Copy I *vu^ i s Copyrit'lit, I'.tHI. l.y Kolit. O. Law. DWIGHT L. MOODY on the |3olu Scrii^turcs of t^c (L)lir anb ^flo Ctstaimnts UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF The Rev. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D. Professor of Theological Eticyclopedia and Symbolics Union Theological Seminary, Neiv York The Rev, SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D. Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. Late Master of University College, Durham The International Critical Commentary On the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments EDITORS' PREFACE THERE are now before the public many Commentaries, written by British and American divines, of a popular or homiletical character. The Cajnbridge Bible for Schools, the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students, The Speaker' s Commentary, The Popular Commentary (Schaflf), 77;-? Expositor's Bible, and other similar series, have their special place and importance. But they do not enter into the field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such series of Commentaries as the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum A. T. ; De Wette's Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum N. T. ; Meyer's Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar ; Keil and Delitzsch's Biblischer Commentar uber das A. T ; Lange's Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack's Handkommentar ztim A. T. ; Holtzmann's Handkommentar zum N. T. Several of these have been translated, edited, and in some cases enlarged and adapted, for the English-speaking public ; others are in process of translation. But no corresponding series by British or American divines has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared by special Commentaries by Cheyne, EUicott, Kalisch, Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others; and the time has come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enter- prise, when it is practicable to combine British and American scholars in the production of a critical, comprehensive Commentary that wll be abreast of modern biblical scholarship, and in a measure lead its van. The International Critical Commentary Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons of New York, and Messrs. T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, ])ropose to publish such a series of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, under the editorship of Prof. C. A. Briggs, D.D., I). Lilt., in America, and of Prof. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., for the Old Testament, and the Rev. ALFRED Plummer, D.D., for the New Testament, in Great Britain. The Commentaries will be international and inter- confessional, and will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical bias. They will be based upon a thorough critical study of the original texts of the Bible, and upon critical methods of interpretation. They are designed chiefly for students and clergymen, and will be written in a compact style. Each book will be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results of criticism upon it, and discuss- ing impartially the questions still remaining open. The details of criticism will appear in their proper place in the body of the Commentary. Each section of the Text will be introduced with a paraphrase, or summary of contents. Technical details of textual and philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept distinct from matter of a more general character ; and in the Old Testament the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted with Hebrew. The History of Interpretation of the Books will be dealt with, when necessary, in the Introductions, with critical notices of the most important literature of the subject. Historical and Archaeological questions, as well as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the plan of the Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical Exegesis. The Volumes will con- stitute a uniform series. The International Critical Commentary ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS THE OLD TESTAMENT GENESIS. The Rev. John Skinner, D.D., Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature, College of Presbyterian Church of England, Cambridge, England. [Now Ready. CXODUS. The Rev. A. R. S. Kennedy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, University of I'^dinburgh. LEVITICUS. J. F. Stenning, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. NUMBERS. The Rev. G. BUCHANAN Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, MansfieWl College, Oxford. [A^otv Ready. DEUTERONOMY. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Pro- fessor of Hebrew, Oxford. \_N(roD Ready. JOSHUA. The Rev. George Adam Smith, D.D., LL.D., Principal of the University of Aberdeen. JUDGES. The Rev. George Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Theol- ogy, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready. SAMUEL. The Rev. H. P. Smith, D.D., Professor of Old Testament Literature and History of Religion, Meadville, Pa. [Now Ready. KINGS. The Rev, Francis Brown, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D., President and Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union Theological Seminar)', New York City. CHRONICLES. The Rev. Edward L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. [Now Ready. EZRA AND NEHEMIAH. The Rev. L. W. Batten, Ph.D., D.D., Pro- fessor of Old Testament Literature, General Theological Seminary, New York City. PSALMS. The Rev. Chas. A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., Gradua'e Iro- fessor of Theological Encyclopsedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. [2 vols. Now Ready PROVERBS. The Rev. C. H. Toy, D.D., LL.D., Prof essor of Hebrew, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready. JOB. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt.. Regius Professor of He- brew, Oxford. The International Critical Commentary ISAIAH. Chaps. I-XXVII. The Rev. G. Buchanan Gray, D.D., Pro- fessor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. [Now Ready. ISAIAH. Chaps. XXMII-XXXIX. The Rev. G. Buchanan Gray, D.U. Chaps. LX-LXVT. The Rev. A. S. Peake, M.A., D.D., Dean of the Theo- logical Faculty of the Victoria University and Professor of Biblical Exegesis in the University of Manchester, JCngiand. JEREMIAH. The Rev. A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D., Dean of Ely, sometime Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge, England. EZEKIEL. The Rev. G. A. Cooke, M.A., Oriel Professor of the Interpre- tation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford, and the Rev. Charles F. BuRNEY, D.Litt., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. John's College, Oxford. DANIEL. The Rev. John P. Peters, Ph.D., D.D., sometime Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael's Church, New York City. AMOS AND HOSEA. W. R. Harper, Ph.D., LL.D., sometime President of the University of Chicago, Illinois. [Ah'W Ready. MICAH, ZEPHANIAH, NAHUM. HABAKKUK, OBADIAH, AND JOEL. Prof. John P. Smith, University of Chicago; W. Hayes Ward, D.D., LL.D., Editor of T/ie Independent, New York; Prof. Julius A. Bewer, Union Theological Seminary, New York. iNorw Ready. ZECHARIAH TO JONAH. Prof. H. G. MiTCHELL, D.D., Prof. John P. Smith and Prof. J. .\. Bewer. [Nou> Ready. ESTHER. The Rev. L. B. Paton, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hart- ford Theological Seminary. [IVow Ready. ECCLESIASTES. Prof. George A. Barton, Ph.D., Professor of Bibli- cal Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. [.Vcnr Ready. RUTH, SONG OF SONGS AND LAMENTATIONS. Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopaedia ind Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. THE NEW TESTAMENT ST. MATTHEW. The Rev. Willoughbv C. Ali.en, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. \Now Ready. ST MARK. Rev. E. P. Gould. D.D.. sometime Professor of New Testa- ment Literature, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. \_Nmu Ready. ST. LUKE. The Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., sometime Master of University College, Durham. l.^^ Ready. The International Critical Commentary ST. JOHN. The Right Rev. John Henry Bernard, D.D., Bishop of Ossory, Ireland. HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. The Rev. William Sanday, D.D., LL D Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the Rev. Wil- LOUGHBY C. Allen, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. ACTS. The Rev. C. H. Turner, D.D., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, and the Rev. H. N. Bate, M.A., Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London. ROMANS. The Rev. William Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev. A. C. Headlam, M.A., D.D., Principal of King's College, London. [Now Ready. I. CORINTHIANS. The Right Rev. Arch Robertson, D.D., LL.D., Lord Bishop of Exeter, and Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., late Master of University College, Durham. U^ow Ready. II. CORINTHIANS. The Rev. Dawson Walker, D.D., Theological Tutor in the University of I3urham. GALATIANS. The Rev. Ernt:st D. Burton, D.D., Professor of New Testament Literature, University of Chicago. EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. The Rev. T. K. Abbott, B.D., D.Litt., sometime Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, DubUn, now Librarian of the same. [Now Ready. PHILIPPIANS AND PHILEMON. The Rev. Marvin R Vincent, D.D., Professor of Biblical Literature, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. [Now Ready. THESSALONIANS. The Rev. James E. Frame, M.A., Professor of Bibhcal Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. [/« Press. THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. The Rev. Walter Lock, D.D., Warden of Keble College and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford. HEBREWS. The Rev. James Moffatt, D.D., Minister United Free Church, Broughty Ferry, Scotland. ST. JAMES. The Rev. James H. Ropes, D.D., Bussey Professor of New Testament Criticism in Harvard University. PETER AND JUDE. The Rev. CHARLES BiGG, D.D., sometime Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. [AVw Ready. THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. The Rev. E. A. BROOKE, B.D., Fellow and Divinity Lecturer in King's College, Cambridge. [In Press. REVELATION. The Rev. ROBERT H. Charles, M.A., D.D., sometime Professor of Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin. HAGGAI, ZECHARIAH, MALACHI AND JONAH The International Critical Commentaryx^^^^ ( OCT 7 1! A CRITICAL AND M^/qal s^ EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON HAGGAI, ZECHARIAH MALACHI AND JONAH BY HINCKLEY G. MITCHELL, D.D. JOHN MERLIN POWIS SMITH, Ph.D. JULIUS A. BEWER, Ph.D. NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 1912 COPYRTOHT, I912, BY CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS Published June, igta PREFACE THIS volume completes the series of commentaries on the Minor Prophets originally undertaken by the late William R. Harper. The order of arrangement differs from the traditional one only in the case of Jonah, which is placed at the end of the series, not only because it was composed at a much later date than the traditional order suggests, but also because it is of a different character from the other prophets. This volume, like the previous one, is composed of three little volumes bound in one, because it seemed best on the whole to publish the work of the three authors under separate sub-titles in this way. CONTENTS PREFACE . . ABBREVIATIONS I. A COMMENTARY ON HAGGAI AND ZECH- ARIAH I INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORIC BACKGROUND OF THE PROPHECIES OF HAGGAI AND ZECHARIAH 3-24 § I. Cyrus 3-14 § 2. Cambyses 14-17 § 3. Darius I, Hystaspes 17-24 HAGGAI AND HIS PROPHECIES 25-38 § I. Personal History of the Prophet 25-27 § 2. The Book of Haggai 27-30 § 3. The Text of Haggai 30-35 § 4. The Thoughts and Style of Haggai 36-39 COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHECIES OF HAGGAI . . 40-79 § I. The Movement to Rebuild the Sanctuary . . 40-57 § 2. The Resources of the Builders 58-65 § 3. The New Era of the Restored Temple . . . 66-76 § 4. The Future of the Leader Zerubbabel . . . 76-79 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES 81-106 § I. The Personal History of the Prophet . . . 81-84 § 2. The Structure of Chapters i-8 84 § 3. The Text of Chapters 1-8 84-97 § 4. The Style of Zechariah 98-102 § 5. The Teaching of Zechariah 102-106 COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 107-217 1. The Introduction 108-115 2. A Series of Visions with Their Interpretation . 1 15-194 a. The Return from Captivity 1 15-147 (i) The Hollow of the Myrtles . . . 1 15-130 (2) The Horns and Their Destroyers . 130-136 (3) The Man with the Measuring Line . 136-140 (4) An Appeal to the Exiles .... 140-147 vii VIU CONTENTS PACE b. The Anointed of Yaitweii 147-168 (i) The Accused High Priest .... 147-161 (2) The Symbolic Candelabru.u . . . 1 61-168 c. The Seat of Wickedness 168-182 (i) The Flying Roll 168-171 (2) The Woman in the Ephah . . . . 1 71-177 (3) The Four Chariots 177-182 d. The Prince of Judah 183-194 (i) A Symbolic Crown 183-190 (2) Zerubbabel and the Temple . . . 190-194 3. A New Era 194-217 a. An Inquiry from Bethel 194-198 b. A Series of Oracles 198-217 (i) The Teaching of the Past .... 199-205 (2) The Promise of the Future . . . 206-209 (3) The Past and Future in Contrast 209-215 (4) The Reign of Joy and Gladness . . 215-217 THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE SECOND PART OF ZECHARIAH 218-259 § I. The Structure of Chapters 9-14 218-220 § 2. The Text of Chapters 9-14 220-231 § 3. The Authorship of Chapters 9-14 232-259 COMMENTARY ON CHAPTERS 9-14 260-357 1. The Revival of the Hebrew Nation 260-320 a. The New Kingdom 260-277 b. A Promise of Freedom and Prosperity . 277-285 c. The Plan of Restoration 286-302 d. The Two Shepherds 302-320 2. The Future of Judah and Jerusalem 320-357 a. The Jews in Their Internal Relations . 320-340 b. The Jews and the Nations 34I-3S7 INDEX 359-362 II. A COMMENTARY ON MALACHI .... 1-88 INTRODUCTION TO MALACHI 3-17 § 1. The Book of Malachi 3-5 1. Its Contents 3 2. Its Unity 3 3. Its Style 4-5 § 2. The Times 5-9 § 3. The Prophet 9-11 § 4. The Message of Malachi 11-15 § 5. Literature on the Book of Malachi .... 15-17 CONTENTS IX PAGE COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF MALACHI . . . 18-85 § I. The Superscription 18-19 § 2. Proof of Yahweh's Lov'E 19-24 § 3. Yahweh Honours Them That Honour Him . . 25-46 § 4. Yahweh's Protest against Divorce and Remar- riage WITH Idolatrous Women 47-60 § 5. The Near Approach of the Day of Judgment . 60-69 § 6. The Payment of Tithes Wins the Blessing of God 69-75 § 7. The Final Triumph of the Righteous .... 76-85 INDEX 87-88 III. A COMMENTARY ON JONAH 1-65 INTRODUCTION TO JONAH 3-27 The Character of the Story of Jonah . . . 3-5 Origin and Purpose of the Story 6-1 1 Insertion of the Book in the Prophetic Canon ii The Date of the Book 11-13 The Unity of the Book 13-21 The Psalm in Chapter 2 21-24 The Text of the Book 25 Modern Literature 25-27 COMMENTARY ON JONAH 28-65 Jonah's Disobedience and Flight 28-32 The Storm on the Sea 32-34 The Discovery of Jonah as the Guilty One . . . 34-38 The Stilling of the Storm 38-40 Jonah's Deliverance 41-43 A Prayer of Thanksgiving 43-49 Yahweh's Renewed Command and Jonah's Preaching in Nineveh 50-53 The Result of Jonah's Preaching 53-56 Jonah's Displeasure 56-59 Yahweh's Rebuke of Jonah . . 59-62 Application of the Object LessOK 62-64 NOTE ON THE USE OF mn> AND o^hSn IN THE BOOK OF JONAH . . , . 64-65 § 3 §4 §5 §6 § 7 ABBREVIATIONS. I. TEXTS AND VERSIONS. A = Arabic Version. Ant. = Antwerp Polyglot. Aq. = Version of Aquila. Arm. = Armenian Version. ARV. = American Revised Ver- sion. AY. = Authorized Version. Baer = Baer and Delitzsch's He- brew text. Bres. = Brescia ed. of the Hebrew Bible (1492-94). (flBo. = Bohairic ed. of the Coptic Version. Comp. = Complutensian Polyglot. deR. = de Rossi, Variae Leciiones Veteris Testamenti, etc., Vol. in. (1786), and Scholia Critica in Ve- teris Testamenti libros (1798). Eth. = Ethiopic Version. EV. = English Version. (g = Received Greek Version. (S^- = Sinaitic codex. (SA = Alexandrian codex. (gAld. = Aldine edition. (SB = Vatican codex. ^Comp. = Complutensian edition. (gcurss. = Cursive mss. (Sf = Codex Cryptoferratensis. CS" = Hexapla mss. (gHeid. == Heidelberg Papyrus Co- dex, containing the text of Zc. 4«-Mal. 45; edited and published, with fac- similes, by A. Deiss- mann, in SeptuagitUa- Papyri und andere alt- Christliche Texte der Heidelberger Papyrus- Sammlung (Heidelberg, 1905)- (gjer. _ Jerome's translation from the Greek. d"- = Lucianic mss. 0I'3 = Codex Marchalianus. d^ = Codex Taurinensis. Gins. = Ginsburg, D.; Biblia He- braica, 1894. li^ = Hebrew consonant text; Hebrew of Polyglots. HP. = Texts of Holmes and Par- sons. J = Yahwistic (Judaic) por- tions of the Hexateuch. Kenn. = Kennicott, Benj.; Vetus Tesfatnenium Hebrai- cum, cum variis lectio- nibus (1776-80). Kit. = Kittel, R.; Biblia He- braica (1905-6). Xll ABB REV IATIO^ rs Kt. _. Knhih, the Hebrew text RV. = Revised Version. as written. RVm. = Revised Version, margin. H = Old Latin Version. » = Syriac Peshitto Version. Lond. = London Polyglot (16^3- »'^ = Ambrosian codex. 57). &" = Syro-hexaplar readings. Lu. = Luther's ^■ersion. &L = Lee's edition. m Mas. = Massoretic pointed te.xt. Massorah. Sonc. = Urumian codex. = Soncino eds. of the He- brew Bible. NT. = New Testament. x» = \'ersion of Symmachus. OT. = Old Testament. s = Targum. Par. = Paris Polyglot (1629-45). e = Version of Theodotion. T'es. = Pesaro eds. of the Hebrew Bible. B = \'ulgate Version. \'cn. = Venire eds. of the Hebrew Qr. = Q're, the Hebrew text as Bible. read. Vrss. = Versions, ancient. n. BOOKS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. Am. = Amos. Ezr. = Ezra. BS. = The Wisdom of Jesus Gal. = Galatians. Ben Sira, or Eccle- Gn. = Genesis. siasticus. Hb. Habakkuk. 1,2 Ch. = I, 2 Chronicles. Heb. = Hebrews. Ch. = Idem, taken together. Hg. = Haggai. Col. = Colossians. Ho. = Hosea. 1, 2 Cor. = I, 2 Corinthians. CL = Canticles = The Song Is. = Isaiah. of Songs. Jb. = Job. Dn. = Daniel. Je. = Jeremiah. Dt. = Deuteronomy. Jn. = John. Ec. Ecclus. Eph. I, 2 Esd. Est = Ecclesiastes. = Ecclesiasticus. = Ephesians. = I, 2 Esdras. = Esther. Jo. Jon. Jos. Ju. Jud. = Joel. Jonah. Joshua. Judges. Judith. Ex. = Exodus. r, 2 K. = I, 2 Kings. Ez. = Ezekiel. K. = Idem, taken together. ABBREVIATIONS Xlll La. = Lamentations. Lk. = Luke. Lv. = Leviticus. I, 2 Mac. = I, 2 Maccabees Mai. = Malachi. Mi. = Micah. Mk. = Mark. Mt. = Matthew. Na. = Nahum. Ne. = Nehemiah. Nu. = Numbers. Ob. = Obadiah. Pe. = Peter. Phil. = Philippians. Pr. = Proverbs. Ps. = Psalms. Rev. = Revelation. Rom. = Romans. Ru. = Ruth. I,2S. = I, 2 Samuel. S. = Idem, taken together. S.-K. = The books of Samuel and Kings taken to- gether. I, 2 Thes. = I, 2 Thessalonians. I, 2 Tim. = r, 2 Timothy. Tob. = Tobit. Wisd. = Wisdom of Solomon. Zc. = Zechariah. Zp. = Zephaniah. III. AUTHORS AND WRITINGS. Abar. AE. AJTh. a Lap. And. Arrianus ARW. Asada Abarbanel (fiSoS). Aben Ezra (fi 167) ; Commentary. American Journal of Theology. a Lapide, Corneli- us; Commentari- us in duodecim Prophetas Mino- res (1628). Andre, Tony; Le Prophete Aggie (1895)- Arrianus, Fl.; The Anabasis of Al- exander, ed. Chinnock(i884). Archiv fiir Re ■ ligions wissen- schaft. Asada, Eiji; Tlie Hebrew Text of Zechariah (1899). Baer Baud. Bauragarten BDB. Bechhaus = Baer, S.;Z/ier cfwo- decim Propheta- riim (1878). = Baudissin, W. W.; Studien zur se- mitischen Relig- ionsgeschichte (1876-78). = Baumgarten, M. ; Die Nachtge- sichte Sacharias (1854-55)- = Brown, Driver and Briggs; A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testa- ment (1906). = Bechhaus, J. H.; Ueber die Inte- gritiit der proph- etischen Biicher des Alten Bundes (1796). XIV ABBREV I AT IONS Ben. = W. H. Bennett; rja; Neue kirch- The Religion of liche Zeilschrift t h e Posl-Exilic (1901). Prophets (1907). Brd. = Bredenkamp, C. J.; Benz. = Benzinger, I.; He- Der Prophet brdische Archd- Sacharja (1879). ologie (1894; 2d Brugsch = Brugsch, Hein.; A ed., 1907). History of Egypt Bertholdt = Bertholdt, L.; Ein- under the Pha- leitung in . . . das raohs (1881). Alte und Neue Bruston == Bruston, Ch.; His- Testament toire Critique de (1814). la Litterature des Bla. = Blayney, Benj.; A Hehreux (1881). new translation Bu. = Budde, Karl; Zum of the Prophecies Text der drei of Zechariah letzten kleinen (1797)- Propheten, Bleek = Bleek, Fried.; Ein- ZAW., XXVI leitung in das (1906). Alte Testament, Bu.B" = Idem, Die biblische ed. Wellhausen, Urgeschichte ed. 5 (1886). (1883). Das Zeitaller von Bu.Cesch. = Idem, Geschichte Sacharja Cap. der althebrd- 9-14; SK. (1852, ischen Litteratur 1857)- (1906). Bo. ■= Bottcher, Fried.; Buhl = Buhl, Yr&nX?.; Kan- Neue Aehrenlese on und Text des sum Alten Tes- Alten Testaments tament (1863- (1891). 65). Burger = Burger, J. D. F.; B6.§ = Idem, Ausfiihrliches Le Pr 0 p h,'l e Lehrbuch der he- Zacharie (1841). brdischen Sprache (1867- Cal. = Calvin, John; Com- 68). mentaries on the Boh. = Boh me, W.; Zu Twelve M i n or Maleachi und Prophets , ed. Haggai, ZA W. Owen (1846). (1887). C. and HB. = Carpenter and Bohmer = Bohmer, Jul.; 7/a^- Harford - Bat- gai und Sacha- tersby ; The ABBREVIATIONS XV C. and HB.- —Continued. to the Old Testa- Hexateuch ment (1862-3). (1900). DB. = A Dictionary of the Carpzov = Carpzov, J. C; Bible (1898- Critica Sacra 1904). Veteris Tesia- deD. = de Dieu, Lud.; menti (1728). Critica Sacra Che. = Cheyne, T. K.; (1693). Critica Biblica, de W. = de Wette, W. M. ii (1903). L. ; Einleitung in Chrys. = Chrysostom. das AT., ed. Cocceius = Cocceius. J.; T6 Schrader (1869). AwSeKawporpriTO v DHM. = D. H. Miiller; Dis- (1652). cours de Mala- Conder = Conder, C. R.; chie sur le rite Tent Life in Pal- des sacrifices. estine (1878). Revue biblique Cor. = Cornill,C.H.;£/«- internationale, V leitung in die (1896), 535-539 kanonisc hen ( = Strophenbau Biicher des Alten und Responsion Testaments, ed. [1898], pp. 40- 6 (1908). 45). Corrodi = Corrodi, H.; Ver- Di. = D i 1 1 m a n n, A.; such einer Be- Handbuch der leuchtung d e r alttestament- Geschichte des lichen Theologie jud. u. christl. (1895). Kanons (1792). Diodorus = Diodorus Siculus; Cyr. = Cyril of Alexan- History. dria (t444); ed. DI. = Delitzsch, Fried.; Migne, iv. A ssyrisc he s Handworter- Da. = Davidson, A. B.; huch (1896). The Theology of Dl.P^'- = Idem, Wo lag das the Old Testa- Parodies? (1881). ment (1904). = Idem, Heb. Gram- Dr. = S. R. Driver, The Da.§ Minor Prophets {The Century mar. Bible; 1906). Dathe = Dathe, J. A.; Dr.i"t- = Idem, Introduction Propheta Mino- to the Literature res (1773). of the Old Testa- Davidson = Davidson, S a m'l; ment, Revised A n Introduction ed. (1910). XVI ABBREV [ATIONS Dr.4 = Idem, The Use of Alte Testament, the Tenses in ed. 4 (1824). Hebrew, e d . 6 Ephraem = Ephraem S y r u s (1898). (t373); Expl^- Drake = Drake, W.; Haggai natio in Zacha- and Zechariah riam. (The Speaker's Ew. = Ewald, Hein.; Die C ommentary) Propheten d e s (1876). A It en Bundes Dru. = D r u s i us, Joh.; (1867-68). Commentarius in Ew.^^ = Idem, Ausfiihr- Prophetas Mino- liches Lehrbuch resXII. (1627). der heb. Sprache Du. = Duhm, Bernh.; Das Buch Jere- (1870). mia {Kurzer Hand - Commen- Flugge = Flugge, B. G.; Die Weissagungen tar) (1901). welche bey den Du.P'°- = Idem, Die zwolf Schr ift e n des Propheten in den Versniassen der Urschrift iiber- Propheten Zach- arias beygebogen sind (1784). selzt (1910); or Annterkungen zu den zwolf Proph- eten, ZAW., Forberg = Forberg, Ed.; Com- mentarius in Zacharice vati- XXXI (1911). ciniorum partem DuJheol. = Idem, Die Theolo- posterior em gie der Prophe- (1824). ten (1875). Furst = FUrst, Jul.; Der Duncker = Duncker, Max; Kanon des Allen History of An- Testaments tiquity, from the (1868). German (1877- 82). GASm. = Smith, G. A.; The EB. = Encycloptcdia Bih- lica (1899- 1 903). Book of the Twelve Proph- Eckardt = Eckardt, R.; Der ets, I (1896); II Sprachge- (1898). br auch von GASm.Hf- = Idem, The Histori- Zach., 9-14; cal Geography of ZAW. XIII the Holy Land (1893). (1894). Eichhorn = Eichhorn, J. G.; Geiger = Geiger, A.; Ur- Einleitung in das schrift und Ue- ABBREVIATIONS xvu Geiger — Continued. bersetzungen der Bibel (1857). Ges. = Gesenius.W.; Cow- mentar iiber den Jesaia (182 1). Ges.^ = Cesenius' Hebrew Grammar, ed. Kautzsch, (1909^) ; trans. Collins & Cow- ley (1910-). Gie. = Giesebrecht, Fried.; Das Buck Jere- mia {Handkom- mentar) (1894). Gins.i'"- = Ginsburg, D.; In- trodtiction to . . . Hebrew Bible (1897). Gratz = Gratz, H.; Emen- dationes, Fasc. 2 (1893). Gray = Gray, G. B.; He- brew Proper Names (1896). Grot. = Grotius,Hugo;/lM- notata ad Vetus Testamentum (1644). Griitzmacher = Griitzmacher, G.; Untersuchun- gen iiber den Ursprung der in Zach. 9-14 vor- liegenden Pro- phetien (1892). Gunkel = Gunkel, H.;5cAo/>- fung und Chaos (1895). Gu. = Guthe, H.; The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah {SBOT.) (1901). H.AH = Harper, W. R.; A mos and Hosea (ICC.) (1905). Hal. = J. Halevy; Le prophete Mala- chie, Revue se- mitique, XVII (1909), 1-44. Hammond = Hammond, H.; Paraphrase and A n notations upon all the Books of the New Testament (1653). Hanauer = Hanauer, J. E.; Tales Told in Palestine (1904). Hd. = Henderson, E. The Book of the Twelve Minor Prophets (1868). Hengstenberg = Hengstenberg, E. W. ; Die A uthen- tie des Daniel und die integri- tdt des Sacharja (1831). Herodotus = Herodotus ; History, ed. Rawlinson (3) (1875)- Hi. = Hitzig, Ferd.; Die zw 0 If kleinen Propheten, ed. Steiner (1881). Houb. = Houbigant, C. F.; Notae criticae in universos Veteris Testament i libros (1777)- HPA . = Wickes ; Hebrew Poetical Accents. XVlll HPS. ICC. Isop. Jastrow JBL. Jer. Jos.^"'- Jos/P- JTS. JQR. KAT. ABBRFA'IATIONS Kau. KB. Ke. Smith, H. P.; Old Testament His- tory (1903). : International Crit- ical Commentary. -- O. Isopescul, Der Prophet Mala- ccas (1908). = Jastrow, M.; The Religion of Baby- lonia and Assy- ria (1898). = Journal of Biblical Literature. = Jerome (t42o); Commentarii. = Josephus, FL; An- tiquities of the Jews. =1 dem, Contra Apion. = Journal of Theolog- ical Studies. = Jeivish Quarterly Review. = Schrader, E.; Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, ed. 2 C1883); ed. 3 (Zimmern and W i n c k 1 e r ) (1902). = Kautzsch, E.; Die heilige Schrift des alien Testa- ment s, ed. 3 (1910). = Keilinschrift- liche Bibliothek (1889- I 900). = Keil, C. F.; Bib- lischer Com men- Kent Ki. Kidder Kl. Klie. Klo. Knobel Ko.F-i..!. Ko.« Koh. tar iiber die zw olf kleinen Propheten (1873)- = C. F. Kent; Ser- mons, Epistles and Apocalypses of Israel's Proph- ets (1910). = K i m c h i, David (ti23o); Com- mentary. = Kidder, Rich.; Demonstration of the Messiah (1700). = P. Kleinert; Die Profeten Israels in s ozialer B e zi e h un g (1905)- = Kliefoth, Th.; Der Prophet Sacha- rjah (1862). = Klostermann, Aug. ; Geschichte des V olkes Israel (1896). = Knobel, A.; Der Prophetismus der Hebrder (1837)- = Konig, F. E.; Ein- leittmg in das Alte Testament (1893)- = Idem, Syntax der hehr a i sc hen Sprache (1897). = Kohler, Aug.; Die nachexilischen Propheten (1860- 65). ABBREVIATIONS XIX Kosters = Kosters, W. H.; Die Wiederher- stellung Israels, from the Dutch (1895)- Koster = Koster, F. B.; Meletemata . . . in Z a c h ar i (P ProphetcE partem posterior e ni Cap. ix-xiv (1818). Kraetzschmar = Kraetzschmar, R.; Das Buch Eze- chiel {Handkom- mentar) (1900). Kue. = Kuenen, A.; His- torisch - kritisch Onderzoek naar het Ontstaan en de Verzamling van de Boeken des Ouden Ver- b ond s, ed. 2 (1889-93). Kui. = Kuiper, A. K.; Zacharia, ix-xiv (1894). Lowth Lambert Lange Ley Lowe Lambert, M.; Notes Excge- tiques; RE J., tome 43, pp. 268/. Lange, J. P.; Die Prophelen Hag- gai, Sacharja, und M aleachi (1876). Ley, J.; Zu Sacha- r-ja 6:9-15. Lowe, W. H.; The Hebrew Student's Commentarv on Mahaffy Marck Marti Marti^^*" Matthes Zechariah (1882). Lowth, Wm. ; Com- mentary upon the Prophecy of Daniel and the XII. Minor Prophets (ron- tinuation of Pat- rick's Commen- t a r y, ed. 6) (1766). Mahaffy, J. P.; Egypt under the Ptolemies (1899). A History of Egypt iv (1899). See Petrie. ■■ Marck, Joh.; Com- ment arius in duodecim Proph- etas M inore s (1784). = Marti, Karl; Dode- kapr o phet on (1904). Der Prophet Sach- arja der Zeitge- nosse Zerubbabels (1892). Zwei Studien zu Sacharja; SK. (1892). = Idem, Der Prophet M aleachi, in Kautzsch's Heilige Schrift (19 10), pp. 97- 104. = Matthes, J. C; iTa^. 1:9; 2:15- 19; ZAW. (1903). XX Mau. Mede ABBREVIATIONS Meyer Mich. Mitchell Montet Moore Neumann Maurer, F. J. V. D.; Comment ari- us . . . in Vetus Testamentum, ii (1840). Mede, Joseph; Dis- sertationum ec- clesiaslicarum triga. Quibus accedunt f r a g- menta sacra (1653). Meyer, Ed.; Die Entstehung des Judenthiims (1896). Geschichte des Al- ter t hunts, iii (1901). •■ Michaelis,J. D., on Flugge's Weis- sagungen, etc. ; Neue orienta- lische und exege- tische Bihliothek (1786). Mitchell, H. G.; Some Final Con- structions in Bib- li c a I Hebrew (1879). Montet, E.; Etude critique sur la date assignable aux six dernier chapUres de Zacharie (1882). Moore, T. V. ; II ag- gai, Zechariah, and Malachi (1856). Neumann, W. ; Die Weissagu u <^en New. Nickel N5. Norzi Now. NoW.Arch- Now.'^ Nrd. Oesterley OIs. des Sacharja (i860). Newcome, Wm. ; The Twelve Minor Prophets, ed. 2 (1809). Nickel, Joh.; Die Wiederherstel- lung des jiid. C e m e i n d e- wesens nach dem Exil (1899). N6ldeke,Th.;/lw/- sdtze zur per- s i s c he n G e- schichte (1887). Norzi, J. S.; Se- pher 'arba'ah we- 'esrim (Hebrew Bible) (1742). Nowack, W.; Die kleinen Prophe- ten {Handkom- mentar), 2d ed. (1903)- Idem, Lehrbiich der hebrciischen Ar- ch iiologie (1894). Idem, Duodecim Prophetae, in Kittel's Biblia Hebraica (1906). Nordheimer, I.; ^1 Critical Gram- mar of the He brew Language (1840). Oesterley, W. O. E.; Old Latin Texts of the Minor Prophets; ITS., V. O I sh au s en, J.; I.ehrbuch der he- ABBREVIATIONS XXI Ols —Conlinued. meftt in the Light brdischen of the Historical Sprache (1861). Records of As- Oort = Oort, H.; Textus syria and Baby- Hebraici Emen- lotiia (1902). dationes (1900). Polybius = Polybius; Histo- Or. = vonOrelli, C; Die ries, ed. Shuck- zw olf kleinen burgh (1889). Propheten Prasek = Prasek, J. V.; Ge- {Kurzg efa ss- schichte der Me- ter Kommentar), der und Perser 3d ed. (1908); (1906). (Eng., 1893). PRE." = Protest antische Real-Encyklo- P = Priestly writer of pddie, 3d ed. Hexateuch. Pres. = Pressel, W.; Com- PEF. = Palestine Explora- mentar zu den tion Fund. Schriften der Pro- Peiser = Peiser, F. E.; Zu pheten Haggad, Zacharia; Orien- Sacharja, und talistische Liter a- Maleachi (1870). turzeitung Prince = Prince, J. D.; A (1901). Critical Com- Pem. = Pemble, Wm.; A mentary on the Short and Sweet Book of Daniel Exposition upon (1899). the First 9 Chap- Pu. = Pusey, E. B.; The ters of Zacharie Minor Prophets (1658). (1885). Pen = Perowne, J. J. S.; H a g gat and Ra. = Rashi (Rab. Shelo- Zechariah mohben Yishak, (1893)- 1040-1105); Peters = Peters, J. P.; Nip- Commentary. pur (1897). RB. = Revue Biblique. Petrie = Petrie, W. M. F.; Reinke = Reinke, L.; D er A History of Prophet Malea- Egypt, m{igos). chi (1856). Piepenbring = Piepenbring, C h. ; Idem, Der Prophet Theology of the Haggai (1868). Old Testament, REJ. = Revue des Etudes irom the French Juives. (1893)- Reu. = Reuss, Ed.; Das Pinches = Pinches, T. G.; A He Testament The Old Testa- (1892-94). Rib. = de Ribera, F. ; Cont- auctore propheta mentarius in li- (1856). brosXIl.Prophe- SBOT. = Sacred Books of the tarum (1581). Old Testament, Ries. = Riessler, P., Die Paul Haupt, Ed- kleinen Propheten itor. (1911). Schegg = P. Schegg; Die Robinson = Robinson, G. L.; Kleinen Propli- The Prophecies eten, II (1854). of Zechariah Seb. = Sebok, Mark; Die (1896). syrische Ueber- Rodkinson = Rodkinson, M. L.; setzung der zwolf The Babylonian kleinen Prophe- Talmud in Eng- ten (1887). lish (1896-1903). Seek. = Seeker, Thos.; Rogers =^ Rogers, R. W.; A Manuscript History of Bab- notes cited by ylonia and As- Newcome. syria (1900). Sellin = Sellin, Ernest; Se- Rosenm. = Rosenmiiller, E. F. rubbabel (1898). C; Scholia in Studien zur Ent- Prophetas Mi- stehungs ge- nor es (1836). schichte der jiid. Rothstein = Rothstein, J. W.; Gemeinde nach Die Genealogie dem bab. Exil des Konigs Joja- (1901). chin tind seiner Siev. = Sievers, Ed.; Me- Nachkommen trische Studien, I (1902). (1901). Alttestamentliche RP. = Records of the Past, ed. 2 (1889). Miscellen, 4, Rub. = Rubinkam, N. I.; Zu Maleachi The Second Part (1905/.). of the Book of SK. = Studien und Kriti- Zechariah ken. (1892). Sm. = Smend, R.; Lehr- Sanctius = Sanctius (Sanchez), C.; Commentari- buch der alltes- tamentlichen us in Prophdas Reli gions ge- schichte, 2d ed. Minores (162 1). (1899). = Spoer, Hans; Some new considera- Sandrock = Sandrock, H. L.; Prioris el poste- Spoer rioris Zacharice partis vaticinia tions towards the ab una eodemque dating of t h e ABBREVIATIONS XXlll Spoer — Continued. SS. Sta. Sta.§ StaGvi Sta.Theol. Staerk Stah. Stei. Stek. Bk. of Malachi, JQR., XX (1908). = C. Siegfried and B. Stade, Hehrd- isches Worter- buch Ztim Allen Testamenle (1893). «= Stade, B ern h.; Deulerozacha- rja; ZAW. (1881, 1882). = Idem, Lehrhuch der hebrdischen Grammaiik (1879). = Idem, Geschichle des Volkes Israel (1887-88). = Idem, Biblische Theologie des Alien Testa- ments (1905). = Staerk, W.; Unter- suchungen iiber die Composition und Abfassungs- zeit von Zach. 9-14 (1891). = Stahelin, J. J.; Eiti- leitung in die kanon ischen Biicher des Allen Testaments (1862). = Steiner, H.; addi- tions to Hitzig's Kleine Prophe- ten. = J. Z. Schuurmans Stekhoven ; D e Alexandrijnsclie Ston. Vertaling van het Dodekapro- pheton (1887). Stonard, John; A Commentary on the Vision of Zechariah (1824). Talm. ThSt. Theiner = Talmud: Tal.B-, the Babylonian; Tal.J-, the Jeru- salem Talmud. = Theol. Stud. = Theiner, J. A.; Die zwolf kleinen Propheten (1828). Theod. Mops. = Theodore of Mop- suestia (t429) ; Quae Supersunt Omnia, ed. Weg- nern (1834). Theodoret = Theodoret (t457); Commentarius in duodecim Pro- phetas, ed. 1642. = C. C. Torrey; The Prophecy of Mal- achi, J B L . , XVII (1898), 1-15; and art. Malachi in EB., Ill (1902). = Toy, C. H.; The Book of t he Prophet Ezekiel (SBOT.) (1899). Evil Spirits in tfte Bible, JBL., IX (1890). = Tristram, H. B.; Natural History Torrey Toy Tristram XXIV ABBREVIATIONS Tristram — Continued. of the Bible (1873). van H. = V a n licxinacker, A.; Les douze petils prophctes (1908). Les chapUres ix- xiv du livre Zecharie, RB. (1902). Vatke = Vatke, W.; Bib- lische Theologie (1834). V. Ort. = von Ortenberg, E. F. J.; Die Be- standtheile d e s Buches Sacharja (1859). We. «= Wellhausen, J.; Die kleinen Propheten, ed. 3 (1898). We.'J*^ = Idem, Israelitische und j ii disc he Geschichte (1907). Weber = Weber, Ferd.; Alt- synagogalische paldstinische Theologie (1880). Whiston = Whiston, Wm.;£;5- say toward re- storing the true text of the Old Testament (1722). Wickes = Wickes, Wm.; Tlie Hebrew Prose Accents (1888). Wiedemann = Wiedemann, A.; Geschichte Ae- g y p t e n s von Psammetik I. bis auf Alexander den G r o s s e n (1880). Wild. = Wildeboer, G.; De Lelterkunde des Ouden Ver- bonds (1886; 3d ed., 1903). Wilson = Wilson, C. T.; Peasant Lije in the Holy Land (1906). Wkl. = Winckler, Hugo; Maleachi, Altor- ientalische For- s chun gen, II (1899), 531-539- Wri. = Wright, C. H. H.; Zechariah and his Propliecies (1879). WRS.o'T-'c = W. Robertson Smith; Old Testament in the Jewish Church. WRS.P' = Idem, The Proph- ets of Israel. ZAW.;ZATW ZDPV. = Zeitschrift far die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. = Zeitschrift des deutschen Palds- tina-V ereins. ABBREVIATIONS XXV IV. GENERAL, ESPECIALLY GRAMMATICAL. abs. = absolute. def. = defective. abstr. = abstract. del. = dele, strike out. ace. = accusative. dittog. = dittography. ace. cog. = cognate ace. dub. = dubious, doubtful. ace. pers. = ace. of person. E. = east, eastern. ace. rei. = ace. of thing. ed., edd. = edition, editions. ace. to = according to. act. = active. e.g. = for example. elsw. = elsewhere. adj. = adjective. adv. = adverb. esp. = especially. el al. = et aliter, and else- Utt. or a.x. = dira^ XeySfifvov^ word or phr. used once. = alternative. where, and others alt. Eth. = Ethiopic. alw. = always. exc. = except. apod. = apodosis. /.,!■ = and following. Ar. = Arabic. fem. = feminine. Aram. = Aramaic, Aramean. fig. = figurative. art. = article. Jin = toward the end. Assy. = Assyria, Assyrian. f. n. = foot-note. freq. = frequentative. Bab. = Babylonian. fut. = future. b. Aram. = biblical Aramaic. bibl. = biblical. gen. = genitive. gent. = gentilic. eaus. = causative. Gk. = Greek. ch., chs. = chapter, chapters. haplog. = haplography. c. = circa, about. Heb. = Hebrew. cod., eodd. = codex, codices. Hiph. = Hiphil of verb. cog. = cognate. Hithp. = Hithpael of verb. col., coll. = column, columns. com. = commentary, com- id. = idem, the same. mentators. i. e. = id est, that is. cp. = compare. impf. = imperfect. concr. = concrete. imv. = imperative. cf. = confer, compare. indef. = indefinite. conj. = conjunction. inf. = infinitive. consec. = consecutive. ins. = inscription, inscrip- estr. = construct. tions. constr. = construction. intrans. = intransitive. contra = contrariwise. Intro. = Introduction crit. n. = critical note. juss. = jussive. d. f. = daghesh forte. 1., 11. = line, lines. XXVI I.e. ABB = loco citato, in REV the lATIONS Qal = Qal of verb. place before ci ted. q. V. = quod vide, which see. lit = literal, literally. rd., rds. = read, reads. marg. = margin, marginal ren. = refle.xive. masc. = masculine. rcl. = relative. metr. = metrical. rm. = remark. mod. = modern. mss. = manuscripts. S. = south, southern. mt. = mount(ain). SE. = south-cast. mir. cs. = metri causa = for SW. = south-west. the sake of the Sab. = Sabean. metre. sf., sfs. sg- = suffix, suffixes. = singular. N. = north, northern. sq. = followed by. NE. = north-east. sir. = strophe. NW. = north-west. subj. = subject. n. = note. subst. = substantive. NH. = New Hebrew. Syr. = Syriac. Niph. = Niphal of verb. S. V. = sub voce. obj. = object. t. = times (following a oft. = often. number). om., oms. = omit, omits. text. n. = textual note. p., pp. = page, pages. tr. = transpose. parall. = parallelism. trans. = transitive. part. = particle. v., vv- = verse, verses. pass. = passive. V. = vide, sec. pers. = person. vb. = verb. pf. = perfect. V. i. = vide infra, see below Pi. = Piel of verb. (usually t e X t u al pi. = plural. note on same plupf. = pluperfect. verse). Po. = Polel. viz. = videlicet, namely, to pred. = predicate. wit. preg. = pregnant. voc. = vocative. prep. = preposition. V. s. = vide supra, see above prob. = probable. (usually general re- pron. = pronoun. m a r k on same proph. = prophet, prophetic. verse) . prtc. = participle. Pu. = Pual of verb. W. ;= west, western. A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON HAGGAI AND ZECHARIAH BY HINCKLEY G. MITCHELL, PROrESSOR OF HEBREW AND OLD TESTAMENT EXEGESIS IN TUFTS COLLEGE INTRODUCTION. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE PROPHECIES OF HAGGAI AND ZECHARIAH. § I. CYRUS. The career of Cyrus was watched with the intensest interest from the beginning by all the peoples of western Asia. The bold- ness and success of his invasion of Media in 550 B.C., and the vig- our with which he enforced his sovereignty over this great king- dom, drove Croesus of Lydia and. Nabonidus of Babylonia to an alliance with each other and with Ahmes of Egypt for their common protection. The degree of interest among the Baby- lonians appears from a chronicle of the period in which there is an account, not only of the Median campaign, but of one, three years later, in another direction, as well as of that which in 539 B.C. resulted in the occupation of Babylon and the submission of the empire of which it was the capital.* When the conqueror finally invaded Babylonia the inhabitants took different attitudes toward him. The king and his party, including the crown prince, Belshazzar, of course, did what they could to withstand him. The priests, on the other hand, whom Nabonidus had offended by neglecting the worship of Marduk and bringing the gods of other cities in numbers to the capital, favoured him. In fact, they betrayed their country into his hands and welcomed him as its deliverer. t There was a similar division among the Jews set- tled in Babylonia. Some of them, much as they may have heard of the magnanimity of the Persian king, dreaded his approach. ♦ KB., iii, 2, 128 }f.; Pinches, OT., 411. t KB., iii, 2, 124 ff., 132 if.; Pinches, OT., 415 /. 3 4 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND It is they, perhaps, to whom certain passages in the second part of the book of Isaiah were addressed, notably the following: '. "Woe to him that striveth with his Maker, — a potsherd among the potsherds of the ground! "Doth the clay say to the potter, What makest thou? or his work, Thou hast no hands? ". "Thus saith Yahvveh, the Holy One of Israel, even his Maker: "Of future things ask me, and concerning the work of my hands command me. >*. "I myself made the earth, and man on it I created; "My hands stretched out heaven, and all its hosts I commanded. ". "I myself aroused him in righteousness, and all his ways will I direct; "He shall build my city, and all my captives shall he release; "Not for hire, and not for reward, saith Yahweh of Hosts." * There was, however, another party. At any rate, the author of the lines ju.st quoted was enthusiastic in his faith, not only that Cyrus would succeed, but that his success meant deliverance to the Jews in exile. He recognised in the Persian king an instru- ment of Yahweh. Cj. Is. 41^ ^- ^ 46". Indeed, — and he must thereby have greatly scandalised many of his countrymen, — he went so far as to identify Cyrus with the Ideal King for whom the Jews had long been praying and looking. CJ. Is. 44"* 45'. He was so confident of victory for this divinely chosen champion that he boldly foretold the fall of Babylon and exhorted the exiles to prepare for their departure. Cf. Is. 46* ^- 47* ^- 48-" '• 52". Finally, he predicted that Cyrus, having released them from cap- tivity, would rebuild Jerusalem and restore the temple, its chief ornament. This last prophecy is so important that it deserves to be quoted entire. It runs as follows: '•". "Thus saith Yahweh, thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb; ♦ Is. 45' "■. On tlic diangcs and omissions in the pass.ige as here remiered, c\. Cheyne, SBOT. CYRUS 5 "I am Yahweh, that made all things, that stretched out heaven alone; when I spread out the earth who was with me? *5. "That thwarteth the signs of the praters, and maketh diviners foolish; "That confuteth the wise, and turneth their knowledge into folly; 26. "That establisheth the word of his servants, and fulfilleth the counsel of his messengers; "That saith of Jerusalem, It shall be peopled (and of the cities of Judah, Let them be rebuilt), and its ruins will I restore; ". "That saith to the deep, Be dry, and thy streams will I dry up; M. "That saith of Cyrus, My shepherd, and all my pleasure shall he fulfil; "That saith to Jerusalem, Be built, and to the temple. Be founded." * Cyrus seems to have more than fulfilled the expectations of his Babylonian partisans. The chronicle to which reference has been made says, "He gave peace to the city; Cyrus proclaimed peace to all Babylonia. Gobryas his lieutenant he appointed governor of Babylon." It adds a most significant item, namely, "From Kislew onward to Adar the gods of Akkad, whom Nabonidus had brought down to Babylon, returned to their cities." f Cyrus, in an inscription of his own, refers to the same matter and claims further credit for restoring both the gods and the people of cer- tain districts on the Tigris to their homes. He adds a prayer that these gods in return may daily remind Bel and Nebo to lengthen his days and bestow upon him their favour.| These interesting records must not be misunderstood. They do not mean that at this time the Persian conqueror abandoned the religion of his fathers and adopted that of the Babylonians; but that, being magnanimous by nature, he made it his policy to conciliate his subjects. § If, however, such was his disposition, * Is. 44^* ff ■. Duhm and Cheyne omit the next to the last line and transfer the last to v. ^, but the omission of the fourth line of that verse makes any further pruning unnecessary. On the minor changes in the te.\t, cf. Cheyne, SBOT. t KB., iii, 2, 134 /. t KB., iii, 2, 126 /.; Pinches, OT., 422. § On this point \6ldeke has some remarks that are well worth quoting. He says: "If in these two inscriptions (the Chronicle and Cyrus's Cylinder) Cyrus appears as a pious worship- per of the Balnlonian gods, and indeed, according to the Cylinder, Merodach himself led him 6 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND there is in this fact a warrant for supix)sing that, unless there were reasons for a diflferent course, he favoured the return of the Jews to their countrj'. He does not mention them among the bene- ficiaries of his clemency, nor is there, among the known relics of his empire, any record concerning his actual treatment of them. The only direct testimony on the subject is found in the Hebrew Scriptures and works based on them.* The Chronicler, in a passage a part of which is preserved at the end of the second book of Chronicles and the whole at the beginning of the book of Ezra, recites that, in the first year after assuming the government of Babylonia, Cyrus issued a formal proclamation announcing that " Yahweh, the God of heaven," had given him "all the kingdoms of the earth" and commissioned him "to build him a house in Jerusalem"; summoning the Jews who were moved so to dof to return to their country and assist in the project; and commanding the neighbours of those who responded to the call to provide them with "silver, and gold, and cattle, together with a freewill offer- ing for the house of God ... in Jerusalem." The author adds (vv. ^ ^■) that these instructions were loyally fulfilled, and that a company of exiles under Sheshbazzar "were brought up," with "the vessels of the house of Yahweh," "from Babylon to Jerusa- lem." The number of those who took advantage of this oppor- tunity to return to Palestine is said to have been 42,360, besides their servants and a company of singers. Cf. Ezr. 2'^^-. The release of the Jews, with permission to rebuild their temple, is so thoroughly in harmony with the policy of Cyrus that one is disposed to accept the Chronicler's account without question. When, however, one examines it more closely, there appear rea- because he (Merodach) was angry with the native king for not serving him properly, sacerdotal diplomacy of this sort should not deceive the trained historian. The priests turned to the ris- ing sun without regard to their previous relations with Nabonidus. Cyrus certainly did not suppress the Babylonian religion, as the Hebrew prophets expected; the splendour of the ritual in the richest city in the world probably impressed him. When, however, the priests (by whom the inscriptions were prepared) represent him as an adherent of the Babylonian religion, tliat does not make him one, any more than Cambyses and some of the Roman emperors are made worshippers of the Egyptian gcxls by being represented on some of the monuments of the land of the Nile as paying them due reverence just like Egyptian kings." A PC, 22. * I Esd. 2, Jos. ■*"'■, xi, I. t There is no such modifying clause in the Mas.soretic text of Ezr. i', but it is easily supplied from v. ' and must be restored to complete the meaning. See Guthe, SBOT. CYRUS 7 sons for more or less skepticism. Kosters, as the result of his in- vestigations, not only doubts the historicity of Cyrus's decree, but declares that "in the history of the Restoration of Israel this re- turn must take, not the first, but the third place"; and that "the temple was built and the wall of Jerusalem restored before the exiles returned from Babylonia."* Meyer is less radical, but he, while he contends for the historicity of the return under Cyrus, characterises this account of it as a fabrication.! There are sev- eral reasons for suspecting its authenticity: i. The language used in the decree is not that of a genuine document emanating from the king of Persia, but of a free composition from the hand of the Chronicler, as in the verses describing the fulfilment of its re- quirements. 2. The thought dominant in the decree does not properly rep- resent Cyrus as he appears in undoubtedly genuine contemporary records. Thus, at the very beginning he is made to call Yahweh "the God of heaven," and claim that he (Yahweh) has given him "all the kingdoms of the earth"; which amoimts to a confession that the God of the Jews is the ruler of the world and the only true God. Now, it is improbable that he would have made any such announcement. He could not have done so without seri- ously offending the Babylonians. Had he not, in the inscription already cited, given to Marduk the title "king of the gods," and said that it was this Babylonian divinity who predestined him to "the sovereignty of the world" ?| If, therefore, he issued a de- cree permitting the return of the Jews, it must have been in a differ- ent form from that which has been preserved by the Chronicler. 3. Those who deny that the Jews returned to Palestine, in any such numbers as are given in Ezr. 2, in the first year of Cyrus, call attention to the fact that, in chs. 5 and 6, where this decree is cited, the erection of the temple and the restoration of the sacred vessels are the only matters to which it is represented as referring. C/. 5"«-6^«-.§ 4. Although the document reproduced in Ezr. 2, vdth its vari- ous classes and precise figures, reads Uke a transcript from a de- tailed report of the number and character of the exiles who re- ♦ WI., 2. t EJ; 72, 49- X A'S.. iii, 2, 120 fi. § Kosters, WI., 26. 8 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND turned to their country under the terms of the decree attributed to Cyrus, a critical examination renders this view untenable. The reasons for a different opinion are: (a) that in the title (Ezr. 2*) the persons enumerated are described as "children of the prov- ince" who "had returned to Jerusalem and Judah," that is, were settled in the country when the census was made; (b) that the same document, in a somewhat earlier form, is found in Ne. 7, where (v. '') it is called "a book of genealogy," that is, a genealogical register; (c) that the phrase, "of them that came up at the first," here found, is an interpolation,* and the list of leaders in both Ezr. 2 and Ne. 7 also evidently an afterthought ;| (d) and that, if this list were retained, it could be used as proof of a great return in the first year of Cyrus only on the mistaken supposition that Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel are different names for the same person. J These considerations oblige one to confess that the document in question was not intended for its present connec- tion, and that therefore it cannot be used to prove that any great number of Jews, by permission of Cyrus, returned to their coun- try soon after the capture of Babylon. § 5. It appears from Zc. 6'° that the Jews of Babylonia were free to return to Jerusalem when it was written, but neither this prophet nor Haggai betrays any knowledge of so great a movement as that described in the first two chapters of Ezra. In fact, Zc. jio/ofiF.^ where Zion is exhorted to "flee" from Babylon, indicates that no such movement had taken place when this passage was written. Cf. also Zc. 6*=^ 8' ^■. These are the most serious objections to the Chronicler's ac- count of the return of the Jews under Cyrus. They do not lie ♦ It cannot be construed with the preceding context. Cj. Oulhe SHOT. t CI. Guthe, SBOT. X This view was formerly common, and there are some who still hold it. So Ryle, on Ezr. ■ i' ; van Hoonacker, PP., 543. The following points, however, seem conclusive against it: (i) The Chronicler, who alone has the name Sheshbazzar, gives his reader no hint that it is in- tended to designate the same ix?rson as Zerubbabel. (2) In Ezr. 5" he represents the lead- ers of the Jews as using the name in such a way that it cannot fairly be understocxi as a desig- nation for one of their own number. (3) If, as Meyer (EJ., 77) and others claim, the Slienaz- zar of I Ch. 3'* is Sheshbazzar, the author must be reckoned a positive witness against the iden- tity of the person so called with ZerubbaWl. Cj. DB., art. Sheshbazzar. § In I Esd. 5 the same document appears as a part of an account of a return with Zerub- babel at the beginning of the reign of Darius. CYRUS 9 against a less spectacular view of the matter, derived, not from the prophecies of the Second Isaiah,* but from more nearly con- temporary sources, i. In the first place, as has already been sug- gested, the liberality of which Cyrus gives evidence in his memorial inscription would prompt him to favour the return of the Jews to their country. 2. It would also suit his plans against Egypt to have them re-estabUsh themselves on the western border of his empire under his protection. 3. Again, the decree cited in Ezr. ^13 ff.^ which makes the impression of a genuine document, al- though there is no mention of the release of the captives, implies that they were by the same instrument, or had been by another, permitted to return to Palestine, since it would have been mockery to order the restoration of the temple without allowing them to go to worship at its altar. 4. Finally, since most, if not quite all, of the better class of inhabitants had been carried into captivity by Nebuchadrezzar, the fact that at the beginning of the reign of Darius there were princes of the house of David as well as priests and prophets resident at Jerusalem f shows that a royal edict permitting them to return had then been in operation for some time. Taking these factors into account, and remembering that, according to Ezr. 6^, the record of the alleged decree was finally found in Ecbatana, it seems safe to conclude that, after setthng the affairs of Babylonia, the king, early in 538 B.C., retired to Ecbatana, whence he issued orders releasing the Jews from cap- tivity and instructing Sheshbazzar to rebuild their temple and re- store its sacred vessels; and that from this time onward they could, and did, return, as they were moved so to do, to their native land.J The Chronicler does not say when the Jews started from Baby- lonia, or when they arrived in Palestine; but in Ezr. 3 he informs the reader that, "when the seventh month was come," they "were in the cities," and that on the first of the month Joshua and Zerub- babel had rebuilt the altar at Jerusalem, so that they could offer * Compare the phraseology of Ezr. i' "• with that of Is. 41- and 44-'. t Hg. i' 2' '•, etc. t CI. Meyer, EJ., 47 '■ Andr^ (83 ff.) supposes two distinct expeditions to have been organ- ised, the first of which left Babylonia under Sheshbazzar soon after the decree was issued, the second under the twelve elders, among whom were Zerubbabel and Joshua, somewhat later. lO HISTORICAL BACKGROUND the daily sacrifice and observe the feasts in their seasons. Now, there is nothing surprising in this statement, so far as its main features, the restoration of the altar and the resumption of wor- ship, are concerned, but some of its details seem incredible. In the first place, note that Ezr. 3' is evidently an adaptation of Ne. 7^^^ and 8*^, while the date for the resumption of worship (v. ") seems to have been borrowed from Ne. 8^. Again, observe that Sheshbazzar, at this time governor of Judea, who had been com- missioned by Cyrus to rebuild the temple, and who, according to Ezr. 5'", actually "laid the foundations of the house of God," is not mentioned in this connection. Finally, consider how strange it is that the Jews should be described (v. ^) as urged by the fear of "the peoples of the countries," although they must have had the protection of the governor and a considerable force of Persian soldiers. These discrepancies, especially in view of the phrase- ology employed,* indicate that here, again, the Chronicler is re- constructing history, this time in the interest of his favourites, Joshua and Zerubbabel, the truth being that the great altar was rebuilt by Sheshbazzar, and that this is what is meant by ascrib- ing to him the foundation of the temple in Ezr. 5"^.! Ezr, 3, from v. ^ onward, is devoted to a description of the lay- ing of the foundation of the second temple. In this passage, also, the Chronicler is composing freely, aided to some extent by ex- tant materials, including the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah. The phraseology is his J and the content is characteristic. The leader in this case is Zerubbabel. Had not Zechariah (4") said that Zerubbabel had laid the foundation of the house ? He is as- sisted, as one would expect, by Jeshua (Joshua), son of Jehosadak, the high priest, whom the prophets named associate with him. The date given was probably suggested by that of the actual foundation in the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah. It is the second year, not, however, of Darius, but, that the prophecy of Is. 44^* might be fulfilled, of Cyrus. The names of the heads * The expressions characteristic of the style of the Chronicler are the following: set tip and countries, v. ' ; each day, lit., day with day, v.* ; villinsly offered, v. » ; r/. Driver, LOTfi, 53s ff. t Cj. Meyer, EJ., 44 /• X Cj. house of God and appoint, v. ' ; have the oversight, vv. * '•; ajler the order, v. '" ; praising and giving thanks, v. " ; further, Driver, LOT.', 434 ff. CYRUS II of the Levites (v. ®) were taken from 2*",* the author overlooking the fact that, on his own interpretation, it was not the persons bearing these names, but their sons, who were contemporaries of Zerubbabel. The functions of the Levites are the same here as in other passages in which the Chronicler deals with affairs of the temple. Cf. 2 Ch. 24^- " 34^- ^^. It is characteristic, too, for him to introduce music "after the order of David," whenever there is an opportunity. C/. i Ch. \^^^- 2 Ch. 5"^-.t His idea seems to have been to make this occasion correspond in its significance to that when the ark was brought from Kirjath- jearim to Jerusalem by Da\ad. Cf. i Ch. 16. Finally, the Chronicler describes the effect produced upon "the old men who had seen the first house" when the foundation of the new one was put into place : the cries of joy and sorrow mingled in a great and indistinguishable "noise." This is a clearly an enlargement upon Hg. 2^. The whole account, then, is simply the product of an attempt to bring the facts with reference to the restoration of the temple into harmony with an unfulfilled prediction on the sub- ject, and has no historic value. The prolepsis just noted made it necessary for the Chronicler to explain why the completion of the temple was so long delayed. He had no data for the purpose, but, fortunately, the history of the restoration of the wall of Jerusalem suggested a means by which he could fill the embarrassing interim. Cf. Ne. 3^^-/4* ^• ^iff./7ff. ^1 fif. j|. ^g^g ^^ "adversaries" of his people, he says (Ezr. 4* ^•), who hindered the work begun the year after their re- turn, just as they afterward did that of Nehemiah. Cf. Ne. 4'^/". He does not at first divulge who these "adversaries" are, but finally he identifies them with the descendants of the hea- then with whom the king of Assyria, here Esarhaddon, colonised northern Palestine after the overthrow of the kingdom of Israel. Cf. 2 K. 17^ ^•. It was they who "frightened" the Jews "from * For Jiidah read Hoduyah.- The fourth name, Henedcd, seems to be a later addition sug- gested by Ne. io">'». t In 2 Ch. 3412, where, according to the Massoretic text, the repairs on the temple would seem to have been made to the sound of trumpets and cymbals, the latter half of the verse has prob- ably been added by a thoughtless scribe. Cf. Nowack, who thinks the latter half of v. " also is ungenuine. 12 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND building, and hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus, king of Persia, even to the reign of Darius, king of Persia." The animus of this story is apparent. It breathes the hatred and contempt with which the Jews regarded their northern neighbours. Its unreality is equally evident. The request put into the mouth of these "adversaries" contradicts, not only the term applied to them, but all that is known with ref- erence to their attitude toward the Jews and their sanctuary.* The passage, therefore, does not add to the trustworthiness of the preceding account of the foundation of the temple. The general statement of Ezr. 4'^ might have sufticed to bridge the interval between the date there mentioned and that at which, according to the Chronicler, work on the temple was resumed, namely, the second year of the reign of Darius. The author, however, was not content to leave his readers without details. One of the incidents he cites is barely mentioned, the other is given in extenso. A certain Rehum and others, of Samaria, it seems, made a formal complaint against the Jews, setting forth that it would be dangerous to allow them to proceed with the operations in which they were engaged. The king, after an in- vestigation, issued the desired decree, whereupon Rehum and his companions "went in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them cease by force and power. Then," says the writer, "ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem; and it ceased until the second year of Darius, king of Persia." Cf. Ezr. 4^ ^•. The natural inference from the last clause is that both incidents were obstacles to the completion of the sanctuary, and that both occurred before the reign of Darius. This, however, is not the case; for it is clear from vv. *^^- that it was the rebuilding of the city and its wall against which the Samaritans protested, and it is expressly stated that the first complaint was made in the reign of Xerxes, the son of Darius, and the second in that of Artaxerxes, * C/. Meyer, GA., iii, 191 /. There is a similar case in Ne. 2^, where the Chronicler would lead one to infer that the Samaritans had offered to assist Nehemiah in his work; whereas, from documents recently discovered, it is clear that, so far from recognising the pretensions of the Jerusalemites, they favoured local sanctuaries, and recommended the restoration of the one at Elephantine. C/. Sachau, Report 0/ the Smithsonian Institution jor 1907, 603 fj.; Lagrange, ia Revue BiHique, 1908, iis ff. CYRUS 13 his grandson. In other words, the Chronicler, for the purpose of enriching his narrative, here introduces incidents that had nothing to do with the temple, and happened, if they are authentic, many- years after it was completed. They may be of value for the period to which they belong, but they have no place in an introduction to the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah.* The Chronicler, then, has no reliable information concerning the Jews, or their condition and relations, for the ])eriod from the first year after the fall of Babylon to the second of the reign of Darius. The annals of Persia are almost as completely silent with reference to them and their country. Their neighbours gen- erally, as vassals of Babylon, had promptly submitted to Cyrus. Gaza, probably at the instigation of the king of Egypt, hesitated; but it, like the Phoenician cities, finally accepted the new order.f A show of force may have been necessary, but soon, so far as Pal- estine was concerned, the king was free to devote his energies to a war with the Scythians by which, although it cost him his Hfe, he greatly extended and firmly established, in the north and east, the boundaries of his empire. The death of Cyrus took place in 530 or 529 B.C. J By this time a considerable number of Jews must have returned to Pales- * A suggestion with reference to the text of Ezr. 4^-"', however, may not be out of order. It is that, in vv. ' ^■, the author is reporting the transmission by a higher Persian official of the substance of a letter received from a subordinate. The interpretation will then be as follows: In V. ' the author says that, in the reign of Artaxerxcs, Mithredath (Mithridates), originally the only person named, wrote a despatch to the king, of which there was an Aramaic translation. In V. * he gives the words with which Mithredath introduces the matter of the letter: " Rehum, the commandant, and Shimshai, the scribe, have written this letter against Jerusalem to Arta- xerses the king, to wit." Then (v. ') follows the list of complainants with which the letter be- gan: "Rehum, the commandant, and Shimshai, the scribe, and the rest of their associates," etc. ".^nd now," says Mithredath (v. 'i), by way of introduction to the letter proper, "this is the copy of the letter that thy ser\'ants. the men beyond the River, have sent to .^Vrtaxer-xes the king"; and he gives his master the contents of the letter. It appears from v. " that Rehum was an official resident at Samaria. Mithredath, therefore, was probably the incumbent of the fifth satrapy, which included Palestine. According to Meyer his residence was at Aleppo. CI. GA., ii, 137. t Noldeke, A PC, 23; PraSek, GAfP., i, 232 /., 23s. t The latter is the date usually given. So Wiedemann, GA., 224/.; Noldeke, .APG., 26. The Ptolemaic Canon, however, places his death in 530, and the contract tablets of the latter part of that year bear the name of his successor. Cj. Prasek, CMP., 200, 246 /. It is proba- ble, however, that, when Cyrus started on his unhappy expedition against the Massagetae, he placed the regal authority in the hands of Cambyses, who thus began to reign some months before his father's death. C/. Herodotus, i, 208; vii, 41 PraSck, CMP., i, 242. 