stresses, the pur-
pose of the prophet and his tradents is to assure them of the certainty of
the fulfilment of God’s promises recorded in the earlier prophetic tradi-
tion. The exegesis of past scriptures is to exhort and encourage those
whose despair saps their faith and hope.
The same importance of the tradition is highlighted in D. Nathan
Phinney’s stress on the self-conscious echoing in the ministry of Zecha-
riah of the activity and predictions of Ezekiel. The use of first-person
speech and descriptions of prophetic visions invests Zechariah’s ministry
with the same kind of authority that was believed to have pertained to
Ezekiel. The parallels of both prophets acting in a time of political sub-
ordination and both with priestly connections seeing the centrality of the
temple as the site of Yahweh’s restored universal rule are striking. And
his suggestion that, with the collapse of the monarchy, prophets came to
be seen as central in the exilic and post-exilic society “and their written
works become the res gestae of this new period” (p. 103) is a most inter-
esting one. Again, the message is what it is and presented in the way it is
in order to address the contemporary situation of apparent defeat. The
more general parallels with the prophecy of Ezekiel which Tiemeyer
finds also stress this same theme of continuity.
Some time ago I wrote an article which sought to consider just why
those who produced chs. 9–14 of the book of Zechariah employed refer-
ence to earlier biblical material on such an extensive scale. 8 It was a first
sortie into this territory which, as I mentioned above, has been interest-
ing me lately. I suggested that there were at least four factors involved.
Barton argued that older writings were valued just because they were
old.9 Then (as now!) the great and authoritative figures were seen to be
those of the past. Their age, and the veneration in which their writings
were held, conferred divine authority upon them. But, in addition, for a
later writer to call upon their authority was not only to establish a line of
continuity between that golden past and the problematic present, but
to confer some of the authority of the ancients upon those who claimed
to be messengers of God in the present. Barton is actually speaking of
pseudepigraphy when he says, “One purpose at least of pseudonymous
8. Subsequently published as “Why Is Second Zechariah So Full of Quotations?,”

in Zechariah and Its Influence (ed. Christopher M. Tuckett; Aldershot, Hampshire:
Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 2003), 21–28.
1
9. Barton, Oracles of God, 62.
attribution was to confer on a book the authority of a figure from the

past…” By extension, it may safely be said that when a named author (or
those who developed his message in the tradition) clearly based what they
were saying on the words or actions of these honored figures from the
past, they were claiming the authority of that figure for their own words.
A second factor was the obvious need to “contemporize” (if such a
verb may be allowed) that older message and show how it addresses the
context in which a later generation of hearers and readers find them-
selves. This may lead to correction (“that seemed to be God’s word for
then, but now he is saying this”), or re-interpretation (“it seemed to mean
that, but actually it means this”), or re-affirmation (“its fulfillment has
seemed a long time in coming, but now, in our day, it is being, or is about
to be, fulfilled”). In the case of Zech 9–14, and in some later apocalyp-
tic literature, there can be another factor. The fulfillment of the ancient
promises is cast into an indefinite future, and precise time scales become
blurred and indistinct (it will happen “on that day” or at some such
imprecise moment). Or another element is introduced into this process.
These great events can only come about after a period of great suffering,
chaos and tumult. Often this is linked to the need for God to effect the
defeat of inimical powers, whether those powers be seen as terrestrial or
heavenly, or both. In the earlier literature—and this is certainly the case
in the books of Haggai and Zech 1–8—the delay in the fulfilment of
earlier promises is explained in terms of the sin and unfaithfulness of
either earlier generations or the present one, or both. This must be
cleansed, either by the repentance of the present hearers/readers, or by
their renewal by an act of divine grace, or, again, by both.
As I say, these were aspects of the use of earlier biblical literature in
Zech 9–14 that occurred to me. That is why I have been so excited by
reading all the contributions to the current volume and seeing how
strongly many of them apply to a process which was already going on in
the books of Haggai and Zech 1–8. It underlines the appropriateness of
Boda’s summarizing words: “This is further evidence that the one(s)
responsible for the second phase of the Zecharian tradition (Zech 9–14)
was/were not as innovative and distinct from the one(s) responsible for
Zech 1–8 as was once thought” (p. 190). The process of continuing exe-
gesis of the words handed on from generation to generation is a continu-
ing one, and it might be argued that the whole of Scripture is a record of
that ongoing continuum of faith and practice. 10
10. This was emphasized long ago by that great Jewish scholar, J. Weingreen,
especially in his work From Bible to Mishna (Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1976).
1
In the article which I cited in n. 8, I gave one definition of exegesis as

a “means by which we make an older written text contemporaneous.” It
is this underlying conviction that the original message was of such signi-
ficance and divine authority that every generation deserved to hear it and
have it related to their condition anew, that lies behind the whole process
of the production of “Scripture,” its later interpretation in “Versions,”
and the traditions of Rabbinic and Christian exegesis. Happy are those
communities of faith today in which the process is continuing still as
living and continuing testimony to “the vitality of the Word of God.”
1
HAGGAI–ZECHARIAH 1–8:
SOME REFLECTIONS
David L. Petersen
Biblical scholarship in the twenty-first century involves a remarkable

variety of methods and perspectives. To begin to list them is immediately
to risk the sin of omission. This volume has circumscribed that panoply
of perspectives by focusing on the language of tradition. As a result, it is
not surprising that, when reading the essays that make up Tradition in
Transition, two such methods seem particularly prominent: tradition
history and literary criticism.1 Though a number of essays refer explicitly
to tradition history, few of them overtly use the language of literary criti-
cism. However, a number include the claim that the book of Zechariah
alludes to a prior text. Arguments about allusions, echoes, quotations and
the like belong to the world of textuality, not simply that of “traditions.”
As a result, those essays that refer to allusion are working in a discourse
different from tradition history.2 Hence, I propose to examine the ways in
which these two discourses are at work in these essays.
Many authors represented in Tradition in Transition use the word
“tradition” as an important part of their critical vocabulary. And yet, the
meaning of that word and its significance vary widely. 3 So one might ask,
1. Two of the essays involve the reception history of Zechariah (Pola and
Sweeney). As such, they stand beyond the concern to identify the formation of the
Masoretic text of the book of Zechariah.
2. I do not deny that a text can be analyzed from both literary-critical and tradi-
tion-historical perspectives. However, I do maintain that the arguments are of
different types. Cf. Stead’s contribution to the present volume (p. 144 n. 1). Another
discourse is implicitly present in several of the articles, namely, that of “intertextu-
ality,” so, e.g., Boda, “intertextual techniques” (p. 173). However, in virtually all
cases, such reference to intertextuality really belongs to the discourse of either
tradition history or literary criticism. The discourse of intertextuality often does not
involve the issue of literary influence.
3. A point Floyd (pp. 218–19) makes when reviewing several scholars who have
analyzed Zech 4:1–14. It might be useful for those who use such language either to
1
how does the term “tradition” function in these essays? At the outset, I
offer a brief survey of implicit answers. Boda refers to traditions pecu-
liar to specific prophets, for example, “Isaiah and Jeremiah traditions”
(p. 174). The presupposition here appears to be that each prophet or
prophetic book may be characterized as comprising a “tradition.” As a
result, one could presumably speak of a Joel, a Haggai, or a Malachi tra-
dition. Further, whereas some, for example, von Rad, might speak of a
Zion tradition, Boda refers to Zion as a “term” that appears “in both
Isaiah and Jeremiah traditions.”
In differing fashion, Patrick refers to “prophetic traditions” (p. 43 and
passim). Several elements stand out. First, Patrick consistently refers to
prophetic traditions, that is, a plural formulation, yet it is not clear how
to identify these “traditions” since Patrick refers to specific texts rather
than to “traditions” themselves. Second, these “traditions” feed into lar-
ger constellations, for example, “grand presentations of a future restora-
tion…” (p. 46). Third, there is a supposition that there are traditions
characteristic of prophets, not just a single prophet. What might a list of
such “prophetic traditions” include? Is it possible that some language
concerning restoration is not truly limited to or original with prophets?
For example, imagery present in covenant blessings (e.g. see especially
Lev 26:1–13; cf. Deut 28:1–14) appears to inform imagery of restoration
post-587. Should such language count as “prophetic tradition?”
Schnocks uses similar terminology, “the prophetic tradition” (pp. 252,
261, 268). However, Schnocks differs from Patrick’s diction since he
speaks of both the tradition as well as tradition. Though Schnocks does
not overtly define “the prophetic tradition,” his analysis of Zech 5:5–11
suggests that the phrase refers to the corpus of prophetic literature,
which, perforce, is made up of “prophetic traditions.” For Schnocks, a
prophetic tradition appears to include the fact that Ezekiel uses the term
rš> and that the same noun appears, along with <êpâ, in Mic 6:10–11. The
term is prominent in Zech 5:5–11. Is Schnocks identifying an allusion to
one text by another author or is he suggesting that there was an under-
standing of evil that was shared over time by a number of prophets? Or,
Zech 5 and Ezek 8 both use the phrase “look up and see.” Does this
similarity in phrasing constitute a “tradition” or a stock way of writing
vision reports? I would add a final question. Does looking for textual
similarities between Zech 5 and other prophetic texts preclude the
define it or to respond to a critical definition of tradition, such as one finds in

Douglas A. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel: The Development of the
Traditio-Historical Research of the Old Testament, with Special Consideration of
Scandinavian Contributions (SBLDS 9; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975), 26.
1
PETERSEN Haggai–Zechariah 1–8: Some Reflections 321
possibility that other “non-prophetic” texts or traditions might have

influenced the author of these verses? Put another way, did the prophets
limit their tradition-historical horizons to prior prophetic literature, or
were they likely to refer to a broader range of Israel’s cultural heritage?
Rudman’s and Kessler’s approaches appear rather similar. Rudman
analyzes three biblical texts that comprise “a Satan tradition in the
Hebrew Bible” (p. 209). Kessler maintains that Haggai “used tradition”
(p. 8). By that, he appears to mean that Haggai knew certain discrete
features of “the traditio-religious landscape.” Those landmarks include:
Zion theology, Deuteronomism, wisdom traditions, priestly theology,
and “disparate prophetic traditions.” Kessler goes on to contend that
Haggai creatively recast these traditions in order to serve his more opti-
mistic view of future life in restored Yehud. For Kessler, prophets clearly
deployed traditions that derived from both prophetic and non-prophetic
circles.
Differing though the positions of the aforementioned authors might be,
they share one essential feature. They focus on what Knight and others
have termed the traditum, the content or material that is being trans-
mitted from one literary entity to another.4 One major challenge in such
analysis is determining that which will count for evidence of the pres-
ence of a “tradition.” Must there be certain words or constellations of
ideas? Can one word count as a tradition?
To broach the language of traditum is also to introduce another and
related word, traditio. This term typically refers to the process of trans-
mission, not to that which is being transmitted. In this sense, traditio
might, for example, involve the attempt to explain how a certain traditum
might move from one generation to the next, that is, what groups might
have created, preserved, or revised a traditum.
This concern for traditio undergirds Floyd’s essay. After reviewing
several scholars’ judgments about Zech 4:1–4, he states that “tradition”
is being used in two ways, to refer to the process by means of which a
text was formed (“the result of work done by tradents who developed and
expanded the prophet’s original message”) and to refer “to the socio-
cultural context of the transmission process, the influence of which is
reflected in the production of the document” (p. 219). (Many scholars
might refer to the former process as “redaction criticism.”) Floyd’s
second notion of tradition appears very similar to Knight’s traditio.
Floyd argues on behalf of a process in which scribal tradition is of signal
importance, “the kind of tradition that figures in the production of
1
4. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel, 5–25.
prophetic books is more scribal and elite than oral and popular” (p. 233).
In so doing, he appeals to another perspective, “the social-world
approach” (p. 224), which can illumine issues of literacy and literary
production in ancient Israel. Floyd goes on to contend: “we can imagine
that prophetic books were written by a small group of scribes associated
with the Second Temple” (p. 230). He postulates that scribes would have
recited and then authoritatively interpreted those oracles. Those inter-
pretations would then have made their way into the prophetic book attri-
buted to the originating prophet.
Based on the foregoing analysis, it would appear that the language of
tradition is “alive.” In order for it to be fully “well,” it will remain impor-
tant for scholars to use it with maximal clarity and precision.
The language of allusion functions differently from that of “tradition.”
Traditio-historical claims do not necessarily appeal to traditions as textu-
alized, though, of course, all biblical traditions now occur in texts. Five
essayists argue on behalf of allusions. Delkurt is, perhaps, the most
straightforward. He bases his claims on an “examination of the vocabu-
lary” (p. 236). So, when assaying the vision of the flying scroll (Zech
5:1–4), he seeks other texts that include the word “scroll.” (Interestingly,
he focuses on Zechariah’s “prophetic predecessors,” and in so doing,
limits the possible sources for allusions.) Jeremiah and Ezekiel receive
pride of place not only because the word mĕgillâ is prominent in both
books, but also because in both books the scroll involves judgment. 5 In
not dissimilar fashion, Redditt writes, “Mic 4:4 alludes to Zech 3:10,”
referring to the imagery of someone sitting under his own vine and fig
tree (p. 56 n. 2). (Redditt offers the sole argument that another prophetic
text depends on the book of Zechariah.) As well, Stead maintains that
Zech 1–2 involve “sustained allusion.” In particular, he contends that
Zech 1–8 includes numerous allusions to Lam 2 and Isa 54, for example,
Zech 1:6b with its language of “planning to do” alludes to Lam 2:17a;
Zech 1:12 alludes to Isa 54:7 since both refer to a discrete period of time.
These two cases are different, however, since the former occurs at “the
level of vocabulary” whereas the latter exists at the “thematic level”
(p. 159). Wolters also argues on behalf of allusion, contending, for
example, that Zech 1:11c constitutes an allusion to Isa 14:7a (p. 137). In
developing his position and in the same paragraph, he uses the analytical
vocabulary of “allusion,” “biblical intertextuality,” and “echo” (in this
case, the echo is Zech 1:17c resounding Isa 14:1a). In his programmatic
overview of the ways in which one text can be related to another,
5. Delkurt (p. 238) maintains that Ezek 2:9–3:3 depends upon Jer 36. If that is
the case, then it is conceivable that Zechariah is alluding just to Ezekiel.
1
Benjamin Sommer has classified echo as something quite different from

an allusion.6 It is difficult to know if this is the case in Wolters’ analysis.
Tiemeyer, too, is interested in the relationship between texts. She
begins her analysis by referring to “literary links,” which might suggest
an interest in identifying “intertexts.” However, soon thereafter, she
moves to consider “textual allusions and their direction,” language that
clearly belongs to the world of literary craft and dependency. As an
example of such dependency, she maintains that “Zechariah’s portrayal
of the horses and their riders draws upon Ezekiel’s portrayal of the
cherubim” (p. 106). The presence of eyes, wheels/chariots, and wind/
spirit as well as the overt reference to calf hooves in Ezek 1, suggest that
Zechariah’s first and last visions have been decisively influenced by prior
prophetic literature. Tiemeyer’s intriguing proposal is not that of a
“typical” textual allusion:
None of these three instances, however, is a case of direct textual allusion
where Zechariah would purposefully have picked up themes from Ezekiel
in to enhance his own message. Instead, the textual relationship is better
understood as having taken place on a more subconscious level, where
Zechariah, familiar with the descriptions of the cherubim in the book of
Ezekiel, transforms these descriptions into something new in order to
illustrate his own visionary experience. (p. 116)7
Tiemeyer appears to suggest that there are at least two different kinds of
allusion: conscious vs. unconscious, or, using other words, intended vs.
unintended. This distinction should have a profound impact on the way
in which an argument about allusion works. Normally, one imagines that
an author consciously refers to another text in order to make a point.
That would constitute a literary allusion. The subconscious appropriation
of a feature attested in the broader culture seems to be something quite
different, perhaps similar to what Sommer describes as “influence.” 8
When one examines all the essays that argue on behalf of allusion,
Zechariah is said to have drawn explicitly on two literary collections—
Isaiah ben Amoz and Isa 40–55—and implicitly on another prophetic
book (Ezekiel), and on Lamentations. No doubt, biblical scholars will
postulate other sources for allusion. Still, it is useful to reflect on this set
6. Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66

(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 15–17.
7. One does wonder what it might mean to “illustrate a visionary experience.”
Vision reports and dream accounts, which are similar, are usually organic wholes.
Those who report possession behavior do not offer a preliminary drawing and then
create the oil canvas, if one may draw an analogy to the world of the artist.
1
8. Ibid., 14.
of “sources.” Three of these four books or collections date to within

seventy-five years of the time that the book of Zechariah was presumably
composed. What does this chronology suggest about the composition and
transmission of literature within Yahwistic communities, both in exile
and in Syria-Palestine? This question is, of course, similar to the one that
operates in tradition-historical arguments. How does one understand the
traditio, the process by means of which various allusions might have
been possible? Isaiah 40–55 and Ezekiel were, in all likelihood, written
in Babylon. And there is good reason to think that Zechariah was a mem-
ber of what would come to be known as “the congregation of the exiles”
(Ezra 10:8). He might, therefore, have had the opportunity to hear this
literature being recited. Is it equally likely that he would have had access
to the book of Lamentations? Put another way, the concrete world of
Yahwistic communities and literary production during the sixth century
might offer prima facie reason for thinking that Zechariah could have
alluded to some Israelite texts and that it was also unlikely that he would
or could have referred to others.
Further, the reader might ask all of these essayists, “Why do authors
allude?”—a question posed by Sommer in the introduction to his study
of allusion in Deutero-Isaiah.9 There are numerous possible answers, one
of which is that an author lacks confidence. I doubt that any of the afore-
mentioned authors would choose this option. Still, it remains necessary
to ask about the rationale for and the effect of literary allusion.
After reading and reflecting on these essays, I would conclude by
raising four issues. First, I admit to being surprised that only one essay
(Wolters) invested considerable time in placing Haggai or Zech 1–8
within the context of the Persian Empire. The publication of Pierre
Briant’s magisterial tome, From Cyrus to Persia: A History of the
Persian Empire, in 1996 and the continued appearance of the journal
Transeuphratène, which first appeared in 1989, attest to the vigorous
scholarly agenda presented by the Persian period.10 Haggai and Zechariah
refer overtly to Darius and to the momentous years of his rule. One might
well imagine that the reformulations of tradition in this biblical literature
were in some consequential ways affected by the Persian imperial
agenda. One might even claim that Haggai and/or Zech 1–8 constitute a
post-colonial response to the impact of the Persian Empire.
Second, the Book of the Twelve has now been part of the scholarly
conversation since ca. 1990. Only one of the essays is overtly concerned
9. Ibid., 18.
10. Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire
(trans. P. Daniels; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002).
1
with the Book of the Twelve (Redditt). Though the research devoted to
the Book of the Twelve is rich and diverse, some scholars have focused
on the issue of whether or not there are “traditions” that recur throughout
that literature. For example, J. Nogalski has recently contended that the
Book of the Twelve includes four themes—one might read “tradi-
tions”—including the Day of Yahweh, fertility of the land, the fate of
God’s people, and theodicy.11 To what extent might it be important to
place an assessment of the Day of the Lord in Haggai and Zech 1–8
within the larger context of the Book of the Twelve? To do so would be
consistent with the goal of discerning the ways in which Haggai and
Zechariah belong to a larger literary world that was created over time.
Third, one of the critiques leveled at Petersen’s as well as Meyers and
Meyers’s commentaries, both of which were devoted to Haggai and Zech
1–8, was that they ignored the existence of a biblical book, namely,
Zechariah. Concern for the canonical form or final form of biblical lit-
erature significantly influenced this charge. It may be the case that such
concern for the canonical form of biblical literature is no longer as
significant as it was in the latter part of the twentieth century. If so, that
diminished concern for the “final” form of the biblical text may be due to
the recognition that many biblical books, including the Book of the
Twelve, are attested in diverse canonical forms and orders.
Fourth, what are the implications of focusing on tradition and allusion
when assessing a prophetic book? One might step back and ask about the
model of prophetic behavior assumed by this approach. Is it the case that
prophets generally made use of “traditions” when formulating their
oracles and vision reports? To answer this question in the affirmative is
to stand in the tradition represented by von Rad’s influential study of
prophetic literature. To answer no is to emphasize the “new” in much of
prophetic literature.12 In addition, does emphasizing connections between
Haggai/Zech 1–8 and prior prophetic literature presume that Persian
period prophets worked differently from prophets in the monarchic
period? There was presumably a heritage of prophetic literature that had
accumulated by the time of the exile, for example, early forms of the
books of Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. Did a Haggai or a Zechariah know
such traditions in a way that prior prophets did not, making them epi-
gones? Kessler’s claim that “Haggai is a text saturated with earlier
11. James D. Nogalski, “Recurring Themes in the Book of the Twelve: Creating
Points of Contact for a Theological Reading,” Int 61 (2007): 125–36.
12. See, e.g., R. Kratz, “Das Neue in der Prophetie des Alten Testaments,” in
Prophetie in Israel (ed. Imtraud Fischer, Konrad Schmid, and Hugh G. M. William-
son; Münster: LIT, 2003), 1–22.
1
traditions…” (p. 3) seems to push in this direction. Put another way,

were Haggai and Zechariah less original or creative than their prophetic
forebears?
In the latter part of the twentieth century, the image of prophets as
compilers and writers became increasingly prominent. If the standard
image for many prophets prior to the exile was that of speakers, then the
notion of many post-587 prophets as scribes began to emerge. The
character of such activity has become known, at least in some circles, as
Schriftprophetie or prophecy via writing.13 A number of the essays in this
volume can be read to support the notion that Haggai and Zechariah ben
Berechiah were authors of this sort. If, for example, Zechariah’s visions
were, from the outset, written, then it will be essential to develop a
model for prophetic activity different from that articulated by Gunkel,
who, though he imagined that prophets might have written some of their
oracles, did so after the oracles had been delivered orally.
In sum, many of the essays in Tradition in Transition share the judg-
ment that the books of Haggai and Zechariah are meaningfully related to
prior Yahwistic traditions and texts. The essays include at least two
methods: tradition history and literary criticism. Each deploys differing
analytical vocabulary, tradition and allusion, respectively. Because there
is such a consistent focus on diverse influences from the past, one might
come away from the volume thinking that Haggai and Zechariah were
derivative disciples of the prophetic past. I do not think any one of the
authors wants to convey that impression. As a result, it may now be time
to assay these—and other examples of post-exilic prophetic literature—
with an eye to what is new and/or different from that in prior prophetic
literature. The challenge then would be to determine which method or
perspective would best foster such analysis.
13. Floyd refers to this notion and, following Lange, unpacks it using the cate-
gories of “written prophecy” and “literary prophecy” (pp. 226–27). Though Floyd is
correct in arguing that there is no explicit description of literary prophecy, that is, the
description of recomposition and reinterpretation, ancient manuscript evidence for
both the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel makes it manifestly clear that such literary
prophecy took place.
1
RESPONSE
Janet E. Tollington
When I was invited to contribute a response to the essays in this volume

