Part 59
tion', and 'Contra Creation, Covenant and Conquest (Jer. viii 13)', VT 30 (1980), 104-9, 280-90.
36. Haggai D. L. PETERSEN
A. Historical Background. 1. Haggai is one ofthe shortest of the prophetic books. Still, these thirty-seven verses offer a significant vantage point from which to observe a nodal moment in Israelite history, the creation ofthe Second Temple community out of which Judaism emerged. The book's chronological markers (1:1; 2:1; 2:10) fix the literature to one year, 520 BCE, and to the issues of restoration for those in Persian-period Judah (also known as Yehud).
sented a problem, namely, security at the empire's perimeter. All the dates in the book of Haggai refer to 520 BCE, a year during which Darius was making plans for a campaign against Egypt (Meyers and Meyers 1987; Berquist 1995). It was in the Persians' interest to have a secure and stable Judah. Having the local populace focused on the rebuilding of their temple, supported in part by the Persians, would have placated some of their dismay at imperial overlords. The Persians needed food for their armies, and it is probably no accident that Haggai refers more than once to food supplies. Hence, one should understand the rebuilding ofthe Jerusalem temple as consistent with and supported by Persian imperial policy. As governor, Zerubbabel was, after all, a Persian official.
2. Many propheticbooks begin with references to Israelite or Judahite kings during whose reign the prophet was active (e.g. Isa 1:1; Jer 1:3; Hos 1:1; Am 1:1). Haggai could not commence with such references since there was no longer a king in I srael.
Still, the author/editor of this book decided to situate the literature with reference to a king's reign. The natural candidate was Darius, the Persian emperor, who reigned from 522 to486scE.
B. Date and Place of Composition. Although the book of Haggai refers explicitly to Persian chronology, it was almost certainly written in Judah. Haggai himself may well have been among those Yahwists who remained in the land during the Babylonian Exile. Since the book includes chronological formulae, all of which refer to the year 520 BCE, it is difficult to imagine that the book was written much later than this pivotal moment. Given the special prominence of the temple for Haggai, one would have expected him to refer to its completion, which took place in 515 BCE. Since the book does not refer to this event, itwas probably written between 520 and 515 BCE.
3. The Persian empire was vast, reaching from the Mediterranean sea to territory far beyond the eastern borders ofthe classical Mesopotamian civilizations (Assyria and Babyloniaa)aaa. The empire was divided into larger and smaller administrative areas, called satrapies and districts. Whether the territory known as Judah was a province separate from a larger district,
Samaria, during the time of Haggai is disputed. That dispute affects our understanding ofthe title 'governor of/for Judah', which is applied to Zerubbabel (Hag 1:1 etpassim). The phrase could in theory refer to either a temporary assignment or a more permanent office.
C. The Literature and its Formation. 1. Haggai is an odd book, difficult to characterize. If one consults the NRSV, one finds a text translated entirely as prose. Were such the case, Haggai and Malachi would be the only prophetic books to include no poetry (at least according to NRSV). By contrast, the editors of the MT deem 1:4—11; 2:3—9, J4> an(^ portions of w. 22—3 as poetry, a judgement also followed in part by NAB. Although the boundary between poetry and prose in classical Hebrew is notably difficult to discern, it is reasonable to follow those who have identified some poetry in the book, notably, many of those verses in which Haggai or others are speaking (cf Christensen 1993).
4. Darius was not the first Persian king to affect the fate of those who venerated YHWH. Cyrus, whom the exilic Isaiah viewed as a messiah (Isa 45:1), had issued an edict that enabled the restoration of communities destroyed and displaced by the Babylonians (Kuhrt 1983). During his reign, some Yahwists had apparently returned from exile to Judah and attempted to rebuild the temple. But the efforts associated with their leader Sheshbazzar in £.538 BCE came to nought (Ezra 1:8; 5:14—16).
5. Things changed with Darius. Soon after he acceded to the throne there were rebellions throughout the empire. Though he was able to quell most of them readily, such activity repre-
HAGGAI 608
authorities (cf. Ezra 2:2). Zerubbabel held the political title of governor, while Joshua bore the religious title, high priest. They symbolize a new governance structure in Israel. Both offices were new ones. Zerubbabel may have been a member of the Davidic house, though this matter is the subject of scholarly debate (see Berquist 1995). He was governor of or for Judah, which means he was a Persian official. Both Joshua the high priest and Zerubbabel are mentioned by Haggai's contemporary, Zechariah (Zech 3:1-10; 4:6-7). Joshua's grandfather was chief (but not 'high') priest just before the defeat of Jerusalem in 587 BCE (2 Kings 25:18—21). Zerubbabel and Joshua are harbingers of a religious and political pattern attested also in the later Persian period, one in which major leadership and power are exercised by those who had been in, or could trace their roots to, the Exile. The genealogies provided for both these individuals enable them to affirm this exilic heritage.
2. The book initially appears to be a collection of oracles, e.g. 1:7—11 or 2:21—3, mat have been integrated by complex dating formulae, e.g. 1:1; 2:10. But there is also material very much like a chronicle, i.e. 1:12-14. It is possible to view the entire book as a brief historical account (Petersen 1984). This account memorializes the building of the temple and emphasizes the importance of Haggai, along with Zerubbabel and Joshua, in accomplishing this task.
3. Scholars have offered various theories about the composition of the book. Beuken (1967) thinks the oracles were edited by someone such as the Chronicler. Mason (1977) pursues a similar argument, though without equating the redactor with the Chronicler. Wolff (1988) discerns three stages of growth: the prophetic speeches, sketches of scenes (e.g. 1:12/7—13), and the word occurrence formulae (e.g. 2:10). Meyers and Meyers
(1987) and Tollington (1993) think similar hands were responsible for both Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, whereas Bauer (1992) and Pierce (19840, 1984/7) see Haggai and Zechariah i—8, together with Malachi, as forming a compositional group. Although there is no scholarly consensus, most discerna rather complicated process of literary formation, according to which Haggai's own words have been preserved and edited by others.
Although it begins with the formulaic 'thus says the LORD of Hosts', thereby suggesting that a divine speech will follow, the text itself provides a report about what people are saying, questions based on such talk, and admonitions. Everything focuses on 'the LORD'S house', the temple in Jerusalem. For whatever reason, the populace has demurred at rebuilding Yahwism's central shrine. Worship was taking place, so they may have found the status quo acceptable. Haggai's question (v. 4) implies, though does not state explicitly, that the people have worried about their own houses, and not YHWH's house. This indictment is made specific in v. 9. The imperative admonition, 'Consider how you have fared' might be translated literally, 'Set your heart upon your ways', a phrase repeated in v. 7. Haggai challenges the people to reflect about their material existence, which must have been meagre (v. 6). The language is that of a fulfilled futility curse (cf. Deut 28:38; Hos 4:10; Petersen 1984). v. 8 challenges the people to rebuild the temple. But immediately thereafter the prophet resumes his analysis of the current plight. The people now learn that their difficulties are not due to simple crop failure but to YHWH's punitive action, namely, a drought. (In the ancient Near-Eastern flood story, the angry deity calls for a drought before summoning the deluge.)
D. Religious and Theological Issues. 1. To speak of Haggai is to speak of the temple and its manifold significance (cf Clines 1993). To read the Hebrew phrase, 'YHWH's house', and to contemplate a time without such a house presents the problem with which this book is concerned. How is YHWH to be present with the people if the deity's residence is in ruins? To be sure, God could not be encapsulated by the temple, but without that earlier and powerful religious symbol, Israel's notions of both the immanence and transcendence of the deity stood in crisis. Further, Haggai reveals that there was a debate about whether 520 BCE was the time for such a crisis to be resolved, so Hag 1:2 (see Bedford 1995).
2. Haggai refers at numerous points to the weal that will ensue when the temple is rebuilt. Such promises encourage the leaders and the populace to undertake the task of rebuilding the temple. According to this prophetic historical account, Haggai was successful; the temple was rededicated during his period of prophetic activity. One can only surmise about the reaction of the people to the various promises uttered by the prophet (2:6-7,19> 2I-2)- Still, both the exilic Isaiah (Isa 4055) and Haggai offered exuberant rhetoric on behalf of the return and reconstruction of Judah; and both prophets' words remain in the canon even though Jerusalem's gates were not made of jewels and her walls of precious stones (Isa 54:12).