14 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND tine. Their condition was not an enviable one. Of this one can assure one's self without the help of the Chronicler. In the first place, even if the great altar had been rebuilt, it cannot but have emphasised the desolation by which it was surrounded. More- over, those who lived at Jerusalem were constantly reminded by the prostrate walls of the present weakness as well as the former strength of their city. Finally, some of the returned exiles were suflfering actual want; for, according to Hg. 2'"/., when the temple was founded, it had been a long time since there was a normal harvest. Zechariah (8'") bears similar testimony, referring also to the constant annoyance his ]:)eople had suffered from hostile neigh- bours. The discouragement that these hard conditions would nat- urally engender had doubtless found frequent expression. Per- haps, as some scholars incline to believe,* Is. 63/. are among the literary products of the period. At any rate, the sufferers could hardly have put their complaint into more fitting or forceful language. The following lines from ch. 64 are especially appro- priate : 8/'. " Be not, Yahweh, very wroth. nor remember iniquity forever: "Look, see, I pray thee, we are all thy people. o/io_ "Thy holy cities have become a desert; Zion hath become a desert, Jerusalem a waste, to/u. "Our holy and beautiful house, where our fathers praised thcc, hath been burned with fire, ".\nd all that was precious to us hath become a ruin. "/'=. "And wilt thou still restrain thyself, Vahwch? be quiet? nay, greatly afSict us? f § 2. CAMBYSES. The successor of Cyrus on the throne of Persia was Cambyses. His chief exploit was the conquest of Egypt. It is probable that * BIcek. Einl.. 346. t Baethgen, with more or less confidence, refers to this period the following Psalms : 16, 41, 56, 57, 59. 64, 79, 85, 120, 123, 124, 125, 127, 131 and 137. CAMBYSES 15 Cyrus had planned the subjugation of this country, and that, at his death, he had bequeathed to his son the duty of punishing Ahmes for joining Croesus and Nabonidus in a league against him. A second reason for undertaking this enterprise was that the king of Egypt had shown a good degree of vigour and prudence in the recent past. He had compelled the island of Cyprus to pay him tribute,* and contracted an alliance with the Greeks of Cyrenef and Polycrates the tyrant of Samos,J thus threatening Persian dominance in Asia Minor. Finally, there was the Achaemenid lust for dominion, which only the conquest of the world could satisfy. The immediate cause of the breach between the two powers is unknown. § Whatever it may have been, it must have arisen early in the reign of Cambyses, for by 526 B.C. he was ready for the con- flict.** In that year he set in motion his army, which, as it neared Egypt, was supported by a fleet of Greek, Cyprian, and Phoe- nician vessels that had been collected at Akka. The Jews must have been deeply interested in this expedition, and equally impressed by its magnitude, as it passed through Palestine. If any of them were disposed to disparage its strength, they were speedily disillusioned, for at Pelusium Cambyses routed the Egyptian army, and shortly afterward, at Memphis, he cap- tured Psammeticus III, the son and successor of Ahmes, thus completing the conquest of the country.ff There is wide disagreement among the authorities with refer- ence to the treatment of the Egyptians and their religion by the conqueror. A nearly contemporary record, the inscription on the statue of Uzahor, says that, when Cambyses had established him- self in Egypt, he took an Egyptian praenomen, Mesut-ra, received instruction in the religion of the country, recognised the goddess Neit by purging her temple, restoring its revenues and worship- * Herodotus, ii, 126. t Herodotus, ii, 181. t Herodotus, iii, 39 ff. § For the stories with reference to the subject current in the fifth century B.C., c}. Herodotus, iii, I ff- ** PrdSek, GMP., i, 252. There is difference of opinion with reference to the date. Brugsch (.Hist., ii, 312 if.) insists that the invasion of Egypt took place in 527 B.C., but Wiedemann (GA., 226 ff.) seems to have shown that he misread Serapeum 354, the inscription on which his con- clusion was based. Petrie, HE., iii, 360, supports Wiedemann. Duncker's (HA., vi, 145) date is 525 B.C. tt Herodotus, iii, 10 ff. l6 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ping at the renovated sanctuary, and finally made offerings to all the other gods that had shrines at Sais.* The story told by Herod- otus is very different. He pictures Cambyses as torturing Psam- meticus by cruelty to his children, abusing the mummy of the de- throned king's father, fatally wounding the bull in which Apis had recently manifested himself and making sport of the images in the temple of Ptah, the tutelar divinity of Memphis. f The truth seems to be that at first he was disposed to respect the cus- toms and prejudices of the conquered people, but that, after his return from his disastrous expedition against Ethiopia, he treated them and their gods as if they were responsible for its failure. Then, according to Uzahor, there happened "a very great calam- ity" affecting "the whole land," during which he (Uzahor) "pro- tected the feeble against the mighty." He adds, — and this state- ment shows that the religious interests of the country had thereby suffered seriously, — that, on the accession of Darius, he was com- missioned "to restore the names of the gods, their temples, their endowments and the arrangement of their feasts forever. "J The reign of Cambyses was not so unfortunate for the Jews. He seems to have continued toward them the policy adopted by his father, a policy which was prudent as well as liberal, in \iew of his designs against Egypt. When he had conquered that coun- try he gave proof of his favour by sparing their temple at Elephan- tine. § If, however, they were cherishing dreams of independence suggested by the earlier prophets, his reputation for jealousy and cruelty must have chilled their ardour and deterred them from activities that could be interpreted to their disadvantage. More- over, being on the route by which the Persian army entered Egypt, and by which it had to be re-enforced, they must more than once have been obliged to meet requisitions that sorely taxed their slender resources. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is no evidence, in the Scriptures or elsewhere, that, during the reign of * Petric, HE., iii, 360 fj. t Herodotus, iii, 14 i]., 27 #., 37. X Cj. Petric, HE., iii, 362. Jcdoniah, in his letter to Bagoses, says that "the temples of the gods of Egypt were all overthrown" by Cambyses. Report oj Sniilhsonian Inslilulion, 1807, 603 ^.; Revue Biblique, 1908, 325 fj. § Report oj the Smithsonian Institution, 1907, 603 fj.; Rei-ue Biblique, 1908, 32s ff- DARIUS I, HYSTASPES 1 7 Cambyses, they made any attempt to complete the temple or even to put their city into a defensible condition. If there are any psalms or other literar}^ remains of the period in the Old Testament, they cannot, for obvious reasons, be distinguished from those of the latter part of the reign of Cyrus. The reckless ways of Cambyses in Eygpt made the name of Persia hated in that country. The murder of his o^^^l brother, Bardes, which he had hitherto succeeded in concealing, now bore fruit in the alienation of his own people by the impostor Gomates, who seized the throne of Persia and proclaimed himself the miss- ing son of Cyrus. When the news reached Egypt the king, al- though he at first shrank from a contest in which success, however he achieved it, meant lasting infamy, at length, by the urgent ad- vice of his coimsellors, put himself at the head of his army and started for Persia. When he reached Syria, however, his cour- age failed him, and, calling together the nobles who attended him, he first confessed the assassination of Bardes and appealed to them to dethrone the usurper, and then committed suicide.* Thus, the Jews must have been among the first to learn of an event of the greatest significance for them and their interests. § 3. DARIUS I, HYSTASPES. Cambyses, who had no son, was finally succeeded by Darius Hystaspes, representing a collateral branch of the Achgemenids. Tlie story of the method by which he obtained the crown, as given by Herodotus,! is full of romantic details. The new king him- self, in the inscription akeady cited, gives this concise and simple account of the matter: "There was not a man, either Persian or Median, or any one of our family, who could dispossess of the empire this Gomates, the Magian. The State feared him exceedingly. He slew many p>eople who had known the old Bardes; for this reason he slew the people, lest they should recognise him as * The statement of Herodotus {Hist., iii, 64), that the death of the king was accidental, is contradicted by the Behistun inscription, in which Darius says expressly that "Cambyses, killing himself, died." RP.-, i, 114. t Hist., iii, 71 if. l8 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND not being Bardcs, the son of C3TUS. There was not any one bold enough to say aught against Gomates, the Magian, until I arrived. Then I prayed to Ormazd. Ormazd brought help to me. On the tenth day of the month Ragayadish, then it was that I slew this Gomates, the Magian, and the chief men who were his followers. At the fort named Sictachotes, in the district of Media called Nisaa, there I slew him. I dispossessed him of the empire. By the grace of Ormazd I became king. Ormazd granted me the sceptre." It was one thing to dispose of Gomates, and quite another, as Darius soon discovered, to get possession of the power that Cam- byses had wielded. One after another the principal provinces rebelled, until the whole of the eastern half of the empire, under various leaders, was in arms against him. The following is his catalogue of the insurgents he had to suppress before he could call himself, as he does at the beginning of this Behistun inscrip- tion,* "the great king, the king of kings, the king of Persia, the king of the provinces": "One was named Gomates, the Magian. He was an impostor; he said, I am Bardes, the son of Cyrus. He threw Persia into revolt. "One, an impostor, was named Atrines, a Susian. He thus said, I am the king of Susiana. He caused Susiana to revolt against me. "One was named Nadinta-belus, a native of Babylon. He was an im- postor. He thus said, I am Nabochodrossor, the son of Nabonidus. He caused Babylon to revolt. "One was an impostor named Martes, a Persian. He thus said, I am Imanes, the king of Susiana. He threw Susiana into rebellion. "One was named Phraortes, a Median. He spake lies. He thus said, I am Xathrites, of the race of Cyaxarcs. He persuaded Media to revolt. "One was an impostor named Sitratachmes, a native of Sagartia. He thus said, I am the king of Sagartia, of the race of Cya.\ares. He caused Sagartia to revolt. "One was an impostor named Phraates, a Margian. He thus said, I am the king of Margiana. He threw Margiana into revolt. "One was an impostor named Vcisdates, a Persian. He thus said, I am Bardes, the son of Cyrus. He headed a rebellion in Persia. "One was an impostor named Aracus, a native of Armenia. He thus said, I am Nabochodrossor, the son of Nabonidus. He threw Babylon into revolt." The courage and vigour that Darius brought to his herculean task are amazing; yet these essential qualities would hardly have availed him, had he not been loyally supported by several able generals, among whom was his own father, Hystaspes. He him- * RF.\ i, 126. DARIUS I, HYSTASPES I9 self, hanng apprehended and punished Atrines for claiming the crown of Susiana, turned his attention to Babylonia, where, after fighting two battles, he took the capital and put to death the im- postor, Nadinta-belus. While he was thus engaged the rest of the provinces revolted. As soon as he was free to do so he hurried to Media to assist Hydarnes against Phraortes, whom he overthrew in battle and finally executed. While here he sent a force into Sagartia under one of his generals, who defeated Sitratachmes, the usurping king, and brought him back a prisoner. Meanwhile, with some assistance from him, Armenia had been subdued and Hystaspes had restored order in Parthia and Hyrcania. The satrap of Bactria had also suppressed the uprising in Margiana. Finally, Darius himself saw the end of the second in Persia and Arachotia, while Intaphernes was subduing the second in Baby- lonia.* The above outline, which is intended merely to indicate the probable order of the events mentioned, might convey an errone- ous impression with reference to the duration of the struggle be- tween Darius and his adversaries. It really lasted about three years. There ought to be no difficulty, with the data given, to construct a chronology of his xictories; but, unfortunately, although he gives the month and the day of the month in almost every case, he does not mention the year to which these belong, or arrange his narrative so that the omission can always be supplied. Still, it is possible, with the help of Babylonian tablets belonging to the pe- riod, to determine approximately a number of important dates. Thus, the impostor Gomates must have set up his claim to the throne of Persia in the spring of 522 B.c.f The death of Cam- byses occurred late in the summer of the same year. J In the following autumn Gomates was overthrown by Darius, § who be- * RP."-, i, 116 #.; Noldeke, APC, 31 /. t The time of year is determined by a tablet dated in " Aim [April-May], the year of the be- ginning of the reign of Bardes, king of Babylon, king of the lands." KB., iv, 294 /. The year can hardly have been 523 B.C., as Prasek (GMP., i, 266) asserts, since Cambyses must have been informed of the event within a few weeks after it occurred, and must have taken steps to meet the usurper very soon after the receipt of such information. He did not, however, according to PraSek himself (GMP., i, 267) leave Egypt until the spring of 522 B.C. This, therefore, was probably the year of the beginning of Gomates's usurpation. t PraSek, GMP., i, 275. § PrdSek, GMP., i, 282. 20 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND gan his reign before the middle of March, 521 b.c* Toward the end of this year occurred the first revolt in Babylon, which prob- ably occupied him until the summer of 520 B.c.,t when he went to Media to finish the subjugation of that and the adjoining prov- inces. The second revolt of the Babylonians, which seems to have been the latest of these protests against the authority of Darius, was probably not suppressed before 519 b.c.J If Cambyses died in the summer of 522 B.C. and Gomates was overthrown before the end of the year, the first full year of the reign of Darius began with Nisan (March-April) 521 B.C., and the second with the same month in 520, before he had taken Baby- lon the first time. Now, "the second year of Darius the king," "the sixth month," and "the first day of the month," or about the middle of August, is the date on which Haggai approached Zerub- babel and Joshua, the then leaders in Jerusalem, with a message from Yahweh requiring them to rebuild the temple, and it was only a few days later that the work was actually begun. Cf. Hg. I*- *^. In other words, the movement among the Jews to rebuild the temple took place just when the latest news from the East seemed to warrant them in expecting the speedy collapse of the Persian empire. This can hardly have been a mere coinci- dence. It means that, whatever may have been the policy of Cyrus, that of his successor had been more or less repressive, and that the Jews, who, ha\ang one of their oww. race for governor, had now begun to think of autonomy, took the first favourable opportunity to provide a rallying-point for patriotic sentiment in the growing community. There is no intimation in the prophecies of Haggai or Zecha- riah that the project they were urging met with any opposition from the Persian government. The Chronicler does not claim that anything was done to hinder it, but he says that the Jews had * This sUtement is based on a tablet dated the ^venty-second of Adar (February-March) in "the beginning" of his reign. KB., iv, 302 /. t According to Herodotus (iii, 152), the siege of the city lasted a year and seven months. X So Meyer, GA., i, 613 i\. Duncker, following Herodotus, prolongs the first Babylonian revolt until the autumn of 519 B.C., making it necessary to suppose that the second was not suppressed until 517 B.C. C/. H.I., vi, 230 ^., 240 ^., 270 ff. DARIUS I, HYSTASPES 21 no sooner begun work than Tattenai, the governor of the satrapy west of the Euphrates, and certain others, appeared and inquired who had given them authority to rebuild the sanctuary.* They replied that Cyrus had done so in the first year of his reign, and that Sheshbazzar had actually laid the foundations of the build- ing at that time. Cf. Ezr. 5"- '^. Thereupon the governor re- ported to the king, asking that an examination be made to ascer- tain whether such a decree had ever been issued. Cf. Ezr. 5^^. The result was that a record to this effect was found at Ecbatana, and the governor was instructed not to interfere with the Jews in their work, but rather to assist them from the revenues of his dis- trict, that they might "offer sacrifices of sweet savour to the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king and his sons." CJ. Ezr. 6^ff-. The authenticity of this account has been disputed by Well- hausen, but the tendency, even among the more radical authori- ties, is to admit that, whether the Chronicler, to whom it owes its present form, composed (Schrader), compiled (Kosters) or only edited (Kuenen) it, it contains more or less material of a genu- inely historical character. This opinion is favoured by the fol- lowing considerations: 1. The general impression made by the story, as compared, for example, with i^ ^•, 4^^- or 6'®^-, is that it is temperate and plausible. 2. The consideration shown the Jews, first by the governor, and then by the king, is in harmony with the demands of the historical situation. The whole East had revolted against Darius; but as yet there had been no trouble in the western part of the empire, and it was very desirable that this state of things should continue. That the king realised this is clear from his treatment of the case of Oroetes, the satrap of Lydia, who was not removed, although he was kno^vn to be secretly disloyal, until the eastern provinces had been reduced to submission.! Probably Tattenai had re- * Ezr. 5'. The text adds a clause rendered (after & QJ) in RV. "and to finish this wall"; but the vocalisation of N'J^U'N indicates that the Jews read N'w't*, joiindalums, as in v. '8. Haupt (5BOr.) regards it as the Aramaic form of a.^ni, an Assyrian word for sanctuary. If RV. is correct, the wliole clause is probably an accretion. t Herodotus, iii, uo ij. 22 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ceived instructions to keep a close watch upon his district, but not to create unnecessary friction. When the case came before Darius, he would naturally make it a point to honour a decree of his great predecessor, knowing that, once firmly seated upon his throne, he could easily check any abuse of his liberality by the Jews of Jeru- salem. 3. The mention of Sheshbazzar (5^®) is significant. It shows that the Chronicler, when he introduced it, was borrowing from an older source, a source from which, in ch. 3, he found reason for diflfering, and in which, on this account, the reader should have the greater confidence. 4. When the Jews began work on the temple. Media was in re- bellion; but, by the time the report of Tattenai reached Darius, he had regained control of the province, including Ecbatana, where the edict of Cyrus was finally discovered. Cf. Ezr. 6^. 5. There are certain features of the rescript in reply to Tatte- nai (Ezr. 6*'^-) that speak for its genuineness. Thus, the request for an interest in the prayers of the worshippers of Yahweh (v. *°) reminds one of Cyrus's appeal to the gods that he had restored to their shrines to intercede for him and Cambyses with Bel and Nebo;* while the warning against tampering with the decree (v. ") has a parallel in the conclusion of the Behistun inscription where Darius himself says: "If, seeing this tablet and these figures, thou shalt injure them, and shalt not preserve them as long as thy seed endures, then may Ormazd be thy enemy, and mayest thou be childless, and that which thou mayest do may Ormazd curse for thee." The curse in v. ^^, however, is justly suspected of being an inter- polation, f It must have taken some time, several months, for Tattenai to get his instructions. Meanwhile the Jews proceeded \\A\h their work. At first they wrought with feverish, fanatical energy. On the twenty-fourth of the ninth month (December, 520 B.C.), the enthusiasm seems to have reached its height. This is the date on which Haggai prophesied the destruction of "the strength of the kingdoms of the nations." CJ. 3". Later the work began * KB., iii, 2, 126 /. t Meyer, EJ ., 51. DARIUS I, HYSTASPES 23 to drag. At any rate, Zechariah, in 4^ ^- of his prophecies, pic- tures the task before Zerubbabel and his associates as a "moun- tain." If they finally received any assistance from the govern- ment, it must have been delayed many months, as such grants are apt to be, for, according to the Chronicler (Ezr.6*^), the temple was not completed until the third of Adar in the sixth year of Darius, or February, 515 B.C. For some time after the suppression of the great uprising in the East Darius was employed in strengthening his hold on his vast dominions. To this end he removed ambitious satraps, like Oroetes, occupied strategic points in India and Asia Minor and thoroughly reorganised the empire. In the course of these activ- ities he had to devote some attention to Egypt, where Aryandes, an appointee of Cambyses, was usurping royal functions and pro- voking disorder. Perhaps he had already sent Uzahor, an official already (p. 1 5) mentioned, to repair some of the damage done to the country by his predecessor.* Finally he himself visited Egypt. There is no direct evidence bearing on the date of this visit, but Wiedemann,! by combining an inscription recording the death of an Apis with a notice by PolyasnusJ of a reward ofifered by the king for the discovery of another, has made it appear that it was, or began, in his fourth year, that is 517 b.c.§ His first act was to depose and execute the satrap. Then he proceeded to re- store order, institute necessary reforms, and otherwise display his wisdom and efficiency as a ruler. The greatest of his undertak- ings was the canal by which he planned to connect the Nile with the Red Sea, and thus open communication by water between Persia and the Mediterranean.** The presence of Darius in the West was a boon, not only to Egypt, but to Palestine. He may have visited Jerusalem as he passed through the country and, having personally inspected the rising temple, made further provision for its completion. At any ♦ The country from which Darius sent Uzahor on this mission, according to Petrie {HE., iii, 362), was Aram, Syria, but, according to Brugsch (Hist., ii, 30s), Elam. t G.4., 236/. t vii, II, 7. § So also Noldeke, APG., 41. ** Wiedemann, G.A., 241 /. The project was abandoned because Darius's engineers told him that the level of the Red Sea was higher than that of Egypt and that, therefore, if the canal were opened the country would be flooded. 24 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND rate, the latest of Zechariah's prophecies, which is dated in the fourth year of Darius (7'), in its tone and content indicates im- proved conditions. It is evident that, when it was written, the Jews, who had previously been almost entirely confined to Jeru- salem, and constantly annoyed, as they went and came, by the "adversary," had begun to occupy the surrounding country and enjoy the fruits of order and security. Cf. S'*"^-. Their ideas had meanwhile changed with their circumstances. They had laid aside, for the time being, their political aspirations, — Zerubbabel is not mentioned, — content that Jerusalem should be, not the capi- tal of a great, independent kingdom, but, as in the visions of the Second Isaiah, a sanctuary for all nations. Cf. 8" ^•. Note, too, the emphasis the prophet, in chs. 7/., lays upon justice, mercy, etc., and the clearness with which he teaches that the practice of these homely virtues is the condition of the continued enjoyment by the individual and the community of the favour of Yahweh. HAGGAI AND HIS PROPHECIES. § I. THE PERSONAL HISTORY OF THE PROPHET. The prophet Haggai is known only through his book. True, he is mentioned with Zechariah in Ezr. 5^ and 6", but the state- ments there found are so clearly based on the book attributed to him that they are of no value except to show that a writer about the beginning of the third century B.C. believed him to have been a historical character. Nor is there any direct information in the book of Haggai with reference to the origin or personal history of its author. In most other cases the name of the prophet's father is given (Is. i^), or that of the place of his birth or residence (Am. i'), or both (Je. i^); but here both are omitted. This fact, together with the further circumstance that the Hebrew word hag- gay* may mean my feasts, gives some plausibility to the hypoth- esisf that this book, Hke that of Malachi, was originally an anony- mous work, and that the name Haggai, more correctly, Haggay, was given to it because the prophecies it contained were all dated on feast-days. The name Haggai, however, differs from Malachi in that, as will be shown in the comments, it can be referred to a numerous class having the same form. Moreover, while it is true that the first of the prophecies attributed to Haggai was delivered on the first of the month, and the second on the seventh day of the Feast of Tabernacles,{ there is, as Andre himself admits, no evidence that the twenty-fourth of the ninth was ever celebrated as a festival by the Hebrews. There is, therefore, as good ground for accepting the historical reality of Haggai as that, for example, of Habakkuk. There was current among the early Christians a more or less * '-^'^. t Andr^, 8. t In the earliest references to this feast it is not dated, but from the time of Ezechiel onward it began on the fifteenth of the seventh month. Cj. Ez. 45^ ; Lv. 23^'' ; EB., art. Feasts, § 11 ; Nowaclc, Arch., ii, 180. 25 26 H.\GGAI distinct tradition to the effect that Haggai was of priestly lineage. It appears in a statement of a certain Dorotheas, whom De- litzsch* identifies with a bishop of Tyre of the same name, that, when Haggai died, "he was buried with honour near the sepul- chre of the priests, where the priests were customarily buried; "f but it is given in a more complete form by Hesychius, who says that the prophet "was buried near the sepulchre of the priests with honour, like them, because he was of priestly stock." J It should also be noted as in harmony with this tradition that, in the versions, the name of Haggai appears in the titles of some of the Psalms. § This external testimony is not in itself of so much value, but it would deserve more serious consideration if there were internal evidence to support it. There are those who claim that there is such evidence. They find it, first, in the tone and pur- pose of the book, which seems to them to betray the personal in- terest of a priest in the restoration of the worship by which his or- der had subsisted before the Exile;** and, second, in the prophet's familiarity, as displayed in 2"^-, with matters on which he him- self represents the priests as the recognised authorities. These reasons, however, are not convincing, especially in view of the fact that Jewish tradition, although it highly honours Haggai, attrib- uting to him and Zechariah and Malachi, with whom he is al- most always associated, various important services, If does not reckon him a member of the sacerdotal order. On the whole, therefore, it seems safest to ignore the Christian tradition and re- gard the prophet as a patriotic Jewish layman of unusual zeal for, and therefore, perhaps, unusual acquaintance with, the religion in which he had been born and reared. J J * De Habacuci Prophela Vila alque Mtate, 54 fj. t Maxima Bibliolhtca Velerum Palrum, iii, 422 j}. Cj. also Epiphanius, De Vilis Prophe- tarum, ed. PetaWus, ii, 235 jj. X Crilica Sacra, viii, Pars, ii, col. 33. § In et, rendered various sage decisions, etc. For numerous citations, cj. Andr^, 13 fj. tt Marti claims that 2" "■, so far from indicating that Huggai was a priest, favours the con- trary opinion. HIS BOOK 27 The Christian writers above cited agree in teaching that Haggai was born in Babylon. Dorotheus, Epiphanius and others say that he was still a young man when he came to Jerusalem.* Au- gustine, however, had somewhere learned that both Haggai and Zechariah had prophesied in Babylon before they and their coun- trymen were released from captivity. f The Jewish authorities, also, seem to have thought of Haggai as a man of mature, if not advanced, age when he arrived in Palestine. Otherwise they would not have attributed to him the wisdom and influence for which they gave him credit. Ewald and other modern commen- tators think he may have been among those who had seen the temple of Solomon before its destruction. Cf. 2^. If so, he must have been between seventy and eighty years of age when his prophecies were uttered. Perhaps his age explains why his prophetic career was so brief. At any rate, it seems to have been brought to a close shortly after the foundations of the new sanc- tuary were laid, while Zerubbabel was still governor of Jerusalem. § 2. THE BOOK OF HAGGAI, The book of Haggai consists largely of a series of four compara- tively brief prophecies, all dated, the last two on the same day. It is evidently not, in its entirety, from the prophet's own hand; for, both in the statements by which the several prophecies are intro- duced (i^ 2*- *°- ="*) and in the body of the third (2^^ ^•), he is re- ferred to only in the third person. Moreover, the first prophecy is followed by a description of its effect upon those to whom it was addressed (i*^"^'^) throughout which he is treated in the same ob- jective manner. There are similar passages in Zechariah; a fact which has led Klostermann to conclude that the book of Haggai and Zc. 1-8 originally belonged to an accoimt of the rebuilding of the temple in the reign of Darius, chronologically arranged and probably edited by Zechariah. J This thesis, however, cannot be maintained; for, in the first place, as will be shown in the com- ments on i'^, the point on which Klostermann bases his supposition, * For the text of these references, cj. Kohler, 6 /. t Enarraliones in P.t. cxliii. J GVI., 212 /. 28 HAGGAI that the combined works of the two prophets once had a chrono- logical arrangement, is mistaken, and, second, Budde has made it pretty clear that the narrative portions of Zc. i-8, in their pres- ent form, were not written by the author of the prophecies.* In fact, it is possible to go still farther and say that, if Budde is cor- rect in his analysis, Rothstein's less definite form of this hypoth- esis! 3.1so becomes untenable, the diflference between the narrative portions of the books of Haggai and Zechariah being so marked that they cannot all be attributed to any single author. While, therefore, it is necessary to admit that the book of Haggai is his only in the sense that it contains his extant prophecies, it is equally necessary to insist that it is, and was intended to be, a separate literary production. The book is so brief that it seems almost ridiculous to suspect its unity. Yet some have not only raised the question, whether all the prophecies it contains are correctly attributed to Haggai, but actually found reasons for answering it in the negative. The most ambitious of these critics is Andre, who claims (24^.) to have shown that 2^*'''" is an interpolation, being, in fact, a prophecy delivered by an unknown person on the twenty-fourth of the ninth month, not of the second, but of the first, year of the reign of Da- rius. The following is an outline of his argument for this conten- tion: I. The passage interrupts the development of the preceding discourse, the conclusion of which is found in vv. ^'"^. 2. The point of view in this passage is different from that of the rest of the book. 3. This message is addressed to Haggai, not, like the others, to the leaders and the people through him. 4. There are palpable contradictions between it and other portions of the book. 5. The vocabulary of these verses is different from that of the rest of the book. These statements, if they were all correct and rele- vant, would be conclusive against the genuineness of the passage in question. This, however, is not the case. In fact, in every instance either the allegation or the inference from it is mistaken. Thus, although 2^* repeats a clause from v. ^, the fact that vv. -' ^■ are addressed to Zerubbabel alone makes it a distinct prophecy, which, moreover, could not have been attached immediately to * ZAW., i<)o6, I fl. ^ KJ., 46/ HIS BOOK 29 V. ® without producing confusion.* The second statement is based on an exaggerated notion of the subtlety of the illustration used in 2*2 ff-- which, according to Andre, betrays the priestly legalist. It is really, as will be sho^vn in the comments, a figure that might have occurred to any Jew zealous for his religion in the days of the prophet. The third point touches the style, not of Haggai, but of the editor by whom his prophecies were collected. More- over, as will be shown, the original reading in 2^ was to, not hy Haggai, and, when this correction is made, the alleged discrep- ancy has disappeared. The contradictions to which Andre re- fers under his fourth head he finds in 2"- *^, on the one hand, compared uith i^" ^- '^ on the other. For the solution of these difficulties, see the comments on the passages cited. There are, as Andre, fifthly, asserts, differences of phraseology between 2^^'^^ and the rest of the book, but there is not a case having any sig- nificance in which the word or phrase employed cannot be better explained than by calling it a mark of difference in authorship. There is really no necessity for discussing the thirteen specifications under this head, but perhaps it should be done for the sake of showing how little science is sometimes mixed with criticism. The following are the words and phrases cited, with the reason, when there is one, for the use of each of them in the given connection: a. The use of '?3^■^, temple, in 2'5- "^ for the more general term n^3, house, of i2- 1^ has no critical significance. It is used in a precisely similar connection, and exclusively, four times in Zc. 65-'5, and with no in Zc. 8'. b. In 2" yj'', which means wearisome toil, and, when the instrument is to be expressed, is always followed by f):, palm, as in i", would not have been general enough; hence the use of an^i^ nryc, work of their hands, c. In 2'2 oil is called pr, and not, as in i", "\nx>, because it is regarded as a com- modity rather than a product of the soil. d. The same explanation applies to the use of P'', wine, for U'n\"', must. e. The use of n-\ijc, granary, for the no, house, home, in 2" is explained by the fact that the author is here thinking of grain in storage, and not, as in i', on its way from the field or the threshing-floor. /. The word -\:i is the proper one for a single garment. Hence it, and not riaS, which generally means clothing, is used in 2'-, and often elsewhere, even in connection with the verb vzh, clothe, of i«. Cf. Zc. 3'. g. In 2'* MJ, nation, is used of Israel, because a synonym is needed for D", people. Cf. E.X. 33". This is not the case anywhere else in the book. Cf. i2- 12- 15. i< 2*. h. If in 2" the writer had had a verb denoting fear, he would ♦ .\ndr^ claims that w. 5"- ^\ as well as v. ■», were added to the text when vv. 'i" were inserted. 30 HAGGAI probably have used ^iot instead of ^is'^ for before, just as he does in i". i. The omission of a3''3"»T'?J,' in z"- " is due to the fact that here the verb has another object. Cf. i'- '. k. The use of nin' without riN3X in 2" " would have more significance if the last clause of v. " were undoubtedly genuine and Haggai did not employ the simple name three times (j**'''**- ") outside the passage under consideration. See also i", an interpolation. /. The omission of his title after the name of the prophet in 2" '• b just what one would e.xpect in a passing reference. Cf. Bohme, ZAW., 1887, 215. Elsewhere the title is used; except in 22", and there, on the testimony of , laying the stress of objection upon (i) the use of the con- struction to (Sn) for by ("f3; lit. by the hand of) in the same verse, and (2) the unnecessary repetition in v. =' of a prophecy found in 2^^- '", which, ac- cording to 2"-- *, Zerubbabel had already heard. These objections, however, are easily answered. The missing title is found in <&; the construction with to is the one that was originally used in vv. ■• •»; and the repetition of v. ^^^ or rather, v. «'"', — v.'» is not so literally reproduced, — is simply a device for connecting the fortunes of Zerubbabel with the same events for which the prophet had sought to prepare the people. The weakness of Bohme's argu- ment is apparent. This, however, is not all. He has overlooked the fact that Zerubbabel was removed soon after Haggai ceased to prophesy, and that, therefore, his theory, as Marti remarks, implies that this final prophecy was added by a writer who knew that it could not be fulfilled. § 3. THE TEXT OF HAGGAI. The book of Haggai, then, as a whole, may be regarded as a genuine collection of the words of the prophet whose name it bears. It can hardly contain all that he said on any of the four occasions on which he is reported to have spoken, much less all that he said during the months when he was labouring for the restoration of the national sanctuary. The meagreness of the * For a more severe criticism of it, see G. A. Smith on Haggai in The Expositor's Bible. THE TEXT 31 remains of his teachings, and the setting in which they have been preserved, may be explained by supposing that he himself did not commit his discourses to writing, but that a friend or a disciple, who had treasured his most striking or important utterances, soon after his death* put them into nearly the shape in which they have been preserved. It is necessary to use some such qualifying term as nearly in any statement with reference to the book, because, although, as has been shown, its unity as a literary production is perfectly defensible, there can be no doubt that, like other parts of the Old Testament, it has sufifered more or less in the course of the centuries at the hands of careless or ignorant readers or transcribers. Some of the resulting additions, omissions, and cor- ruptions can easily be detected and remedied. In other cases changes that have taken place reveal themselves only to the trained critic, and by signs that will not always convince the layman, es- pecially if he is interested in a diverse opinion. This, however, is not the place for a further discussion of the subject. It belongs in the exegetical, but more especially in the critical, notes, where the renderings of the great Versions, as well as the readings of the Hebrew manuscripts and editions, viill be cited and compared and the conjectures of the leading biblical scholars, past and pres- ent, considered. The most that can be done in this connection is to present in tabular form the results reached in the notes for the piupose of indicating the condition of the Hebrew text. In the first column of the following tables are noted the additions that seem to have been made to the book since it was written, in the second the words and phrases, so far as they can be recovered, that appear to have been omitted, and in the third the cases in which the original has been wittingly or unwittingly distorted in the course of transmission. * The fact that all the prophecies are carefully and, so far as can be determined, correctly dated indicates that the book was compiled within a few years, at the longest, after they were delivered. 32 HAGGAI ADDITIONS. OMISSIONS. ERRORS. I, I. av 2. r;' S3 for N3. 3- The entire verse. 4. as'Pa for D>n3. 5- 6. 7- 8. nini -ION Sy after iS?. aPN3n for dpn-i2; 130N1 for rn33Ni. 9- lO. ar'^j? n before a^Sw'. ''ac for nan. II. Sd before i-'n. 0''£33 for an>B3. 12. n•\^n1 nns. an^^N after on from 2'. 2, I. by for ncN 10. nm'? DTr njttb 11. ,niNax nini -ics n;: 12. 13- 14. 15. nSyci nrn orn-p 16. n-iiD 18. "'yrnS »,si "•; oro 19. 20. 21. 22. 23- '3 before 'S, n before jntt*. Ni3jn after 'jn. n before maScD* men for nnicn. T3 for ':'«, in some mss. Sn for Sj?. onvna for "'C nvna. aaPN for D33r. ■tp.i for i>i; Nirj for INU'J. THE TEXT 35 ADDITIONS. OMISSIONS. CORRUPTIONS. 2.5 which thing — Egypt. 6. once; yea, the sea and the dry land. 7- said Yahweh of hosts. desire for treasures. 8. for before mine. 9- said Yahweh of hosts. lO. in the second year of Darius. by for to, in some mss. II. Thus said Yahweh of hosts. 12. 13- art. before oil. 14. 15- from this day for- ward. to for upon. 16. 17- winepress. but ye did not return to me, saith Ya- weh. since they were for during the days. 18. from the twenty- fourth of the ninth month. 19. and until for nor yet. 20. the prophet after Haggai. has for have borne. 21. son of Shealtiel after Zerubbabel. 22. kingdoms of the be- fore nations; each by the sword of his fellow. art. before kingdoms.^ 23- 36 HAGGAI § 4. THE THOUGHT AND STYLE OF HAGGAI. It has long been the fashion to disparage the book of Haggai, and some of the later biblical scholars are almost as severe in their criticism of it as were, in their day, Gesenius and de Wette. Thus, Marti says of the content of the prophecies: "The temple is to be built and salvation is near. From this fundamental thought, especially when combined with the prophecies of the Second Isaiah, all of Haggai's ideas may easily be derived. It is clear that he docs not belong to the orig- inal men who were able by interior illumination to comprehend the world and its condition in their judgments, but to the feebler descendants to whom light streams from the words of the earlier prophets." Reuss has a similar opinion of Haggai's literary ability. These are his words: "He generally falls into the most colourless prose; and if he a couple of times, at the end of the second division, and in the fourth, strikes a higher key and rises to poetic- ally flowery language, one sees that this does not flow from a living spring." The mixture of figures into which the critic himself here "falls" rather de- tracts from his authority in matters of style. Cornill is more appreciative. He says: "The little book . . . occupies but a modest place in the prophetic literature of Israel. It rises hardly above plain prose, but in its very sim- plicity and unpretentiousness, because the author speaks from a deeply moved heart in an affecting situation, it has .something uncommonly attract- ive and affecting that should not be overlooked." * The truth is that there is hardly a sufficient basis for a very definite and decisive opinion with reference to Haggai and his prophecies. In the first place, let it be noted, the book that bears his name, next to Obadiah, is the smallest in the Old Testament; secondly, small as it is, only about two-thirds of it can be attrib- uted to the prophet; and, thirdly, these brief fragments, in passing through the hands of an editor, may have lost more or less of the impress of Haggai's personaUty. This being the case, criticism should confine itself to the more salient features of the book; for the more minute the analysis the further it is likely to be from the truth. The central thought of the prophet is too prominent to be over- looked. He was inspired with the irrepressible desire to see the temple rebuilt, and he set himself the task of persuading his peo- ple to restore it. In the pursuit of this purpose he used the same * Einl.", 213. THE THOUGHT AND STYLE 37 means that his predecessors had employed, tracing past mis- fortunes to neglect of a, to him, plain duty, and thus by implica- tion threatening further calamities if this neglect continued, but promising the most tempting blessings if the opposite course were taken. This, it is true, is a rather narrow program for a prophet, but if, as can doubtless be shown, in Haggai's time the future of the little community in Jerusalem and their religion was involved in the question of the restoration of the national sanctuary, he certainly deserves some credit for seeing this, and more for mov- ing the people to take appropriate action. He was not an Amos or an Isaiah; but must not Amos or Isaiah, in his place, have at- tempted what he undertook ? and would either of them have been more successful? The style of Haggai is usually regarded as prosaic. Reuss, it will be remembered, pronounces it "colourless." No doubt, it is somewhat tame, if the brilliancy of Isaiah or the polish of the great poet of the Exile be taken as the standard. Yet, Haggai was not without the oriental liking for figures, nor are his prophecies as unrhythmical as they have been represented. In describing his style prominence has sometimes been given to the frequent re- currence of "Thus saith Yahweh of Hosts" and "saith Yahweh," or "Yahweh of Hosts," and it has been interpreted as a sign of "the disappearance of the immediate consciousness of inspira- tion."* But these expressions are not peculiar to Haggai. In fact, when the instances in which they have been interpolated (6) are deducted, it will be found that he does not use them as many times in his whole book as Jeremiah does in the twenty-third chapter of his prophecies. f It is even more incorrect to repre- sent the use of interrogation as characteristic of this prophet. J There are in all six cases. But in the second chapter of Jeremiah, which contains only thirty-seven verses, there are nineteen, or, proportionately, twice as many. There is one expression that may safely be regarded as peculiar to Haggai, namely, "take thought" (lit., "set your hearts"), which occurs no fewer than five times, and, being found in the third as well as the first prophecy, is a * So Nowack, in the introduction to his commentary on the book of Haggai. t The exact figures are 14 to 21. J Andre. 115. 38 HAGGAI proof that the former is not, as Andre contends, an interpolation. See pp. 2^ff. It seems to be characteristic of Haggai, too, where there is an opportunity, to introduce extended lists of particulars. Such series occur in i®- " and 2*^- *®. In the first three cases, however, it is possible that the text has been inter- polated. In i« (freely rendered) the arrangement that suggests itself is as follows : Ye have sown much, but harvested little; Eaten witlwut satisfaction, drunken li'ithout exhilaration, clothed yourselves without comfort; And the hireling earned,— for a leaky purse. In i" a similar arrangement is possible: Yea, I summoned a drought upon the land: Even upon the highlands, and the grain, and the must, and the oil; And all that the soil produced. In 2" bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil sounds like another list of specifica- tions, but it precedes instead of following the general term any food. This fact seems unfavourable to the theory of interpolation. Even more so is the case of 2", for here the series appears to be necessary to the expression of the prophet's thought. It is probable, therefore, that he actually wrote: Is the seed yet in the garfier? — Nor have the vine, and the Jig, and the pomegranate, and the olive tree borne: — From this day will I bless. If he did, perhaps it is not too much to say that he was apt to express him- self in this fashion. Not that he did not sometimes put his thoughts into a more regular form. Take, for example, i>o (omitting the evidently super- fluous D3'''?y)» which might be freely rendered: Therefore heaven withheld the rain, and the earth withheld its fruit. This is a fairly good specimen of Hebrew parallelism. It is interesting as showing that he had caught the measure, as well as adopted some of the ideas , of the Second Isaiah. It is also important, since it furnishes a warrant for correcting some of the irregularities in his prophecies, when other considera- tions point in the same direction. Applied to 2^-^ the metrical principle con- firms the following analysis. The words in plain type are accretions: •. For thus saith Yahweh of Hosts : Yet once a little while. And I will shake heaven and earth, and the sea, and the dry land; '. yea, I will shake all nations; A nd the treasures of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with wealth, saith Yahweh of Hosts: '. For mine is the silver, and mine the gold, saith Yahweh of Hosts. THE THOUGHT AND STYLE 39 '. Great shall be the wealth of this house, the future above the past, saith Yahweh of Hosts: And in this place I will grant peace, saith Yahweh of Hosts.* Other illustrations might be cited, but it would probably be difficult, without more or less violence to the text, to reduce the whole book, or even the prophecies, to a poetical form. Still, too much of it is metrical to justify the distinction made by Kohler (31) that, "while the method of presentation preferred by the older prophets was the poetical, that of Haggai, on the other hand, ]:)ore an oratorical character." It would be more nearly correct to say that the compiler of the book uses prose, and the prophet himself at first speaks the language of common life, but that, as he proceeds, he adopts to a varying extent poetical forms of thought and expression. * In every case the ungenuineness of the word or words omitted can be established without reference to the metre. For details, see the comments. COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHECIES OF HAGGAI. Most of the prophetical books have proper titles. They are of varying length, that of Jeremiah being the longest and most com- prehensive and that of Obadiah, as is fitting, the shortest. The book of Haggai, like those of Ezekiel, Jonah and Zechariah, has none, the opening verse being merely an introduction to the first of a brief series of prophecies of which the two chapters of the work are mainly composed. The contents of these chapters naturally fall into four sections, each of which has prefixed to it the date of the prophecy therein reported. The general subject is the resto- ration of the temple at Jerusalem. The first subordinate topic is § I. THE MOVEMENT TO REBUILD THE SANCTUARY (1*-^'=^). This topic occupies the whole of the first chapter, in its original extent, but the prophet is the speaker only in vv. *''\ the rest of the passage being an account of the effect of his message on those to whom it was delivered. Hence it \\all be advisable to discuss the chapter under two heads, the first being O. THE MESSAGE OF THE PROPHET (l''")' It begins abruptly with the citation of the adverse opinion among the Jews with reference to the question of rebuilding the sanctuary (v. ^). Haggai argues for the contrary, presenting two reasons (vv. ^■") calculated to appeal strongly to those to whom they were addressed. Taking the validity of these arguments for granted, he proceeds to exhort his people to act in the matter (vv. ' ') ; but, 40 I'-*' 41 instead of resting his case at this point, to make sure that his ex- hortation will be heeded he repeats, the second of his arguments (vv. ^"'^), giving it a form so direct and positive that it cannot be misunderstood, and so forcible that he who ignores it must take the attitude of defying the Almighty. 1. All the prophecies of Haggai were delivered in the second year of Darius. There are two, possibly three, persons, real or imaginary, mentioned by this name (Heb. Dareyawesh; Per. Darayaya'ush) in the Old Testament. The first is "Darius the Mede," the mythical conqueror who, according to Dn. 6^1 f^, "received the kingdom" of Babylon after the death of Belshazzar. The third is "Darius the Persian" (Ne. 12^-). In Dn. 9' Darius is called "the son of Ahasuerus," that is, Xerxes; but, since Xerxes belongs to a period (485-465 B.C.) considerably later than that of the Persian invasion (539 B.C.), it is impossible that his son, who, moreover, bore the name Artaxerxes, had anything to do with that event. It is probable that the author of Daniel, having but a confused traditional knowledge of the his- tory of the East, and being influenced by earlier predictions (Is. 13" ^- 212 s. Je. si'"'- ^' ^0 to the effect that the Medes would overthrow Babylon, like the author of Tobit i4'6 identified the best-known of the Medo-Persian kings with Cyaxares, the destroyer of Nineveh, and then made Darius, who actually took Babylon twice during his. reign, a son of this Median ruler and gave him the credit of overthrowing the Babylonian empire. Cf. EB., arts. Darius; Per- sia, 13; Prince, Daniel, S2iff- Winckler {KA T.^, 288) thinks that Cambyses is meant. On the older views, see DB., art. Darius; Prince, 45. Winckler {KA T.^, 288) identifies Darius the Persian with Darius Hystaspes. The more common opinion is that Darius Codomannus, the last of the Per- sian kings, is the one so designated. So Meyer, £/., 104; et al. The author of Ne. 12"' ^- begins with a genealogy of the high priests of the Persian period (w. ""•), which is followed by a list of the names of the heads of the priestly houses for "the days of Joiakim." Cf. w. '=-21. Finally he asserts, v. ", where all reference to the Levites should be omitted, that, in the source from which he drew, there were similar lists for the period of each of the high priests mentioned "until (ny for S;?) the reign of Darius the Persian." In other words, he makes Nehemiah a contemporary of Eliashib and the king he has in mind a contemporary of Jaddua, three generations later, the date of Darius Codomannus. This conclusion is not affected however one may interpret Ne. 13=8, that passage being by a different author. Cf. JBL., xxii, 97/- The king to whom reference is here made is Darius Hystaspes. This is clear from Zc. f, where the prophet, who was a contempo- [J rary of Haggai, in a message delivered in the fourth year of Darius, 42 HAGGAI represents the period of affliction as having lasted seventy years; for Darius Hystaspes came to the throne, as has already been de- scribed (p. 20), in 521 B.C., so that his fourth year was the sixty- ninth after the destruction of Jerusalem. CJ. also Zc. i^^. He is here called simply ike king, not, as he is by later writers, "king of Persia." Cf. Ezr. i^ Dn. i***. His second year corresponded roughly to 520 B.C., and the sixth month, according to the Baby- ^ Ionian system, which was adopted by the Jews during the Exile,* to the latter part of August and the first {)art of September. It was on the first day of this month, then called Elnl (Ne. 6^^), when the people were enjoying a holiday (Am. 8^ Is. 66^^), that the word of Yahweh came, lit., was.-\ See also v. ^ 2^- ^"^ ^^ Zc. i\ et pas. The message came hy, lit., hy the hand of,X Haggai the prophet. Hitherto it has not been clear who was writing. It now appears that it is not Haggai recording his own utterances, but some one else reporting what the prophet said on various occasions. This becomes more evident in the next section, where the same author, presumably, describes the effect of Haggai's preaching. The prophet, it seems, when the book was compiled, had already closed his career. His message was intended primarily for two persons at that time prominent in Jerusalem. The first was Zerubbabel. His name, whatever may be its first component, evidently has for its second the Hebrew designation for Babylon. The person so called is described as a son of Shealtiel , who, according to i Ch. 3'", was the eldest son of the captive king Jehoiachin (2 K. 24*^^ 25") and governor of Judah. (1 ) The name Haggai was not borne by any other person mentioned in the Old Testament, but there are many other names of the same class. Cf. Ezbai, Amittai, Barzillai, Zakkai, etc. It is commonly interpreted as a deriv- ative, in the sense ol festal, liom in, feast. So Ew. ' % "■'*; Ols. i^iTa. Qcg. h *»• ^- *. It may, however, be a mutilated form of njjn, i Ch. 6", — like ^jno, Ezr. lo*", for n'jnn, Gn. 46'6, — of which there is a feminine .T'jn. Cf. a S. 3^ The Massoretic vocalisation is supported by Gr. 'A77atoj and Lat. Haggaeus or Aggceus. * C/. DB., art. Time; EB., art. Year; Benzinger. .Arch., 199 /. t This form of expression is frequent in the prophecies of Jeremiah and later writings. See especially the book of Ezekiel, where it occurs about fifty times. X This, also, is a late idiom, common from the E.xile onward. Cj. Ju. 3' i K. 12''' Je. 37=, et pas. ; also C. and HB., Hex., i, 219a. I-" 43 <2) Of the various etymologies for Zerubbabel thus far suggested the most attractive is that which makes it a Hebrew modification of Zer-babili, seed of Babylon, a name that actually occurs in inscriptions of the time of Darius. Cf. Pinches, OT., 425. For others, cf. DB., art. Zerubbabel; Kohler, 11 f. The Hebrew vocalisation is explained by van Hoonacker (PP.), who translates it "Crush Babylon" (S33 a^r) as an instance of paronomasia, intended to express at the same time "the hopes that his compatriots based upon the scion of the Davidic dynasty and the resentment that they cherished against Babylon." <'> Mt. i'2 makes Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, but according to i Ch. 3", he was the son of Pedaiah, a younger brother of Shealtiel. A deal of in- genuity has been expended in trying to harmonise these conflicting genealo- gies. Thus, Aben Ezra explains that Zerubbabel was reared by his uncle, and therefore called the son of Shealtiel. So Dru., el at. Ki. prefers to think that Pedaiah was a son, not a brother, of Shealtiel, and that Zerubbabel was called the son of his grandfather because the latter was held in higher honour than the father. SoHd.,e/a/. Some Christian exegetes have undertaken to harmo- nise this passage and i Ch. 3'^, not only with each other, but with Lu. 32', where Shealtiel is the son, not of Jeconiah, but of Neri, a descendant of David through the line of Nathan. Cf. i Ch. 35. Koh. on 2"^ does it as follows: Jeconiah, as a result of the curse pronounced upon him by Jeremiah (2230), had no grandsons, but his son Assir had a daughter who, in accordance with the law for such cases (Nu. 36* i-), married Neri and bore him, first Shealtiel, who became the heir of Assir, and was reckoned his son, then six others, among them Pedaiah. Next, Shealtiel died, leaving a widow but no children; whereupon his brother Pedaiah took his wife and begot Zerubbabel, who, in accordance with the law of levirate (Dt. 25^ ^■), was the legal son and heir of the deceased. Thus Zerubbabel is made to appear the son of both Shealtiel and Pedaiah, the grandson of Neri, and a remoter descendant of Jeconiah. The flaw in this ingenious scheme is that it is based on a mistaken interpre- tation of a corrupt passage. It falls to pieces at once when n''DN in i Ch. 3" is properly rendered, not as a proper name, but as an adjective used adverbi- ally in the sense of when imprisoned. Cf. Ges. 5 ''*• ^ '<*). It is therefore necessary to recognise in Shealtiel a son of Jeconiah, and abandon the attempt to make the Chronicler agree with Luke. The discrepancy between the Chronicler and Haggai, however, can be removed by substituting Shealtiel for Pedaiah, as (& does, in i Ch. 3'^ ; which, moreover, makes the Chronicler consistent with himself. Cf. Ezr. 3- 5' Ne. 12'. The natural inference is that Zerubbabel was a prince of the house of Da\dd who had not only been released from captivity, but, in accordance with the practice of the Persian kings, appointed to administer the affairs of his conquered country under the higher official called in Ezr. 5^ "the governor beyond the River." How long he had occupied this position when Haggai began to proph- esy, there seems to be no means of discovering.* With him was * For an apocryphal account of his selection for it, see i Esd. 4" '■• 44 HAGGAI associated Joshua* son of Jehosadak. The father, according to 1 Ch. 5^°/6", was a son of Seraiah, the chief priest who was put to death by Nebuchadrezzar at Riblah after the destruction of Jerusalem. Cf. 2 K. 25^**^- Je. 52^^^-. Ezra the scribe, accord- ing to Ezr. f, was his brother. Jehosadak, as well as Ezra, was carried into captivity to Babylon (i Ch. 5''V6''''), where Joshua seems to have been bom and reared. Kosters {WL, 41/.) ques- tions whether he was the grandson of Seraiah, and therefore whether he was ever in Babylonia. The Chronicler, he says, holding the mistaken opinion that there had been a continuous line of high priests from the Exodus to his own time, took for granted that Joshua was a lineal descendant of Seraiah and used Jehosa- dak as a link to connect them. This may be true, but there are some considerations that make it possible to believe the contrary, (i) Although the Jews had no high priest, in the sense in which the term is used in the Hexateuch, before the Exile, such passages as 2 K. 11*^, as well as 25*^, show that they had a chief over their priests, and other passages, like i S. 14^, prove that the office reg- ularly descended from father to son. Cf. EB., art. Priest, 5; Ben- zinger. Arch., 413 /. (2) Since the high-priesthood proper was but an extension of this hereditary office, it may be taken for granted, unless there is proof to the contrary, that the former was the heritage of the family that had enjoyed the latter. (3) The importance of the succession was such that there must have been records with reference to it from which the Chronicler was able to obtain reliable information. In Ne. 12^' a source of this sort is cited. Fortunately, it is not necessary to decide the question of Joshua's pedigree, the important thing being that he was the high priest when Haggai prophesied, and that this is perhaps the oldest instance of the use of the title in the Old Testament.f 2. The prophet, after a formal announcement, Thus saith Yah- iveh of Hosts, introduces the subject of his discourse by citing the prevalent opinion \\ath reference to it. The very first words are * In Ezra and Nehemiah, Jeshua, whence the Greek "Ijjo'oOs and the English Jesus. t It occurs in Lv. 21'" Nu. 352* ^s jos_ jo« (^n p.); as a gloss in 2 K. i2"/"> 22<- » 23*; and in 2 Ch. 34" Ne. 3'- 2° 13-'. In the books of Chronicles and Ezra its place is supplied by U'N-\n jno, the chief prust, or its equivalent. Cf. i Ch. 27^ 2 Ch. ig" 24'- " 26^° 31"' Ezr. 7'; also 2 K. 35"' = Je- S>^- I'-" 45 ominous, for here, as in Is. 8® and often elsewhere, the phrase this people betrays impatience and disapproval.* The reason for Yah- weh's displeasure is that the people say, have said and are still saying, The time hath not come for the house of Yahweh to be built, that is, rebuilt. At first sight this objection would seem to mean that those who made it were waiting for the expiration of the sev- enty years of Jeremiah's prophecy. Cf. Je. 25". The answer given to it shows that it was dictated by selfishness, which mani- fested itself also in absorption in comparatively trivial personal affairs to the neglect of the larger issues that ought to interest all the members of the community. Nor did they simply neglect the ruined house. The words cited breathe resistance to an appeal in favour of rebuilding it. It is probable that the proposal had been made or strongly supported by Haggai himself, and that therefore the prophecy here recorded was not the first to which he gave ut- terance.— 3. The tone of v. " leads the reader to expect an indig- nant and immediate reply to the excuse given. The present text first repeats the announcement of v. \ as if the prophet, having made the statement of v. ^, did not proceed until he had received further instructions. Any such supposition, however, so weakens the force of the prophet's message that it is better to omit this verse altogether. See the textual notes. — 4. Thus it appears that V. ^ was originally immediately followed by the question, Is it a time for you yourselves to dwell in ceiled houses, while this house is desolate? The ceiled, or panelled, houses elsewhere mentioned were finished in cedar. The same wood was used in the first temple (i K. 6^); also in the dwellings of the rich in the time of Jeremiah. Cf. Je. 22". It is hardly possible that this or any other costly wood was found in many of the houses of those whom Hag- gai was addressing; — most of them must have been miserably poor; — but they all had roofs over their heads, while Yahweh as yet had no habitation. The temple had now been desolate about sixty-seven years, and it was nineteen years since Cyrus had re- leased the Jews from captivity. — 5. The people had now for some * The words are rendered additionally forcible by being placed in a semi-independent rela- tion before the verb, which might be indicated by the rendering, This people, ihcy say. Cj. Ges. 5 '«. 46 HAGGAI time been suffering, how and to what extent will appear later. Perhaps they had made this an excuse for not rebuilding the temple. It had not occurred to them that their misfortunes might be due to their neglect of Yahweh. Haggai was decidedly of this opinion. He therefore follows the question of the preceding verse with the exhortation, take thought on your ways. This, in view of the use of the same expression in v. ', seems a better rendering than that of Wellhausen, Consider how ye have fared. Cf. also 2^^- ^*. — 6. The prophet might next have reminded his people how often and how widely they had departed from the path of loyalty and righteous- ness. Perhaps he did so in the original discourse, and these de- tails have been omitted. In any case, they do not appear in his book, but here, taking them for granted, he proceeds to recite some of the results of, or, as he would have put it, the penalties for, their conduct, and especially for their neglect of the sanctuary. Ye have sowed much, he says, and harvested little. He is reminding them of the repeated failure of their crops. This is in itself a great calamity. It is therefore not probable that, in the details which follow, the prophet intends to convey the idea sometimes attrib- uted to him (Koh.), that food, drink and clothing were deprived of their natural properties to increase the suffering from scarcity. He means simply that so small were the returns from the soil, when those who lived from it ate, there was not enough to still their hunger; when they drank wine, they could never drink their ^//, lit., to drunkenness (Gn. 43'^0; 3,nd when they dressed themselves, their clothing was so scanty that none of them was warm. Cf. v. " 2*^. This was the condition of the husbandman. That of the labourer was equally, if not more, wretched; for he who wrought for wages earned — for a leaky purse; that is to say, when he could secure employment, which, according to Zc. 8^", was rare, his pay was so small, in comparison with the prices he had to pay for the necessities of life, that it seemed to him as if his wages had disap- peared through holes in his purse as soon as he had received them. There is another interpretation that deserves mention, if for no other reason on account of its ingenuity. It is that of Andre. He takes ^ns in the sense of little stone and renders the clause in question, the hireling wrought for a little pierced stone. This he interprets as an allusion to a custom that ex- I-" 47 isted in Babylon, where, he says, one who had bought a slave at the market hung his seal about the neck of the newly acquired chattel to indicate that he or she was his property. He says that as "put in irons" is equivalent to "im- prison," so "a pierced pebble" means nothing more nor less than "slavery." Hence to work for a pierced pebble is in the end, in spite of one's work, to be- come a slave. The following are some of the objections to this interpretation: (i) The usual meaning of ins is bag or purse. Cf. Jb. 14" Gn. 4,2^. (2) If the prophet had wished to express the idea attributed to him by Andre, he would probably have used anin, the proper word for seal. Cf. 2^ Gn. 381* Ct. 8^. (3) Although '^N is used in the sense ol for the sake of (i K. 19^), the more natural interpretation is that it denotes destination after a pregnant verb. Cf. Gn. 19='. 