I accepted with very mixed emotions. First, I was amazed by the
invitation and honored at being included in the group of respondents with
three other scholars to whom I myself owe so much, especially Rex
Mason who was my own doctoral supervisor. Secondly, I was excited at
the prospect of discovering the range of current interest in the two
Hebrew texts to which I had devoted three or four years of my life, and
of identifying the scholars in this generation who share this focus.
Thirdly, I wondered how I would react to sustained critical engagement
with my published work. Would I resist challenges to my conclusions?
Would I feel I was being misrepresented by others? Would I want to
defend the methodology of past decades, or to join in with the chorus
expounding its inadequacies? Would I be able to respond dispassion-
ately? Or would I find that I no longer had any passion for Haggai and
Zech 1–8 now that the focus of my own work has moved on to different
texts? I have been pleased to discover that my fears have been dispelled
and that my interest in these texts has been enhanced by the fresh insights
of the various writers of these essays. Each in its own way is making a
useful contribution to this area of study. The benefits flowing from the
increased level of interaction between scholars working around the
world, that has become possible through technological advances, are
much in evidence in this body of work.
Let me begin with some general comments before engaging with
specific essays. The greater tendency of the authors to focus on the final
form of the text, and to draw more naturally on the methodologies of
literary criticism, is in accord with the developments across Hebrew
Bible studies. However, I am pleased to see, in contrast to much work in
the immediate past, that theological questions are also being considered
in several places, alongside historical, textual, literary, comparative, and
hermeneutical issues. Recognizing that these texts originated among a
1
faith community, and that they have been preserved and handed down by
communities who believe them to have theological significance, remains
an important aspect of biblical studies in my view.
One of the features of my own work was an attempt to see how theo-
logical motifs and traditions from earlier periods had been utilized and
developed either by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah themselves or
within the books bearing their names. I also began to think about the
possibility of inner biblical exegesis. I am pleased to find that current
scholars have taken up these immature ideas and developed them in
nuanced ways so that the distinction between a quotation, a citation, and
an allusion can be made. More significantly, I am encouraged to find that
the relationships between texts within the Hebrew Bible are receiving
much scholarly attention. Some of this interest has no doubt developed in
response to the work of canonical critics, but it is clear that the emphasis
is not solely on the connections that readers of the texts can discover. In
some of these essays it is argued that the authors of these texts intended
to draw such connections to the attention of their audience, as I implicitly
did, an argument which runs counter to that of literary critics who claim
that a reader can never be sure of authorial intent, especially when the
author is long dead. One consequence of this focus is that its advocates
need to establish the availability of one text to the writer of another, to
argue for the relatively early dating of many texts about whose origins
there has long been hot debate. I will comment further on this in relation
to specific essays, but on the whole I am not persuaded by the arguments
presented which try to make very definite claims about the chronology of
particular, disputed texts. I also struggle to find any evidence to demon-
strate that original audiences would have been able to recognize most of
the literary connections being claimed, unless, perhaps, the audiences are
limited to highly educated members of scribal schools. The frequency
with which ordinary members of religious communities would hear
specific passages of any text being read argues against any general
awareness of precise phraseology or detailed concepts being identified
in terms of its source if it occurred in another text. 1
As I read through these essays I became more and more aware that
although my work was not seriously misrepresented, it was frequently
cited very selectively and sometimes an accurate quotation was given an
interpretation that was certainly not in my mind when I was writing
(examples will be given later). I recognize that this is something we all
do as scholars. We draw on the work of others to support our own ideas,
1. Hence I cannot accept Stead’s assumption (p. 154) that Zechariah’s audience
would have been familiar with Lam 2.
1
TOLLINGTON Response 329
not to undermine them, and the more varied and supportive references
we can provide, the better. I also recognize that my own writing may
have lacked clarity, which has led to it being given meanings that contrast
with my own ideas,2 although it is possible that a writer has consciously
reinterpreted my words by deliberately taking them out of context.
However, because virtually every essay engages with my work at some
point, I was struck by the reluctance of anyone to comment on it when
my argument was diametrically opposed to what they wanted to say.
This made me realize that generally very few essays or monographs pre-
sent a rigorous debate between just two or three scholars, and to wonder
whether this might be a very profitable venture. To test one’s ideas in
sustained dialogue with someone who challenges them would certainly
reveal any weaknesses in each person’s arguments, and it would reduce
any tendency for scholars to align themselves with a particular school of
thought and to ignore opposing voices, without this being noticed by
many of their readers. For example, no one has mentioned my suggestion
that in the book of Haggai the precise dates, that is, the days and months,
derive from a redactor working no earlier than 164 B.C.E.,3 not even to
dismiss it out of hand as fanciful, even though it does impact on those
who argue on the basis of the chronological relationship between the
prophets Haggai and Zechariah. Perhaps this essay of mine deserved to
be rejected as idiosyncratic but the reality is that it has been ignored.
Al Wolters’ essay is one to which my conclusions about the dating of
Haggai are pertinent (pp. 132–33, 136 n. 22), 4 although since I do not
question the year in which the prophecies were delivered, this would not
have significant impact on his argument. I question Wolters’ confidence
that the ideas of Zoroastrianism “would have been well known to the
Jews” as early as 519 B.C.E. (p. 131), even though I concede how rapidly
2. For example, Floyd states that I have argued that writing was widespread by
the end of the monarchy making oral transmission of Zech 1–8 “unnecessary”
(p. 217). Actually I was (and remain) much more cautious about the extent of
literary skills by the time of exile. I argued in favor of Zech 1–8 as a literary com-
position from the outset on the basis that it was hard to imagine any unit having an
existence independent of the whole, in other words that it was necessary for this to
be committed to writing in order communicate the full message (see Janet E.
Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 [JSOTSup 150;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], 1–47).
3. Janet E. Tollington, “Readings in Haggai: From the Prophet to the Completed
Book, a Changing Message in Changing Times,” in The Crisis of Israelite Religion:
Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (ed. Bob
Becking and Marjo C. A. Korpel; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 194–208.
1
4. So also Kessler, p. 8 n. 27.
this religion spread as Persian dominance grew. His comment, that there
is a danger in trying to interpret visionary images too closely against any
presumed historical backdrop, is well taken, although he gets perilously
close to doing the same thing himself in relation to Nebuchadnezzar
(pp. 140–41). Despite this minor lapse I found this essay convincing and
its conclusion helpful in relation to the interpretation of Zechariah’s first
vision, and in particular to the problem of understanding the concept of
peace in Zech 1:11.
I was much less persuaded by Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer’s essay in which
too frequently she seized on one possibility out of several and continued
to build her argument as though it rested on strong foundations. For
example, the claim that the imagery in Zech 5:5–11 depends on Ezek 8:5
overstates the reference she cites, as well as the claims of Schnocks him-
self in his essay in this volume (p. 106 n. 5; cf. Schnocks’s contribution,
p. 265). Similarly, her presumption “that Zechariah was familiar with the
writings of Ezekiel” is somewhat undermined by her acknowledgment
that “Ezek 8:1–11:25 is probably composite in nature,” which at least
permits that some material may have derived from a later voice than
Ezekiel (p. 105 and 111 n. 24, respectively). To argue that 1 Kgs 6:23–28
describes the cherubim as “living beings…serving as God’s throne”
seems unsustainable, and to suggest that Zechariah “read Ezek 1 through
the lens of Ezek 10” is little more than wishful thinking in my opinion
(pp. 110 and 112). Her discussion about whether Zechariah had access to
either the MT or the LXX version of Ezek 28 is in danger of being
circular, but it also presupposes, without evidential support, that he
definitely had access to one of them (p. 117). But what does it mean to
refer to the LXX version in the late sixth century B.C.E.? Is she implying
that different oral traditions of Ezekiel were in circulation at the time, or
that there were two variant texts? Either way we are left with a serious
question as to which of these is really “Ezekiel,” and whether there were
two different authors of Ezekiel. Then, to suggest that the “best reading”
of a text available to Zechariah can be established on the basis of
Masoretic accents further illustrates the conjectural nature of this essay
(p. 118 n. 50). It read to me very much like work in progress which was
desperately trying to project back results of literature studies suggesting
links between Zechariah’s so called “spies” and Ezekiel’s cherubim, as
though this was the intention of the prophet Zechariah. The truth may be
simply that both prophets were able to draw on a rich common fund of
imagery and ideas.
The reading of Zech 5:5–11 offered by Johannes Schnocks provides a
careful discussion about the meaning of this vision, in which a woman in
an ephah is carried away to Shinar. His close attention to all the ancient
1
texts that contain this passage, or an interpretation of it, enables him to

draw attention to the contrast between the interests of ancient readers and
modern exegetes, namely, the ephah and its destination. Throughout the
essay he is cautious about any claims he makes and his research is meticu-
lous. His conclusion, that the focus of the vision is on all the iniquity still
found in the land—iniquity that is itself exiled so that there can be a new
beginning in Jerusalem—is persuasive. I welcome his acknowledgment
of the misogyny inherent in this vision, and I hope that he or someone
else will do further work on the stork-winged women who convey the
iniquity into exile, to establish whether or not they “contradict a thorough
misogyny” in the text. I still wonder whether the Zoroastrian concept of a
fravashi may underlie the portrayal of these women, a claim that I did
not make in my original work,5 and so research into this possibility
remains to be undertaken.
I was not convinced by the essay of D. Nathan Phinney who, like
Tiemeyer, considers links between Ezekiel and Zech 1–8. At times I
found his use of diverse terminology in relation to the concepts of “auto-
biography” or “life writing” inconsistent, which contributed to my sense
of unease about his argument. His attempts to establish that Ezekiel and
Zechariah can both be regarded as the authors of their books rest on
minimal evidence, and I am misrepresented as presenting “compelling
cases for Zecharian authorship and editor-ship” (p. 87 and n. 21). What I
actually wrote was that I believed “both Zechariah 1–8 and the book of
Haggai were compiled about the same time” and that there was a “possi-
bility that the same person, who could have been Zechariah, was respon-
sible for both books.”6 Today I would be even more circumspect on this
issue. I also note that I am cited in connection with the idea that Zech
6:9–14 represents Zechariah’s self-portrayal of his sign-action (p. 92
n. 32). Quite apart from the fact that some of words attributed to me are
actually from David Petersen, whom I was quoting at that point,7 I was
arguing that in Zech 6:9–14 Zechariah was being identified with Moses,
and that this presentation of him was probably formulated in the final
stages of the book’s compilation. I fear that much of Phinney’s argument
may lack substantial support, and I wonder whether he is trying too hard
to provide a body of evidential support for his novel theory, when little
actually exists.
5. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation, 93–94.

6. Ibid., 47.
7. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1984; London: SCM, 1985), 279 n. 10.
1
Holger Delkurt asserts that Zech 3:1–7 is a later addition to Zech 1–8,
without giving space to outline his reasons, while acknowledging that this
vision is highly relevant to the topic of his essay “Sin and Atonement”
(p. 235 n. 1). From this basis he presents a well-supported argument to
reach his conclusion that Zechariah’s visions reveal that salvation cannot
begin until YHWH has taken action to eliminate the sins that the Israelites
are incapable of eliminating by themselves. Strangely, just before his
conclusion he introduces some brief comments about Zech 3:1–7. He
suggests that this vision of the atonement of Joshua is related to the idea
that “red” implies sin and the need for atonement, for which he has just
made a strong case (p. 249). This makes me ask why Zech 3:3–4 refers to
Joshua wearing filthy garments rather than red ones, and I would be
interested to hear Delkurt’s response to this question. I would encourage
him to develop this essay further, in order to develop his arguments about
Zech 3:1–7 as a later addition, and what it contributes as such to both this
topic and the overall message of Zech 1–8.
The focus of Dominic Rudman on the figure of the satan in Zech 3 is
set alongside two equally important references in Job 1–2 and 1 Chr 21.
His argument about Satan’s role in the Chronicler’s rewriting of 2 Sam
24 deserves careful consideration. Similarly his suggestion that the satan
in Job is a member of the divine council who is granted permission to let
loose the forces of chaos against creation, is well argued through an
analysis of Job’s misfortunes in these terms and his identification of Job
in a priestly role. However, I am less convinced by Rudman’s argument
that similar mythic ideas are present in Zech 3, nor am I persuaded that
he is justified in reading the satan’s role in this text as “opposing Yah-
weh’s plans” (p. 196),since all that is stated is that the satan is rebuked for
bringing an accusation against Joshua. The rebuke is apparently accepted,
for there is no further reference to the satan in the vision in which God
exercises total control over the situation. Thus the evidence hardly sup-
ports the conclusions about this figure’s role in Zechariah (p. 196).
Nonetheless, this essay includes many interesting ideas and contributes
to the ongoing debate about the relationship among these three texts and
to the more developed concept of Satan that is found in the New
Testament and early Jewish literature.
I was interested by the other essay on Zech 3 in which Marvin A.
Sweeney presented a well-argued discussion of how this text is read in
Targum Jonathan. I confess myself unqualified to comment on the sub-
stance of this work, though I believe that there is great benefit to be gained
by all Hebrew Bible scholars from closer engagement between those who
focus on how these ancient texts have been interpreted in both Jewish
1
and Christian traditions. My only contention with Sweeney concerns his

automatic presumption that the term “Branch” in Zech 3:8 is a reference
to Zerubbabel as a Davidic royal figure (p. 278). I believe I have demon-
strated elsewhere that there are other options at least worthy of consid-
eration.8
I am hesitant about commenting on Thomas Pola’s work since
Septuagint studies and a focus on the Book of the Twelve as a unit are
not areas where I claim any expertise. His argument is interesting, and I
commend him for his clarity with regard to the fundamental premises
from which his study begins. His close attention to the precise vocabu-
lary adopted by the LXX translator in specific verses in Zechariah
advances his argument well, on the whole. However, I note that in his
discussions of Zech 14:3 and Zech 14:14, where the same Greek verb is
used to translate the same Hebrew verb “fight” in each case, some of his
comments seem based on the fact that the English translation of 14:3 in
both MT and LXX is “fight,” whereas the English translations of 14:14
read “fight” and “draw up,” respectively (pp. 294, 298).This makes me
realize a need for great caution when building an argument on the basis
of specific vocabulary used in ancient texts when that vocabulary carries
a legitimate range of meanings in English. To claim any certainty about
the nuance conveyed by a specific word in a specific context seems
fraught with danger, and I hope Pola maintains due caution as he devel-
ops this study further.
Paul L. Redditt’s essay also has in view the Book of the Twelve rather
than the texts of Haggai and Zech 1–8 in any original state. It is evident
that he is still working on the significance of the king in the whole cor-
pus, and this essay is sure-footed in some places while it appears highly
speculative in others. I would challenge his opening presumption that
both Haggai and Zech 1–8 “articulate a hope for a future king in Judah,”
as the possibility that Zechariah advocates a diarchic hope involving a
governor rather than a king must surely be allowed. I also wish he would
justify his claiming it likely that “the word ‘sprout’ or ‘shoot’ referred to
Zerubbabel” (p. 61). It is conspicuous, to me, that he does not engage
with my work in relation to the identity of the Branch in Zechariah 9 since
my conclusions are at variance with his own. 10 I sense that Redditt’s
arguments have been condensed in many sections of this essay in order

10. This is an example of the general practice I referred to in my opening com-
ments, a practice of which I too must confess my guilt. So, I am not singling anyone
out for criticism, merely drawing attention to a specific occurrence.
1
to reduce its length as a contribution to this volume. In consequence, it is

hard to respond to specific conclusions he reaches when some of the
argument appears to have been omitted. I will look forward to reading a
fuller version of this developed thesis perhaps as a monograph.
The contribution by Frank Y. Patrick about the concept of time in Hag
1:2 draws on a wide range of secondary material and discusses many
other instances of the specific Hebrew word. However, the result is a
rapid review of disparate material, almost presented as a pastiche, and
too much of his argument seems to rest on single examples that can be
cited in support with no consideration at all being given to possible
alternative readings. His idea warrants attention but it will benefit from
being discussed at greater depth to give more credence to his conclu-
sions.
The concept of time and its association with the wisdom traditions is
one aspect of John Kessler’s essay on Haggai, and he offers a perspective
different from Patrick’s. The primary focus of this study is on the use of
covenant traditions in Haggai, and it is refreshing to read work that
demonstrates the significance of this prophetic voice without coupling it
with Zech 1–8. The frequency with which Kessler engages with scholar-
ship in French is also welcomed, as this body of material is too often
overlooked by English speakers. My current work on the book of Judges
makes me question Kessler’s assertion that the concept of Holy War
would have been a tradition known by Haggai and his audience (p. 9).
This has specific relevance for any interpretation of Hag 2:7 and 2:20–
22, but his overall thesis is well argued and it raises the profile of Haggai
as a text worthy of careful study in its own right.
Michael R. Stead offers a sustained argument for the existence of
sustained allusion to Lam 2 and Isa 54 in Zechariah. He argues well to
legitimate the concept; and the process he develops, whereby allusions
can be recognized, should prove to be a useful tool in wider scholarship.
The ability to identify thematic allusions through the use of synonyms,
rather than being limited to direct verbal parallels, is an important step
forward; and this has particular relevance for material deriving from a
community with a high dependence on oral communication. I am attracted
by Stead’s thesis but keep returning to my fundamental scepticism as to
whether Zechariah and his audience really were familiar with such a
wide body of material as he claims. For instance, his comments about
Zech 1:16b depend in part on familiarity with a written text of Jer 31:38–
39 since divergent spellings cannot be attributed to an oral stage of
transmission (p. 148).Are we to suppose that his audience was entirely
literate? Then again, how confident can we be that all spellings in the
1
Hebrew Bible, especially divergent ones, go back to the original author

of a text? Likewise, are we sure that Zechariah’s audience consisted of
those who grew up singing the laments? (See p. 155.)Valid questions can
be asked about both the composition and use of Lamentations among the
exiles or in Jerusalem, and whether the acrostic poems as we have them
may result from later reflections on the historical events of exile. How all
these questions are answered impacts on Stead’s work in particular, and
on all who engage in this developing field of study. I agree with him that
Steck tries to be too prescriptive about a circular process of allusion
developed by redactors of texts (p. 164 and n. 51), but I wonder whether
the probability that Isa 54 and Zech 1–8 arose out of a similar milieu,
from prophets with at least some shared hopes and experiences, might be
sufficient to account for what is being identified as conscious allusion.
Mark J. Boda also argues on the basis of inner-biblical allusion, but it
is clear that he is focusing on texts that have undergone redaction, per-
haps during the assembly of a prophetic canon, but certainly sometime
after each originated. This still raises questions about the direction of any
influence, but it is easier to accept his argument that the author of Zech
2:10–17 is alluding to several other prophetic texts, rather than the other
way round, because of the volume of allusions he identifies within this
short passage. There is always the danger of identifying an allusion that
is only evident to the reader, rather than being intended by the author, 11
but again the weight of cumulative evidence adds weight to an argument.
I hope that more work will be done in the field of textual allusion, espe-
cially from a theological standpoint, as it may well prove to be a fruitful
avenue towards greater understanding of how Israel’s theological tradi-
tions developed during the Persian and Greek periods.
This brings me to the remaining essay in this volume, by Michael H.
Floyd, and I have indicated above one instance where he appears to mis-
understand my work. His strong commitment to the idea that texts are
produced in accordance with identifiable literary forms is evident where
he questions my suggestions about Zechariah as the author of Zech 1–8
(pp. 218–19). I accept his criticism but would counter that it may be
unwise to argue that the presence of a form in a particular text always
leads to certain conclusions. What about the “exception that proves the
rule”? I would not presume to comment on his interpretation of my
11. For example, does Zech 2:5–6 allude to Ezek 40–42 as Boda (p. 185) sug-
gests? There is no mention of a wall in the opening verses of Zechariah’s vision and
I understand the man to be measuring the extent of the area that is Jerusalem, which
will keep on increasing, rather than any boundary walls that still exist, which limit
the territory.
1
senior colleagues’ work, but overall I found his argument quite compel-
ling and it is good to be reminded that not everyone means the same
thing when referring to biblical traditions.
As I conclude this response I find myself even more reluctant to make
strong claims about the relationships between biblical texts than I was
when my doctoral work was published. The more closely I have studied
a wider range of texts, the more I have become aware of the complex
web of associations and traditions that have contributed to the develop-
ment of the canon and of how difficult it is to unravel any part of the
process. I am constantly aware that there will always be another perspec-
tive about how any set of theological ideas has evolved in the process of
transmission, and I no longer want to close down any options. However,
I have been delighted as I read these essays to encounter scholars with
the confidence to try out ideas and to make strong claims for their
theories, as this is the way that academic study advances. I commend all
the authors for their willingness to offer their work for critical response
without a right of reply and I feel confident that there will be further
good work on Haggai and Zech 1–8 by members of this group. Above
all, I have appreciated seeing my own work in relation to that of others
from varying perspectives, and I am humbled to realize that, despite its
many weaknesses, it has contributed to the ongoing interest in these two
fascinating biblical texts.
1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ackroyd, Peter R. “The Chronicler as Exegete.” JSOT 2 (1977): 2–32.