(1:12—150) They Worked on the House of the Lord This prose section chronicles the impact of Haggai upon those who heard him. That group is, however, larger than his initial audience. Along with Zerubbabel and Joshua, the text refers to 'all the remnant of the people' (w. 12, 14; 2:2). The word 'remnant' requires comment. By implication, the author claims that not everyone in Judah participated in the work of temple rebuilding. But who did? Based on texts such as Zech 6:9 and Ezra 2:1, both of which highlight the special role exercised by those who had been in Babylon, one may theorize that the remnant refers to those who had only recently returned to Jerusalem (cf. Wolff 1988). Such an inference is consistent with Ezra 3:8, 'and all who had come to Jerusalem from the captivity', and the more general prominence of 'the congregation of the exiles' (Ezra 10:8) or 'returned exiles' (Ezra 8:35). The chronicle is stylized using traditional religious vocabulary: 'the people feared the LORD' (v. 12), 'the LORD stirred up the spirit of...' (v. 14). The date formula in v. 150 has vexed scholars. Such formulae in Haggai normally
E. Outline Build the House (1:1—11) They Worked on the House of the Lord (i:i2-i$a) Take Courage (i:i$b-2:g) Holy—Unclean (2:10—14) A Stone in the Lord's Temple (2:15—ig) Zerubbabel, my Servant (2:20-3)
(1:1—n) Build the House Haggai addresses two individuals, both of whom were Yahwists sent to Judah by the Persian
6og HAGGAI
make a garment holy, i.e. is holiness contagious in this case? The priests negative answer is appropriate, given what we know about Israelite ritual. However, the second case is different, v. 13 broaches corpse uncleanness, cf. Num 19:13. Here the uncleanness is more powerful than the aforementioned holiness. Haggai uses this dialogue with the priests to make a point. The people are now worshipping at the temple site. However, it had been profaned and hence is unclean. Without the purification of that holy place, all that the people of Judah now offer is, from Haggai's perspective, unclean (cf. Linger 1991). Rebuilding the temple would solve the problem, since the rebuilding of a holy site involves rituals of purification (see HAG 2:15-19). (This text does not condemn Samaritans or any other particular group for their participation in the work of temple construction, e.g. Rothstein 1908; Wolff 1988.) (2:15-19) A Stone in the Lord's Temple If the book of Haggai has a climax, it occurs in this section. These verses attest building activity of a special form, the laying of a foundation stone (w. 15,18; see Petersen 1974). Texts from other ancient Near-Eastern cultures describe a ritual (kalu), which was used for the rededication of destroyed sanctuaries. At one point in the ritual—'this day' (w. 15, 18)—a foundation stone or deposit was placed in the building being purified or rededicated (cf. Zech 4:9; Ezra 3:10—11). Haggai takes this ritual moment as an occasion to ask more questions (w. 16, 19). The first question, 'how did you fare?', refers back to the discourse in the first section (w. i—n). But Haggai again reminds the people (though they are not so identified) of the specific agricultural problems that they have encountered (v. 16) and that YHWH caused these misfortunes (v. 17). Their cursed existence is destined to change after 'this day'. The second question (actually two questions) alludes to the day when there will be seed in the barn and the various vines and trees will yield abundantly. A time of blessing rather than curse will ensue due to the rebuilding and rededication of the second temple. (2:20-3) Zerubbabel, my Servant The twenty-fourth day of the sixth month in 520 BCE was doubly important, as this second oracle from that day signifies. Whereas earlier oracles had been delivered to both Zerubbabel and Joshua, this one is addressed only to Zerubbabel. The oracle begins with language very similar to that in 2:6-7. However, the consequences of the 'shaking' of the nations are now made more concrete. The nations are to be destroyed, v. 22 picks up the traditional imagery of YHWH's holy war, in which the enemy self-destructs ('every one by the sword of a comrade'). Just as the shaking of the nations in 2:6-7 had an impact on Judah— the provision of material wealth—so too the shaking in v. 22 has an effect: the creation of a power vacuum that will allow for a political leader to arise in Israel, v. 23 commences with the enigmatic 'on that day', a phrase that elsewhere in late prophetic literature refers to what YHWH will do at an eschatological moment, cf. Zech 14. However, in Haggai, with all its references to specific days, this phrase bears special import. It cannot be too far off. Moreover, unlike all the previous days in Haggai, this one will not be a day of Darius; it will be YHWH's day.
occur at the beginning of a section in the book. Hence some have suggested that v. 150 be relocated to precede 2:15—19, which is prefixed by no such formula (so initially Rothstein 1908). However, one may read the formula in its canonical position with benefit. The formula at this place indicates that some time elapses between the utterance of Haggai's words and the actual work on temple reconstruction. The people do respond, but it takes time, a little over three weeks. This is no Utopia in which the prophet's words are immediately efficacious. Still, Haggai ranks as a 'successful' prophet, since his words inspire the people to rebuild the temple. (1:15^-2:9) Take Courage Almost a month passes before Haggai's next utterance. His public is the same as that in the previous chronicle: Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the remnant. Moreover, he uses interrogative rhetoric as he did earlier (1:4, 9). 2:3 presents questions that surely explore the sensibilities of those who were in a position to compare the emerging Second Temple with the Solomonic Temple. The new structure must have seemed a pale copy. Ezra 3:12 notes that reaction was mixed to the dedication of this rebuilt temple; some shouted for joy while others 'wept with a loud voice'. Haggai is addressing the latter audience and their apparent concerns about the glory (kabod) of the temple, i Kings 6—7 make clear that the 'glory' refers to the ritual ornamentation of the temple. After offering general admonitory language 'take courage' (v. 4), Haggai avers that YHWH is with Israel even now, before the temple has been completed: T am with you... My spirit abides among you'. Allusion to the Exodus tradition is apt (v. 5), since that too was a time when YHWH was with Israel, but not with benefit of a temple.
w. 6—7 strike a new note, YHWH's forthcoming action on behalf of the temple. The scale is cosmic, as the diction of heavens and earth, sea and dry land suggest. However, the shaking of the nations will prove pivotal, since it is from them that riches to endow the temple will come. (The word kabod, variously translated as 'glory' and 'splendour', occurs in w. 3, 7, 8.) Haggai defines such splendour through the symbolism of various metals, though the silver and gold are ambiguous. They might signify the use of these metals in the decoration of the temple (cf. i Kings 6). They might refer to ritual objects made from these metals (e.g. Ezra 1:6-11; Zech 6:9-11). Or they might signify the wealth of the temple treasury (cf. Ezra 2:6 8—9). Whatever the case, Haggai promises greater glory for the second temple than there was in the Solomonic version. As if to modify the language of precious metals, Haggai concludes by proclaiming that salom, the Hebrew word translated by 'prosperity', will be present in this place, presumably the temple.
(2:10—14) Holy—Unclean A little over two months passes before Haggai speaks again as prophet. Now the audience is limited to the priests. Haggai makes use of questions again, and of a sort that requires special knowledge about Israel's ritual norms. Haggai asks for a priestly ruling (tora). Offering such rulings was one of the basic tasks of priests, cf. Deut 33:10; Lev 10:10-11. However, Haggai's questions are odd. He asks whether something is holy (v. 12) and then whether something is unclean (v. 13). One normally thinks about holy v. profane, and clean v. unclean. In any case, the first question (v. 12) involves the power of the holy. Does holy food
Zerubbabel, as an apparent member of the Davidic line, is heir to promises of a lineage that many Israelites believed
ZECHARIAH 610
would last forever. The book closes with language redolent of Israel's monarchic traditions. Kings could be called 'servant' (see 2 Sam 6:5; Ps 132:10), the 'signet ring' could refer to the special status of the king (see Jer 22:24; Ezek 28:12), and the verb 'take' (b-h-r) was used earlier to describe YHWH's choosing ofboth David (Ps 78:70) and David's city (Isa 14:1). In sum, Haggai appears to propound a special role for the house of David. He does not call outright for the coronation of Zerubbabel, since such an act might have antagonized the Persians as well as Judah's neighbours. Still, Haggai envisions a Judahite polity quite different from the Persian status quo.