7. The representation of the ills the Jews had suffered and were suffering as chastisement for their shortcomings was calculated to move them to ask what they could do to secure the favour of Yah- weh and different treatment from his hands. Haggai next an- swers this question; and first, if the text is correct, in general terms, by repeating the exhortation of v. ^, Take thought on your ways; by which he means that, as they have offended, so they can appease, their God by their beha^dour. He does not, however, stop with this general suggestion. There is one thing above all others that they ought to have done, but have left undone. Their first duty is to make good this omission. Go up, he says, speaking for Yah- weh, into the moimtains and cut timber, and build the house. It is not clear to what mountains* he refers. The hills both of Judah and Ephraim seem to have been well wooded in ancient times. Cf. the name Kirjath-jearim (Jos. 9"; also Jos. 17^*^- i S. 14^^-). Carmel was noted for its forests. Cf. Mi. 7" Ct. f. It is possi- ble that the prophet had in mind Lebanon, whence the timber for the first temple was procured. Cf. i K. 5^^^75^-. The author of Ezr. 3^ evidently thought so, since he says, apparently on the basis of this passage, that the Jews, when they first attempted to rebuild the sanctuary, employed "the Sidonians and the Tyrians to bring cedars from Lebanon to the sea," and thus "to Joppa."f Still it is doubtful if, under the circumstances, Haggai would have directed his people to seek materials for the new structure at so ♦ The noun is singular in the original, but in such a case it frequently means a hilly or moun- tainous region. Cj. Dt. i' Is. ii^. t On the authenticity of this passage, see pp. 9 /. 48 HAGGAI great a distance. It would have involved too much time and ex- pense and attracted too much attention. Nothing is said of stone, because there was plenty of this material in the ruins of the city, if not in those of the former temple. The motive for the action required is a double one; first, that I may take pleasure in it.* The second clause may be rendered, as it is by the great Versions, that I may be glorified, namely, by the worship of the sanctuary, or, better, that I may glorify myself, i. e., by a display of glory in- augurate the Messianic era. SoKoh.,We.,Now.,Marti,g/o/. The prophet makes no reference to the political situation, but, as has been shown elsewhere, his proposal synchronises too closely with the disturbance in the East at the beginning of the reign of Darius to permit one to doubt that he intended to take advantage of it to attain the object he had at heart. — 9. In presenting to the Jews the prospect of pleasing Yahweh the prophet was appealing to a powerful motive, the universal desire for life and happiness, pe- culiarly prominent in Deuteronomy. He does not, however, rely on this alone, but again recalls their past experience to show what are the consequences of disregarding the divine will. Ye have looked for much, he makes Yahweh say, and lo, it became, or had become, little. Cf. 2^". Nor was this all, for he adds, as ye brought this little home, I blew upon it. At first thought it seems as if the prophet had in mind a sudden and powerful gust of wind, "a blast of the breath" of the Almighty (Ps. 18^"/^^), but perhaps he alludes to the superstition still current in the East that the breath may pro- duce a magical effect upon anything toward which it is directed.f It is not, however, necessary, with Wellhausen and others, to sup- pose that Haggai thought of Yahweh as actually using magic. The expression used is in effect a simile illustrating the surprising rapidity with which the scanty harvest disappeared. See the "leaky purse" of v. ". Wherefore? asks Yahweh, and answers his own question, for the first time expressly connecting the mis- fortunes described with the neglect of the temple: Because of my * The rendering, / will be gracious in it. is less defensible, since, if the prophet had intended to express this thought, he would not have omitted the object you. t " It is in the highest degree disagreeable to Moslems if any one whistles over a threshing- floor heaped with grain. Then comes the devil, they say, in the night and takes a part of the harvest." — L. Bauer, in Millhcilungen u. Nachrichlen des deulschcn Palastina-Vercins, 1S99, 9. i^-" 49 house, that is desolate, or Because my house is desolate. Not that this state of things would be unpardonable under any circum- stances. It is, however, to use the words of the text, while ye make haste each about his own home. The complaint is the same as in V. 4, but here it seems to be directed against a considerable num- ber of persons who, perhaps because they had recently arrived in Jerusalem, were engaged in providing themselves with dwell- ings.— 10. Therefore — because his people were more eager to get themselves well housed than to provide him with a worthy abode — Yahweh set in motion the secondary causes that produced the condition just described. Heaven at his command withheld rain. The text has dew, but there are good reasons for believing that this is a copyist's error. One of them is that, although there are several passages in which the dew is described as refreshing the earth and vegetation (Dt. 33^^- Gn. 27^^- ^^), there is no other in which the suspension of this phenomenon alone is represented as producing a drought. On the other hand, the production of a drought by withholding rain is repeatedly threatened or recorded. Cf. Dt. u*' I K. 8^, but especially Am. 4^.* If in this case it was the rain that was withheld in great measure, it is not strange that the earth withheld its produce. The rainfall of Palestine has always been irregular and unreliable. It is almost entirely confined to the months from November to April inclusive, but it varies greatly from year to year in amoimt as well as in its distribution through the rainy season. The lowest figures for the years from 1861 to 1880, for example, were 13.39 inches, and the highest 32.21 inches, the average being 23.32 inches.f Whenever the amoimt threatens to fall below 25 inches the people become apprehensive; if it falls below 20 inches, they expect to suffer; and if, as was the case in 1864-66, there is a shortage for two or three years in succession, many of them are forced, like the patriarch, to migrate or starve. — ^11. The rainfall varies, also, for different parts of the country, sometimes to the extent of several inches. Amos, in the passage above cited, tells of cases in which it rained upon one city and not * For other reasons for the emendation proposed, see the critical notes. t DB., art. Rain ; where, however, the average rainfall for the period is incorrectly given as "about 20 inches." 5© HAGGAI at all upon another, or even upon one of two adjoining fields. The drought* to which Haggai here refers was summoned upon the earth. That is, as in the preceding verse, the ground. The phrase, even upon the mountains, which follows, might be inter- preted as meaning the more elevated parts of the country, where ordinarily the rainfall is heaviest;! but it is probably here, as in Ez. 33^^ a more exact designation for the Holy Land as a whole. On its genuineness, see the critical notes. The grain, the mustX and the oil were then, as they still are, the principal crops. Cf. Dt. ii" i8*, etc. The drought not only afi'ected these but all that the soil produced, thus robbing men and cattle of cUl the labour of their hands, the results that are desired and expected from tiUing and sowing the ground and tending the orchards and vineyards, § 1. a>n;y njub] For n'ju-n nju-3. Cf. Gn. 47"; Nrd. ^ ^*^- " ».— nns 0V3] The word dv, for which (H & have no equivalent, is prob- ably a later addition. Cf. 2' • '<>• -'>, where it is omitted. The later idiom occurs also in v. '=. Cf. Ges. ^ "4- *K — K^jn] (B adds \^yiov 'EittJv, Sm. accordingly inserts "icN idnS. So also We., Now., Marti. Wrongly, for these reasons: (i) This reading is not supported by the other great Vrss. (2) The added words, as Bu. (ZAIV., 1906, 7 ff.) has shown, are unsuitable with i^3, which requires that the agent be immediately followed, as in the present text, by Sn with the names or titles of the per- sons for whom the message is intended. Otherwise the agent is made to address himself, saying, say, etc. This, to be sure, is what he does in 2'; but only because in that passage T'2 has been substituted for Sn to bring it into harmony with this one. If Ss be restored, the two passages will represent two ways of describing the transmission of a divinely inspired message; in one of which Yahweh speaks by or through the prophet to others (i'), while in the other he says to the former what he wishes him to communicate to the latter (2>). The adoption of (S's reading in this case would require the change of lo to Sn; but if this change were made it would be impossible to explain how no, which is an error for Sn in 2'o as well as in 2 ', found its way into either of these passages. It seems nec- * The prophet here indulges in paronomasia. The offence consisted in permitting the house of Yahweh to lie 2"^ (harebh), the penalty is 3^^ (Iiorebh). It is as if one said io English, Because the temple was a ruin, the land was denied rain. i ZDPV., xxx\\,8of}. t On the distinction between must and wine, sec Mi. 6''. The former is only potentially intoxicating or injurious. C/. Ju. 9'' Ho. 4", and, on the latter passage, Marti. § That the labour is the labour of the cattle as well as their owners appears from the fact that the word rjj (kaph) means not only the human palm but the sole of the foot of a man or an animal. essary, therefore, to reject the emendation proposed. — Saant] Written also, and frequently, S^anr. — nno] Assy, pahatu, or more fully, bel pa- hati, lord of a district. ' and the substitution of n3 for K3. The result is a simple, straightfor- ward text meaning. The time is not come, etc., which, moreover, has the support of the Vrss. The case, then, is apparently one of dittog. occasioned by the resemblance between sa and no. — nin> p^a] A case of attrac- tion. For the regular construction, see Gn. 29'; K6. ^ "* °. — 3. Hi. ex- plains this verse as a device to remedy the clumsiness of the prophet in citing (v. 2) the words of the people instead of those of the prophet. Bu. replies, and justly, that the clumsiness is all in this verse, which he there- fore rejects as ungenuine. Cf. ZAW., 1906, 10. Contra, Hi., Now., Marti, And. It was doubtless inserted by some one who, like Ki., interpreted what follows as a message to the people as distinguished from their leaders. The phraseology (10) was borrowed from v. >. — 4. ohn] Emphatic. Cf. Gn. 2734 Zc. 75; Ges. ^ "s- 2 n3] So (S^ ^; but (§*« E H ul appear to have had o^na. The adoption of the latter reading makes an explanation of the omission of the article before the adj. following unnecessary. For the opposite view, cf. Ges. ^ "»• ^ <*>; K6. ^ ^'^i, — nrnn^an] (S^, oIkos ifiuv, but M is supported by (gf*AQL ;g ^, Qn the construction with 1, cf. Ges. ^ "t- « <">. — 5. 0222^] For ason'^. Cf. Ges. ^ '^- 2 (o. — 6. N3ni] Inf. abs. in continuation of the finite construction. Cf. Ges. 5 113. 4 <«). — oj-'d] In pause, with a lighter distinctive, Ges. 529. 4. — njrarS] On this and the fol- lowing fem. inf., cf. Ges. ^ «• • <*'; Bo. 5s«- * ^. — onS] Many mss. and 52 HAGGAI edd. rd. Din*^. — i"^] Indef. after an impersonal vb. Cf. i K. i' ; Ges. \ '"• 2; K6. 5 324 e_^3niyn] Kenn. 150 rd. -i3nu->. SoAnd., Bu. The use of the prtc. in & SI favours iK. — 7. This verse has received special attention from recent critics. We., who is followed by Now., Marti, om. the latter half of it. The reason given is that the expression used is not applicable except to past action or experience; but in 2 '6. is prac- tically the same expression is clearly used, first of the past and then of the future, just as, on the supposition that this verse is genuine, it is in this section. It has also been proposed to relieve the difficulty with the pres- ent text by rearranging it. Thus, Van H. transposes vv. ' and ', while Bu. inserts the latter after v. ". The objection to these devices is that they both leave v. ' meaningless and indefensible. On the other hand, if the present arrangement is preserved, the relation of w. ' '• to their con- text will furnish a striking parallel to that of vv. 24 f . of Am. 5 to theirs. — 8. h'il (S^c-bAQ^ avd^-qre iiTv = Sjj 1^', the reading of Kenn. i; yet not necessarily, since iirl, like iis, in (5 sometimes represents the ace. Cf. Ex. I?'" Dt. 3". — DPNani] (g Kal K6\f/aT€ (.x, Kdfere); £, et cadite = onN"i3\ <8^ adds Kal ofa-are making ansoni dpnidi, a reading which is favoured by Bu., but should be explained as one of the numerous cases in (15 in which a second rendering based on M has been added to the original translation. This original rendering, on the other hand, since it is easier to mistake oriNia for onNan than onxan for onNia, probably repro- duces the genuine Hebrew text. Cf. Jos. ij^^. — nx^xi] Bo., ^ '*«• ' ", rd. nxiNi. — 133N1] Qr. masNi. Kt. is explained by the n following. Cf. Zc. I' ; Bo. ^'" s. The Jews saw in the omission of the n (5) a reminder that, as Ra. puts it, "there are five things that were in the first sanctuary, but not in the second, viz., the ark, urim and tummim, the fire, the shekinah, and the Holy Spirit." Houb. would supply n. — -cin] The first of three cases in the book in which this word is used instead of DNj. Cf. 2'- 9. There are only three more in Zc. 1-8, 1= 7'^ 8'<. In Mai., on the other hand, it is so frequent (22 t.) as compared with dnj (once), that it may be reckoned one of the prominent characteristics of that book. Now, it can be shown that in 2'- ' the clauses in which this word is used are interpolations. It seems fair, therefore, to conclude that the same is true in this case, unless idn is here simply a mistake for dnj. — 9. njo] The recurrence of the inf. abs. does not necessarily indicate an immediate connection between this verse and v. ^, since this form of the vb. may also begin a new paragraph. Cf. Ges. ^ "'• * <*> <*>. Houbi- gant rd. PiB. — njni] ^ & 21 rd. as if the original had been rrrn ((8^^ vni), and this reading is said to be required if the '? following be re- tained in the text. So Dru., We., Now., Marti, Kit. It is clear, how- ever, from Gn. 18' that njn can properly be employed in place of the vb. even before a preposition. Cf. alsoB; Ges. §'<'-2. — anNam] Note the tense. The pf. with 1 is often used in the course of a narrative to in- troduce a customary or repeated action. Cf. i S. i^. When, as in this case, there are two such verbs, the first may be subordinate to the second, denoting an act done while another was in progress. CJ.i S. 27', but es- pecially Am. 72- ^ff-; Ges. ^ "2- " '«''. So Hi., Ew.; contra, Koh., We., Now. — HD it'i d, 5ia TovTo; an error, but in the right direction. The vocalisation of nc is best explained, not as due to the preceding prep., Koh., or, more specifically, to dissimilation, Ko., i, ^ ^^- ^''^ 7. but to the distance of the word from the principal accent. CJ. Ges. ^".1 (c). For clearer cases of dissimilation, cf. Gn. 4'" Zc. 7^. — nit<3s] Om. §b. — ipu jy] A construction chosen for the sake of emphasising the subj. The introduction of Nin after the relative further enhances the desired effect. Cf. Ko. ^ «" ; Dr. ^ •". — aix-i] cx^ with a (Marti) is less, and D''S-(.n (Che.) no more, expressive. — 10. ds^Sj? p '^p] So B; but § om. J3 Sj,', (S 21 ao'''^y. The last is evidently the original reading, p '7y being natural and necessary, while DO''S', whether rendered over you or on your account, is superfluous. The latter's position indicates that it is either an imperfect dittog., We., or a gloss on the conj. ul expands it into p3^3in Sna, on account of your sins. — a''Dr] Rd., with Kenn. 150 and 05, DTB'n. Cf. fisn. — Soo The text has its defenders, some treating D as partitive (Ew., And.), others as privative, de D., Koh., Now. ; but the later authorities mostly incline to emend it. The readings suggested, San, W'e., and, as in Zc. 8'2, oha Bu., Now., Marti, are gram- matically defensible, but there is no positive evidence for either of them. A better one was long ago suggested by Dru., viz., nan, rain, which has the support of QI, needs neither art. nor sf. and, moreover, suits the He- brew way of thinking. V. Com. — 11. 3in] (B po/x(paiav; 31, gladium; a mistake so natural that it has no critical significance. — annn ^1^\ Of doubtful genuineness. Om. Kenn. 150 and a few Gr. curs. 31. V. Com. — ■\vh\ Rd., with 30 mss., (&^ ^ (3, ic'n Sa. So We., Now., Marti. — a''D3] Rd., with d 31 &, aniao. So Bu., Now., Marti. — Bu. finds the conclusion of this prophecy abrupt. He concludes, therefore, that it must originally have been supplemented by another exhortation to re- build the temple and, in addition, a corresponding promise. Of the lat- ter he thinks v. "b a fragment. b. THE RESPONSE OF THE PEOPLE (l^^*^*). The leaders, Zerubbabel and Joshua, and all the people, being impressed by Haggai's message and especially assured of Yahv^eh's assistance in any effort they may make, are encouraged to begin work; which they do within a few days of the date of the prophet's first recorded appearance, ♦ 54 HAGGAI 12. Then hearkened, listened with attention, interest and sub- mission, Zeruhbahel . . . and Joshua. There has been no further reference to them since they were introduced in v. *, the prophet's whole discourse having been directed over their heads to the people. Perhaps these leaders had already been won for the project of rebuilding the temple before Haggai appealed to the people. In- deed, it is not impossible that they originated it, the prophet acting as their ally and mouthpiece in securing for it popular approval and necessary assistance. However that may be, all the rest of the people now recognised the voice of Yahweh their God in the words of Hag- gai. Kosters, seeing in the rest the remnant of the population left in the land by Nebuchadrezzar "to be vinedressers and husband- men," uses this passage to prove that no great number had at the time returned from captivity. It is more natural, however, to suppose that the writer here and in 2^ has in mind the people as distinguished from the leaders just mentioned. If he thinks of them as a remnant, it is because they, the actual inhabitants of the country, mthout reference to the question whether they have ever been in Babylonia or not, are few in number compared with the earlier population. In either case the same persons are meant who in v. " are called the people, and in 2* the people of the land. The voice here takes the place of the more common word of Yahweh. Both are distinguished from the words of the prophets, who, al- though they claimed to be moved by the divine Spirit, are careful not to make Yahweh responsible for the details of their messages. Cf. Je. i^ ^•.* In this case the people listened ^nd feared before Yahweh, took a reverential attitude toward him, the first step in a new experience. — 13. Haggai's vivid review of the situation in Judah, and his insistence that it was the fault of the people them- selves that they were not more prosperous, naturally disposed them to do something; but there were obstacles, of which, as one may infer from 2^ ^•, the most serious was their povert)'. This being the case, one would expect that the next thing would be a note of en- couragement. It is forthcoming, but whether this verse belongs to the original book, or was supplied by a reader who felt that some- thing had been omitted, is disputed. There is room for two opin- * In Am. 8" the pi. words is a mistake for the sg. Cj. v. '- and \'rss. ions. In the first place, Haggai is here called, not "the prophet," as in every previous case in which his name has been mentioned (w. ^ • ^* ^^) , but the messenger {angel) of Yahweh. This is not a rare title. In fact, it is quite common, especially in the earlier por- tions of the Old Testament. Cf. Gn. i6^, et pas. Regularly, how- ever, like the rarer "messenger of God," it denotes, as may be learned from Is. 63^, the manifestation of the personal presence of the Deity. It is therefore often but a paraphrase of one of the divine names.* The same interpretation must be given to "my messenger" and "his messenger," except in one instance (Is. 42"), where "my messenger" evidently means Israel as a prophetic peo- ple. This exception is interesting as indicating that as early as the Exile, if not before it, the title "messenger of Yahweh" had acquired a human, as well as a divine, connotation, while Mai. 2^ furnishes a concrete example of this broader usage, for there the priest is expressly called "the messenger of Yahweh of Hosts." It must therefore be admitted that the compiler of the prophe- cies of Haggai might, without exciting comment, have called the prophet the messenger of Yahweh. Still, it is not probable that, having adopted the title heretofore used, he would, without ap- parent reason, have employed another so strikingly different. It seems safe, therefore, to conclude that the whole verse is an inter- polation.f — ^14. The special message brought by the prophet had the desired effect. Yahweh thereby aroused — the word is the same that is used in the cases of Cyrus and others (Is. 42^ Je. 50^ Ezr. i^^), whom Yahweh is represented as having chosen to execute his pur- poses— the spirit of ZerubbabeljWho is here again called governor to emphasise the importance to the Jews of having the enthusiastic support of the civil head of the community in their enterprise. For the same reason Joshua is given his title, the high priest, in this connection. The people also were stirred, all of them, so that they came with their leaders and did work, gave effect to their zeal in service, on the house of Yahweh.X The idiom here em- * C/. Zc. 128 ; Davidson, Theol., 296 ff. ; Piepenbring, TheoL, 144 jf. t Jer. notes the fact that some had interpreted this passage as teaching that Haggai was an angel, but he himself interprets the title given to him as a synonym for " prophet." X Calvin finds in this passage support for his doctrine of the will. God, he says, did not merely confirm a free volition, but produced the "willing mind" among the people. 56 HAGGAI ployed does not imply that the temple was already partly built, or even that the foundations had been laid. The preposition ren- dered on is the same that is found in Zc. 6^^, where the English version has m. This is the literal meaning, but the particle is frequently used in constructions in which but a part of the object is affected,* and both of these are constructions of this sort. Hence the passage in Zechariah may be rendered, "they shall build on the temple," or, more freely, "they shall take part in the building of the temple"; while this one may be translated as above or paraphrased so that it will more clearly include such operations as the removal of debris from the site or the accumulation of the required materials.f Indeed, in view of the fact that a date im- mediately follows, it would seem allowable to suppose that the writer intended to say that they began work on the house on the day specified. — ^15. The date given is the twenty-fourth day of the month. It was therefore only twenty-three days after Haggai's exhortation when the people responded to his summons; which was perhaps as early as they could have been expected to commence operations. For a fuller discussion of the date, see the textual notes. 12 . Baer makes no break, but there is ms. authority for beginning here a new section. Cf. Gins., Int., 17. — vcu'm] Koh. prefers n:r'i;'"'i, but it would anticipate v. ". On the construction with 3, cf. Ges. 5'" «*> <2). — Sxip'^r] Here and in v. " 2" some mss. have the full form. — Add, with nno, as elsewhere, except in 2", where it would not be in place. Cf. vv. >• '* 2"^- 21. — Si'i] & ul have '^, C6 U the same con- struction as for 3. The original must have been ':'ni, for which '^j'l is a frequent mistake of copyists in the later books, and one easily made after writing it eight times in v. ". Cf. 2 K. 18" Is. 36'=. — iCvVd] So (6 EH QI, while & omits the prep. So also 10 Heb. mss. Cf. 2 K. 19^ This pas- sage is noted in the Mas. as one of twelve in which t>:'n3 = nr.N; which means that it is a rare and perhaps a corrupt reading. — dh^h^n^] Hi., We., Marti rd. on^Sx; but the recurrence of Yahweh seems to require the repetition of oninSs. Cf. Ne. 9'. If, therefore, as Now. claims, dh'Sn is even more essential, it follows that the original must have been an>nSN BH^'^N, which is actually found in 5 mss. and reproduced in the Vrss. Cf. Je. 43'. The omission of dh^'^n is easily explained as a case of haplog. — 13. This verse, whose genuineness seems to have been seriously ques- * BDB., art. 3, I, 2, b. t So Ki., Dru., Grotius, Koh., Wo. I 57 tioned first by Boh. {ZAW., 1887, 215/.), is now generally treated as an interpolation. Ko. (Einl., 363), however, defends it, and Bu. (ZAW., 1906, 13), as already noted, recognises in v."" a fragment of the lost (?) conclusion of w. '". Cf. note on v. ". The reasons for the prevailing opinion are: (i) It disturbs, without reinforcing, the narrative. (2) It is not in the manner of the compiler of the book. See nin< ikSd for N^ajn ii- 12 2i- «o- 20 «S' and oyS for oyn Vn i« 2", etc. (3) The words attributed to Yahweh seem inconsistent with the situation. Cf. Com. — nin> pidnSdj] Om. (gAQmg. g,H^ jf [^ jg by t^e same hand as the rest of the verse, it only adds to the evidence of ungenuineness. Houb. reads niaxSna or nu niaNSoa. — idnS Om. B. — nin^s] ^ adds niN^v. — nnc] Cf. note on i'. — 14. nn-PNi'] Some edd. accent with 205. ^a J.; but see Baer, Notes, 80; Wickes, UFA., 83. — Dj>n nnsrS^] (g (£13) tCiv KaraXolwwv iravrbs toO XaoO = a>n Sd ms'tt"; but 05^^ Comp., Aid. om. iravrbs; which, however, seems as much in place as in v. '^b. — 15. This verse is the first of ch. 2 in (S 21 B &, also in the ^ of the Comp., Ant., Par. and Lond. polyglots, and some separate edd. This arrangement follows the more ancient division of the text into sections, which, however, since it brings together two dates that conflict with each other at the beginning of the same paragraph, cannot represent the mind of the author. Nor is the arrangement approved by the great exegetes Jewish and Christian, which is found in M, more satisfactory; for, as Bu. remarks, "all that follows •'B'ra is a useless appendage." Marti pronounces the whole verse an accretion, the attempt of Klo., et al., to account for it as the date of a lost or misplaced prophecy being a failure. A hint of the solution of the question might have been found in RoshHasshanah (Rodkinson, B J'., IV, Part 2, pp. 4/., where, however, for ii, 10 one should read i, 15), where the latter half of the verse is cited as belonging to both chapters, and a still clearer indication in itrco, a solecism that can only be explained as an interpolation. If, however, this word be dropped, the preceding clause naturally attaches itself to v. ", while the one following as naturally in- troduces the next chapter. This is the arrangement adopted in Kittel's text, and without doubt the correct one. It seems only fair to state that the note on •). This prophecy was designed to meet an emergency arising from the despondency that overtook the builders as soon as they realised the magnitude of their task and the slenderness of their resources. The prophet admits that they cannot hope to pro- duce anything like the splendid temple some of them can remem- ber, but he bids them one and all take courage, since Yahweh, whose are all the treasures of the earth, is \\-ith them and has decreed the new sanctuary a glorious future. Ii5b_ jj. would have been sufficient, in dating this second proph- ecy, to give the month and the day of the month, but the writer chose to use here the same formula as in v. *. A scribe, mistaking his intent, connected the first item, In the second year of Darius the king, with the preceding date of the commencement of work on the temple, and the error has only recently been discovered. It is only necessary to read the words quoted with 2* to see that such was the original connection. — 2^ It was in the seventh month, Tishri, on the twenty-first of the month, that is, early in October, less than a month after work on the new temple was begun, that Haggai re- ceived another message from Yahweh. The date was well chosen, being the seventh day of the Feast of Tabernacles, when the people were released from labour and assembled at Jerusalem. Cf. Ez. 45"\ — 2. He is again directed to address himself to Zeruhbabel . . . and Joshua, the civil and ecclesiastical heads of the community, but this time he is expressly instructed to include all the rest of the people. — 3. It doubtless cost a deal of labour, even if the ancient site had been sufficiently cleared to permit the reconstruction of the altar and the resumption of sacrifice, to remove the remaining ruins of Solomon's temple and its dependencies. While they were thus occupied the Jews must more than once have admired the stones that they were handling, and their admiration must have increased when the plan of the original com])lex in its generous dimensions was revealed. This feeling, however, was succeeded by an almost overwhelming discouragement, when they began to plan the new structure and realised how unworthy it would be to i*''^-2** 59 take the place of the one that preceded it. The disparity was most keenly felt by a few who were old enough — it had been only sixty- seven years since it was destroyed — to have seen the house of Yah- tveh in its former wealth.^ It is these aged men and women who are left, having survived the lamentable catastrophe in which the kingdom of David was destroyed, whom the prophet now ad- dresses. The wealth to which he refers is not the original glory Df the national sanctuary, for it had been plundered more than Dnce before any one then living was born. 1. Those who identify the Darius in whose reign Haggai prophesied with Darius Nothus are obliged to interpret the first question as implying that there was no one present who had seen Solomon's temple; which makes the second question meaningless. 2. When Shishak came up "against Jerusalem" in the reign of Rehoboam, "he took away the treasures of the house of Yahweh" as well as of " the king's house" (i K. 1426 (■). A century later, when Hazael threatened the capital, " Jehoash took all the hallowed things that Jehoshaphat, and Jehoram, and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated, and his own hallowed things, and all the gold that was found in the treasures of the house of Yah- wehand the king's house, and sent it to Hazael king of Syria." C/. 2 K. 12" ' ■• Still later, Ahaz, having become a vassal of Tiglath-pileser III, sacrificed the oxen that supported the great sea in the court of the priests and other brazen objects "because of the king of Assyria." Cf. 2 K. 16" '-. Finally Hezekiah, to appease Sennacherib, "gave him all the silver that was found in the house of Yahweh." Moreover, "at that time Hezekiah stripped the doors of the temple of Yahweh, and the pillars that Hezekiah, king of Judah, had over- laid, and gave (the gold) to the king of Assyria." Cf. 2 K. 18'^ t.. The reference is rather to that which it retained before Nebu- :hadrezzar took it the first time and doubtless emptied its coffers, ilthough he spared some, at least, of the sacred utensils. Cf. Je. ,yi8fF. 'pj^g statement of 2 K. 24^^, to the effect that the temple .vas then completely stripped, is contradicted, not only by this pas- sage from Jeremiah, but by 2 K. 25^^ ^•. It was then, however, in ;he last stage of its history, still rich enough to leave an impression )n these old people which made the structure now begun seem but I sorry imitation. Haggai, therefore, is only voicing their disap- 3ointment when he says, And how do ye see it now? what think ye )f its successor? Is it not as naught in your eyes? — 4. The prophet * The Chronicler (Ezr. s'" S) has an affecting description of their disappointment based on bis passage. 6o HAGGAI did not by these questions intend to increase the prevailing dis- couragement. They are simply a rhetorical device by which, as in i^, he sought to bring himself into sympathy with his people, that he might comfort them in their unhappy condition. It is not strange, therefore, to find that he has no sooner put the ques- tions than, with the words But now, he completely changes his tone and proceeds to bid them be strong, take courage, in spite of the gloominess of the present prospect, and work, carry the work they have undertaken to completion. Cf. i Ch. 28'" Ezr. Io^ He adds to the impressiveness of his exhortation by mentioning the leaders, Zerubbabel and Joshua, by name, and supplements it with the assurance, I am with you, saith Yahweh. For the peo- ple of v.^ the prophet here uses people of the land, a phrase which implies, not, as Kosters claims, that there were no returned cap- tives among them (117., 17), but that as yet these persons were not recognised as a party. — 5. In (^ v. *^ is immediately followed by the words, and my spirit abideth in your midst. The parallelism between the two is complete, abundantly warranting the conclu- sion that this was the original relation, and that therefore the clause which now intervenes is an interpolation. This opinion is con- firmed by the prosaic character of the clause itself, which thing I promised you when ye came forth from Egypt. The glossator, as he read v. *^, was evidently reminded by the words of Haggai of something similar in the history of the Exodus, and made this com- ment on the edge of his roll; whence it was afterward, by a copy- ist, incorporated into the text. Cf. Is. 6^ 7^- "' ^^ 9'^"", etc. There are several passages any one of which he may have had in mind, but, as there is none that corresponds closely in its phraseology to the prophet's statement, and the Jews have always allowed themselves great liberty in the matter of references to their Scrip- tures, it is hardly possible to identify the particular passage or passages here meant. The one that most naturally suggests it- self is Ex. 33", but the covenant between Yahweh and his people is more prominent in Ex. 19^ and elsewhere. V. Ex. 29^^ ^-j where Yahweh promises to dwell in the sanctuary concerning which and its worship he has just given directions. This would strike a Jewish reader as a particularly appropriate citation under jl5b_2 9 6l the circumstances. The idea of the prophet, of course, was that Yahweh would be present, not to glorify the temple, when it was completed, but to assist the people in rebuilding it, an idea which is simply repeated in the second member of the distich. Here, therefore, the Spirit of Yahweh is not an emanation, as often in the Old Testament (Gn. 41'^ Ex. 31' Ju. 132^ i S. 16'' i K. 10'" Is. II-), but, like "the angel of Yahweh," a manifestation of his personal presence.* 6. Thus far the prophet has been speaking of internal condi- tions and the means by which they may be improved. The people are suffering from repeated failures of their crops. The prophet explains the situation as a penalty for neglecting to rebuild the ruined temple. He therefore urges them to restore the sanctuary, promising them the assistance of Yahweh in the undertaking. At this point his vision is so extended that he is able to see the new structure, not only completed, but enriched beyond the fondest dreams of his generation. Yahweh has decreed it, and he wiU in yet a little while begin to put his benign purpose into execution. Haggai's idea seems to be that there will be a startling display of the divine omnipotence in the realm of nature. I will shake heaven and earth, he represents Yahweh as saying. The prophets all believed in the power of God over the physical world. They saw a special manifestation of that power in any unusual phenomenon, and, when it was destructive, interpreted it as a sign of Yahweh's displeasure. The imagery here used was evidently suggested by the storms that sometimes sweep over Palestine. It is found in the very earliest Hebrew literature. Cf. Ju. 5^ ^•. The earlier prophets adopted it. For fine examples, see Is. 2^^^- Na. i^^-. The later prophets employed it with other similar material in their pictures of the inauguration of the Messianic era. Cf. Ez. 33*® ^• Is. 13*^ 2V* *^- Jo. 4/3^^*-, etc. The extravagance of some of these representations makes it probable that they finally became merely a literary form for the assertion of the divine omnipotence. See the "visions" of these same prophets. The phrase, and the sea and the dry land, must be treated as a gloss by a prosaic copyist. * Cj. Ps. 139'r, but especially Is. 6f-^* ; also Davidson, Theol, 125 /. ; Piepenbring, Theol., 156/. 62 HAGGAI This is an improvement in more ways than one. In the first place, it permits the transfer of the first clause of v. ' to this one, to form a distich both members of which receive additional sig- nificance through their union with each other. The first has al- ready been discussed. The second, yea, I will shake all nations, introduces the ultimate purpose of the convulsion predicted, namely, to humble the nations. These words were uttered in October 520 B.C. They cannot, therefore, be taken as a predic- tion of the uprising in the East against Darius; — it had begun in the preceding year; — but they must be interpreted as indicating the expectation of the prophet with reference to the war then in progress. He had probably not yet heard of the capture of Baby- lon and the energy that Darius was displaying in a second cam- paign in Media. He therefore, apparently, hoped and believed that the conflict would result in the disintegration of the Persian empire and the complete liberation of the Jews as well as the other subject peoples. For a more detailed description of the catastro- phe, see V. ^^. — 7. A second advantage from the removal of the first clause of this verse to end of v. ^ is that it loosens the con- nection between the clause in question and the following context. It surely cannot have been the idea of the prophet that tJie treasures of all the nations were to be shaken from them like fruit from a tree. Yet this is the impression that one gets from the text as now arranged. Cf. Nowack, Make the change proposed, and the oreak between the verses will prevent such an inference and per- mit the reader to supply an imjxjrtant omission in this brief out- line of Yahweh's purpose. The prophet, of course, must have ex- pected that, after the present convulsion, the nations liberated by it would be so impressed by the power of Yahweh that they would recognise him as the Ruler of the world. He knew that this was the oft-avowed object of Yahweh in his government. Cf. Is. 45^- ^^- ^ ^-j etc. He therefore represents the Deity as saying that the things in which the nations delight shall come, i. e., as volun- tary offerings, to the temple now in process of erection, and that by this means he will Jill this house with wealth. The older com- mentators, following the Vulgate {venial desideraius cunctis genti- bus), interpreted this verse as referring to the Messiah, citing the incidents recorded in Lk. 2^^- ^® as the fulfilment of Haggai's prophecy;* but this interpretation is now generally abandoned, for it is clear from v. ^ that the wealth, or, as EV. has it, the glory, of the last clause is that of silver and gold, and that therefore, as above explained, it is not a dehghtful person, but precious things, that are destined to come to the new sanctuary. Cf. Is. 6o^- ". — 8. There can be no doubt of Yahweh's abiUty to fulfil this promise. Mine, he says, is the silver, and mine is the gold, i. e., the whole store of these metals, whether current among men or still hidden in the bowels of the earth. — 9. The offerings brought will be so many and valuable that the future wealth of this house — not, as the Vulgate has it,f the wealth of this latter house — will be greater than the past. The expression this house here, as in v. ^, means the temple regarded as ha\'ing a continuous existence (Pres.), in spite of its ruined or unfinished condition. By its past {former) wealth, therefore, is meant the wealth it possessed before it was burned. Yahweh promises, not only to enrich this his abode, but to bless Jerusalem. In this place, he says, / will grant prosperity. The word rendered prosperity % is used in the Old Testament in the sense of quiet, especially as opposed to the unrest of war. Thus, by the Prince of Peace (Is. « C&^ adds iravTWKpdTwp= niN33f, and CB do the same for nini*. On the other hand, (SN-^b aq "- omit the nwax that follows nin^sj but since the prophet seems to have followed no rule in the use of the divine names, and the verses con- tain many evident errors made in translating or copying them, it does not seem safe in either case to reject the Massoretic reading. Cf v. ". — 5. The first half of this verse is certainly a gloss, (i) As already explained in the comments, it breaks the connection between two clauses which were evidently meant for a parallelism. (2) No attempt to construe it with the context has proven satisfactory. It will not do to make "*aT PN the obj. of iu'>, expressedjBjOr understood, Rosenm.; for this vb. does not need an obj. (Ezr. 10' I Ch. 3'"), and, if it took one, the thing commanded would be, not the fulfilment of Yahweh's promises, but work on the temple. It is equally objectionable to couple "\2T tn with either djpn, Marck, or 'nn, Hi., Hd., Koh., since in either case the balance between the parallel clauses is destroyed and ^ai invested with an unnatural meaning. (3) The whole clause is wanting in "D nnN niy] The text is evidently corrupt. The best explanation of the present reading, We., is that it is the result of the confusion of two idioms, one of which is represented by the Yet once of d 51 &. Cf. Heb. 1226 f.. The emendation proposed by We., following Sm., however, is not completely satisfactory. The original, as he suggests, doubtless had the idiom with b>d. In that case, however, it is not enough to omit nnx. The pron. N^n, which refers to it, and in fact has no other function, must also be eliminated. The original, then, must have been t3i?D li>', which is regularly followed by 1. CJ. Ex. 17'', etc. That of IH may be ex- plained by supposing that t:j;D was mistaken for o;jd (Ne. iS^") by the Greek translators, and that nnN with n-'H arose from an attempt to cor- rect m from (& by the use of the idiom of Ex. 30'", etc. — a>n pni nainn pni] Evidently a gloss, for (i) it not only unduly lengthens one of the members of a parallelism, but (2) introduces details inconsistent with the context which belong to the field of the later apocalypses. Cf. Jo. 34f./23of. Is. 2415-, etc. — 7. On v.'^ v. Com.— nion] So H § ul; but (6 51 have the pi., which is also required by ixa. Hence the original must have been nicn. Cf. Gn. 27'^. So Houb., Seek., New., We., Now., Marti, Kit.; but Che., CB., suggests nnjc. — niN3X mn'" -icn] The rarity of this form of expression in Hg. and Zc, as already noted (i '), excites sus- picion. Here and in v. ^ the fact that it disturbs the rhythm is an addi- tional reason for pronouncing it an accretion. — 8. cnj]. Three mss., Kenn., have icn, but in this case it is an error for axj. — 9. non 123 jnnxn n?.-i] H, gloria domus istius novissimcB. V. Com. — mxax nini idn] Cf. V. '. — Cl5 adds at the end, koI elp-qvriv ^vxv^ «'s irepiirolrjcnv wavTl t^ ktI^ovti, toO avaiXTrjaai rbv vdov rovTov= even peace of soul unto preserva- tion to every one that layeth foundations to erect this temple = ."'"'naS caj mSiyi ntn hT^n PK DOipS no^ SdS. These words, however, cannot be a part of the original prophecy. Jer. gives the reasons for rejecting them when he characterises the passage as "superfluous and hardly consistent," and notes that they were not regarded as genuine "among the Hebrews or by any exegete." The inconsistency consists in this, that, while the thing predicted by Hg., as has been shown, is prosperity, that here promised is inward and spiritual tranquillity. It is not probable that the prophet went from the one to the other of these conceptions without warning and within the brief limits of a single sentence. 66 HAGGAI § 3. THE NEW ERA OF THE RESTORED TEMPLE (2^<'-^«). A few weeks after Haggai's second discourse there was occasion for a third. The people were disappointed that Yahweh did not at once testify his appreciation of their zeal in the restoration of his sanctuary. The prophet, after an illustration calculated to show them the unreasonableness of the complaint, promises that henceforth they shall see a difference. 10. It was the twenty-fourth oj ilie ninth month, that is, in De- cember, a little more than two months from the preceding date, when Haggai was again moved to address his people. The date is not that of any of the regular festivals. Nor is there ground for supposing, with Andre, that it was an occasion for special offerings; certainly not in v. ", for the sacrifices there mentioned belong, not to the date of the prophecy, but to a preceding period. — 11. This time also he begins abruptly, as if interrupting an opponent, leaving the reader to imagine what had given rise to the discussion, and what had previously been said by each of the disputants. The general situation can readily be conceived. The people, if they had been stimulated to renewed activity in their work on the temple by the inspiring picture of its future glory which the prophet had presented to them, were again beginning to lose in- terest in the enterprise. From the first utterance of Zechariah (i* ^•), who had meanwhile begun his career, it appears that some, at least, among them were not in a condition to appreciate the re- ligious significance of the new sanctuary. The excuse that all gave for their indifference or discouragement seems to have been that, although it had now been three months since they began oper- ations, Yahweh had as yet given them no token of his approval. This seemed to them unjust, but Yahweh, speaking through the prophet, defends himself, using an illustration that his hearers would readily understand. He takes it from the sphere of cere- monial, concerning which one would naturally ask the priests for instruction. Cf. Zc. f^- Lv. io'°^-. The fact that the matter is referred to them shows, as Wellhausen observes, that the fountain 210-19 67 from which flowed much of the Pentateuch was in Haggai's time still open. — 12. The case is a hypothetical one: If a man, not nec- essarily a priest, carry holy flesh, flesh that has been offered to Yahweh (Je. ii^^),* in the skirt of his robe, which, if not already holy, is thereby rendered holy (Lv. 6^^'^"), and touch with his skirt, not with the flesh in it, bread, etc., not yet offered. The question is whether in such a case the food so touched will become holy. In other words, is the holiness imparted by a sacred object to another transmitted by this second object to a third, when the last two are brought into contact? Thus far the command of Yahweh to Haggai. Cf. v. ^''. For completeness' sake it should be followed by a statement that the prophet, thus instructed, put the pre- scribed question to the priests; for it was the prophet, and not Yahweh, to whom the priests answered and said. No. There was a reason, and a good one, for this decision, but, since the prophet omits it, and it has no importance in the present connection, it does not deserve special attention. — 13. The lesson Haggai wished to teach has two sides to it. His first question was meant to throw light upon the negative side. He proceeds to illustrate the posi- tive by a corresponding question: If one unclean from contact with, or proximity to, a dead person, lit., a soul,'\ touch any of these, will it, the bread or other food, become unclean ? To this the priests reply, It will become unclean. Cf. Nu. 19^^. In other words, uncleanness imparted to a given person or object communicates itself to a third person or object by contact. — ^14. A glance at this verse is enough to convince one that the application of the prophet's parable was meant to convey disapproval. The expressions this people and this nation give it a sinister tone. Cf. i^. When, how- ever, one looks a little further, one realises that his ultimate object is to encourage his people. This conflict of ideas must in some way be adjusted. It cannot be done by rendering the verse as a description of the actual condition of the Jews when the prophet was addressing them, for in that way the contradiction is made even * In later times it was largely reserved for the priests (Lv. 626 j6)_ Jjqj the worshipper always had a share in the peace-offerings. Cj. Lv. 7'^ ^■. t The earliest reference to the uncleanness of the dead is found in Ho. g^. C/. also Dt. 26'^ For the later laws see Nu. 19" ^■, and for a fuller discussion of the subject, DB., art. Unclean- ness; Beuzinger, Arch., 480 /. 68 HAGGAI more apparent. The only other alternative is to make it refer to the past and explain the previous experience of the j)eople. Trans- late, therefore, So hath it been with this people, and so with this nation before me, saith Yahweh. It is clear that the prophet here neglects his first question, and confines himself to a direct applica- tion of the second. If so, what he means is that the Jews in some way, he does not here say how, brought themselves into a condi- tion similar to that of one who has become unclean from contact with a dead body. Now, the priests had said that uncleanness was contagious. It is natural, therefore, to expect that the prophet will here make an application of this important fact, and the next clause, yea, so with all the work of their hands, seems to meet this expectation. But what is meant by the work or — for this is a possible rendering — works of their hands? This expression in one of the earlier prophetical books would be understood as a ref- erence to the conduct or practices of those who were addressed. Cf Am. 8' Je. 25". Such, however, can hardly be the thought in this connection. In the first place, since Haggai nowhere else alludes to the sins for which his predecessors arraigned their con- temporaries, it is not probable that he does so in this connection. Nor is such an interpretation in harmony with the evident pur- pose of the prophet, which is to apply the law of the transmission of uncleanness. There is another and better. The phrase "work of the hands" occurs several times in Deuteronomy in the sense of human undertakings, and especially agricultural operations. Cf. 24'* 28'" 30®. The transition from the operation to the product is natural and easy. It is actually made in v. ", where " the works of your hands" can mean nothing but the crops. Cf. also i". It is therefore probable that in this passage the prophet intends to say that the people have in some way defiled themselves and com- municated their uncleanness to the products of their labor, the grain they have sowed and reaped and the cattle they have raised. Thus it came to pass that what they from time to time offered on the altar already erected was unclean. Haggai does not say how the people defiled themselves, but it is easy enough to learn what he thought on the subject. Their great fault in his eyes was that they had neglected to rebuild the temple and thus prevented the 2'"-'" 69 return of Yahweh and the introduction of the Messianic era. He charged them with it at the start (i^), and he alludes to it again in the next verse. This it was that had defiled them and rendered their worship offensive to Yahweh. Haggai does not return to his first question. If he had, and had undertaken to complete the twofold thought with which he began, he would doubtless have said in effect that the meagre worship his people paid to Yahweh had been more than neutraHsed by their selfish and short-sighted indifference to the supreme duty of restoring the national sanc- tuar)'. There have been various attempts to apply Haggai's parable in greater de- tail. One of the most elaborate is that of Andre, the result of which is as fol- lows: The man bearing the holy flesh = Israel. The garment in which it is borne = Palestine. The skirt of the garment = Jerusalem. The holy flesh = the altar. The bread, etc. =the products of the soil. The altar sanctified the land, but not its products. The man defiled =Israel. The corpse = the ruined temple. Thebread, etc. =the products of the soil. The ruined temple defiled the sacrifices offered on the temporary altar. 16. And now, says the prophet, as if about to introduce a con- trast to the previous state of things. He is, but not until he has shown the unhappy results of the failure of the people to please Yahweh. The subject is an important one. Hence the impres- sive warning, take tJwught, as he approaches it. He first reminds his people of their condition before a stone was placed upon another in the temple of Yahweh, that is, for an indefinite period before work was begun on the new temple.* — ^16. During that unhappy period, when one came to a heap of twenty measnres, a pile of un- threshed or unwinnowed grain from which one would ordinarily get this amount, the yield was so light that tliere were actually only ten. The returns from the vineyards were still less satisfactory; for, when one came to the winevat expecting to dip off fifty measures of must, he found that there were only twenty. Cf Is. 5'", Disap- pointments of this kind are still so frequent in Palestine that they have given rise to the proverb, "The reckoning of the threshing- floor does not tally with that of the field." Cf Wilson, PLHL., 309. * The phrase rendered in AV. from this day and upward is purposely ignored. 70 HAGGAI The wine-presses in southern Palestine were excavated in the limestone which underlies the soil. CJ. Ju. 6" Is. 5'. They consisted of two vats on different levels, the one larger and shallower for the grapes, the other smaller and deeper for their juice. They were separated by a partition of native rock pierced by a hole by which the juice flowed from the one to the other. There was no uniformity in the size of cither receptacle. Nor was the number of vats always two. There were sometimes three, or even four. CJ. EB., art. Wine; PEF., QS., 1899, 41/.; ZDPV., x, 146. 17. There follows a careless or corrupt quotation from Amos with additions. The object of it is to explain the failure of the crops as just described. It was due to the direct intervention of Yahweh. I smote you, he says, with blight afid decay. These are the precise words of Am. 4". Haggai, if the next clause is genuine, adds in a more prosaic style, and with Jiail all the work of your hajids, that is, as in v. ", the crops for which they had toiled. All this is appropriate enough; but the remainder of the verse, which is an imitation or a corruption of the familiar refrain, "yet ye returned not unto me, saith Yahweh," used by Amos, 4^^-, no fewer than five times, is out of place in this connection, the object of the prophet being to emphasise, not the stubbornness of the peo- ple, but the unhappiness of their circumstances. It is probable, therefore, that this part of the verse is a late addition made by a reader who thought it necessary here, as in the prophecy of Amos, to complete the thought. — 18. Now, at length, comes the transi- tion indicated by the Atid now of v. ''. The prophet, therefore, seeks to revive the impression then {)roduced by repeating the warning, take thought. It is the future, however, on which he now wishes to focus attention, the period, as he describes it, from this time onward. The exact date of this turning-point is given. It is the date of the present discourse, the twenty-fourth of the ninth month. Cf. v. '". So great precision was not necessary for those to whom the prophecy was originally addressed or those for whom the book of Haggai was finally compiled. Moreover, this date rather disturbs the balance of the verse and emphasises an avoid- able difficulty. It is, therefore, probably an interpolation. When it is removed the phrase just used is brought into close connection with the clause which was evidently intended to define it. This clause is usually translated from the day when the temple was founded, which naturally means that the foundation of the new structure was laid on the twenty-fourth of the ninth month; as the glossator expressly teaches. The conflict between this inference and the statement of Ezr. 38 ff • is evident. A favourite method of adjusting it is to suppose that the prophet here refers, not to a first movement to rebuild the temple, but to the renewal of one be- gun in the second year of the reign of Cyrus and after a little suppressed. So Dru., de D., Hi., Koh., Or., et al. It is not, however, necessary to adopt such an explanation, much less to torture familiar idioms for the sake of bring- ing this passage into accord with one that has been shown to be unhistorical. On the historicity of Ezr. 3* ^- v. pp. 10/.; on the idioms n'^yn and JdS, the critical notes. There is more in the objection that, according to I'^a, work was begun on the temple three months before the date of this prophecy, and that, according to 2^, at the end of about a month the builders seem to have made progress. The usual explanation for this apparent discrepancy is that the work begun on the twenty-fourth of the sixth month was that of clearing the site and providing materials for the new building. So Dru., de D., Marck, Hi., Koh., Sta., We., etal. Now. objects that it could not have taken three months to make the preparations named, and argues therefrom that the clause above quoted, as well as the date, is ungenuine. The objection is a fair one and the conclusion valid against the clause — as translated, but there is room for doubt whether the rendering above given does justice to the original. What is wanted here is a parallel to v. *^^. Now, in that clause it is not a date, but a period and the condition of things during that period, which are described. Moreover the condition is presented as a reason or explanation for a given result. It was when (and because) a stone had not been placed upon another in the temple of Yahweh that the crops had failed. The construction in this case is the same and the connection perfectly analogous. The pas- sage should therefore be rendered, from the time when the temple hath been founded, that is, now that the temple has been founded. That this is the prophet's meaning appears because the passage, so rendered, (i) furnishes a perfect parallel to v. ^^^, (2) presents a reason for the blessing promised in v. ^^ and (3) harmonises i''^'^ and 2^. — 19. There was danger that some of those whom Haggai was addressing would take his words too literally, suppos- ing that Yahweh would at once give them a convincing token of a change of attitude toward them. The prophet took pains to pre- vent them from falling into this error. The divine displeasure had been manifested by a blight upon agriculture. The prophet 72 HAGGAI expected that Yahweh would manifest his favour by giving rain in its season and, as a result, abundant harvests. It was now, how- ever, too early, December, to look for tangible evidence to this effect. The grain, to be sure, had been sown, and the fields were already green with it, but there would be some weeks before any one could tell whether the crop would be great or small, and the harvest for the vineyard and the orchard was still further in the future. This is the thought that the prophet has in mind when, in his abrupt manner, as if again answering an objection, he asks. Is the seed, here, as in Lv. 27^" and elsewhere, the return from the grain sown, the crop, already in the granary? A negative answer is expected. In the following clause the negative is found in the prophet's statement, nor have the vine, and the fig, and the pome- granate, and the olive tree yet borne, that is, had time to bear. In other words, there has been no harvest since work on the temple was begun. This being the case, the prophet sees no ground for discouragement. Indeed he proceeds to transform this negative inference into positive assurance. He believes, not only that Yah- weh has been propitiated, but that he has already decreed a satis- factory harvest. He therefore closes the discourse by putting into his mouth the promise. From this time will I bless. 10. The transfer of I'^t to this chapter brought the date at the head of the chapter into conformity with that in 1'. At the same time it indi- cated the type that the author might be expected to follow. The fact that the date here given has a different form warrants a suspicion that the phrase, crmS D\ir nju'a, which, moreover, is unnecessary, has been added. — Sn] Here there has been a struggle between '^n and lo. There is authority for both of them, but the former is the one required by the context. Cf. Vnb', v. ". It is also the reading of 80 mss., and, among the earliest edd., Sonc. '"«• '^"^ Bres., Pes. "'s- '"', Ven. '"'■ >"«. Fi- nally it has the support of (S I H ft". C/. Baer, Gins. — 11. Thereisone objection to Sn, viz., that, if it is adopted, Yahweh is here made to appeal to his own authority. This, however, is not serious. Here, as in Zc. 8", ni.x3S n^n•> icN dd was used by the prophet or inserted by a copyist as a mere formula, without a second thought with reference to its appropri- ateness in the connection. If it is an interpolation, its history is probably involved with that of n>3. — S.xu'] ft, which has I'J, consistently renders this word as if it were pi. — 12. jn] The word is usually treated as an Aramaism, but, as used here, it is not properly a hypothetical particle. Its force is rather that of a demonstrative calling attention to an act the result of which is to be considered. So Ex. 4' 822/26 (both J) ; BDB. On the accentuation, v. Baer, Notes, 80; Wickes, i7P/l., 118. — iflJ3] Kenn. 30 has nj3 fjjo. So also QUI; and Bu. adopts this reading. It is prob- able, however, since nj3 is usually omitted, that the repetition of the full expression is due to dittog. Cf. Dt. 23V2230 Ez. 168 Zc. 8", etc.— jne*] Rd., with 18 mss., Kenn., prn. Cf. onSn, etc. — 13. ijn] On the omis- sion of NOjn, see p. 30. — ti'oj] For hd i^cj, lit., the soul of one dead. Cf. Lv. 21" Nu. 6^ and on the construction, Ges. ^ "». s k). Sometimes ^oi is preceded by S. C/. Nu. 52 9'". — Sj2] On the preposition, cf. Ges. | "'• 3 (4) (2)j on "73 in the sense of any, Ges, 5 ni. 1 (o r. 1 (o.— n^] For chp< nS. Cf. V. 13; Ges. ^ '5"- '. — 14. nrn oyn p] Boh. om. this clause as superfluous, forgetting, apparently, that Hebrew vvnriters often resort to repetition for emphasis. Cf. Is i^ — niryn] A cstr. sg., with a dependent pi., may itself have the force of pi. Cf. Ges. § im • 2 c ). Hence it is not necessary to rd. ^sryn to account for the pi. in CS ?I # 21. — lanpM] The impf., to denote customary action. Cf Ges. ^ ""■ ' <*'. — 05 renders the whole clause ko2 bs iav iyila-Q iKel fjnavdrjcrerai. — ^ (H) adds at the end of the verse, eveKev tQv XtjufidTuv avrCov tQv dpOpivQv 65vvriO-f)-" a parenthesis. So Now., Matthes, Marti, Bu., And. The result thus obtained is no doubt in harmony with the proph- et's idea, but there is a simpler way of reaching it, viz., by treating the whole phrase, ny'^r:) nn ovn p, as an interpolation. This method has obvious advantages: (i) The prophet is thus relieved of responsibility for an awkward and unnatural construction. (2) The attention of the ^ reader is called first to the past and then to the future, just as it is in i'- '. (3) It is much more reasonable to suppose that a careless scribe inten- tionally or unintentionally inserted the phrase, because it occurred in V. ", than that the prophet himself introduced it before he had any use for it. — 0TJ2] The only case in which dtj is preceded by p or followed by the inf. On Zp. 22, cf. Kit.— "-n] (6, (irl; g> ®, ^';; % B, supra =^;-. — 16. arrnc] The text is clearly corrupt, but it is not so plain how it should be emended. Matthes {ZAW., 1903, 125/.), following (& {rive^ ijTc) £, rds. ani-ri nn, How was it with you ? So Marti. Bu. prefers Dn"n ^D as more idiomatic. Cf. Ru. 3" Am. 7'- s. Neither of these readings is favoured by the other Vrss., which render D nvna, while the days were, during the time when. The changes made are all justifiable. The prep. 3 is required, because the prophet is dealing with a period, and not a point, of time. The construction in which a cstr., especially of av or ry, is followed by a descriptive clause is a familiar one. Cf. Ges. ^ iss. 2 (*) (sj '• '. In 2 Ch. 24", as in this case, the vb. has an indefinite subj. Cf. also Lv. 7'' Dt. 32'5, etc. Finally, it should be noted that the reading sug- gested has the support of several good authorities to the extent that these scholars interpret the sf. o as meaning av or •'cv So Dru., Mau., Hi., Koh., Hd., et al. — a^iu'y nmy Ss Na] (6, 6t€ ive^dWere eh Kv\pi\7]v KpiOiji etKocri (rdra, where Kpidijs, which is wanting in L, seems to have been suggested by the resemblance of anfy, twenty, to Dn;'i:', barley. — nniDJ The word has been interpreted in two ways: First, as a measure. So probably 01, P'^^J, and explicitly Ra. and some later commentators. Cf. Mau., Hd., et al. If this interpretation were correct, there would still be room for doubting the genuineness of the word, since there is no more need of a measure here than in the first half of the verse. Cf. Ru. 3"; Ges. ^ m. s. r. 3, It is clear, however, from Is. 63' that !')