——. “Continuity and Discontinuity: Rehabilitation and Authentication.” Pages 215–34 in
Knight, ed., Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament.
——. Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. OTL.
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968.
——. “Faith and Its Reformulation in the Post-Exilic Period: Prophetic Material.” TD 27
(1979): 335–46.
——. “Faith and Its Reformulation in the Post-Exilic Period: Sources.” TD 27 (1979): 323–34.
——. “Meaning and Exegesis.” Pages 1–14 in Words and Meaning. FS D. Winton Thomas.
Edited by Peter R. Ackroyd and Barnabas Lindars. London: Cambridge University Press,
1968.
——. “Problems in the Handling of Biblical and Related Sources in the Achaemenid Period.”
Pages 33–54 in Achaemenid History III: Method and Theory. Edited by Amélie Kuhrt
and Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg. Leiden: Niederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten,
1988.
——. “Studies in the Book of Haggai.” JJS 2 (1951): 163–76.
——. “The Temple Vessels—A Continuity Theme.” Pages 166–81 in Studies in the Religion of
Ancient Israel. VTSup 22. Leiden: Brill, 1972.
——. “The Vitality of the Word of God in the Old Testament,” ASTI 1 (1962): 7–23.
Ådna, Jostein. “The Servant of Isaiah 53 as Triumphant and Interceding Messiah: The
Reception of Isaiah 52:13–53:12 in the Targum of Isaiah with Special Attention to the
Concept of Messiah. Pages 189–224 in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and
Christian Sources. Edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher. Translated by
Daniel P. Bailey. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.
Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “Jeremiah at the Turning-point of History: The Function of Jer. xxv 1–14
in the Book of Jeremiah.” VT 52 (2002): 459–82.
Albertz, Rainer. “Exile as Purification: Reconstructing the ‘Book of the Four.’ ” Pages 232–51
in Redditt and Schart, eds., Thematic Threads.
——. Die Exilszeit: 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Biblische Enzyklopädie 7. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
2001.
——. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. Vol. 2, From the Exile to the
Maccabees. Translated by John Bowden. OTL. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox,
1994.
Alden, Robert L. Job. NAC 11. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993.
Alexander, Philip. “Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scripture.” Pages 217–53 in
Mikra, Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient
Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Martin Jan Mulder. CRINT 2/1. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1988.
Amsler, Samuel, André Lacoque, and René Vuilleumeier. Aggée-Zacharie 1–8, Zacharie 9–14,
Malachi. CAT 11-C. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1988.
Andel, J. van. De kleine profeten. Leeuwarden: Amsing, 1881.
Andersen, Francis I. Habakkuk: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25.
New York: Doubleday, 2001.
——. Job: An Introduction and Commentary. Leicester and Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity,
1975.
——. “Who Built the Second Temple?” ABR 6 (1958): 1–35.
Andersen, Francis I., and David Noel Freedman. Micah: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary. AB 24E. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Anderson, Gary A. Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel: Studies in Their Social and
Political Importance. HSM 41. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.
Baldwin, Joyce G. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC.
Leicester: Intervarsity, 1972.
Barker, Kenneth L. “Zechariah.” Pages 595–697 in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 7,
Daniel, Minor Prophets. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein et al. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1985.
Barker, Margaret. “Beyond the Veil of the Temple: The High-Priestly Origins of the
Apocalypses.” SJT 51 (1998): 1–21.
——. “The Evil in Zechariah.” HeyJ 19 (1978): 12–27.
Barrick, W. Boyd. “The Straight-Legged Cherubim of Ezekiel’s Inaugural Vision (Ezekiel
1:7a).” CBQ 44 (1982): 543–50.
Barnes, W. Emery. Haggai and Zechariah. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917.
Barr, James. “ ‘Thou art the Cherub’: Ezekiel 28.14 and the Post-Ezekiel Understanding of
Genesis 2–3.” Pages 213–33 in Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation
and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp. Edited by
Eugene C. Ulrich, John W. Wright, and Robert P. Carroll. JSOTSup 149. Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1992.
Barstad, Hans. The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah
During the ‘Exilic’ Period. SO 28. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996.
Barthélemy, Dominique, ed. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament: Tome 3 Ezéchiel, Daniel
et les 12 prophètes. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1992.
——. “Les Tiqqune sopherim et la critique textuelle de L’Ancien Testament.” Pages 285–304
in Congress Volume: Bonn, 1962. VTSup 9. Leiden, Brill, 1963.
Barton, John. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. Rev. ed. Louisville, Ky.:
Westminster John Knox, 1996.
Bedford, Peter R. “Discerning the Time: Haggai, Zechariah and the ‘Delay’ in the Rebuilding
of the Jerusalem Temple.” Pages 71–94 in The Pitcher Is Broken: Memorial Essays for
G. W. Ahlström. Edited by Steven W. Holloway and Lowell K. Handy. JSOTSup 190.
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1995.
——. Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah. JSJSup 65. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Begg, Christopher T. “Babylon in the Book of Isaiah.” Pages 121–25 in The Book of Isaiah—
Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leur relectures: Unité et complexité de l'ouvrage. Edited
by Jacques Vermeylen. BETL 81. Leuven: University Press and Peeters, 1989.
Bellis, Alice Ogden. The Structure and Composition of Jeremiah 50:2–51:58. Lewiston, N.Y.:
Mellen Biblical Press, 1995.
Ben-Porat, Ziva. “The Poetics of Literary Allusion.” PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics
and Theory of Literature 1 (1976): 105–28.
Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Beginning to Address the Question: Why Were Prophetic Books Produced and
‘Consumed’ in Ancient Yehud?” Pages 30–41 in Historie Og Konstruktion: Festschrift
Niels Peter Lemche. Edited by Mogens Müller and Thomas L. Thompson. FBE 14.
Copenhagen: Kobenhavens Universetet, 2005.
Bibliography 339
——. A Historical-critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah. BZAW 198. Berlin: de Gruyter,
1991.
——. “Introduction: Writings, Speeches, and the Prophetic Books: Setting an Agenda.” Pages
1–29 in Ben Zvi and Floyd, eds., Writings and Speech.
——. “The Prophetic Book: A Key Form of Prophetic Literature.” Pages 276–97 in The
Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Marvin A.
Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
——. “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘The Twelve’: A Few Preliminary Considerations.” Pages
125–56 in Watts and House, eds., Forming Prophetic Literature.
——. “The Urban Center of Jerusalem and the Development of the Literature of the Hebrew
Bible.” Pages 194–209 in Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete. Edited by
Walter E. Aufrecht, Neil A. Mirau, and Steven W. Gauley. JSOTSup 244. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Ben Zvi, Ehud, and Michael H. Floyd, eds. Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near
Eastern Prophecy. SBLSymS 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000.
Berger, P.-R. “ Zu den Namen rcb## und rc)n#.” ZAW 83 (1971): 98–100.
Berquist, John L. Judaism in Persia’s Shadow. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.
Berlin, Adele. Lamentations: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox,
2002.
——. Zephaniah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25A. New York:
Doubleday, 1994.
Beuken, Willem A. M. Haggai–Sacharja 1–8: Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der
frühnachexilischen Prophetie. SSN 10. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967.
Bevan, A. A. “The King of Tyre in Ezekiel xxviii.” JTS O.S. 4 (1903): 500–505.
Beyse, Karl-Martin. Serubbabel und die Königserwartungen der Propheten Haggai und
Sacahja. Eine historische und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. AzTh 48.
Stuttgart: Calwer, 1972.
Bianchi, Francesco. “Le rôle de Zorobabel et la dynastie davidique en Judée du Vie siècle au
IIe siècle av. J.-C.” Transeu 7 (1994): 153–65.
Bič, Miloš. Das Buch Sacharja. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962.
Bickerman, Elias J. “The Edict of Cyrus.” JBL 65 (1946): 249–75.
Biddle, Mark E. “‘Israel’ and ‘Jacob’ in the Book of Micah: Micah in the Context of the
Twelve.” Pages 146–65 in Nogalski and Sweeney, eds., Reading and Hearing the Book
of the Twelve.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “Bethel in the Neo-Babylonian Period.” Pages 93–107 in Lipschits and
Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period.
——. A History of Prophecy in Israel. 2d ed. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996.
Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
——. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
——. “In Search of Theological Meaning: Ezekiel Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium.”
Pages 227–39 in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited
by Stephen L. Cook and Corinne L. Patton. SBLSymS 31. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2004.
——. “The Prophet and the Spirit: The Use of rwh in the Book of Ezekiel.” JETS 32 (1989):
27–49.
Blumenthal, David R. Understanding Jewish Mysticism: A Source Reader. New York: Ktav,
1978.
Boda, Mark J. “From Dystopia to Myopia: Utopian (Re)visions in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8.”
Pages 210–48 in Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic Literature. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi.
Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 92. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006.
——. “From Fasts to Feasts: The Literary Function of Zechariah 7–8.” CBQ 65 (2003): 390–
407.
——. Haggai and Zechariah Research: A Bibliographic Survey. Tools for Biblical Study.
Leiden: Deo, 2003.
——. “Haggai: Master Rhetorician.” TynBul 51 (2000): 295–304.
——. Haggai/Zechariah. New International Version Application Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2004.
——. “Oil, Crowns and Thrones.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 3 (2001): Art. 10. [Also pages
89–106 in Currents in Biblical and Theological Dialogue (2001). Edited by J. Stafford.
Winnipeg: University of Manitoba, 2002.]
——. “Reading Between the Lines: Zechariah 11:4–16 in Its Literary Contexts.” Pages 277–91
in Boda and Floyd, eds., Bringing Out the Treasure.
——. “Terrifying the Horns: Persia and Babylon in Zechariah 1:7–6:15.” CBQ 67 (2005):
22–41.
——. “Zechariah: Master Mason or Penitential Prophet?” Pages 49–69 in Yahwism after the
Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Period. Edited by Rainer Albertz
and Bob Becking. Studies in Theology and Religion 5. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003.
Boda, Mark J., and Michael H. Floyd, eds. Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion
in Zechariah 9–14. JSOTSup 370. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.
Boda, Mark J., and Jamie R. Novotny, eds. From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays
on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible. AOAT. Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag, forthcoming.
Boda, Mark J., and Stanley E. Porter. “Literature to the Third Degree: Prophecy in Zechariah
9–14 and the Passion of Christ.” Pages 215–34 in Traduire le Bible hébraïque: De la
Septante à la Nouvelle Bible Second / Translating the Hebrew Bible: From the
Septuagint to the Nouvelle Bible Second. Edited by Robert David and Manuel Jinbachian.
Sciences bibliques 15. Montreal: Médiaspaul, 2005.
Bodi, Daniel. The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra. OBO 104. Freiburg: Universitats-
verlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991.
Boehmer, J. “Wer ist Gog von Magog? Ein Beitrag zur Auslegung des Buches Ezechiel.” ZWT
40 (1897): 321–55.
Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Le Chérub de Tyr (Ez 28,14.16) et l’hippocampe de ses monnaies.”
Pages 29–38 in Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel: Festschrift für
Siegfried Herrmann zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Rudiger Liwak and Siegfried
Wagner. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991.
Borger, Rykle. Die Chronologie des Darius-Denkmals am Behistun-Felsen. Nachrichten der
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. I. Philologisch-historische Klasse.
Bredenkamp, Conrad J. Der Prophet Sacharja. Erlangen: Deichert, 1879.
Brenner, Athalya. Colour Terms in the Old Testament. JSOTSup 21. Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1982.
Brewer, David I. Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE. Texte und
Studien zum Antiken Judentum 30. Tübingen: Mohr, 1992.
Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Translated by P.
Daniels. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002.
Bright, John. Jeremiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB 21. Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1965.
Brock-Utne, A. “ ‘Der Feind’: Die alttestamentliche Satansgestalt im Lichte der sozialen
Verhältnisse des nahen Orients.” Klio 28 (1935): 219–27.
Bibliography 341
Bruehler, Bart B. “Seeing Through the Myniy(' of Zechariah: Understanding Zechariah 4.” CBQ
63 (2001): 430–43.
Calvin, John. A Commentary on the Twelve Minor Prophets. Vol. 5, Zechariah & Malachi.
Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1849.
Calvinus, Iohannes. Praelectiones in duodecim Prophetas quos vocant minores in Iohannis
Calvini opera quae supersunt, Vol. XLIV. Corpus Reformatorum, Vol. 72. Edited by
Guilielmus Baum et al. Brunsvigae: Apud C. A. Schwetschke et Filium, 1890.
Caquot, André. “Le Judaïsme depuis la captivité de Babylone jusqu à la révolte de Bar-
Kokheba.” Pages 14–32 in Encyclopédie De la Pléiade. Histoire Des Religions II. Edited
by H.-C. Puech. Paris: Gallimard, 1972.
——. “r(g.” TDOT 3:49–53.
Carr, David M. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Carroll, Robert P. “Halfway through a Dark Wood: Reflections on Jeremiah 25.” Pages 73–86
in Diamond, O’Connor, and Stulman, eds., Troubling Jeremiah.
——. “Israel, History of (Post-Monarchic Period).” ABD 3:567–76.
——. Jeremiah. OTG. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989.
——. Jeremiah: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster; London: SCM, 1986.
——. “So What Do We Know about the Temple? The Temple in the Prophets.” Pages 34–51 in
Eskenazi and Richards, eds., Second Temple Studies 2.
——. When Prophecy Failed: Reactions and Responses to Failure in the Old Testament
Prophets. London: SCM, 1979.
Carter, Charles. The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic
Study. JSOTSup 294. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Cathcart, Kevin J., and Robert P. Gordon, eds. The Targum of the Minor Prophets: Translated,
with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. ArBib 14. Wilmington, Del.: Michael
Glazier; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989.
Chary, Théophane. Aggée-Zacharie, Malachie. SB. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1969.
Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001.
Chisholm, Robert B. Interpreting the Minor Prophets. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.
Christensen, Duane A. “The Book of Nahum: A History of Interpretation.” Pages 187–94 in
Watts and House, eds., Forming Prophetic Literature.
Cimosa, Mario. “Observations on the Greek Translation of the Book of Zechariah.” Pages 91–
108 in Taylor, ed., IX Congress.
Clements, Ronald E. “The Chronology of Redaction in Ezekiel 1–24.” Pages 283–94 in Lust,
ed., Ezekiel and His Book.
——. God and Temple. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965.
——. Isaiah 1–39. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
Clifford, Richard J. “The Temple and the Holy Mountain.” Pages 107–24 in The Temple in
Antiquity: Ancient Records and Modern Perspectives. Edited by Truman G. Madsen.
Provo: Brigham Young University, 1984.
Clines, David J. A. “Haggai’s Temple Constructed, Deconstructed.” Pages 60–87 in Eskenazi
and Richards, eds., Second Temple Studies 2.
——. Job 1–20. WBC 17. Dallas: Word, 1989.
——. “Notes on Ezra.” Pages 699–716 in The HarperCollins Study Bible. Edited by Wayne A.
Meeks et al. New York: HarperCollins, 1989.
Coggins, Richard J. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. OTG. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987.
Cohen, Naomi G. “Earliest Evidence of the Haftarah Cycle for the Sabbaths between zwmtb z"y
and twkws in Philo.” JSS 48 (1997): 225–49.
Collins, John J. “The Eschatology of Zechariah.” Pages 74–84 in Knowing the End from the
Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic and Their Relationships. Edited by Lester L.
Grabbe and Robert D. Haak. JSPSup 46. London: T&T Clark International/Continuum,
2003.
Conrad, Edgar W. Reading the Latter Prophets: Toward a New Canonical Criticism. JSOTSup
376. London: Continuum, 2003.
——. Zechariah. Readings: A New Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1999.
Cook, John M. The Persian Empire. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1993.
Cook, Stephen L. The Apocalyptic Literature. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon,
2003.
——. “Creation Archetypes and Mythogems in Ezekiel: Significance and Theological
Ramifications.” Pages 123–46 in SBL Seminar Papers 38. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999.
——. “The Metamorphosis of a Shepherd: The Tradition History of Zechariah 11.17 + 13.7–
9.” CBQ 55 (1993): 453–66.
——. Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting. Minneapolis: Fortress,
1995.
Cowles, Henry. The Minor Prophets with Notes, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical. New
York: Appleton, 1866.
Craigie, Peter C. Twelve Prophets. 2 vols. Daily Study Bible—Old Testament; Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1984, 1985.
Crenshaw, James L. “The Primacy of Listening in Ben Sira’s Pedagogy.” Pages 172–87 in
Wisdom, You Are My Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., on the
Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday. Edited by Michael L. Barré. CBQMS 29.
Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1997.
——. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981.
Crüsemann, Frank. Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel. WMANT
32; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969.
Davis, Ellen F. Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s
Prophecy. JSOTSup 78. Bible and Literature Series 21. Sheffield: Almond, 1989.
Day, John. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. JSOTSup 265. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Day, Peggy L. An Adversary in Heaven: Satan in the Hebrew Bible. HSM 43. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1988.
Deden, D. De kleine profeten. De Boeken van het Oude Testament. Roermond/Maaseik:
Romen & Zonen, 1953–56.
De Guglielmo, Antonine. “The Fertility of the Land in the Messianic Prophecies.” CBQ 19
(1957): 306–11.
Delitzsch, Franz. Job. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
Delkurt, Holger. “Die Engelwesen in Sach 1,8–15.” BN 99 (1999): 20–41.
——. “Sacharja und der Kult.” Pages 27–39 in Verbindungslinien: Festschrift für Werner H.
Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Axel Graupner, Holger Delkurt, and Alexander
B. Ernst. Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2000.
——. Sacharjas Nachtgesichte: Zur Aufnahme und Abwandlung prophetischer Traditionen.
BZAW 302. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000.
——. “Eine Zusammenfassung des Dekalogs in Sach 5,3f?” Pages 193–205 in Recht und Ethos
im Alten Testament-Gestalt und Wirkung: Festschrift für Horst Seebass. Edited by Stefan
Beyerle, Günter Mayer, and Hans Strauss. Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999.
Derousseaux, Louis. La Crainte de Dieu dans l’Ancien Testament. LD 63. Paris: Cerf, 1970.
Bibliography 343
De Troyer, Kristin. Rewriting the Sacred Text: What the Old Greek Texts Tell Us about the
Literary Growth of the Bible. Text-Critical Studies 4. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2003.
Dhorme, Edouard. A Commentary on the Book of Job. Translated by Harold Knight. London:
Nelson, 1967.
Diamond, A. R. Pete, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman, eds. Troubling Jeremiah.
JSOTSup 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Dijk, H.J. van. Ezekiel’s Prophecy on Tyre (Ez. 26,1–28,19): A New Approach. BibOr 20.
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968.
Dijkstra, Meindert. “The Glosses in Ezekiel Reconsidered: Aspects of Textual Transmission in
Ezekiel 10.” Pages 55–77 in Lust, ed., Ezekiel and His Book.
Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. “The Syntagma of bat Followed by a Geographical Name in the Hebrew
Bible: A Reconsideration of Its Meaning and Grammar.” CBQ 57 (1995): 451–70.
Dogniez, Cécile. “Fautes de traduction, ou bonnes traductions? Quelques examples pris dans la
LXX des Douze Petits Prophètes.” Pages 241–61 in X Congress of the International
Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo 1998. Edited by Bernard
A. Taylor. SBLSCS 51. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001.
——. “Le Dieu des armées dans le Dodekapropheton: quelques remarques sur une initiative de
traduction.” Pages 19–36 in Taylor, ed., IX Congress.
Dorival, Gilles, Marguerite Harl, and Olivier Munnich. La Bible grecque des Septante: Du
judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien. Initiations au christianisme ancien. Paris:
Editions du C.N.R.S., 1988. Repr., Paris: Cerf, 1994.
Driver, Samuel R. Deuteronomy. ICC. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1916.
——. The Minor Prophets. NCB. Edinburgh: Jack, 1906.
Driver, Samuel R., and George B. Gray. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of
Job. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, repr. 1950.
Durham, John I. “Shalom and the Presence of God.” Pages 272–94 in Proclamation and
Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies. Edited by John I.
Durham and Joshua R. Porter. Richmond: John Knox, 1970.
Eaton, J. H. Job. OTG. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985.
Edelman, Diana. The Origins of the “Second” Temple: Persian Imperial Policy and the
Rebuilding of Jerusalem. BibleWorld. London: Equinox, 2005.
——. “Proving Yahweh Killed His Wife (Zechariah 5:5–11).” BibInt 11 (2003): 335–44.
Elior, Rachel. The Three Temples: On the Emergence of Jewish Mysticism. Oxford: Littman
Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004.
Elliger, Karl. Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten II: Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk,
Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi. ATD 25. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1949. Rev. ed. 1975.
Ellis, Richard S. Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia. Yale Near Eastern Researches
2. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968.
Erlandsson, Seth. The Burden of Babylon: A Study of Isaiah 13:2–14:23. ConBOT 4. Lund:
GWK Gleerup, 1970.
Ernst, Alexander B. Weisheitliche Kultkritik: Zu Theologie und Ethik des Sprüchebuchs und
der Prophetie des 8. Jahrhunderts. BThSt 23. Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1994.
Eskenazi, Tamara C., and Kent H. Richards, eds. Second Temple Studies 2: Temple and
Community in the Persian Period. JSOTSup 175. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994.
Even-Shoshan, Abraham. A New Concordance of the Bible. Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher, 1983.
Fechter, Friedrich. Bewältigung der Katastrophe: Untersuchungen zu ausgewählten Fremd-
völkersprüchen im Ezechielbuch. BZAW 208. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992.
Feinberg, Charles L. Zechariah: Israel’s Comfort and Glory. The Major Messages of the Minor
Prophets. Chicago: Moody, 1952. Repr. of pages 271–344 in The Minor Prophets.
Chicago: Moody, 1990.
Fernández Marcos, Natalio. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of
the Bible. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Festinger, Leon. When Prophecy Fails. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956.
Floyd, Michael H. “Cosmos and History in Zechariah’s View of the Restoration (Zechariah
1:7–6:15).” Pages 125–44 in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Hnor of Rolf
Knierim. Edited by Henry T. C. Sun and Keith L. Eades. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
——. “Deutero-Zechariah and Types of Intertextuality.” Pages 225–44 in Boda and Floyd,
eds., Bringing Out the Treasure.
——. “The Evil in the Ephah: Reading Zechariah 5:5–11 in Its Literary Context.” CBQ 58
(1996): 51–68.
——. Minor Prophets: Part 2. FOTL 22. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
——. “The Nature of the Narrative and the Evidence of Redaction in Haggai.” VT 45 (1995):
470–90.
——. “Prophecy and Writing in Habakkuk 2,1–5.” ZAW 105 (1993): 462–81.
——. “The Production of Prophetic Books in the Early Second Temple Period.” Pages 276–97
in Floyd and Haak, eds., Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts.
——. “ ‘Write the revelation!’ (Hab 2:2): Re-imagining the Cultural History of Prophecy.”
Pages 103–43 in Ben Zvi and Floyd, eds., Writings and Speech.
Floyd, Michael H., and Robert L. Haak, eds. Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in the
Second Temple Period. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 427. New York:
T & T Clark International, 2006.
Folkenflick, Robert. “Introduction: The Institution of Autobiography.” Pages 1–20 in The
Culture of Autobiography: Constructions of Self-Representation. Edited by Robert
Folkenflick. Irvine Studies in the Humanities. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1993.
Forsyth, Neil. The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1987.
Freedman, David N. “Headings in the Eighth-Century Prophets.” AUSS 25 (1987): 9–26.
Freedman, David N., and Michael P. O’Connor. “bwrq.” TDOT 7:307–19.
Freedman, David N., B. E. Willoughby, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. “)#n.” ThWAT 5:626–43.
Fretheim, Terence E. Jeremiah. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, Ga.: Smith &
Helwys, 2002.
——. The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
Frevel, Christian. Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch YHWHs: Beiträge zu liter-
arischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskus-
sion. 2 vols. BBB 94. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995.
——. “YHWH und die Göttin bei den Propheten. Eine Zwischenbilanz.” Pages 49–75 in Der
eine Gott und die Götter: Polytheismus und Monotheismus im antiken Israel. Edited by
Manfred Oeming and Konrad Schmid. ATANT 82. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2003.
Frey, Hellmuth. Das Buch der Kirche in der Weltwende: Die kleinen nachexilischen Propheten.
BAT. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1948.
Fried, Lisbeth S. The Priest and the Great King: Temple–Palace Relations in the Persian
Empire. Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 10.
Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004.
Fuller, Russell. “Early Emendations of the Scribes: The Tiqqun Sopherim in Zechariah 2:12.”
Pages 21–28 in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental
Judaism, and Christian Origins, Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His
Bibliography 345
Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin.
Lanham, Md: University Press of America, 1990.
Galling, Kurt. Die Bücher der Chronik, Ezra, Nehemia. ATD 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1954.
Garrett, Duane A., and Paul R. House. Song of Songs/Lamentations. WBC 23B. Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 2004.
Gärtner, Judith. Jesaja 66 und Sacharja 14 als Summe der Prophetie: Eine traditions- und
redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Abschluss des Jesaja- und des Zwölf-
prophetenbuches. WMANT 114. Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2006.
Gelston, Anthony. “Kingship in the Book of Hosea.” Pages 71–85 in Language and Meaning:
Studies in Hebrew Language and Biblical Exegesis. Edited by James Barr. Leiden: Brill,
1974.
Gerleman, Gillis. “(#r.” THAT 2:813–21.
Gese, Hartmut. “Anfang und Ende der Apokalyptik, dargestellt am Sacharjabuch.” ZTK 70
(1973): 20–49.
Goedicke, Hans. The Report of Wenamun. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.
Goldingay, John. Isaiah. NIBC. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001.
Goldman, Yohanan. Prophétie et royauté au retour de l’exil. OBO 118. Friburg:
Universitätsverlag Freiburg; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992.
Gordis, Robert. The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1965.
Gordon, Robert P. Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets: From Nahum to Malachi.
VTSup 51. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Gosse, Bernard. Isaïe 13,1–14,23: Dans la tradition littéraire du livre d’Isaèie et dans la
tradition des oracles contre les nations—Étude de la transformation du genre littéraire.
OBO 78. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988.
——. “The Masoretic Redaction of Jeremiah: An Explanation.” JSOT 77 (1998): 75–80.
Gowan, Donald E. Eschatology in the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.
——. Theology of the Prophetic Books: The Death and Resurrection of Israel. Louisville, Ky.:
Westminster John Knox, 1998.
Grabbe, Lester L. Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-Political Study of Religious
Specialists in Ancient Israel. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995.
Gradwohl, Roland. Die Farben im Alten Testament: Eine terminologische Studie. BZAW 83.
Berlin: Töpelmann, 1963.
Graetz, Heinrich. “The Genesis of the So-called Septuagint, the First Greek Version of the
Pentateuch.” JQR 3 (1891): 150–56.
Graupner, Axel. Auftrag und Geschick des Propheten Jeremia: Literarische Eigenart, Herkunft
und Intention vordeuteronomistischer Prosa im Jeremiabuch. BThSt 15. Neukirchen–
Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991.
Greenberg, Moshe. Ezechiel 1–20. Translated by M. Konkel. HTKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2001.
——. Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 22. Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983.
——. Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 22A. New
York: Doubleday, 1997.
——. “Ezekiel’s Vision: Literary and Iconographic Aspects.” Pages 159–68 in History,
Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures. Edited
by Hayim Tadmor and Moshe Weinfeld. Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1984.
——. “The Vision of Jerusalem in Ezekiel 8–11: A Holistic Interpretation.” Pages 143–64 in
The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God’s Control of Human Events: Presented to Lou H.
Silberman. Ed. James L. Crenshaw and Samuel Sandmel. New York: Ktav, 1980.
Gruenwald, Ithamar. Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism. AGAJU 14. Leiden: Brill, 1980.
Grünwaldt, Klaus. Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26: Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition
und Theologie. BZAW 271. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999.
Gunkel, Hermann. Die israelitische Literatur. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
1963 [orig. pub. 1906].
Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. Mündliche und schriftliche Tradition der vorexilischen Propheten-
bücher als Problem der neueren Prophetenforschung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1959.
Haas, Volkert. “Ein hurritischer Blutritus und die Deponierung der Ritualrückstände nach
hethitischen Quellen.” Pages 67–85 in Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen
Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament: Internationales Symposion Hamburg,
17.–21. März 1990. Edited by Bernd Janowski, Klaus Koch, and Gilmot Wilhelm. OBO
129. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag, 1993.
Habel, Norman C. The Book of Job: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985.
Halperin, David J. “The Exegetical Character of Ezek. X 9–17.” VT 26 (1976): 129–41.
Halpern, Baruch. “The Ritual Background of Zechariah’s Temple Song.” CBQ 40 (1978): 167–
90.
Hals, Ronald M. Ezekiel. FOTL 19. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.
Hamerton-Kelly, Robert G. “The Temple and the Origins of Jewish Apocalyptic.” VT 20
(1970): 1–15.
Hamilton, Victor P. “Satan,” ABD 5:985–89.
Hanhart, Robert. Sacharja. BKAT 14/7. Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1998.
Hanson, Paul D. The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Social Roots of Jewish
Apocalyptic Eschatology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.
——. “Zechariah 9 and the Recapitulation of an Ancient Ritual Pattern.” JBL 92 (1973):
37–59.
Haran, Menahem. “The Place of the Prophecies against the Nations in the Book of Jeremiah.”
Pages 699–706 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls
in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom M. Paul et al. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill,
2003.
——. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult
Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978.
Hartley, John E. The Book of Job. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Hayes, John H., and Stuart A. Irvine. Isaiah, the Eighth-century Prophet: His Times and His
Preaching. Nashville: Abingdon, 1987.
Henderson, Ebenezer. The Twelve Minor Prophets: Translated from the Original Hebrew with
a Critical and Exegetical Commentary. London: Hamilton, Adams, 1845. Repr. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1980.
Hiebert, Theodore. God of My Victory: The Ancient Hymn in Habakkuk 3. HSM 38. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1986.
Hildebrand, David R. “Temple Ritual: A Paradigm for Moral Holiness in Haggai ii 10–19.” VT
18 (1989): 154–68.
Hillers, Delbert R. Micah. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1984.
——. Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets. BibOr 16. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1964.
Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah,
Chapters 26–52. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.
Hölscher, Gustav. Das Buch Hiob. HAT 17. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1937.
Hoppe, Leslie. The Holy City: Jerusalem in the Theology of the Old Testament. Collegeville,
Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2000.
Bibliography 347
Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar. “Die Tempelvision Ez 8–11 im Licht unterschiedlicher methodischer