(eds.), Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose, AOAT 43 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker), 17—30. Clines, D. (1993), 'Haggai's Temple, Constructed, Deconstructed, and
Reconstructed', SJOTj: 51-77. Kuhrt, A. (1983), 'The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial
Policy', 750725:83-97. Mason, R. (1977), 'The Purpose of the "Editorial Framework" of the
Book of Haggai', VT27: 413—21. Meyers, C, and Meyers, E. (1987), Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, AB 256
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday). Petersen, D. (1974), 'Zerubbabel and Jerusalem Temple Reconstruc-
tion', 05(336:366-72.
(1984), Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster). Pierce, R. (198412), 'Literary Connectors and a Haggai/Zechariah/
Malachi Corpus', JETS 27: 277-89.
Bauer, L. (1992), Zeit des Zweiten Tempels: Zur sozio-okonomischen
(1984!?), 'A Thematic Development of the Haggai/Zechariah/ Malachi Corpus', JETS 27: 401—11. Rothstein, J. (1908), Juden und Samaritaner: Die grundlegende Schei-
Konzeption im Haggai-Sacharja-Maleachi-Korpus, BEATAJ 31 (Berlin: Peter Lang). Bedford, P. (1995), 'Discerning the Time: Haggai, Zechariah and the
dung von Judentum und Heidentum: Eine kritische Studie zum Buche Haggai und zur jiidischen Geschichte im ersten nachexilischen Jahrhundert. BWAT, 8 (Leipzig: Hinrichs). Tollington, J. (1993), Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah
"Delay" in the Rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple', The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gosta W. Ahlstrom, JSOTSup 190 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), 71—94. Berquist, J. (1995), Judaism in Persia's Shadow: A Social and Historical
1-8, JSOTSup 150 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Linger, T (1991), 'Noch einmal: Haggais unreines Volk', ZAW 103:
Approach (Minneapolis: Fortress). Beuken, W. (1967), Haggai-Sacharja 1—8: Studien zur Ueberlieferungs-
210-25. Wolff, H. (1988), Haggai: A Commentary, trans. M. Kohl (Minneapolis:
geschichte derfruhexilischen Prophetic, SSN 10 (Assen: Van Gorcum). Christensen, D. (1993), 'Poetry and Prose in the Composition and
Augsburg).
Performance of the Book of Haggai', in J. de Moor and W. Watson
37. Zechariah KATRINA J. A. LARKIN
relate to history, and that the messenger formula 'Thus says the LORD' introducing first-person speech from YHWH is hardly used. Much is in the third person, and the whole of ch. 14 is an extended descriptive piece. The forms of classical prophecy are breaking down. The interest in Jerusalem and the leadership is maintained, but there are no references to the temple building programme, and the hopes of the immediate restoration period appear to have been soured; there are tensions within the community, and hope is deferred until the final day of the Lord, which must be preceded by further suffering. No dates are given, and a great range of historical contexts has been suggested, from the seventh century (chs. 9—11 only, Otzen 1964) to the third century, after the conquests of Alexander the Great ('Alexander III', OBC). The latter view, put forward by Stade (1881-2), is probably now the majority view. Certainly nothing predates 450 BCE. For a full study of the continuities and discontinuities between the two halves of Zechariah see Mason (1976).
A. Text and Language. The oldest complete MS is a secondcentury leather scroll of the Minor Prophets from Wadi Murabba'at in the the Judean desert (DJD 2). Fragments of seven older Hebrew M S S of the Minor Prophets were found at Qumran in cave 4, but only three are sufficiently well preserved to offer meaningful comparison with the Masoretic Text (OCB s.v), and no significant variants emerge. A Greek translation ('Translations, Ancient Languages', OCB) of the second century CE found at Nahal Hever confirms the above picture. However, Zechariah is a cryptic book, and the fact that the MS tradition is reliable and textual problems are few does not mean that it is always easy to translate.
B. The Two Main Parts. William Newcombe in 1785 first noted that the second half of Zechariah (chs. 9—14) differs from the first in authorship, date, and circumstances. Proto-Zechariah comprises an anthology of visionary material in 1:7-6:15, surrounded by an editorial frame in 1:1—6 and chs. 7—8 containing oracles and preached material. The whole concerns the restoration of Jerusalem and its temple after the Exile, and is dated over a brief period, 520-518 BCE, though the editorial additions may not have been completed until 450 BCE. Zech 9—14 opens with a secondary heading in 9:1 and is subdivided by another at 12:1. The same occurs at Mai 1:1. This may indicate that three small booklets were appended to ProtoZechariah at different dates. In literary genre Zech 9—14 looks at first sight more akin to classical prophecy than to ProtoZechariah, but closer inspection reveals that it is very hard to
C. The Social and Religious Context. Proto-Zechariah can fairly be called a 'theocratic' or establishment work because of its institutional subject-matter and occasionally its tone, particularly in the oracular additions to the visionary material. It has sometimes been accused (e.g. by Hanson 1979) of complacently assuming that the promises made in classical prophecy were completely fulfilled in the restoration of Jerusalem in the sixth century, leaving nothing further to be hoped for. In contrast Zech 9-14, which contains controversy material criticizing the leadership, has been characterized as anti-
6n ZECHARIAH
F. The Religious Teaching. Zechariah develops a theology that is eschatological and ultimately hopeful. Proto-Zechariah's picture of the restored Jerusalem, its temple and leadership, feeds into the later concept of the New Jerusalem, and chs. 1214 contribute to the developed picture of the final day of the Lord. Zechariah contains important material on the subject of the Messiah (OCB). A number of passages which may refer to such a person or role are found in both parts. The historicalcritical tendency to limit the reference of such passages to specific historical settings has recently been challenged (Duguid 1995). Zechariah offers a number of different pictures of leadership and of the relationship between the leader and the led, so that their relationship to Christian doctrine is not straightforward. However, ideal leadership is shown as intimately related to the problem of how to break the hold of sin and be free from the endless repetition of a sin, punishment, repentance, restoration cycle. The problem is not, however, fully resolved within the OT
establishment and dissatisfied with the restoration (Hanson 1979; Ploger 1968); it is more eschatological in outlook ('Eschatology', OCB). However, if the two halves really had such opposing interests it would be odd that the work is as unified as it is. Rather they are complementary: ProtoZechariah knows his own time is the 'day of small things' and his work does have an eschatological dimension. Zech 9-14 stems from a later time in which the community required to be challenged rather than consoled, and much of chs. 12—14 in fact has a liturgical background; according to Ploger (1968) in ch. 12 the establishment criticizes itself. One plausible explanation for the ambivalence of DeuteroZechariah is that it was written and edited over an extended period of perhaps two centuries (450—250?) by and for the kind of traditionists who would later emerge into the light of history as the community at Qumran: separatists who criticized mainstream Judaism for its perceived loss of purity and its political compromises.
D. Relation to Apocalyptic. Some scholars regard the visions of Proto-Zechariah as proto-apocalyptic because their literary form is similar to that of the later apocalypses such as the second half of Daniel ('Apocalyptic Literature', OCB): they are clearly revelatory literature ('Revelation', OCB). A contrary school of thought says that Proto-Zechariah does not have the dramatic and calamitous eschatological content normally associated with apocalyptic. Rather, 9-14 has the better claim to be proto-apocalyptic because it does have this type of content, especially in ch. 14. The background of controversy detectable in 9—14 is the seedbed of this type of thinking on the part of disadvantaged groups in a situation of political crisis. Clearly in this debate the framing and handling of definitions is very important. Each school of thought has perhaps detected one of the origins of apocalyptic (North 1972), but it has many origins. A third origin, studied more recently (Larkin 1994; Tigchelaar 1996), is in the learned, interpretative tradition which underlies both halves of Zechariah. There are numerous allusions to older parts of the prophetic tradition, particularly Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah, and some allusions to the Pentateuch and Psalms; familiarity is also shown with Ugaritic literature ('Ugarit', OCB).