-\yB is not a measure, but practically a synonym for ap'. The same objection holds good against a modification of this view according to which rnio, al- though it properly means wine-press, here has the derived sense of trough- 2"-" 75 Jul. Cf. Hi., Koh., Ke., And., et al. The second interpretation is that required by Is. 63'. Those who adopt it, if they retain the word in the text, have to supply 3 (Dru.) or p. Cf. AV., Cal., Sm., We., Now., van H., et al. The latter, which is now the favourite reading, must be rejected for the following reasons: (i) If, as is alleged, this is a case of haplog., since the original must have been miBns, not miDS, Sm., the text ought still to show misn. (2) There is no reason for emphasising the thought that the wine was to be drawn /row the wine-press, and if there were, uco would answer the purpose. There is no support for either of these views in the Vrss. ^, to be sure, has /xeTpTjrds, ?I amphoras, and U lagenas, but they have a measure in the first half of the verse also, not because M had one, but because the Greek and Latin idioms require it. Their testimony, therefore, is valueless. That of § is to the effect that nils, for which it has no equivalent, is a gloss to 2p' which has been inserted in the text in the wrong place. So ARV., Matthes, Marti, Kit. Houb. rd. naifj in the sense of jar. The Standard Revision, also, originally had "vessels" in Italics, i.e., omitted ."niD; but, to use the words of Per., "the mistake (!) has now been corrected." — 17. "Ti^sn ppiM ] Taken from Amos, but not necessarily an interpolation, since the parallel clause, which should begin with Tijai, and not, as in M, with HN, seems to be original. — nc-jjc] Cf. v. '^ CS ICTI ® have the pi. The word is in the same construction, ace, as ddpn. — The last clause, also, was borrowed from Amos, but not by Haggai; for (i) it is more carelessly reproduced than the first one, and (2) it gives to the prophet's thought a new and unnatural direction. In any case the text must be emended, ODHN pN being indefensible; Ko. § "»»; contra, Ew. i^esd; and, since t\v can hardly be explained except by supposing it to be original, it seems better to rd. ddju* px. Gins., or D^ai? DDrs, Bu., than anity a^. Kit. The whole verse is omitted by We., Now., Marti, Bu., Kit. — 18. The same authorities reject the date in this verse, and the last three the clause that follows. The date is no doubt superfluous, p. 70, and the omis- sion of nin» pS would relieve the apparent discrepancy between this passage, on the one hand, and i^-'s^ and 2' on the other; but, as has been shown in the Com., this latter clause is required to explain why Yah- weh should now bless his people, and, when it is properly understood, its genuineness can be defended. — The force of nSpni is here so clear that "&, which in v. '^ has et supra, renders it this time et in futurum. So Marck, Seek., de D., Hi., Koh., et al. Those, however, who maintain that the foundation of the temple was laid in the second year of Cyrus, and that the last clause of this verse refers to that event, are obliged to translate it here, as well as in v. ^^, and backward. So C5, RV., Dru., New., Rosenm., Mau., Ew., Ke., Per., van H., et al. Moreover, they must do violence to p*?, either, with Ew., giving it the force of nyi, or practi- cally making it do double duty, first pointing the reader to the past and 76 HAGGAI then, from a certain date in the past, turning his attention toward the present. The former of these methods of treatment entirely ignores He- brew usage, according to which jdS and 1J?1, so far from being inter- changeable, are direct opposites. Cf. Ex. ii' 2 S. 7*. On the second, which is best represented by van Hoonacker, see v. ", notes. The position taken in the comments is that pS without n>i marks the beginning of a period extending to the present, and that the foundation of the temple dis- tinguishes and dominates the whole of it. For other examples, cj. Dt. 4" 2 S. 7". — If the preceding clause is retained, it is not necessary, with li] Rd., with (S'^Q^ H iH, ip. On the meaning of nS nj:, cf. Je. 40^ 2 Ch. 20". — Nfc'j] (5, (pipovra = Nrj. So Matthes, Marti, but H & 21 have the equivalent of inu'j, which would be the regular construction. Cf. Ges. ^ '*^- ' <'''. — T13n] Houb.rds.03-i3N, citing &, which adds at the end of the verse X^fH^ i^^l ^eoul^ = mn' ONJ oniN. 4. THE FUTURE OF THE LEADER ZERUBBABEL (220-23)^ This prophecy is addressed to Zerubbabel alone. In it Haggai foretells a great catastrophe by which kings will be overthrown and kingdoms destroyed, but after which the prince, unharmed, will receive new honours from Yahweh. 20. In the preceding prophecy Haggai confined his attention to internal conditions and the prospect of improvement. Very soon after he delivered it, something must have happened to give his thoughts a different direction. Perhaps there came news from the East, the report of a new outbreak or a battle unfavourable to the Persians, which tended to confirm the opinion current in Jerusalem that the days of the empire were numbered. At any rate, on the iweniy-fourth of the ninth month, the word of Yahweh came to him a second time, and he prophesied. — 21 . The message is a private and personal one. Even Joshua, who, in the first two cases, was recognised as one of the pillars of the new community, is now ignored. This fact might give rise to many vain theories; as, for example, that Zerubbabel and Joshua had become es- tranged, and Haggai had espoused the cause of the governor. A simpler explanation, and probably the correct one, is that the prophecy was directed to Zerubbabel because he was the one most concerned in its fulfilment. It begins with a repetition of the an- nouncement of V. ^, / will shake heaven and earth. — 22. In v. ' the prophet was content with merely indicating in a general way what Yahweh meant by threatening to shake heaven and earth, viz., political commotion. Here he is bolder. / will overturn, he makes Yahweh say, the rule,^ lit., the throne, of the kingdoms, and destroy the might of the nations. This is a very sweeping prophecy. It seems to mean that the prophet expected the commotion then rife to result in the total abolition of the absolute power exercised by the kings of the earth and their submission to Yahweh as the King of Kings. First, however, there must be great carnage; for Yahweh will overturn chariots and them that ride therein, and horses shall go down, and their riders, to Sheol. Cf Is. 5'*. It must not be supposed that the Jews are to have any part in this conflict. They will merely be witnesses while Yahweh is destroying their enemies; or rather, while, by his decree, these enemies are de- stroying one another; for they will fall each by the sword of his fel- low. Cf. Ju. 7" Ez. 38^^ — 23. The prophet closes this his last discourse with the boldest of all his predictions. He introduces it by a phrase, very common in other books, which, however, he has not hitherto employed. It is in that day, by which he means the now rapidly approaching time when the divine plan concern- ing Israel will be consummated and the Messianic era inaugurated. The solemnity of the announcement is noticeable. The phrase just quoted is followed by a saith Yahweh of Hosts. The same expression is used at the end of the verse, while the intervening statements are separated by the briefer saith Yahweh. There is only one other passage in the book (v. *), in which the prophet appears so anxious to be recognised as a veritable ambassador from the Almighty. Zerubbabel is directly addressed: / will * The word ND3 is frequently used in this signification. Cf. i K. i'', el pas. The rendering above given seems required by parallelism with pin. Otherwise it might be regarded as an example of a common Heb. idiom, the use of the sg. for the pi. in the cstr. before a pi., and trans- lated thrcmes. Cf. Ges. §>"■ 2 (O. 78 HAGGAI take thee, says Yahweh. The expression implies selection for an im- portant service or mission. Thus, Yahweh "took" Abraham, that he might be the father of a chosen people (Jos. 24^) ; Israel, that they might be his people and he their God (Ex. 6*^) ; the Levites, that they might serve him at his sanctuary (Nu. 3*^) ; David, that he might be a prince over Israel (2 S. 7*) ; and Amos, that he might represent him at Bethel (Am. 7'''). All these, in so far as they ful- filled the missions for which they were selected, were Yahweh's serv^ants. Cf. Gn. 26^^ Is. 41* 2 S. 3*", etc. Yahweh here calls Zerubbabel, partly in recognition of past faithfulness, but also in anticipation of greater usefulness in the future, his servant, and as such promises him unique distinction. / will make thee as a sig- net, he says. Now, the signet, or seal-ring, was not a mere orna- ment, although as such it was sometimes highly valued by the Hebrews. Its peculiar importance lay in the fact that it was en- graved and was used when its owner wished to sign a letter or other document. Cf. i K. 21^. It represented him, and, since at any time it might be needed for this purpose, he rarely parted with it; but wore it, either on a cord about his neck (Gn. 38'^), or on one of the fingers of his right hand (Je. 22^^), everywhere. Thus the signet came to be a symbol for one's most precious possession. Cf. Je. 22^^ Ct. 8*. Such is its significance in this connection, as appears from the causal clause, /or thee have I chosen. There can be no doubt about this statement. It means that Haggai, for- ^"*"/(,>' 'j getting the inspiring idea of the Second Isaiah, that Israel had now inherited the promises made to David (Is. 55^), and become the servant ordained to carry the salvation of Yahweh to the ends of /the earth (Is. 49®), had revived the doctrine of the ideal king and ) identified Zerubbabel with the long-expected son of David. ,#^ 20. On the genuineness of this and the following verses, see p. 30. — 'jn] Add, with Kenn. 250 (S, N'2jn, as elsewhere, exc. w. " ''•, where it would retard the narrative. Cf. i' 2>- >». — 21. Saair] (& adds, and doubtless correctly, t6v rod SaXa^iT;\='?N>nSNU' p]. — The words Kal ttjv 6d\a(Tffav Kal Trjv ^rjpdv (C), at the end of the verse, on the other hand, seem to have been borrowed from v. '^,q.v. — 22. nis'^CD'] (S, /Sao-tX^wi/. The omission of the art. suggests that perhaps this word was originally fol- lowed by O'oyn; but since the line is already long enough, it is better to supply the art — poSdd'J Onj. with Boh. as unnecessary to the sense and 2^"-^" 79 disturbing to the rhythm. The whole clause is omitted by (^^*, but the omission is evidently due to the carelessness of a copyist, Greek or Heb. — noDHi] (B^ adds Kal KaTaarpiipu} iraaav Trjv Si/va/Mv airrOiv Kal Kara^aXui rd 6pia avrwv Kal iviax'^'^ ''"'"^s ^/cXe/cToi)s /jlov- doubtless a marginal gloss incorporated into its text. — niii] Gratz suggests mm; van H. m^. The present reading, however, is easily defensible if the vb. be taken in the natural sense of descending into Sheol which it has in Is. 5'* Ez. 32", etc. — We. supplies I'^iS''; but, since both the sense and the rhythm are complete without it, it is better to treat the whole clause as a mistaken gloss. — D.'^in;] Bu. adds ''^; but it is possible that the prophet purposely omitted it, thus avoiding an anthropomorphism to which Je. 22^^, saw no objection. ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES. The book of Zechariah consists of fourteen chapters. The first eight are universally recognised as the work of the prophet to whom they are attributed. The authorship of the last six has long been in dispute, but most recent authorities on the question refer them to some other author or authors. This opinion, the reasons for which will in due time be given, is here taken for granted. The subject of this chapter, therefore, more exactly stated, would be, Zechariah as he reveals himself in the first eight chapters of the book called by his name. § I. THE PERSONAL HISTORY OF THE PROPHET. There is not much to be learned about Zechariah outside of his prophecies. As in the case of Haggai, the references to him in Ezr. 5* 6^* simply reflect an acquaintance with these utterances in the time of the Chronicler. When, however, Zc. i* is combined with Ne. 12* the resiilt is the interesting item of information that Zechariah w^g^a priest as well as a prophet. The fact is so patent that it is not necessary to cite internal evidence in support of it (3^*^*) J for example, where one might perhaps detect a special inter- est in the priesthood.* On the other hand, there would be no use in citing f ^- or 8^^ to the contrary. Any objection based on them would at once be overruled, the answer being that some of the severest criticisms of the priests and the form of religion they rep- resent are by members of their own order. Cf. Je. 5^^ 7*, etc. The recognition of Zechariah as a priest, then, is based on his relation to Iddo. But what, precisely, was this relation ? Accord- ing to Zc. i^ the former was a grandson of the latter. In Ez. 5^ and 6", however, the one is called a son of the other, and this also appears to be the meaning of Ne. 12*® compared with v. *, where ♦ The casual reader would naturally think 6" more convincing, but, as will be shown in the proper place, it cannot be cited for the purpose named, for the excellent reason that in its present form it does not represent Zechariah, but a sacerdotal reviser. See the comments. 8i 82 ZECHARIAH Zechariah takes the place of Iddo among the chief priests under Joiakim the son of Jeshua (Joshua), presumably in the next gener- ation. It has been taken for granted that these discrepant data could be adjusted to one another, and various means to that end have been suggested. A favourite conjecture has been that Zech- ariah was sometimes called a son of Iddo because Berechiah, who really was his father, was dead or was a person of comparatively little importance. Now, it is true that the word son is sometimes in the Old Testament used to denote a descendant of the third or an even later generation. Thus, for example, in Gn. 29^" Laban is called the son of Nahor, instead of the son of Bethuel as in 24^^, and in Ezr. f Ezra is called the son of Seraiah, although there must have been at least three generations between them. Cf. I Ch. 5^'' ^•/6^* ^•. In the present instance, however, there is a simpler and more reasonable solution of the difficulty. It is found in the fact that the Jews, disregarding chronological considerations, identified Zechariah, the prophet of the Restoration, with the per- son of the same name mentioned in Is. 8".* In view of this fact it is more than probable that the Berechiah of Zc. i^ is a corrup- tion of Jeberechiah, the name of the father of Isaiah's associate, and that therefore the phrase "the son of Berechiah" is an inter- polation inserted by some one later than the Chronicler who accepted the above identification and took this means of spread- ing his opinion. The omission of these words makes Zechariah the son of Iddo here, as he is in all the other passages in which he is mentioned .f Tradition, as represented by Pseudo-Epiphanius, Dorotheus, and Hesychius, has several items with reference to the life of Zech- ariah which would be interesting if they could be substantiated. Thus, it says that, when he came from Babylon to Palestine, he was already well advanced in years and had given proofs of his prophetic ability by foretelling various future events and perform- ing many miracles. J The fact is that these statements are not in harmony with the more credible evidence of the Old Testament, according to which, as already noted, the prophet came to Pales- * CI. Fiirst, KA T.. 44 /• t Knobcl, Proph., ii, 173 /.; Bleek, SK., 1852, 312. X For the text of the accouDts of Zechariah by these three writers, see Kohler, 10 /. HIS PERSONAL HISTORY 83 tine with his father and probably lived until after the death of the high priest Joshua. Cf. Ne. 12*- *®. The safer opinion, then, is that Zechariah was a comparatively young man when he came to Palestine, and that he was by no means "advanced in years" when he published his prophecies. He was doubtless younger than Hag- gai, since he seems to have survived that prophet and to have taken the second place in the movement to restore the temple, his first prophecy being delivered in the eighth month (i^), while Haggai's is dated the first of the sixth, in the second year of Darius. On the other hand, he continued to prophesy some time after his associate had ceased, his last dated utterance being his reply to the men of Bethel in the fourth year of Darius. Cf. f^-. In fact Ne. 12^^ where he is among the chief priests imder Joiakim the son of Joshua, is pretty good evidence that his life was prolonged con- siderably beyond that date. The Versions give Zechariah the credit of being a poet as well as a prophet, associating him with Haggai in the authorship of sev- eral pieces in the book of Psalms.* The Christian authors above cited agree in reporting that Zech- ariah lived to a great age and died a natural death ; but one copy of Epiphanius (Cod. Augustanus) says that he was put to death by Joash, king of Judah, in other words, identifies him with Zecha- riah the son of Jehoida, the story of whose martyrdom is told in 2 Ch. 24-"^-. It seems incredible that any one should make so glaring a mistake, but this is not the only trace of it. The Tar- gum to La. 2^" calls the martyred prophet "Zechariah the son of Iddo." Indeed it appears in the New Testament, for when, in Mt. 23^, the Evangelist represents Jesus as using the expression "from the blood of Abel the righteous to the blood of Zechariah the son of Berechiah," he falls into the same error. There is no escape from this conclusion. In the first place, the text is un- assaQable, the phrase vioO ^apaxiov being as clearly genuine as any other part of it. There is only one ms. (n) of importance from which it is wanting, and that had it originally. As for the conjecture that Jehoida was also called Berechiah (Luther), or had a son, the father of Zechariah, of that name * The Greek Version has his name in the titles of 137 (138) and 145-149 (146-149); the Old Latin in that of iii (112); the Vulgate in those of iii (112), 145 /. (146 /.); and the Syiiac in those of 125 /. (126 /.) and 145-148 (146-148). 84 ZECHARIAH (Ebrard, Krit. der evang. Gesch.^, 422), or that Zechariah the son of Iddo actually suffered the same fate as his unhappy predecessor of the same name, in which many have taken refuge, there is not the slightest foundation for them. The evangelist is followed, not only by the author of the inter- polation in Epiphanius, who quotes from Matthew the phrase "be- tween the temple and the altar," but by Jerome, Chrysostom and many others.* It is clear from the above discussion that nothing is known of the end of Zechariah. The discussion itself, however, by showing that the ancients confounded him with the son of Je- hoida, has also given to the conjecture that they also mistook him for the son of Jeberechiah, namely, in Zc. i', increased plausibility. § 2. THE STRUCTURE OF CHAPTERS 1-8. The genuine prophecies of Zechariah form a tolerably consistent and intelligible whole. There is, first, a_h()rtatory introduction ( i^'®) , originally, to judge from the date prefixed to it, an independent prophecy. The main body of the collection (i'-6*'') naturally falls into two parts, the first of which consists of a series of eight visions, each with its interpretation, followed by a supplementary descrip- tion of a symbolical act which thejjrophet is commanded to per- _Jorm. The second part, chs. 7/., contains only an account of the mission of the men of Bethel and the oracle that the prophet was in- structed to deliver in response to their inquiry, the last paragraph of which furnishes a suitable conclusion for the entire collection. § 3. THE TEXT OF CHAPTERS 1-8. These chapters have suffered much less at the hands of editors, revisers and copyists than the writings of some of the other proph- ets. Still, it cannot in strictness be said that they have preserved throughout their original form and meaning. There is proof of this at the very outset. It was evidently a habit with Zechariah to introduce his utterances with a statement frequent in the book of Jeremiah, namely, "The word of Yahweh (of Hosts) came to me, saying." At any rate, it can be shown that he used it whenever it was appropriate. Now, however, in certain cases, the first has * Luke (11''') omits any reference to the parentage of the prophet. THE TEXT OF CHAPTERS I-VIII 85 given place to the third person. One of them is in i\ where the editor of the collection, instead of prefixing a title giving the name, date, etc., of the prophet, and then leaving him to present his own credentials, as did the editor of Jeremiah, has woven a statement of his own into that of his author. In i' and 7^, on the other hand, where the familiar statement is neither necessary nor appropriate, an imitation of it, with the third person, has been inserted, much to the confusion of the thoughtful reader. In one case (7^) the same sort of a statement has been inserted into the middle of a para- graph, where it separates a formula of citation from the words quoted, the editor being misled by the familiar "Thus saith Yah- weh," with which the next verse begins, into supposing that he had reached the beginning of a new prophecy. These changes seem to have been made when the prophecies were added to the collection known as "The Minor Prophets." There are others of a differ- ent character, to say nothing of mere mistakes that may have been made at any time since these oracles became public property. Some of them are purely explanatory. A simple example of this class is the clause, which is the month Shebat, in i^. More im- portant is the explanation of the filthy garments with which Joshua was clothed in 3^, and that of the ephah in 5*^, both of which are clearly exegetical glosses. There is another class of cases in which the text is expanded by the addition of details or other matter sug- gested in certain connections. There are a number of examples. See the phrase, mounted on a bay horse, in i^, and the parenthetical clause, and the spirit was in their wings, of 5®, but especially in 4^^ the entirely new feature introduced into the vision of the golden lamp. Finally, there are a few cases in which the changes or addi- tions are of the nature of corrections representing the ideas of the reviser rather than of the original author. See 2^/1^^, where Israel, at least, is an interpolation, but especially 6*", where the name of Joshua has been substituted for that of Zerubbabel. These are but specimens. The following table is an attempt to show to what extent the deliberate modification of the text has been carried, also in what degree it has suffered from additions, omissions and dis- tortions through the fault of careless or ignorant transcribers. The reasons in each case will come later. 86 ZECHARIAH THE TEXT OF ZECHARIAH, I-VHI. ADDITION'S. OMISSIONS. ERRORS. I, I. Nojn — [n>Dna ja] i^i:^ after rimS. trnna for r-rnS inNa; n>-\ai Sn for •'^s. 2. The whole verse. '^nj after n^P- 3. .niN3X — 3XJ nrn a;-n n'-ixr ':'s ni,-! at the beginning. -\::n2 for axj. 4. 1 before Sn; c» from a^'?^Sj;cci. .■v 6. 7. a^u- — Nin ->cnS — ri-^n 8. 01X — JD-\ 9- 10. II. mrr' ix'^r; for c'^sn. 12. 13- 14. 15- 16. riNji- after nini'. 17- 2'/l'8. 22/119. a'7-j'nM SN-iir'' rx 'j-nnS icnS for ''Sn. THE TEXT OF CHAPTERS I-VIII 87 THE TEXT OF ZECHARIAH, I-VIII. ADDITIONS. OMISSIONS. ERRORS. I, I. 2. [Son of Berechiah] — prophet. The whole verse. The king after Darius. very before angry. In the eighth month for OH the first of the eighth month; to Zechariah for to me. 3- saith— Hosts.2 Call to the remnant of this people, at the be- ginning. said for saith. 4. And before be; from be- fore your evil deeds. S- 6. 7- which is the month Shebat; came — saying. 8. mounted on a bay horse. 9- 10. II. The angel of Yahweh for the man. 12. 13- 14. 15. 16. of Hosts after Yahweh.^ 17- 18/2 ^ '9/2 . Israel and Jeru- salem. Sir before what 20/2 _ 21/24 . to discomfit them. saying for to me. 88 ZECHARIAH THE TEXT OF ZECHARIAH, I-VHI. ADDITIONS. OMISSIONS. ERRORS. 2V1". ]^? u'lN for iu'n; CNrjn for a'NU-jn; Sk for Sy, 2*/K •/»• vSn after -^sni. v». NX'' for 3XJ. */*' V'. •»/'• 1 before lOj; i'2-lN3 for ;'2-(X3. n^n> — ■-3 "/'. na 'V- ''Jn'^u' — nnx "I before ^123. »/.. '*/'*• "/". 'S for iS; \njDCi for ]2V\ 18/ II, "/"• 3.1- nvT' after ■'JN-ci. 2. InSd after icn'i. 3- InSch for niH' ^NSc. 4. 1J1J7 — -\DNM» irx caSmfor i.-n ira'^m. 5. 1CN1 B'aia after anja. ir:'t:-' for iC'U-i. 6. 7- a'a'i'np for a^a';'::?. THE TEXT OF CHAPTERS I-VIII 89 THE TEXT OF ZECHARIAH, I-VIII. ADDITIONS. OMISSIONS. ERRORS. l2l/2< . horn. a man for that; uplifted for uplifted themselves; to for against. 2V«. V. to him after / said. V'. was going forth for was standing there. v». V'. •/"'. and before Jlee; for — Yahweh. as the four for to the four. V". the daughter of. V". after the glory he sent me. the before glory. V". 10/14 "/"• to me for to him; I will dwell for Ive will dwell. iJ/ie n/17 3. I- Yahweh before showed. 2. the angel of before Yah- weh.^ 3- the angel for the angel of Yahweh. 4- and he said — thee. and clothed thee for and clothe him. 5- and I said. goodly before garments. let them put for a7id put. 6. "r. In form. 90 ZECHiVRIAH THE TEXT OF ZECHARIAH, I-VIII. ADDITIONS. OMISSIONS. ERRORS. 3.8. PCS — '«3« : '3 ' 9- n:n lO. 4,1- 2. nyae' ncNM for ncNT, nSji for nnSji; mpsis nyari for nipxicn yju-i; nnjS for 3- nSjn pcD for nj^cc or 4. 5- 6. ncN for DNj. 7- in nns ■•d for hn jpn 13 nnn(?). 8. 9- pj-'i'-i for onpiM. lO. II. 12. The entire verse. n'^j Sn |cu' after 13- -»cnS 14. ^i-s 5.1- 2. 3- iptt'? ■'nu'3 after ;'3rjn. ni;:3 nr?;'-^ for naa nr. 4. THE TEXT OF CHAPTERS I-VIII 91 THE TEXT OF ZECHARIAH, I-VIII. ADDITIONS. OMISSIONS. ERRORS. 3>8. /or;' /or2 — Shoot. 9- lo.^ 10. 4,1. 2. sevens he said for / said; in a form; seven pipes for the seven pipes; the lights for the bowl. 3- the bowl for it or for 0J1J7. 7- 8. '?«= for ':'];. 9- OD'Djja nn) lO. II. nn':ni for ^rfjni. 6,1. 2. 3- D'^fCK 4- 5- '"''N -»2-tn after '^N after n'^N. lN':"?:n; 6. n3 -irN iNX;'-2 for iNi'\ 7- Dip yns Sx after ■'f*^'.. D'XCNn for D'nxn; ins; for 1NX1. 8. \-1N 9- lO. PK31 0V3 ni|i'^ for np'^; 'iSna for "I'^n tn; rM::i twice for PNi; nr« for dpn; INJ for N3. II. 12. Snjn — nctri n after nnt-i. mop for n^op. vSn for bdiSn. 13- 14. The entire verse. n>B'N'>Si. wna for irD\ nitJyni for n^^pni; pVi for onSi. 15- oo'n'^N — riTii THE TEXT OF CHAPTERS I-VIII 93 THE TEXT OF ZECHARIAH, I-VIII. ADDITIONS. OMISSIONS. ERRORS. 5,5 6 And he said- — land their eye for their in- 7 8 iquity. to for upon. 9 and Ihc spirit — wings. lO II she shall be deposited for they shall deposit her. 6,1 2 3 strong. 4 5 that was speaking with me after angel; to after these. 6 That in which. have gone forth twice for shall go forth. 7- to the east country go forth. after the strong for the bay ; have gone forth for 8 me after called. shall go forth. 9 lO in that day and come. In the form of take; from Helday for Helday; from Tobiah for To- biah; from Jedaiah for Jedaiah; thou for with them; hath for have, come. II. and place — priest. it after place. crowns for crown. 12. saying twice; and upward — Yah- weh. to him for to them. 13. throne for right hand. 14. The entire verse. and to Josiah. and to Hen for even to them. 15- And it shall — God. 94 ZECHARIAH THE TEXT OF ZECHARIAH, I-VHI. ADDITIONS. OMISSIONS. ERRORS. 7. I- fD:3 :nnD; — n>n 2. vrjNT — nSr'1 for inSr^i 3- -idnS' 1 before -\2n':'>. iT'a'? for n-aa; ">Tjn for 4. 5- 6. 7- PN for hSn. 8. The entire verse. 9- ■c:^'? lO. 1 before iJ. II t]2D for 0CJ3. 12. inna ronai nsnn lO. II. 12. ;-ii for >'iTN. 13- Sntc"' P^2^ 14. 'x '■' nsx' 15. 16. PDN' Di'-i- for oSr(?). 17- irN 18. 19. 20. 21. riN3s — u',-i:3^i 22. 23- THE TEXT OF CHAPTERS I-VIII 97 THE TEXT OF ZECHARIAH, I-VIII. ADDITIONS. OMISSIONS. ERRORS. 8,8. 9- the temple to he built. lO. • II. 12. seed for / will sow. 13- and house of Israel. 14. said Yahweh of Hosts.* 15- 16. truth.* peaceful for perfect {?). 17- ■which. 18. 19. 20. 21. even — Hosts. 22. 23- In this connection mention should be made of a case in which a passage has been transferred from one place to another. The passage in question is 4'"^ and parts of vv. ^ ^^^ '", which, as will be explained later, seem to belong at the end of ch. 6. 98 ZECHARIAH § 4. THE STYLE OF ZECHARIAH. The analysis, the results of which have been presented in the foregoing table, was necessary to a correct and defensible opinion with reference to Zechariah as a writer and thinker. Now that it has been made, the next step is the discussion of the literary form of his prophecies. The first fact that strikes one on taking in hand these utterances is that, like those of Haggai, they are all dated. True, in two cases the dates are defective, but this, at least in the first instance, is not the fault of the prophet. There seems to be no reason for doubting the correctness of these dates, which are confirmed by incidental references found in the several prophecies. Thus, in i*^ the period during which the Jews have suffered from the indignation of Yahweh is seventy years, probably, as explained in the comments, a roimd number for the sixty-seven that had actu- ally elapsed since the beginning of the Captivity. See also 4^ and 6*^, from which it appears that, when these passages were written, work on the second temple had been begun, but the structure had not been completed; and f, from which it seems fair to infer that it was nearing completion, as would have been the case in the fourth, if it was finished in the sixth, year of Darius. Cf. Ezr. 6^^. It is also noteworthy that the prophecies of Zechariah, unlike those of Haggai, are, or were, all written in the first person. This fact is somewhat obscured by editorial additions, which, however, are easily detected. Thus, it is evident that in i^ and f the name and parentage of the prophet are secondary. So also 7® entire. In 8S on the other hand, lo me has evidently been omitted. This direct, personal mode of discourse may therefore be regarded as quite as characteristic of Zechariah 's style as it is of that of Eze- chiel.* It is calculated to excite the interest, and secure the con- fidence, of the reader. A more important feature of the prophecies of Zechariah is the number of visions they contain, there being no fewer than eight in the first six chapters. Not that this was by any means a new method of conveying religious instruction. Amos, the oldest of * In Ez. 1 w. -->» have been added, and in v. '^ " upon me " changed to " upon him." Toy, SBOT. HIS STYLE 99 the writing prophets, employs them; nor was there a time in the history of the chosen people when they were not more or less pop- ular. CJ. Is. 6. Thus the word "vision" actually became a syn- onym for prophecy. This method of presentation — for it finally became a purely literary device — is found in its most complete de- velopment in the book of Ezekiel. It is not Ezekiel, however, from f^hom Zechariah learned to use visions, but Amos. This is clear Ifrom the way in which he uses them, namely, iji groups, and for /Ue.purp_Qse, not of stimulating in his people great expectations for \the future, but of impressing upon them the lessons of the past Qnd the urgent demands of the present. /Therefore, much as he taught by visions, it would be a mistake and an injustice to call him a visionary. In fact, there is none of the later prophets who is more sane and practical. The literary form chosen by Zechariah, in spite of his fondness for visions, is not so poetical as that of most of the other prophets. In fact it is generally that of ordinary Hebrew prose. Now and then, however, especially when he is delivering an express message from Yahweh, he falls into a rhythmical movement, and most fre- quently that of the second Isaiah. In some cases the rhythmical passage is so short, containing only one or two lines, that it is doubt- ful if the prophet was conscious of employing the metrical form. In I* ^- there are two such bits of poetry: Be not like your fathers, to u'liom the former prophets cried, saying: Thus saith Yahweh of Hosts, Return from your evil -ways, yea, from your evil deeds; but they did not hear, nor did they listen to me, saith Yahweh. Your fathers, — ivhere are they? and the prophets, — do they live forever? The first of these distichs naturally detaches itself from the con- text, but the second seems to be a part of the discourse that merely happens to be rhythmical. Like this latter are the parallel clauses in i"* 2^^ 4^ 8'-- ^''. There are other cases in which the whole passage is rhythmical, or meant to be. Brief specimens of this sort are found in 2^^^* 8^ (distichs) i" (tristrich) 8^ (tetrastich). Those cited from 8" ^' differ, not only in length, but in measure lOO ZECHARIAH Moreover, the tetrastich is not as symmetrical in form as it is in content. In 8* ^' the author seems to have abandoned the attempt to be poetical; but a tristich of long lines could be produced by dropping the phrase playing in the streets from v. ^. There are three other passages in which he seems to have intended to follow the same measure. They are i'^*^-^^ 3^ and 6'-^'". Each of them contains three lines, with a caesura in the middle. In one pas- sage, 2"''^°''^'''^, omitting v. ^^/nb^ there are three rather tame tris- tichs and a final distich. It is thus the longest of the poetical pas- sages noted. The one in 6^^ ^-j however, in its original form is the best example of this form of composition from the hand of the prophet.* There is not, however, sufficient difference in the qual- ity of the last four examples to warrant one in attributing them, or either of them, to any other than Zechariah. Finally, there are not enough of these passages of all kinds and qualities to give him a claim to be called a poet. The speeches in Hebrew prose are frequently cast in a metrical form. Cf. Gn. 24^- '. Every writer, even the most prosaic, has his favourite forms of expression. Sometimes they are original with himself, but they are often borrowed from other authors. In the former case they become the trade-mark of the originator, distinguishing him from all others; in the latter they may be equally useful for critical pur- poses. The prophet Zechariah had words, and phrases, and con- structions that he preferred to others. The following are some of them: The word of Yahweh came (was) to me is frequent in Jeremiah and Eze- chiel. Originally 6 times. Thus saith Yahweh of Hosts occurs sometimes in Jeremiah, but is comparatively more frequent in Haggai. Here it is used 17 times. In i'" and 8' riiN3X (Hosls) has wittingly or unwittingly been omitted. Ye shall (thou shall) know that Yahweh of Hosts hath sent me to you (^thee). Cf. v. •"" 4' 6". The infinitive i::s'^ {saying) is noticeably fre- quent in these chapters, occurring 29 times. The Lord of the whole earth is used only twice, but not at all in the other prophetical books. The rhetorical question is frequent in Jeremiah and Haggai. Here it is used 11 times. The participle is used in certain constructions; with njn, 10, without it, 11 times; adverbially, 7 times. Among the words regarded as characteristic of Zecha- riah's st>le are: the pronoun of the first person; only in its briefer form, '>jn; take pleasure, "^na, of Yahweh, 3 times, cf. Is. 14'; purpose, UDi, of Yahweh, * In all the passages cited, cxrept 2"'" "■, such expressions as saitk Yahweh must be neglected as falling outside the metrical scheme. HIS STYLE lOl 3 times, cf. Je. 4"; appease, nSn, 3 times, cf. Je. 26'''; proclaim, nip, 4 times, cf. Is. 40'- S; re;«Ma«/,n''">N'r, 3 times, cf. Hg. i'^; return, 2Z', is used adverbially in the sense of again 3 times, cf. Je. 18^; or in\ examples of which occur in the ear- liest Hebrew records. C/. Jehoiada (2 S. 8'8), Jonathan (Ju. S^"), etc. These disappear as the others increase in frequency. Cf. Gray, HPN., 176 /. 107 Io8 ZECHARIAH being borne by no fewer than twenty-nine different persons.* The identity, personal history and the literary characteristics of the one here meant have already been discussed in the Introduc- tion. It is hardly necessary to add that it is he, and not his father or grandfather, who is here described as the prophet. The Title. — 1. The reasons for believing that the verse has been re- cast are as follows: One of the peculiarities of these chapters is the use of the first person. It appears repeatedly in the introductorj' formula, Then cattie the word of Yahweh to me. Cf. 6' "]* 8'- '*. In i' and 7'- ^ as will be shown, it is an interpolation. In this case, therefore, it is fair to suppose that the original reading was 'Sn, and that the name and lineage of the prophet were substituted for the pronominal suffix. This is a simpler and more natural explanation than to suppose, with Bu. {ZA W., 1906, 5/.), that a once independent title has been absorbed in the first verse. Cf. Ez. i- '•, where a less skilful hand has attempted the same thing and made a botch of it. — ^1313] Sometimes '3 ; v. ' VT'sna. The im- possibility of harmonising this passage with Ezr. 5' 6" Ne. 12", as ex- plained in the Introduction, makes it necessary to attribute the phrase p in>3n3 to a careless reader who identified the prophet of the Restoration with the Zechariah of Is. 8^. — n>'] Elsewhere in Heb. (v. " Ne. 12^- '«), as well as Aram. (Ezr. 5' 6"), xny; here also, according to 19 Kenn. mss. The form here found, however, is used of other persons (i Ch. 6* 2 Ch. j2is 13K). (g has Di6i''A55cli; Jer. filium Adda. Lowe explains vlbv as a scribal error for viov; but perhaps tov /Sapax'oy is a correction based on the gloss ■T'Dia p; in which case vlbv must have been the original read- ing.— xojn] Om. S*-^. The Mas. are responsible for the identification of the prophet with Iddo, since they accented the text so that it could not be interpreted otherwise. The contents of these eight chapters, as already intimated, nat- urally fall into three parts. I. The introduction (i'"^). 2. A series of visions, with their interpretations (1^-6'^). 3. A new era (7-8). I. THE INTRODUCTION (i^-«). It consists of an exhortation backed by a reminder of the past experience of the Jews, the result of their disregard for the warn- ings of former prophets. ♦ The popularity of the name is equally evident, even if it is sometimes applied by the Chron- icler to imaginary persons, for he would not have used it so frequently if it had not been very common in his generation. C/. Gray, HPN., 188 j. I'-" 109 1. This introduction, like the main divisions by which it is fol- lowed, has a date. The date here found, however, differs from the other two in being incomplete; for, while the year and the month are given, the day is wanting. It may have been omitted intention- ally, as in Ezr. 3^ 7^ and elsewhere; but the more common opinion is, either that it is implied in the word rendered month, ^in, which is sometimes, for example, 2 S. 20^ *^-, properly translated new moon, or that it has been lost in the process of transcription. The former of these views, though adopted by Kimchi and other scholars, must be rejected as being entirely without real foundation in Hebrew usage. On the other hand there are repeated examples showing that the first as well as the other days of the month was indicated by a distinct number. Cf. Gn. 8^ Hg. i\ etc. If, therefore, Zech- ariah intended to say, as the Syriac Version says he did, that this opening prophecy was delivered on the first day of the eighth month, the month originally called Bui (i K. 6^^), but later Marchesvan, the word or words indicating the day must have been lost in trans- mission. So We., Now., Marti, Kit. Haggai's first prophecy is dated the first of the sixth month in the second year of the reign of Darius Hystaspes. If, therefore, the Syrian reading is correct, Zechariah began his prophetic career just two months later, namely, about the middle of October, 520 B.C. In any case it was not three months before this his first prophecy was delivered. In recording it he did not, as is done in the present text, use the third person, but, as has been shown, the first, so that the latter half of this verse should read, came the word of Yahweh to me, saying.^ 2. The reading suggested is not favoured by the immediate con- text. If Zechariah actually used the language just attributed to him, in this second verse Yahweh should be the speaker and the prophet the person addressed. This is not the case, the statement made being made, not by, but about, the Almighty, and addressed apparently to the people. It will not, however, do to reject the proposed reading on that account, as appears when one passes from this verse to the one following. It then becomes clear, not * CI. 6' 7* 8'- •'. On the passages that do not follow thisformula (i' and 7'- *), see the cor- responding notes and comments. no ZECHARIAH only that there is no connection between the two, but that v. ^ has precisely the form that this one should have taken. The natural inference is that the statement Yahweh was very wroth with your fathers is an interpolation. It is not so easy to explain why it should have been inserted. Perhaps a copyist, finding the text defective, supplied the place of the missing words as well as he could from f^, where the prophet refers to the wrath of Yahweh against the fathers. 3. In AV. this verse begins with Tlierefore say, etc., this being the only way in which the present text can well be rendered; but so rendered it can hardly convey the thought that the prophet had in mind. He would not have represented Yahweh as commanding him to deliver the message that follows, a message requiring his people to return to him, because he (Yahweh) had been wroth with their fathers. Nor is the connection improved by the omission of v. ^; for the statement the word of Yahweh came to me contains no reason for the command given. It must have had its ground in something that Yahweh himself had previously said. The same result is reached if the connective is translated literally and. In other words, as has already been intimated, the text here lacks several words, which must be supplied to make it completely in- telligible. In the first place, there must have been at least one preceding verb having the sense of speak, or perhaps, as Budde suggests, cry (preach), a favourite vA\.\\ Zechariah (w. ■*• "■ " 7^); and this, if the present text, so far as it has been preserved, is cor- rect, must have been followed by an indirect object, perhaps this people or the remnant of this people (8*^- "■ '"), the antecedent of the pronoun them. The original reading would thus be, Preach {cry) to the remnant of this people and say to them, or something equiv- alent, which would appropriately follow the statement of v. * and introduce the message he has to deliver, Return to me, and I will return to you, saith Yahweh. It does not at once appear what is meant by this message, in what respect the people have departed from God and how they should return to him. The fact that the prophecy is dated a little after the appeal by which Haggai, with the aid of the Spirit, brought the Jews to undertake the restoration of the temple, would lead one to expect such an arraignment for I'-" III selfish absorption in private affairs as is found at the beginning of the preceding book. Cj. Hg. i*- ^. It appears, however, from what immediately follows (v. ^), but more clearly from later utter- ances (7^ ^- 8*^ ^- '^), that, to Zechariah, although he himself was a priest, a temple was not the only, or the greatest, need from which his people were suffering; nor was its splendour his measure for their future welfare. Here, therefore, the return to Yahweh must be interpreted, not merely as the restoration of the national wor- ship at Jerusalem, but as the resumption of the practice of the social virtues, justice, mercy, and the like, on which the main stress was laid by the earlier prophets. CJ. Am. 5^^- ^^ Is. i", etc. The promise by which the people are encouraged to return to Yahweh must be interpreted to correspond to the exhortation; not, there- fore, as a means of exciting visions of material splendour, but of wakening an expectation of imiversal well-being in a divinely ordered community. CJ. 8^. 4. Yahweh, not content with taking the first step toward a re- union between himself and his people, next seeks, in the most per- suasive terms, to show them the folly of rejecting his overtures. Be not, he pleads, as your Jathers, and then proceeds to describe those whose example he wishes to prevent them from following. They, also, were wanderers from Yahweh, and Yahweh sought them. His agents were thejormer prophets. It is possible to in- terpret these words too broadly. There would be an apparent warrant for so doing if v. ^^ were throughout genuine. It is not, the name "Israel" in that passage, like "the house of Israel" in 8^^, being without doubt an interpolation. The correction of the text in these two passages leaves the prophecies of Zechariah with- out recognisable allusions to the northern kingdom. It is Judah and Jerusalem over whose past he grieves (i^^- ^*) and for whose future he cares. CJ. 2^' 8^^. The prophets to whom he refers must, therefore, be those who laboured in Judah, especially those of the closing years of the Jewish monarchy. It was their preach- ing whose burden was, Return Jrom your evil ways, yea,Jrom your evil deeds. He seems to have had more particularly in mind Jere- miah, who several times uses almost exactly the language here quoted. In 25* ^' the setting also is the same. The passage reads, 112 ZECHARIAH "And he sent to you all his servants the prophets, sent them early, — but ye did not hear, neither did ye indine your ears to listen, — saying, Return, each from his evil way and from the evil of his deeds, and dwell on the soil that Yahweh gave to you and your fathers for ever and ever." Cf. also 35^^. Less exact parallels are found in 18^ and Ez. 33". The remaining words of this verse, too, were evidently borrowed from Jeremiah, but they are here ap- plied to Jeremiah's own generation rather than to any that had pre- ceded it. Cf. especially 36^^-. — 5. One naturally expects the prophet's characterisation of the fathers to be followed immediately by a description more or less vivid of the fate that their flagrant and incorrigible neglect of Yahweh brought upon them; and at first this verse seems to answer that expectation. Your fathers, he says, as if he were about to make a statement concerning them, then sud- denly changes the construction and asks, with a brevity that is very dramatic, where are they? This question reminds one of Is. 51^^, "When he taketh his aim to destroy, — where is the fury of the op- pressor?" the author of which, as appears from the next verse, meant to convey the idea that the oppressors of the exiled Jews would themselves speedily be swept out of existence. A similar interpretation in this case would suit the preceding context and accord with the facts of history. It was therefore adopted by some of the earlier commentators, Jewish and Christian.* It is for- bidden by the latter half of the verse, ajid the prophets, — do they live forever? for it is incredible that Zechariah would have repre- sented Yahweh as destroying his messengers with those who ig- nored their message. Jerome attempted to meet this objection by identifying the prophets here meant with the false prophets, who played an important part in the later history of the kingdom of Judah ; but it is clear that in the preceding and following verses they are the predecessors of Zechariah, and the connection requires that the term here have the same meaning. Cf. also f- *-. Nor is it necessary, as in the Targum,-|- to put the second question into the mouths of the people. The two can be harmonised by supposing that the prophet is here thinking of the fathers and the prophets as merely two classes of men, alike mortal, in comparison with Yah- * So Theod. Mops., Dm., Marck. t So also van Hoonacker. r- 113 weh and his eternal purposes. — 6. The contrast in the mind of the prophet is strongly expressed by the adversative But, with which this verse begins. It is not a contrast between men and God, but between men and the words and decrees, or the words as embodied in the decrees, of Yahweh promulgated through his servants the prophets. The words of Yahweh seem to be personified here, as is "the word of Yahweh " in other parts of the Old Testament. Thus, Ps. 147^^ reads, "He sendeth his command upon earth; swiftly run- neth his word." A more significant example is found in Is. 55", where the great prophet of the Exile puts into the mouth of the Deity these words: So shall it be with my word, that goeth forth from my mouth: It shall not return to me empty; nor until it hath done what I willed, and prospered in that for which I sent it. Zechariah pictures these punitive decrees of Yahweh as intelli- gent agents, like the angels, sent forth to execute upon offenders the decisions of the divine will. Cf. 5^.* At any rate, with another of his rhetorical questions he asks, did they not overtake your fa- thers? referring, of course, to the calamities, repeatedly predicted by Jeremiah and others, which befell the Jews in the overthrow of their government and the banishment of the better classes of the country to Babylonia. Here, having reached a climax, he might have stopped. Indeed, it is only so far that the conduct of the fathers is reprehensible, and therefore not to be imitated. The rest of the verse, however, has its justification. It adds an item, then they returned, which enlarges the scope of the narrative, thereby giving it the character of a positive rather than a negative lesson. Nor is this all. The words put into the mouths of the fathers are at the same time an evidence of a changed attitude toward Yahweh and a vindication of Yahweh himself as a God of truth and the prophets as his messengers. This is their testimony: As Yahweh of Hosts purposed to do to us, according to our ways and according to our deeds, so hath he done with us. It is calculated to produce * Cj. Piepenbring, TheoL, 250; cp. Dillmann, Theol., 345/. 114 ZECHARIAH the conviction that, as Theodoret of Mopsuestia puts it, "the truth of the divine words is beyond question, and these words cannot be neglected with impunity." 1. 0 inserts after the number of the month ^i««i.».'o ^.ttO =inN3 U'-in*^. This is an allowable arrangement, being actually found in 2 K. 258; but if it had been that of the original text, the missing phrase would hardly have been lost. On the other hand, it is comparatively easy to account for the present text on the supposition that the day preceded the month here as well as in v. '. The first word of a Hebrew book is easily overlooked. In this case the loss of nn.xa would make it neces- sary to change unnS to uhna to render it intelligible. — rimS] Add as in 7' Hg. I' "5, with "B, ^':'C^. — 2. Bu. attempts to save this verse by re- moving it to the next and inserting it before lau", at the same time chang- ing '■' ixp to viBxp; but the result of such an emendation would not be satisfactory; for the troublesome clause would be almost as difficult to construe with v. ' as in its present position, while the lacuna at the begin- ning of that verse would be more apparent than it now is. — ixp] Add with Q» g>, Snj. On the construction, cf. Ges. ^ "'• 2. R- ». — 3. mcNi] The pf. of "ics with 1 implies a preceding declarative, like 13t or Nnp in the imv. The Heb. of the clause supplied in the comments, Sn Nip HTn Byn nnsr, would just fill the space now occupied by v. =. Blayney suggests (■\:;n'?) y-\nr\ oy Sa Sn icn, as in 7^. — dhSn] For ch'Sn, the reading of many mss. — 's '■> on:] Om. with (S'*"- »• 0 05" S". — dnj] Not a prtc, but a noun. Cf. BDB. Ace. to Ko. " 5 "«• '' the vocalisation (__) is due either to a virtually doubled d or the frequency of the word in a familiar expression. The latter is evidently the more reasona- ble supposition. — 3ir.si] Without n, ace. to Bo. ^ ^se g^ on acct. of a fol- lowing guttural. This explanation is mistaken, since, in all other cases (6), the word takes n, even before a guttural. Cf. Ex. 4" Ho. 2' Mai. 3'. — ncN^] The rarity of this word as a substitute for cnj has already been noted. Cy. Hg. I'. It occurs only three times in these chapters, and in one at least of them (7") it is a part of an interpolation. It is therefore possible that Kenn. 249, which has 3nj, has preserved the original read- ing. Kenn. 150 has both, as if it had been corrected. — niNas'^ Om. (S" &".— 4. Sn] Rd., with (S &, Sni.— DD^S>H'::] Ace. to BDB., pi., of h'h';T2; ace. to Koh., Ke., Wri., irr. pi. of rih^^y. Qr. D3''?';'y.D. So 32 Kenn. mss., Hi., Lowe, c^ al. Rd., with 21 mss., (8 & 51, D3''S'?3;s!?. Cf. Baer (Notes, 81), We., Now., Marti, Kit.— lycc* nSi,] (6^^, Kal oix tlff-^KOvffav, which, since U'csr is represented in the final clause, Kal ov irpo- aiax^v toO elffrjKoOcral fiov, is probably a duplicate rendering. Hence it is not strange that in ®aql j^ should be wanting. Cf. 7" ((6). — For o^rpn iSn &i- has <^^qZ, by mistake for >«Ja^.. — ft^ j-g^d niNax at the I— 115 end of the verse. — 6. In &, and sometimes in (g, both subjects are in- cluded in the first question; so also, in Jerome's commentary, in his translations from the Greek and the Heb. Such a division of the verse, however, does violence, not only to the accentuation, but to the symmetry of the passage. — D'N^jni] ^ ,,^jJ^o = ■^noji.— 6. in] An adversative, cf. Gn. 20"' I S. 29'. — ipm] d supplies ^ix^cOe, which, however, may be a mistaken rendering for ipni, taken for inpn, Koi to. vbixifj-d fiov being a later correction. — \'T'1X. (B adds iv irveiiJ.aTi jxov = ^nn^, after the man- ner of ul. — Accent, not, with Gins., M^ — naxM, but, with Baer, accord- ing to the sense, u*? . . . ncN'i. 2. A SERIES OF VISIONS, WITH THEIR INTERPRE- TATIONS (1^-6^^). There are eight of these visions. Some of them are described very briefly, others with considerable detail. They are not all equally distinct from one another, but fall into three groups, as follows: the first three, depicting The return from captivity (i'— 2x7/13^ ; the fourth and fifth, of which the theme is The anointed of Yahweh (chs. 3/., exc. 46ab-ioa^. ^xiA the last three, which may be grouped imder the general heading. The seat of wickedness (5^-6^). They are supplemented by a section on The prince of Judah (6^"^^ a. The Return from Captivity (1^-2*^/^^). The visions of the first group, three in number, present successive stages in the history of the Restoration and prepare the way for an appeal with which the section closes. In the first vision the scene is laid in (l) THE HOLLOW OF THE MYRTLES (l''"'0- In this vision the prophet sees a person to whom a troop of di- vinely commissioned messengers report, thus furnishing an occa- sion for an appeal to Yahweh in behalf of his people and a response assuring them of speedy deliverance. 7. To this vision is prefixed a date, doubtless, as is generally admitted, the date of the entire series. The prophet saw these visions in the same (Jewish) year in which he uttered the preceding Il6 ZECHARIAH prophecy, the second year of the reign of Darius Hystaspes, in the eleventh month, and, since the day began in the evening, the night before the twenty-fourth day of the month, or toward the middle of February in the year 519 B.C. In this case some one has added the Babylonian name, Shebat, to the num- ber of the month. On the names of the rest of the months, cf. Renzinger, Arch., 200/., DB., art. Time. Six more of these names occur in this and other late books: Nisan, the first (Ne. 2'); Sivan, the third (Ezr. 8^j; Elul, the sixth (Ne. 615); Kislew, the ninth (Zc. 7'); Tebeth, the tenth (Ezr. 2^^); and Adar, the twelfth (Ezr. 6i5)- Koh. is disposed to think that the appearance of these visions on the twenty- fourth of the month was a recognition by Yahweh of the devotion of his peo- ple in beginning work on the temple on the twenty-fourth of the si.xth, and laying the foundation of the new structure on the same day of the ninth month. Cf. Hg. I '5 2'". Too much, however, should not be made of this coincidence, lest some one should make the point that it stamps the chronology of the books of Haggai and Zechariah as artificial and unreliable. It should also be re- membered that, as was shown in the comments on Hg. 2'*, it is by no means certain that the foundation of the new temple was laid on the twenty-fourth of the ninth month. Dru. justly criticises Jerome for saying that the month Shebat was"jw acerrimo tempore hyemis"; for, although in February the rainy season is not yet ended, the weather is often very warm and pleasant and other tokens of spring are abundant. This date, in the Massoretic text, is immediately followed by the introductory clause found in v. \ the word of Yahweh came to Zech- ariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo, saying. In this case, however, it is not enough to reca.st it, substituting the first for the third person. The result, to be sure, would be a formula in the style of Zechariah, but one that would here be as useless as that for which it was substituted; for it also, if fairly and naturally inter- preted,* would give the reader the impression that it was Yahweh who saw the vision to be described, which surely was not the thought of the original author. The only remedy is in dropping the disturbing clause altogether and connecting v. * directly with the date of the vision, as is done in Is. 6'.t — 8. On the given date Zechariah says he saw certain things. The word used J is the one * Cf. 82- '• ' ". t If Neumann had done this, it would not have been necessary for him to devote a long para- graph to explaining how a vision can he called "the word of Yahweh." t n.si. I^-'^ 117 commonly employed to denote perception by means of the organs of vision, A literalist might regard this fact as a warrant for hold- ing that the things and acts described presented themselves as ob- jects to the physical senses; but there are features of this vision that are inconsistent vi^ith its objective reality, and, when the attempt is made to explain the whole series as literal scenes, the inadequacy of that method of interpretation becomes increasingly apparent. Note the angels mounted on horses in this, and the various symbolic ob- jects or actions in the other pictures, especially the fantastic figure of the woman in the ephah. CJ. 5^. It is impossible also, in spite of the fact that Zechariah says the time was at night, to main- tain that he saw the things described in his sleep. A sufficient reason for this assertion is found in the fact that he not only does not say, but apparently takes pains not to say, that he was dream- ing. Even if it were necessary to admit that he intended to repre- sent his visions as inspired dreams, the ease with which he passes from the language of the vision to that of ordinary prophetic dis- course would dispel the illusion.* There are considerations, also, that make it improbable that these visions were produced in an ecstatic condition by the direct influence of the divine spirit f or under the stimulus of an intense and overpowering conviction. There are too many of them, and they too clearly betray fore- thought and invention. They must, therefore, be classed, with those of Am. 7^ ^- Je. i" ^- and Ez. 8 ^•, as literary forms in which the prophet clothed his ideas, whatever their origin, for the pur- pose of securing for them prompter attention among those whom he sought to instruct and influence. It is only just to add that, as will appear in the course of these comments, for attractiveness and effectiveness the visions of Zechariah fall below the average of those used by his predecessors. The first is rather obscure, but, as the scene is laid in the night, the indistinctness of the various figures introduced seems natural, if not intentional. Among these figures the first to appear is a man. Who the man is, Zechariah * Koh. cites Ew. and Hi. as holding the view that the prophet is reporting a succession of dreams. Hi. in his commentary is rather ambiguous. Ew., although he refers to the visions as " Traumgebilde" adds that they are not really dreams, much as they resemble them, but that they were devised in their order for a deliberate purpose. t So Koh., Ke., Wri., Or , ct al. Il8 ZECHARIAH does not explain, but the reader at once suspects that he, like the man in Ez. 8^* 40''^-, etc., is a superhuman being, and therefore is not surprised to find that in a gloss to v. " he is identified with "the angel of Yahweh." This view has been questioned,! but it is a natural inference from the language used, and, as the evident superiority of the person whose identity is in question over all the others mentioned points in the same direction, it has been widely accepted. J On the title "angel of Yahweh," cf. Hg. i*^ and the comments. In this book it evidently denotes a visible manifesta- tion of Yahweh. He is described, in a gloss which seems to have been added by some one who thought it beneath the dignity of the angel of the divine presence to be on foot while his attendants were on horseback, as mounted on a bay horse,§ but in a genuine clause as standing, or better, in the present connection, waiting, among the myrtles. The myrtle {Myrtus communis) is not, as one would suppose from the Eng- lish rendering of Is. 55", a tree, but a shrub that seldom attains a height of more than eight feet. It is an evergreen, with fragrant leaves and delicate white flowers. It was a favourite among the Hebrews. Hence it is mentioned among the trees that testify to the prosperity of the Messianic age. Cf. Is. 41" 55". From it, as from the palm and other trees, they cut branches to make booths for the Feast of Tabernacles. Cf. Ne. S's. In Lv. 23«' the wil- low takes the places of both the myrtle and the olive; a fact which favours the opinion that much of the priestly legislation took its final shape outside of Palestine. The myrtle is still common throughout Palestine, growing wild on the slopes of the hills and along the water-courses (<"/. Vergil, Georg., ii, 122; iv, 124), as well as in the gardens of the inhabitants. Cf. DB., art. Myrtle; Tristram, NHP., 365 f. The myrtles the prophet has in mind are in a locality especially favourable to their growth, a hollow. This depression has been * In this passage the correct reading is not " the appearance of fire " (u'n), hut " the appear- ance of a man" (c*i{<). Cj. Toy, SBOT. t Koh., Kc, Kile., Wri., Now., et al. % So Ra., .'\E., Cal., Dru., Marck, Lowth, Bla., Ew., Hd., Pros., Or., Rcu., el al. Some of these at the same time hold that the man is the son of God. This doctrine was widely current among the earlier commentators, but it did not pass unchallenged. Theodorct of Mopsuestia says in criticism of it, " Full of error and folly, nay, little short of impiety, is the teaching by some that he saw the son of God "; and again, in a passage that seems to have hccn mutilated by a more orthodox reader, he declares, " None of the prophets knew anything about the deity of the Only Begotten." § The word rendered bay (OiN) is used of various shades of colour from pink to reddish- brown. Cj. Ct. s'" 2 K. 3= Nu. 19= Is. 632 Gn. 25=". I^-»' 119 identified with the Valley of Kidron, and that part of it about its junction with the Valley of Hinnom; and there is something to be said for this opinion: (i) This spot is the lowest near the city, and therefore most likely to be called "The Hollow." (2) It has al- ways been a garden, being the site of "The King's Garden" of 2 K. 25^, and even in Zechariah's time the myrtle must have flour- ished there. (3) If, as some claim, the setting of the last vision (6^*^-) is the same as that of the first, this circumstance also is sig- nificant, for there is no other locality near Jerusalem that would so well suit both cases. Since, however, the prophet is describing, not a real, but an imaginary scene, perhaps the most that can be said is that the familiar scenery about the Kidron furnished him some of the materials for his picture. In this imaginary hollow he represents himself as seeing the angel of Yahweh, and not only him, but behind him, or, since the angel must be conceived as fac- ing now one way and then the other, beyond him, a number of horses, — he does not say how many, — some of which are of a bay colour, others chestnut* and still others white. The mention of these colours indicates that the horses were divided into troops. That they had riders is taken for granted. Who these riders were is explained in the next verse. — 9. The explanation is given in answer to a question by the prophet apparently addressed to the person just introduced. There are those who hold that it is he who now makes answer, f and this opinion, besides being a natural presupposition, is favoured by the seeming identification of the two in V. ^*'. There are, however, serious objections, (i) The descriptive phrase that follows is superfluous as a means of identi- fying the angel of Yahweh. (2) Nor does it fit this person; for, as he has thus far not said anything, he cannot be described as one speaking with the prophet. On the other hand, a description is necessary for a new character, and this one suits an interpreter, especially if it be rendered an angel that was speaking with me. Indeed, in the form the angel, etc., it is capable of a similar inter- * The derivation of the Heb. word pni;', sarok, from pnu*, shine hrighlly, v/ould indicate that it denotes a bright reddish colour; but whether, with Ges., one should render it as above, or, with his latest revisers (BDB.), sorrel, it seems impossible to determine. The rendering speckled or dappled, in which the \'rss. agree, has no warrant in Iffl. t SoTheod. Mops., Ra., Marck, Rosenm., Mau., Hi., et al. 120 ZECHARIAH pretation, for, thus translated, it is at the same time a description of a second person and an allusion to the familiar figure of the in- terpreter in the visions of Ezekiel. CJ. 8'-^- 40^^-, etc. It is therefore fair to conclude that the angel here meant is as distinct from the one of the preceding verse as he is from the second to ap- pear in 2^'^, and that he has a different function. He immediately declares his office. / imll show thee, he says, what these are. He is here, as elsevi^here in these visions,* a monitor and interpreter to prevent the prophet from missing anything that he should see or failing to understand its meaning. — 10. It is not he, however, who actually gives the promised information. The reply comes from the man that was standing among the myrtles. Here, at first sight, seems to be a discrepancy indicating either that the idea of distinguishing two angels is mistaken, or, perhaps, that this verse is wholly (We.) or in part an interpolation. Neither of these infer- ences is necessary, as will appear, if due regard be paid to the fol- lowing considerations: (i) The promise to show what the vision means does not require that the interpreter should do so by a direct and personal demonstration. (2) It is clear from the other visions that the prophet intended to make them as far as possible explain themselves. (3) A notable instance of the indirect method is found in the third, where the interpreter, instead of addressing the prophet, as he would have been expected to do, shows what he wishes the prophet to know by a message sent to a third person. In view of this example it ought not to seem strange for the prophet to put the answer to his own question into the mouth of the princi- pal figure in the scene described. These, he says, — referring, not to the horses of various colours, but, as appears from v.", to their riders, — these are they that Yahweh sent to traverse the earth. Here are two or three points that deserve attention. In the first place, it is noteworthy that the angel of Yahweh, the speaker, here as in v. " and 3^ distinguishes between himself as a divine manifesta- tion to his people and Yahweh the God of the whole earth. Ob- serve, too, that the messengers were apparently all desj^atched to- gether, and that at the time to which the vision refers they have accomplished their mission. It is therefore clearly useless to seek ♦ Cj. 2-/t'» '/"• 4'- *• '• S'- '" 6<- 6. .7-17 121 for the key to the vision in the book of Daniel, or try, as some have done, to find in the colours of the horses symbols of any succession of events,* or empires.f Finally, it is significant that these horse- men, unlike those described in the Apocalypse (6) , all had one and the same mission. This fact forbids the interpretation of the col- ours of the horses as intended, to use the language of Newcome, "to intimate the difference of their ministries."