Zugänge.” Pages 151–65 in Lust, ed., Ezekiel and His Book.
Houk, Cornelius B. “The Final Redaction of Ezekiel 10.” JBL 90 (1971): 42–54.
Hurowitz, Victor Avigdor. I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in
the Light of Mesopotamian and North-West Semitic Writings. JSOTSup 115. Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1992.
James, Fleming. “Thoughts on Haggai and Zechariah.” JBL 3 (1934): 229–34.
Janowski, Bernd. Stellvertretung: Alttestamentliche Studien zu einem theologischen
Grundbegriff. SBS 165. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1997.
Jansma, Taeke. “Inquiry into the Hebrew Text and the Ancient Versions of Zechariah ix–xiv.”
OtSt 7 (1950): 1–142.
Janzen, J. Gerald. Studies in the Text of Jeremiah. HSM 6. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1973.
Japhet, Sara. “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel: Against the Background of the Historical and
Religious Tendencies of Ezra–Nehemiah.” ZAW 94 (1982): 66–98.
——. “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel: Against the Background of the Historical and Religious
Tendencies of Ezra–Nehemiah, Part II.” ZAW 96 (1984): 218–29.
——. I & II Chronicles: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1993.
Jeppesen, Knud. “The maśśā< Babel in Isaiah 13–14.” PIBA 9 (1985): 63–80.
——. “You are a Cherub, but No God!” SJOT 1 (1991): 83–94.
Jeremias, Christian. Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Stellung im
Zusammenhang der Visionsberichte im Alten Testament und zu ihrem Bildmaterial.
FRLANT 117. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977.
Jeremias, Jörg. “Der Begriff ‘Baal’ im Hoseabuch und seine Wirkungsgeschichte.” Pages 86–
103 in Hosea und Amos: Studien zu den Anfängen des Dodekapropheton. FAT 13.
Tübingen: Mohr, 1996.
——. “Die Deutung der Gerichtsworte Michas in der Exilszeit.” ZAW 83 (1971): 330–54.
——. “The Interrelationship between Amos and Hosea.” Pages 171–86 in Watts and House,
eds., Forming Prophetic Literature.
Jobes, Karen H., and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2000.
Jones, Douglas R. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: Introduction and Commentary. TBC. London:
SCM Press, 1962.
——. Jeremiah. NCB. London: Marshall Pickering, 1992.
Jouguet, Pierre. Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World. Chicago: Ares, 1985.
Joyce, Paul M. “Dislocation and Adaptation in the Exilic Age and After.” Pages 45–58 in After
Exile: Essays in Honour of Rex Mason. Edited by John Barton and David J. Reimer.
Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1996.
Junker, Hubert. Die zwölf kleinen Propheten, II. Hälfte: Nahum Habakuk Sophonias Aggäus
Zacharias Malachias. HSAT. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1938.
Kalimi, Isaac. An Ancient Israelite Historian: Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place and
Writing. SSN 46. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005.
Kalman, Yaron. “The Dirge over the King of Tyre.” ASTI 3 (1964): 28–57.
Kaminka, Armand. “Studien zur Septuaginta an der Hand der zwölf kleinen Prophetenbücher.”
MGWJ 72 (1928): 49–60, 242–73.
Kapelrud, Arvid S. “Temple Building, a Task for Gods and Kings.” Or 32 (1963): 56–62.
Keel, Othmar. Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: Eine neue Deutung der Majestätsschilderung
Jes 6, Ez 1 und Sach 4. SBB 84/85. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977.
Keil, Carl F. Biblischer Commentar über die zwölf kleinen Propheten. 3d ed. Biblischer
Commentar über das Alte Testament. Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1886.
Kessler, John. The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud. VTSup 91.
Leiden: Brill, 2002.
——. “Building the Second Temple: Questions of Time, Text, and History in Haggai 1.1–15.”
JSOT 27 (2002): 243–56.
——. “Haggai, Zerubbabel, and the Political Status of Yehud: The Signet Ring in Haggai
2:23.” Pages 102–19 in Floyd and Haak, eds., Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts.
——. “Persia’s Loyal Yahwists: Power, Identity and Ethnicity in Achaemenid Yehud.” Pages
91–121 in Lipschits and Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period.
——. “The Second Year of Darius and the Prophet Haggai.” Transeu 5 (1992): 63–84.
——. “The Shaking of the Nations: An Eschatological View.” JETS 30 (1987): 159–66.
——. “>t (le temps) en Aggée I 2–4: Conflit théologique ou ‘sagesse mondaine’?” VT 48
(1998): 555–59.
Kessler, Martin. Battle of the Gods: The God of Israel versus Marduk of Babylon: A Literary-
Theological Interpretation of Jeremiah 50–51. SSN 42. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003.
——. “The Function of Chapters 25 and 50–51 in the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 64–72 in
Diamond, O’Connor, and Stulman, eds., Troubling Jeremiah.
Kim, H. “The Interpretation of NwOy%ci-tba@ (Daughter Zion): An Approach of Cognitive Theories of
Metaphor.” MA diss., McMaster Divinity College, 2006.
Kittel, Rudolph. Der Bücher der Chronik. HAT 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902.
Kliefoth, Theodor F. D. Der Prophet Sacharjah. Schwerin: Stiller, 1862.
Kline, Meredith G. Glory in our Midst: A Biblical-theological Reading of Zechariah’s Night
Visions. Overland Park, Kans.: Two Age Press, 2001.
Kloos, Carola J. L. “Zech II 12 Really a Crux Interpretum?” VT 25 (1975): 729–36.
Knibb, Michael A. “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period.” HeyJ 17 (1976):
235–72.
Knierim, Rolf. Die Hauptbegriffe für Sünde im Alten Testament. Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 1965.
Knight, Douglas A. Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel: The Development of the Traditio-
Historical Research of the Old Testament, with Special Consideration of Scandinavian
Contributions. SBLDS 9. Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973.
——, ed. Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.
——. “Tradition History.” ABD 6:633–38.
Koch, Klaus.“Ny(.” ThWAT 5:1160–77.
——. The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form-Critical Method. Translated by S. M.
Cupitt. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1969.
——. “Haggais Unreines Volk.” ZAW 79 (1967): 52–66.
——. “Sühne und Sündenvergebung um die Wende von der exilischen zur nachexilischen
Zeit.” Pages 184–205 in Spuren des hebräischen Denkens. Edited by Bernd Janowski and
Martin Krause. Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991. Repr. from EvT 26 (1966):
217–39.
——. “Weltordnung und Reichsidee im alten Iran.” Pages 45–116 in Reichsidee und
Reichsorganisation im Perserreich. Edited by Peter Frei and Klaus Koch. OBO 55.
Köhler, August. Der Weissagungen Sacharjas erste Hälfte, Cap. 1–8. Erlangen: Deichert,
1861.
Kooij, Arie van der. The Oracle of Tyre: The Septuagint of Isaiah 23 as Version and Vision.
VTSup 71. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
——. “The Septuagint of Zechariah as Witness to an Early Interpretation of the Book.” Pages
53–64 in Tuckett, ed., The Book of Zechariah.
Kottsieper, Ingo. “(b#.” ThWAT 7:974–1000.
Bibliography 349
Kratz, R. “Das Neue in der Prophetie des Alten Testaments.” Pages 1–22 in Prophetie in Israel.
Edited by Imtraud Fischer, Konrad Schmid, and Hugh G. M. Williamson. Münster: LIT,
2003.
Kristeva, Julia. “Revolution in Poetic Language.” Pages 89–136 in The Kristeva Reader. Edited
by Toril Moi. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.
Kutsko, John F. Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of
Ezekiel. Biblical and Judaic Studies 7. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000.
Lamarche, Paul. Zacharie IX–XIV: Structure littéraire et Messianisme. Paris: Gabalda, 1961.
Lange, Armin. “Literary Prophecy and Oracle Collection: A Comparison between Judah and
Greece in Persian Times.” Pages 248–75 in Floyd and Haak, eds., Prophets, Prophecy,
and Prophetic Texts.
Laperrousaz, Ernest-Marie, and André Lemaire, eds. La Palestine à l’epoque Perse. Paris:
Cerf, 1994.
Larkin, Katrina J. A. The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a
Mantological Wisdom Anthology. CBET 6. Kampen: Kok, 1994.
Launderville, Dale. “Ezekiel’s Cherub: A Promising Symbol or a Dangerous Idol?” CBQ 65
(2003): 165–83.
LeJeune, Philippe. “Le pacte autobiographique.” Poetique 14 (1973): 137–62.
Lemaire, André. “Histoire et administration de la Palestine à l’époque Perse.” Pages 11–53 in
Laperrousaz and Lemaire, eds., La Palestine à l’epoque Perse.
——. “Les formules de datation dans Ezéchiel à la lumière de données épigraphiques.” Pages
359–66 in Lust, ed., Ezekiel and His Book.
——. “Les formules de datation en Palestine au premier millénaire avant J.-C.” Pages 53–82 in
Proche-Orient Ancien: Temps vécu, temps pensé. Edited by Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet
and Hélène Lozachmeur. Antiquités Sémitiques 3. Paris: J. Maisonneuve, 1998.
——, ed. Prophètes et rois: Bible et Proche Orient. LD. Paris: Cerf, 2001.
Levenson, Jon D. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985.
——. Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48. HSM 10. Missoula, Mont.:
Levey, Samson H. The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation. The Messianic Exegesis of the
Targum. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College; New York: Ktav, 1974.
Levine, Étan. “The Targums: Their Interpretative Character and Their Place in Jewish Text
Tradition.” Pages 323–31 in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Vol. 1/1, Antiquity. Edited by
Magne Sæbø. Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1996.
Lind, Werner A. “A Text-Critical Note to Ezekiel 1: Are Shorter Readings Really Preferable to
Longer?” JETS 27 (1984): 135–39.
Lipschits, Oded. “Nebuchadnezzar’s Policy in ‘Hattu-Land’ and the Fate of the Kingdom of
Judah.” UF 30 (1998): 467–87.
Lipschits, Oded, and Manfred Oeming, eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period.
Lohfink, Norbert. “Die Gattung der ‘Historischen Kurzgeschichte’ in den letzten Jahren von
Juda und in der Zeit des babylonischen Exils.” ZAW 90 (1978): 319–47.
Longman, Tremper, III. Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study.
Love, Mark Cameron. The Evasive Text: Zechariah 1–8 and the Frustrated Reader. JSOTSup
296. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Lundquist, John M. “Temple, Covenant and Law in the Ancient Near East and in the Hebrew
Bible.” Pages 293–305 in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland
K. Harrison. Edited by Avraham Gileadi. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988.
Lust, Johan, ed. Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation.
BETL 74. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986.
Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie. A Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint.
Rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003.
Mackay, Cameron. “Zechariah in Relation to Ezekiel 40–48.” The Evangelical Quarterly 40
(1968): 197–210.
Marenof, Shlomo. “Note Concerning the Meaning of the Word ‘Ephah’, Zechariah 5:5–11.”
AJSL 48 (1931–32): 264–67.
Marti, Karl. “Zwei Studien zu Sacharja: I. Der Ursprung des Satans.” TSK 65 (1892): 207–45.
Mason, Rex A. The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge
——. “Inner-Biblical Exegesis.” Page 314 in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by
Richard J. Coggins and James L. Houlden. London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press
International, 1990.
——. “The Messiah in the Postexilic Old Testament Literature.” Pages 338–64 in King and
Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament
Seminar. Edited by John Day. JSOTSup 270. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
——. Preaching the Tradition: Homily and Hermeneutics after the Exile. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1990.
——. “The Prophets of the Restoration.” Pages 137–53 in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays
in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd. Edited by Richard J. Coggins, Anthony Philipps, and
Michael Knibb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
——. “The Purpose of the ‘Editorial Framework’ of the Book of Haggai.” VT 27 (1977): 413–
21.
——. “Some Echoes of the Preaching in the Second Temple: Traditional Elements in
Zechariah 1–8.” ZAW 96 (1984): 221–35.
——. “Why Is Second Zechariah So Full of Quotations?” Pages 21–28 in Tuckett, ed., The
Book of Zechariah.
——. Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Joel. OTG. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
May, Herbert G. “A Key to the Interpretation of Zechariah’s Visions.” JBL 57 (1938): 173–84.
Mays, James Luther. Micah: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976.
M’Caul, A. Rabbi David Kimchi’s Commentary upon the Prophecies of Zechariah. London:
James Duncan, 1837.
McCarthy, Carmel. The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic
Text of the Old Testament. OBO 36. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1981.
McConville, J. Gordon. “Restoration in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic Literature.” Pages
11–40 in Scott, ed., Restoration.
McKenzie, John A. “Mythological Allusions in Ezekiel 28:12–18.” JBL 75 (1956): 322–27.
Mein, Andrew. Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Mendenhall, George E., and Gary A. Herion. “Covenant.” ABD 1:1179–202.
Menken, Martinus J.J. “Die Redaktion des Zitates aus Sach 9,9 in Joh 12,15.” ZNW 80 (1989):
193–209.
——. “The Textual Form and the Meaning of the Quotation from Zechariah 12:10 in John
19:37.” CBQ 55 (1993): 494–511.
Merrill, Eugene H. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody,
1994.
Mettinger, Tryggve D. N. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod
Theologies. ConBib 18. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1982.
Bibliography 351
——. King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings. ConBib 8.
Lund: Liber Läromedel/Gleerup, 1976.
——. “Yhwh Sabaoth—The Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne.” Pages 109–38 in
Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays. Edited by Tomoo Ishida.
Metzler, Dieter. “A.-H. Anquetil-Duperron (1731–1805) und das Konzept der Achsenzeit.”
Pages 123–33 in Achaemenid History VII: Through Travellers’ Eyes: European
Travellers on the Iranian Monuments. Edited by Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Jan
Willem Drijvers. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1991.
Meyers, Carol L. “Temple, Jerusalem.” ABD 6:350–69.
Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers. Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary. AB 25B. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987.
Meyers, Eric M. “The Crisis of the Mid-Fifth Century B.C.E. Second Zechariah and the ‘End’
of Prophecy.” Pages 713–23 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical,
Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited
by David P. Wright, David. N. Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1995.
Miller, James E. “The Mælæk of Tyre (Ezekiel 28,11–19).” ZAW 105 (1993): 497–501.
Miller, Patrick D., Jr. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. HSM 5. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
Mitchell, Hinckley G. T., J. M. Powis Smith, and Julius A. Brewer. A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1912.
Moore, Rick D. “The Integrity of Job.” CBQ 45 (1983): 17–31.
Mowinckel, Sigmund. Prophecy and Tradition. Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1946.
Mullen, E. Theodore, Jr. The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and
Early Hebrew Literature. HSM 24. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980.
Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Chiefly of the Pentateuch
and the Twelve Prophets. Leuven: Peeters, 2002.
——. “Introduction aux douze petits prophètes.” Pages i–xxiii in Les Douze Prophètes: Osée.
Edited by Eberhard Bons, Jan Jooster, and Stephan Kessler. La Bible d’Alexandrie 23/1.
Paris: Cerf, 2002.
Myers, Jacob M. I Chronicles: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB 12. New York:
Doubleday, 1965.
Neisser, Ulrich. “Five Kinds of Self-knowledge” Philosophical Psychology 1 (1988): 36–50.
Newsome, Carol A. “A Maker of Metaphors: Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre.” Pages 188–99 in
Interpreting the Prophets. Edited by James Luther Mays and Paul J. Achtemeier.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.
Nicholson, Ernest W. “The Meaning of the Expression Cr)h M( in the Old Testament.” JJS 10
(1965): 59–66.
Niditch, Susan. Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature. LAI. Louisville,
Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996.
——. The Symbolic Vision in Biblical Tradition. HSM 30. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983.
Nissinen, Martti. “How Prophecy Became Literature.” SJOT (2005): 153–71.
Nogalski, James D. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1993.
——. “Recurring Themes in the Book of the Twelve: Creating Points of Contact for a
Theological Reading.” Int 61 (2007): 125–36.
——. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993.
——. “Zephaniah 3: A Redactional Text for a Developing Corpus.” Pages 207–18 in