G. Outline The Restoration of Jerusalem (1:1—8:23)
Preface (1:1—6) The Vision Cycle (1:7-6:15) Oracles and Sermons (chs. 7-8) Hope Amid Conflict and Sin (9:1—14:21)
Foreign Nations Oracles (9:1—8) The Hopes of Judah and Israel (9:9-10:12) The Shepherd Allegory (ch. n) Judah and Jerusalem on the Day of the Lord (chs. 12—13) The Cosmic Day of the Lord (ch. 14)
The Restoration of Jerusalem (1:1-8:23)
(1:1-6) Preface With chs. 7-8 this forms an editorial frame (Beuken 1967). Darius the Persian has allowed the Jews to return home from exile. The date is mid-October to midNovember 520 BCE. In recent history the covenant curses have justly been invoked, the land is unclean, the glory departed, and the community still partially disbanded. The fathers of the present generation and the prophets who admonished them are all dead, but their words and their experience stand as a lesson for all time. Zechariah is concerned with full restoration: his very name means 'YHWH has remembered', which is foundational to the book. On the human side, returning and repenting (the Hebrew is the same) are equally basic. Zechariah is a contemporary of Haggai and comes of a priestly line that had been exiled. There are two other Zechariahs in the OT (Isa 8:2 and 2 Chr 24:20—2) and biblical tradition sometimes confuses them; 'son of Berechiah' may be part of this confusion. His oracles often reinterpret the 'former prophets' (v. 4); he may have had access to the early collections of prophecies from Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
E. The Relation to Older Prophecy. Zechariah affirms the validity of the words of the 'former prophets' (1:6), either explicitly or implicitly throughout, but particularly in the non-visionary material. A new exegetical principle can be seen to have emerged: that all prophecy should be read as a unity, and that it holds the key to understanding any political situation. For a study of the new character of prophecy in Proto-Zechariah and Haggai see Tollington (1993); for Zech 9-14 see Larkin (1994). The ultimate outcome of these changes can be seen in the Qumran commentaries or pesharim (see under 'Interpretation', OCB) which treat all Scripture as cryptic and its interpretation as requiring a special gift of insight. The motif of the 'eye' which is the ancient symbol of the interpreter and seer (e.g. Num 24:3—4) now occurs 16 times throughout Zechariah (it is not always apparent in translation, either because it is not idiomatic in English, e.g. at 2:1, or because the text is corrupt, e.g. 5:6; but see 4:10; 9:8; 11:17; I2:4)> and this is a further sign of the text's editorial unity.
(1:7—6:15) The Vision Cycle Zechariah's eight night visions (perhaps originally seven) are his primary and most distinctive feature. They exist betwixt and between the mundane world and the heavenly world where history is made and where Jerusalem's restoration is being ordained. The visionary form is highly literary and has a standardized format; the
ZECHARIAH 612
mon (OCB s.v.) founded the first. The two leaders are both 'anointed ones' (v. 14; lit. sons of oil, vocabulary from the same root as 'messiah'; see 'Anoint', OCB). Although there is realized eschatology here, the people and events of the restoration are not mistaken for those of the golden age; Zerubbabel's is the 'day of small things' (v. 10) and he is utterly reliant on the work of the Lord's spirit. The Lord's favour is still contingent on the fitness of his people (v. 7) and therefore the fullness of blessing is still deferred.
cycle is structured in a concentric pattern (though Butterworth (1992) argues for caution in looking for, and finding, detailed literary structures). In contrast to his predecessors the prophet has an angelic interpreter as intermediary between himself and God, whose communications have become cryptic. Much of the imagery has cultic roots, drawn particularly from the liturgies of temple foundation ('Temple', OCB) and with a general background in Ugaritic (OCB) texts. The vision cycle is now studded with brief oracles, in more than one redactional layer, preoccupied with leadership and temple. These, like the editorial frame, could be summaries of relevant sermons by the prophet and reuse themes from older prophecy (Mason 1990). The cycle is dated mid-January to mid-February 519 (v. 7).
(5:1—4) The sixth vision of the flying scroll, shows the word of the Lord in materialized form, i.e. 'scripture' beginning to emerge as a concept, a gold standard by which to assess and cleanse the community. The invocation of the covenant curse shows that the covenant does remain in force despite having once been broken.
(1:8—17) In me nrst vision the earth is peaceful and expectant. The four patrolling horsemen ('Number Symbolism', OCB) are the first of numerous symbols (OCB s.v.) from Zechariah which would be reused in Revelation. The seventy years of the Lord's withholding mercy (cf Jer 25:11) are over (the Exile is loosely held to have lasted from 587 to 519 BCE); he has returned and the temple is to be rebuilt. (1:18-21) The second vision bizarrely symbolizes both the powerful nations that have terrorized the chosen people, and the counterforces (blacksmiths) raised by YHWH; blacksmiths are supposed to be skilful in spells (Tigchelaar 1996). (2:1-5) Th£ third vision shows the restoration of Jerusalem in the cosmic realm which must precede mundane restoration
(5:5—11) The seventh vision is of a woman in a basket (Heb. 'epa,) personifying the people's iniquity (Heb. 'eye'; the emendation only requires the alteration of one consonant for another which looks similar). It is no coincidence that a feminine idol (OCB s.v.) (to be stood 'on its base' in a 'house', i.e. a temple), should be symbolically exiled to Babylon (OCB s.v.) just as Judaism truly became a YHWH-alone religion, abjuring feminine deities such as the Queen of Heaven, about whom Jeremiah complained (see 'Women, Second Temple Period', OCB). (6:1-8) The eighth vision forms an indusio with the first; it specifies the pacifying of the north country because that is the direction from which the majority of attacks on Israel were made (cf. Jer 1:14).
(cf. Ezek 40:3—4; Isa 49:19—21); it points forward to the New Jerusalem of Rev 21:15—17. The formerly negative image of a city without walls becomes a positive one, and the symbolism of Sinai (the fire, cloud, and direct vision of God) is added to that of Zion (see 'Glory', OCB). The appended oracles (w. 6— 13) are still encouraging a return to Jerusalem after Zechariah and his community were already there; possibly not everyone had returned, and possibly the oracles have an eschatological dimension. For 'apple of the eye' (v. 8) see OCB. With v. 10 cf. Zech 9:9—10. v. 13 is thought to be liturgical.
(6:9—15) To the visions is appended a sign-act of the crowning of a 'messianic' leader or leaders, which concludes the whole cycle. The text has been altered at the cost of some ambiguity. Originally, a blatant presentation of Zerubbabel as the promised leader probably occurred here (esp. w. 12—13); but if so his name has been removed, possibly to square the record with the facts of history; only that of Joshua remains, though confusingly a second priest stands beside his throne, and he is the wearer of two crowns. This is one of the roots of the concept of a priestly Messiah and of joint messiahship. On 'peace' (v. 13) see OCB. (Chs. 7-8) Oracles and Sermons The epilogic editorial frame returns to the mixture of oracles and condensed sermons seen in the prologue (the sermon forms of Chronicles are comparable). It has grown from an enquiry to the prophet about fasting (OCB s.v.) (7:2-3). The date is mid-November to midDecember 518 BCE (7:1) and the temple is presumably complete. The question arises whether the fast of the fifth month commemorating the destruction of the first temple is still necessary. There are two views as to the meaning of the answer (7:4—7; amplified in 7:8—14), which is negative and sweeps in the fast of the seventh month also (v. 5): it could be anti-cult, but that would be alien to the spirit of ProtoZechariah; more likely it means that in the ideal world which the prophet envisages, fasting, like punishment, should no longer be necessary. For 'the alien' and 'the poor' see OCB. Zech 8:1-8 returns to the renewal theme of earlier oracles in the vision cycle (cf. 1:14,16); likewise 8:9-13 returns to temple building (cf. Hag 2:15—19). 8:14—17 emphasizes the need for
(3:1—10) The fourth vision shows the high priest Joshua accused by Satan (lit. the Satan, or the Adversary, i.e. the prosecuting counsel in the heavenly court) but acquitted (for a contrasting confrontation see Am 7:10—17). His subsequent cleansing ('Purity, Ritual', OCB) signifies the renewal of the temple services which make provision for the cleansing of the community. The high priest has expanded powers and duties in the functioning of a temple without a king, and these are sanctioned in the appended oracles (w. 6—10). Arguably v. 8 is a messianic reference ('my servant the Branch'), and does not merely refer to the Davidic governor of the time. Although the complete 'removal of guilt' is also promised
(v. 9), the mechanism is unclear and the matter is actually left unresolved by Proto-Zechariah and returned to in an atmosphere of some bitterness in Zech 12; meantime, it appears that priests and sacrifices will still be needed.