! Their mission was not to slay, burn and conquer, as Kohler explains, but, as ap- pears from the next verse, to reconnoitre the earth§ and report on its condition. Now, a mission of this sort can evidently be exe- cuted quite as well and much more expeditiously by a given num- ber of persons if they are divided into detachments and sent in different directions. It is therefore probable, especially in view of the unsatisfactoriness of other interpretations, that the prophet thought of these scouts as operating in this way and gave the horses different colours to distinguish the detachments from one another. He made the number three, if this is the original reading, perhaps because the sea to the west restricted his vision in that direction. See, however, 6* ^•. 11. The horsemen do not wait for a direct command, but, on being introduced, make their report to the last speaker, who is again described as the one who was standing among the myrtles. They say, perhaps through a spokesman. We have traversed the earth, and lo, the whole earth — more exactly the population of the various countries of the earth — resteth in quiet. This statement at first sight seems intended to describe the state of things at the date of the vision,** but this can hardly be the correct interpretation. It is not probable that the adversaries of Darius were all subdued, and the Persian empire reduced to a state of complete tranquillity, by the month of February, 519 B.C.; or that, if the struggle for the throne was still in progress, the Jews, including Zechariah, were so ill informed with reference to matters in the East that they sup- * For example, the varied fortunes of the Persian empire; Grot., Hd., et al. t The Jews of Jerome's time saw in these colours symbols of the Assyrian, Babylonian and Medo-Persian, or the Medo-Persian, Macedonian and Roman empires. SoCyr., Klie., el ai. t So Bla., Koh. Ke., et al. § Not, as Luther and others render it, ihe land. ** So Dru., Grot., Marck, Lowth, Hd., We., Now., Marti, et al. 122 ZECHARIAH posed it had been decided. There are equally valid objections to the view that the prophet is here describing future conditions. The Jews in his day were not groaning in bondage and looking for deliverance from it, as such an interpretation would imply, but their fetters had been broken by Cyrus and they had since been free to return to their country and labour for its economic, if not for its political restoration. This is perfectly clear from the proph- ecies of Haggai; also from the last chapters of this collection, es- pecially 6* ^•. A reference to the present and the future being im- probable, there remains no alternative but, with van Hoonacker, to regard the vision as a picture of the past. The use of visions as a means of representing historical facts or truths is not without precedent in the Old Testament. There is a notable example in the book of Amos. The seventh chapter of that book begins with a series of three visions one object of which was effectively to por- tray to the sinning children of Israel the long-suffering of Yahweh in his dealings with them. If, therefore, Zechariah is here attempt- ing to depict a historical situation, he is simply following the ex- ample of one of the greatest of his predecessors in the prophetic office. That this really is his object appears from a comparison of the language he uses here and in the following verses with that of the Second Isaiah.* The impression thus produced is only deepened when the next two visions are taken into account, for 2io/6ff. jiQt only suits the Babylonian period, but cannot well be understood as referring to any other. For details, see below. There is one objection to the view proposed, namely, that accord- ing to V. *- the angel of Yahweh refers to the indignation of Yah- weh as having endured seventy years; but see below. The only way to avoid the adoption of some such explanation as is there sug- gested is to reject the date given in v. ' and refer this and the fol- lowing chapter to the period of the Exile; but such a course is for- bidden by the organic relation between these chapters and the next four and the evidence that these last were written after the acces- sion of Darius Hystaspes. On the whole, then, it seems best to interpret this first vision as a picture of the past, that is, of the j)enod of the Exile. There was a time previous to the appearance * Cp. V. " and Is. 14'; v. " and Is. 40"; v. " and Is. 42''; v. '" and Is. 44-' 51'. I'- 123 of Cyrus as a conqueror when Babylon was apparently so power- ful that it could fitly be called "mistress of kingdoms" (Is. 47^), and its dominion so generally recognised that the Jews could be represented as meeting the promises of their prophets with the sceptical questions, "Is the spoil taken from the mighty? or the cap- tive of the terrible delivered ? " and it is probably this period that Zechariah had in mind when he put into the mouths of the re- turned horsemen the report that, wherever they went, they found undisturbed quiet. — 12. There are various places in the Old Testament in which the condition just described is plainly repre- sented as desirable. Thus, when, in 3" and elsewhere in the book of Judges, the land is said to have "had rest" so or so many years, it means that a more or less serious conflict had been brought to a more or less satisfactory issue and the Hebrews permitted an inter- val of peace. Cf. also Is. 14'. In this case the result was not fa- vovuable to them, but disastrous; and the peace that followed was the prize of their enemies. The Jews themselves, to be sure, had a kind of rest, but it was the rest of a pygmy in the hands of a giant. They could not be satisfied with it, however clearly they might come to see that they themselves were to blame for their helpless condition. Indeed, the more keenly they realised their culpa- bility, the more eagerly they longed, and the more earnestly they prayed, for the future favour of Yahweh. All this finds expression in the pathetic appeal, how long wilt thou not have compassion, or, to put it more idiomatically, how long wilt thou refuse to have com- passion, on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah? The words might well have come from the prophet. His curiosity led him in v. ® to ask about the horsemen and their significance. It would also have been natural for him, on hearing the report that there were as yet no signs of the interference of Yahweh in behalf of his afflicted people, to inquire how much longer they must wait for deliverance. Or, the interpreter might have acted as his spokesman. There are those who maintain that it must have been he who made the appeal, and that, therefore, either he is identical with the angel of Yahweh,* or the angel of Yahweh has been substituted for him,f because he is the one to whom the answer is addressed. Cf. v. ^^. * So Theod. Mops.. Ra., Marck, Rosenm., Mau., Hi., el al. t So Marti, Kit. 124 ZECHARIAH There arc, however, good grounds for rejecting any such conclu- sion. In the first place, although, it must be confessed, Zechariah does not always express himself as clearly as one might desire, he seems to have intended to represent the angel who spoke with him as a mere interpreter. One would therefore hardly expect him to address Yahweh. On the other hand, there are reasons why the angel of Yahweh should be the next speaker, (i) It was he to whom the report of the horsemen was made. (2) A more convinc- ing argument is found in the character of this angel as the prophet seems to have conceived him. He appears again, and very dis- tinctly, in the fourth vision, where he rebukes Satan and rescues Joshua and his people from serious danger; in other words, he acts the part of a champion and defender of the Jewish people. In the book of Daniel this office is performed by the archangel Michael, whom another angel calls "the great prince who standeth for the children of thy people." CJ. Dn. 12'. It must not, how- ever, on this account be supposed that the archangel is intended.* The most that can be said is that Zechariah seems to have adopted a conception of the angel of Yahweh which prepared the way for the later doctrine according to which each people had its guardian angel. This, however, is enough to warrant one in believing that Zechariah gave to the angel of Yahweh the place he now occupies in this first vision. The angel of Yahweh, then, is the spokesman of Zechariah and his people, voicing their plea for mercy on the land that Yahweh has cursed with ruin and desolation now seventy years. The number seventy, as already noted, seems to contra- dict the suggestion that this vision relates to the past, being con- siderably too large for the period from the fall of Jerusalem to any date before the close of the Exile, an interval of only 586-538 = 48 years. This objection, however, can be answered by supposing either that, since the prophet evidently had in mind the passage from Jeremiah in which the Exile and its duration are predicted (25*^-), he reckoned from 605 B.C., the date of that prophecy, or that, starting from the fall of Jerusalem, he inadvertendy included the nineteen years that had elapsed since the capture of Babylon and the end of the Exile. In either case the result would ♦ So Thcodoret, li Lap., Grot., el al. I'- 125 be near enough to warrant him in using the round number sev- enty.* CJ. f. 13. The appeal is answered, and, as it seems, by Yahweh in person, for the prophet can hardly have meant to represent the last speaker as acting two parts in so close connection. -j- How, then, is he to be understood? Does he mean to convey the im- pression that at this point the Deity made himself more directly manifest than through the angel who had thus far represented him, thus adding another to the number of supernal beings present? Probably not. A more satisfactory explanation is found by com- paring this vision with the eighth, where Yahweh seems to be pres- ent, but unseen, namely, in the palace before which the chariots are mustered. Thence he gives his agents the command to depart, and thence he addresses the interpreter. Cf. 6*. It is easy to imagine that in the present instance he speaks from the darkness round about him to the interpreter, and through him to the prophet, the cheerful, comforting words that follow. Cf. Is. 40^ — 14. They are given in the form in which the interpreter reported them to the prophet, commanding him to deliver them to his people. I am very jealous. Jealousy implies special interest on the part of one I person for another. It often presupposes a bond between the parties that gives each of them a claim upon the other. The He- brews represented Yahweh as having a peculiar interest in them ;{ as having, in fact, entered into a covenant with them by virtue of which he became, in a peculiar sense, their God and they his chosen people. § They therefore felt that they owed him exclusive allegiance and that, in return, they might claim his special pro- tection. Sometimes, however, a sense of their unworthiness in- clined them to renounce this claim and throw themselves upon his mercy. Hosea goes almost too far in this direction. Cf. 8", * For some of the earlier attempts to explain the number seventy, see Bla. and New. Koh. and others reckon from the third of Jehoiakim, when, according to Dn. ii ' •, Nebuchadrezzar took Jerusalem the first time; but the passage on which their opinion is based is generally discredited. t This is Stonard's idea. He says: "Those comfortable words certainly did not proceed from the interpreting angel, for to him they were addressed; nor from any of the company of horse- men, for they were only the messengers sent by Jehovah; still less can they be imagined to have come from Zechariah himself; and since no other person but the angel intercessor is described to be present, they must have proceeded from him. But he is no other than Jehovah himself." t Cj. Am. 32 Ho. Ill s. Dt. 437 f. ^es.^ etc. § Ex. 3410 '■ Dt. zgif/'ff- Je. ^■^, etc. 126 ZECHARIAH etc. In V. '- the appeal is not for justice, but mercy. Here, there- fore, the jealousy of God must be regarded, not as a hostile af- fection,* but as something in him analogous to the feeling en- kindled in human beings for sufferers and against those who afflict them. The object of his ardour on its tender side is Jerusalem, even Sion. The name Sion was first, without doubt, applied to the comparatively low hill, pierced by the Siloam tunnel, on which the ancient city had its beginning, f The application of it was afterward extended over the whole of the ridge of which this hill is a part, including the site of the temple (Jo. 2*, etc.), and finally over the larger city covering other eminences to the west and the north. Cf. Is. 52^ ^-y etc. In v. " and elsewherej Zechariah seems to use it as a synonym for Jerusalem. It is therefore prob- able that it should here be interpreted as meaning the city rather than the sacred mountain, and that in the ruined and desolate condition in which it was left by the Babylonians. Cf. Is. 44^* 54", etc. — 15. The other side of Yahweh's jealousy reveals itself to the oppressors of his people. But I am very wroth, he contin- ues, against the careless, or arrogant, nations. They are the same that are described in v. " as resting undisturbed, enjoying the fruits of conquest. The strength by which they won their success has given them a reckless confidence that shows itself in boasting. This spirit is the one that Isaiah condemned in the Assyrians. Cf. 10^^ ^•. Zechariah is thinking of the Babylonians as por- trayed in Is. 47^*'. Their arrogance would in itself be offensive to Yahweh; but the immediate cause of his anger is that, when he was only a little wroth with his people, and therefore disposed to punish them but lightly, these nations, being employed for the pur- pose, helped, hut for harm. The idea is a familiar one. Thus, Isaiah (10" ') rebukes the Assyrian for planning to exterminate those whom he was commissioned only to chastise, while the prophet of the Exile accuses the Babylonians of treating the Jews with such cruelty that in the end they paid double the divinely prescribed penalty. Cf. 47® 40^. Zechariah is here but repeating this accusation. § * So New., Bla., et al. t 2 S. s' i K. 8'' <, etc. X 2""- """ 8' '•. § There are several c.xegetes who see a discrepancy between this passage in its most obvious meaning and v. ', to avoid which they interpret "a little " as a limitation of the duration rather I^-^^ 127 16. Therefore introduces the divine purpose based on the facts above given. Because he has a special regard for Jerusalem, and it has already received from his hand double for all its sins, he will return to the city, the place of his former abode. The Sec- ond Isaiah describes the return of Yahweh as a triumphal proces- sion, for which a highway is to be made through the desert, and at which all the world will wonder.* It would have been folly for Zechariah in his vision to copy this glowing prediction; for those for whose instruction and encouragement he wrote knew that it had not been fulfilled. f They felt, however, that Cyrus was as really an instrument of the divine will as Nebuchadrezzar, and they were prepared to believe that Yahweh had at last relented, so that he would henceforth reveal himself among them in com- passion. Indeed, the prophet could, and did, go further. Haggai had accomplished his mission, and the foundation of the temple had been laid. It did not, therefore, require great faith to believe that this structure would be completed and the city restored; in other words, that the prediction of Is. 44"^ would be fulfilled. The prophet, at any rate, believed it, and, in testimony of his confidence, put into the mouth of Yahweh the remaining words of this verse: My house shall be built therein, and a line, the line used as a measure by builders, shall be stretched over Jerusalem. Cf. 2^^^ ^■. Note that the emphasis is here on the material blessings resulting from the presence of Yahweh. In 8^ it is on the spiritual. — VJ . Here was an excellent opportunity for extravagant language such as even Haggai (2^) could not altogether repress. Zechariah, how- ever, as V. ^^ has shown, was more temperate than his contempo- rary. He therefore omits any prediction with reference to the future splendour of the new sanctuary. The most he permits him- self, if the text is correct, is a general prophecy of prosperity. The cities, — in v. ^^ "the cities of Judah, " — he makes Yahweh sa.y, shall again overflow with good, the temporal blessings which all men than the severity of the divine wrath. So Ki., Grot., Marck, Lowth, Ston., Pres., Wri., et al. If, however, as has been shown, v. 2 is an interpolation, there is no need of resorting to such violence. * Cj. Is. 40' *■ 43'°, etc. t They knew, too, that the overthrow of the Babylonian empire was not so spectacular an event as had been expected, and this is the reason why one (GASm.) does not find it predicted in this passage. 128 ZECHARIAH crave and which God bestows upon those who please him. This general promise is followed by another for the capital in particu- lar: Yahweh will yet, in answer to the petition implied in v. ^^, have compassion on* Sion, and again, as in the days of its pros- perity, take pleasure in Jerusalem.^ Here ends the first vision. It is a picture of the past. At first it was not clear what Zechariah meant by it; but in the course of the above discussion his purpose has become more apparent. The Jews had been raised to the highest pitch of expectation by the prophecies of the Second Isaiah. The results, to them, of the triumph of Cyrus had fallen so far short of their hopes that they were grievously disappointed. Some of them must have well- nigh lost their faith in the God of their fathers. It was therefore time for some one who was sane, sober and practical to put the whole matter in a less tragical aspect, showing his people that Yahweh had after all really intervened in their behalf, and en- couraging them to expect his continued assistance. This seems to have been Zechariah's object in his first vision. The practical effect of the saner view, as he doubtless foresaw, would naturally be an increase of interest and energy in the enterprise which he, as well as Haggai, probably regarded as the first duty of the restored community, the rebuilding of the national sanctuary. Cf. v. '\ 7. iry 'nu';'] The later idiom for ">ry ipn, which occurs only in Gn. 32" 379 Dt. i=; cp. Dt. I'. — E33U' — Nin] The reasons for regarding this clause as an interpolation are: (i) that neither Haggai nor Zechariah, in V. ', adds the name to the number of the month; and (2) that the practice of so doing seems to belong to a much later date, being confined, except in one instance that requires special consideration, to Est. Cf. 7'. — t', V. '; like ni3-<, Ez. 2^*, for ia"<, i Ch. 29', and n'Pj, Jo. 4", for 'PJ, E.x. 23^, etc.; Ew. ^ '^c. — 8. o^N — aD">] First suspected by Ew., it is omitted by We., Now., Marti, Kit. The objections to its genuineness are: (i) that the predicates as"! and ^Ci' are hardly compatible with each other; (2) that the introduction of this clause produces the impression that the angel of Yahweh is the leader of the celestial scouts, and not, as in V. ", the one to whom they report; (3) that there is no use made of it in the subsequent narrative; and (4) that, if the clause were genuine, N111, * The te,Tt has comjort, but sec the critical notes. t C/. 2'*i2 3' Is. 14'. On the rcqdering take pleasure, sec especially Is. 56' 58^ '• 65'- 66', I'-^' 129 which the later critics without warrant omit, would precede it, the sec- ond prtc. being introduced by the simple v — D^Dinn] (^^^, rwv bpiwv = onnn; (gAQ and some curss., rQ)v 5i5o opiuv = onnn *ju'. The former reading is adopted by Theod. Mops., Theodoret, Che., Marti, van H., et al. It is easier, however, to explain these readings by 6' than it is to account for that of the text on the supposition that it is corrupt. — nSxD3] So Houb., Norzi, Baer, Gins.; for nSixD3. Other readings are: nSxca, Flirst, nSxDDjBo., and nSxca, Ew., BDB., all with the general sense of in the shadow. Cf. ($, KaraffKluv; &, . * W^ Vi>. The rendering in the hoUowis evidently preferable if the correctness of D''D"inn is maintained. — r-iRN] Marti suggests vjisS; but that would naturally mean that the horsemen were between the angel and the prophet, which can hardly be what the latter intended. — O'pir] ^^^bq have Kal ^ i.Lc]o >rff ^ SnV) Vslbtf p^o = ''Vn icnm o nann isSon jp'i, and this reading seems favoured by w. »»"; but v. " has the precise for- mula here used. — InSdh] The art. is properly used whether the thought be that the angel is one to whom attention is called for the first time or one with whom and his function the reader is supposed to be familiar. Cf. Ges. ^ «»• ■«.— o] Not in me, with (B H, Jer., Theod. Mops., Marck, Pu., et al., but, as in Nu. I2«- « Hb. 2', where the most intimate communion be- tween God and man is described, with me; the prep, denoting, not instru- mentality, Ew. k2u i. i^ but proximity. Cf. BDB. «' ».— ncn] The pron. is not, as Ges. Hn . » implies, and Wright expressly asserts, a substitute for the copula, but, as Dr. puts it, "an imperfect anticipation of the subject," which here has the force of an appositive. Cf. Dr. k -"^ (2); Ko. 5 ^» <5. In a direct question n':'^ might come first. Cf. Is. 492'. — 10. jyi] This verb naturally introduces a speech by one who has been direcdy ad- dressed, but, since it may also introduce a speech by any one interested in a given subject {cf. v. " Gn. 23"' Ju. i8>s etc.), its use here proves noth- ing with reference to the question whether the man among the myrdes and the interpreter are the same or different persons. We., who regards them as distinct, finds in the fact that the former answers a question put to the latter a reason for suspecting the genuineness of theAvhole verse; 130 ZECHARIAH but such "interference" is a common occurrence to an oriental. — O'Dinn] ^j rS)v dpiuv, as in v. ', 11. nvT> in'?c] The person to whom the horsemen report is no doubt the angel of Yahweh, but, if he had been so called in the original text, the descriptive clause that was standijig among the myrtles would hardly have been added. We. is therefore probably correct in the surmise that the original reading was B'''Nn here as in v. '». So also Marti, Kit. Now., on the other hand, following Hi., omits the descriptive clause. — V"in2] (gNABo^ iraaav tt]v yrjv; but (6^ om. iraffav, which, moreover, is easily ex- plained as a loan from the next clause. — napvi] A pred. adj. with the force of an adverbial phrase, like niSe'i in 7'. — 12. mn^ l^'^c] A reason for retaining this reading additional to those given in the comments is that the insertion of the same words in v. " is more easily explained on the supposition that the angel of Yahweh was expressly named in this verse. — npN] The separate pron. here seems to be used rather for rhythmi- cal effect than for emphasis. Cf. Ges. % ''s. 1. — nncyt] For ncyr, C/. Ges. 1 44. s- R- 3.— nt] Not a pron., as $ H, Lu., EV, render it, but an adv. Cf. Ges. § ise. R. 3 (*)._13. nin^] (^nabq ^^^ wavroKpiTup, which, however, Comp., (&^"-, Chrys. omit. — o "»3in] Ace. to Now. an in- terpolation; but, since it is the interpreter who delivers the message, it would seem most natural that he should receive it. — onai*] (^ & prefix a connective. — ccnj] An abstr. pi. used appositively for gen. Cf. Ges. §j m. I (*); 131. 2 («); Dr. § '»» <".— 14. irxSi oSc'itS] In (S^ the names are transposed. — nSnj nNjp] Cf. w. 2. is; Ges. 5 i'^- ""), — 15. Vnj r\-i^-\] Cf. v. ». — D'oiNC'ri] Houb.rds.n'tSNcn, That despise it (Jerusalem). To ntjj he would give the force of Ar. »yfc iv., multiply. — iu'n] Here a conj. Cf. Ges. \ ^'\ 16. ninM] Kenn. 195 adds niN3x. So (&^ &, and, since it occurs in 17 out of 19 similar cases, this may well be the correct reading. — na] On the daghesh, cf. Ges. 5 =". 2 «2) is). mp] So also i K. 7" Je. 3139/39; but always Qr. ip. — 17. n^y] (6 transfers this word to the preceding verse and puts into its place Kal elnev irpbs fti 6 dyyeXos \i\uv iv ifjal. — njxiBp] For rly•i^Dr, the reading of 24 Kenn. mss. Cf. Ges. i «• s- k. Houb. rds. njx-«cn. — aiOD 'ij.'] Rd., with <6 &, 3io Dnyn or, as in v. '*, 31150 niin> <-\j:. — zmi] Rd., with ft (Kal iXei^aei) onni, as in v. «. So Oort., We., Now., Marti, Kit. & has )j,AJe = rnj3\ which, however, Sebok is probably correct in regarding as an error for ^.^AJe = onji, (2) THE HORNS AND THEIR DESTROYERS (2*"^/l'*"^*). The second vision attaches itself naturally and closely to the first. In it the prophet sees four horns, and, when their significance has been explained, as many workmen commissioned to destroy them; the whole being a picture of the process by which Yahweh intends to fulfil the promise of the first vision. 2'/!"*. There is no date. None is needed. The relation of this vision to the first is such that the date of the one must be the date of the other, the twenty-fourth of the eleventh month of the second year of the Persian king Darius. Then, says the prophet, meaning after the first vision had passed, / lifted tip my eyes. Here, as in the former case, the language is figurative, since the vision is only a literary form for the thought that the prophet wishes to con- vey. This time there appear, first, /(?«;• horns. There is nothing to indicate the manner of their appearance, whether as attached or separate members, but the absence of any reference to animals or their movements favours the latter alternative.* They at once re- call the horns, great and small, of the book of Daniel; but, since that book is without doubt a product of the Maccabean period, as between the two its author, and not Zechariah, must be regarded as the imitator. The origin of the symbol common to them is easily traced. To the Hebrews the ox, like the lion, typified strength (Ps. 22'^^*^), and its horns were the feature that they emphasised. Cf. Dt. 23". Hence it was natural that Amos (6'^) should repre- sent Israel as boasting of having taken to themselves horns, and that Zedekiah, the son of Chenaanah, should wear a pair in the tableau by which he pictured the triumph of the allied forces of Israel and Judah over the Syrians. Cf. i K. 22". This, however, seems to be the earliest instance in which the horn is used to sym- bolise, not power, but, as will appear, a power, that is, a powerful nation. Therein, perhaps, lies the reason why Zechariah is so careful to explain the figure. 2'/l^^. The method of question and answer is continued. The prophet inquires of his angelic interpreter. Sir, what are these? re- ferring to the horns. The angel replies. These are the horns that scattered Judah. These words have been variously interpreted. Not that there is any difference of opinion concerning their general import. It is agreed that the Targum is correct in interpreting * The contrary is maintained by J. D. Mich. {Lex. Heb.), who thinks the prophet saw a pair of oxen in grass so tall that their horns only were visible. Ston. insists that there must have been four animals, " bearing each a single horn, high and pointed, like that of the he-goat in Daniel." Similarly Pres., Pu., Wri., Per., et al. 132 ZECHARIAH horns as meaning kingdoms, that, in other words, these hems repre- sent political powers. The disagreement arises when an attempt is made to identify the powers. Now, it is clear that, since the horns are described as those that produced a dispersion, the first thing to do is to fix the date and circumstances of this event, or series of events. The text seems to furnish the necessary data. It says that these horns scattered, not only Judah, but Israel. But Israel, when used in conjunction with Judah, regularly denotes the north- em, in distinction from the southern, kingdom and it is regularly so used even by the later prophets.* If, therefore, as one has a right to expect, it is used in that sense in this connection, the dis- persion to which the prophet refers must include that of the north- em as well as the southern tribes; in other words, one must reckon Assyria as well as Babylonia among the powers involved.f This is the natural inference from the text as it reads, but such an in- ference does not harmonise with the impression derived from the preceding chapter. The dispersion to which allusion is there made is the dispersion of Judah only, the result of the capture of Jeru- salem by Nebuchadrezzar. This fact excites doubt concerning the genuineness of Israel in the passage under consideration, and the doubt thus excited is confirmed by v. *, where the horns are again introduced, but the name Israel is omitted. It follows that here, also, the prophet had the Judean dispersion in mind, and that he used the horns to represent the power or powers instrumental in that catastrophe. J Rashi recognises only one power, "the Baby- lonians at the four winds of heaven ";§ and his view is not without a semblance of support in the wide extent of the Babylonian em- pire under Nebuchadrezzar, by virtue of which he, like the kings before and after him, called himself "king of the four quarters."** Still, it must be rejected, because the Babylonians, though the strongest, were not the only people that helped the Jews to their ♦ a. Je. 3«- "• '• s" Ez. 99 27". etc. t So Jer.. Cyr. Ki. Dru.. Klie.. Ston.. Pros., Pu., Wri., tt al. X The adoption of this emendation is greatly to be desired. It will prevent any further vio- lence to the troublesome name, which has been interpreted, not only as an honorary title, Ke., but as a collective title for rural as distinguished from urban. Or., common as compared with noble, Neumann and even faithless, as contrasted with faithful Jews, Klie. 5 So van Hoonacker. ♦♦ KB., iii, I, 108 /.; 2, gd /. destruction,* as the use of the plural in v. * clearly indicates. There is equally good ground for rejecting any interpretation which makes the horns represent four distinct powers including Babylonia. The reply is that, as the Jews had more than four adversaries, but no others of the same class with the Babylonians, it is impossible to identify the other three, and that, this being the case, the vision becomes meaningless. The impossibility of finding a power or powers that the prophet can safely be supposed to have had in mind makes it necessary to give to the horns a broader interpretation. Theodoret of Mopsuestia does so. He says that they designate "those who from many sides attacked " God's people, "and sought in every way to injure them," the number four being chosen, be- cause the Hebrews, like others, divided the world into four quar- ters and naturally represented anything coming from all directions as coming from the cardinal points. Cf. "the four winds of heaven," 6^.f This seems to have been nearly the thought of the prophet; but in developing it care must be taken to avoid the mis- take of including, as many have done, the enemies of both king- doms, or those of the Jews after the Babylonian period, for these horns symbolise the power only of the peoples, especially the Baby- lonians, who by their hostility contributed to the final overthrow of the Jewish state and the banishment of the Jewish people from their soil. ^/V^, The vision is not yet complete. Yahweh, says the prophet, imitating the phraseology of Amos in the first four of his visions (i^- *• '8'), showed me four workmen. Not that, at this point, Yahweh called his attention to something that he had not be- fore noticed. The figures were now first brought upon the scene. They were figures of men of skill and strength, fitted, therefore, for any task, able to build, but no less, to use the words of Ez. 2j36/3i^ "skilful to destroy." On the number of the workmen, see below. — 2^/1"^ The prophet seems to have conceived of the work- men as having something distinctive, either in the dress they wore or the implements they carried, which made them at once recog- * Cj. Je. 12" Ez. 253- 8 282< 355, etc. t Similarly, Lu., Cal., Ribera, Marck, New., Rosenm., Hi., Koh., Hd., Burger, Per., We., Now., Marti, el al. 134 ZECHARIAH nisable. At any rate, he does not ask who they are, but only. What are Ihese coming to do? The reply, doubtless from the interj)reter, first repeats the explanation just given, Those are the horns that scattered Judah; adding a clause descriptive of the thoroughness M^ith which the hostile forces did their destructive work, so that he, meaning Judah, did not, because he could not, uplift his head. The condition thus described is the condition of the Jews during the Exile, when they dared not believe that they could be taken from their mighty conquerors. Cf. Is. 49 ^'^ ^^ For a similar figure, see Am. 5^. Turning now to the workmen, the interpreter explains, These are come to cast down. Here again it is easy to mistake the prophet's meaning. Just as the prominence of the Babylonians in the dispersion of the Jews seems to mark them as the power symbolised by the horns, or one of them, so their overthrow by the Persians seems to require that these latter be regarded as the power, or one of four such powers, represented by the work- men. In this case, however, as in the preceding, the first impres- sion is erroneous. Indeed, it will be found, not only that the work- men do not represent Persia alone or with any number of other powers, but that they have a clearly different function. The only satisfactory explanation for them is suggested by i^^ ^-j and more clearly indicated in 6''^-. In the latter passage there is evident reference to the conquest of Babylonia. In alluding to it, how- ever, Yahweh ignores human instrumentalities. It is his angelic agents who have appeased his spirit in that region. Now, since the passage under consideration appears to be a forecast of the event described as accomplished in the vision of the chariots, it is fair to conclude that here also the prophet, like Ezekiel in his de- scription of Gog and his followers, is employing the apocalyptic method, and that therefore these workmen, as Jerome perceived, represent the supernatural means through which Yahweh ac- comi)lishes his purposes.* They are four in number to indicate that the penalty for the injury done Judah will be as comprehen- sive as the offence was general. They will cast downjf the horns, utterly destroy the power, of all the nations that uplifted themselves, * Similarly, Theod. Mops., Cyr., Thcodorct, Lu., Cal., Dru., & Lap., Koh., GASm., et al. t Elsewhere horns arc "cut o£f." C/. Je. 48* Ps. 75" La. 2'. 2i-yj.8-2i ^^^ used violence, against the land of Judah, to scatter it, or, more strictly speaking, its inhabitants. The lameness of the prophet's language is even more notice- able in this than in the preceding vision. The reason is the same in this case as in the other. He is dealing with comparatively re- cent history, especially the conquest of Babylonia, an event which, although it had great significance for the Jews, was anything but spectacular. The capital, so far from resisting the Persian con- queror, yielded without a blow. In fact, when Cyrus entered the city, it greeted him as its deliverer. It would have been worse than useless for the prophet, in this vision, to enlarge upon the simple fact that the conqueror of Judah had been punished. Hav- ing presented this to the best of his ability, he passes to the third and final phase of his present subject. 2'/!' 8. In 05 B &^^, as in English, this verse and the three that follow are reckoned to ch. i. — nini] Here and in v. ^ 5' for nsnxi, which is found 5' 6'; here also ace. to 4 Kenn. mss. Cf. Ges. §^"- ^ '*)= "• «■ ^• <').— 2. n*?}* nc] Add, with (S #, 'jnx, as in i' 4* 6*. — Snic'' rt<] The most convincing reasons for pronouncing this name an interpolation, (i) that it does not fit the context, and (2) that it is wanting in v. ■■, have al- ready been stated. Note in addition, (3) that it is not found elsewhere in the book except in 8'^, where it is as much out of place as in this passage. — D'?U'nn] Om., with Kenn. 180, (&^^ #". The omission of tn, also, is against it. Both names are disregarded by We., Now., Marti, Kit. — 3. OT->n] According to Mich, and others to be pointed z^Z'^h and rendered plowmen; but such a rendering requires too much explanation in v. *. — 4. iCNi] Some mss. have -\i:Ni. — nvJ'i'S] (S'- adds Kvpie = -jin, as in i« 4^ 6^— icnS] Rd., with Kenn. 178, (6^Q *, ^Sn.— dSn^] Acc. to We. a scribal error. Without it the words that follow would read, The horns that scattered Judah, so that he did not uplift his head, them to terrify came these, etc. This rendering, however, is not satisfactory, (i) The con- struction 1.V2M requires that a complete sentence precede it; and (2) the phrase anN T-in-i'^, on which this emendation is based, as will be shown, is itself an interpolation. The pron., therefore, must remain if the words following are recognised as genuine. Marti omits them as far as 'U'ni, also n^N2, at the same time substituting a^Ni for hom, and, at first sight, he seems justifiable in so doing; but there are contrary considerations. The clause, These are the horns that scattered Judah, is not a mere repe- tition of the angel's first answer. The addition of the next transforms it from a statement of fact into an explanation and a Justification of the 136 ZECHARIAH workmen's purpose. The latter clause, however, should be emended by inserting ^rx before r^s", with Koh. and others, or, with We., substituting the former for the latter. CJ. Mai. 2 '. If the former method be adopted, NC'j might be pointed as a prtc. B's per singulos viros. Et nemo . . . appears to be a case of free expansion. (5 takes greater liberty with the te.xt, adding the irreconcilable gloss, Kal rhv 'lapaijX Karia^av. — inom] (gNB jer. h^ve Kal i^riXdoffav] but ] & reverses the order. — 7/3. nx^'] We., * Ex. 14-° should read, "When it became dark, it," the pillar of fire between the Hebrews and the Egyptians, "lighted the night." Cj. We., Uex.\ Baentsch, Ex. ] 40 ZECHARIAH following ^ (IffTi^Kei), rds. iDj?. So also Now., Marti, Kit. Better, with Asada, ax:.— 8/4. iSn] Rd. vVn. Cf. Ges. M«- *• R- «. 4 Kenn. mss. rd. ^^n. (6'^bQ'' add \^yuv.—ihn] For niSn. Cf. Ges.§ «■ 2- R- ■. — nv-^D] Adverbial ace. = nirica. C/". Ges. § "«-5 (O; Dr. §'•' "). ! '"• '. (4) .\N APPEAL TO THE EXILES (2''*^''"'^/*^). The rest of the chapter has usually been treated as a part of the preceding vision, but this arrangement must be abandoned. The reasons are as follows: (i) The speaker is not the same as in v. ^, but the prophet now takes the place of the interpreter. This ap- pears from his references to himself in vv. " ^- ; also from the fact, itself another reason for making these verses a separate para- graph, that (2) the persons addressed are no longer any of those who have appeared in the visions, but the Jews who still remain in Babylonia. Finally, (3) these verses are not an enlargement upon the third vision, but an appeal based upon the whole trio, in which the prophet exhorts his people to separate themselves from the nations destined to perish and return to Palestine, there to enjoy in a restored community the presence and protection of Yahweh. 10/6. The prophet does not at first designate by any name those whom he is addressing. He simply exhorts them to flee from the north country; but it is only necessary to turn to v. " to find that the north country is Babylonia and those who are exhorted to flee thence exiled inhabitants of Jerusalem. This summons does not, as Kosters* claims, imply that previous to this time no Jews had returned from Babylonia. The prophet would hardly have pre- sented the past as he has in the preceding visions if the promises there made had not to some extent been fulfilled. It means merely that, although, as 6^° clearly shows, some of those who had been carried into captivity, or their descendants, had returned, their number was comparatively small, and that those who had the in- terests of the new community at heart felt the need of further re- inforcements from the same direction, especially in the work of rebuilding the national sanctuary. The exhortation, as already in- ♦ Die Wiederherstdlung Israels, jo. 210/6-17/13 j^j timated, is repeated in v. ", but these two members of a parallelism are separated by a parenthetical clause which seems to have been intended to explain the presence of the Jews in Babylonia. One rendering for it is, for to the four winds of heaven have I dispersed you. — 11/7. Now follows the second member of the parallelism. This time, however, as in Is. 51*^, the Jews, although they are in Exile, are addressed under the familiar name Sion, — perhaps orig- inally daughter of Sion, which occurs Is. 52^ and La. 4^' in the same sense. That the exiles, and not, as one might at first sight think, the actual inhabitants of Jerusalem, are meant, is clear from the added phrase dwellers in Babylon. The language used was calcu- lated to remind them of their birthright. 12/8. The speaker next proceeds, as if about to give a reason for the summons he has issued, but interrupts himself, or is interrupted, by a parenthetical statement that has never been satisfactorily ex- plained. It reads, literally, after glory he sent me. The subject is evidently Yahweh. The object, who is undoubtedly the same as in w. ^^'^ and ^^'", must be the prophet. There is great difficulty with the phrase after glory. The English words would naturally be taken to denote the purpose of the speaker's mission, namely, to obtain for himself or another glory in the sense of renown. It does not seem to have occurred to any one to take the word in an- other meaning frequent in the Old Testament, that of splendour, which, when it refers to the Deity, becomes synonymous with the manifestation of Yahweh. Cf. Ez. 3^. If this sense be given to it in the present instance, the troublesome clause will become a simple statement, apparently by the prophet, that Yahweh gave him the message he is delivering after the vision, or series of visions, previously described. It seems to have been suggested by the re- semblance between the experience of Zechariah and that of Eze- kiel as recorded in the first two chapters of his book. In fact, the words here used were evidently borrowed from that book. In i^* Ezekiel describes the theophany he has just witnessed as having the appearance of a rainbow. "This," says he, "was the appear- ance of the likeness of the glory of Yahweh." Then he proceeds (2^ ^•) to tell how, after this vision, the Spirit set him upon his feet and Yahweh said to him, "Son of man, I send thee," etc., which 142 ZECHARIAH he might have condensed, and Zechariah did condense, into the brief statement. After the glory (vision) he sent me.* The next fol- lowing words must now be construed with the verb preceding the parenthesis, and, since in v. ^^'^ Yahweh speaks, not to, but con- cerning, the nations, the prophet probably intended to say. Thus saith Yahweh of Hosts concerning the nations that plunder you. He nowhere clearly indicates to which of the nations he refers. The only other hint of their identity is in v. "^", and this is easily misunderstood. It reminds one of the references in Is. 40^. to Babylon and its cruelty. Cf. 47" 49-^ ^-^ etc. This, however, can- not be the prophet's thought; for the oppression and deliverance of which he is now speaking are subsequent to the fall of that city. The key to the problem is found in Ezekiel. In chs. 38 /. of that book the prophet describes an invasion of "a land restored from the sword" and inhabited by "a people gathered from the nations," meaning Palestine, by Gog, the great prince of the North, at the head of a polyglot horde of plunderers (38"- ^- '-) ; but by the help of Yahweh, he says, the chosen people will finally triumph and "plunder those who plunder them." Cf. 39'". It is these nebulous followers of Gog on whom Yahweh is about to pronounce sentence.f The decree, however, is again delayed, this time by a reason for it inserted, apparently, by the prophet, for he that toucheth yon toucheth the apple of his (Yahweh's) eye.t In other words, it is "the jealousy of Yahweh of Hosts" that "will do this." Cf. Is. 9«/' Zc. i" 8-. On the figure, see Dt. 32^** Ps. if. 13/9. Yahweh, finally permitted to speak, announces his pur- pose with reference to the nations described. / will wave my hand over them, he says. This gesture by the king of Assyria (Is. 10^) denotes a threat; when attributed to Yahweh (Is. 11^ 19"), like that of stretching forth the hand, which is a favourite with Ezekiel (6'\ etc.), it symbolises the exertion of his omnipotent power. So here, the result being that the nations over whom he waves his hand be- ♦ Of course, if this clause is a gloss, its value as evidence that in this paragraph Zechariah is the speaker is somewhat diminished. Cf. v. '"/'. t It is interesting to note that among these nations, according to 38^, were the Persians; but the text and interpretation of that passage being in dispute, it is not safe to lay much stress upon it. Cf. Ez. 27'". t Not, as Ki., Bla., el ai. render it, his own eye. 210/6.17/13 j^^ come spoil for their servants, especially the Jews. For an extended description of the terrors of that day, see Ez. 38"^-. Note, also, the parallel passage (Ez. 39*°) already cited. At this point there is a slight break in the paragraph. The prophet takes advantage of it to speak for himself and claim divine inspiration. He appeals to the future. He expects that the prediction just made will be fulfilled. When it is, his people, he is confident, whatever they may now think of him, will recognise him as a genuine prophet. Then, he says, shall ye know that Yahweh of Hosts sent me. This form of appeal is peculiar to Zechariah. See v. ^^'" 4® 6*^, and compare one very common in Ezekiel, "Then shall ye (they) know that I am Yahweh" (6^- "), etc.— 14/10. The prophet takes for granted that his summons will be heeded, and that his scattered compatriots will return to their country. In fact, he goes much further and calls upon the daughter of Sion to sing and rejoice at the inspiring prospect. First he puts into the mouth of Yahweh the promise, / will come and dwell in thee. Here, as in Is. 10"^ and elsewhere, the daughter of Sion seems, strictly speaking, to be the city of Jerusalem, rather than its inhabitants; hence the rendering in thee; but, since in such cases the writer must always have had the people in mind, the exact application of the figure is not of the first importance. The prophet is looking forward to the fulfil- ment of the vision in which Ezekiel (43^ ^•) saw the glory of Yah- weh come from the east and, entering the new temple, fill the whole house; and heard a voice from the house, saying, "The site of my throne . . ., where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Is- rael forever." The residence of Yahweh in Jerusalem, however, meant more to Zechariah than a splendid spectacle, or even the richest material blessings that he could imagine; for in 8^ he repre- sents the divine presence as manifesting itself in the transformation of the city into the likeness of his faithfulness and holiness. Cf. 8^. — 15/11. This is a lofty conception, but narrow withal. The Second Isaiah had taught a larger doctrine, especially in those pas- sages in which he sought to enlist his people in a mission to the world. Cf. 42^ 49^, etc. His teaching found a faint echo in Hg. 2'. Zechariah boldly adopts it. Many nations, he says, as if he were reproducing Mi. 4* ^-j shall join themselves to Yahweh in 144 ZECHARIAH that day. This means more than the homage, tribute or service of Is. 45" ^- 49' 55^ ^■. It means, as the next verse clearly teaches, the acceptance of the invitation of Is. 45^^ and the unlimited ex- tension of the Abrahamic covenant. Cf. Is. 44^. And they, the other nations, as well as the Jews, the prophet makes Yahweh say, sJiall be to him a people. Zechariah, however, is not a thorough- going universalist, for he adds, always in the name of Yahweh, and he will dwell, not among them, but in thee. In other words, al- though all nations may now be received into the covenant with Yahweh, he cannot be everywhere worshipped; but — and this is made as clear in S"** ^- as in Micah — the new temple at Jerusalem is the shrine, and the only one, of the God of the whole earth. It is therefore not strange that in 6^^ the most remote peoples are to share the labour and honour of rebuilding the sanctuary. This, the attainment of Yahweh's purpose, will also redound to the honour of the prophet, as he, thereby disturbing the course of his own discourse, reminds the reader. 16/12. That the interpretation above given is the correct one, is shown by the way in which Zechariah dwells on the thought of a peculiar relation between Yahweh and Jerusalem. When Yahweh returns, he says, he will take possession, or, supplying the adverb from the next clause, again take possession, of Judah as his portion in the holy soil of Palestine, the rest having been alienated through the fault of Israel, and again take pleasure in its capital, and the seat of its sanctuary, Jerusalem. Cf. 3^ Is. 14*. — 17/13. The re- tiun of Yahweh to his sanctuary, as Ezekiel describes it (43* ^■), is a spectacle calculated to fill the beholder with wonder and rever- ence. The prophet says that, when he saw the earth aglow with the divine splendour, and heard the voice that proceeded from it "like the sound of much water," he fell on his face. If, as has been suggested, Zechariah had this passage in mind, as he was WTiting, it was natural that he should close the paragraph by requir- ing that men should greet with awful attention the great event that he had predicted. The words he uses are an adaptation of Hb. 2^". The first clause, Silence all flesh before Yahweh, is virtually a repetition of the original, but the second is recast, the reason for the change being that, while Habakkuk was thinking of God en- 210/6.17/13 j^^ throned in heaven, Zechariah wishes to represent him as issuing, after a period of inactivity (Is. 42"), from his heavenly temple to occupy the earthly sanctuary that his people have prepared for him. Hence he says, not "Yahweh is in his holy temple," but Yahweh hath roused himself from his holy abode. On the heavenly temple, see further Dt. 26'^ Je. 25^° Ps. 29^, etc. That Zechariah was interested in the movement to rebuild the temple appears on the surface of his prophecies; but the casual reader would probably think of him as second to Haggai, both with respect to his zeal for the enterprise and his ability to further it. The study of the first two chapters of his book ought to have shown that any such estimate of him is mistaken. He was thoroughly in sympathy with his (presumably) older contemporary. The thought of the temple dominates these visions throughout. His influence on the more thoughtful among his people must have been greater and more lasting than that of Haggai, because he appealed to that which was noblest in those whom he addressed. His mes- sage was, Seek first Yahweh and his vivifying presence, and all these things shall be added to you. An appeal of this sort will bear unlimited emphasis and repetition. It is therefore probable that it was the preaching of Zechariah, rather than that of Hag- gai, which, after the first enthusiasm had subsided, held the Jews to their sacred but laborious task, during the four years that elapsed before the temple was completed. 10/6. iDji] Rd., with (B "B B, 1DIJ. — J?2it<3] (5, iK ruv recra-dpwv = yaiNC, which would have no sense with ^itriD in this connec- tion. For the latter, therefore, (g has ffvvd^u = *nx3p (We.) or 'Psdx (Che.). If these readings be adopted, as they are by the later critics, the whole clause becomes a parallel to the one that precedes it. But the latter has its proper parallel in v. ". This being the case, the one now under consideration may pretty safely be regarded as a gloss and interpreted with the greater freedom. It seems necessary, however, to emend the current text unless it may be supposed that the glossator had in mind 6^ in its present form, and meant to make Yahweh say he had dispersed his people as he was wont to despatch his messengers. The alternative is to adopt a reading, paixa, found in 23 mss. and several of the earliest edd., and supported by U and &. So Dathe, New. This reading, whether the prep, be rendered into (to) or by, has a familiar sound. In Je. 49'* the two ideas are combined. Here the rendering to seems the more suit- 146 ZECHARIAH able. — On the meaning of ^ntnc, see Ps. 68'^"<. — 11/7. ■'tj'i'cn jvx] nN is the only one permissible, the attempts to make it denote aim or purpose being forbidden by Hebrew usage. So AE., who has the excellent paraphrase, "After sending his glory to me he sent me." This explanation renders the emendations of Houb. (^:n^t;' 1133 tnN), Oort {''irhu inDS -iu'n) and Che. {-\r^'d Tiao \-\i() unnecessary. — 1133] Better 1133^. — On Sn in the sense of concerning, see Is. 37" Je. 22", etc. The S;j of ^ QJ represents a prevalent mistake with reference to the connection. — n333] Some mss. have 033, a reading that may have been suggested by Ps. 17'; where, however, as in La. 2'«, n3 is probably a gloss. — irp is one of the 18 so-called anab 'Jipn, or corrections of the scribes, a list of which is given at the beginning of the book of Numbers and again at Ps. 106-*. Tradition says that the original reading was ^ry, but that the scribes, thinking it derogatory to the Deity so distinctly to attribute to him bodily parts, substituted this one. The implication is that the word should be rendered his own eye, but this rendering, which has no support in the Versions, except in the sui of some mss. of 51 B, is neither necessary nor natural. If, however, the clause is parenthetical, and the natural antecedent of the sf. of this word Yahweh, the tradition above cited is clearly mistaken. See Nu. 12'^, where it is impossible to believe that, as tradition asserts, the original text had ucn and ijni:'3. On the 0''jipn, cf. Gins.'"'-, 347 ff. — 13/9. 's] After the parenthesis this particle introduces the words of Yahweh. Cf. Ges. 5 '^^ (*). — ann3j:^^] Kenn. 96 has ann3'';'S, and this is the reading favoured by ^ B & SI; but most of the mss. — de Ro. cites 38 — and nearly all of the earliest cdd. treat the word as a noun. So also Norzi, Baer, Gins., Kit. — The final clause, ace. to Marti, is an editorial addition. His reason for this opin- ion is that it implies doubt concerning Zechariah's commission, which would hardly have arisen in his lifetime. There arc, however, consider- ations that make for genuineness. This appeal to the future, as has al- ready been noted, is more than once repeated, but not at random. Cf. V. " 4' 6'5. In every instance it occurs in a passage supplemental to the recital of a vision or other revelation, constituting a feature of such pas- sages. This being the case, if the given passage has the marks of Zecha- rian authorship, it would seem safe to recognise this feature of it as genu- ine.— ''jnSB'] Kenn. 150 adds 03''Sn probably because it, or tiSn, appears in all the parallel passages. — 14/10. ij-i] On the accent, milra\ cf. Ges. %67. 8. R. 12 (*).— 15/11. •'S] Read, with 05 S>, iS, and for ^njstri, with &, pB'i. (6 has the clearly mistaken, but easily explained, reading Kal Karaa-KTiviiffovffiv = ijdk'i, the pi. for the sg. — The whole of v. ''b is pro- nounced secondary by Marti, and there is less to be said for the appeal to the future here than in v. "; but too much stress must not be laid upon the abruptness with which it is introduced, for in Ezekiel the similar ex- pression, "and ye shall know that I am Yahweh," is repeatedly used with little regard to the connection. Cf. Ez. ii'"- '^ 139- ", etc. — 17/14. nip] On the Niph., cf. Ges. ^ «■ ''■^^- ^- «.— pjJDD] (S, ^k vetpfXQy = \jjyD; ij, de nubibus; g'LU l^ojie = ons; but 0^. =m^ h. The anointed of Yahweh (3^-4^^ 4'"^-'*). The second group consists of two visions. Thiey have to do with the persons and fortunes of the two leaders who represented the Jewish community in the time of Haggai and Zechariah. (l) THE ACCUSED HIGH PRIEST (CH. 3). In this vision the high priest Joshua, haled before the angel of Yahweh by the Adversary, is acquitted (vv. ^'^), and endowed anew with high functions and privileges (w. ^'^*') . (a) The acquittal (vv }'^) . — The prophet first sees the high priest, as a culprit, before the angel of Yahweh. The latter rebukes the Adversary for his complaint, and then, having released the accused, has him stripped of his soiled garments and clothed in becoming apparel. 1. The same form of expression is used in introducing this vision as in 2^/x^^, Then Yahweh showed me. The place where the scene is laid is not mentioned. One is reminded of similar scenes at the court of heaven; for example, that described by Micaiah, when he was summoned by Ahab to advise him with reference to a projected expedition against Ramoth Gilead (i K. 22''"^), in which Yahweh appears seated, "on his throne, with all the host of heaven stand- ing by him on the right and on the left " ; but especially of that por- trayed in Jb. i"*-, in which "the sons of God" come "to present themselves before Yahweh," the Adversary among them. In both of these scenes, however, all the persons represented are celestial 148 ZECHARIAH beings, while in this one of the principal figures is Joshua the high priest.* Moreover, it is not, in this instance, Yahweh before whom the other persons are assembled, but the angel of Yahweh, a (or the) manifestation of the Deity in human form, which might be, and, according to various passages in the Old Testament, often was, called a man. So in i^. Now, since the human form was assumed for the purpose of communion with men, the presence of the angel of Yahweh implies mundane surroundings. Hence, the prophet must have conceived of the scene here described as taking place on earth, and, indeed, in or near Jerusalem. Wher- ever it was, the angel of Yahweh was, so to speak, holding court, and Joshua was before him.f Cf. v. ^. Not in the unfinished temple, as Theodoret and others have supposed, for there the high priest would have been before Yahweh, and hardly in soiled clothing. Present also was the Adversary, who was standing at his (Joshua's) right hand. The rendering Adversary is much preferable in this connection to Satan (EV.), although the latter is a literal transcript of the original. In fact, "Satan," in the sense in which the modem world has learned from the New Testament to use it, would be misleading; for the conception of Satan as a definite personality hostile to God and the good is the result of a development which had hardly begun when Zechariah prophesied. The process can be traced. Thus, in the first of the two scenes cited the deceiver is not an angel dis- tinguished from the rest by a peculiar title or character, but the one who, when Yahweh asks, "Who shall deceive Ahab?" seems to him to have the best plan for so doing, and goes by divine direc- tion on his mischievous errand. C/". i K. 22'" ^•. This immediate dependence upon the will of Yahweh makes the latter responsible for all physical evil. Cf. Am. 3" Is. 45^, etc. In the book of Job the corresponding figure has acquired a title, "the Adversary," and a sceptical and censorious character. Moreover, he acts on his own initiative (Jb. i^ 2'). Still there are limits to his activity, for Yahweh does not allow him to do serious or irretrievable harm * For details with reference to him and his office, see Hg. i' and the comments thereon, t On the expression stand bcjore, of a defendant, see further, Xu. 35'- Dt. 19" Jos. 20* I K. 3". 3*"' 149 to those who are temporarily placed in his power. Cj. Jb. i'^ 2^. By the time of the Chronicler the final stage seems to have been reached; for, in i Ch. 2i\ the title " the Adversary " has become the proper name "Satan," and the character thus designated employs his supernatural faculties to tempt man and thwart the purposes of God. Cf. EB. (Gray), art. Satan; Smend, AR., 431/.; Marti, SK., 1892, 207/.; Toy, JBL., Lx, 17/.* The Adversary of this vision is certainly not the malicious power just described. He is more nearly akin to Job's tormentor, but, as will appear, he be- longs to another period and performs a different function. The prophet describes him as standing on Joshua's right hand to accuse him. There does not seem to be any special significance in the mention of the right hand. The Hebrews frequently used right hand in parallelism with (Ps. 21^*''"* 89"''^^ iSQ^**? etc.), or as the equivalent of, unmodified hand. Cf. Ps. 45^''' 48"/*" 66^^% etc. Hence it is best to interpret at his right hand here as only a more definite and pictorial way of saying at his side. It is clearly so used in Ps. 109^^ where Yahweh is represented as standing "at the right hand of the needy" to defend him. 2. The prophet does not go into unnecessary details. He notes the positions of the parties, and leads one to expect that the next thing ^\^ll be the complaint; but he does not even state that the com- plaint was brought, much less recite the offence or offences of which the high priest was accused. Indeed, he seems to have intended to convey the idea that the Adversary was interrupted, not, as in the received text, by Yahweh, but by the angel of Yahweh, as he was about to present his case. This interpretation certainly har- monises with the tone and apparent intent of the vision as a whole. In any case, the angel of Yahweh silences the Adversary with an indignant objurgation, Yahweh rebuke thee, which furnishes an- other example of the care the Hebrews sometimes took to dis- tinguish between Yahweh and the angel of his presence. Cf. * An idea of the change that had taken place in the views of the Jews on the subject of evil may be obtained by comparing i Ch. 21' with the parallel passage 2 S. 24', where it is not Satan, but Yahweh, who incites David to number Israel. Wright cites Ps. 100* as another in- stance of the use of j-JU' as a proper name; but the parallelism shows that it is there a synonym for pu'"^, Wicked. For a still more complete doctrine concerning Satan, see Jude ' Rev. 12'^-, in both of which passages there is evident allusion to the scene here described. 150 ZECHARTAH :''' 2^/v°. The ground of the indignation expressed is found in a mixture of two sentiments that have already shown themselves. The first reappears in connection with the repetition of the just quoted words, where Yahweh is described as the one who delighleth in Jerusalem. In other words, it is the partiality for the Judean capital asserted in i". The other betrays itself in the question, Is not this a brand plucked from the fire? The figure is borrowed from Amos (4"), who used it of the remnant of Israel after one of Yahweh's destructive visitations. The Jewish exegetes find here an allusion to the miraculous escape of the high priest from a fur- nace into which he and the false prophets Ahab and Zedekiah had been cast by Sennacherib (sic) ; but there is no ground for believing that he ever had any such experience.