Schriftauslegung in der Schrift: Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65.
Geburtstag. Edited by Richard G. Kratz, Thomas Krüger, and Konrad Schmid. BZAW
300. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000.
Nogalski, James D. and Marvin A. Sweeney, eds. Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve.
SBLSymS 15. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000.
Noort, Edward. “Gan-Eden in the Context of the Mythology of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 21–
36 in Paradise Interpreted: Representations of Biblical Paradise in Judaism and
Christianity. Edited by Gerard P. Luttikhuizer. Themes in Biblical Narrative 2. Leiden:
Brill, 1999.
Nurmela, Risto. “The Growth of the Book of Isaiah Illustrated by Allusions in Zechariah.”
Pages 245–59 in Boda and Floyd, eds., Bringing Out the Treasure.
———. Prophets in Dialogue: Inner-Biblical Allusions in Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14. Åbo: Åbo
Akademi University, 1996.
Oates, Joan. Babylon: Stadt und Reich im Brennpunkt des Alten Orient. Translated by D. and
H.G. Niemeyer. Bergisch Gladbach: Lübbe, 1983.
Odell, Margaret S. Ezekiel. Smith & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, Ga.: Smyth &
Helwys, 2006.
——. “Genre and Persona in Ezekiel 24:15–24.” Pages 195–219 in Odell and Strong, eds., The
Book of Ezekiel.
Odell, Margaret S., and John T. Strong, eds. The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthro-
pological Perspectives. SBLSymS 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000.
Oecolampadius, Iones. In minores quos vocant prophetas. Geneva, 1558.
Ollenburger, Ben C. “The Book of Zechariah.” NIB 7:733–840.
Olney, James. “Autobiography and the Cultural Moment: A Thematic, Historical, and
Bibliographical Introduction.” Pages 3–27 in Autobiography: Essays Theoretical and
Critical. Edited by James Olney. Princeton: Princeton University Press 1980.
Oppenheim, A. Leo. “The Eyes of the Lord.” JAOS 88 (1968): 173–80.
Page, Hugh R., Jr. The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion: A Study of Its Reflexes in Ugaritic and
Biblical Literature. VTSup 65. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Parunak, H. Van Dyke. “The Literary Architecture of Ezekiel’s Mar’ôt ’Ĕlōhîm.” JBL 99
(1980): 61–74.
Patterson, Richard D. Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah. Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary.
Chicago: Moody, 1991.
Paul, Shalom M. Amos. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.
Person, Raymond F. The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature. SBL
Studies in Biblical Literature 2. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002.
Petersen, David L. Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1984; London: SCM, 1985.
——. “Rethinking the End of Prophecy.” Pages 65–71 in “Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden”:
Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for
the Study of the Old Testament. Edited by Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich
Schunck. BEATAJ 28. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1988.
——. “The Temple in Persian Period Prophetic Texts.” Pages 125–44 in Second Temple
Studies 1: Persian Period. Edited by Philip R. Davies. JSOTSup 117. Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1991.
——. “Zechariah 9–14: Methodological Reflections.” Pages 210–224 in Boda and Floyd, eds.,
Bringing Out the Treasure.
——. “Zechariah’s Visions: A Theological Perspective.” VT 34 (1984): 195–206.
——. “Zerubbabel and Jerusalem Temple Reconstruction.” CBQ 36 (1974): 366–72.
Bibliography 353
Petitjean, Albert. Les Oracles du Proto-Zacharie: Un programme de restauration pour la

communauté juive après l’exil. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre and J. Gabalda; Louvain:
Éditions Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1969.
Pfeiffer, Robert H. Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: Harper & Bros., 1941.
Phinney, D. Nathan. “The Prophetic Persona in the Book of Ezekiel: Autobiography and
Portrayal.” Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 2004.
Pola, Thomas. Das Priestertum bei Sacharja: Historische und traditionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchungen zur frühnachexilischen Herrschererwartung. FAT 35. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2003.
Polk, Timothy. The Prophetic Persona: Jeremiah and the Language of the Self. JSOTSup 32.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1984.
Pope, Marvin H. Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB 15. Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1965.
Porton, Gary G. The Traditions of Rabbi Ishmael. SJLA 19/1–4. Leiden: Brill, 1976–82.
Powell, Mark Allan. “Weights and Measures.” ABD 6:897–908.
Preuss, Horst Dietrich. “)cy.” ThWAT 3:795–822.
Prijs, Leo. Jüdische Tradition in der Septuaginta. Leiden: Brill, 1948. Repr. Hildesheim: Olms,
1987.
Rad, Gerhard von. “The City on the Hill.” Pages 232–42 in The Problem of the Hexateuch and
Other Essays.
——. “dia&bolov, B: The Old Testament View of Satan.” TDNT 2: 73–75.
——. “The Levitical Sermon in I and II Chronicles” Pages 267–80 in The Problem of the
Hexateuch and Other Essays.
——. Old Testament Theology. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Oliver &
Boyd, 1965.
——. “The Origin of the Concept of the Day of Yahweh.” JSS 4 (1959): 97–108.
——. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Translated by E. W. Trueman Dicken.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.
——. Wisdom in Israel. Translated by J. D. Martin. London: SPCK, 1972.
Redditt, Paul L. “The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Review of Research.” Pages 1–
26 in Redditt and Schart, eds., Thematic Threads.
——. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. NCB. London: Marshall Pickering/HarperCollins; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
——. “Nehemiah’s First Mission and the Date of Zechariah 9–14.” CBQ 56 (1994): 664–78.
——. “Recent Research on the Book of the Twelve as One Book.” CurBS 9 (2001): 47–80.
——. “The Two Shepherds in Zechariah 11.4–17.” CBQ 55 (1993): 676–86.
——. “Zechariah 9–14, Malachi, and the Redaction of the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 245–68
in Watts and House, eds., Forming Prophetic Literature.
——. “Zechariah 9–14: The Capstone of the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 305–32 in Boda and
Floyd, eds., Bringing Out the Treasure.
——. “Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the Night Visions of Zechariah.” CBQ 54 (1992): 249–59.
Redditt, Paul L., and Aaron Schart, eds. Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW
325. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003.
Reimer, David J. The Oracles Against Babylon in Jeremiah 50–51: A Horror among the
Nations. San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1993.
Renz, Johannes. Die althebräischen Inschriften, Teil 2: Zusammenfassende Erörterungen,
Paläographie und Glossar. Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik 2/1. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995.
Richards, Kent H. “Death.” ABD 2:108–10.
Ridderbos, Jan. De kleine Profeten, Derde Deel: Haggai, Zacharia, Maleachi. Korte
Verklaring der Heilige Schrift. Kampen: Kok, 1935.
Rignell, Lars G. Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja: Eiene exegetische Studie. Lund: Gleerup,
1950.
Ringgren, Helmer. “(#r.” ThWAT 7:675–84.
Robert, Philippe de. “Pour ou contre le second temple.” Pages 179–82 in “Dort Ziehen Schiffe
Dahin…”: Collected Communications to the XIVth Congress of the International
Organization for the Study of the Old Testament. Paris, 1992. Edited by Matthias
Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunck. BEATAJ 28. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang,
1996.
Roberts, J. J. M. “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition.” JBL 92 (1973): 329–44.
——. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster
John Knox, 1991.
——. “Of Signs, Prophets, and Time Limits: A Note on Psalm 74:9.” CBQ 39 (1977): 474–81.
——. “The Old Testament’s Contribution to Messianic Expectations.” Pages 39–51 in The
Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James H.
Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Robertson, O. Palmer. The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. NICOT. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.
Robinson, George L. The Twelve Minor Prophets. New York: Doran, 1926. Repr. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1967.
Rooke, Deborah W. Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in
Ancient Israel. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Rose, Wolter H. Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic
Period. JSOTSup 304. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Rost, Leonard. “Erwägungen zu Sacharjas 7. Nachtgesicht.” ZAW 58 (1940–41): 223–28.
Rothstein, Johann Wilhelm. Juden und Samaritaner: Die grundlegende Scheidung von
Judentum und Heidentum: Eine kritische Studie zum Buche Haggai und zur jüdische
Geschichte im ersten nachexilischen Jahrhundert. BWANT 3. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs,
1908.
Rudman, Dominic. “Authority and Right of Disposal in Luke 4.6.” NTS 50 (2004): 77–86.
——. “The Crucifixion as Chaoskampf: A New Reading of the Passion Narrative in the
Synoptic Gospels.” Bib 84 (2003): 102–7.
——. “Qohelet’s Use of ynpl.” JNSL 23 (1997): 143–50.
——. “Reflections on a Half-Created World: The Sea, Night and Death in the Bible.” BBS 19
(2000): 33–42.
——. “The Significance of the Phrase ‘Fishers of Men’ in the Synoptic Gospels.” IBS 26
(2005): 106–18.
——. “The Use of Water Imagery in Descriptions of Sheol.” ZAW (2001): 240–44.
——. “Zechariah 5 and the Priestly Law.” SJOT 14 (2000): 194–206.
——. “Zechariah 8:20–22 and Isaiah 2:2–4//Micah 4:2–3: A Study in Intertextuality.” BN 107–
108 (2001): 50–54.
Rudolph, Wilhelm. Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, 9–14, Malachi. KAT 13/4. Gütersloh: Gütersloher
Verlagshaus, 1976.
——. Jeremia. 3d ed. HAT 12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968.
Russell, David S. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic. OTL. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1964.
Sacci, P. “L’esilio e la fine della monarchia davidica.” Hen 11 (1989): 131–48.
Sailhamer, John H. “1 Chronicles 21:1—A Study in Inner-biblical Interpretation.” TJ 10
(1989): 33–48.
Bibliography 355
Sals, Ulrike. Die Biographie der ‘Hure Babylon’: Studien zur Intertextualität der Babylon-
Texte in der Bibel. FAT 2/6. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Sauer, Georg. “Die Umkehrforderung in der Verkündigung Jesajas.” Pages 277–95 in Wort –
Gebot – Glaube: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für W.
Eichrodt. Edited by Hans Joachim Stoebe, Johann Jakob Stamm, and Ernst Jenni.
ATANT 59. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1970.
Schäfer, Peter, ed. Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur. TSAJ 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981.
Schaper, Joachim. Eschatology in the Greek Psalter. WUNT. Second series 76. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1995.
——. “Exilic and Post-Exilic Prophecy and the Orality/Literacy Problem.” VT 55 (2005):
324–42.
——. “Der Septuaginta-Psalter als Dokument jüdischer Eschatologie.” Pages 38–61 in Die
Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum. Edited by Martin Hengel and Anna
Maria Schwemer. WUNT. Second series 72. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994.
Schart, Aaron. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs. BZAW 260. Berlin: de Gruyter,
1998.
——. “The Fifth Vision of Amos in Context.” Pages 46–71 in Redditt and Schart, eds.,
Thematic Threads.
Schattner-Rieser, Ursula. “L’hébreu postexilique.” Pages 189–224 in Laperrousaz and Lemaire,
eds., La Palestine à l’epoque Perse.
Schmid, Konrad, and Odil Hannes Steck. “Restoration Expectations in the Prophetic Tradition
of the Old Testament.” Pages 41–81 in Scott, ed., Restoration.
Schmidt, Werner H. “Die deuteronomistische Redaktion des Amosbuches: Zu den theologi-
schen Unterschieden zwischen den prophetenwort und seinem Samler.” ZAW 77 (1965):
168–93.
——. “Individuelle Eschatologie im Gebet: Psalm 51.” Pages 47–62 in Vielfalt und Einheit des
alttestamentlichen Glaubens 2. Edited by Axel Graupner, Holger Delkurt, and Alexander
B. Ernst. Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1995. Repr. of pages 345–60 in Neue Wege
der Psalmenforschung. Edited by Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger. Herders biblische
Studien 1. Freiburg: Herder, 1994.
——. Old Testament Introduction. 2d ed. Berlin: de Gruyter; New York: Westminster John
Knox, 1999.
——. Zukunftsgewißheit und Gegenwartskritik: Studien zur Eigenart der Prophetie. 2d ed.
BThSt 51 Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2002.
Schmidt, Werner H., Holger Delkurt, and Axel Graupner. Die Zehn Gebote im Rahmen
alttestamentlicher Ethik. EdF 281. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1993.
Schmitt, G. “Maße.” BRL2, 204–6.
Schniedewind, William M. How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient
Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Schnocks, Johannes. “Eine intertextuelle Verbindung zwischen Ezechiels Eifersuchtbild und
Sacharjas Frau im Efa.” BN 84 (1996): 59–63.
——. Vergänglichkeit und Gottesherrschaft: Studien zu Psalm 90 und dem vierten Psalmen-
buch. BBB 140. Berlin: Philo, 2002.
Scholem, Gershom. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. New York: Schocken, 1972.
Schöttler, Heinz Günther. Gott inmitten seines Volkes: Die Neuordnung des Gottesvolkes nach
Sacharja 1–6. TThSt 43. Trier: Paulinus, 1987.
Schultz, Richard L. “The Ties That Bind: Intertextuality, the Identification of Verbal Parallels,
and Reading Strategies in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 27–45 in Redditt and Schart,
eds., Thematic Threads.
Scott, James M., ed. Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. JSJSup
72. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Seitz, Christopher. “The Crisis of Interpretation over the Meaning and Purpose of the Exile: A
Redactional Study of Jeremiah xxi-xliii.” VT 35 (1985): 78–97.
——. Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah. BZAW 176. Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1989.
Sellin, Ernst. Das Zwölfprophetenbuch. KAT 12. 2 vols. lst ed. Leipzig: Deichert, 1922. 3d ed.
Leipzig: Scholl, 1929–30.
Selman, Martin J. 1 Chronicles: An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC. Leicester: Inter-
Varsity, 1994.
Sérandour, Arnaud. “Les Récits bibliques de la construction du second temple: leurs enjeux.”
Transeu 11 (1996): 9–32.
——. “Réflexions à propos d’un livre récent sur Aggée–Zacharie 1–8.” Transeu 10 (1995):
75–84.
——. “Zacharie et les autorités de son temps.” Pages 259–98 in Lemaire, ed., Prophètes et rois.
Seybold, Klaus. Bilder zum Tempelbau: Die Visionen des Propheten Sacharja. SBS 70.
Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974.
——. “Die Bildmotive in den Visionen des Propheten Sacharja.” Pages 92–110 in Studies on
Prophecy: A Collection of Twelve Papers. VTSup 26. Leiden: Brill, 1974.
Siegert, Folker. Zwischen Hebräischer Bibel und Altem Testament: Eine Einführung in die
Septuaginta. Münsteraner judaistische Studien 9. Münster: LIT, 2001.
——. Register zur “Einführung in die Septuaginta” mit einem Kapitel zur Wirkungsgeschichte.
Münsteraner judaistische Studien 13. Münster: LIT, 2003.
Simundson, Daniel J. “The Book of Micah.” NIB 7:533–89.
Sisson, Jonathan Paige. “Jeremiah and the Jerusalem Conception of Peace.” JBL 105 (1986):
429–42.
Smelik, K. A. D. “The Function of Jeremiah 50 and 51 in the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 87–98
in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler.
Smith, Daniel L. The Religion of the Landless. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989.
Smith, Mark. S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the
Ugaritic Texts. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Smith, Ralph L. Micah–Malachi. WBC 32. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984.
Smith, Sidonie, and Julia Watson. Reading Autobiography: A Guide for Interpreting Life
Narratives. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001.
Smolar, Leivy, and Moses Aberbach. Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. And
Pinkhos Chugin. Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. The Library of Biblical Studies. New
York: Ktav, 1983.
Smyth-Florentin, Françoise. “L’espace d’un chandelier: Zacharie 1,8–6,15.” Pages 281–89 in
Le livre de traverse: De l’exégèse biblique à l’anthropologie. Edited by Olivier Abel.
Patrimoines. Paris: Cerf, 1992.
Sommer, Benjamin D. “Did Prophecy Cease? Evaluating a Reevaluation.” JBL 115 (1996):
31–47.
——. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
Sperber, Alexander. The Bible in Aramaic. Vol. 3, The Latter Prophets According to Targum
Jonathan. Leiden: Brill, 1962.
Sperling, S. David. “Rethinking Covenant in the Late Biblical Books.” Bib 70 (1989): 50–73.
Bibliography 357
Stead, Michael R. “Zechariah and the ‘Former Prophets’: An Intertextual Examination of the
Re-Use of the Prophetic Tradition in Zechariah 1–8.” Ph.D. diss., University of
Gloucestershire, 2007.
Steck, Odil Hannes. “Beobachtungen zur Anlage von Jes 54:1–8.” ZAW 101 (1989): 282–85.
——. “Theological Streams of Tradition.” Pages 183–214 in Knight, ed., Tradition and
Theology in the Old Testament.
——. “Tritojesaja im Jesajabuch.” Pages 3–45 in Studien zu Tritojesaja. Edited by Odil Hannes
Steck. BZAW 203. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991.
——. “Zu Haggai 1:2–11.” ZAW 83 (1971): 355–79.
Stekhoven, J. Z. Schurmanns. De alexandrijnsche vertaling van het Dodekapropheton. Leiden:
Brill, 1887.
Steiner, Margaret. “The Archaeology of Ancient Jerusalem.” CurBS 6 (1998): 143–68.
Stinespring, W. F. “No Daughter of Zion: A Study of the Appositional Genitive in Hebrew
Grammar.” Encounter 26 (1965): 133–41.
Stordalen, Terje. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Garden in Biblical
Hebrew Literature. Leuven: Peeters, 2001.
Strong, John T. “God’s Kābôd: The Presence of Yahweh in the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 69–95
in Odell and Strong, eds., The Book of Ezekiel.
Sweeney, Marvin A. Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature. FAT
45. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
——. Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. FOTL 16. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996.
——. The Twelve Prophets. 2 vols. Berit Olam. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2000.
——. The Prophetic Literature. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005.
——. Zephaniah: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.
Tadmor, Hayim. “ ‘The Appointed Time Has Not Yet Arrived’: The Historical Background of
Haggai 1:2.” Pages 401–8 in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Judaic
Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine. Edited by Robert Chazan, William W. Hallo, and
Lawrence H. Schiffman. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999.
Taylor, Bernard A., ed. IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and
Cognate Studies, Cambridge 1995. SBLSCS 45. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997.
Thiel, Winfried. Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25. WMANT 41.
Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1973.
——. Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26 –45. WMANT 52. Neukirchen–
Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981.
——. “ ‘Vom Norden her wird das Unheil eröffnet.’ Zu Jeremia 1,11–16.” Pages 231–45 in
Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by
Volkmar Fritz, Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, and Hans-Christoph Schmitt. BZAW 185.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989.
Thompson, John A. 1, 2 Chronicles. NAC 9. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994.
Tidwell, N. L. A. “Wa’omar (Zech 3:5) and the Genre of Zechariah’s Fourth Vision.” JBL 94
(1975): 343–55.
Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. “A Busy Night at the Heavenly Court.” SEÅ 71 (2006): 187–207.
——. “The Guilty Priesthood (Zech 3).” Pages 1–19 in Tuckett, ed., The Book of Zechariah.
Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of
Watchers and Apocalyptic. OtSt 35. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Tollington, Janet E. “Readings in Haggai: From the Prophet to the Completed Book, a Chang-
ing Message in Changing Times.” Pages 194–208 in The Crisis of Israelite Religion:
Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times. Edited by Bob
Becking and Marjo C. A. Korpel. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
——. Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. JSOTSup 150. Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1993.
Torrey, Charles Cutler. Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy New Haven: Yale Uni-
versity Press; London: Oxford University Press, 1930.
Tov, Emanuel. “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah.”
Pages 145–67 in Le Livre de Jérémie: le prophète et son milieu, les oracles et leur
transmission. Edited by Pierre M. Bogaert. BETL 54. Leuven: Peeters, 1981.
——. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. 2d rev. and enl. ed.
Jerusalem Biblical Studies 3. Jerusalem: Simor, 1997 [1st ed. 1981].
——. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2d rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Van
Gorcum, 2001.
Treitel, Leopold. “Wert und Bedeutung der Septuaginta zu den 12 kleinen Propheten.” MGWJ
73 (1929): 232–34.
Trotter, James M. “Was the Second Jerusalem Temple a Primarily Persian Project?” SJOT 15
(2001): 276–94.
Tucker, Gene M. “Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of a Canon.” Pages 56–70 in
Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology. Edited by George
W. Coats and Burke O. Long. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.
Tuckett, Christopher M., ed. The Book of Zechariah and Its Influence. Ashgate: Aldershot,
2003.
Tuell, Steven S. “Divine Presence and Absence in Ezekiel’s Prophecy.” Pages 97–116 in Odell
and Strong, eds., The Book of Ezekiel.
——. “Haggai–Zechariah: Prophecy after the Manner of Ezekiel.” Pages 273–291 in Redditt
and Schart, eds., Thematic Threads.
Tur-Sinai, Naphtali H. The Book of Job: A New Commentary. Rev. ed. Jerusalem: Kiryath
Sepher, 1967.
Uehlinger, Christoph. “Die Frau im Efa (Sach 5,5–11). Eine Programmvision von der
Abschiebung der Göttin.” BK 49 (1994): 93–103.
Unger, Eckhard. Babylon: Die heilige Stadt nach der Beschreibung der Babylonier. 2d ed.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970.
Unger, Merrill F. Zechariah: Prophet of Messiah’s Glory. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.
Vanderhooft, David S. The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets. HSM
59. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2000.
VanderKam, James C. From Joshua to Caiphas: High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis:
Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004.
——. “Joshua the High Priest and the Interpretation of Zechariah 3.” CBQ 53 (1991): 553–70.
Van Hoonacker, Albin. Les douze petits prophètes. Paris: Victor Lecoffre, 1908.
Van Seters, John. “The Creation of Man and the Creation of the King.” ZAW 101 (1989):
333–42.
Vaux, Roland de. Ancient Israel. Translated by J. McHugh. 2 vols. London: Longman, Darton
& Todd, 1961.
Velten, Hans Rudolf. Das selbst geschriebene Leben: eine Studie zur deutschen Autobiographie
im 16. Jahrhundert. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, 1995.
Verheij, Arian J. C. “Paradise Retried: On Qohelet 2:4–6.” JSOT 50 (1991): 113–15.
Verhoef, Pieter A. The Books of Haggai and Malachi. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Vermeylen, J. Du prophète Isäie à l’apocalyptique: Isäie, I–XXXV, miroir d’un demi-
millânaire d’expêrience religieuse en Isräel. EB. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1977.
Vollers, Karl. Das Dodekapropheton der Alexandriner. Erste Hälfte: Naûm, Ambakûm,
Sophonias, Angaios, Zacharias, Malachias. Berlin: Mayer & Mülller, 1880.
Waldman, Nahum M. “A Note on Ezekiel 1:18.” JBL 103 (1984): 614–18.
Bibliography 359
Watts, James W. “Text and Redaction in Jeremiah’s Oracles against the Nations.” CBQ 54
(1992): 432–47.
Watts, James W., and Paul R. House, eds. Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and
the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1996.
Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 1–33. WBC 24. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1985.
Webb, Barry G., The Message of Zechariah: Your Kingdom Come. The Bible Speaks Today.
Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2003.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1972.
——. “Zion and Jerusalem as Religious and Political Capital: Ideology and Utopia.” Pages 75–
115 in The Poet and the Historian. Edited by Richard Elliott Friedman. Chico, Calif.:
Weingreen, J. From Bible to Mishna. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1976.
Weiser, Artur. Das Buch Hiob. ATD 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951.
Weiss, Meir. The Story of Job’s Beginning: Job 1–2, a Literary Analysis. Jerusalem: Magnes,
1983.
Wellhausen, Julius. Die kleinen Propheten. 4th ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963 (orig. pub. 1892).
Wertheimer, Shlomoh Aharon Joseph. Batei Midrashot. 2d ed. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Cook,
1950.
Wessels, Willie. “Bridging the Gap: Haggai’s Use of Tradition to Secure the Future.” OTE 18
(2005): 426–43.
Westermann, Claus. “Peace (Shalom) in the Old Testament.” Pages 16–48 in The Meaning of
Peace: Biblical Studies. Edited by Perry B. Yoder and Willard M. Swartley. Translated
by Walter Sawatsky. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1992.
——. Prophetic Oracles of Salvation in the Old Testament. Translated by Keith Crim.
Louisville, Ky.: Westminster, 1991.
Wharton, James A. Job. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster, 1999.
Whedbee, J. William. “A Question–Answer Schema in Haggai 1: The Form and Function of
Haggai 1: 9–11.” Pages 184–94 in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Festschrift in
Honor of William Sanford LaSor. Edited by Gary A. Tuttle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1978.
Wiesehöfer, Josef. Ancient Persia. London: I. B. Tauris, 1996.
——. Der Aufstand Guamatas und die Anfänge Dareios I. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1978.
Wilch, John R. Time and Event: An Exegetical Study of the Use of >eth in the Old Testament in
Comparison to Other Temporal Expressions in Clarification of the Concept of Time.
Leiden: Brill, 1969.
Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 13–27. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Continental Commentaries.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997.
Williams, Anthony J. “The Mythological Background of Ezekiel 28:12–19.” BTB 6 (1976):
49–61.
Williamson, H. G. M. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and
Redaction. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.
Wilson, Robert. “The Death of the King of Tyre: The Editorial History of Ezekiel 28.” Pages
211–18 in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H.
Pope. Edited by John H. Marks and Robert M. Good. Guilford, Conn.: Four Quarters,
1987.
Wolff, Hans W. Amos. 3d ed. BKAT 14/2. Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1985.
——. Haggai: A Commentary. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988.
——. Hosea. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.
——. Micha BKAT 14/4. Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982.