(4:1—14) The fifth vision, of the golden lamp and the olive-tree people, uses seal imagery to symbolize joint leaders who can be identified from the context as Joshua and the Davidic governor Zerubbabel (OCB s.v). The primary function of the latter (w. 6—ioa) is to build the second temple, just as Solo-
613 ZECHARIAH
The next picture is that of God as a warrior (9:11—17), who will bring ultimate victory to his oppressed people against the Greeks (an indication of date). The imagery is reminiscent of the enthronement psalms. 10:1-2 is a link passage containing controversy material (in common with 11:1—3; II:I7J T5'-7~9> and the whole of ch. n). It is critical of the community's leaders (symbolized as shepherds) whose guidance is false
right living. In 8:18-19 the fasting theme resurfaces and now two more fasts are added (those of the fourth and tenth months) with exhortations to rejoice reinforcing the view that the prophet is speaking idealistically and positively. The booklet closes with a picture of universal pilgrimage to Jerusalem (8:20—3), forming an indusio with 7:2 and indeed the more universalistic 2:11 and 14:16. This is one indication that it is legitimate to read Proto-Zechariah, as edited, in the light of the more developed eschatology of chs. 9-14. 'Ten men' (v. 23) is the number required to form a synagogue; for 'Jew' see OCB.
('Dreams', OCB); such tensions would surface later in the formation of the Qumran community. The passage shows Deuteronomic influence, in common with the passage of Scripture it harks back to (Jer 14:14). Polemic against the 'bad shepherds', continuing a tradition found in Jer 23 and Ezek 34, persists into the first verse of the next unit, 10:1-3. It denies their ultimate authority and affirms the Lord's control of history, and care for Judah and Ephraim. Ephraim (named after one of the two sons of Joseph) was the principal tribe of the old northern kingdom of Israel (OCB s.v). The principal promise made to him in Jacob's blessing (Gen 49:22) was that of fruitfulness, but for that to remain valid the principal need of Ephraim was to be restored to existence after their dispersion by the Assyrians in the eighth century. Such restoration is here promised. It has been called the most conspicuous example of false prophecy in the OT; but the references to the great hostile powers of Assyria (OCB s.v.) and Egypt (OCB s.v.) are not historical so much as typological and should not be interpreted too literally. As the passage unfolds it contains a mixture of first-person and third-person speech. In older prophetic collections this is often an indication of exegesis being added to the original revelation at a later date. Here, however, the exegesis may be contemporary and the passage a literary unity. In chs. 9—10 overall the future is pictured as an improved version of Israel's past in which everything will be made new. Eschatology cannot be solely a question of deferred ideals, since utter failure is unlikely to provide a picture of the ideal future. History therefore provides some of the content of eschatology.
Hope Amid Conflict and Sin (9:1-14:21)
(9:1-8) Foreign Nations Oracles The heading 'An Oracle' (Heb. massa') appears again at 12:1 and Mai 1:1 suggesting that three separate booklets have been appended to ProtoZechariah. Some wisdom influence is apparent in this section (Larkin 1994: 54-67; 'Wisdom Literature', OCB). It makes numerous allusions to older prophets including Amos, Ezekiel, and Isaiah, v. i may allude to a tradition later developed by the community at Qumran, that Damascus (OCB s.v.) would be the place of God's eschatological sanctuary (i.e. be merged with the concept of Zion); however, NRSV's 'capital of Aram' (v. ib) is an emendation of the Hebrew 'eye of man', i.e. another corrupt 'eye' reference. The other places referred to have symbolic or typological rather than historical significance ('Typology', OCB). If this is a 'foreign nations' section, such as appears in the majority of prophetic collections, then it is the only passage of its kind in the whole of the Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi corpus. It contains a summing up of thought on the future of the foreign nations, in surprisingly positive terms (e.g. the Philistines in v. jb; OCB s.v), while also guaranteeing the safety of the holy land and city. The motif of the 'eye' which binds the book together, appears not only in 9:1 but also in 9:8, which draws on the wisdom tradition (Job 42:5); the anonymous successor to ProtoZechariah claims that he has received revelations of his own, which he reports together with his reinterpretation of traditional material.
(Ch. n) The Shepherd Allegory 11:1-3 is a link passage (the 'stitch words' are 'Lebanon' (cf 10:12; 11:1) and 'shepherds' (10:3; 11:3, 4). It alludes to Jer 25:36. It is in the form of a taunting song against the leadership and probably the temple itself: in rabbinic tradition 'Lebanon' can signify the temple (as it often does in the Dead Sea scrolls). The passage was certainly understood to refer to the second temple after that was destroyed in AD 70. 11:4—14 is the major controversy passage and is central in the anthologizing process that brought chs. 9-14 together. It has baffled interpreters more than any other part of the OT, because it cannot be pinned down historically (there have been over 40 different identifications of the three shepherds of v. 8), and its symbolism is no longer fully comprehensible. Even its literary genre is unclear, neither purely allegorical (though it is often called an allegory), nor visionary, nor parabolic. It is most like an acted parable, and is certainly a learned piece, w. 4—6 introduce the dramatis personae, namely the prophet who plays a shepherd and is strongly identified with YHWH ('shepherd' is a description normally reserved for YHWH or the king, though Moses, who is the prototype of the good prophet, is also called shepherd); the people of Israel who are the flock; and their leaders who are merchants. The passage is written with Ezek 37:15-28
(9:9—10:12) The Hopes of Judah and Ephraim 9:9—10 is the first of several linking passages which bind chs. 9—14 together. Like 10:1-2; 11:1-3; II:I7; and 13:7-9 it is compact, metrical, uses opening imperatives and vocatives, and links the material that precedes and follows it. It pictures the king of peace, in terms drawn partly from Jacob's blessing of Judah (Gen 49:10-11) (quoted in Mt 21:1-9 and par.), and partly from the royal theology of Ps 72:8. The adjectives used to describe the king are significant for later Christology and it should therefore be noted that several are capable of more than one translation. 'Triumphant' (Heb. saddiq) could be rendered 'righteous' (see OCB s.v), 'vindicated', or even 'legitimate'; it is also used of the Branch (referring to a Davidic ruler) in Jer 23:5, and of the Servant in Isa 53:11. 'Victorious' could equally be 'saved'. 'Humble' (or 'poor', see OCB) is found on a victory inscription of King Zakar of Hamath; though evidently part of the ancient kingly ideal, its exact significance is not known. This king is evidently a numinous figure. The whole reiterates an important promise made to the tribe of Judah, which had seemed subverted by history.