* It is probable that the high priest here represents the survivors from the over- throw of Judah, and that the question put into the mouth of the angel of Yahweh, like the declaration of i*^, is an expression of sympathy with them in their excessive suiTering. It is as if he had said, "Hath he not already suffered beyond his desert?" Cf. Is. 40^.j- — 3. Meanwhile Joshua, clothed in filthy garments, was stand- ing before the angel of Yahweh. The filthy garments signify, not grief, but iniquity, as the nature of the figure would lead one to expect and an explanatory gloss in the next verse expressly teaches. The guilt thus symbolised has been supposed to be that of the high priest himself as an individual or an official ;| but if, as has been shown, he here represents the Jewish peoj^le, or at least the Judean community, the garments he wears must be interpreted as setting forth the character and condition of those represented. It is therefore safe to conclude that the prophet in this vision intended to represent Judah as still, in spite of the penalties endured, guilty before God, and so evidently guilty that, as the high priest's silence * For the details of the story, see Wright, si /• t The likeness of the part here taken by the angel of Yahweh to that assigned to Michael in Dn. lo''- ^i 12' naturally led to their early identification. Cj. Rev. 12'". Of the later com- mentators Wright has adopted this view. There is, indeed, a relation between the two figures, but it is not one of identity; the truth being that Michael represents a later development than the angel of Yahweh, and a further differentiation and personification of the powers and attributes by which the Deity was brought into a helpful relation with man. Cj. DB., art Michael. X The Targum says that Joshua "had sons who took to themselves wives unfit for the priest- h'xxl." would suggest, an express accusation was unnecessary and a suc- cessful defence impossible. What, then, are the function and sig- nificance of the Adversary? The answer to this question must be inferred from the attitude of the angel of Yahweh toward him in his relation to Joshua. Now, in v. ^ the angel of Yahweh is clearly depicted as the protector of the high priest against the Ad- versary, an attitude that can best be explained by supposing that the function of the latter, in the mind of the prophet, was not to prove so much as to recall the iniquity of the former and insist upon the infliction of the appropriate penalty. In other words, he represents, not, as Marti claims, the doubt and hesitation with ref- erence to the possibility of the restoration of Judah current among the people, but the justice of Yahweh as contrasted with his mercy. The reproof of the Adversary by the angel of Yahweh signifies the triumph of the milder attribute, that is, that Yahweh has deter- mined to save his people, because they are his people and their suf- ferings appeal to his sympathy, by an act of grace in spite of their unworthiness. CJ. Ho. ii^ Mi. 7^^- Is. 43^ ^•. It is from this standpoint that the vision becomes, on the one hand, a rebuke to the sceptics of Zechariah's day, and, on the other, a solace for those who, much as they had suffered and were suffering, as they felt, under the divine displeasure, had retained their faith in Yahweh and still cherished an ardent hope that he would speedily forgive their iniquities and rescue them from destruction. 4. The angel of Yahweh, having silenced the Adversary, turns to those standing before him, — not, as Blayney explains, the fol- lowers of the high priest, but the other members of the heavenly train, — and commands them to remove from Joshua the filthy gar- ments, the sign and symbol of the people's unworthiness, and clothe him in robes of state befitting his office as the religious head and representative of a chosen people. In the Massoretic text these two commands are separated by an interpretative passage, which, however, as has already been noted, is evidently a gloss. It betrays its origin by the disturbance it creates in the order of thought. The interpolated statement, See, I have caused thy in- iquity to pass from thee, may have been intended to mean that the iniquity was personal. This is the opinion represented by the 152 ZECHARIAH Targum, which substitutes for a translation of the Hebrew original a command to the attendants to direct Joshua to "bring forth the wives unfit for the priesthood," that is, unfit to be the wives of priests, "from his house." This interpretation seems to have been suggested by Ezr. lo^* ^■, but, if it is correct, since the passage thus paraphrased is a gloss, it only shows how greatly Zechariah was misunderstood. — 5. The angel of Yahweh finally commands his attendants to put a clean turban on his head. In v. ^, where the appearance of Joshua is described, there was no reference to a turban, but the use of the word clean here shows that the prophet did not intend to represent him as without a head-dress. The one named,* which is mentioned only five times in the Old Testament, was worn, not only by priests, but by other persons of rank or wealth, women as well as men. Cf. Is. 3^^ 62^. In Exodus the head-dress of the high priest, which, since it had a related name,-j- must have been of a similar form, is described as made of fine linen and ornamented with an inscribed plate of gold. CJ. Ex. 2^28. 30 f._ 'pj^g j.ggj q£ ij^g verse describes the fulfilment of the last two commands. In the Massoretic text the order of fulfil- ment is the reverse of that in which the commands were given; but in the Greek it is the same, and it is more than probable that Zech- ariah wrote that they clothed him in goodly garments and put a clean turban upon his head. The adjective goodly is not in the text, but it is required to distinguish the garments now put upon the priest from those that had been removed, and may therefore properly be supplied. It is to be noted that there is nothing to indicate that the garments in which Joshua has been arrayed are official robes, as Drusius and others have held. The emphasis is all on the fact that they are clean, and, as such, signify that Yahweh has for his own sake, "independently of any sacrifice or offering whatever" (Ston- ard), at last blotted out all the transgressions of his people. The account of the ceremony might have ended with the words last quoted; but the prophet, for the purpose of giving the scene a more vivid reality, adds that, while the attendants were reclothing Joshua, the angel of Yahweh stood by to see that his commands were obeyed. Cf. Gn. 18" Ju. if''. * I^JX. t PDJXD. 3''" 153 1. 'jN-i-i] Add, with CS "B, ^^^\ as in i-" 2^. It will then be im- possible to make the mistake of supposing, as Blayney, Henderson and others have done, that the subject of the verb is the interpreter. The in- terpreter explained, but he did not produce, visions. — UK!!:''?] On the vocal- isation (i), cf. Ges. i «'• > R- '.—2. mn^i] Rd., with &, nin^ ^^^SD. So We., Now., Marti, Kit. — 3. 'ji j?t'inii] A circumstantial clause. Cf. Ges. % "2- » '*) i^- >.— in'-ch] Rd., with inSc. — 4. ]y>^] & adds, for the sake of definiteness, ^jll^. — V'S — i-Xm] A good reason for suspecting the genuineness of these words has already been given in the comments. The truth is that they disturb the connection of thought to such a degree that the situation can easily be made to appear ridiculous; for Joshua is left standing unclothed, not only while the angel of Yahweh makes this explanation, but until the prophet himself has suggested the addition of a turban to his new apparel. Omit this passage, and the rest of the verse can easily be brought into harmony with itself and the context. The final clause, which has been adapted to the gloss, must still be emended, for it also, as appears from v. ^, was originally ad- dressed to the attendants. This can easily be done with the help of (5, which reads, Kal ivStJo-are avTt>v, i. e., int< ir'^aSni. So also 51. Most mss. of (6 om. T'S'", but L has air6 i, but iD-'U'i, without doubt the original reading. So also H. The removal of ncNi, a corruption of ionm, which was inserted to bring the discourse back to the direction of the attend- ants, makes the following clause, emended as above, a continuation of V. *, to which it should be attached. — iina] We. regards the word as superfluous; but the omission of it would affect the meaning of the vision, reducing the emphasis on the previous impurity of the high priest. — Dnja — iD^tTM] The order of fulfilment, as here described, is unnatural as well as inconsistent with that of the commands given. In (S^Q the ar- rangement is reversed, and the excellence of the Greek readings through- out this paragraph speaks strongly for this one. — a^'ija] Add, with &, D'ai:3, or, with We., amn^. — ^SJ'] We., et al., point this word as a pf. and connect the whole clause to which it belongs with v. «. This method of disposing of the clause, however, is certainly mistaken, (i) The vb. nay is very rare in the sense of auftreten, which these scholars give to it. Cf. BDB. (2) The thought that they find in the sentence, if this verb were employed, would have been expressed by nin^ ^n'^d icyi. (3) If, 154 , ZECHARIAH however, for the sake of emphasis Zc. had adopted the present arrange- ment, he would hardly have repeated the subject — which We. and Now. suppress — in the following sentence. (4) ^ (S have the participial con- struction, (5) It is a common one, and there are several cases with the prtc. of ncj;. Cf. Gn. 18" 1 K. 8'* i3«. Of these objections (2) and (5) hold against van H., who attaches v. ■""* to the end of this verse. See above. (b) The charge (vv. ^^*'). The angel of Yahweh, addressing Joshua, promises him personally, on condition of loyalty, an ex- alted position, and his people forgiveness and prosperity. 6. The symbolical ceremony completed, the angel of Yahweh turns to Joshua and speaks to him for the first time. The prophet says he charged him, that is, addressed him in the solemn manner and language befitting the occasion. Cf. Dt. 8'", etc. This ex- pression in itself would lead one to expect an utterance having a personal rather than a symbolical significance. — 7. This expecta- tion is fulfilled. It does not, hovv^ever, at first appear that the lan- guage used has a personal application. The first condition, for example, if thou go in my ways, is one that might be required of any Jev;^, and therefore of the whole people. Nor is the second, if thou keep my charge, really more explicit; for, although the word charge oftenest denotes the office or fimction of the priest, it is also used in the sense of a behest laid upon others by the Deity (Gn. 26'' Nu. ^19. 23 j^^_ 18^*^, etc.), and the relation between the two conditions requires that it should have the latter meaning in the present in- stance. There is thus far, then, no certain indication that Joshua has ceased to be a symbolical figure and resumed his ])ersonal char- acter. The conclusion, however, removes all uncertainty, for the promise it contains is one personal to him as the high priest. If he is loyal to Yahweh, the God of his fathers, and careful to obey all the divine precepts, this is his reward: thou shalt rule my house and keep my courts. The house, of course, is the tem{)le, now being rebuilt, and the courts the enclosures by which, when completed, it will be surrounded. The declaration here made, therefore, amounts to a charter granting to Joshua and his successors a sole and complete control in matters of religion never before enjoyed by the head of the hierarchy at Jerusalem. Cf. i K. 2-'^ 2 K. 16'" ^- 3-"" 155 22'*^-; Benz., Arch., 410. In fact, it is an advance upon the pro- gram of Ezekiel (45) in the direction of the priestly legislation of the Pentateuch.* It should be noted, however, that the high priest's jurisdiction is here confined to the temple and its precincts. — To this grant of authority is added another promise of great sig- nificance to the community. The passage has been variously un- derstood. In the great versions it is rendered as if it referred to descendants of the high priest. f It has also been interpreted as a promise that Joshua himself shall be given angelic guides to direct and defend him J or messengers to keep him in communication with heaven. § There are, however, reasons, which will appear, why all these interpretations must be rejected and the clause be trans- lated / will give thee access among those that stand here. But who are the persons meant? and when shall the high priest enjoy access among them? The first question seems to be answered by v. *, where, as has been shown, angels are intended. In reply to the second it has been taught that the prophet here has in mind the future life.** Zechariah, however, nowhere else presents any such motive for faithfulness. Hence the chances are that, as most mod- ern exegetes agree, in this case it is the privilege of direct and im- mediate commimion with Yahweh with which he is dealing. This is a privilege not granted all men (Je. 30^^), but it may fitly be ac- corded to a faithful high priest. It is also one that has great sig- nificance for the community, as will appear later in the paragraph. Cf. V. ^. — 8. At this point the prophet returns to the symbolic method. Yahweh, addressing the high priest, says Thou and thy fellows that sit before thee are men of omen. There can be no doubt that the persons here called the fellows, or companions, of Joshua are his associates in the priesthood. The only question is whether Zechariah thought of them as present in his vision. It has some- times been answered in the affirmative, |f but the description given is certainly calculated to produce the impression that the high * a. Ex. 2829 f. Nu. 27'8 «•; Benz., Arch., 318 /., 422 /.; WRS.o"C2.^ 445 /. t Thus ®, / will give thee those moving among them that stand by ; which Theod. Mops. explains as meaning that Yahweh will permit Joshua to transmit the honour conferred upon him to successors. Similarly H &. X So Cyr., Lu., Grot., Ston., Hd., el al. § Baumgarten. ** So OJ, Ra., Ki., Pern., Dru., Marck, Lowth, Pu., cl al. tt So Lowth, Hi., Ew., Brd., van H., el al. 156 ZECHARIAH priest is a solitary and peculiarly pathetic figure. His associates are mentioned here because they are a part of the priesthood which he primarily represents. On the expression sit before, see 2 K. 6*. The description of the priests as men of omen recalls a saying of Isaiah, "I and the children that Yahweh hath given me are signs and tokens in Israel." Now, Isaiah in this passage doubtless re- ferred to the names he and his children bore, and their significance. There is no means of learning the names of Joshua's friends. Some, if not many, of them must have had names expressive of faith in God and hope for their people. That of the high priest himself, according to the current interpretation of it, Yahweh is help, was practically the equivalent of Isaiah; a fact which in itself was sufficient to suggest to Zechariah an imitation of his great predecessor.* In any case, the idea seems to be that these men, the priests as a class, are prophetic of good to the community they are serving. This thought was not developed as it might have been by Zechariah. A reader of a later time, feeling that it was incom- plete, and not taking pains to examine the context, to see if he under- stood the drift of the passage, added, as a gloss, /or (or that) I will bring my servant Shoot.'\ This is Marti's explanation of the ap- pearance of the Shoot in this connection ; and there are good rea- sons for accepting it. In the first place, as Marti says, for Zecha- riah the Shoot is Zerubbabel. This, as will appear, was the original teaching of 6*^, which has been recast to make it a prediction of the elevation of Joshua. But Zerubbabel was already in Jerusalem; had, in fact, for two months been actively engaged in the restora- tion of the temple. It was therefore impossible for Zechariah to speak of him as yet to be brought thither by Yahweh. Indeed, — and this is a second point, — there is no place for him in this con- nection. The prophet is here dealing with the priesthood and its significance. The Shoot represents political power and glory. Cf. 6*'. — 9. The omission of the disturbing clause leaves Joshua in the centre of the scene. To him Yahweh now directs especial attention. Lo, he says, the stone that I have delivered to Joshua. *C/. alsoEz. i2«" 24^- «. t The word nsx, here translated Shnol, is incorrectly rendered avaroXri in (S, and oriens in B; whence the "Dayspring" of Lu. i". 3"-" 157 The opinions with reference to this stone have been many and vari- ous. It has been interpreted as meaning material for the new temple,* the corner-stonef or the topstonej of the edifice, the plum- met of 4^",! a precious stone for the prince,** or a number of such stones for the high priest. f-j- To the first four of these interpreta- tions there is the common objection that, according to 4'- ® ^^ it is Zerubbabel, not Joshua, under whose direction the temple is to be erected, and that therefore it would be inconsistent for Zechariah to represent Joshua as receiving material for the structure or a plummet by which to build it. In considering the second and the third it should also be remembered that the comer-stone had al- ready been laid, and the topstone was not to be put into place until a long time after the date of this vision. An additional objection to the fourth is that the stone in question is to be engraved. The key to the prophet's meaning seems to be in the parenthetical clause rendered in AV. upon one stone shall be (RV. are) seven eyes. But the "eye" of a stone, according to Ez. i^^- ^^, is the gleam from it, and, since a gleam can only come from a precious stone, and seven gleams from as many facets of such a stone, the stone in question must have been a single stone with seven facets. This is the in- terpretation proposed by Wellhausen, but he sees in the stone an ornament for Zerubbabel. Cf. 6^^^-. To the latter feature there are strong objections: (i) it destroys the unity of the paragraph ; and (2) renders the final clause of this verse unintelligible, there being no discoverable connection between the stone, or the name of Zerubbabel, which, according to Wellhausen, was to have been en- graved on it, and the promise, / will remove the iniquity of that land. It is much better to regard the stone as an ornament for the cos- tume of the high priest, for the following reasons: (i) The para- graph thus acquires the desired and expected unity. (2) The next clause, / will grave its inscription, becomes especially significant. The word rendered graveXX is used almost exclusively of engraving on precious stones. In Ex. 28, where the costume of the high * So Stah., Lowe. t So Ra., Ki., Marck, Ston., The!., Rosenm., Hi., Pres., Hd., Wri., el al. X Lowth, Mau., Ew., Burger, Stei., Per., Marti, et al. § AE., Ki. (alt.), Grot. ** We., Now. ft Bredenkamp. %t nriD. 158 ZECHARIAH priest is described, mention is made of no fewer than fourteen en- graved stones, two for the shoulders (v. ®), and twelve for the breastplate (v. ^^), of the ephod. Now, while it would be unsafe to claim that this chapter describes the ornamentation of the ephod before the Exile, there seems to be reason for supposing that it is reliable so far as the character of the ornamentation of the cos- tume of the chief priest is concerned; in other words, that the head of the priesthood then and afterward actually wore an engraved stone (or stones) on his vestments. (3) The promise already quoted becomes intelligible. On this point, also, the descrip- tion of Ex. 28 is helpful. In v. ^® of that chapter Moses is directed to "make a i)late of pure gold, and grave upon it . . . Holy to Yahweh." There follows (v. ^*) an explanation in which Yahweh says that Aaron shall wear this plate on his forehead in token that he bears "the iniquity of the holy things" offered by his people, "that they (the people) may be accepted before Yahweh." Here, again, it would doubtless be too much to say that the law attrib- uted to Moses reflects the practice even of the time of Zechariah ; — the plate of gold seems to forbid such an assumption ; — but, if this law, like others in the Pentateuch, is the outcome of the devel- opment of the Hebrew ritual, one must suppose that at that date the idea embodied in the law had found more or less adequate ex- pression, and admit the possibility that it is the idea of Zechariah in the passage now under consideration. Sellin (Stud., ii, 78 jf.) cites as a parallel to this vision the record of the in- stallation of a priest of Nebo at Borsippa. It is found in a black stone tablet, 6x8^ in. in dimensions, containing an inscription of a hundred lines. This inscription is to the effect that the goddess Nana and the god Ae have, in their good pleasure, inducted Nabu-mutakkil, son of Aplu-etir, into the sanctuary of Nebo at Borsippa, and granted him a share in the revenues of the temple of Ezida, and, "that the appointment may not be contested, have sealed the same and delivered it to him forever." Sellin further reports that there arc engraved on the tablet the figures of the gods who protect the same from vio- lation, and, among these pictures, " in the middle of the narrow upper edge, the seven eyes, evidently a representation of the seven planets, including the moon and the sun." He concludes that in this tablet "we ourselves have a stone with seven eyes similar to that which Zechariah in the vision saw delivered to Joshua." The tablet is published in Mittheilimgen der deutschen Orient-Gesell- schafl, Jan. -Mar., 1900. There can be little doubt that the figures described were intended to represent seven heavenly bodies, but they are not in the shape of eyes, the first being plainly a circle and the third a star inscribed in a circle. 3"-" 159 It is hardly safe, therefore, to identify them with the eyes Zechariah had in mind, especially since, as the next clause implies, the stone in question was yet to be engraved. On the supposition that the stone delivered to Joshua was in- tended for the ornamentation of his ofScial costume, there are one or two other points that should be mentioned. In the first place, the inscription on the stone would hardly be the name of either of the Jewish leaders, but the name of Yahweh, or the "Holy to Yahweh" of later times, or something similarly appropriate. Note, however, secondly, that, while the stone has been provided, it seems, when delivered, not to have been engraved ; which prob- ably means that, although Joshua is the chosen head of the relig- ious establishment at Jerusalem, he has not entered into complete possession of his office, for the reason that there is as yet no temple to Yahweh, Meanwhile, — and this would be a strong argument for the speedy completion of the sanctuary, — the land was still suf- fering for its iniquity. Cf. Hg. i^ 2". When the temple is fin- ished the curse can, and will, be removed in one day. — 10. The iniquity of the land is, of course, the iniquity of the people who in- habit it, inherited in part from their fathers and augmented by their o\vn neglect of the obvious duty of rebuilding the temple, on account of which the land was cursed with drought and unfruit- fulness. Cf. 8^". When the people, in response to the appeal of Haggai, laid the foundation of the new structure, he promised them the favour of Yahweh. Cf. Hg. 2^^. Zechariah repeats this promise in 8'^ ^•. He could not, however, guarantee the entire removal of their guilt until the sanctuary was completed. On tJiat day, that is, from that day onward, they may expect the continu- ous blessing of Yahweh. The Hebrews pictured this happy con- dition as one in which every one would sit "under his own vine and fig tree." Cf. i K. 4'^ Mi. 4^. Zechariah enlarges the figure by adding a touch which shows that, as will later become more apparent, he was as much interested in the social as in the eco- nomic condition of the community. In the good time coming he says his people will invite every one his neighbour ufider the vine and under the fig tree. This idyllic condition is more fully de- scribed in ch. 8, l6o ZECHARIAH A good example of the method used by the older commentators is seen in Stonard's note on this verse, in which he finds an intimation of "the strenu- ous endeavours of the apostles and other primitive Christians to convert the heathen world. . . . They are here figured, while resting in the tranquillity and plenteousness of evangelical peace and blessing, as calling to all the way- faring men who needed such refreshment in the journey through life to par- take with them in their ease and comfort in the meat and drink that endure unto everlasting life." 7. riN^i] g>-^ om. — The accentuation requires that the ajwdosis of the conditional sentence begin with \irji. This is in harmony with the Jewish interpretation of the verse, according to which the final clause is a promise for the future life. So Ki.; also Or., who, since he does not fol- low the Jewish interpretation, should, with B # and most modern exe- getes, place the main pause after the first lou'.i. i ^•i!< are pendent subjects and the antecedents of n::<7^. This pronoun should properly be in the 2d pers., — and & has this reading, — but the use of the third for the second is sufficiently attested to warrant its retention in this instance. Cf. Mi. 1= 3', but especially Zp. 2"; Ko. §"'«■''; Dr. ^ "'• °''^- '. — ncx — •<3']. On the genuineness of this clause, see the comments. It is interesting, in view of the rendering given to nnx in ^ CB &, that the root from which it comes in Syr. means shine. 21 simply substitutes Nn^rs. On the accentuation of the word, see Ges. h "• * '"> ^■. — 9. The accentuation makes v." a compound nom- inal sentence, and it has oftenest been so treated. So the Vrss., Dru., de D , Marck, Hd., Koh., Wri., et al. If, however, the seven eyes are seven facets, as above argued, the mention of them is of so little impor- .i-6aa. iob-14 rfir tance in comparison witli the announcement that follows, that it should be thrown into a parenthesis. So New., Ew., Ke., Pres., Or., We., Now., Marti, ei al. The absence of the connective before 'jjn favours this arrangement. — o^j^y] The du. for the pi. Cf. Ges. % «8- «• ^- On the gender, see Ges. ^ '2''- ^- ''">. Here it seems to be masc; also 4'". — ^nrci] Oi, nal i/'T?\a as if from K'tt'a, touch, examine. — ]1>'] ^ prefixes -waaav = S3. — nnx] &, ©oi = Ninn. — 10. Ninn ora] This expression seems to Marti to betray a late hand ; but it was common in the literature with which Zechariah was familiar. Cf. Is. 4' Je. 4' Ez. 24-'. Moreover, it introduces a description of the good time fore- seen entirely in accord with ideas of Zechariah. Cf. 8''. (2) THE SYMBOLICAL CANDELABRUM (4**^^"' ^^^^*). The fourth chapter, in its present arrangement, does not admit of analysis, but, if vv. ^^^-i"- ^^ i^g removed, there remains a simple and coherent account of the fifth of Zechariah's visions. In it he sees a lamp with seven lights, flanked by two olive trees, and re- ceives from his attendant an interpretation of the things thus pre- sented. 1 . The prophet gives his readers to understand that there was an interval between the fourth vision and the one about to be de- scribed, during which he fell into a state of unconsciousness to his surroundings. This seems to have been the case, also, to some extent, after each of the first three visions; for, it will be remem- bered, he had to concentrate his attention upon, or have it directed toward, each new vision. Cf. 2^- ^- ' 3^ The terms here used confirm one in such an inference. Then, he says, the angel tlmt was speaking with me again (lit., returned and) roused me, that is, for a second, if not for a fourth time. Not that he was asleep, as Aben Ezra and others explain ; the comparison he employs, like a tnan that is roused from sleep, forbids such an interpretation. Per- haps he would have said that he had fallen into a reverie over the things previously revealed. Be that as it may, he was thoroughly alert, as his questions are calculated to show, when the interpreter addressed him. — 2. In the preceding visions the prophet, when he has spoken at all, has opened the conversation. This time the interpreter is represented as stimulating his curiosity by asking, l62 ZECHARIAH Wliat seest thou? In reply the prophet describes a tamp, or, more precisely, a candelabrum. It is all gold and has a bowl for oil at its top, that is, at the top of the upright shaft that supports the whole structure. There are seven lights on it. The prophet does not say how these lights are arranged, but it is clear that they could not have been placed in a single row, like those of the candelabrum described in Ex. 25^^ ^-j without crowding the bowl out of position.* The simplest and most natural arrangement would be that in a circle about the bowl, on arms of equal length branching at regu- lar intervals from the central shaft, and this is probably the one that the prophet had in mind, since he seems to have thought of the lamp as shedding its rays, not, like that of the tabernacle, in only one direction, but toward all the points of the compass. Cf. V. ^"^ Ex. 40^^ The lights themselves must have been very simple, — small, shallow vessels of the shell shape still seen in Palestine, — with a more or less developed lip at the narrower, outer end, from which the vidck projected. The lights of the candelabrum of the taber- nacle were individual receptacles for the oil they burned. The one that Zechariah saw had seven pipes for the bowl at its top, by which this reservoir was connected with the seven encircling lights, and these pipes were independent of the arms on which the lights were supported. — 3. Finally, there were two olive trees by it, not, as in the Massoretic text, by the bowl, for the purpose of supplying it with oil, as the later author who inserted v. '^ also teaches, — an interpretation forbidden by w. ^°''- ", — but, as in v. ", by the candelabrum, one on the right of the lamp, and 07ie on the left of it. It does not appear whether these trees, also, were made of gold or not. In any case, they were probably but diminutive images of the things they were intended to represent; for it would not have done to make them overtop the candelabrum, as they do in Wright's picture. Cf. v. ". 4. The vision, as just explained, makes a simple and intelligible picture. The object of the prophet, however, was not to enter- tain, but to instruct. Hence he represents himself as saying to the interpreter, Sir, what are these? not the olive trees only, but the various features of the vision. What do they mean ? — 5. Hith- * See Wright, who places the bowl on aa arm extending backward from the top of the shaft. erto the interpreter has always responded at once to the prophet's desire for information. This time he delays his answer, thus in- creasing the suspense, by himself asking a question which perhaps implies that the prophet should have been able to discover the meaning of the vision without assistance, Knowest thou not what these are? But the prophet protests his ignorance. — 6*'^. Then he, the interpreter, answered and said. These words should in- troduce the explanation desired by the prophet. What follows is not such an explanation. In fact, it has no apparent connection with the vision, but is a more direct and explicit message on a dif- ferent subject, received under entirely different conditions. On the first point note the expression, "the word of Yahweh came to me," in v. ^, which is regularly used to introduce messages outside the \nsions. Cf. 6® 7^ 8^- ^^. On the second observe that, while this vision was evidently intended to strengthen the hands of both the governor and the high priest, in vv. ^^^-loa j-j^g former com- pletely eclipses the latter. On the omitted verses, see pp. 190 ff. — 10b. The reply of the interpreter is not lost. It is contained, as was suggested at the beginning of the chapter, in the latter half of this verse in the words, These seven are the eyes of Yahweh wan- dering through the earth. The seven to which the interpreter re- fers are, of course, the seven lights on the candelabrum. They take the place of the horsemen on "horses bay, chestnut and white" "sent to traverse the earth," that appear in the first vision, i^*^-, symbolising, like them, the omniscience of Yahweh. Philo i}Vho is the heir of divine things? xlv.) and Josephus {Ant., iii, 6, 7; 7, 7; Wars, V, 5, 5) saw in the lights of the candelabrum in the temple symbols of the planets, including the sun and the moon. Gunkel and others adopt this view, finding here another instance of the same symbolism and in both evidence of the dependence of the Hebrews on the Babylonians* The difference between them, they say, reflects a variation, otherwise well attested, in the rank of the planets in the Babylonian system ; the sun sometimes being placed in the middle, and sometimes at the beginning, of the list.f Now, it may well be that the candelabrum with seven branches had its origin as a symbolical representation of the planets in Baby- * Gunkel, Schdpjung unci Chaos, 130. t Ibid., 127. 1 64 ZECHARIAH Ionia, — the fact that it did not appear among the Hebrews until after the Exile* seems to favour that opinion; — but it does not by any means follow that, when they borrowed it, they adopted with it the ideas that it had previously represented. A hint of the con- trary may be found in the place they gave it in the temple, among the furniture of the ante-chamber of their Deity. Cj. Ex. 40^^^-. Note, also, that Zechariah's candelabrum represents, not a multi- ple subject, but a single personality in the manifold exercise of one of his attributes. It is therefore probable that, if the prophet was conscious of using a symbol for the planets, he thought of them as objects or powers subordinate to, and dependent on, Yahweh, the God of Gods. He certainly gives no hint of their rank as re- lated to one another, for, as has been shown, he must have thought of the lights as forming, not, as Gunkel seems to suppose, a single line, but a circle about the main shaft. 11. The interpreter has thus far confined himself to the candela- brum. The olive trees on either side of it remain to be explained. The prophet therefore asks. What are these two olive trees on the right of the lamp and on the left? — ^12. A reply should follow at once, as in the case of the first question, even if the desired in- formation be delayed. In its place the Massoretic text has a sec- ond question by the prophet containing elements not in the de- scription of vv. ^ ^•. In the first place, there are two branches of the olive trees to which special attention is directed. The intro- duction of this detail, in itself, is enough to excite suspicion with reference to the genuineness of the passage. This suspicion is confirmed by the evident divergence in thought between it and the context. The interpolation seems to have been suggested by a mistake concerning the olive trees. In v. " they are called "sons of oil." The author of this verse, either ignoring the prophet's own explanation, or misunderstanding it, apparently took these trees for the sources of the oil for the lights of the candelabrum. Then, seeing that there was no connection between them and the lamp, he remedied this supposed oversight by describing two branches, one from each of the trees, as field by, lit., in the hand of, • In Solomon's temple the Holy Place was lighted hy ten separate and independent lamps. CI. I K. 7". ^l-6aa. lOb.U j5^ the two golden spouts that discharge into the golden howl. The re- sult is a completely automatic contrivance which probably seemed to the glossator a great improvement on the original, but which, as will appear, really reverses the thought that Zechariah intended to illustrate. — 13. This verse is the proper and natural continua- tion of V. ", corresponding, except in the introductory clause, to V. ^. On the text, see the critical notes. — 14. The prophet hav- ing again protested his ignorance, the interpreter proceeds to ex- plain the significance of the two olive trees. These trees, then, are symbolical, as well as the lamp. The interpreter says, literally, that they are sons of oil. This expression belongs to a class of orientalisms frequent in the Bible. See "son of might," i K. 14^^, "sons of tumult," Je. 48^^, etc. In these cases the person or thing in question is conceived as an example of the state or quality de- noted by the dependent noun, the "son of might" being simply a mighty man, etc. In Is. 5* a hill is called a "son of fatness," doubtless because it was peculiarly fertile. The phrase sons of oil, therefore, would naturally mean producers of oil; but a He- brew could use it of any thing or person with which or whom oil was associated in his mind. In this case it refers to persons con- secrated, as kings and priests were among the Hebrews, to the exe- cution of high functions by being anointed with oil. The inter- preter does not tell Zechariah who these two anointed ones are, but the prophet had no difficulty in identifying them. Nor has the modern reader. The fact that there are two immediately sug- gests the names of Zerubbabel, the hereditary prince, and Joshua, the hereditary high priest, both of whom had been, or were to be, anointed for their offices.* The descriptive clause, also, fits them, for in 3^, it will be remembered, Joshua was promised access to the immediate presence of Yahweh, and certainly Zechariah did not regard Zerubabbel as any less worthy of the divine favour. Cf. vv. ''• ^ Hg. 2^^. The olive trees, then, symbolise the associated leaders, and their position on either side of the lamp with its seven lights means that they enjoy the special favour, protection and * Mention should be made of the interpretation adopted by Baumgarten and a few others, according to which these two sons of oil are the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, since it ap- pears to be the basis of the allusion to the olive trees in Rev. ii'^-. l66 ZECHARTAH assistance of Yahweh, to whom is here ascribed omnipotence as well as omniscience. The effect of such teaching can easily be imagined. It must have greatly encouraged the leaders themselves and greatly increased their influence with their followers, thus doubly affecting the enterprise then in progress, the restoration of the national sanctuary. 1. ar^] On the adverbial use of this vb., see Ges. 5 "o- « (a), — 2. icn^i] So (B'^Q. An evident mistake. Qr., with a multitude of mss., ncNi. So (gNBi -j^ ^ 2J_ — muD] The constr. before a dependent nominal sentence. Cf. Ges. ^ ''<• (^). — nSj] This form has been derived from a hypothetical Sj = n'jj. So Ki., Mau., Ke., Hd., et al.; but, since "^i does not occur, and nhi does, not only in v. ^, but in Ec. 126, it is more than probable that a form of the latter was intended. The fact that (§ g> neglect the sf., which, moreover, is not essential, favours the conjecture that the original read- ing was rhi. So Ew., We., Now., Marti, Kit., et al. Cf. Ges. ^ 91. i. k. 2^ On the other hand it should be noted that, while to the occidental ear the sf. sounds superfluous, the Hebrews, as a precisely similar passage (Ex. 253' ff) teaches, preferred to use it. It is therefore better, with U (T, to follow the Massoretic tradition that the prophet meant to say its bowl, but there is no reason for perpetuating the reading nSj, which is probably a scribal error for nnSj. — The adoption of the reading just suggested requires the retention of the sf. of n^nnj, which is reproduced in B 21, but neglected by 05 & and therefore omitted by modern critics. So We., Now., Marti, Kit. — It requires, also, that mpx>n be made defi- nite, i. e., that nip^cio nyari be changed to mpxiDn pari in accord- ance with the law for numerals. Cf. Ges. 5 "• '. — Thus far no essential change has been made in the text, but now it becomes necessary to do something with nyau'". This word has caused "great searchings of heart" among the commentators. Thus Koh. renders nyac'i nyar/owr- teen and explains this number as meaning that the lights were connected with the reservoir by seven of the pipes, one for each, and with one an- other by the other seven. This interpretation is rejected by Ke., who shows that, in 2 S. 21^" = 1 Ch. 2o», on which it is based, the numerals should be taken distributively. Ston. cites in support of it i K. 8", where, however, as appears from <5, and indeed from v. ", the words "and seven days, even fourteen days," are an addition to the original text. Ke. says that a lamp constructed on Koh.'s plan would be "a wonderful and useless contrivance," but what should be said of one with seven pipes from the central reservoir to each of the surrounding lights, as required by the critic's own exegesis? Yet this interpretation is adopted by Ra., Ki., Mau., Klie., Pu., Lowe, et al., and followed in RV. To avoid it Hi. omits ny3U'», and makes njjor* a predicate adj. after n^mj. So Wellhausen. This is, in itself, a permissible construction, but it is doubtful whether the prophet, if he meant to say what Hi. at- tributes to him, would have brought the numerals in the two clauses into so ambiguous proximity. This objection applies also to the view of Pres. , that nj;3B'2 is but an emphatic repetition of nyar'. A better method of emendation, and one by which such objections can be avoided, is, with C6 "B, to omit the second nyiU', leaving the first and third as attributives before their respective nouns. So Rib., AV., Dathe, Houb., Ew., Hd., Or., Reu., Now., Marti, Kit., van H., et al. New., following (gcomp. #, would insert the numeral before nnj; but this is forbidden, since r^■^i^, if the relative clause that follows is genuine, is an error for nSjS. — van H. inserts 7\'^i^ p after nnjS. — 3. nSjn r::^cj This can hardly be the original reading, which must have been either munn j>c^n or simply nrn^D. The change was probably made when v. '^ was inserted. — 4. IPNi] On the form, see Ges. ^^ "• * <6): vs. e. R. 3 co. (|^ /cai iirrjpuTijffa = Snu'xi.— 5. •'Sn] (gA om.; 2nS] & om. — 6a^-10a. The view that these verses are foreign to this connection, suggested by We., is adopted by Now., Marti, GASm., Sellin, Kit. All agree that the passage is from the hand of Zecha- riah, but Smith thinks it is somewhat earlier, Sellin that it is somewhat later, than the context. For details concerning the text, see pp. 193 /. — 10b. The punctuation of M makes nVx njrju' the subject of incB'i 1N-11, leaving the first clause of the verse without a proper apodosis. This division is rejected, not only by ® U &, but by ul and the leading Jewish commentators, who connect these words with what follows. So, also, Cal., Grot., Pem., Dathe, Lowth, New,, Theiner, Ew., We., Now., Marti, et al. — cociu-c] The change in the punctuation required by the sense makes this word an adverbial ace, which does not need the art. Cf. Nu. i627 I S. 2'8, etc.; Ges. ^ "s- 8 (6). — ^y;] Masc, as in 3'.— nin>] (Sfi om. — 12. li'Ni] Cf. v. *. — r'jr] An editorial device to introduce an addition to the text. — TC'-nn] The u raphe with the silent shewa. Cf. Jon. 4'i;Baer, Notes, 82; Ko. "■ ^o; t — >S3r] Fem., with a masc. termi- nation, while nnnjs is masc, with a fem. termination. a^p^-\D is there- fore properly construed by (5 & (U with the latter. — mi.-ijx] 05 iirap- v» «•, etc. X Cj. Je. 31" '■ Ez. i8> «■ Dt. 24". so far as the Jews are concerned, of an era of individualism. Com- pare van Hoonacker, who thinks the vision refers to the past. 1. 3iB\si] Cf. 4'. ^^ om. — rhxd\ 05, here and v. ', Spiiravop = Sjc; Aq. Q, Sicn); and that the consonants of the root from which both of these names are derived are found in the reverse order in Ashtoreth (mnB'J.*), Bab. Ishlar, the name of the most popular of the false divinities by whom the Hebrews were seduced from their al- legiance to Yahweh. Cf. i K. 11^ 2 K. 23" Je. 7" 44" "■. + So Theod. Mops., Theodoret, Ra., Rosenm., Wri., el al., who do not seem to have seen the ridiculousness of throwing such a mass of lead at so small a mark. t Neumann's comment on this passage is a good example of his florid style of exegesis. He says, "How full of surprising beauty is the thought in this simple picturel The women who go forth from the Lord to banish Godlessness raise themselves on bright pinions, wings full of love and kindness, wings that care for their own with loving faithfulness and with a devoted passion of inspired watchfulness." § So New., Mau., Brd., Or., et al, *♦ Tristram (NHB., 246 /.) seems to teach that the date at which the storks appear in Pal- estine is always in the latter part of March. This, however, is not correct. .\t any rate, in jpoj immense flocks of them passed over Jerusalem on the ninth of that month. 5"* '75 course, it is the woman rather than the measure in whose destina- tion he is interested. — 11. The interpreter does not, strictly speak- ing, answer the question put to him, but replies as if the prophet had asked, not whither, but why, the winged women were moving the one in the ephah, saying. To build for her a house. The proper interpretation of v. ^ sheds great light upon this passage, for, if Wickedness is the personification of idolatry, the house to be built is probably not an ordinary dwelling, but a temple more or less imposing. Now, it is an interesting fact that the Babylonians called their zikkurats, the towers of from three to seven stories which they erected in honour of their deities, houses. Thus, the one at Nippur they named "E-kur," the house of the mountain, the one at Aga.de, " E-an-dadia," the house reaching to heaven, the one at Babylon, '^ E-temen-an-ki," the house of the foundation of heaven and earth, etc.* These zikkurats were the most notice- able feature of the great cities. Cf. Gn. ii^^-. When, therefore, the interpreter adds that the house is to be built in the land of Shinar, the question naturally arises whether it is not to be one of these zikkurats. There certainly is nothing in the passage to forbid such an inference. — Finally, the interpreter says that when it, the house, is prepared, lit., set up, they, presumably the women, will deposit her, with the ephah in which she is now confined, there in her place, lit., upon her base. Here, perhaps, is an allusion to the little room or shrine, which stood on the platform at the top of the zikkurat.-\ There is nothing in the vision as above interpreted incongruous with the teaching of other and earlier Hebrew writers. The puri- fication of the Holy Land from idolatry, as has been noted, was predicted by Ezekiel. That the false deities should be deported, and not destroyed, is in harmony with the doctrine taught in Dt. ^19 2q25/26^ according to which the worship of other gods was per- missible in foreign countries. That their destination should be Babylonia is not surprising when one remembers how long the capital of that country had been the centre of the heathen world. Cf. Rev. 14^, etc. To be sure, Babylon had now lost her suprem- * Cf. Jastrow, RBA., 638 ff. t Cf. Jastrow, RBA., 621 /.; Peters, Nippur, ii, 122. 176 ZECHARIAH acy. Of this the prophet is perfectly aware. Hence he does not stop with the deportation of Wickedness, but adds another vision to the series. Compare van Hoonacker, who refers this vision also to the past. 5. nt] So (S'^^-aL ^H. ] Rd., with 05 &, dji;j. So Houb., New., Bla., Burger, Hi., Fiirst, Or., We., Now., Marti, Kit., etal. — 7. pnii] g> om. pnt. Rd. njni, with (& U, Dathe, New. and the later critics, or better, n"\x\ Cp. Ges. ^ '3«- 1^- 3- ''°'^ — nns] Not, as Ko., h w'^^ teaches, the equiv- alent of the indefinite art., but a numeral emphasising the solitariness of the subject. Cf. Gn. 22" Ex. id^, etc. — 8. ps] ^'-, rb rdXavrov = idd. — '^n] Better, with ^, H'- — "•''fl] It is impossible to tell by inspection whether the sf. refers to the ephah or the woman, but as already inti- mated, a little reflection ought to result in a decision for the former alter- native.— 9. Some mss. begin here a new section. — an^ajaa nm] This clause has all the marks of a gloss, (i) It interrupts the natural flow of thought. (2) It introduces an incidental reference to wings before the statement that the women were provided with them. (3) It betrays, in the masc. sf. of b.t'ojs, a more careless hand than that of the original au- thor, who takes pains to use the proper gender in referring to the women. Cf. ■ijnS. For these reasons it is best explained as a marginal gloss, suggested by Ez. i^o '■, which was inserted into the text by a thoughtless copyist. It would be less noticeable if it followed the next clause. — n-ijni] A mongrel form for which there is no reasonable defence. Rd., with (6 d, nn^jni. So Klo., Or., We., Now., Marti., Kit. — nnjsc] Elsewhere the word has i even in the pi. with sfs. (3) THE FOUR CHARIOTS (6*"^). In this, the eighth and last, vision the prophet sees four chariots, each with horses of a peculiar colour, equipped for the cardinal points, whither they are finally despatched. Especial attention is called to those that have gone northward, as having assuaged the spirit of Yahweh in that region. 1. When next the prophet lifts up his eyes he sees four chariots. The Hebrews did not have chariots in the earlier centuries of their history. Their country was so rough that they could not use them to advantage at home and they were not strong enough to venture on military expeditions beyond their own borders. Cf. Ju. i'^. When, however, they became united and powerful under David, they began to be more aggressive, and, coming in con- tact with peoples who used chariots, they added this feature to their equip- ment. Cf. 2 S. 8< I K. 10" ff.. The fact that chariots were almost exclusively used in war made them a symbol for strife and bloodshed. Is. 22" ^- Zc. 9*". The appearance of chariots in this vision, therefore, leads one to sus- pect that, to the Jews, it signified war and destruction for some of the neighbouring nations. The chariots are represented as com- ing forth from between (the) two mountains. Where these were, the prophet does not tell his readers. They can hardly have been Moriah, the temple hill, and the one either to the west* or the eastf of it, since he describes them as mountains of bronze. There is a hint of their location in vi ^, where the interpreter speaks of the chariots as coming forth from the presence of Yahweh. The natural inference from the two passages combined is that these mountains were ideal mountains in front of the abode of Yahweh. Cf 2"/^^. Perhaps, however, Zechariah gave them some such ap- * The one often incorrectly called Zion. So Dru., Marck, Mau., Pres., el al. t The Mount of Olives. So Ki., Pu., Wri., Brd., Or., el al. lyS ZECHARIAH pearance as that of the hills with which both he and his readers were familiar. So Marti. If the Greek reading, "mountains" for "myrtles," in i"- " is correct, the scene of the first vision was probably the same that is here described, and equally imaginary. The prophet seems here to be borrowing from a popular mythological rep- resentation according to which the approach to the dwelling of the Deity was guarded on either side by a brazen mountain. Had the brazen pillars, Jachin and Boaz, in front of Solomon's temple (i K. 7''' " ) any connection with these fabled mountains? It seems possible even if, as W. R. Smith {Sent., 468 _^.) maintains, these pillars were originally used as "altar candlesticks," like those in front of Phoenician sanctuaries. — 2 /. Each of the chariots was drawn by horses, probably, since this was the custom in Egypt and Assyria, two in number,* which differed in colour from all the others. The first had bay, the sec- ond black, the third ivhite and the fourth spotted (or speckled) horses. On the significance of these colours, see vv. ^' *•. There is no reference, here or elsewhere, to drivers for these horses. They, like the horsemen of the first vision, seem to be taken for granted. 4. The prophet makes the usual inquiry, Sir, what are these? — 5. The great Christian Vrss. agree in rendering the first words of the reply to this question, These are the four winds of heaven, and many of the commentators have adopted this translation,! citing Ps. 104^ in support of it. The passage cited, however, is not to the point. The P.salmist, it is true, says that Yahweh makes "winds his messengers," but the prophet employs the expression the four winds, which, with or without the addition of heaven, is a familiar designation for the cardinal points of the compass. Thus, in i Ch. 9'"'* the four winds are defined as "the east, west, north and south. See also Ez. 37" 42''° Dn. 8". There is only one i)assage outside this book in which it is used in any other sense, and that (Je. 49'"), being later than Zechariah,t was probably inlluenced by a mis- taken interpretation of this passage. There remains the paren- * .According to Jerome these teams were quadriga, but he probably had no better authority for this opinion than his Jewish teachers, who doubtless, like AE., got it from i K. 10", where the price of a chariot is that of four horses. t So Marck, Mau., Hi., Koh., Klie., Brd., Or., Reu., el al. t Giescbrecht. 6-» 17.9 thetical statement in 2^°^®, which, however, unless emended as sug- gested, must be pronounced another example of the same sort. The expression used, then, indicates that the prophet was not thinking of the winds themselves, much less of spirits,* but of the principal points from which the winds blow. This being the case, it is necessary to translate, with Kimchi, These to the four winds of heaven are going forth .\ This rendering is confirmed by other considerations, the most weighty of which is that, in the following verses, where the interpreter is evidently developing the statement here made, his language implies that the four winds are the four directions in which the chariots are going. Its adoption relieves the reader from the necessity of supposing that the prophet is here using figurative winds to explain imaginary chariots instead of making the chariots, or their drivers, agents of Yahweh correspond- ing to, but not identical with, the horsemen of the first vision. The prophet does not here give the destinations of the several chariots, but he informs the reader whence they have come. They are going forth from standing before, that is, from the presence of, the Lord of the whole earth; from whom they have received in- structions concerning their movements. They are now awaiting a command to depart, each on its mission. 6. In the preceding verse it was the chariots that were promi- nent. From this point onward it is, and necessarily, the horses; there being no way to distinguish the chariots except by the colours of the animals attached to them. Note also that the order in which the teams are mentioned is not the same as in w. 2 /. There the bay horses came first; here the black ones lead. There seems to have been no reason for the first arrangement, for the Hebrews had no stereotyped order for the points of the compass. Cf. Ez, 42^"^- I K. 7^ Nu. 34^*^- 35^, etc. The change was proba- bly made because the black horses are the only ones that receive further mention. Cf. v. ^. In this case one can also see a sig- nificance in their colour. The Hebrew word for the north J indi- cates that it was conceived as a dark and gloomy region. Hence it is fitting that the black horses should be assigned to the north * So Cal., Lowth, New., Hd., Pu., et al. t So We., Now., Marti. t JlflX {saphon), dark. l8o ZECHARIAH country; which is here, however, not the remote north, but, as in 2^^'^, the region of Babylonia. The same cannot be said of the second pair, the white ones. Indeed, there is a difference of opin- ion on the point of the compass to which they are to be despatched. The text has a word that is generally rendered after them. It is probable, however, that this should be translated to the west of them, or emended so that it can be so rendered. It might then be interpreted as referring to Asia Minor and Europe, the home of the fair peoples. Cf. Gn. lo^^-.* The spotted ones go to the south country, but why, there seems to be no means of discovering. f — 7. The statement with reference to the fourth team has been only partially and imperfectly preserved, but it can easily be re- covered. The horses, of course, should be, not, as the Massoretic text has it, the strong, but the hay ones, since they are the only ones whose destination has not been given. Moreover, the statement that they shall go forth should be followed by an in- dication of the direction, which, now that all the other points have been pre-empted, must be that of the east coimtry. Cf. Gn. 25^.t — Thus far the interpreter. The prophet adds that the horses, as is the manner of spirited animals, all sought to go to traverse the earth, or the parts assigned to them ; that some one, who can hardly have been the interpreter, finally gave the command, Go traverse the earth; and that, in obedience to this command, they traversed the earth. Cf. i^" ^•. There is an interval between this scene and the incident described in the next verse. The length of the interval it is difficult to de- termine. The prophet can hardly have meant that the chariots, with their horses, not only disappeared, but actually traversed the earth before anything further happened within the sphere of the vision. At any rate, he proceeds as if almost immediately, while he was yet gazing after them, the same person who had given the command dismissing them addressed him. — 8. Now, the prophet * The only son of Yepheth (Japhelh) whose name at all resembles the word for while (p"^, labium) is Vawan, the progenitor of the Greeks, and in this case the resemblance is hardly close enough to justify suspicion of an attempt at paronomasia. t The Hebrew word for spotted ("m3, barodh), to l)e sure, has an inverse likeness to one for the south (3ni), but, if the prophet had this word in mind, it is strange that he did not use it in place of the one (JDV"^, teman) found in the text. % The Hebrew word tor red (DIlN, 'adhoin) is from the same root a.s Edom. 6*-« i8i would not have put such a command into the mouth of any one but Yahweh. Hence, it is probably Yahweh of whom he here says, he called and spake to me. This inference is supported by the following considerations: (i) The introduction of Yahweh as a speaker, though unexpected, is not unlike Zechariah. In the first vision, it will be remembered, the Deity interposed with comforting words for the encouragement of his servant. Cf. i^^. (2) The prophet says that the speaker, whoever he was, called in the sense of cried, when he spoke, that is, spoke in a loud voice. This im- plies that he was at some distance and points to Yahweh, who, ac- cording to V. ^, was within the sacred precincts before the entrance to which the prophet saw the chariots. (3) The prophet cannot have intended to represent the interpreter as saying of the horses that had gone to the north country, they shall assuage my spirit in the north country. This is admitted by Marti and others, who, however, instead of adopting the obvious alternative, change the text to give it the form of a speech by the interpreter. The emen- dation suggested is ingenious, but, as has been shown under (i) and (2), it is unnecessary and, indeed, inadmissible. The speaker, then, is Yahweh, and the spirit, or, as Ezekiel* puts it, " the wrath " assuaged is his wrath. But why should Yahweh be angry with the north country alone or vent his anger only upon that region ? This question is answered by van Hoonacker by saying that the prophet here again, as in 2^/1^^^-, reminds his people of the past, and this time of their deliverance from the Babylonians by Cyrus. f The following considerations, however, make it more probable that he is thinking of the future: (i) The fact that the first three visions dealt with the past, and the next two with current interests, would lead one to expect that in the last three the author would make further progress. (2) The sixth and seventh, as has been shown, are capable of an interpretation in harmony with this ex- pectation. (3) The teaching of the prophet in this series of visions would be incomplete without a glimpse into the future of Wicked- ness. (4) He would naturally find in the second revolt of the Babylonians against their Persian conquerors, which occurred * C/. 5I3 24", etc. t So also Sellin, Sittd., ii, 87 /. 1 82 ZECHARIAH about this time, an occasion for the display of the continued dis- pleasure of Yahweh. 1. m3D-\;;] On the vocalisation of the sg. see Ges. ^ «5. 43 (*). — onnn] Better, with (&, onn. So Houb. — 3. oma] 2 9, ireXidvoL — d«sdn] Om. with &. The omission of the art. is significant. How the word got into the text it is difficult to imagine, unless it is a corruption of D^xi;:n, a synonym of d^din (Is. 63O taken from the margin of v. 2. Cf. V. ^. In its present position it is meaningless. Houb. rds. D^yjx, in the sense of parti-coloured. — 5. ^NSn^] Add, with 3j?D y-Mi Sn. — naSS] Om. (6^ &". I'^^nnS] Twelve Kenn. mss. rd. nSnnn). So «6aqf. — g. pj'tm] (&^, Kal ive8olr]. i83 The prince of Judah (6«-^^ 46aP-ioa). The rest of ch. 6, although it has a certain connection with the visions, falls outside of the series. This is clear from the formula with which v.* begins. The instruction here given is received, not through pictures explained by a third person, but directly from Yahweh. The same is true of 4''a-ioa^ which, as has been shown, is foreign to its present context, but which finds a more suitable set- ting after 6". The only objection to this arrangement is that there seems to be little connection between these two passages and the preceding context. On the other hand, they would quite natiu-ally follow the fifth vision. It is possible, therefore, that 5^-6^ once preceded the third chapter. In either case these passages would close the first division of Zechariah's prophecies, forming two paragraphs. The subject of the first is (l) A SYMBOLIC CRO\VN (6^"). The prophet is instructed to take with him certain persons to the house of Josiah, the son of Sephaniah, and there fashion a crown and predict the appearance of the Messiah. 9. The prophecy is introduced by the famihar formula. Then came the word of Yahweh to me. Cf. 4^ 7^ 8^' ^^. In the third and fourth of these passages "Yahweh of Hosts" takes the place of "Yahweh." The implication is that the message came soon after the last vision; but, since the visions, as has been explained, are but literary forms, the point is of no importance. — 10. It is im- portant that this verse be correctly understood, but not easy in the present form of the text to discover the prophet's meaning. The very first words provoke discussion. The prophet is directed to take something/row the captivity. At once two questions arise: Who — for it evidently consists of persons — are the captivity? and What is it that is to be taken from them? The word rendered captivity commonly refers to exiles in Babylonia. Cf. Je. 29* Ez. i', etc. In the book of Ezra, however, "the captivity," or 184 ZECHARIAH "the children of the captivity," means those who have been in exile but have returned to their country (4* 9^ etc.), and this is the interpretation that best suits the present context. But what is it that Zechariah is directed to take from these returned exiles ? In the next verse the object of the verb is "silver and gold," and, as it is taken for granted that the prophet is there simply repeating the thought here expressed, the commentators generally supply the same object in this connection. There are, however, objec- tions to such an interpretation. In the first place, if the prophet really intended to say what he is supposed to have said, he could easily have arranged the sentence so that the verb and its object would come together, and this would have been the natural ar- rangement. The fact that he did not adopt this arrangement casts suspicion upon the interpretation suggested. Secondly, if the prophet in v. " had intended to repeat for emphasis or any other purpose the thought of this verse, he would not have said "take silver and gold," but "take from them silver and gold." The clause, as it now reads, attaches itself, not to what precedes, but to what follows. Cf. Is. 47^. These considerations make it necessary to look elsewhere for the object of the verb take. It can only be found in the first three names given. As Blayney says, "The prophet is not required to take silver and gold from the per- ' sons named, but to take them." True, the text must be emended to bring these names into di'-ect subordination to the verb; but, since it is agreed that emendation cannot be avoided, and since the changes required by this interpretation are less radical than those that have been proposed, this is not a serious objection. The read- I ing recommended is. Take from the (returned) captives Heldai, and Tohidh, and Jedaiah. Neither of these persons is mentioned in the Old Testament outside of this passage. Cf. v. ". The further instructions given to the prophet, so far as they are con- tained in this verse, with slight modifications, read, a^id come with them to the house of Josiah, the son of Sephaniah, who (also) hath come from Babylon. Rosenmiiller suggests that the Sephaniah (Zephaniah) here mentioned may be the "second priest" put to death by Nebuchadrezzar after the destruction of Jerusalem (2 K. 25'* *'^); but, as that was nearly seventy years earlier and there is 6'-" i85 no intimation that Josiah belonged to the priesthood, this sugges- tion is improbable.* 11. The question now arises why: the prophet was directed to take the three persons first mentioned to the house of the fourth. There are three possible answers. The first to suggest itself, and the one that the reviser would probably have given, is that Hel- dai and his companions were to furnish the gold and silver for the work in hand; but, if this were correct, the materials would have been mentioned in v. ^°. There is more to be said for the supposi- tion that, as Josiah seems to have been a goldsmith who had a home and a shop in Jerusalem, the other three were of the same trade, but, being among the recent arrivals, had not yet established themselves in the city. The idea is that they were all to be em- ployed to make a crown, that it might be the sooner completed, also that they might share the honour of having made it. This, how- ever, is pure hypothesis. A more reliable explanation (Blayney) is that Zechariah took these men with him as witnesses to the sym- bolic act that he was about to perform. f Isaiah (8^^-), at the command of Yahweh, took witnesses when he posted his prophecy of the destruction of Israel and Syria, and Jeremiah (32" ^•) when he wished to publish his faith in a future for his country. If, therefore, Zechariah took means to preserve and transmit the memory of his predictions concerning Zerubbabel, he was only doing what the greatest of his predecessors had done. — The Mas- soretic text represents the prophet as further commanded to place the crown, when completed, on the head of Joshtia the son of Je- hosadak the high priest. This, however, cannot have been the original reading; for, if he had fulfilled this command, at the same time pronouncing the words he is here instructed to speak on the occasion, he would in so doing have contradicted his own teach- ing and Haggai's, which clearly was that the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled in Zerubbabel, and that it was he who should build the temple of Yahweh. Cf 4'* ^. If, therefore, a name was men- tioned here, it must have been that of Zerubbabel. Perhaps, as Wellhausen maintains, the latter half of the verse entire is an addi- * See further, on the Zephaniah of 2 K. 25'* ^-j Je. 21' 2()25- 29 ^^3^ t So also van Hoonacker. 1 86 ZECHARIAH tion; which means that the prophet left it to his readers to supply the name of Zerubbabel. The present reading is a clumsy at- tempt, by an anxious scribe, to bring the prophet into harmony with history. Neither Zerubbabel nor any other descendant of David ever again ruled as king in Jerusalem, but, in process of time, the high priest became the head of the entire community. It is this condition of things, unforeseen by Zechariah, which the changes in the text were intended to justify.