——. Joel and Amos. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.
Woude, A. S. van der. “Seid nicht wie eure Väter: Bemerkungen zu Sacharja 1:5 und seinem
Kontext.” Pages 63–73 in Prophecy: Essays Presented to Georg Fohrer on his Sixty-fifth
Birthday, 6 September, 1980. Edited by John A. Emerton. BZAW 150. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1980.
——. Zacharia. POuT. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1984.
Wright, Charles H. H. Zechariah and His Prophecies. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1879.
Wright, David P. “Day of Atonement.” ABD 2:72–76.
Würthwein, Ernst. Der Text des Alten Testaments. 4th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesell-
schaft, 1973.
Yaron, Reuven. “The Schema of the Aramaic Legal Documents.” JJS 2 (1957): 33–61.
Ziegler, Joseph. “Beiträge zum griechischen Dodekapropheton.” Pages 71–138 in Sylloge:
Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Septuaginta. MSU 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1971.
——. “Die Einheit der Septuaginta zum Zwölfprophetenbuch.” Pages 29–42 in Sylloge. Repr.
of pages 1–16 in Verzeichnis der Vorlesungen an der Staatl. Akademie zu Braunsberg im
Wintersemester 1934/35, Kirchhain N.-L., 1934.
——. “Zur Dodekapropheton-LXX.” Pages 587–89 in Sylloge. Repr. ETL 38 (1962): 904–6.
——. Sylloge: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Septuaginta. MSU 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1971.
Zimmerli, Walther. Ezechiel. 2d ed. BKAT 13. 2 vols. Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1979
[1st ed.1969].
——. Ezekiel 2. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
INDEXES
INDEX OF REFERENCES
OLD TESTAMENT/ 35:17 26 15:4–5 245

HEBREW BIBLE 41:46 193 15:17 261
Genesis 43:23 26 15:19 31
1–3 154 46:3 26 15:21 31, 77
2–3 106, 118, 49:11 248 20:20 21, 26
122, 125 49:12 249 21:12 241
3:24 107, 110, 50:19 26 21:15–17 241
122, 123, 25:5 249
152 Exodus 25:8 26
6:2 198 3:13 176 26:1 110
10:7 201 3:14 176 26:14 249
10:10 246 3:15 176 28 121, 125–
11:1–9 260 6:7 31 27
11:2 246 7:16 176 28:4 276
13:14 264 9:9–11 204 28:11 162
14:1 246 9:30 21 28:17–20 120, 124
14:8 295 10:5 254 28:29 124
14:9 246 10:13 265 28:36–38 278
15:1 26 10:15 254 28:36 127, 278
18:24 244 10:19 265 29 276
18:26 244 13:21 26 29:6 276
19:20 174 14 54 29:45 26
19:21–25 30 14:4 19, 54 31 110
19:29 30 14:9 31 32:13 31
25:3 201 14:13 26 34:7 244
25:30 249 14:17 19, 54 35:7 249
26:24 26, 31 14:18 19, 54 35:23 249
28:15 21 14:19–20 152 36:8 110
29:7 49 14:19 26 36:19 249
29:34 178 14:23 31 36:35 110
30:35 249 14:24 26, 152 39:10–13 120, 124
30:37 249 14:31 199 39:30–31 162
31 265 15 77 39:30 127
31:12 265 15:1 31, 77 39:34 249
Leviticus Numbers 10:20 21

4:1–6:7 193 1:45 295 12:5 32, 149
5:1 194 1:53 277 12:11 32
5:22 239 3:7 277 12:14 32
5:24 239 3:12 31 13:6 207
8 276 5:15 261 14 257
8:7 276 5:16 193 14:2 32
8:9 276 5:18 193 14:23 32
8:12 31 5:30 193 18:6 32
8:35 277 11:7 254 19:21 259
10:3 19 11:11–14 13 20:3 26
11 193, 257 11:15 118 23:14 194
13–14 193 12:7–8 31 24:19 200
13 249 14:18 244 25:14–15 261
13:18–20 204 18:2 178 25:14 242, 258
13:19 249 18:4 178 25:15 242, 258
13:23 204 18:5 277 26:15 179
13:24 249 19:2 249 27:20 281
13:42 249 19:11 193 28 16, 167
13:43 249 19:16 193 28:1–14 320
13:49 249 19:19 193 28:1 166
13:55 254, 268 21:34 26 28:18 16
14 263 27:2 193 28:27 204
14:7 249 27:18 31 28:35 204
15 193 27:22 31 28:38 16
16 277, 288 31:19 193 29:22 30
16:21 194 31:24 193 30:19 277
18:6–23 193 35 193 31:6 25, 26
19 240, 241 31:7 25
19:11–35 240 Deuteronomy 31:16 13
19:11–12 239, 240 1:21 26 31:23 25
19:12 239 4:14 21 31:28 277
19:31 193 4:20 20, 31 32:10 153, 203
19:36 242, 258, 4:26 277 32:43 297
261 5:5 21 33:3 108
20:2–5 193 5:8 13 33:11 200
20:17 194 5:23–24 152 34:5 31
20:19 194 5:27 118
21:1–4 193 5:28–29 21 Joshua
21:10–11 193 6:2 21 1:1 31
21:14 281 7:6 32 1:6–7 25
22:9 277 8:6 277 1:6 25
26 16 8:20 20 1:7 25, 31
26:1–13 320 9:4–5 263 1:9 25
26:26 16 9:13 13 1:23 25
26:40–45 38 9:23 20 7:7 13
9:27 13 7:21 246
8:1 26 2 Samuel 14:21 149

10:20 148 7 17 16:21–28 68
10:25 25, 26 7:5 31, 199 16:29–34 68
11:6 26 7:8 31 17:1 193
11:23 139 9–20 206 18:12 265
15:18 207 10:12 25 18:15 193
19:29 148 11–12 206 20:20 174
19:35 148 13:28 25 20:35–21:29 68
22:5 277 16:7 173 21:25 207
18:9 265 22:19–23 206
Judges 18:18 203 22:19 107, 117,
1:3 295 19:23 205 198
1:14 207 20:16 173 22:21 107
2:8 31 22:11 110, 113–
2:11–14 16 15 2 Kings
2:22 277 24 332 2:11 113
3:11 139 24:1 205, 208 2:16 265
3:19 179 24:9 205 3:9 148
5:12 173 24:10 205 3:14 193
5:20 108, 295 24:18–25 205 3:22 249
6:19 261 4:40 259
6:23 26 1 Kings 5:6 193
7:22 31 1–2 206 5:8 11
20:22 295 1:2 193 5:26 49
2:3 277 6:11 161
Ruth 3:8 32 6:17 152
2:17 258 5:4 48, 205 8:9 176
3:9 28 5:5 72 10:2 148
14:15 200 6:23–28 110, 330 17:7–23 19
6:29 110 17:7–20 23
1 Samuel 7:23 148 17:9 148
1:24 261 7:28 110 18:8 148
2:5 200 7:32 110 18:13 11
2:22 281 7:35 110 18:25–35 52
4:21–22 52 7:36 110 18:27 194
5:3 261 8 17 18:32 207
6:8 148 8:6–8 110 20:7 204
10:24 199 8:6–7 110 20:12–19 74
14:37 1 8:13 261 21 148
16:22 193 10 202 21:7 149
19:10 174 10:8 193 21:13 148, 149
23:17 26 11:9–14 205 21:14 245
26:19 198, 207 11:13 31, 149 21:22 277
29:4 205 11:23 205 22:8–10 21
30:17 174 11:25 205 22:19 108
11:32 149 23:26–29 74
11:36 149 23:27 149
2 Kings (cont.) 26:33 18 1–2 104, 106,

24 38 30:27 179 108, 122–
24:4–5 23 32:7 25 24, 191–
25:8–9 52 32:11 207 93, 197,
25:18 12 32:15 207 332
25:27–30 77 33:10–13 206 1:1–5 202
37:24–25 31 36:15–21 19 1:1–3 202
36:22 215 1:1 200
1 Chronicles 36:23 11 1:5 201
3:16–19 58 1:6–12 123, 198
3:17–18 58 Ezra 1:6 123, 197
3:19 58, 59 1:1 11 1:7 123, 199
5:40–41 12 1:2–4 18 1:8 199, 200
9:24 175 1:8 58 1:10 200, 201
15:2 32 1:11 58 1:11 201
15:23 206 1:15 21 1:12 123, 201,
19:13 25 2–3 285 204
21 191–93, 2:68 261 1:13–19 201, 202
205, 207, 3:2 58 1:19 202
332 3:3 261 2:1–7 123
21:1 206–8 3:8 58 2:1 198
21:3 206 3:12–13 52 2:2 123
21:5 205 4 38 2:3 117, 199,
21:16 265 4:2 28, 198 200, 207
22:13 25 5:1–2 59 2:6 204
28:1–10 150 5:2 58 2:7 204
28:4 18, 150 5:14 58 2:8 204
28:5 150 5:16 58 2:9 203, 204
28:6 150 6:14–15 59 2:12 204
28:9 150 8 265 4:6 200
28:10 25, 150 9 5, 37, 38 4:18 107
28:11–19 206 10:18 281, 282, 6:18 203
28:20 25 285 6:19 201
7:4 204
2 Chronicles Nehemiah 7:5 204
3:7 110 1:10–11 159 7:13–15 204
3:14 196 2:6 277 8:20 200
12:5–12 206 7:72–8:12 229 9:20–22 200
15:1 215 8:11 179 12:24 203
17:19 148 9 5, 37 19:17 204
18:2 207 9:31–32 159 19:20 204
18:18–22 206 12:1 58 21:6 204
18:31 207 27:5 200
19:11 25 Esther 30:17 204
20:14 215 9:27 178 30:27 204
24:20 215 30:30 204
25:8 25 Job 31:6 200
31:23 265 74 25 Proverbs

33:23 107 74:10 51 1:7 200
36:16 207 76:4–10 72 2:5–8 200
38:1 112 77:19 113, 114 3:7 200
38:7 198 78:59–61 52 5:16 160
38:10 200 78:60 52 5:22 244
38:18 200, 207 78:67 32 7:4 269
40:1 112 78:70 31 8:12 269
42:7–9 201 79 5 9:1–5 269
42:11 204 80:5 51 11:1 242
42:13 204 82 108, 118 16:6 200
44:26 107 82:1 198 16:11 242
82:2 51 20:10 242, 258,
Psalms 82:6 107, 198 261
2 33, 60 83:9 178 20:23 242
4:8 237 85:3 244 21:8 200
6:4 51 89 150 22:29 193
7:2 153 89:6–9 108 23:31 249
8:16 31 89:7 198 30:15 173
9:6 197 89:20 150
9:14 200 89:39 150 Ecclesiastes
17:8 153 90:13 51 3:2–8 49
18 114 94:3 51 3:14 21
18:10 114 10:9 197 8:15 178
18:11 110, 113 102:11 147 9:8 249
24:3–4 196 102:14 41, 42
26:3 295 102:16 160 Song of Songs
29:1 198 104:3 112, 114 7:1 173
32:5 244 104:4 107
33:8 21 105:6 199 Isaiah
46:5 106 105:42 199 1–39 179
46:7–12 72 106 5, 37 1:4 244
47:7 173 106:7 197 1:6 244
48:1–3 106 107:18 200 1:18 249, 250
48:3 184 107:40 203 2 168
51 250 108 299 2:1–4 27, 33, 172
51:9 249, 250 108:9 298 2:2–5 73
60 299 108:11 148 2:2–4 172, 173,
60:9 298 110 33, 60 279
65:8 202 119:21 162 2:3 168, 170
68:6 179 123:4 142 2:4 72
68:18 115 137:7 173 2:5 72
68:19 31 137:8 174 2:6–21 172
69:21 160 145:8–9 159 2:9 244
69:36 160 147:10 18 2:10–17 172
73:24 153 149:4 18 3:23 276
Isaiah (cont.) 13:1–14:23 188 26:19 173

3:25–4:1 172 13:1–22 188 27:2–5 45
5:2 248, 250 13:2 176, 177 27:11 148
5:10 261 13:13 31 28:1 278
6 262, 283, 13:17 188 28:5–6 278
287 13:19–22 188 28:5 22
6:1–13 107 13:19 188 28:8 194
6:2–6 107 14 138–42, 28:16 278
6:7 262 178 29:1–8 72
6:10 13 14:1–4 187, 178, 29:6 112
7:4 26, 276 187, 188 30:8 221, 227
8:1–4 172 14:1–2 140 30:23–26 45
8:1 227 14:1 32, 138, 31:4–9 72
8:5–8 202 178, 322 32:15–20 45
8:6 13 14:2 176, 178, 33:24 244
8:11–12 13 188 34:11 203
9:2 173 14:3–23 188 35:2 173
9:15 13 14:3–4 187 35:4 26
9:16 148 14:3 139 35:6 173
10:12 155 14:4–21 187 36:12 194
10:20–11:16 189 14:5–8 139 36:18 207
10:20 22 14:5–7 139 37:29 142
11–12 189 14:7 137–40, 38:21 204
11 278 143, 308, 40–66 28, 149,
11:1–16 279 322 174
11:1 189 14:12 118 40–55 149, 179,
11:10–16 44 14:13–14 107 323, 324
11:10 189 14:13 106, 113, 40:1 149, 173
11:11 246, 247 184 40:4 233
11:15 173, 176 14:32 72 40:9 26, 174
12–14 178, 179, 15–16 178 40:23 203
187, 189 16:8 248 41:2 21
12 167, 168, 17:3 197 41:10 26
189, 301 17:12–14 72, 202 41:16 265
12:1–6 189 18:1–6 72 41:21 21
12:1–2 301 19:1 112, 114 41:27 174
12:1 173, 189 19:2 31 42:1–9 172
12:4–6 177 19:16 173, 176 42:11 173
12:4–5 301 19:25 200 43:1–7 79
12:6 163, 167, 20:3 199 43:2 21
172, 178, 20:6 174 43:10 176
189, 301 21 188 44:23 173
13–23 188, 189 21:9 188 44:24–28 79
13–14 138, 178, 24:14 173 45:1–4 79
187–89 21:13–15 201 45:3 176
13 187, 188, 24:10 203 45:9–14 172
301 25:6–10 173 45:13 21, 160
45:14–20 168 54:2–3 156, 159, 64:7 53

45:21 299 160 64:9 174
46:13 174 54:3 161 66:1 18
47 172, 246 54:4–8 156, 164 66:8 174
47:1–15 79 54:7–10 161 66:10 173
47:1 174 54:7–9 158, 161 66:13 149
47:6 157 54:7–8 52, 157, 66:18–24 173
48:20 172, 175 158 66:20 301
49:1–26 172 54:7 157, 159,
49:8–13 172 322 Jeremiah
49:8 41, 42 54:8 157, 158 1:1–2 10
49:13 149, 173 54:9–10 156 1:8 21, 26
49:14 174 54:9 162 1:9 21
49:18 172 54:10 162 1:11 264
49:18–22 161 54:11–16 156 1:13 264
49:23 176 54:11–12 159–61 1:18 148
50:2 197 54:11 160–62 2:21 248, 250
51 149 54:13 165 2:22 250
51:1–11 172 54:16 151 3 160
51:3 149, 174 55:3–5 79 3:14 174
51:16 250 56–66 156 3:16 18
51:9–11 172 56 178 3:18 174
51:9 173 56:1–8 173 3:25 20
51:11 174 56:3 178, 301 4 241
51:12 149 56:6–7 172, 178 4:5 148
51:16 172, 174, 56:6 178 4:6 174
250 56:7 172 4:10 47
51:17 173 57:13 265 4:14–21 51
52 157 59:20 174 4:23 203
52:1–2 172 60–62 172, 173 4:28 146
52:1 173, 174 60:1–22 27 4:31 174
52:2 174 60:6 202 5:14 13
52:7 174 60:10 160, 301 5:17 148
52:8–9 157 60:14 174 6:2 174
52:8 173, 174 60:16 176 6:14 47
52:9 149, 173 61:2–4 160 6:19 13
52:11–12 172 61:2 149 6:20 202
52:11 173 61:3 174 6:21 13
54 145, 156– 61:4 160 6:22–23 202
65, 172, 61:5 301 6:22 174, 184
306, 322, 61:7 173 6:23 174
334, 335 62:1–9 45 7 17, 241
54:1–12 156 62:1 174 7:1–15 23
54:1 156, 161, 62:3 276 7:9 239–41
163, 165, 62:10 173 7:12–15 281
173, 177 62:11 174 7:12 149
64:5 265 7:14 241
Jeremiah (cont.) 24:3 264 31:12 174