ZECHARIAH 614
sial; they have been held to spring from intra-community conflict (perhaps Judah v. Jerusalem), but if so there is no agreement as to whether the establishment or an alienated group is behind them (Hanson 1979 v. Ploger 1968). Actually there is a strong possibility that an originally Jerusalemite vision has been elaborated with references to Judah. The most theologically distinctive material is in v. 10. The Zechariah tradition here returns to the problem of how to remove human guilt (cf. 3:9). The people beholding the death of a martyr are moved by a spirit of grace (OCB s.v.) from YHWH, enabling them to mourn their sinfulness unselfishly, thus preparing them for cleansing ('Mourning', OCB). The verse contains an interpretative crux: literally 'when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced'. This is both ambiguous and implies a paradox, i.e. that it is God who is pierced; both ambiguity and paradox are probably deliberate. It is possible that there is an echo here of a ritual of the humiliation and vindication of the king, from the autumn New Year festival of monarchical Israel (e.g. Day 1985). However, there is no direct evidence for this in the OT One can only say with certainty that the scene combines elements from mythology (Hadad Rimmon, v. n, is the Syrian name for the dying and rising vegetation god Baal); from history (e.g. the good king Josiah (OCB s.v.) died at Megiddo (OCB s.v.)); and from older prophecy (so Lamarche 1961; cf. the fourth Servant Song, Isa 52:13—53:12). The apparently arbitrary names of the mourners in w. 12—14 are in fact aU f°und in the stories about Absalom (who died leading a rebellion against his father David, see 2 Sam 15-19), and are predominantly priestly and royal. The final picture of the fountain cleansing the people's sin (13:1, see 'Sin', OCB) harks back to Ezek36.13:2—6 attacks prophecy, remarkably bracketing together 'the prophets and the unclean spirit', though it is usually interpreted as applying to false prophecy. Person (1993) argues that Zechariah shows Deuteronomic influence, including hostility towards false prophecy (Deut 18:15-11) and that it was the disillusion of this movement with the temple authorities that led to the mission of Ezra. Deutero-Zechariah is himself a prophet, but one who sets great store by tradition. He may in consequence regard the ability to pronounce anything new as restricted to a learned class who can ensure its consistency with tradition.
in mind, though the nature of the relationship is controversial. In turning Ezekiel's image of unity into one of threefold disunity (w. 9, 10, 14) Zechariah could be repudiating the complacency of a theocratic leadership pictured as greedy and ruthless (Hanson 1979); or reflecting contemporary tension between Jerusalem and Samaria ('Samaria', OBC) (a possibility favoured in German scholarship); or simply picturing the relationship between God, prophet, and people typologically. A prophet's mission is, as here, typically both divinely supported and also frustrated. The negativity of the imagery then stems from this propet's intuition that the people do not in fact welcome good shepherding, and that prophetic leadership therefore entails suffering in which God himself partakes. Israel repudiates grace, and as a result there is no unity even among the people of God, but unfitness for the task of mediating grace to the nations. Thus Zechariah may not be repudiating Ezekiel's ideas so much as explaining why, in the face of the 'givens' of human nature, those ideals have not been, and will not be, actualized. The report of the action over the prophet's derisory wages in w. 11-12 (possibly fragmentary; 'Money', OCB) contains a phrase ('Then you will know...') that links this material with the oracles of ProtoZechariah (2:13,15; 4:9; 6:15). v. 12 is wrongly attributed by Mt 27:9 to Jeremiah, w. 15-16 contain a horrifying image of an antitype to the good shepherd. Because the passage seems deliberately to pervert the imagery of Ezek 34:3—4, which pictures Davidic leadership as good, it has been called antiestablishment as well as anti-messianic. This time, however, the prophet is not asked to perform the role assigned to him. v. 17 counteracts w. 15—16 with an oracle of woe against the worthless shepherd. Zechariah's favourite 'eye' motif reappears. Blindness (OCB s.v.) symbolizes loss of spiritual sight and spiritual potency (cf 12:4). The withered right arm symbolizes loss of might, and would render the person unable to hold sacred office. The verse is another one of the link passages, and rounds off the little anthology of passages with a theme of shepherding that now forms Zech n. (12:1-13:9) Judah and Jerusalem on the Day of the Lord 12:1, the heading 'An Oracle' seems to cover the whole of the rest of the book; the doxology on creation, which is possibly liturgical in origin, provides an example of ideas about creation and origins (the Urztit) being projected forwards onto the end of time (the Endzeit). 12:2—13:6 comprises the next major section of the book, compiled on different principles from chs. 9—10 or n, and relying on introductory and continuation formulae containing the phrase 'in that day', whose origin is controversial. It has a range of meanings, although in Zechariah it is eschatological, referring to the coming 'day ofYHWH' (OCB). This is a relatively late usage. Further distinctive features of chs. 12-13 are their cultic flavour, using motifs from the autumn festivals, especially Booths; their focus on Judah (OCB s.v), Jerusalem, and the house of David (OCB s.v); universalism; and the lateness of the three major themes: the final onslaught of all nations on Jerusalem (12:2-9), the outpouring of the spirit (12:10; see 'Holy Spirit', OCB) and of cleansing water (13:1; see 'Water', OCB); and the end of true prophecy. However, the interest in leadership shown in ch. n is maintained with mysterious references in w. 8 and especially 10—14. Th£ motivation behind chs. 12—13 is controver-
Such an attitude contributed to the closing down of prophecy. 13:7—9 is the last of the controversy passages which link the main blocks of material and is not to be relocated after 11:17 as attempted by the editors of the NEB. Its description of the stricken shepherd is quoted in Mt 26:31 and par. Its severity towards the sheep, the remnant (OCB s.v.) who appear to be martyrs as much as sinners, is remarkable. (Ch. 14) The Cosmic Day of the Lord This chapter, like 12-13, depicts the day of the Lord but in more cosmic terms; it has a liturgical dimension and is related to the Festival of Booths
(w. 16,18,19). It is learned and resonates with older Scripture, having a special preference for earlier 'apocalyptic' material
(Ezek 37-8; Joel; Isa 60), from which scattered references to the final day of YHWH are gathered into a coherent programme, though it is not known whether this is an authorial or an editorial achievement. Mention of David or Judah disappears, but Jerusalem has an honoured place founded on cult and law, and the New Jerusalem is pictured as the focal
615 MALACHI
Feast. These verses are comparable to the ending of the book of Isaiah.
point of all the nations, and indeed of creation. The chapter is written almost entirely in third-person prophetic discourse, punctuated with references to 'that day' seven times. The arrangement gives prominence to the centre of the chapter rather than to the end: in v. 9 the fourth use of 'in that day' accompanies an affirmation of the coming to reign ofYHWH. w. 1—5 picture the coming of the 'day' with YHWH summoning the nations to attack Jerusalem, terrifying upheavals in the natural world, and a theophany (cf. Am 9:1-4; see Theophany', OCB) on the Mount of Olives (OCB s.v.) as YHWH enters the city in triumph. 'Azal' is mysterious and not to be confused with Azazel (OCB s.v). It is not apparent whether the remnant that will be saved from Jerusalem consists of the righteous (ethical dualism) or is simply a de facto remnant such as would be historically realistic, w. 6—8, picturing changes in the laws of nature, have been said to contain ontological dualism, i.e. a complete abrogation of the old natural order as established in Genesis, to be replaced by something totally new, with the implication that the old order was too hopelessly corrupt to be redeemable. Such an extreme intention seems improbable bearing in mind that historical realities (such as the importance of the city of Jerusalem) have been allowed to shape the picture of the day of the Lord. There is a two-era view of time such as is characteristic of full-blown apocalyptic, but there is not complete discontinuity with what has gone before, v. 9 acclaims the universal kingship of God
Beuken, W. A. M. (1967), Haggai-Sacharja 1-8: Studienzur Uberliefer-
ungsgeschichte derfruhnachexilischen Prophetic (Assen: Van Gorcum). Butterworth, M. (1992), Structure and the Book ofZechariah (Sheffield:
JSOT). Day, J. (1985), God's Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a
Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Duguid, I. M. (1995), 'Messianic Themes in Zechariah 9—14', in P. E.
Satterthwaite, R. S. Hess, and G. J. Wenham (eds.), The Lord's Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts (Carlisle: Paternoster). Hanson, P. D. (1979), The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Socio-
logical Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia: Fortress). Lamarche, P. (1961), Zacharie IX—XIV: Structure litteraire et messia-
nisme (Paris: Gabalda). Larkin, K. J. A. (1994), The Eschatology of Second Zechariah (Kampen:
Kok Pharos). Mason, R. A. (1976), 'The Relation ofZechariah 9—14 to Proto-Zechar-
iah', ZAW88: 227-39.