* 12. The crown was expected to create a sentiment for indepen- dence and stimulate effort toward its achievement. The explana- tion that follows is calculated to emphasise its significance. Lo, a man, says Yahweh, whose name is Shoot. There was a similar announcement in 3*, but, as the appearance of the Shoot in that connection seemed unnatural, the discussion of his identity was postponed. The word first occurs as a Messianic term in Is. 4^, where, however, it is an appellative denoting the marvellous produce of the Holy Land under the blessing of Yahweh. In Je. 23'', on the other hand, it is used of a scion of the house of David with a well-defined character. The prince so named "shall deal wisely, and execute justice and righteousness in the land." It is evident that Zechariah had this latter passage in mind, his Shoot being expressly called a man. Cf. Je. 33'^. — There follows a clause that has been variously understood. There are those who take it im- personally, finding in it a prediction of prosperity like that in Is. 4^,f or of the rise from the man in question of a flourishing dy- nasty ;t but there are objections to both of these views, (i) It is doubtful if the compound word which would be literally trans- lated/row under him can properly be interpreted as meaning either under his reign or from his root. (2) The follomng verbs all have personal subjects, and the one in this clause would naturally have the same construction. Those who construe it in this way, how- ever, differ in their interpretation of the rest of the clause, the ques- tion being whether it refers to the region from which the Shoot will spring,§ his lineage** or his condition. ff The difficulty in this * CI. Wellhausen, IJG., 140 ff. t So Lu., Mau., Hi., Ew., Pres., el at. X So We., Now., Marti. § So Ki., Dru., el al. ** So Ra., Pern., Roscnm., Rurgcr, Koh., Klie., Kc, Wri., Brd., el al, tt So Marck, Pu., Or., el al. 6"-" i87 question arises from the fact that most of those who have attempted to solve it, ignoring the context, have taken for granted that the prophet is looking into the remote future, in fact predicting the -\ appearance of Jesus of Nazareth. Now, it is only necessary to / consider that there is but one definite thing that the Shoot is ex- pected to do, namely, to build the temple of Yahweh, to see that he must be a contemporary of the prophet, and when one again re- members that this is precisely the task which in 4'- ^ is assigned to I Zerubbabel, it becomes clear that this passage is simply a recogni- tion of him as the Messiah. If, however, Zerubbabel is the Shoot, the prediction that he shall shoot can, under the circumstances, have nothing to do with the place of his birth or his lineage, but must refer to a rapid rise from a comparatively humble position to one of greater prominence and influence. Hence, the whole clause may be rendered, Upward shall he shoot. The result is more im- portant than at first appears; for, if the interpretation proposed is correct, the clause is a mere play on the name Shoot* the thought of which is more worthily expressed in the proper connection in the next verse. In other words this clause, like the next one, which is wanting in the Greek and Syriac versions, is an interpolation. 13. The removal of the interpolated clauses brings the intro- duction of the Shoot into immediate connection with the more suitable of the two statements with reference to his mission at the beginning of this verse. He, says Yahweh, emphasising the sub- ject, shall build the temple of Yahweh. Not that the governor has thus far had no hand in the work. The expression here used must be interpreted in the light of 4^- ®. Thus interpreted it means that he will complete the task on which he and his people have now for five months been engaged. Thereafter he shall assume majesty, attain the rank and honours of royalty, not, apparendy, at once, but ultimately, as his reward for building the temple of Yahweh. Then he shall sit and rule on his throne, exercise the various func- tions of a king. — Now, before the Exile the king was supreme in Judah, not only in civil and military, but in religious matters. He controlled the temple and its services; the officiating priests, like * Sellin finds here a play, not only on Shoot, but on the actual name of the governor, in Babylonian Zir-baMli. l88 ZECHARIAH the soldiers on guard, being his servants. Cf. 2 K. 16" *• 21'^- 22'*^-, etc. When the community was reorganised after the cap- tivity, the religious interests being predominant, the priests nat- urally acquired a considerable degree of authority. In the vision of the lamp (4" ^•) Zechariah recognises this change by giving to Joshua equal importance with Zerubbabel as a servant of Yahweh. In this passage, also, although he promises the crown to the latter, he makes ample provision for the former, for it is Joshua whom he has in mind when he says that Ikere shall be a priest on his (Zerub- babel's) right hand. This is as clear as that Zerubbabel is the Shoot. There is, therefore, as little need of supplying here the name of the high priest as in v. " that of the governor. The posi- tion at the right hand of the king means power and honour second only to those enjoyed by the monarch. But two persons so nearly equal are liable to become jealous of, and in the end openly hostile to, each other. The prophet does not anticipate any such rupture between Zerubbabel and Joshua. There shall he peaceful counsel between the two; they will plan in perfect harmony for the best in- terests of those whom they have been divinely chosen to govern. — 14. There is nothing to indicate that, if Zechariah was instructed to crown Zerubbabel, he was to leave the token of future authority in the governor's possession. He would naturally make some other disposition of it. It is doubtful, however, if this verse in its pres- ent form correctly represents him. Not that there is anything sus- picious in the idea of preserving the crown as a memorial, even in th^ temple of Yahweh. There exposed, it would serve as a re- minder to disheartened patriots of the glorious things it symbol- ised. It is strange, however, that it should be described as a me- morial to Heldai and his associates. This implies that they fur- nished the materials for it,* a thought which, as has been shown, was imported into v. *" by a reviser. It is therefore probable that this verse, or at least the names it contains, are by the same hand.f — The omission of this verse leaves the question of the disposition of the crown unsettled. Perhaps it was never made. The prophet does not say that it was; and, if he did, there would still be room for doubt whether he meant to be understood literally; for, although * Cj. Ex. 3o'« Nu. 3i«. t Cj. Now., Marti, Kit in some instances it may be taken for granted that the action de- scribed was performed,* Je. 13^ ^- is an exception, and there may be others in which the narrative is only a parable. f 9. The removal of 46a->''» from its place in M leaves this the first clear case of the use of the introductory formula, Then came the word of Yahweh to me. — 10. mpS] The inf. abs. for the imv. Cf. Je. 32'^; Ges. ^'"- ♦ (*) o. Perhaps, however, since 9 Kenn. mss. have npS, the imv. should be substituted for the present reading. — hnc] In the sense of out of. Cf. 14". — iiSnc] The emendation suggested in the comments requires nSn PN, and pni, instead of nN:3i, before each of the other names. For nSn van H. rds. ann. Cf. Ezr. 2^^. These names are all treated as appellatives in (&, ii'^nr; being rendered by Trapd rdv apxivri^v, n>3ia pnd by Tiapa tQ)v x/^JC^Mw ai)r-^y, and n^jjii nxa by irapa rCov iweyvwKbTu)v ain-ffv; but some mss. ((S'-) add a second, correct rendering of M. — nsai'] We. rd. PN21 and omits all between it and nv^:ix\ Similarly Now., Marti, Kit. It is difficult, however, to explain pn2i2 except as a dittog. Besides, pn3i' is needed with hpn, for which the original seems to have been onx. Cf. Ex. 175. So Houb. On the tense of pn3i', see Ges. 5"2. 3 ic) f, — xinn 0V3] The phrase is unintelligible in this connec- tion.— 1K3] Rd., with (& ^{^, N3, the subject being Josiah. It was not necessary to say that the other three had come from Babylon. So Houb. — The verse, as above emended, reads, nSn pn r\^M7\ pxn ncDiiS "ya^D N3 -\b'n nijDX p ni-c-x'' pu dpn pn31 nipii pxi ri'^aio pni. This may — • not be a perfectly correct restoration of the original text, but it is so great an improvement, both linguistically and exegetically, on the traditional reading that there can be no disadvantage in provisionally adopting it. — 11. r~>-yoy\ Rd.,with&S,P75?; SoTheod. Mops., Houb., Bla., We., Now., Marti, Kit., et al. The same mistake is found in Jb. 31'^ — pct'i] Per- haps for nPDWi. — As already explained in the comments, the name of Zerubbabel must be substituted for that of Joshua or v. ^ entire omitted, the latter being the more defensible alternative. So We., Now., Marti, Kit. The attempt of van H. to emend by substituting 'jdS for c'Nia is not commendable. — 12. vSn] If v. i"> be omitted, this word must also be dropped or changed to Dn^Sx. So We., Now., Marti, Kit. — idnS'-^] The word is not needed after icx. It is therefore omitted in these chapters, except in this passage and another (7') in which it is clearly an interpola- tion. So . So also We., Now., Marti, GASm., Kit. The prophet no doubt had the high priest in mind, but he did not need to say so, and the absence of the art. with po is proof that neither Joshua's name nor his title was mentioned. — -^^03 Sj.'] Rd., with Q» (iK de^iuv avrov), u^:;'" '?;'. — 14. A sufficient reason for be- lieving that this verse is not from the hand of Zechariah has been set forth. The variations in the names from those in v. •", if they could be shown to be intentional, would be significant. — mBj?ni] This word, in spite of the fact that 36 mss. have nnapni, like the nnop of v. " should be pointed as a sg. See ninn; also (6 &. E has unnarn = nsts, a musical term found in the superscriptions of many psalms. Cf. Ps. 3', etc. — DSn*^] There seems to be no ground for supposing, with AE., el al., that Heldai had a second name, or, with Ew., that his name was changed. It is therefore probable that & is correct in reading here, as in v. '», Hel- dai. So Houb., New., Bla., Koh., Or., We., Now., Marti, Kit., et al. In I Ch. ii^" the same name is corrupted to n'^n, and in 2 S. 2329 to a'^n. Van H. here, as in v. 10, rd. onn. — jnSi] Many, following (5, render the nominal part of this word as an appellative. So Theod. Mops., Theodo- ret, Mau., Hi., Ew., Koh., Klie., Ke., Brd., Wri., Or., GASm., et al. Others explain it as another name for Josiah. So AE., Ki., Dru., Pem., Lowth, Rosenm., et al. Still others, with &, rd. nirx-'':'!. So Houb., New., We., Now., Marti, Kit., et al. The objection to this emendation is that it is easier to explain & than to understand how M could have been mis- taken for it. This objection would not hold against ph for ]2 jn'^i, an alternative suggested by Houb., or against nic'NiSi on'^i, from which both & and M might easily have arisen. On onSi, see Ges. 5 16<- '"''• (*>. Van H. om. rr'jDX ja pSi entire. — ]3] (6'^^^^", toTs vloh = 'jaS; a pal- pable error. (2) ZERUBBABEL AND THE TEMPLE (^^^^'^- ^^-' 6^^). Zechariah receives a second message, in which the governor is assured of the divine assistance and promised uhimate success in the difficult task of rebuilding the ruined temple. The prophet is so confident of his inspiration that he stakes his reputation on the fulfilment of this prediction. ^8.1 oa. 6a^-7 515 jgj 8. On the introductory formula, see 6^. — 9. In the preceding paragraph, as has been shown, the central figure was originally Zerubbabel. Here, also, the high priest is ignored. It is the hands of Zerubbahel that have laid the foundation of this house, the prophet declares. He doubtless means to give the governor credit also for the whole conduct of the enterprise since its inception. Moreover, he expects him to continue to direct it; he says that his hands shall finish it. This prediction is punctuated by an appeal to the future first found in 2^^/^, which, although it seems superfluous at this point, may yet, as was said in commenting on 2*"''/", be genuine. Indeed, it is difficult to understand why any one else than the prophet should have added it. — 10a. The prediction concerning the completion of the temple implies the prevalence of doubt among the Jews on the subject. They knew that their available resources were slender, and they felt so deeply that Yahweh was displeased with them that they hardly dared expect his assistance. The prophet understands the situation. When, therefore, he asks. Who hath despised a day of small things ? he does not mean to reproach them. The question, in its very terms, admits the complaint. It is a day of small things. Cf. Hg. 2^. The prophet also takes for granted that they who have most deeply felt their poverty would most gladly rise above their circumstances. He is trying to help them. To this end he pictures a time when they shall see and, of course, as loyal Jews, rejoice to see, the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel. The thought is perfectly intelligible, and, on the sup- position that w. ^^^"^ are to follow, perfectly appropriate in this connection. The governor is represented as a builder. The plum- met in his hand is not only the sign of his calling, but an indication that he is actually engaged in the practice of it. To see him, there- fore, with the plummet in his hand is to see the walls of the temple, now hardly begun, rising from day to day under his direction. Thus, the verse marks a stage between the beginning and the end of the work that Yahweh has commissioned him to do. — 6a/3-b. At this point there is need of a warning. There is danger lest the flat- tering assurance that the prophet has just uttered should defeat its own object by making Zerubbabel think more highly of himself than he should or inducing his people to put too great confidence 192 ZECHARIAH in human ability. To prevent any such mistake the prophet in- troduces another word of Yahweh, not to, but concerning, Zerub- babel, Not by force, and not by strength, but by my Spirit. Not that, on the other hand, he intends to teach that in the present instance there is nothing to do but trust in Yahweh. He merely wishes to remind his compatriots that, as Haggai also taught (2'''), the surest guarantee of success in the undertaking they have at heart is the presence of the divine Spirit in their midst. It is hardly necessary to say that, since this passage is not projjerly a part of the \asion of the lamp, the attempt to establish a parallel between the Spirit and the oil in the lamp by Kohler and others is mistaken and fruitless. — 7. The prophet expects the condition of success to be fulfilled. Hence, he believes, as he said in v. ^, that the temple will be com- pleted. He recognises that there are difficulties, but he does not consider them insurmountable. Who art thou, great mountain? he cries, apostrophising them ; before Zerubbabel become a plain, disap- pear! then shall he, or that he may, bring forth the topstone with shouts, Grace, grace to it! The word here rendered grace may mean beauty as well as favour, acceptance. Cf. Pr. 1° 17*, etc. Hence, the cry with which the topstone is greeted has been interpreted as an expression of admiration, // is beautiful, beautiful/ * This inter- pretation, however, would imply that the stone was different in kind from the rest in the building, or very richly ornamented, an assump- tion for which there does not appear to be any authority. It seems better, therefore, to suppose that the prophet meant to represent the people as showing their interest in the occasion by appealing to Yahweh to bless the ceremony of laying the last stone with success and thus setting the seal of his acceptance upon the completed sanc- tuary. — 6*^ . There remains the last verse of ch . 6, which , or a part of it, will serve as a conclusion to this paragraph. It seems to have been left where it stands because it contains no reference to Zerubbabel, and therefore does not betray the reviser of the preceding verses. It adds a thought necessary to the completion of Zechariah's pic- ture of the restoration of the sanctuary. Haggai (2^) predicted that all the nations would bring their treasures to enrich it. Zech- ariah has not hitherto said anything so definite on the subject, but ♦ So Ra., Now., et al. in 2^"*/" he foretells that many nations will attach themselves to Yahweh, and this prediction warrants one in supposing that he ex- pected the nations to assist the Jews in their enterprise, and in at- tributing to him the prophecy, they shall also come from afar and build on, assist in building, the temple of Yahweh. Cf. 8^^. There follows a fourth appeal to the future which provides a fitting close for the paragraph. The rest of the verse is but a fragment of a sentence, having no connection with what precedes, which appears to have been copied from Dt. 28*. In the paragraph on the symbolic crown no account was taken of 6'^. The reason for neglecting it was that no connection could be found be- tween it and the preceding context. It has, however, features in com- mon with 46a^-ioa. For example, it not only deals with the subject of the temple, but contains a repetition of the appeal to the future found in 4'. It is therefore at least possible that the two passages belong together, that, in fact, 46»^-io» once occupied the place now only partially filled by 6'^ But 46ap-ioa apparently consists of two parts which for some reason have been transposed. If, therefore, these verses be given the new setting, the order will be 48-ioa. ea^-? 515. Thus arranged the three fragments yield a very satisfactory sense. — 8. The Massoretes recognised the sig- nificance of the formula here used by beginning a new paragraph with this verse. — 9. no''] This word has always been treated as a Pi. pf., but Sellin {Stud., ii, 92 /.) makes it a Qal impf., like nx'' for ns", over- looking the objection that if the prophet had meant to use the impf. he would have put this as well as the next vb. into the proper gender. — non] Rd., with 10 Kenn. mss., n>3n pn. — njj?xari] On the retention of __ in pause, see Ges. ^ 29. 4 (a) r., — nyT«i] Rd., with 3 Kenn. mss., C6^ H g» SI., oriyiii. So We., Now., Marti, Kit. — 10a. ic] The question is equiv- alent to a condition. Cf. Ex. 24" Ju. 7^, etc. It may, therefore, prop- erly be followed, as it is in this instance, by the pf. with 1. Cf. Ges. U12. 5 (a) ^._,3] With -V-, as if from ni. Cf. na. Is. 44I8; Ges. ^72. 7.R.8. K.6. ^ '"■= rd. 13'; but the pf. is more expressive. Cf. Ges. ^I's- « (">. — iN-(i] A co-ordinate vb. with the force of an inf. Cf. Ges. ^'2»- 2 c^J. — Snan pxn] Ace. to We. the object here meant is the same as u'N-in pxn of v. ^ So Now., Marti. There is less ground for any such opinion if the text be transposed so that v. ^ will follow instead of preceding this one. On the construction of Snan, see 2 K. i6'<; Ges. ^'27- < (") A-. — -i>3] j^, pi. The oriental reading is 'jsS.— 6a/3-b. iDf<'?] & om. — S'na] (& adds neydXrj. — inn] ^ om. sf. — n^x] Rd. onj, as in I'. — 7. -in] The voc. regularly takes the art. Cf. Ges. ^'"- « («). Nor need it be omitted on account of a preceding n. Cf 2 K. 6'^ Per- 194 ZECHARIAH haps other changes should be made. Lambert {ZAW., 1902, 338) for the first three words rds. "^^^ PN 'Pnri; but the present text could be more easily explained as a corruption of "inn PN ]ph >o. Houb. rds. nrN ■'2. — The accentuation requires that niu'^'a'? be treated as a sep- arate clause, n_i_n being understood; and this division is followed by many exegetes. So Bla., Mau., Klie., Ke., Pres., Brd., Or., et al. If, however, the present text be retained, the first of four lines should close with "^njn. So B, followed by Lu., Marck, Pem., Lowth, Ew., Hd., Pu., Wri., We., Now., GASm., et al. Either of the emendations sug- gested would permit a similar arrangement. — nu'K-\n] Om. the final n, or, with van H., change it to a a and attach it to the following word. Cf. TNin pon, 2 Ch. 311". Houb. rds. rxnS. — pinu-p] From nic-; without 3 an ace. of manner. Cf. Ges. ^ "'■ ^ ^'^K The Vrss. diverge more or less from the thought of ifl, but there is no good reason for supposing that they had a different text. — 6'^ Why the latter half of the verse was inserted at this point, there seems to be no means of determining. Marti thinks it may have a bearing on the promises of chs. 7 /. It is more prob- ably a reminder by a pious scribe that such blessings as are promised in the preceding context are conditioned on the faithfulness to Yahweh of those who desire them. 3. A NEW ERA (chs. 7/). This part of the book consists of the recital of an incident that gave Zechariah an occasion for resuming his prophetical activity, and a series of oracles setting forth what Yahweh requires of his people and what he purposes to do for them in the given circum- stances. a. An inquiry from Bethel {f"^). The people of Bethel send to Jerusalem to inquire of the priests and the prophets whether they shall continue to observe the fast of the fifth month. 1. It was in the fourth year of Darius, that is, the year 518 B.C. The king had some time previously overthrown his most trouble- some enemies and was now engaged in strengthening his hold on his vast empire. Perhaps, as has been suggested, he was in Egypt when the prophecies that follow were written. Cf. p. 23. More precisely, it was the fourth of the ninth month of the given year, or 7'*' 195 more than two years after work was begun on the temple, when the incident to be described took place. CJ. Hg. i^^. The ninth month was later called Kislew (Ne. i^), as the reader is informed in a gloss. The clause, the word of Yahweh came to Zechariah, by which the month and the day of the month are separated from the year to which they belong, is also an interpolation. — 2. On the day named a person, or persons, sent one or more others on a certain mission. The verse has been variously translated, but never very satisfactorily. It is doubtful if the present text can be so rendered as to avoid objections. Thus, if Bethel be made the subject,* there is the objection that places were not personified by the He- brews, except in poetry. If, on the other hand, this word, either as a proper name or an appellative for the temple at Jerusalem, be treated as the destination of the mission, | the criticism is that there was at this time no sanctuary at Bethel, and the one at Jerusalem was called the house, not of God, but of Yahweh. Cf. Hg. i^ Zc. f 8^. This being the case, the later exegetes have resorted to emen- dation, but thus far they have not proposed a reading that has found general acceptance. The most promising place to look for help is in S^'* ^•, where Zechariah gives his answer to the specific question that had been propoimded. Now, it is interesting to note that, in vv. ^^ ^- of this passage, a clause of the verse under consideration is twice repeated. This repeated clause, however, is not the most important feature of the passage. More significant is the predic- tion that in the future men will come to Jerusalem to worship the God of the Hebrews by cities and nations; for this indicates that those addressed were representatives of a place, and that therefore the name Bethel is correct and genuine. Moreover, it suggests that the original reading was, the men of Bethel sent. The verb does not require that its object be expressed. It is possible, therefore, that the prophet left it indefinite. The Massoretic text gives two names which, if they are genuine, must be interpreted as designating the persons chosen to represent the little city. The first, Sarezer, which seems to be an abbreviated form of a Babylonian compound,^ * So Bla., Klie., Ke., Hd., Pres., Brd., Pu., Or., et al. t So r\>i, see 2V1'' S'^. The difficulty of con- struing the word, even as a proper name, has given rise to an attempt to explain it as the name of a god and, as such, a component of the name of the first of the individuals here mentioned. There was, it seems, a god worshipped in western Asia under a name that the Assyrians wrote Ba- ai-ti-ili. Cf. Winckler, AF., ii, 10^. Zimmern (KAT.^, 438) identi- fies him with the divinity whom Philo Byblius calls ^airvXas, the second son of Ovpav6s and Tij. We. takes for granted that, since the name ixnic', Ass. Sar-usur, lacks a subject such as it has, e. g., in Nabu-Mr-usur and Nergal-Sar-usur, Ssn^a must be the missing component; in other words, that the first name was Baitil-Sar-usur. So also Peiser. This conjec- ture at first sight seems to be supported by the occurrence in a commer- cial document of the reign of Artaxerxes I of the (Phoenician) name Bit- ili-nuri (Hilprecht, Babylonian Expedition, ix, 60, 76), and it is adopted by Marti and Kittel. Cf. DB. There are, however, weighty objections to it. In the first place, it assumes that the name Sareser is defective; whereas, ace. to Schrader {KAT."^, 329/.), names of the class to which this is supposed to belong were sometimes abbreviated by the Assyrians and Babylonians, and ace. to 2 K. 19"= Is. 37^8, this one was believed by the Jews to have been in actual use among the Assyrians. Even in Je. 39'- ", where Nergal precedes, the two are not written as one name like Nebuzardan and Nebushazban. If, however, secondly, it be granted 198 ZECHARIAH that the name is defective, there is still good ground for denying that '^Nr.^a is the missing component; for, although it seems to be true that the people of the West used Bitili just as the Babylonians did the names of their gods in the formation of personal names, it has not been shown that they made such hybrid compounds, half Phoenician and half Baby- lonian as Bit-ili-sar-ustir. If, therefore, the two words are retained, they must, apparently, be treated as separate names. The case is put hypo- thetically because there is some ground for suspecting the genuineness, not only of -iXN-iu', but of iSd dji. (i) They have the position of ob- jects, but not the sign (pn) of the definite ace. CJ. Je. 26". (2) They suit the following no better than the preceding context. (3) They are not necessary to an intelligible rendering for the rest of the clause. There is only one objection to accepting the conclusion to which these indica- tions point, viz., that it seems impossible to account for these names ex- cept on the supposition that they are genuine. The key to the difficulty is found in g*, which, for hSd dj-i, has ^,-i^ii = ja 3-1, the title given to Sareser in Je. 393- 's. This reading suggests that these names arose from a gloss by some one who believed, as did the Jews of the time of Jerome, that the inquiry concerning the fast came from Babylon and was brought by proselytes, the name and title used being borrowed from Je. 39. When this gloss, originally n'^cn jd ai ixntj*, was inserted other changes seem to have been made. The original text was probably n^r'i Snitij TJX. — DJi] If the original gloss had JD 3i (van H., 31) perhaps (& (B, Ap^eaeip; A, Ap^eaeaip), which, ace. to Marti, represents irj; nj,'3-\N (Aram., ido^n), may have come from the similar title D^iD 3i. — 3. icn'-i] Rd., with *, idn'^i.— .n>3'^] Rd., with Kenn. 150, 155, (S » (T, n'33. — D''N''3jn Sxi] It is possible that these words are an addition to the text. The prophet did not need any warrant from men for replying to a question addressed to the priests. Cf. v. ^ — -icn'?^] Om. with <6'- ft. — nD3Nn] <& has el (Ar), or ^ (Q.), ela-eXi^XvOev &Se = na N3n, an evident, but none the less interesting error. See also iiroiTjffev for ^t'CJJ. — -irjn] Ace. to Ges. 5 "3, an adverbial inf. abs. Similarly Ew. s; 2*" «J); Ko. 5 «»•; but (6'- B ft ® all seem to have read nuxn. So Houb. — nr] Adverbial, but not in this case, as Ges. § i3«- R- 3 (6) puts it, an enclitic. Translate 710W or already. Cf. Nrd. k s'"- *. — noj] With -7:- in close connection. Cf. Ges. 5"»- * «iK b. A series of oracles (7^-8^'). They are four in number. All of them but the third are intro- duced by the characteristic formula, "Then came the word of Yahweh of Hosts to me." The general subject is the restoration of Judah to the favour of Yahweh. The first deals with 7*""" 199 (l) THE TEACHING OF THE PAST (y^'"). The prophet holds that fasting is valueless as compared with the social virtues, and that the neglect of these latter was the cause of the banishment of his people from their country. 4. The statement, Thetij lit., and, came the word of Yahwek of Hosts to me, would naturally be interpreted as meaning that this oracle was delivered soon, if not immediately, after the arrival of the deputation from Bethel, that is, on or about the fourth of the ninth month. There are those, however, who hold that the ques- tion must have been suggested by the approach of the fast men- tioned and laid before the priests and the prophets previous to the date on which it was to be observed, the seventh or the tenth of the fifth month. So Wellhausen, who therefore treats the given date as that, not of the appearance of the deputation, but of Zechariah's reply to their inquiry. To this interpretation there are at least two serious objections: (i) It is forced and unnatural; and (2) it is easier to explain the appearance of the deputation from Bethel four months after the fast than the discussion of their mission by Zech- ariah that long after it had been accomplished. The prophets were usually the first to express themselves on any matter that interested the community. If further explanation is needed, perhaps it will be found in the supposition (Nowack) that there had arisen at Bethel, on the occasion of its last recurrence, a dispute over the propriety of longer observing a fast commemorating the destruction of the temple, and that, after much discussion, the parties had agreed to submit the question to the authorities at Jerusalem. — 5. The message received by the prophet is addressed, not to the priests alone, or the inhabitants of Bethel, but to all the people of the land. It runs like a passage from one of the older prophets. When ye have fasted and lamented in the fifth month, and in the seventh month, now seventy years, was it for me, pray, that ye fasted ? The fast of the seventh month, according to tradition, was observed on the second of the month* as a memorial of the bloody day on which * The tradition is that Gcdaliah was murdered on the first of the month, but, as this was a feast-day, the fast was appointed for the second. This tradition, however, is e\ndently based on the inference that, because in 2 K. 25 and Je. 41 the day of the assassination is not given, B'ln is to be rendered "new moon." C/. i'. The Karaites are said to have celebrated this fast on the twenty-fourth of the month, basing their custom upon Ne. 9'. 200 ZECHARIAH Gedaliah, whom Nebuchadrezzar had appointed governor of Judea after the destruction of Jerusalem, was assassinated and the Jews fled to Egypt. Cf. 2 K. 25^ Je. 41^^-. This fast, also, seems to have been mentioned here because, having occurred during the progress of the discussion at Bethel, it could not well be overlooked. — Both of these fasts had been observed since the beginning of the Exile, or since Jerusalem was taken in 586, and the date of this oracle is 517 B.C., now about seventy years. — This fact, however, did not commend the f asters to the favour of Yahweh, because the abstinence they practised and the lamentations they uttered showed no promise of betterment, being an expression, not of godly sorrow for past ofifences, but of selfish regret for the loss of their country and their liberty. They pitied themselves, but they had not learned to fear Yahweh. — 6. This being the case, it did not matter whether they ate or refrained from eating. This verse completes the thought. The prophet, speaking for Yahweh, has just said in substance, "Ye have fasted for yourselves"; he now adds, and when, or if and whenever, henceforth, ye eat and drink, instead of fasting, is it not ye that are eating and ye that are drinking ? and he might have added, for it is what he meant, "to fill your owti bellies." Cf. 1 Cor. 8«^ 7. This, as has already been remarked, is a familiar doctrine. It is not strange, therefore, that Zechariah should cite the older proph- ets in this connection. Are not these, he asks, the things that Yah- weh proclaimed by the former prophets ? The things in question are not, as one might carelessly infer, the things already said, but thoee he has yet to say. Cf. vv. " ^•. They had been said many times when Jerusalem was peopled and secure, also its cities round about it. The period to which the prophet refers is, of course, that be- fore the destruction of Jerusalem and the devastation of the sur- rounding country by the Babylonians. Indeed, it is probable that he was thinking of conditions some time before that melancholy event, for it was when the Shephelah, the hilly region that separates the Judean highlands from the Philistine plain, and the Negeb, the rolling country south of Hebron, belonged to Judah and were in- habited.*— 8. The message of the former prophets should imme- * For a graphic description of the Shephelah and its history, see GASm., HG., 201 ij., of the Nfgeb, 278 If. 7'-" 20I diately follow, as, ^^nthout doubt, it did in the original oracle. Now, however, there intervenes another introductory clause inserted by some one who was misled by the "Thus saith Yahweh of Hosts" of the next verse to suppose that the prophet was still speaking in his own person. This clause betrays its secondary character, not only by the interruption of the prophet's thought, but by the form in which it appears. Zechariah would have said, not to Zechariah, but to me. — 9. Nowack and others regard the Thus saith Yahweh of Hosts with which this verse begins, also, as an addition to the original text, but Wellhausen retains it, and with reason, for the ci- tation from the prophets here, as in i^, needs such an introductory formula, as a part of it, to give it the desired solemnity. — The mes- sage proper consists of two parts. First, certain duties growing out of social relations are enjoined. The first of these is tme, equal, justice, especially in the conduct of judicial proceedings; the least that could be required of members of the same community, yet a requirement which, to judge from the denunciations of the proph- ets, was almost always flagrantly disregarded among the Hebrews. The second is kindness, the good- will that prompts one to meet one's fellows more than half-way. The third is compassion, active sym- pathy with those in any species of misfortune. — 10. These posi- tive injunctions are followed by a pair of admonitions. The first is equivalent to a repetition of the injunction concerning compas- sion, with an application of it to different classes of unfortunates. Oppress not a widow, or an orphan, or a stranger, or a sufferer, the last term including the poor, the sick, etc. The second is more gen- eral, but at the same time more radical, nor devise evil one toward another in your hearts. It is a negative putting of the Golden Rule, the observance of which is the sum and substance of social moral- ity. Cf. 8^'. This, according to Zechariah, was the teaching of the former prophets. He does not pretend to say that all or any of them expressed themselves in the precise language that he employs, but that this was the gist of their instruction on the subject with which he is now dealing. He could easily have substantiated such a statement; for there is hardly one of the prophets before the Ex- ile who does not condemn the tendency to ritualism among his peo- ple and insist on the practice of the social virtues.* The same posi- * Cj. .\m. 26 ff- 521 «• Ho. 68 Je. 5^ 628. J C/. Is. 6'" Je. s^. § Cj. Ex. 815 Ps. 9s" ; also of the neck, 2 K. 17H Je. ip's Ne. qH-m. 7"" 203 in this connection, (i) They obstruct the natural course of thought without adding anything essential to the passage; (2) they are by Yahweh, and not about him; and (3) they can easily be explained as a reminiscence of Pr. i^*^-. CJ. especially v. ^*. For further details, see the critical notes. — 14. The original apodosis is found in this verse. It reads, not "I," like the preceding, — for the subject should be the same as that of the verb call, — but he, scattered them to all the nations, the many nations, that they had not known, in the foreign countries to which they were deported by the Babylonians. On the phraseology, see Dt. 28^^ Je. 16^^, etc. Thus the land be- came so desolate behind them, after their removal, that none went to and fro, and they made a pleasant land a waste. CJ. Ju. 5® Je. 12^° Ez. 35'. The prophet probably did not expect to be taken liter- ally;— there must have been a few who remained in the country; — but it is clear from Je. ds>ff. that it was pretty nearly stripped of its inhabitants. 4. nivxax] % uT om., as in 48 6'; but see 8'- '«. — 6. nicDi] The inf. abs. for the impf. with 1- Cf. Ges. § '"• < ("). — nn] Rd., with 9 Kenn. mss., H & SI, nr. So We., Now., Marti, Kit. — ■'jncx] For ■'jincx, the read- ing in 25 Kenn. mss. One of three cases of the use of a sf. with pf. 2 pi. Cf. Ges. \ 5'- » «^'. On the construction, see Ges. 5 »7- <. R. 3._,jk] An emphatic addition to the sf. Cf. Ges. §"6. 2 (a). — 6. cSonh] When the relation of a nominal predicate to the subject is that of the general to the particular, it wants the article; but when, as in this case, the two are of equal connotation, the predicate may take an art. or a sf. to mark its definiteness. Cf. v. ' as emended; Ges. §'26- ">■ <») R-; Dr. §"5 (7)._7. pn] This word has been treated as a sign of the emphatic nominative. So de D., Dru., New., Rosenm., Lowe, el al. The passages cited to support this opinion, however, are mostly of doubtful application. Those in this and the preceding book, Hg. 2*- " Zc. 8", can all be explained in other ways. Nor is it necessary in this case to supply a vb. such as y\'>, ni;*j? or yctt", as many have done. So Marck, Pem., Mau., Hi., Ew., Koh., Ke., Pres., Pu., Brd., Wri., et al. It is better, with (& &, to rd. hSn. So Seek., We., Now., Marti, Kit. Cf. Ges. § "'• i- R- '.— 3r^] For oott'% the regular construction. Cf. Ges. §'"• '; YLo.h^'^'. — 8. This verse is omitted also by Oort, Or., We., Now., Marti, Rothstein (Jojachin, 38). Note that nxjx is omitted, as in v.'. Cf. 8>- ". — 9. On the genuine- ness of niN3S — no, see the comments. — ncxS] Om., with Kenn. 4, 201, 05NAB ^^ here as in 6'^, the only other place where it appears in Zechariah after -isn ^s. — rco^, pya'n] Pausal forms. Cf. Ges. §"■< <*>. — D'om] 204 ZECHARIAH On the pi., see Ges. § isi- i- R- (&).— 10. nj] Rd., with 22 mss., (g B » S, ■\ji. — rn.s C'n] This idiom has already occurred twice (v. ' 3'°), but both times in so simple a form that it did not require explanation. In both cases r''N was used distributively in apposition with the subject of the clause in which it stood; the most frequent construction. There are cases in which its relation to the conte.xt is difficult to determine. One of the most difficult is in Gn. 15"', which Bu. {Urgeschichie, 285), translates, "He laid each (animal), its one part over against the other." The con- struction is probably to be regarded as elliptical. Supply the pi. suf. after 10% and the result is, "He placed (them) each with one part over against the other," r^N being an appositive of the object of the vb., as in S'". The peculiar construction found here occurs only once elsewhere, viz., Gn. 95, where vns v-'H io is generally rendered, as in AV., "at the hand of ever)' man's brother." So De., Di., Wri., Dr., et al. Bu. ob- jects to this rendering because, he says, it means only that all men are brothers. He insists on the reciprocal significance of the idiom, explain- ing it as only a later and more compact form of vnx ^^c r^N. He therefore translates the whole clause, "From ever}- beast will I demand it (your blood), and from men, from one another (from men reciprocally) will I demand the soul of men." Cf. Urgeschichte, 288. Similarly Gunkel, Holzinger. This translation, in spite of the parenthetical para- phrases, is not entirely clear. The phrase "from men reciprocally" is especially perplexing. It cannot, of course, mean that the reciprocity is to be between God and men. If, however, it is to be among men, the only idea suggested is that men are to require of one another the blood of a slain fellow, the parties being the avenger and the murderer. Now, this may have been the thought of the Heb. author, but, if it was, he contra- dicted himself in the effort to express it; for, if rns b'^n n^o = vnx td t'^n, Yahweh says in the main clause that he will make requirement for blood, but in the phrase in question that men will do so. In other words the distributive U'\s is treated as if the vb. were not rT^N, 7 will demand, but lunT, they (men) will demand. The contradiction can be remedied, on the supposition that the above equation is correct, by removing the phrase to the end of the clause, or treating it as a marginal gloss to the whole of it. Then u'^n will be an appositive of dinhs, and, like it, in the gen.; and the whole will read, " From the hands of men will I demand the lives of men (one's life from the hand of another)." The object of the gloss- ator was to call attention to the fact that, while in the first instance the slayer and the slain are widely unlike, in the second they belong to the same species. The construction of u"n is that in which it is found, with- out rns, in Gn. 42", which should be rendered, not as it is by Bu. (/. c, 285), "to return their money to each one into his sack," but, "to return their money, each one's (money) to his sack." The object of this dis- cussion was to determine whether vn.s r'N i-c could be treated as the 7*"" 205 equivalent of vns ts u'sx. If, as has been shown, it can, in the proper position, there is reason for supposing that Zechariah, although in 8" he uses inyi ny^ n« u-\x, here preferred the more concise vnN b^^n nj?n. There can be no question but that the meaning is the same in both cases. The difference between the two is no greater or more significant than that between "evil one against another" and "evil against one another." Nor can one find any fault with the construction, since, if the regular form were substituted for the one actually used, c''N could be construed, as it frequently is, as an appositive of the subject of the clause. Cf Ges. ^33. 1 (* u-'in ny-i, but ^'s ren- dering favours IJJ. See also uJ. 11. ins] Rd., with (g^- & ®, afjnj.— yicc-c] So as not. Cf. Ges. § "^ J. (d) (I).— 12. I'Dw-] A second ace. Cf. Ges. § n'- s (o,— mirn] (g, rod v6fiov [lov, a case of dittog. in the translation. Cf. irvevfuira avrov. — anann nxi] The object of this gloss evidently was to prevent the reader from interpreting ri-y^r^rt in the sense of instruction, and require him to dis- tinguish between "the Law" and "the Prophets"; which, of course, is contrary to the teaching of Zechariah. — innj] This expression, too, must be considered a gloss because it, like the similar additions of ul, removes Yahweh further from his people than Zechariah represents him. — 13. »n>i] The Gk. and Syr. translators were misled by the gloss at the end of the verse, the former into rendering this vb. by the fut., and the latter into translating Kip as if it were in the i sg. See also the Eng. Vrss. It is evident, however, that the prophet is here giving the result of the obdu- racy of his people. Now, that result, as appears from v. •<, when the prophet wrote, was a matter of history. Hence •'hm must have its usual meaning, while the vbs. that follow should also refer to the past. Those of the latter part of the verse cannot be so rendered. Contra New. This fact in itself is sufficient to confirm the opinion already expressed in the comments, to the effect that the passage to which they belong is an interpolation. See also icn for zh:, which, as has elsewhere been noted (i' 4^), is an indication of ungenuineness. — Nip] ^ adds a pro- nominal object to this vb., and (l^'AQfL Jq the same for y^'zz-, but such additions are not required by the Heb. idiom. Cf. Pr. i^* On the vocalisation of the latter vb., see Ges. \"-^- ^ (6). — 14. b-i;'D>xi] Since the next vb. is a pf., the i of this one should be pointed as 1 cons., and since in the protasis the speaker was the prophet, the original here must have been oiyO'i. The person was changed to bring this vb. into harmony with pc"»r!< of the interpolated passage preceding. There is, therefore, no necessity for discussing the peculiar vocalisation of M.. Cf. Ges. ^5 23. 3. R. s; 62.2 (c ) R. a.—S;.] Rd., with <& (els) , S.S.— 3V'] Bu. justly claims that the main dichotomy of the verse should be at this point. — layc] On jc privative, see Ges. % '"• ' '"i' o. — ncr''] On the use of S instead of the ace, see Ges. ^ "'■ » <«' '»'. 2o6 ZECHARIAH (2) THE PROMISE OF THE FUTURE (8*"®). The prophet announces that Yahweh will presently return to Jerusalem to bless it with wonderful prosperity, and that thence- forth there will be an unbroken covenant between him and its in- habitants. The paragraph consists of five declarations, each of which is introduced by a Thus saith Yahweh of Hosts. If. The usual introductory foimula is followed by a very em- phatic assertion of the divine jealousy. In i" ^' this sentiment was found to have a twofold reference, manifesting itself in sympathy or compassion on the one side, and in anger or vengeance on the other. Here, also, both sides appear, but they are not so clearly distinguished. First Yahweh says, I have been very jealous for Sion; by which he means that he has been anxious and eager to help it because it is the home of his chosen people. At the same time his indignation has been stirred against the unnamed oppres- sors who have devastated it. Very furious, he declares, has been my jealousy concerning it. Cf. 1^^. — 3. From this point onward Yahweh, forgetting his indignation, reveals only the tender side of his jealousy. He begins by saying that he will now, after an ab- sence of seventy years, return to Sion, and the form of the verb indi- cates that he intends to do so speedily, that, in fact, his return is as good as accomplished. Moreover, this is to be a final reunion be- tween him and his people, for he is careful to say that he will abide, make his permanent home, in Jerusalem. The latter half of the verse describes in the briefest terms the character and condition of the Jerusalem of the future. First, says Yahweh, it shall be called the faithful city. Isaiah (i^*) described the faithful city as "full of justice, where righteousness dwelt." Zechariah, to judge from the preceding chapter, doubtless had the same idea. Neither of them, however, considered this a complete definition. The latter would have included all the virtues the lack of which had brought the wrath of Yahweh upon the fathers. In vv. ^" ^- ^'^ he specifies truth- fulness and peacefulness as additional requirements. It is safe, therefore, to infer that, when he put this name into the mouth of Yahweh, he was giving expression to his faith that the time was S'-' 207 coming when the people of Jerusalem and Judah would not only worship Yahweh alone, but loyally observe all the precepts he had given them for the regulation of their conduct toward one another. There follows another name the application of which is easily mis- understood. The sentence in which it occurs, so far as its structure is concerned, is evidently parallel with the one just discussed. If, therefore, it were complete, it would read, the mountain of Yahweh of Hosts shall be called the holy mountain. It is not so clear what is meant by the mountain of Yahweh. At first sight one might take it as meaning the hill on which the new temple was being erected; but there is not so much to be said for this interpretation as might be expected. The name given to the mountain cannot be cited in its favour. By "the holy mountain," or its equivalent, is generally meant, not Mount Moriah,* as it is sometimes called, but either Jerusalem, as a hilly city (Is. 27^^ 66^", etc.) or the whole hilly region of Judea. Cf. Is. 11" Je. 37^^, etc. It is therefore necessary to take it in one of these senses in this connection, and, in view of the fondness of the Hebrews for parallelism, it is more than prob- able that the former is the one in which the prophet intended that it should be taken. His idea, then, is that, when the temple has been completed and Yahweh has returned to it, the whole city will be sanctified and preserved inviolate by his presence. Thus the two names are only another way of putting the famil- iar promise of v. ^, "they shall be my people, and I will be their God." 4. The presence of Yahweh will secure to his people peace and prosperity. One result of such conditions will be that there shall again, as in the best period of their history, sit in the streets of Jerusalem, enjoying the ease as well as the respect to which they are entitled, old men and women, each with his (or her) staff in his (or her) hand, a sign and symbol of that best of Yahweh's blessings, from the Hebrew's stand-point, multitude of days. Cf. Ex. 20^^ Dt. 4^° Is. 65^" Pr. 3^ etc. The picture is true to the habits of the inhabitants of Palestine, both ancient and modern. Cf. i Mac. 14^. Their houses are, and always have been, so dark that they have been accustomed to do their work and seek their pleasure in * So Jer., Dru., Rosenm., Ke., Brd., Wri.. el al. 2o8 ZECHARIAH the open air. — 5. The prophet completes the peaceful picture by describing the city a-s full of boys and girls playing in the streets. It is clear that he is here predicting an era of large families. This, however, is not the whole thought. There will not only be many children, but conditions will be such that they will be able to spend their early years in ideal freedom from untimely burdens. Mean- while, according to 3*", those of middle age will divide their time between labour and the enjoyment of the fruits of their exertions. — 6. It was difficult for the people of Zechariah's time, pinched as they were by poverty, and harassed by their neighbours, to believe that such blessings were in store for them and their country. Yah- weh rebukes them for their lack of faith. If it is difficult, lit., won- derful, in the eyes of the remnant of this people, he says, in my eyes also it will he difficult!? The last clause is usually treated as a simple question, but in the original the construction indicates that the prophet intended to give it an ironical turn. See further the critical notes. — 7. In his final declaration Yahweh more fully re- veals his plan for increasing the population of Judea. He will not only bless those already there with sons and daughters, but he will reinforce them from the regions to which he scattered their fathers. I will save my people, he says, from the country of the rising, and from the country of the setting sun. The eastern country, of course, is Babylonia. The western is probably Egypt. Cf Is. 11" * 27'^ etc. — 8. From both he will bring back the exiled Jews and they shall abide, dwell without further disturbance, and he with them, in Jerusalem and the surrounding country. f A guarantee for the permanence of the new order is found in the renewed covenant to which reference has already been made. They shall be to me a people, says Yahweh, atid I will be to them a God, in faithfulness and righteousness. X Note that the terms are the same for both parties. They are both bound to remain steadfast to the relation now established forever, and, that it may never be severed, to ob- serve without ceasing all the requirements that this relation im- plies. This, whether in God or man, is Righteousness. * In this passage only the first two names belong to the original prophecy. In both Assyria must be interpreted as meaning Babylonia, the then world power, t CI. Ho. 2^. Ez. iiso 3628. J cj. 2IV10 83 Ex. 29". 8"-" 209 1. niN3x] Add, with 42 mss., & 21, '■'^x, as in all the other instances of the use of this formula. — 2, niN3s] Omitted, but wrongly, by &. Cf. w, <• 6. 7. 9. — >,-i} ^- '. On the gender of the subj., cf. BDB. — cpnt'c] Masc. with nouns of both genders. Cf Ges. § '"■ 1. R. 3. — 6. 13] A conditional particle, comparatively frequent in legal pas- sages. According to BDB. it usually represents the case supposed as more likely to occur than DX. Cf. Ex. 21-- ''• •*, etc. — ann a^D'3] These words can only be rendered in those days; but, so rendered, they have no meaning in their present setting. They must therefore be regarded as a gloss, perhaps, to the next clause. — dj] Ew. i 324a a^jj Qgs_ ^ 150. 1 ex- plain the omission of the interrogative particle in this case as due to the emphatic arrangement of the sentence. This, however, is a mistake, since it can be shown that the ratio of cases in which the arrangement is irregular, among sentences usually classed as questions, is as great for those that have the particle as for those from which it is omitted. The truth is that, when the particle is intentionally omitted, the clause which it would introduce is generally not a simple question, but contains an ele- ment of incredulity, irony, sarcasm or repugnance which it would not so much denote as conceal. Cf. i S. 2ii«/'5 22? Hb. 2^^ Jb. 2'" ii' 37I8 _^gis 4030/416 La. 3'^ There are many passages equally ironical, however, especially in the book of Job, in which the particle is employed. Cf. Nrd. § ""8- *• *; also Old Testament and Semitic Studies, ii, 115 ff. — 7. tPDU-n N13C — miD] We. would read ki3c — d'cu'h mrc. Cf. Mai. i" Ps. 50' 113'. This, no doubt, would be more elegant, but, since mm is often used alone in the sense of the east, the present reading is perfectly defensible. Cf. Am. 8'^ etc. — 8. opn] C6^ adds «'s Trjv yijp avrOiv. — ijjc'i]. sr of v. ", the combination thus produced is confusing. It is much better, with We., to change j'lr to nyiiN, thus getting the intelligible thought, 7 will sow prosperity. Cf. Ho. 223/21 je. 3127 f.. So also Marti, GASm., Kit.— 13. ^n-\t'<\ This name has occurred once before in these prophecies, viz., in 22/11 's. it was found, however, by a comparison of that verse with 2Vi^' that it (the name) was an interpolation. The same is the case here. In the next four verses the persons addressed are the same as in this passage. But in v. '^, where the prophet has occasion to give them a name, he calls them simply " the house of Judah." In other words, Zechariah did not predict the return of Israel, but some one familiar with such passages as Je. 23^ *• Ez. 37'^ "■, missing any reference to the northern kingdom, supplied the name here without noticing that from his stand-point v. '' also needed emendation. Both names are omitted by We., Now., Marti, Kit. — 14. icn2] a third case of this use of the word where one would expect cnj, and in a passage that only disturbs the connection. Cf 1^ 7'^ — nSi] The negative is omitted by & in Par. and Lond. — 15. \"^r::r] (& & have a connective, but the fact that both have the pf. shows that it was wanting in the original. On this construction, see Ges. ^ '20. 2 (*>, — ig. mpi pn] Seven mss. have myn Vs. So also (&. — prN2] A gloss to DiSir sug- gested by 7'. Om. CgAQL (gn ^ jjii, go New., Now., Marti, Kit.— DiSr, Two mss. prefix 1. So also &. It is possible that the original was D^u', which would practically be a synonym of pdn. Cf. 7' Dt. 25'^ Ru. 2 '2. — 17. 'J1 u'-n] See note on 7'". — tj'n] Om., with 5 mss., . — W2}\:] <& adds /coi (ixPpavd'^aeadt = arnriri. So &", but there seems to be no warrant for this reading. — 20. v] B nls. -<;•, (Si^S"';'. (6 & ignore 8^'-==' 217 •\Vi<, which, if retained, must be construed as introducing a subject, not an object clause. Cf. v." Ec. ^^i BDB., art. t:-n, 8. — a^'cy] Kenn. 150 adds D''3n. So d. — larn] &, by omitting 1, makes the prtc. an appositive of QiDj!. — 21. nnN'] d^Q, ir^vTe fl-6Xeis, Trpocrdiirov Kvplov = nin» >jc HN both here and in v. ^. — 'Ji hoSn] ® introduces this reply by 1D>' inS jn, TAx.s one ^i'i// say to that one. — Ew. divides the verse after ninii, thus making the second inf. rpaS dependent on noSs. The whole clause niN3s — t'pa'^i, which should precede m'^nS, is probably a gloss. Cf. V. =2. — 22. DTISJ? DMj] (I, €^fa TToXXa; ul, p3-\3T r^'^'^, as in Je. 25'^ 27'. — 23. TiT's] See note on v. '">. — ipnnni] Resumptive, after the long intervening subject. Cf. Dr. § "7- ''°"'. — odd^'] 05 & render the sf. as if it were sg., but at the end of the verse (exc. (6^) have the pi. — ijjjott'] Add ^D, with 2 mss. and (&"& &(S. THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE SECOND PART OF ZECHARIAH. The book of Zechariah, so called, contains, besides the eight chapters universally attributed to the prophet of that name, six the origin and authorship of which have long been in dispute. The questions when and by whom they were written must therefore be discussed and, if possible, settled; but first it seems necessary to take a preliminary survey of the content of the chapters as a whole, and especially to inquire into the condition of the text as it has been transmitted by the Massoretes. § I. THE STRUCTURE OF CHS. 9-14. The ninth chapter begins with a word, Xtl'O, sometimes rendered burden, but more correctly utterance, which frequently appears in titles, especially in the book of Isaiah. Cf. 13' i5\ etc. It has generally been regarded as so used in this case, and, since another occurs in 12^, as the title, or a part of it, of chs. 9-1 1. Thus it has been customary to divide Second Zechariah, as it is called, into two parts, each of which has three chapters, and, probably by acci- dent rather than design, the same number (46) of verses. The genuineness of 12^ however, is now pretty generally questioned. In its present form it is quite indefensible. Moreover, since the time of Ewald there have been those who have claimed that 13^"^ is the conclusion of i !■* *^-. One cannot, therefore, take for granted the correctness of the Massoretic arrangement, but must reopen the case and make one's own analysis. It must be remembered that the question concerns the arrange- ment, and not the authorship, of these chapters. If this distinc- tion is kept in mind, there will not be much difikulty in deciding 218 THE STRUCTURE OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV 219 that, whatever may be the case with the others, or any part of them, the first three chapters form a group with noticeable points of con- tact and connection. Thus the "also" of 9" clearly indicates that, whoever may have written the preceding verses, the author of this one intended to connect them with what follows. The connec- tion between 9"^- and lo^-ii^ is unmistakable; for, besides the references to Israel in both passages, there is the peculiar metrical form in which they are cast to mark them as parts of one composi- tion. The rest of ch. 1 1 has not the same form, — in fact, most of it is plain prose, — and there is room for doubt whether it is the work of the same author as the first verses; but it evidently owes its pres- ent position in the book of Zechariah to the fact that, like 10^, it has for its subject worthless shepherds, and 13^"^ should be, and no doubt originally was, attached to it for the same reason. Thus far there has been a traceable unity. Here, however, there comes a break, and from this point onward the marks that have been noted are conspicuously absent. The author of 12^ therefore, whoever he was, was justified in introducing a new title. It suggests several questions. The only one germane to the present discussion is whether this title covers the rest of the book, 13^"^ ex- cepted, or, rather, whether there is a connection between the parts of this latter half similar to that which has been traced through the first three chapters. There seems to be such a connection. At any rate, Jerusalem is prominent throughout as a centre of interest and anticipation. In 13^^ this central point is for the time being lost sight of, but the passage can hardly be explained except as suggested by 12^ where "the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem" are expressly mentioned. This being the case, one may still separate Second Zechariah into two divisions, the first consisting of chs. 9-1 1 and 13'"^, and the second of 12^-13® and 14. In the first division the first break naturally comes after 9^". The place for the second is not so easy to determine. There are those who find none before the end of ch. 10. It is usual, however, to make one at the end of ch. 9 or after 10^. Hitzig makes one at each of these two points. So also We., Now., Marti, et al. The matter is well put by Keil: "The close connection between v. ^^ and V. ^ shows that with v.^ there commences a new line of thought, 220 ZECHARIAH for which, however, 9*^ prepares the way." The third section, then, begins with lo^ It includes 1 1*"^, for (i) these last verses have the same metrical form as the preceding, and (2) they lose all signifi- cance unless they are so connected. The same may be said of 13''* in relation to ii^'". In this case the fact that, as v. Ortenberg points out,* 11^^ is a parallel to Ez. 34^ and 13' to Ez. 34^ confirms the inference from form and subject. It is suggested that the transfer of 13^^" to its present position in the Massoretic text was occasioned by a fancied relation between it and ch. 14.! Per- haps the reviser thought that the capture and destruction of Jeru- salem foretold in 14* was the fiery trial of 13". Whatever may have been the reason for it, the opinion that such a change has been made is widely held among biblical scholars.^ The remainder, after the removal of 13^^-, naturally divides itself into two sec- tions, 12^-13^ and 14. § 2. THE TEXT OF CHS. 9-I4. The text of the second, like that of the first, part of the book of Zechariah has imdergone various changes, intentional or unin- tentional, some of which are of considerable importance. There seem to be more of them in the first two chapters than in the remain- ing four; but this may be only because the regularity of the rhythm in 9/. makes it easier to detect those that have been made than in the prose, or less regular poetry, of the other chapters. There are here, as in First Zechariah, a number of cases in which more or less significant explanations have been added. See the phrase " the house of Judah " in 10^. The last words of 9* are of this character, and probably, also, the phrase "against the sons of Greece" in 9" and the statement "a tiller of the soil am I" in 13^. The in- stances of expansion are much more numerous. In some cases whole verses have been added. The following are good examples: in 9", "in which there is no water"; in 10^, "for I have redeemed thee"; in 12", "and over Judah will he be also in the siege against Jerusalem." There are not many apparent corrections. The * Die Bcslandtlteile des Buches Sacharja, 53 /. t V. Ortenberg, BBS., 55. X So Su., We., Now., Marti, Kit., el al. THE TEXT OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV 221 most notable is in 12'", where, as will be explained in the critical notes, some one has undertaken to remedy an error by a copyist. The following table contains all the changes that have been noted, arranged in such a way as to show how the text should be restored when necessary. 222 ZECHARIAH THE TEXT OF ZECHARIAH, IX-XIV. ADDITIONS. OMISSIONS. ERRORS. 9,1. hi<-\v-> — Ssi DIN ]>•; for s-(N '-ip. 2. IS 3- 4- S- 6. 7. VST for 1S1 (?); I'^ND for '\^_t*o. 8. The entire verse. naxa for nasi;. 9- xo. •'i-nani for nnani. II. 13 O'O pS. 12. 1UD Dvn aj rtnxaS i3ir for nc'i. 13- p> i>j3 Sy y:2 for ''ja. 14. ••JINI 15. : iSaNi : niN3x p-itna irni for 3^21. 16. .-ijn> after insj; ncn after irj. 0 for 3. 17- The entire verse. THE TEXT OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV 223 THE TEXT OF ZECHARIAH, IX-XIV. ADDITIONS. OMISSIONS. ERRORS. 9, I- arid all the tribes of Israel. the eye of man for the cities of Aram. 2. Tyre. 3- 4. 5. 6. 7- pi. of blood for sg.; chief for family. 8. 9. 10. 11. The entire verse. with no water in it. from an army for an outpost. he will, for I will, de- stroy. 12. for trouble ; to-day, also, I declare. return (imv.) for and shall return. 13- against the sons of Yawan. Thy sons for the sons of {Yawan). 14. yea, the Lord. IS- of Hosts; devour and; like a bowl. and they shall rage for blood. 16. will he they after feed ; [shall crown. they be) for for like. 17- The entire verse. 224 ZECHAMAH THE TEXT OF ZECHARIAH, IX-XIV. ADDITIONS. OMISSIONS. ERRORS. lO, I. u'ipSn nj,'3 2. pcnr — nmSni U'DJ for nj,'Dj. 3- 4- The entire verse. 5- O'Ba for O'tis. 6. DJi'Nl — 'JN '3 omarini for D.iirm. 7- hr for Sji. 8. DTno '•3 9- nu'i — vm a;ntNi for Dnmi; vni for vni lO. ?1J3S\ II. a^Sj a'>3 nam 12. The entire verse. o'maji for omaji; i3':'nn> for iSSnn\ II, I. 2. mtr — SS^n 3- ar-nN for on^yiD. 4- 'hSn for ''Sn. S- "\CN' for ncN'; nu'PNi for is'jJN]; D^'Pi for 6. 7- 'MJJ jdS for "WsS; o>':'3n for O'San. 8. nnN — nnoNi 9- THE TEXT OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV THE TEXT OF ZECHARIAH, IX-XR'. 225 ADDITIONS. 10, I. in the time — rain. 2. Yea, they speak — comfort. 3. of Hosts; the house of Judah; in war. 4. The entire verse. 5- 6. for I am — them. 7- 8. for I have re- deemed them. 9. and they shall rear — return. 10. and Lebanon. 11. And he will smile — waves. 12. The entire verse. 2. Wail, cypress — de- vastated. 3- S- 8. and I destroyed- month. moved for were scattered. in mire for as it were mire. An ambiguous word for / will ez'en restore them. shall exult for and shall exult. sowed for scattered; live for rear. and I will make them mighty for and their might {shall be); walk for make their boast. glory for pasture. my God for to me. says for say ; abnormal form of vb. be rich; their, mas. for fern. therefore the poorest of for tJie traders in; binders for bonds. 226 ZECHARIAH THE TEXT OF ZECHARIAH, IX-XIV. ADDITIONS. OMISSIONS. ERRORS. II 10. n^cnS for ic^S. II. ^'jp J3 for "JPJ3. 12. 13- •\p^r\ for ixiNn, twice; 'Pip'' for pnp'. 14. IS- 'Sin for Smn. 16. pnnajn for P^njjn; -\-;:n for npjni; naxon for naxjni or naynm ; m'Dioi for in'pi3i 17- Sd' after Jnn, S'Snh forS'lNH. 13 7. niN3x — aNj in for n3N or riy:)r^ with- out pn; O'-iyin for 12 8. I. SniB" — HE'D a. oWn' — oj) 3. yinn — 1BDNJ1 4. 'J'P — Spi 1 before 'Pidn. ipu' for ipui. Sp for Sn. 5. 'bSn for 'dSn; '3