7:16 13 25 166, 179, 31:13 160
7:28 20 181–83, 31:15–20 79
7:32 295 189 31:21–22 79
7:33 13 25:1–32:38 181 31:22 51
8:11 47 25:1–13 181, 182 31:27–30 79
8:14 148 25:1–11 183 31:28 160
8:19 174 25:4–5 165 31:31–34 26, 38
9:12 20 25:4 166 31:38–40 160
9:18 174 25:5–7 165, 166 31:38–39 148, 149,
10:10 31 25:5 165, 166 168, 169,
10:22 174 25:7 165 334
11:10 244 25:11 166, 179 31:39 148
11:18 165 25:12–14 166, 183 32 79
12:7 52, 53 25:15–38 181, 182 32:15–38 182
13:14 148 25:18 183 33:14–26 278
13:24 160 25:19–26 183 32:23 20
14:13 47 25:23 201 32:32–44 45
14:16 31 25:26 182–84 33:10–16 53
14:19 174 25:28 182, 183 33:10 50
14:20 263 25:29–38 183 33:15 60
15:20 13 25:29 182, 183 34:7 148
16:5–6 159 25:30–31 179, 183 35:15 165, 166
16:5 13, 47 25:30 183 36 227, 237,
16:15 174 25:31 183 238, 322
18:10 20 26:18 174 36:1 237
18:11 165, 166 29 221 36:2 237
18:17 160 29:8 43 36:3 237
19:11 13 29:10 179 36:4–6 237
22:15–16 74 30:9 79 36:4 237
22:21 20 30:10–11 79 36:5–10 221
22:24–30 32, 33 30:10 26 36:5–8 237
22:24–27 31, 59 30:11 79 36:7 237
22:24–25 32 30:17 174 36:8–28 237
22:24 20, 125 30:18–20 79 36:9–10 237
22:26–30 32 30:18 160 36:9 238
22:28–30 32 30:21 79 36:11–20 237
23:1–8 278 30:23 112 36:21–26 237
23:5–6 44, 279 30:24 146 36:23–26 237
23:8 174 31 46, 148, 36:29–31 238
23:17 47 170 36:29–30 237
23:18 107 31:4–6 79 36:31 237
23:19 112 31:4 160 36:32 237
23:20 146 31:6 174 36:37–32 237
23:22 107 31:7–9 22 38:22 207
23:26 51 31:8 174, 184 42:7–17 38
24 38 31:12–14 45 42:11 21
42:13 20 50:40 30 2:6 147, 155,

42:18–22 38 50:41 174, 184 164
42:21–22 19 50:42 174 2:7–9 151, 152
42:21 20, 176 50:46 31 2:7 53, 150
43:3 207 51 180, 246 2:8 148, 149,
43:4 20 51:1–64 181 152
43:7 20 51:1 21, 184 2:10–11 153
44:23 20 51:6 174, 175, 2:10 148, 150
46–51 174, 175 181 2:13 148, 149
46–50 174 51:7 175 2:15 148
46:2–25 181 51:10 174 2:17 146–48,
46:6 174 51:11 21, 180, 150, 155,
46:10 174 181 164
46:16 31 51:12 146 2:18 148
46:19 174 51:19 179 2:19 163
46:21 44 51:24–26 215, 233 2:21 148
46:27–28 181 51:24 174 3:53 150
46:27 26 51:25–26 181 4:7 249
47:1–7 181 51:27 180 4:15 173
47:5 51 51:28 180 4:21–22 156
48:1–45 181 51:32 181 4:21 177
48:6 174 51:33 44, 174
48:18 174 51:34 44 Ezekiel
48:19 174 51:35 174 1 109, 111,
49:1–5 181 51:36 181 112, 114–
49:18 30 51:41 184 17, 123,
49:23 181 51:45 174, 175 124, 127,
49:27 181 51:48 174 308, 323,
49:28–33 181 51:50 174 330
49:34–39 181 51:59–64 180 1:1–3:14 89
49:36 175 52:12–13 52 1:1–3 10
50–51 79, 174, 1:1 107
175, 179– Lamentations 1:4–3:15 107
81, 189 2 145, 146, 1:4–28 111
50 178, 180 148–52, 1:4 113, 123,
50:1–46 181 154–56, 254
50:1 139 160, 162– 1:5–20 110
50:3 174 65, 306, 1:7 254
50:5 174, 178 322, 328, 1:8 123
50:8 175 334 1:12 113, 123
50:9 21, 174 2:1–17 145 1:14 123
50:10 175 2:1 148, 150 1:16 254
50:15 181 2:2–4 152, 153 1:18 115, 116
50:16 174 2:2 148, 153 1:19–21 113, 123
50:28 174, 175, 2:3 150–52 1:20–21 113
180 2:4 148, 153 1:22 254
50:31 44 2:6–9 155 1:24 115, 123
Ezekiel (cont.) 8:5 106, 265, 14:8 176

1:27 254 308, 330 14:10 244
2:6 26, 267 8:6 266 14:12 125
2:9–3:3 237, 238, 8:7–12 94 15:1 106
322 8:16–17 94 15:7 176
2:9 119, 239 9:1–11 116 16:8 281
2:10 113, 238 9:8 89, 93 16:23 173
3:1–3 238 10–11 124 16:62 176
3:1 173 10 46, 111, 17:21 176
3:12 265 112, 114, 18 264
3:14 265 115, 117, 18:19 244
3:15 88 330 18:20 244, 263
4:4 244 10:1–22 110 18:27 263
4:5 244 10:1–8 116 20:1 88
4:6 244 10:2 114, 125 20:5 32
4:12 194 10:4 114 20:38 176
4:14 89 10:7 114 20:40 106, 125
5 268 10:8 116 20:42 176
5:5 263 10:9–17 111 20:44 176
5:6 263, 264, 10:9 254 21:5 89
266 10:10 116 21:7 125
5:8 263 10:11 116 21:34 44
5:11 125 10:12 115 21:36 147, 151
6:3 119 10:13 116 22:16 176
6:7 113, 176 10:15–21 111 22:22 176
6:13 176 10:17 113 22:24 147
7:4 176 10:18–19 53 22:27 119
7:6 119 10:18 114 22:31 147
7:7 119 10:19 114, 123 23:38–39 125
7:9 176 11 38 23:49 176
8–11 25, 100, 11:1 265 24:15–27 88
112, 115– 11:10 176 24:16 153
17, 123, 11:12 176 24:21 153
125, 127 11:13 89, 93 24:24 176
8–10 53, 109 11:14–21 38 24:25 153
8 17, 195, 11:17–18 25 25–48 186
264–68, 11:22–23 123 25:3 125
320 11:23 114 25:5 176
8:1–11:25 89, 111, 11:24 265 25:7 176
330 11:25 88 26–28 156
8:1–6 265 12:5–7 88 26:7–14 99
8:1 88 12:20 176 26:10 31
8:2–3 93, 265 13:9 176 27:28 31
8:2 254 13:14 176 28 106, 109,
8:3 265 13:21 176 117, 121–
8:4 265 13:23 176 23, 125–
8:5–5 94 14:1 88 27, 330
28:2 120 37:9 175 40–42 168, 185,

28:3 120 37:12–14 185 335
28:9 120 37:13 176 40 148, 170
28:11–19 104, 108, 37:14 176 40:2 148
109, 117, 37:15–27 79 40:3–4 93
121, 124– 37:22–25 185 40:3 105, 148,
26 37:24–25 79 162, 168
28:12 120 37:26–28 46, 185 40:6 169
28:13 106, 108, 37:26 185 40:7 169
118–24 37:27 185 40:46 277
28:14 104, 106, 37:28 185 41:18–20 110
108, 109, 38–39 70, 72, 79, 41:25 110
111, 117– 160, 176, 42:4 277
23, 125 179, 183– 43 185
28:15 120 86, 189 43:2–5 46
28:16 108, 111, 38:6 184 43:5 265
117–20, 38:8 183 43:6 93
122 38:11 152, 160, 44:10 244
28:22 19, 54 185 44:12 244
29 127 38:14 183 44:15 277
29:17–20 99 38:15 184 45:10 242, 258
30:3 41 38:16 176, 183 45:11 242
33 38, 185 38:17–20 183 45:13 256, 258
33:11 165, 166, 38:19–21 31 45:24 258
173 38:23 176, 183 46:5 258
33:12 263 39:2 183, 184 46:7 258
33:19 263 39:4 183 46:11 258
33:21–22 88 39:6 176 46:14 258
34:23–24 79 39:7–8 183 47:1–2 106
35:4 176 39:7 176 47:17–19 119
35:9 176 39:10 175, 176
35:12 176 39:13 19, 54, 183 Daniel
36 46, 264 39:21–29 176 1:1 246
36:7 79 39:21–24 183 1:2 246
36:8–12 79 39:21 183 1:5 193
36:11 176 39:22 176, 183 3:25 198
36:24 185 39:23–29 184 7:9–10 198
36:25–28 264 39:23 53 8:8 175
36:26–27 185 39:25 183 8:11 261
36:30 45 39:28 176 10:6 254
36:33–36 160 39:29 264 10:13 121
36:37–38 185 40–48 89, 169, 11:4 175
36:33–35 45 171, 217, 11:5 148
37 93, 94, 185, 266 11:34 178
185, 264 40–47 18 11:35 249, 250
37:1–14 89 40–43 79 12:10 249, 250
37:6 176
Hosea Amos 1:10–16 66

1:1 10, 63 2:6–7 243 1:13 66, 69
1:6–9 26 3:3–8 15 1:14 66, 69
1:7 57, 66, 73, 4 16 2:2–4 72
76, 80 4:2 296 2:12–13 57, 70, 73,
1:11 57, 66, 73, 4:6–11 16 75, 76, 80
76, 80 4:11 276, 281, 2:12 70
2:2–9 16 300 2:13 70
2:6 148 4:12 26 3:1–13 68
3:1–5 64, 66 5:11 16 3:1–3 15
3:1–3 64 6:1 142 3:9 67
3:4–5 64 6:5 65, 75 3:10 67
3:4 64 6:10 179 3:11 67
3:5 56, 57, 64, 7:8 264 3:18–20 75
66, 73, 76, 7:10–17 65, 75 3:20 75
80 7:11 65 4–6 43
4:2 240, 241 7:15 31 4–5 57, 80
5:13 64 7:17 194 4 168
6:4 15 8:1–3 26 4:1–5:8 73, 76
7:1 244 8:2 264 4:1–5 27, 61, 72,
7:7 64 8:3 179 73, 75, 78,
8:4 64 8:4–7 243 305
9:1 177 8:5 242, 243, 4:1–4 33
10 64 258, 261 4:1–3 72, 73
10:3 64 8:7 243 4:2 168
10:6 64 8:11 296 4:3 72, 73
10:7 64 9 160 4:4 38, 56, 72,
10:8 64 9:1–4 26 73, 76, 81,
10:15 64 9:1 174 279, 305
11:5 64 9:3 247 4:5 72, 73
11:9 38 9:7–10 66, 75, 80 4:6–8 73, 78
13:3 161 9:11–15 56, 57, 66, 4:6 73
13:11 64, 65, 75 73, 76, 80 4:7 73
14:3 244 9:11 65 4:9–5:4 71
9:13 296 4:9–10 57, 67–69,
Joel 73, 75, 80
1:1 10 Jonah 4:9 67, 69, 70
1:7 249 1:11 161 4:10 67, 68, 70,
2:10 31 1:12 161 71, 75, 80
2:21–24 177 4:11 15 4:11–13 27, 68, 70,
3 27 71
4:8 202 Micah 4:11 70
4:16 31 1:1 10, 69 4:12 69
12:1–9 72 1:5–7 66, 69 4:13 69, 73
14:3 72 1:5 66, 69 4:14 70, 71
14:12–15 72 1:8–16 69 5:1–4 56, 69–71,
1:8–9 69 76
5:2–5 70 2:8 175, 176, 49, 50, 52,

5:2 69, 71 187 54, 55, 59,
5:3 69, 71 2:12 187 304, 334
5:4–5 71 2:20 179, 186, 1:3–11 6, 14–16,
5:4 71 187 18–20, 35,
5:6–8 72 3 78, 187 37
5:7–9 72 3:2–15 186 1:4–11 15, 17, 19
5:9–13 68, 71 3:3–15 76 1:4 15
6 68, 69 3:3–7 76 1:5–6 15
6:3 15 3:3 76 1:6–7 17
6:7 18 3:8–15 76 1:6 16
6:9–15 243 3:8 76, 115 1:7–8 15
6:10–11 242, 243, 3:12–14 77, 187 1:8 15, 16, 18,
264, 266, 3:12 77 23, 46, 54
320 3:13 56, 76, 77 1:9–11 17, 209
6:10 242, 258, 3:14 161 1:9 15
261 3:15 76 1:10 15, 47
6:13–16 16 3:16–19 186 1:11 15, 16, 50
6:13–15 243 1:12–15 6, 19, 22,
6:16 68, 69, 75, Zephaniah 23, 28, 36,
80 1:1 10 59
7:18–20 262 1:7 179 1:12–14 15, 32, 34
7:18–19 245, 247 1:8 74, 75 1:12 20–22, 58
7:18 22, 244, 2:14 163 1:13 21, 31, 35,
262 3 167, 168 46
7:19 247 3:1–13 74, 80 1:14 21–23, 58,
3:2–3 76 59
Nahum 3:12–13 22 1:15 28
1:4 197 3:14–20 57, 74–76, 2:1–22 36
2:4 249 80 2:1–9 24, 28, 32–
2:9 173 3:14–15 167 34
3:14 163, 167, 2:2 58, 59
Habakkuk 177, 178 2:3–9 24
1–2 186, 187 3:15 74 2:3–5 24
1:2–4 186 3:16 26 2:3 24, 52
1:5–11 186 3:20 74 2:4–11 25
1:5 173 2:4 24, 25, 31,
1:10 76 Haggai 35, 46
1:12–2:1 186, 187 1:1–15 24 2:5 24, 31, 35
1:15 187 1:1–11 29 2:6–9 24, 27, 35,
2 179, 186, 1:1–2 9, 10, 13, 37, 38, 60
189 14 2:6–7 135
2:2–20 186 1:1 11, 58 2:6 41, 44
2:2 187, 221, 1:2–11 6, 15, 16, 2:7 44, 334
227 26, 60 2:9 24, 25
2:6–20 186 1:2 12–14, 22, 2:10–19 28, 32–34
40–42, 47, 2:10 11, 29
Haggai (cont.) 303–306, 1:8–1:17 92

2:11–13 29 308, 309, 1:8–17 96, 217,
2:14 29 311, 317, 262
2:15–19 28–30, 37, 319, 322, 1:8–15 248, 253,
38 324, 325, 302
2:15–17 29 328, 329, 1:8–11 117, 123,
2:15 29, 42 331–36 124
2:16–17 35 1–6 128, 141, 1:8 93–96,
2:16 46 164, 176, 108, 248,
2:18–20 29 216, 294 249, 253,
2:18 29, 35, 42 1–2 145, 146, 258, 264,
2:19–22 209 154, 156, 308, 322
2:19 45 160, 170, 1:9 93, 94, 97
2:20–23 12, 32, 34, 306, 322 1:10–11 116, 253
35, 37, 38, 1 112, 124, 1:10 93, 123
42, 44, 57, 149, 159, 1:11 93, 123,
59, 62, 80 164 128, 134,
2:20–23 278, 285 1:1–6 4, 6, 13, 137–39,
2:20–22 30, 334 24, 146, 143, 308,
2:20 29, 30 147, 164, 322, 330
2:21–23 82 190, 217 1:12–17 157, 158
2:21–22 30, 44, 1:1 10, 11, 1:12–15 157, 159,
135, 136 126, 222 161
2:22 30, 35, 60 1:2 158, 159 1:12–14 166
2:23 20, 31, 35, 1:3–6 4 1:12 51, 128,
58, 59, 1:3 5, 147 147, 148,
125, 199 1:4–6 190 157, 159,
1:4 4, 147, 179, 235,
Zechariah 165, 166, 241, 251,
1–8 3–5, 7, 9, 170 322
28, 34, 35, 1:5–6 15 1:13 128, 138
37, 45, 56– 1:6–2:9 145 1:14–17 32, 92,
58, 60, 62, 1:6 146, 147, 128, 136,
65, 72, 73, 294, 295, 158
75, 78, 80, 298, 322 1:14–15 157, 158,
81, 88, 91, 1:7–6:15 5, 173, 262
133, 138, 189, 190, 1:14 93, 157,
144, 145, 265 266
155, 156, 1:7–6:8 105, 106 1:15–17 156, 158,
161–65, 1:7–17 5, 128, 235 161, 162
169–71, 1:7–13 115 1:15–16 158, 159
190, 210, 1:7–12 112 1:15 142, 157–
212–18, 1:7 11, 72, 59
220–26, 105, 129, 1:16–21 209
230–32, 150, 222, 1:16–17 157–61,
234, 271, 235 262
285, 295,
1:16 148, 150, 217, 311, 3:1–7 192, 235,

157, 158, 315, 335 249, 251,
168, 169, 2:10–15 5 262, 332
266, 335 2:10–13 296 3:1–5 117
1:17 32, 138, 2:10–11 173, 175, 3:1–2 104, 124,
149, 160, 176, 178 275
161, 178, 2:10 54, 173–75 3:1 94, 98,
264, 322 2:11 173–75, 123, 196
1:18–21 5, 95 246, 301 3:2 123, 195,
1:18 97 2:12–13 175, 176, 299, 300
1:19 94 183 3:3–5 276
2 150, 163, 2:12 152, 153, 3:3–4 332
296, 301 176 3:3 193, 195,
2:1–3:10 97 2:13 153, 176, 276
2:1–5 185 294, 301 3:4 195, 255,
2:1–4 92, 96, 2:14–17 296 262
155, 253, 2:14–16 177, 301 3:5–10 277
262 2:14 148, 163, 3:5 94, 97, 98,
2:1–3 95 167, 172, 107
2:1 94, 96, 97, 173, 177, 3:6–10 215
254 178, 189 3:6 277
2:2 94–97 2:15–16 187 3:7–10 277
2:3 94, 98, 2:15 138, 172, 3:7 72, 92, 287
147, 150 176, 178, 3:8–10 92, 217,
2:4 94, 95, 97, 294, 296, 278
150, 253 298, 301 3:8 60–62, 82,
2:5–17 92 2:16–17 149 189, 333
2:5–9 5, 105, 2:16 32, 178 3:9 126, 127,
162, 253, 2:17 179, 186 162, 255,
262, 266 3–4 108, 262 256, 269
2:5–6 168, 335 3 59, 73, 82, 3:10 56, 60–62,
2:5 92, 94, 96, 104, 108, 72, 75, 76,
98, 169, 117, 124, 81, 82,
254 126, 127, 305, 322
2:6–13 92, 94, 171 162, 191, 4 59, 218
2:6 97, 98, 192, 197, 4:1–14 5, 92, 95,
169, 253 208, 235, 98, 210,
2:7 169, 253 255, 269, 212, 213,
2:8–9 151, 152 271, 274, 215–18,
2:8 157, 160, 276, 277, 230, 232,
163 285–87, 234, 319
2:9 152 294, 306, 4:1–10 214
2:10–3:10 83, 189 332 4:1–6 213–17,
2:10–17 171–73, 3:1–10 5, 60, 61, 219, 253
175, 179– 92 4:1–4 94, 321
81, 185, 4:1 96, 254
187–90, 4:2–3 116
Zechariah (cont.) 5:1 95, 96, 6:1–8 5, 92, 112,

4:2 95–97, 264 239, 254 114, 115,
4:4 97, 123 5:2 97, 236, 123, 124,
4:5 95, 97 264 248, 251,
4:6–10 57, 60, 61, 5:3–6 253 253, 262
80, 92, 94, 5:3–4 236, 241 6:1 96–98,
95, 181, 5:3 137, 239, 108, 253,
215, 217– 241, 302 254, 308
19, 233 5:4 92, 239, 6:2 249
4:6–7 29, 213–15 253, 254 6:4 96, 97
4:6 46, 112, 5:5–11 92, 105, 6:5–8 253
115, 215, 235, 242, 6:5 113, 175
216 243, 247, 6:6 174
4:7–10 161 249, 251, 6:7 116, 123,
4:7 162 252, 253, 124, 253
4:8–10 29, 51, 213 256, 258, 6:8 72, 174
4:8 92 262–64, 6:9–8:23 95
4:9 155, 162, 268, 269, 6:9–15 5, 155, 278
176, 294 306, 320, 6:9–14 217, 218,
4:10–14 213–17, 330 331
219, 253 5:5 96, 254, 6:9 90, 91
4:10 36, 112, 265 6:10–15 90
115, 116, 5:6–10 258 6:10 62, 246
123, 124, 5:6 97, 253– 6:11–13 60–62
162, 213, 58, 260, 6:11 61, 62
214, 258, 262, 268, 6:12 57, 80
268 302 6:14 62
4:11–14 214, 218 5:7–8 259 6:15 166, 167,
4:11 95, 97, 214 5:7 137, 257, 176, 217,
4:12 95, 97, 260 294
155, 218 5:8 245, 254– 7–8 91, 164,
4:13–14 214 59, 302, 217
4:13 95, 97 308 7 161, 216
4:14 61, 253 5:9–11 257 7:1–8:23 4, 5, 90,
5 194, 238, 5:9 96, 245, 190
250, 263, 254, 257, 7:1–3 91
265, 267, 262, 265 7:1 11, 90, 91,
302, 320 5:10 97, 253, 133, 222
5:1–11 241 254, 257 7:3 52
5:1–4 92, 95, 5:11 246, 247, 7:4 91
235, 236, 255, 257, 7:5–7 15
239, 249, 259, 261, 7:7–14 4, 5
251, 253, 267, 268 7:7 4, 190
254, 259, 5:19 97, 98 7:8–14 5
262, 322 6 59, 90, 7:8 91
5:1–2 236–38 109, 112, 7:9–14 159, 161
124, 307 7:11–14 215
7:12 4, 190 11–13 81 14:18–19 298

7:14 161 11:4–7 79 14:21 80
8 162, 168 11:7–14 89 28 124
8:2–23 91 11:7–11 79 50:42 175
8:2 91 11:7 89 51:33 175
8:3 54, 91 11:9 89
8:4–5 153, 154 11:10 90 Malachi
8:4 91 11:13 93 3:5 239
8:6 15, 91 11:14 90
8:7 38, 91 12–14 294 NEW TESTAMENT
8:9 29, 91 12:1–9 70 Matthew
8:11–12 45 12:1–6 79 1:12 58
8:13–15 5 12:1 293 8:8 204
8:13 26 12:4 258
8:14 4, 91 12:5 80 Mark
8:15 295 12:6 299 5:1 204
8:18 91 12:7 56, 78–80
8:19 91 12:8 56, 78, 79 Luke
8:20–23 170 12:10–13:1 79 8:27 204
8:20 91 12:10 56, 78, 79
8:21–22 168 12:11–14 79 Hebrews
8:21 168 12:12 56, 78 3:8 198
8:22 168 12:13–14 79
8:23 91, 218 13–14 295 APOCRYPHA/DEUTERO-
9–14 56, 57, 78– 13:1 56, 78, 79 CANONICAL BOOKS
81, 190, 13:3–6 79 Tobit
271, 285, 13:7–9 79 13:13 300
291, 305, 14 27, 296, 14:5 300
309, 311, 300
317 14:1–21 70 PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
9–11 293 14:1–5 79 Ecclesiasticus
9:1–10 56, 57, 73, 14:1 295, 300 41:6 261
77, 78, 80 14:3 294, 298, 44:1 261
9:1–8 79, 299 333
9:1 293 14:5 78 1 Maccabees
9:8 258 14:8 80 13–14 300
9:9–10 73, 78, 79, 14:10 80 14:36 300
299, 300 14:12 79
9:9 177, 178, 14:13–15 297 2 Maccabees
299 14:13 31, 296–98 10:6 298
9:11–12 79 14:14 294, 298–
9:13–16 79 300, 333 MISHNAH
9:14 112 14:16 297, 298, Kelim
10:1–3 79 300 1:1–4 193
10:6 79 14:17–19 297
10:8–12 79 14:17 296–98
JOSEPHUS TARGUMS 3:5–10 282