(1990), Preachingthe Tradition: Homily and Hermeneutics after the Exile (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). North, R. (1972), 'Prophecy to Apocalyptic via Zechariah', SVT22:47~
71Otzen, B. (1964), Studien uber Deutero-Sacharja (Copenhagen: Pro-
(see 'Kingdom of God', OCB) and w. 8, 10—n, describe the New Jerusalem in terms drawn both from mythology (its imaginary height and the river of life flowing from it) and from history (the description of its gates and boundaries), w. 12—19 consider the fate of the nations, and here it is more obvious than elsewhere in the chapter that it is the righteous who are to be saved and to enjoy the privilege of making pilgrimage to Jerusalem to take part in the eschatological Feast of Booths (at which the coming of rain is celebrated). w. 20-1 describe Jerusalem crowded with pilgrims at the
slant Apud Munksgaard). Person, R. F. (1993), Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Ploger, O. (1968), ET, Theocracy and Eschatology (Oxford: John Knox). Stade, B. (1881-2), 'Deuterozacharja: Finekritische Studie', ZAWr. i-
96 and 2:151-72, 275-309. Tigchelaar, E. J. C. (1996), Prophets of Old and the Day of the End:
Zechariah, the Book of Watchers and Apocalyptic (Leiden: Brill). Tollington, J. E. (1993), Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechar-
iah 1-8 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
38. Malachi J. ROGERSON
1. 'Malachi' in Hebrew means 'my messenger', from which many commentators have concluded that the book stems from an anonymous prophet to whom its editors gave the name 'my messenger' on the basis of Mai 3:1. Meinhold (1991) maintains that the actual name is found on an Ostracon from Arad from the seventh century (Davies 1991: no. 2.097). If Malachi is a name it is a shortened form of Malachiah, meaning 'messenger ofYHWH'.
book to have closest affinity with other texts of around 480 BCE. All of these claims can be—and have been—contested. In any case, so little is known about the history of Hebrew language and society in the Persian period that any date down to 350 BCE is possible. There is also uncertainty about the social setting of the book, with plausible suggestions as widely opposed as seeing Malachi as a priest or as an eschatological prophet addressing the aspirations of an oppressed underclass. A radical view, expressed by Utzschneider
2. Little can be said with certainty about the date and setting of the book, except that it belongs to the Second Temple period. It is common to place it in the early part of the fifth century BCE on the grounds (i) that it mentions abuses that were later dealt with by Ezra and Nehemiah (i.e. before £.458),
(1992), is that Malachi is Schriftprophetie, that is, prophecy by means of the literary interpretation of older traditions.
3. What is certain is that Malachi contains a unique set of dialogues in which the complaints and fears of the people are expressed, and in which God reproves the people, answers their complaints, and stresses his trustworthiness.
(2) that it assumes, with Deuteronomy, that there is no difference between priests and Levites and generally seems to be closer to the spirit of Deuteronomy than the later Priestly Code, and (3) that linguistic analyses of Malachi show the
The Hebrew and English chapter divisions diverge at the end of the book, with 3:19—24 in Hebrew being 4:1—6 in English.
MALACHI
w. 2:1 and 3—9 (v. 2 is secondary) continue the original dispute from 1:10, and contain a rebuke to the priests, v. 3 implies that the priests and their descendants will be removed from office and Levi, the ancestor of the tribe from which all priests come, is held up as the true example of the mediator of a covenant between God and his people. Commentators are divided over whether the background to these verses is Deut. 33:9 or Num 25:10-13 (see Glazier-McDonald 1987). What is at issue is whether or not Malachi is aware of the distinction between priests and Levites, the point being that the book would be early fifth century if it could be shown that, with Deuteronomy, Malachi knows no such difference. In fact, 2:4-9 emphasizes the teaching and not the sacrificial role of Levi. Does the prophet envisage the suspension of the sacrificial cult until the coming of his messenger (3:1)?
(1:1) The heading: cf. Zech 12:1. Both headings are the work of a later editor or editors, which is why some commentators hold that the name Malachi is taken from Mai 3:1.
(1:2—5) First Disputation The charge that God has not loved his people is answered in two ways. First, appeal is made to the story of Jacob and Esau in which Jacob, the ancestor of the Israelites, outwits his elder brother Esau (Edom, cf. Gen 25:19—34). Second, an apparent recent disaster that has befallen Edom is cited as evidence for God's control of human affairs, backed by the promise that, if Edom rebuilds its ruins, God will destroy them. Scholars who date Malachi early in the fifth century see a reference to Babylonian campaigns against southern Jordan (which had been occupied by Edomites) after 552 BCE (see Bartlett 1992) but this is too distantfrom the early fifth century to be convincing. The uncomfortable saying that God hates Esau is softened by some commentators to mean simply that God loves Esau/Edom less than Jacob/Israel—an interpretation hardly supported by v. 4. Yet as the oracles continue it becomes clear that if God indeed has a special love for Israel it will not spare the people from forthcoming judgement (cf. 3:5). (1:6-2:10) Second Disputation The implications of God's special love for Israel are now worked out in a powerful condemnation of the priests. They are charged with dishonouring God by offering polluted food (Hebrew lehem, a general term for offerings including animal sacrifices) on the altar. This surprises them. The answer to the question 'How'? (v. 6) in w. 7—8 is not easy to understand. They are accused of saying (NRSV 'thinking') that the altar may be despised; but presumably this 'saying' is not speech but actions, as they allow blind or sick animals to be sacrificed. Against NRSV, 'is not that wrong?' in v. 8 (twice) should be translated 'it is not wrong'. Either the priests give this advice to ordinary worshippers, some of whom may be unable to offer healthy animals, or the priests deliberately procure for the temple service animals that do not conform to the rules (cf. Lev 22:22—4). Whatever the motivation, such an attitude values God less highly than the (probably foreign) governor
(2:10—16) Third Disputation Attention shifts from the priests to Judah and Jerusalem as a whole (Israel in v. n is a later gloss). The accusation is that the people have not lived out the implications of having one God and father, in two ways. First they have profaned the covenant and the temple by worshipping a goddess (NRSV 'daughter of a foreign god'). Most commentators take v. n to refer to marriages with foreign wives, but this is not obvious from the text nor from the continuation in w. 13—16. The reference may be to a female consort for YHWH. Although the idolatry interpretation is not free of difficulties—it implies that Judah is a bridegroom and that therefore God is the rejected bride—it makes best sense ofw. 10—12. The words 'any to witness or answer' (v. 12) have yet to be convincingly translated or explained.
The second charge is that men have been too ready to divorce the wives that they first married (i.e. wives who are now old), that this violates the notion that man and wife are one flesh (v. 15, cf. Gen 2:24) and undermines the loyalty to the covenant expected by God from his people. The text ofw. 1316 contains many difficulties. T hate divorce' (v. 16 in NRSV and many modern trs.) is a correction of the Hebrew 'he hates' without any support from the ancient versions, and cannot be correct. In fact, the ancient versions took the words to mean that God approved the divorcing of wives who were hated! The Babylonian Talmud (b. Gittin gob) rightly understands the logic of the passage (if not its Heb.) by arguing that it means that God hates the man who divorces his first wife. The Hebrew is best repointed and rendered 'if one hated [his wife and] divorced [her]... he covers his garment with violence' (cf. Redditt 1995).
(v. 8). If the priests cannot honour God properly, how can they mediate between God and the people (v. 9) ? It would be better to have no offerings than dishonourable ones (v. 10).
At this point a later addition to the text (w. 11-14) seeks to clarify the situation. The main criticism is now directed towards the ordinary people who bring stolen as well as sick animals as offerings, when they have healthy animals (reading zakeh 'clean' for zakar 'male', v. 14) available. But the criticism is preceded by the noble statement (v. n) that God's name is great among the nations and that incense and pure offerings are (or will be) made to him 'in every place'. Most commentators deny that this envisages the worship of the God of Israel by all the nations, and see a reference to the worship of Jews in the Diaspora, or to the worship of the God of heaven in the Persian empire (cf. Ezra 6:9). However, as Rudolf (1976) points out, the idea that foreign nations recognize the God of Israel is not unknown in the OT (cf. Jonah). The seemingly obvious sense of the verse should not be dismissed too hastily, and it becomes a corrective to the exclusivist tendency of Mai 1:2-5.
(2:17—3:5) Fourth Disputation The complaint that evildoers prosper materially in a world in which, according to covenant ideas, they ought to suffer misfortune, is common in the OT (cf. Deut 28:15—44 and PS 73)- Here, it gives rise to the charge that the complainants have wearied God, and occasions the promise that God is about to act decisively. His messenger will prepare for God's coming, which will result in judgement against the evildoers (v. 5). Two later expansions of the text blur the focus of the passage, while indicating that the promise was taken seriously by the users of Malachi. The second expansion (v. 3 from 'and he will purify' to v. 4) concentrates the divine coming upon a purification of the temple cult, and in connection with v. 5 implies that a reform of the temple will have to precede the divine judgement of social abuses. The
617 INTRODUCTION TO THE APOCRYPHA
Lord (4:1) that will destroy the evildoers and bring healing and life to the faithful (4:2).
first expansion (v. i from 'The messenger of the covenant') is an attempt to clarify who is meant by the Lord (Hebrew 'adori). Although certainty is impossible here, it is likely that the original oracle envisages the imminent coming of God, while the expansion implies that the Lord will be a heavenly being
The fact that this may have not been entirely reassuring brings us to the expansion in w. 16-17, which has the effect of bringing the hope of future vindication into the present. The opening word 'then' makes no logical sense in its context, and has been emended to 'thus' (i.e. in this way) but this is unnecessary if v. 16 is regarded as an expansion. The faithful are reassured that even now their names are being recorded in a book (cf. Esth 6:1—3) an(^ that they are a special possession. Thus, their words of complaint do not occasion God's anger, but his mercy. (4:4-6) Closing Words The last three verses are a later conclusion to Malachi and the Book of the Twelve. The reference to the coming of Elijah both amplifies 3:1, which expects a forerunner to precede the day of the Lord, and subverts 3:164:3, which envisages an imminent day of judgement which will spare those whose names have been written in the book of remembrance. The reference to Moses (v. 4) echoes Deut 34:5, where Moses is called the Lord's servant. Tradition dislikes anonymity, which is why the anonymous 'messenger' of 3:1 has become the named Elijah here. Elijah has been chosen because of the tradition that he did not die but was taken up to heaven (2 Kings 2:11). On the other hand, the designation 'messenger of the covenant' and the picture of him coming to the Jerusalem temple (3:1) hardly fits the Elijah of i and 2 Kings.
(cf the angel of God in the Exodus narratives, Ex 14:19—23:20, the Hebrew mal'ak meaning both 'messenger' and 'angel'). This introduces us to the central problem in Malachi that is taken up again in ch. 4. The book in its first main draft and in its final form urges faithfulness to God upon a society in which there were social abuses, indifferent worship, and even idolatry, and in which a speedy divine intervention had not materialized. How those who advocated faithfulness to God coped with the situation is indicated in the remainder of the book.
(3:6—12) Fifth Disputation A new strategy is brought into play. In direct address by God it is implied that the people's misfortunes are due not to God's indifference but to Israel's failure to observe God's laws. It is because God does not change that the children of Jacob (the name is a pun on a root that can also mean 'trickster' or 'crooked') still survive despite their waywardness. The people are challenged to show that they have returned to God by fulfilling their obligations to render tithes to the temple. They are invited, indeed, to put God to the test (v. 10), who promises that he will then bless their agricultural labours (w. 10-11). This is a positive attitude to the temple compared with 1:7—2:3, but not necessarily at variance with it. Tithes could be used for social purposes (Deut 14:28— 9) and if the people who had something were, through the tithe, to provide for the socially oppressed (v. 5), this would show practical commitment to the implications of being the children of one creator father (2:10). (3:13-4:3) Sixth Disputation The complaint first heard at 2:17, that God is indifferent to justice, is taken up again and expressed even more forcefully. Not only do the evildoers prosper; those who try to keep God's commandments see no benefit. The day belongs to those who treat the things of God with dismissive arrogance. It would be wrong to suppose that the complainants are interested in religion merely for what they can get out of it. We have here rather the anguished cry of those who want to live in a world where goodness and not evil is paramount. The second-person dialogue between God and the people is broken at 3:16-17 by a prose passage in the third person. While switches from second to third person and back are not necessarily signs that verses have been interpolated, the logic of the passage becomes clear if it is assumed that v. 18 originally followed v. 15. The God-fearers are assured that they will see a difference between themselves and the wicked. The occasion will be the coming day of the
In the HB Malachi concludes the Law and the Prophets, which is why the references to Moses and Elijah in 4:4-6 are apposite. In the Christian Bible Malachi ends the Old Testament, and the reference to the coming of Elijah is taken up in the story of the Elijah-like figure of John the Baptist.
Bartlett, J. R. (1992), 'Edorri, ABD ii. 287-95. Davies, G. I. (1991), Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, Corpus and Concord-
ance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Glazier-McDonald, B. (1987), Malachi: The Divine Messenger, SBLDS
98 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press). Meinhold, A. (1991), 'Maleachi/Maleachibuch', Theologische Realen-
zyklopadie (Berlin: de Gruyter) xxii. 6—n. Redditt, P. L. (1995), Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, New Century Bible
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans). Rudolf, W. (1976), Haggai, Sacharja 1—8, Sacharja 9—14, Maleachi, KAT
13/4 (Giitersloh: Mohn). Utzschneider, H. (1992), 'Die Schriftprophetie und die Frage nach
dem Ende der Prophetie. Uberlegungen anhand von Mai i, 6-2,16', ZAWio^: 377-94.
39. Introduction to the Apocrypha MARTIN GOODMAN
A. Definition. 1. The term 'apocrypha' was never used in antiquity to denote the separate corpus of disparate books which are printed under this heading in some modern Bibles. The current use of the term was popularized through the practice of Protestant scholars during the Reformation in distinguish-
ing these books, which were standard in Catholic Bibles, from canonical biblical writings. This use reflected more general uses of the term in late antiquity.
2. The Greek word 'apocrypha' means books that have been hidden away in some sense. The term was sometimes used in
INTRODUCTION TO THE APOCRYPHA 618
antiquity to refer to books that contained mysterious or secret teachings, but although many such esoteric writings were known and highly regarded by both Jews and Christians (cf. 2 Esd 14:45-6) the description of them as apocryphal was rare. Other Christian writers described as 'apocrypha' those books which were reckoned to be spurious or heretical and thus unfit for Christian use (e.g. Athanasius and Rufinus, both in the 4th cent. CE). The use of the term to refer to the corpus of books that now forms an appendix to the OT began with Jerome in the early fifth century. Jerome was concerned to define the limits of the OT canon and elected to exclude those books found in the Greek and Latin versions but not in the Hebrew. He did not condemn these books as unworthy but only as non-canonical and hence useful for general edification rather than to define church dogma.
deal of interpretation and (to a lesser extent) elaboration; the authors both inspired and were part of a much wider movement of translating Jewish texts into Greek in this period, often producing work so distinctly Hellenic that they should be treated as compositions in their own right. It is in this context that the material now found in the Apocrypha was composed.
2. The transmission of the Septuagint in antiquity was almost entirely through Christian rather than Jewish copyists. Some fragments of the Pentateuch, the minor prophets, and indeed some of the apocrypha survive in Jewish MSS from pre-Christian times, and further papyrus fragments including parts of Wisdom and Sirach from the second to third centuries CE was found at Antinoopolis in Egypt, butthe main witnesses to the text are the Christian MSS of the fourth century, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, and the rather later (between the late fourth and early sixth centuries) Codex Alexandrinus. Christians from the beginning treated the Septuagint as a sacred text in its own right and not simply as a translation of the Hebrew.
3. Since the MSS of Greek and Latin Bibles do not all contain precisely the same works, but all contain the writings included in the OTas defined by Protestants, the extent of the Apocrypha is not entirely fixed. Some biblical MSS include 3 and 4 Maccabees and Ps 151 which, since they are not part of the HB, have therefore sometimes been treated as part of the Apocrypha. Conversely, during disputes in the Reformation about the religious importance of the Apocrypha, some theologians declared unfitting for the corpus those writings that seemed to them to lack value; thus Luther excluded from his version of the Apocrypha both i and 2 Esdras. The books discussed in this Commentary are those commonly found in those Protestant English Bibles in which the Apocrypha is printed.