Antiquities Targum Jonathan 3:5 280, 282,
3.181 196 Zechariah 286
3 279, 280, 3:7 283
War 289 3:8–10 283
5.212–13 196 3:1–2 280 3:8 287
3:1 280 3:9 288
JEWISH WORKS 3:3–5 281
Heikhalot Rabbati 3:3 280
16:2 289 3:4–5 282
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Aberbach, M. 273, 280, 283 Bewer, J. A. 132, 146, 151, 168, 194,
Ackroyd, P. R. 1, 7, 11, 19, 25, 43, 44, 236, 292
47, 53, 54, 310, 313 Beyse, K.-M. 80
Ådna, J. 272 Bianchi, F. 12
Aejmelaeus, A. 182 Bič, M. 194, 195
Albertz, R. 49, 52, 63, 66, 69, 71, 74, Bickerman, E. J. 48
76, 77 Biddle, M. E. 67
Alden, R. L. 198, 199, 202, 203 Blenkinsopp, J. 8, 40
Alexander, P. 273 Block, D. I. 105, 111–13, 116, 126, 184
Amsler, S. 2, 6, 9, 12, 14, 21, 26, 28, 30 Blumenthal, D. R. 289
Andel, J. van 132 Boda, M. J. 4, 5, 34, 37, 60, 91, 142,
Andersen, F. I. 50, 67, 69, 70, 186, 187, 147, 155, 165, 168, 178, 181,
192, 198, 199, 202 190, 240, 243, 247, 248, 260, 271
Anderson, G. A. 50, 54 Bodi, D. 52
Boehmer, J. 184
Baldwin, J. G. 108, 109, 129, 132, 142, Bogaert, P.-M. 118
165, 167, 168, 196 Borger, R. 133, 141
Barker, K. L. 132 Bredenkamp, C. J. 137
Barker, M. 196, 242 Brenner, A. 248
Barnes, W. E. 35 Brewer, D. I. 256
Barr, J. 118–20, 122 Briant, P. 131, 133, 324
Barrick, W. B. 114 Bright, J. 180
Barstad, H. 25 Brock-Utne, A. 197
Barthelémy, D. 14, 25, 153 Bruehler, B. B. 92
Barton, J. 234, 311, 316
Bedford, P. R. 14, 15, 40–42, 49, 55 Calvinus, I. 136
Begg, C. T. 188 Caquot, A. 37, 197
Bellis, A. O. 180, 181 Carr, D. M. 224, 228, 229
Ben Zvi, E. 9–11, 63, 224–26, 233 Carroll, R. P. 1, 2, 32, 40, 42, 44, 47,
Ben-Porat, Z. 154 51, 59, 180, 182
Berger, P.-R. 58 Carter, C. 47
Berlin, A. 177, 186 Cathcart, K. J. 257, 273, 274, 279–81
Berquist, J. L. 58, 62 Chary, T. 15, 26, 31, 35, 135
Beuken, W. A. M. 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, Childs, B. S. 188, 189
19–21, 26, 28, 35, 81, 82, 146, Chisholm, R. B. 132
147, 157, 158, 166, 194, 195, Christensen, D. A. 77
210, 213, 231, 253, 257 Churgin, P. 273, 274, 280
Bevan, A. A. 120, 125 Cimosa, M. 293, 299
Clements, R. E. 46, 52, 54, 105, 187
Clifford, R. J. 195 Floyd, M. H. 2, 6, 8, 10, 22, 25, 28–30,

Clines, D. J. A. 41, 42, 58, 199, 200, 212, 220, 228, 232, 233, 245,
202, 204 256, 260, 265, 268, 274
Coggins, R. J. 6, 8 Folkenflick, R. 84
Cohen, N. G. 230 Forsyth, N. 117, 124
Collins, J. J. 58, 61 Freedman, D. N. 62, 67, 69, 70, 110,
Conrad, E. W. 195, 271, 272 244, 245
Cook, J. M. 129, 130 Fretheim, T. E. 46, 53, 180
Cook, S. L. 48, 80, 111, 120, 197, 289 Frevel, C. 260, 267
Cowles, H. 137 Fried, L. S. 15
Craigie, P. C. 137, 242 Fuller, R. 153
Crenshaw, J. L. 199, 229, 230
Crüsemann, F. 177 Galling, K. 192, 206
Garrett, D. A. 146
Davis, E. F. 222 Gärtner, J. 302
Day, J. 107, 267 Gelston, A. 64
Day, P. L. 191, 205, 209 Gerleman, G. 263
De Guglielmo, A. 45 Gese, H. 267, 269
Deden, D. 135 Goedicke, H. 85
Delitzsch, F. 198 Goldingay, J. 187
Delkurt, H. 149, 156, 157, 168, 169, Goldman, Y. 32
239–41, 247, 248, 256, 260–64, Gordis, R. 203
266, 267 Gordon, R. P. 257, 273, 274, 279–81
Derousseaux, L. 21, 27 Gosse, B. 175, 182, 188
Dhorme, E. 198, 201, 202 Gowan, D. E. 43–46, 49
Dijk, H. J. van 119 Grabbe, L. L. 224
Dijkstra, M. 111 Gradwohl, R. 249
Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. 177 Graetz, H. 291
Dogniez, C. 292, 293 Graupner, A. 237, 239, 240
Driver, S. R. 20, 21, 135, 198, 199, 202 Gray, G. B. 198, 199, 202
Durham, J. I. 47, 48 Greenberg, M. 87, 110, 111, 116, 118,
122, 266
Eaton, J. H. 199 Gruenwald, I. 289
Edelman, D. 7, 257, 259 Grünwaldt, K. 240, 241
Elior, R. 289 Gunkel, H. 231
Elliger, K. 192 Gunneweg, A. H. J. 212
Ellis, R. S. 29, 48
Erlandsson, S. 188 Haas, V. 263
Ernst, A. B. 242 Habel, N. C. 197, 199, 200, 202
Even-Shosham, A. 138 Halperin, D. J. 111
Eynikel, E. 295 Halpern, B. A. 29
Hals, R. M. 111
Fabry, H.-J. 244, 245 Hamerton-Kelly, R. G. 40
Fechter, F. 120, 121 Hamilton, V. P. 191
Feinberg, C. L. 133, 135 Hanhart, R. 134, 151, 157, 165, 236,
254, 256, 265, 274, 275, 281
Hanson, P. D. 27, 40, 100, 209
Haran, M. 109, 110, 115, 182, 227 Kline, M. G. 134, 137

Hartley, J. E. 198, 199, 202, 203 Kloos, C. J. L. 153
Hauspie, K. 295 Knibb, M. 51
Hayes, J. H. 140 Knierim, R. 244
Henderson, E. 137 Knight, D. A. 8, 211, 320, 321
Herion, G. A. 22 Koch, K. 28, 29, 140, 141, 211, 212,
Hiebert, T. 186 244, 246, 247
Hildebrand, D. R. 29 Köhler, A. 137, 138
Hillers, D. R. 16, 67 Kooij, A. van der 272, 293, 300
Holladay, W. L. 180 Kottsieper, I. 239
Hölscher, G. 198 Kratz, R. 325
Hoppe, L. 47 Kutsko, J. 52
Hossfeld, F.-L. 265
Houk, C. B. 111 Lacoque, A. 2, 6, 9, 12, 14, 21, 26, 28,
House, P. R. 146 30
Hurowitz, V. A. 41, 43 Lamarche, P. 291
Lange, A. 227
Irvine, S. A. 140 Larkin, K. J. A. 177
Iser, W. 252 Launderville, D. 110, 111
LeJeune, P. 85
James, F. 35 Lemaire, A. 10–12
Janowski, B. 244, 247 Levenson, J. D. 107, 195, 196
Jansma, T. 292, 295 Levey, S. H. 288
Janzen, J. G. 182 Levine, E. 273
Japhet, S. 11, 12, 205 Lind, W. A. 115
Jeppesen, K. 119, 120, 179 Lipschits, O. 25
Jeremias, C. 105, 135, 139, 151, 152, Lohfink, N. 6
158, 160, 161, 168, 192, 193, Longman, T. III 85
241, 260, 263–65 Love, M. C. 149, 150, 154, 162
Jeremias, J. 57, 240, 243 Lundquist, J. M. 196
Jones, D. R. 180 Lust, J. 295
Jouguet, P. 78 Lux, R. 253
Joyce, P. M. 53
Junker, H. 136, 137 M’Caul, A. 136
Mackay, C. 105, 109
Kalman, Y. 107, 110, 111, 118, 120–22, Marcos, N. F. 291, 300
125 Marenof, S. 242
Kaminka, A. 291, 292 Marti, K. 194
Kapelrud, A. S. 48 Mason, R. A. 3, 13, 22, 29, 45, 46, 48,
Keel, O. 111, 113, 114 54, 81, 132, 147, 166, 168, 186,
Keil, C. F. 135 210, 215, 216, 233, 312, 313, 316
Kessler, J. 3, 6–10, 13, 14, 21, 22, 26, May, H. G. 195
27, 29–32, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 49, Mays, J. L. 69, 246
50, 54, 59, 180, 182 McCarthy, C. 153
Kim, H. 177 McConville, J. G. 43
Kittel, R. 206 McKenzie, J. A. 118
Kliefoth, T. F. D. 135 Mein, A. 105
Mendenhall, G. E. 22
Merrill, E. H. 132 Page, H. R. 121
Mettinger, T. N. D. 53, 105, 112–14, Parunak, H. V. D. 111, 112
118, 121 Patterson, R. D. 186
Metzler, D. 130, 131 Paul, S. M. 65
Meyers, C. L. 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, 16–18, 21, Person, R. F. 226
24, 28, 29, 36, 40, 42, 46, 60, 61, Petersen, D. L. 2, 5, 6, 8, 13, 16–18, 29–
72, 88, 91, 96, 100, 103, 109, 31, 36, 46, 48, 52, 54, 60, 61,
114, 129, 132, 136, 142, 147, 105, 112, 114, 126, 144, 157,
151, 158, 161, 165–68, 174–76, 158, 165–69, 171, 174, 178, 196,
193, 196, 239, 241, 247, 260, 274 210, 217, 231, 274, 331
Meyers, E. M. 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, 16–18, 21, Petitjean, A. 9, 29, 32, 146, 158, 168,
24, 28, 29, 36, 40, 42, 46, 60, 61, 171
72, 88, 91, 96, 100, 103, 109, Pfeiffer, R. H. 34, 35
114, 129, 132, 136, 142, 147, Phinney, D. N. 88
151, 158, 161, 165–68, 174–76, Pola, T. 294
193, 196, 239, 241, 247, 260, 274 Polk, T. 102
Miller, J. E. 110, 122 Pope, M. H. 106, 107, 198, 199, 201,
Miller, P. D., Jr 107, 108 203
Mitchell, H. T. 132, 146, 151, 168, 194, Porter, S. E. 190
236, 247, 292 Porton, G. G. 289
Moore, R. D. 200 Powell, M. A. 252
Mowinkel, S. 212 Preuss, H. D. 253
Mullen, E. T., Jr 107, 108
Müller, M. 11 Rad, G. von 15, 27, 42, 49, 50, 191, 214
Muraoka, T. 293, 295 Redditt, P. L. 57, 59, 60, 62, 72, 78, 80,
Myers, J. M. 192, 205, 206 90, 109, 132
Reimer, D. J. 174, 175, 178, 179, 181
Neisser, U. 102 Renz, J. 252
Newsom, C. A. 107, 118, 120 Richards, K. H. 203
Nicholson, E. W. 25 Ridderbos, J. 135
Niditch, S. 220, 237 Rignell, L. G. 134, 135, 194
Nissinen, M. 9 Ringgren, H. 263
Nogalski, J. D. 42, 57, 63, 68, 74–77, Robert, P. de 14
325 Roberts, J. J. M. 27, 45, 51, 72, 186, 187
Noort, E. 106, 118, 121 Robinson, G. L. 137
Novotny, J. R. 181 Rooke, D. W. 12
Nurmela, R. 105, 138, 144, 153, 163, Rose, W. H. 31, 45, 59, 61
165–68, 175, 178, 179, 311 Rost, L. 108
Rothstein, J. W. 28
O’Connor, M. P. 110 Rudman, D. 168, 193, 196, 203, 204,
Oates, J. 267 239
Odell, M. S. 101, 102, 184, 185 Rudolph, W. 11, 21, 31, 180, 194, 292
Oecolampadius, I. 139 Russell, D. S. 196
Ollenburger, B. C. 252, 255, 256, 260
Olney, J. 84–86 Sacci, P. 12
Oppenheim, A. L. 116 Sailhammer, J. H. 205
Sals, U. 256, 257, 267, 269 Thompson, J. A. 205, 206

Sauer, G. 250 Thompson, T. L. 11
Schäfer, P. 289 Tidwell, N. L. A. 108
Schaper, J. 220, 298 Tiemeyer, L. S. 108, 115, 123, 127
Schart, A. 57, 63, 65 Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 146, 165
Schattner-Rieser, U. 17 Tollington, J. A. 3, 8, 16, 17, 31, 42, 51,
Schmid, K. 42–46, 142 59, 87, 92, 103, 105, 138, 151,
Schmidt, W. H. 63, 238–40, 249, 250 158, 165–69, 176, 179, 193, 194,
Schmitt, G. 236, 242 210, 218, 219, 265, 329, 331,
Schniedewind, W. M. 225, 227 333, 334
Schnocks. J. 106, 256, 264 Torrey, C. C. 87
Scholem, G. 289 Tov, E. 182, 272
Schöttler, H.-G. 255 Treitel, L. 292
Schultz, R. L. 144 Trotter, J. M. 40
Seitz, C. 38 Troyer, K. de 272
Sellin, E. 135, 264 Tucker, G. M. 63, 222
Selman, M. J. 206 Tuell, S. S. 48, 125, 191, 206
Sérandour, A. 8, 13 Tur-Sinai, N. 197
Seybold, K. 72, 132, 151, 253, 262, 263
Siegert, F. 293, 299 Uehlinger, C. 246, 253, 255, 256, 259,
Simondson, D. J. 67 260
Sisson, J. P. 47, 49 Unger, E. 267
Smelik, K. A. D. 180 Unger, M. F. 135
Smith, D. L. 51
Smith, J. M. P. 132, 146, 151, 168, 194, Van Hoonacker, A. 131
236, 292 Van Seters, J. 122, 125
Smith, M. S. 126 VanderKam, J. C. 275, 286, 287
Smith, R. L. 69, 70 Vanderhooft, D. S. 181, 187, 188
Smith, S. 84, 86, 102 Vaux, R. de 12
Smolar, L. 273, 280, 283 Velten, H. R. 84
Smyth-Florentin, F. 253, 262 Verheij, A. J. C. 200
Sommer, B. D. 36, 323, 324 Verhoef, P. A. 2, 21, 24, 26
Sperber, A. 257, 273, 279 Vermeylen, J. 189
Sperling, S. D. 38 Vollers, K. 291
Stead, M. R. 144, 145, 147 Vuillemeier, R. 2, 6, 9, 12, 14, 21, 26,
Steck, O. H. 8, 9, 15, 42–46, 50, 142, 28, 30
156, 157, 164, 220
Steiner, M. 25 Waldman, N. W. 116
Stekhoven, J. Z. S. 291 Watson, J. 84, 86, 102
Stinespring, W. F. 177 Watts, J. W. 182
Stordalen, T. 121, 125 Webb, B. G. 135, 142, 242
Strong, J. T. 53, 110, 115 Weinfeld, M. 20, 21, 27, 43
Sweeney, M. A. 90, 171–73, 187, 188, Weingreen, J. 317
271–74, 278 Weiser, A. 198, 201, 202
Weiss, M. 191, 197–99, 202
Tadmor, H. 14, 40, 48 Wellhausen, J. 134, 135, 265
Thiel, W. 237, 240 Wertheimer, S. A. J. 289
Wessels, W. 3 Woude, A. S. van der 135, 147

Westermann, C. 42, 47 Wright, C. H. H. 135
Wharton, J. A. 191, 197–99, 202 Wright, D. P. 195
Whedbee, J. W. 15 Würthwein, E. 236
Wiesehöfer, J. 130, 131
Wilch, J. R. 41 Yaron, R. 10
Wildberger, H. 188
Williams, A. J. 122 Ziegler, J. 292, 293
Williamson, H. G. M. 138, 178, 179, Zimmerli, W. 121, 238, 239, 263, 297
188, 189
Willoughby, B. E. 244, 245
Wilson, R. 120, 121, 125
Wöhrle, J. 253
Wolff, H. W. 2, 11, 13, 21, 36, 28, 36,
63–65, 243, 245

(the Library of Hebrew Bible_Old Testament Studies 475) Mark J. Boda, Michael H. Floyd - Tradition in Transition_ Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology-Bloomsbury T&amp;T Clark (20

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(the Library of Hebrew Bible_Old Testament Studies 475) Mark J. Boda, Michael H. Floyd - Tradition in Transition_ Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology-Bloomsbury T&amp;T Clark (20

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/

OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

Haggai and Zechariah 1-8

T & T Clark International, 80 Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038

T & T Clark International is a Continuum imprint.

Visit the T & T Clark blog at www.tandtclarkblog.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

TRADITION, CONTINUITY AND COVENANT

TIME AND TRADITION IN THE BOOK OF HAGGAI

THE KING IN HAGGAI–ZECHARIAH 1–8

LIFE WRITING IN EZEKIEL AND FIRST ZECHARIAH

ZECHARIAH’S SPIES AND EZEKIEL’S CHERUBIM

“THE WHOLE EARTH REMAINS AT PEACE” (ZECHARIAH 1:11):

SUSTAINED ALLUSION IN ZECHARIAH 1–2

HOY, HOY: THE PROPHETIC ORIGINS

ZECHARIAH AND THE SATAN TRADITION

TRACES OF TRADITION IN ZECHARIAH 1–8:

SIN AND ATONEMENT IN ZECHARIAH’S NIGHT VISIONS

AN EPHAH BETWEEN EARTH AND HEAVEN:

TARGUM JONATHAN’S READING OF ZECHARIAH 3:

THE GREEK TEXT OF ZECHARIAH:

FOOTPRINTS TO THE POST-EXILIC PROPHETS

HAGGAI–ZECHARIAH 1–8: SOME REFLECTIONS

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

LAI Library of Ancient Israel

TThSt Trierer theologische Studien

Willem A.M. Beuken, Div.D. (Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht, Netherlands),

Mark J. Boda, Ph.D. (Cambridge), Professor of Old Testament,

Holger Delkurt, Dr. theol. (Bonn), Postdoctoral Lecturing Qualification

Michael H. Floyd, Ph.D. (Claremont), Professor, El Centro de Estudios

John Kessler, Docteur de l’Université (Sorbonne-Paris IV), Professor of

Rex A. Mason, Ph.D. (London), Emeritus Fellow, Regent's Park College,

Frank Y. Patrick, Ph.D. (Duke), Birmingham, Alabama, USA

David L. Petersen, Ph.D. (Yale), Professor of Old Testament, Candler

D. Nathan Phinney, Ph.D. (Yale), Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies,

Thomas Pola, Dr. theol. (Tübingen), Professor of Old Testament, Faculty

Paul L. Redditt, Ph.D. (Vanderbilt), Professor of Old Testament,

Dominic Rudman, Ph.D. (St. Andrews), Eastleigh, Hants, United

Johannes Schnocks, Ph.D. (Bonn), Assistant Professor, Department of

Michael R. Stead, Ph.D. (Gloucestershire), Rector, St James Anglican

Marvin A. Sweeney, Ph.D. (Claremont), Professor of Hebrew Bible,

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, D.Phil (Oxford), Lecturer in Hebrew Bible,

Janet E. Tollington, D.Phil. (Oxford), Director of Old Testament Studies,

Al Wolters, Ph.D. (Free University, Amsterdam), Professor of Religion

The theme of prophecy and tradition has long been a preoccupation of

of the decline of prophecy, as it generally viewed Second Temple Juda-

1. Peter R. Ackroyd, “Continuity and Discontinuity: Rehabilitation and

various competing claims to authentic continuity which may be advanced

shorter studies,8 have devoted signiﬁcant attention to the various tradi-

The perspective evidenced in Zech 1–8 clearly identiﬁes these events

people repent (bw#) and acknowledge that Yahweh’s judgments have

begins with an explicit invitation to the community to differentiate and

to have occurred shortly thereafter.27 Thus, I believe it to be legitimate to

crisis of the Early Persian Yehudite community. Second, while it would

continuity features at a variety of levels. As Floyd notes, unlike many

33. Floyd, “The Nature of the Narrative,” 476.

periods. Like the majority of prophetic texts, Haggai is at work in a

intrusive here,47 v. 2 fulﬁlls two highly important functions. It introduces

47. Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, 30; Wolff, Haggai, 32–33.

and political background implied, we would simply assume the same

signiﬁcant element in temple reconstruction.55 Reading such a sentiment

65. Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, 190–91; Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah

70. To be sure, in the present canonical conﬁguration the authorization for

labors as an activity glorifying to him. 74 The signiﬁcance of this state-

(the Library of Hebrew Bible_Old Testament Studies 475) Mark J. Boda, Michael H. Floyd - Tradition in Transition_ Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology-Bloomsbury T&T Clark (20

(the Library of Hebrew Bible_Old Testament Studies 475) Mark J. Boda, Michael H. Floyd - Tradition in Transition_ Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology-Bloomsbury T&T Clark (20