>*? for '3B"S. 6. (oSuhn'3) — n3K*>i »dSn for 'cSn. 7. njE'N'^3 for njB'Nia; 3B*' for '3C". 8. 31^' for OB*'. 9- 10. PN 3C" for '3K"; 'Sk for Sn; noni for moni. THE TEXT OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV 227 THE TEXT OF ZECHARIAH, IX-XIV. ADDITIONS. OMISSIONS. ERRORS. II, 10. Irregular form of inf. {break). II. Then the poorest of for the traders in. 12. 13- potter for treasury. I have, for thou hast, been valued. 14. 15- Irreg. form of adj. {fool- ish). 16. Those that are, for the one that is, being destroyed; the young for and the one that is wandering ; the one that surviveth for and the one that sur- viveth or kungereth; hoofs for legs. 17- shall fall after sword. worthless {of worthless- ness) for foolish. 13, 7- saith — Hosts. smite for I will smite; prtc. for adj. {little ones). 8. and before die. 9- Then before will I say. 12, I. An oracle — Israel. against for to. 2. and over Judah — Jeriisalefn. 3- and there shall be gathered— earth. t 4- and upon the house — eyes. 5- chiefs for families; strength for me the in- habitants for strength for the inhabitants. 6. but Jerusalem — {in Jerusalem). chiefs ioT families. 7. first for as at first , inhab- itant for inhabitants. 8. inhabitant for i7ihabi- tants. 9' 10. Sign of the ace. inhabitant for inhabi- tants ; me for hint ; inf. for fin. vb. {grieve). 228 ZECHARIAH THE TEXT OF ZECHARIAH, IX-XIV. ADDITIONS. OMISSIONS. ERRORS. 12, II. 12. ^3S Dn>t'ji after naS". ninfliTD for nncu'D twice. 13- 14. nhflrn for rnorc twice. 13,1- PNisnS for nxanS. 2. mN3S 3- 4- 1.-iN3jn3 lU' after itt'oS\ 5- >3JN— C"N ■'jj|in D-iN for •'j'jp nciN. 6. in^ for inx. 14,1. 2. 3- av3 for 1D3. 4- — -»i:'n :Ninn ova OTtn in2 : oipc 5- mini — DrDji' 1 before Ss. anpjt' for onpji; •'in nu for linu; Sxn for ^xx; \nSN for T^Ss; D''r-i|"> for rrip; ic}' for isy. 6. -\iN for iiy; n)-\p'' for nnpi; pNDp'' for jiNDpi. 7- nirrS — Nin 8. 9- 10. The entire verse. 31D' for 3D1 ( ?) ; Sijci for II. na i3t*M THE TEXT OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV THE TEXT OF ZECHARIAH, IX-XIV. 229 ADDITIONS. OMISSIONS. ERRORS. 12, II. 12. and their women alone families by themselves after themselves.^ for each family by themselves. 13- 14. families by themselves for each family by themselves. 13.1- Const, for abs. of sin. 2. of Hosts. 3- 4- when he prophe- sieth. longer before wear. 5- A tiller— I. man hath sold me for the soil hath been my possession. 6. thy hands for thy sides. 14,1. 2. 3- as in the day for as. 4- in that day; which — eastward; the mount of Ol- ives? 5- Ye shall flee— and before all. ye shall flee by the gorge Judah. of my mountains for Gihon shall be stopped; A sal and for the side of it; my God for thy God; the holy ones for his holy ones; with thee for with him. 6. light for longer; precious things shall contract for cold and frost. 7- it is known to 8. 9- Yahweh. The entire verse. 10. to the site of the from before the tower. And at the beginning first gate. changed to preforma- tive of the impf. II. and they shall dwell in it. 230 ZECHARIAH THE TEXT OF ZECHARIAH, IX-XIV. ADDITIONS. OMISSIONS. ERRORS. 14, 12. pen for pDH; on^DO for 13. ini'T T> for inpna. 14. 313D flDNi for nppNi. IS- 16. 17- 18. — n'? -ic=n :nSi2 So before DMjn nN3 nSi for nN2i or nSi niDDD N3n. 19. 20. Sy for S3 21. THE TEXT OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV 23 1 THE TEXT OF ZECHARIAH, IX-XIV. ADDITIONS. OMISSIONS. ERRORS. 14, 12. Hiph. for Niph.; their, inf. pi. for distributive. 13. A faulty construction of hand. 14. round. there shall he collected for they shall collect. IS- 16. 17. 18. then before on them ( ?) ; the following not; that come— tab- ernacles. all before the nations. have not presented them- selves for present them- selves or present not themselves. 19. 20. on for all. 21. 232 ZECHARIAH § 3. THE AUTHORSHIP OF CHS. 9-I4. The object of the above attempt to restore the original text of the chapters under examination was to furnish a rehable basis for further inquiry. There are several questions that demand con- sideration. The first is whether these chapters are the work of the same author as the preceding eight. Tradition says that they all came from Zechariah the son of Iddo, and this was for centuries the unanimous belief among both Jews and Christians. In this case, as in that of the Pentateuch, the impulse to criticism was given by a defender of the Scriptures. More than a hundred years before Astruc published his famous Conjectures, Josejjh Mede (f 1638), in explanation of Mt. 27^ ^-j where a quotation from Zc. 11^' is attributed to Jeremiah, ventured to question tra- dition. These are his words: "Nay, indeed, there is reason to sus- pect that the Holy Spirit [through Matthew] desired to claim these three chapters, 9, 10, 11, for their real author. For there are a great many things in them which, if one carefully consider them, seem not to suit the time of Zechariah as well as that of Jeremiah."* This modest suggestion did not at once attract attention, but finally, in 1700, it was adopted and extended by Bishop Kidder, who said of chs. 12-14, "This is certain, that such things are contained in these chapters as agree with the time of Jeremiah, but by no means with that of Zechariah." f He was followed by William Whiston in a work J denounced as "a monstrosity" by Carpzov,§ who thus inaugurated a controversy which has had more than two sides, and still remains unsettled. There was a time when the title at the beginning of the book of Zechariah was considered a suftlcient guarantee of its unity, but since it has been generally recognised that many of the prophecies once attributed to Isaiah were written by another person or per- sons of a much later period an argument of this sort has ceased to be convincing. It is the internal evidence, if there is any, on which ♦ Dissertalionum eccUsiasl. triga, 1653. t The Demonslralion of Ike Messiah, ii, igp. X An Essay Towards Restoring the True Text oj the Old Testament, 1722. § Crit. Sac., 781. THE AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV 233 a safe conclusion must be based. When, therefore, the question arises whether the prophet who wrote the first eight chapters of Zechariah is the author of the last six also, the way to settle it is to compare the two parts the one with the other in their most noticeable features. In this case, since the peculiarities of the style and content of the first part have already been noted, it is only necessary to examine the second to see if the same features, or any considerable number of them, are reproduced in these last chapters. If they are not, that is, if the author who reveals him- .self there is not recognisable as the son of Iddo, the unity of the book called by his name must be abandoned. The first thing noted concerning the prophecies attributed to Zechariah was that, like those of Haggai, they were all dated, and, moreover, that they contained references to persons and events which made it possible to verify the dates given. Now, there are no dates in the last six chapters, nor is there an open reference to any person or event by which a date can be fixed. Indeed, the author, if there be but one, seems at times purposely to have avoided the mention of names, thus making his utterances rid- dles to his modern, and doubtless to some of his earliest readers. See especially 11^ *^-. In view of what has just been said, one does not expect to find the first person used here as it is in the first eight chapters. There, it will be remembered, the regular form of introduction was, "Then came the word of Yahweh of Hosts to me." Here the first person occurs only in 11^ ^-j where the introductory formula (v. ^) is a strange cross between the one heretofore used and another favour- ite with Zechariah, the result being, "Thus said Yahweh to me."* See also "Then said Yahweh to me" in vv. "• ^^. The fondness of Zechariah for visions was found to be one of his prominent characteristics. There are no visions in the last six chapters, and this fact has sometimes been cited as proof that these chapters were not written by him; unfairly, however, since the absence of visions from chs. 7 and 8 is not regarded as a mark of ungenuineness, and their occurrence in chs. 9-14 woidd not mean that Zechariah wrote these chapters, imless it could be shown that * The Massoretic text has " my God." 234 ZECHARIAH the given visions were used in the manner, and for the same pur- pose, traceable in the first part of the book. If they revealed an apocalyptical tendency, since, as has been shown, Zechariah was by no means visionary, they would have a contrary significance. The next point to be considered is the literary form in which are cast the last six chapters as compared with the first eight. It was found that in the earlier chapters the prophet wrote in rather mo- notonous prose, only now and then, sometimes apparently almost unconsciously, adopting a more or less regular rhythmical move- ment. The ninth chapter at first promises little better, but, by supplying a few words that have evidently been lost and omitting more that have just as evidently been added, vv. ^"" are trans- formed into a succession of double tristichs almost as regular as the lines of Second Isaiah. There are six of these stanzas. The first part of the poem, in form as well as in content, strongly re- calls Am. i^ ''•; for, if the introductory phrase and the useless gloss "of iron" in v. ^ be omitted, there will remain in the judgment on Syria nine regular lines, or, as Harper divides them, three tris- tichs.* In w. ®'^ there are three more.f The remaining judg- ments are not so regular, in the form in which they have been trans- mitted, but each of them has at least one tristich. It is this pre- vailingly triple arrangement which the author of Zc. 9^"*" follows, and that with a regularity which would probably not have been attempted by a more original writer. With 9", as has been explained, begins a new section, and from this point onward there is a different literary form. Not that the writer, if the same, here passes from poetry to prose. He still measures his words, and, indeed, by the three-toned rule, but he now puts four lines, instead of twice three, into a stanza, and this arrangement is continued as far as v. ' of the eleventh chapter. These are significant facts, and they admit of but one interpreta- tion. It is clear that, if Zechariah wrote the first eight chapters of the book called by his name, he cannot have written the sections ♦ Harper, by including the introductory formula and the above-mentioned gloss, gets one irregular stanza of five lines. t In this case there is another gloss " to deliver to Edom," besides a "Thus saith the Lord Yahweh" at the beginning, and a "saith the Lord Yahweh" at the end, of the section to be eliminated. THE AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV 235 (9^-1 1^) that have just been described. They constitute an elab- orate poem; he in his undoubted writings never attempted to put together a dozen lines. The next section (11^"" and 13^'®) consists mainly of a prose nar- rative, to which are added a few lines in a movement somewhat different from that of chs. 9 and 10. These lines, which are vari- ations on a six-toned model, form four tristichs, one at the end of ch. II, the others in the transposed passage. The fact that they resemble one another in structure shows that 13^"® should follow ch. II, but since the same measure appears in 3', the use of it here is favourable rather than unfavourable to the authorship of Zechariah. The conclusion with reference to chs. 12 and 14 must be that, although they are on the whole more rhythmical than the first eight, there is no sustained movement, like that in chs. 9 and 10, which by its regularity forces itself upon the reader's attention. Marti says of i2'-i3«, "It is impossible to discover in this section a single and consistent metrical form. The description of the lamentation in 12"-'* is a repetition of the same words so stereotyped that numerical prevail over poetical considerations, and the statement concerning the prophetic order in i3'-6 follows in the language of prose. The rest seems modelled after the type of the tristich, but the lines in the tristichs are not throughout of the same length." He then proceeds, by additions and omissions, often arbitrary and sometimes inconsistent, to adjust the te.xt to his theory. In point of fact, al- though it is possible in this way to produce a succession of approximately equal lines, there are only a few places in ch. 12 where there is any ground for sup- posing that the author consciously measured his words as he wrote. One of these is v. *, where, strangely enough, Marti throws the measure into con- fusion by including the introductory formula, and substitutes an evident gloss for an equally evident parallel to the main proposition. See the comments; also on vv. *. 8. 10. 12 f.. In ch. 14 Marti discovers a scheme of tetrastichs. Three of these he con- structs out of the first five verses by rejecting the whole of v. ', nearly half of v. * and more than half of v. ^, and leaving a lacuna to be supplied in each of the last two verses; but it will puzzle most readers to find traces of poetical form, except at the beginning and the end of the passage, and here it seems to be unintentional. The same is true of the occasional lines in the remaining verses of the chapter. The comparison between the first and second parts of Zecha- riah as respects literary form must now be supplemented by a more T 236 ZECHARIAH minute inquiry, namely, whether the forms of expression charac- teristic of Zechariah as the author of chs. i-8 recur in the last six chapters under similar circumstances. The following are the facts: "The word of Yahweh came to me," the formula by which the prophet regularly introduces his messages, does not occur in these chapters. In 11* the corresponding formula is, "Thus said Yahweh to me." "Thus saith (said) Yahweh," with (17) or without (2) "of Hosts," is also conspicuous by its absence, the case just cited not being parallel. "Saying," which is noticeably frequent (29 t.) in the first eight chapters, and would naturally have been used in ii< 'f-, occurs neither there nor else- where in the last six. The appeal to the future, "Then shall ye know," etc., is used 4 t. in the first part of the book, but not at all in the second. "The Lord of the whole earth" is a title for God that would have suited the thought of these last chapters, but it is not used, "the King, Yahweh of Hosts," being substituted for it. Zechariah makes large use of rhetorical questions, but there is only one question of any sort after the eighth chapter. The use of the participle, with or without a preceding helwld,* or in an adverbial sense, is frequent (29 t.) in chs. 1-8. Here it is used in all only 12 t. A number of words were found to be characteristic of Zechariah. They are the following: 'JN, the shorter form of the pron. of the first person singular, is used e.xclusively in the first, but only 2 out of 6 t. in the second, part of the book. in3, in the sense of take pleasure, is not found where it might be ex- j pected, even in ch. i4.^oyi, purpose, also, is wanting. Thn, appease, might have been used in 14'^- '", but ninPE'n was preferred. Nip is not found in the sense of proclaim in these chapters. T'lNU', remnant, is wanting, t."^' being used in 14' in its place. 3ir, return, where it might be used adverbially in the sense of again, is replaced by ni;?. pr, dwell, is used like 3U", of both God and men in chs. 1-8. In chs. 9-14 only the latter occurs, and that 12 t. lir, midst, very common in chs. 1-8, docs not occur in 9-14, a^P being employed in its place. Various other words are cited by Eckardt,t but these are enough to show that the vocabulary of chs. 9-14 differs appreciably from that of 1-8 in respects in which they ought to agree, if they were written by the same perrson. In the examination of chs. 1-8 it was noted that Zechariah re- peatedly referred to "the former prophets." There are no such references in chs. 9-14. This, however, does not mean that there * njn. t ZAW., 1893, 104 §. THE AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV 237 are no points of contact between these chapters and other prophetic writings. There are, and more of them than there are in the first part of the book. The following is a list, based on those by Stade and others, of passages in the case of which there may be any kind or degree of dependence, with the passages to which the first are related (Stade, ZAW., 1881, 41 ff.; Kuiper, Zach. ix-xvi, ioi_^.; Staerk, Untersuchungen, 18 jf.): 9', if it is "the word" that is on the land of Hadrak, has a parallel in Is. 98/'. 92 in its original form contained no reference to Tyre, yet there is evi- dently a relation of dependence between it and Ez. 28^. 9' f ■ has the same sub- ject, the same measure and the same number of lines as Am. p' '•• The vari- ations from the latter passage are in harmony with Ez. 28". 9'"^ is just as dearly related to Am. i^-^. The phrase "to deliver them to Edom" in v. ', like "to Edom" in v. ', is an explanatory gloss suggested by Ez. 35^. Comp. Harper. There are also reminders of Is. 20'' Jc. 252". 9^ has behind it a long course of development. The passages of which its phraseology first reminds one are Je. 23^ Zp. 3" '■ Is. 6i"' 62". Cf. also Is. 49^ sCf-. 9'". The language is that of Mi. s^/'", but the thought is more nearly in harmony with 4'. 9" '• recall Is- 42', but especially 6ii- '. On v. '2, see Is. 40'. "For trouble" is a gloss bringing the passage into closer harmony with its parallel. 9" describes a theophany, but it does not resemble that of Ex. 19'* o- so much as that of Jos. lo'" '• or that of i S. 7'". 9I6 ff.. Yahweh is frequently repre- sented as a shepherd by the prophets, but the most elaborate of these passages, and the one most nearly related to this one, is Ez. 34" "■. 10'. The suc- cession, lightning, rain, herbage is found also in Jb. 38^5 »-. C/. also 2826. 10*. If 9'^ betrays dependence on Ez. 34" '•, it is probable that this verse was influenced by Ez. 34* '■. Cf. also Je. 23' '-. 10' combines Je. 23" and Ez. 3410- 17. At the end one is reminded of Jb. 39" ''■. lo*. If the following verses betray acquaintance with Is. ii" ' ■, this one will be only another way of putting the thought of 11". 10^. If 10' was in part suggested by Je. 23^, this verse must be a reminiscence of Je. 23* Is. ii'^ f-. lo^ continues the thought of Je. 23'. Cf. also Is. 7'* 27". 10' '•. The thought is more than once expressed in earlier writings. Cf. Je. 23* Ho. 11' Is. 11" Mi. 7" '•. 10" has a strong resemblance to Is. 11''. ii'- ^^. The representation of great men or nations by great trees is a common figure. The passage most resembling this one is Is. 2". Cf. also Ju. 9'^. n' looks like an imitation of Je. 2536- 38. On the "pride of the Jordan," see Je. 12*. ir^. On "the flock for slaughter," see Je. 12'. ii^ combines features of Ez. 34' Je. 50' Ho. 12^/8. 11'. If II* was suggested by Ho. 12"^, probably "the traders" of this verse are from Ho. 128/7. For the "staves," see Ez. 37'5 5.. ii9 looks like an imitation of Ez. 34^ '■. Cf. also v. '^. 11". Cf. v. 7. ii'2. The amount is the same as in Ex. 21^2. nie. Cf. v. ». 11". The language is that of Je. 50^* 3-, but the thought seems to be that of Ez. 30". 13^ has the thought of Ez. 34'^-, with various additions. Cf. also Is. i'^. 13' resembles in form Ez. 512. 139. "I will smelt thee" recalls Is. i^; also 4810. The latter half of the verse is more like Ho. 2»/=5. Cf. Ez. 362* 3f- ". '/ 238 ZECHARIAH 12', in part almost Is. 51", more freely reproduces a part of 42'. 12'. "The cup of reeling" is a familiar figure. In this case the writer combines the thought of Je. 51' and 2S^'>'-. i2<. The three nouns are found in Dt. 28". i2« recalls Is. 9'»/2o. i2«. The thought is that of Is. 31' '•. Cf. also Dt. 4"; perhaps Is. 63'>o-. 12', if it refers to the protection of the city, furnishes a parallel to Is. 31' or 17'' ■•• i2'"'- The Spirit works reformation, as in Ez. 36^^ '■. Cf. also Je. 6-*. 1$^ also reminds one of Ezekiel. Cf. 36*' ". 13- recalls Ez. 36*; also Ho. 2"/". i^' has points of resemblance with Dt. i3« '■ 141. The peculiar expression "a dy to Yahwch" occurs Is. 2" Ez. 30'. 14'. There are various features which ch. 14 has in common with Ez. 38. This verse corresponds to v. '* of that passage rather than Jo. 4/3". Cf. also Ez. 39'. 14* '•. This theophany strongly resembles that of Dt. 33'. The whole follows V. s as Ez. 38" '■ follow v. ". 14' is only another way of put- ting the thought of Is. 30'' and 60" '• 14^ Another form of the picture of Ez. 47i«-. C/. also Jo. 4/3IS. m'". Like Mi. 4> (Is. a^), but more literal. Cf. also Je. 3i'8. 14". The first clause in a modified form is found in Je. 33", but the thought is more fully elaborated in Ez. 24^'-^- 14'^- An enlargement on the "pestilence" of Ez. 38". 14" is the equivalent of Ez. 38=1. 14" cor- responds to Ez. 39'". 14" holds a middle position between Mi. 4' "• (Is. 2^ ■•) and Je. 3'^, on the one hand, and Is. 66^3 on the other. 142" '•. The sanctity of Jerusalem is repeatedly predicted in the earlier prophetical writ- ings: for example, Je. 31". On the legend quoted, see Ex. 28". Cf. also Jo. 4/3''- In the remarks accompanying the above list care has been taken to avoid the question whether the passages cited from chs. 9-14 are dependent on those that they more or less closely resemble or vice versa. This is not the place to discuss the relative date of these chap- ters. It is proper, however, to note at this point some facts with reference to the list as compared with that in the Introduction to chs. 1-8. The first thing that one will naturally notice is that this list is nearly twice as long as the other. This fact, however, has not so much significance as might at first sight be supposed, since so much of the first part is occupied by the visions that it really furnishes only about half as large a field for possible reference to other writings as the second. The most interesting feature of this list, therefore, is not the number of points of contact with other books it contains, but the distribution of the passages to which those cited may with more or less reason be regarded as parallels. The facts are as fol- lows: There are none from Haggai. There are relatively fewer from Micah, Jeremiah and Second Isaiah, and only about as many from Amos and First Isaiah ; but there are twice as many from Hosea and THE AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV 239 almost three times as many from Ezekiel. Note also that in this list Job appears twice and Deuteronomy three times. These are inter- esting items. One of them has a bearing on the present object. It is the absence of any apparent acquaintance with Haggai; which certainly is not favourable to the opinion that Zechariah is the author of these as of the first eight chapters. The comparison between the first and second parts of the book can, and should, be carried beyond mere externals. In doing so it will be necess ry again to refer to the visions, not, however, this time, as literary devices, but as a source of information concerning the ideas directly or indirectly taught by Zechariah. In the In- troduction to the first eight chapters it was noted that the prophet not only describes himself as receiving instruction through an an- gelic interpreter, but that he represents Yahweh as generally hid- ing himself from human eyes and employing angels to deliver and execute his decrees among men. In chs. 9-14 there is a differ- ent conception of God's ways. It shows itself in 9", where, in- deed, "the holy ones" are mentioned, but as the attendants, not the messengers, of Yahweh. In fact, this chapter is an excellent example of biblical apocalyptic, the most prominent features of which are the sudden and terrific appearance of the Deity to rescue his people in their extremity and the immediate transformation of existing conditions for their benefit. As such it is unlike anything in the first eight chapters. Apocalyptic has other striking characteristics. Charles {DB., art. Apocalyptic Literature) mentions three. In the first place, it "despises the present." Such pessimism finds expression es- pecially in ii"- ^, where the writer warns his people that the best of them must still go through fiery affliction, and 14^ where even the capture of their holy city is predicted. There is nothing of this kind in chs. 1-8. Zechariah, it is true, acknowledges that his present is a day of "small things," but he sees hope in it, and expects the change to come, not by an external fiat, but through internal improvement. Indeed, in ch. 8 he already finds the good time coming, and encourages his people to recognise it by transforming their fasts into seasons of "joy and rejoicing." Cf. V. '\ 24© ZECHARIAH Another characteristic of apocalyptic is "an indefinitely wider view" than is usual in prophecy. Here it sees, first, "all the peo- ples round" (12^), and then "all the nations" (14^), gathering against the insignificant city of Jerusalem, only to be repulsed and overthrown at sight of Yahweh. This also is unlike Zecha- riah. There is no hint of it in any of his recognised prophecies. In fact, by the time the last of them was written, or uttered, he knew that no such riot among the nations as Ezekiel pictures was possible. He seems to have been content if his people might en- joy, as they did, the semblance of self-government under the a-gis of the king of Persia. Finally, according to Charles, apocalyptic is characterised by "ruthless cruelty" in the fate predicted for the enemies of the Chosen People. He does not refer to the "fire" and the "sword" with which the prophets generally threaten their own. as well as surrounding nations, but to tortures which are the hideous and dreadful reflection of the things the Jews suffered from their op- pressors. There is a trace of such cruelty in 9^^ and ii^ but it is most apparent in 14^^- ^^, where, as in Is. 66^^, the writer seems to gloat over the agonies described. This certainly is not the spirit that dictated the twice-given exhortation, "Devise not evil one against another in your hearts" (7*" 8"), and which represents the nations as flocking to Jerusalem, not from fear of a threatened plague (14^), but because they have heard that God has revealed himself there. Cf. S^. The last point recalls a term used in the Introduction to the first eight chapters to indicate one of the most noticeable characteris- tics of Zechariah and his utterances. It was sobriety. It certainly cannot be used of these last chapters as a whole. The term ex- travagance would better suit some, at least, of them. Nor is the cruelty displayed the only evidence to this effect. It appears in the writer's picture of the future. In the matter of the extent of the Messianic kingdom the data are conflicting. Thus, from chs. 9/. it would appear that the writer claimed as the final heritage of his people all that was ever promised them, from the land of Hadrak in the north to the desert south of Gaza (9*"0, so extended a domain, and more, being required because the tribes of Israel as THE AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV 241 well as Judah are to be restored to their country. Cf. lo^- ^". In chs. 12-14, as in the first eight, nothing is said of Israel, but in 14^° the land of which Jerusalem is the capital is described as ex- tending only from Geba on the north to Rimraon on the south of the city, that is, as including only the territory of the earlier king- dom of Judah. These two forecasts are irreconcilable the one with the other. Moreover, if Zechariah wrote chs. 1-8, he can hardly be the author of either of them. The teaching of chs. 9-14 differs from that of the first eight with reference to the head of the future kingdom. Zechariah declares the promise concerning him fulfilled in Zerubbabel, a prince al- ready born and present in the community. CJ. 4^ (P^-. From 9^"^'', on the other hand, one learns that he has not yet appeared, that, in fact, he mil not appear until the country over which he is destined to rule has been subdued for him. There are no other references to him; for ii^^- is anything but a Messianic prophecy, while in ch. 12 it is the whole house of David, and not any particu- lar member of it, who is to be "like God" and "like the angel of Yahweh" before the people. The modesty of Zechariah's expectations concerning conditions in general in the future has been noted. He promises his people only that they shall have a peace and prosperity that permits long and happy lives. In ch. 9 also peace is promised, but here the prom- ise includes "the nations." Thus far there has been no serious divergence, but according to ch. 14 when Yahweh comes to the rehef of Jerusalem all things will become new. The sun will hover over Judea, banishing cold and darkness and making an endless summer day. At the same time the rugged and often barren hills will smooth themselves into a plain through which eastward and westward wUl flow perennial streams to fructify the soil. Even if this picture is to be taken figuratively, there is still difference enough between it and the idyllic description of ch. 8 to warrant one in hesitating to attribute both to the same author. Finally, it remains to compare the emphasis on ethical matters in the first, and the lack of it in the second, part of the book. In his insistence on justice and other social \artues, as has been shown, Zechariah in the undoubted prophecies is a worthy follower of 242 ZECHARIAH Amos and Isaiah. The same cannot be said for the author, or authors, of chs. 9-14. In fact, although there are a few passages from which one may infer a regard for justice and kindness, es- pecially toward Jews, there are no ethical precepts. On the other hand, the matter of sanctity, in the sense of exclusive devotion to Yahweh and freedom from ceremonial uncleanness, is prominent, and the motto of the new order, according to 14'" is not mutual good-will, but "Holiness to Yahweh," even in the bells of the horses. It is clear that Zechariah, though a priest, after having written ch. 8, would hardly in his last message to his people have put so much stress upon externals. The conclusion to which this comparison points is unmistakable; yet, be- fore closing the case, it is only fair to consider the arguments for the Zecharian authorship of chs. 9-14 with which Robinson concludes his discussion. (The Prophecies of Zechariah, 87^.) He claims (i) that "the fundamental ideas of both parts are the same," giving certain speciiications. (a) "An unusually deep, spiritual tone." The passages cited from chs. 9-14 are 9' 10"' 12" 148. ao f .. Of these lo'^ is an addition to the text and 14' a description of one of the physical features of the new Judah. The others reveal, it is true, a zeal for religion, but in only one of them (12"') is there any indication of spir- itual experience, (b) "A similar attitude of hope and expectation, notably concerning (a) the return of the whole nation." This, as has been shown, is a prevailing idea in chs. 9-1 1, but nowhere else is there a genuine reference to Israel. (/S) "Jerusalem shall be inhabited." Note, however, that, as h;is been explained, the Jerusalem of 14'", perched aloft over an unbroken plain, is not the Jerusalem of chs. 1-8. (7) "The temple shall be built." It is only in the first part that the temple is still in process of erection. In 13^ it is evi- dently already completed; nor is there, either in this passage or elsewhere in the second part, anything to forbid the assumption that worship therein has long since been resumed. (5) The "Messianic hope is peculiarly strong." This is true, but, as has been shown, the "king" of ch. 9 is not the "Shoot" of the first part, (e) "Peace and prosperity are expected." This also is only partially correct; for 10" has the only reference in chs. 9-14 to the mate- rial benefits for which Zechariah looked, and it is an adddition to the text, (f) "The idea of God's providence as extending to the whole earth." Note, however, as has been shown, that the method by which he governs the world is by no means the same in both parts, (c) "The prophet's attitude toward Judah." See the criticism on (b) (a), (d) "The prophet's attitude toward the nations." It has been shown that the tone of the second part, especially chs. II and 14, is much more stern and cruel than that of chs. 1-8, and that, whereas in ch. 8 the nations are drawn to Jerusalem, according to ch. 14 they are driven thither. (2) Robinson claims further that "there are peculiarities of thought com- mon to both parts." The specifications are as follows: (a) "The habit of THE AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV 243 dwelling on the same thought." The passages cited from chs. 1-8 are 214 f./io f. 512. 13 84. 6. 21. i2. which, however, do not justify the statement based on them, for in both 2'^ '•/"• '■ and 6'2 '. one of the identical clauses is an ac- cretion, in 8< '• the scenes described are not the same and in S"' the clause "and to seek," etc., is probably a gloss borrowed from v. 22, while in this latter verse the repetition of "to appease Yahweh" is not a peculiarity of Zechariah, but a familiar feature of Hebrew composition of which there are several ex- amples in the first chapter of Genesis, (b) "The habit of expanding one fundamental thought into the unusual number of five parallel clauses." This, too, is entirely mistaken. The first case cited from chs. 1-8 is 6'', where there are indeed five lines, but the last five of a stanza of si.\', the first having, through the carelessness of the Massoretes, been attached to the preceding verse. Cf. 3'. In i" the five clauses are not parallel, the first two being merely introductory and the last three a complete tristich. In 3' the latter half of the verse is a gloss, and in the ne.xt verse the arrangement is evidently accidental. In the passages cited from chs. 9-14 there is still less support for the supposed peculiarity, (c) "The habit of referring to a thought already introduced" is only another name for the tendency to favour certain ideas or expressions. It can have no bearing on the question at issue unless the thoughts or expressions are the same. Since, therefore, Robinson makes this claim in only three instances (3' and 13^; 3^ and 14I6; 52 and 14'°), and in all of them unwarrantably, the point can hardly be regarded as well taken, (d) "The use made of the cardinal number two." It is plain that such a usage can be called a peculiarity only when it is more or less arbitrary, which it is not in any of the cases cited except 9'^, where the writer is borrowing from a predecessor, (e) "The resort to symbolic actions"; a favourite method of instruction with the prophets, of which there are only two examples in each part of the book, (f) "The habit of drawing lessons from the past." The passages cited from chs. 1-8 which really illustrate this point all contain refer- ences to "the former prophets," of which, as has been shown, there is no in- stance in chs. 9-14. (3) Another indication of unity in the book of Zechariah, according to Robinson, is found in "certain peculiarities of diction and style." Under this head he first quotes a list of words common to both parts from Eckardt, to which he adds twelve words and phrases. CJ. ZAW., 1893, 104. Two of those given by Eckardt, j.UJ and -\yj, are omitted by Robinson. Of these twelve one, K'in, with DN, is used only in the first part, one, mc3, is an error of the first part, and five, mh, ]n, nj7r, nov inn, are differently used in the two parts, while four, j'^D^ hy. ]VTS na. noiN, HNC, of the remaining five are so common that their absence would be more noticeable than their appearance in either part. Of the original list Eckardt himself says that these points of contact "which are, in fact, not more numerous than those between Zechariah and any other prophet, are insignificant in comparison with the differences be- tween him and the author of the second part of the book"; and he follows this statement with a longer list of words used in different senses or instead of each other in the two parts. In conclusion he says, "These differences would be enough to prove that chs. 9-14 cannot have come from the same author as chs. 1-8." In this conclusion Robinson refuses to concur; but his reasons are not convincing. For example, in two of the three cases in which he finds similar modes of expression in both parts his arguments are based on inter- 244 ZECHARIAH polations; of the fifteen vocatives cited from the two parts only nine are dear cases of apostrophe; and of the examples of clumsy diction, those (3) of the second part are all from la'^", where formal repetition is in order. Finally, in view of the variations in the use or neglect of the vowel letters, it is hardly safe to regard the occurrence of nine cases of inconsistency in the first part of the book and five in the second, all of which may be mistakes of copyists, as "one of the strongest evidences that it was all written by one hand." (4) The next argument is that "Zc. 1-8 shows familiarity with the same books of prophecy so often quoted by the author of chs. 9-14"; the answer to which is that, as has been shown, although most of the books with which parallels may be found are the same, the number of coincidences with some of them is very different. (5) The final argument used by Robinson, "the variety of critical opin- ion," is obviously weak, since the critics, however widely they may differ from one another on the date of chs. 9-14, are almost unanimous in denying that they can have been written by Zechariah. Having thus shown the weakness of the arguments for the tra- ditional view with reference to the authorship of the book of Zech- ariah, it is time to consider the critical opinions that have been reached by modern scholarship. Mede, the first to break with tradition, attributed chs. 9-1 1 to Jeremiah, his reasons being (i) that there is really no scriptural authority for insisting that Zechariah wrote them, but (2) that there is such authority in Mt. 27** for attributing them to Jeremiah, and (3) that their content is of a character to justify the belief that he was their author. Mede's earliest followers differed from him only in applying his reasoning to the remaining chapters of the book, but Archbishop Newcome* made a new departure, main- taining that chs. 9-14 must be divided, chs. 9-1 1 being consid- erably carHer than the rest. This is his statement: "The last si.x chapters are not expressly assigned to Zechariah; are un- connected with those which precede; the three first of them are unsuitable in many parts to the time when Zechariah lived; all of them have a more adorned and poetical turn of composition than the eight first chapters; and they mani- festly break the unity of the prophetical book. I conclude from internal marks in c. ix. x. xi. that these three chapters were written much earlier than the time of Jeremiah, and before the captivity of the ten tribes. Israel is mentioned, c. ix. i, xi. 14; Ephraim c. ix. 10, 13, x. 7; and Assyria c. x. 10, II. ... They seem to suit Hosea's age and manner. . . . The xiith, xiiith, and xivth chapters form a distinct prophecy, and were written after the death of Josiah; c. xii. 11. ... I incline to think that the author lived before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. See on c. xiii. 2-6." * The Twelve Minor Prophets, 1785. THE AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV 245 The view thus stated found a friendly reception on the Conti- nent, where the way had been prepared for it by Flugge's more radical hypothesis, by Doederlein and others. Fliigge, Die Weissagungen welche hey den Schriften des Propheten Sacharjas beygebogen sind, 1784. He divides chs. 9-14 into nine distinct prophecies, as follows: 9; lo' '•; io3-i2; iii-3; ii4-i7; i2i-9; i2"'-i3S; 13'"'; 14; to which he assigns various dates. He explains their appearance in the book of Zechariah by supposing that they were preserved by this prophet, or given their present place in the collection to which his book belongs by some one else before Malachi was added. His reasons for separating them from chs. i-8, as compiled by Burger (119), are: the testimony of Matthew; the absence of dates; the space between chs. 8 and 9 in Kenn. 195; a difference of style; the absence of allusions to the former prophets; the absence of symbolism, except in ch. 1 1 ; the absence of angels, except in 12'; the appearance of parallelism; a difference in content; the ri- valry between the two kingdoms; the unsuitableness of heralding a king under Persian rule; the absence of a motive for predicting evil to Tyre, Sidon, etc. Later it was somewhat modified by Bertholdt,* who attributes chs. 9-1 1 to Zechariah, the son of Jeberechiah, a contemporary of Isaiah (Is. 8"), and 12-14 to an author of the period just before the fall of the Judean monarchy; and from his time onward it has had more defenders than that which attributes chs. 9-14 to a single author. Among those who have adopted it are Gesenius,t Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald,J Bleek,§ v. Ortenberg,** Davidson,ff Reuss, Brus- ton,JJ Orelli, Konig,§§ and Griitzmacher.*** The arguments in support of it are largely drawn from statements and allusions that are supposed to point to the dates above mentioned, or others pre- vious to the Exile. The question now is whether the inferences drawn from the given data are correct. First, it is claimed that the appearance of the names Hadrak, Damascus and the principal cities of Phoenicia and Philistia in 9^'^'' implies that the peoples inhabiting them were autonomous, and that, since they were subdued by Tiglath-pileser III, and thenceforward formed parts of the Assyrian, Babylonian or Per- sian empire, this prophecy antedates 734 B.C. Indeed, Ewald and * EM.*, 1697 if. t Isaiah, 327. t Proph., i, 248 ff., ii, 52 /. § Einl.*, 440 ff. ** Bestandlheile des Buches Sachurja, 68 ff. tt Introd., iii, 329 ff. %% Hisloire de la Litteralure ProphHique, 116 ff. §§ Einl., 366 ff. *** Unlersuchungen, 4$ ff. 246 ZECHARIAH others, including Griitzmacher, regard it as a prediction of the invasion of Palestine by the Assyrian king in that year. This, at first sight, seems a plausible suggestion, but it will not bear exami- nation. In the first place, as is proven by the woes pronounced against some of the cities here mentioned in Je. 47 and elsewhere, the little states in and about Palestine were not lost in the shadows of the great powers on which they were dependent, but, so long as they were of any importance, remained individual objects of interest to the Hebrew prophets. (The clause " before Pharaoh smote Gaza" in v. ' is a gloss. Giesebrecht.) If, therefore, Zc. q'-'", was written by a contemporary of Isaiah, the proof to that effect must be sought elsewhere than in the mere mention of the threatened cities. The truth is that it cannot be found, but that such evidence as there is points to a later origin. Note, for example, that, while Ephraim is mentioned in v. ">, the Hebrew capital is Sion, that is, Jerusalem; in other words, that the author cherishes a prospect of reunion among the twelve tribes for which there was no warrant until the northern kingdom had been overthrown. Again, ob- serve that the king described in vv. » '• is not the conquering hero of Is. g\/2 B.^ but a composite character with a decided resemblance to the Servant of Yahweh of Is. 40 jf. Finally, there is unmistakable evidence of develop- ment in the fact that, while Amos predicts the destruction of Damascus and the rest, the author of this passage expects some, at least, of the Philistines to be spared and incorporated into the new Hebrew commonwealth. A second point on which stress is laid by the defenders of a com- paratively early date, at least for chs. 9-1 1, is that in lo^*^ Egypt and Assyria represent the remotest regions to which the Hebrews have been scattered, and in v. " these countries are threatened; from which facts it is argued that ch. 10 must have been written before the end of the seventh century b.c, when the Assyrian em- pire was overthrown. This, if the other indications pointed in the same direction, would be a legitimate conclusion; but when the usage of the Old Testament with reference to the name Assyria is examined, It becomes very doubtful, the fact being that, as will appear later, "Assyria" is actually employed to designate, not only the empire properly so called, but Babylonia, Persia and even Syria. Thus far attention has been given only to allusions in chs. 9-14 to contemporary peoples. There are others to internal conditions as they existed when these chapters were written. The references to Ephraim, as distinguished from Judah, have been considered THE AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV 247 significant. One, that in 9", has already been cited. The others are in 9^^ 10® (Joseph) 10'' 11" (Israel).* In the case of 9^" it was found that Ephraim and Judah (Jerusalem) were not two indepen- dent states existing when the passage was written, but components of the Messianic kingdom of the future, and this, in view of the fact that the references to Ephraim or Joseph are connected with a promise of restoration from exile, is the interpretation that must be given to 9^^ and 10® ^-.f Moreover, those who refer 11* ^- to the same author as 9"-!!^ will have to admit that the "brother- hood between Judah and Israel" of 11" is a bond of the restored community. The passages in which mention is made of idols and false proph- ets, also, are cited as proof of the pre-exilic origin of the prophecies in which they occur. Those who thus use them, assuming that the Hebrews were cured of their tendency to disloyalty to Yahweh by the Exile, claim that 10' reflects the same state of things as Hosea's prophecies, and 13^ ^- that of the time of Jeremiah. There are several things to be said in reply. In the first place, it is incor- rect to allege that the Hebrews were free from idolatry after the Restoration, or secure from the mischievous teaching of unauthorised prophets. The hos- tility of Ezra and Nehemiah to marriages with foreign women and the meas- ures they took to prevent or undo them can only be explained by supposing, not only that these marriages exposed the husbands to temptation (Ne. IS''^ *)i but that they sometimes resulted in apostasy from Yahweh. As to false prophets, Nehemiah testifies that one of them, in the service of his ene- mies, attempted to turn him from his great work. See Ne. 6'" s-; also v. ', where Sanballat accuses Nehemiah of having some in his employ. If, there- fore, 10^, of which only the first two clauses and the last two are original, had reference to the time of the author, the mention therein of teraphim and di- viners would not determine his date. It is clear, however, from the latter part of the verse that the writer is thinking of the past, and that between him and the period to which these things belong a dynasty has been overthrown and a people scattered. It is not so easy to identify the dynasty or the peo- ple. At first sight v. ^ seems to furnish a key to the difficulty, but since the phrase "the house of Judah" is undoubtedly a gloss, it settles nothing. From V. ^, however, it appears that the flock of Yahweh includes both Ephraim and Judah, and that therefore the author of v. ' in its original form must have written after both of these kingdoms had been overthrown. Cf. Ho. 35, a gloss of the same period. * In 9' Israel evidently includes Judah, while in 12' it seems to have practically the same meaning, t In 10' " the house of Judah " is a gloss. 248 ZECHARIAH Some of those who refer chs. 9-1 1 to the eighth century B.C. find in 11* a confirmation of their opinion, claiming that the three shepherds of that passage are three kings who came to the throne of Israel during the troubled period that succeeded the death of Jeroboam II. If they refer chs. 12-14 to the same period, 12" may be cited against them; for, as will be shown, the most natural in- terpretation of that passage is that which makes it an allusion to the universal grief caused by the untimely death of the good king Josiah at the battle of Megiddo. In either case it is a valid ob- jection that no one has ever yet been able to name three kings of Israel "destroyed," as the text requires them to have been, within the space of a single month. Finally, it must be taken into ac- count that, as will be shown, the first clause of 11^ is a gloss and therefore may not represent the stand-point of the original author. A reference to the earthquake in the reign of Uzziah, such as is found in 14^, might, of course, have been made at any time after the death of this king, but, since no one thinks of separating ch. 12 from 14, it is plain that this one cannot be earlier than that to the death of Josiah in 12". In point of fact, it is later, being, like the reference to the three shepherds in 11^, an interpolation. Those who adopt a pre-exilic date or dates for chs. 9-14 generally base their opinion on the historical backgroimd as they mistakenly conceive it. Griitzmacher, however, dwells at some length on the ideas most prominent in this part of the book of Zechariah, claim- ing that they, too, support this position. Thus, he says (34) that "the representation of the Messiah contained in Zc. 9' "• fits only the period before the Exile, and is inexplicable if assigned to a postexilic date." With reference to the conversion of the Gentiles he says (36), "The views expressed in ch. 14 do not suggest a postexilic author, but find their natural explanation in the assumption that this prophecy originated before the Exile." Both of these points were anticipated in the discussion of 9'-"' and the places there enumerated. It is only necessary in this connec- tion to call attention to the irrelevancy of Griitzmacher's arguments in sup- port of them. He says (33) that the idea of the Messiah found in 93" (more correctly, 9' '•) "witnesses against the postexilic origin of Zc. 9-14. because we nowhere find a view similar to that here expressed, except in Is. 9'/^"- and 11' ff-, and Mi. 5' "• and 2"." The assumption that the Messiah of 9' '• is the same as, or similar to, the one in the passages cited from Isaiah and Micah is, as has already been shown, mistaken. Hence, the conclusion based on it is without foundation. THE AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV 249 The contention that the attitude of the author of chs. 12-14 toward the Gentiles favours the opinion that he wrote before the Exile is equally baseless. It is not enough to show, as Griitzmacher undertakes to do, that the idea of the participation of the heathen in the ideal kingdom of the future is found in Jeremiah and Second Isaiah. The question is, whether it is found there in the same, or nearly the same, stage of development as in the last chapters of Zechariah. The fact that in 9^, which Griitzmacher overlooks, the stand-point of the author is more advanced than that of any known pre-exilic or exihc writer shows that even this passage is of postexilic origin. If, therefore, as Griitzmacher maintains, chs. 12-14 are later than 9-1 1, how can chs. 12-14 have been written in the time of Jeremiah ? It remains to consider the relation of the author, or authors, of chs. 9-14 to the other prophets. Those who refer these chapters to the period before the Exile, not being agreed on a precise date or dates, naturally differ also on this question. Thus, V. Ortenberg (71), who thinks that 91-'" antedates Amos, cannot but regard Am. i' ff- as an imitation of that passage. Griitzmacher, on the other hand, says (25), "It is very probable that the author of Zc. gff. had the proph- ecies of Amos before him and used them." The latter is no doubt correct, but he does not tell the whole story, for the influence of Amos does not ac- count for all the familiar features of q'-'". There is the term "hope" or "ex- pectation," in the sense of an object of confidence or reliance, in v. ^, a term used elsewhere only in Is. 20*. More striking still is the parallelism between w. 2 « and Ez. 28^ '■ ^, where the wisdom and wealth of Tyre are described and its fate decreed. Finally, as has twice already been noted, the picture of the Messiah in v. ' is a composite one, as if the spirit of the Servant of Yahweh were stamped on the features of Isaiah's Ideal King. Cf. Is. 9^/' '• 494 50' ff-. Now, in the first of these three cases, if it were the only one, the di- rection of the dependence would be difficult to determine; but in the last two it seems clear that the author of Zc. g'-'" is the debtor, it being more reasonable to suppose that in vv. ' '• he borrowed the substance of his brief oracle from Ezekiel than that Ezekiel expanded those two verses into a chapter, and that in w. 5 ' he combined two familiar ideals than that the Great Unknown of the Exile dissected his composite character for the materials from which the Servant of Yahweh was developed. The inference is obvious. If the author of 9'"'", which is generally recognised as the oldest section of the second part of 2^chariah, borrowed from Ezekiel and the Second Isaiah, neither he nor the author of any subsequent section can have written before the Exile. Two points have now been established: first, that chs. 9-14 were not written by Zechariah, and second, that they were not written 250 ZECHARIAH before or during the Exile. They must, therefore, have origi- nated after the Exile. It remains to determine to what part or parts of the latter period they belong. The first question naturally is whether they may not have come from one or more of Zechariah's contemporaries. This is not probable. One reason for doubting it is the fact that they are at- tached to the genuine prophecies of Zechariah, the example of the book of Isaiah strongly favouring the presumption that such addi- tions are later, and usually considerably later, than the original work. See also Amos and Jeremiah. A second reason is found in the fact that when Zechariah first began to prophesy the hopes of the Jews were centred on the actual governor, Zerubbabel, and after his removal they seem for a time to have abandoned their Messianic expectations. The first to propose to assign chs. 9-14 to a date or dates later than that of Zechariah was not, as Robinson (11) tells his readers, Grotius, who in his commentary repeatedly attributes them to Zechariah,* but Corrodi, who, in 1792,! as v. Ortenberg puts it, "took refuge in the desperate assumption that ch. 9 was written in the time of Alexander, ch. 14 in the time of Antiochus Epij)h- anes." A similar view was finally adopted by Eichhom in 1824,^ and later by others, the most important being Vatke,§ Geiger** and Bottcher.ft For some years after the publication of Bottcher's work the view held by the above-mentioned scholars found no new defenders, but in 188 1 StadeJI undertook an exhaus- tive study of the subject, reaching the conclusion that chs. 9-14 are the work of one author, who wrote "during the second half of the period of the wars of the Diadochi," or between 306 and 278 B.C. The influence of Stade soon began to show itself. In the first place he kindled a fresh interest and discussion concerning his Deutero-Zechariah, and secondly, he compelled a new align- ment among those who have since written on the subject. Most ♦ Thus, on 9'-, he adds to the statement "I declare" "by Zechariah," and on ii', to "my God" ' J. e., Zechariah's," etc. He insists, however, that o' is a prediction of the invasion of Palestine by Alexander the Great, and that other passages have reference to much later events t Versuch einer Belfttchtung der Geschkhle des jud. u. chrisll. Bihelkanons, i, 107. X EM.*, iv, 427 fj., 444 fJ- § Biblische Theologir, 1834, t, 5S3. *♦ Urschrijl u. Ueberselzung, 1857, ss /•. 73/. ii AfhreiiJfsf, i8()j-64, ii, 215/. n ZAW., 1881, ifi.; 1882, 151 iff.. 275^. THE AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV 251 of them agree in referring the chapters in question to a period after Zechariah. Even Kuenen,* who clings to the pre-exilic origin of "fragments" in 9-1 1 and 13^"^, admits that these remains of the eighth century B.C. "have been arranged and enriched with addi- tions from his own hand by a post-exilic redactor." See also Staerkf and Eckardt.J The following agree with Stade in main- taining the unity as well as the post-Zecharian date of chs. 9-14: Wildeboer,§ Wellhausen,** Marti, Kuiper,tt and Cornill.Jt These find in them traces of plural authorship during the same period; Driver, §§ Nowack and Rubinkam.*** Of recent writers who have resisted this general drift the most important are Griitzmacher, who, as has been explained, contends for a dual authorship before the ExUe, and Robinsonfff and van Hoonacker, who adhere to the traditional opinion that the whole of the book was written by the prophet whose name it bears. It is not necessary to dwell on the variations from the conclusions of Stade represented by the authors cited as agreeing with him in assigning chs. 9-14 to a period later than Zechariah. A better method will be to treat the question of date and authorship pos- itively in the light of the discussion that has been aroused, but on the basis of the data which the chapters themselves supply. In so doing it is important, if possible, first to fix the date of 9*'^". This is a distinct prophecy, as is shown (i) by its poetical form, a succession of twenty-four three-toned lines divided into four double tristichs. The tristich gives place to the tetrastich in v. ", where (2) the language also indicates the commencement of a new proph- ecy. This second point may have further significance. It may mean that v. " not only begins a new section, but introduces a new author, in other words, that the author of 9" ^- has here preserved an earlier utterance of another prophet and made it a sort of text for his own predictions. This suggestion is favoured by the fact that some of the features of vv. ^"^"' are entirely ignored in the * Onderzoeh, ii, 411. t Unlersuchungen, 72, 100. J ZAW., 1893, 102, 109. § Lelterkunde des Ouden Verhonds, 1896, 417. ** Die kleinen PropheUn, 1892; ed. 3, 1898. tt Zacharia ix-xiv, 1894, 163. It Einl->, i905.t §§ Inlrod?, 348 ij. *** The Second Part oj the Book oj Zechariah, 1892, 83 /. ttt The Prop}i€cies oj Zechariah, 1896. 252 ZECHARIAH following context, and, indeed, throughout the remainder of the book; for example, the coming king and the salvation of the hea- then. The possibility that these verses form an independent proph- ecy frees one from the necessity of seeking a date for them, as Stade must, betw^een 306 and 278 b.c, and permits one to reopen the whole subject, inquiring first, not what historical event corre- sponds to this prediction, but what circumstances would natiu-ally furnish an occasion for it. There can be no doubt that oppression would create a desire for deliverance, but the oppressed would hardly dare comfort one another with promises of relief, unless there was a possible deliverer in sight. If, however, there can be found a time in the history of the Jews after the Restoration when these conditions were fulfilled, the fact that they were then fulfilled will speak strongly for that time as the date of this prophecy. Now, a serious objection to the dates, 301, 295 and 280, to which Stade restricts himself is that, although in each case there was a movement against Palestine from the north by Seleucus I, or Antiochus I his son, in neither case was the movement formidable or the Jews in a condition to welcome it. They always preferred the sovereignty of Egypt to that of Syria until, after a century, the Ptolemies for- got the wisdom and tolerance that had previously characterised the d)masty* and lent themselves to schemes for plundering their dependent neighbours. It is more probable that such a prophecy as this would be written before or after, than during, the period in question; for before it, when, in 333 B.C., Alexander, having de- feated Darius III at Issus, moved southward, and after it, when, in 220, Antiochus III returned from the East flushed with victory and resumed his attempt to get possession of Palestine, the Jews were ready for a change and really had a prospect of deliverance, f The former of these dates seems favoured by the description of Tyre (v. '), from which one would infer that, when it was written, the city had never been taken, as it had not been when Alexander at- ♦ MahafTy explains this attitude as the result of (i) the comparative humanity of the Egyp- tians when they occupied Palestine, and (2) the policy of the Ptolemies in accordance with which they planted Jewish colonies in Egypt instead of Egyptian colonics in Palestine. Egypt under tlie Plokmies, 88 if. t f)f the latter Polybius (xv, 37) says: "King Antiochus, at the heginning of his reign, was thought to be a man of great enterprise and courage and great \-igour." THE AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV 253 tacked it. There is another indication pointing in the same direc- tion. It is found in v. ^. This verse, as will be shown, is an in- terpolation, and, as such, has not the same value as it would have if it were a part of the original text; but it has a value as an indica- tion how the earliest Jewish readers understood the prophecy. The one who inserted it was doubtless familiar with the story that, when Alexander was on his way to Egypt, he not only spared the Jews, but treated them with great consideration, and he naively added what seemed to him a neglected detail to bring prophecy and ful- filment into more perfect harmony. Josephus says (Anl., x, 8, 4) that Alexander, after taking Gaza, made a p[ I .. visit to Jerusalem, where, having been received by a great procession, "he offered sacrifices to God according to the high priest's direction'' and be- stowed upon the Jews certain important privileges, at the same time promis- i • ing any who would enlist in his army that "they should continue in the laws \ I of their fathers and live according to them"; and there is nothing incredible 'M in the story in this its unembeUished version. rj These considerations make it probable that Kuiper is correct in concluding that 9^"^" in its original form was written in 333 B.C., just after the battle of Issus.* The prophecy in 9^'^", as preserved, is a part of a larger whole, namely, 9-1 1 and 13^'^, which is bound together by a common rec- ognition of Ephraim as co-heir with Judah to the good things of the future. The other two parts, however, as can be shown, be- long to a later stage in the Greek period. The passage on which an argument for such a date would naturally be based is 9^^, where the enemies over whom the sons of Sion are promised victory are called " sons of Greece." If this passage could be taken at its face value, the case would be a clear one, for evidently the author, who- ever he was, could not refer to the Greeks until they came within the Jewish horizon, and would not refer to them as enemies until his people had suffered at their hands. The matter, however, is not so simple. The truth is that, as any one with an ear for rhythm, * The oppressor to whom allusion is made in v. ^ would thus be Artaxerxes III (359-338 B.C.), who, within a few years, on the occasion of a revolt in which the Jews were implicated, had invaded and devastated the country and carried many of its inhabitants into captivity to Hyrcania. 254 ZECHARIAH on reading the passage in the original, will perceive, the words " thy sons, O Greece" are another gloss; that, therefore, they may not represent the mind of the original author. This fact makes it necessary, as in the case of 9^''", to examine the original text and determine, if possible, at what date in the Greek })eriod the con- ditions described or implied existed. This at first sight seems not very difficult. It is at once (9") evident that many of Sion's chil- dren are captives in other lands. Later (10") it appears that they are not all in the far East, but that some of them have been carried to Egypt. At the same time one learns that their case is not hope- less, that they expect to be restored to their country, and, indeed, to some extent by their own efforts. In other words, one sees a national spirit asserting itself. From 11* onward, however, there is a greatly changed tone. Hope is not, it is true, entirely quenched, but it is a "hope deferred," and there is mingled with it a bitter- ness, the effect of positive oppression, of which there is no trace in 9"-!!^. These conflicting indications cannot be reconciled. They can only be explained by supposing that 11* ^- and 13^'® were written at a different time, or, at any rate, by a different author, from 9"-!!^. This inference is strengthened on a closer examination of the first two of these sections. The most striking peculiarities in their diction are the substitution of prose for poetry and the employment of the first person as if in imitation of Zechariah. There is another reminder of that prophet in the expression (v. *), "Thus said Yahweh," the original of which is the same as that of the "Thus saith Yahweh" of the first eight chapters. Note also that in ii'« "Israel" takes the place of the "Ephraim" of 9'' and 10' and "the house of Joseph" of 10*; and that in ii^ the verb "rescue" C^xj, Hiph.) is used instead of the "save" (y;^, Hiph.) of 9^ and lo*, while in 11" the word for "glory" is different from the one in v. ^ (iim instead of miN). Finally, there are certain rare words, forms and meanings that confirm the impression already made: Nxo, Hiph., surrender, u^; nna, Pi., crush, ii«; 0>j, delight, 11'; Spo, staff, ii'ff-; Sna. loathe, ii«; irir, watch, 11"; V. price, 11"; 3X:, Nl, survive, 11'*; 3Ty, with ^ ~ compaginis, 11"; 'n^cj; "\3J, my companion, 13'. The evidence seems conclusive: 9"-!!^ and ii^'^ with 13'"^ come from different authors. The next step is to inquire whether in the Greek period there are to be found corresponding conditions. The history of this period, so far as the relations of Palestine to the neighbouring coiuitries is concerned, is briefly as follows: Alex- THE AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV 255 ander, as has already been observed, was friendly to the Jews. After his death Seleucus and Ptolemy vied with each other to secure their goodwill and allegiance. In the struggle between the two the Jews naturally suffered severely from both parties, but they always preferred Egyptian to Syrian supremacy. The reason is obvious. Josephus says* that, although Ptolemy took Jerusalem by guile and carried many of the inhabitants of the country into captivity, he treated them so well that "not a few other Jews went into Egypt of their own accord, attracted by the goodness of the soil and the liberality of Ptolemy." This king cannot, however, have given them all "equal privileges as citizens with the Mace- donians," if the historian is correct in saying, as he does in another place,t that many of them did not receive their freedom until the reign of Ptolemy II (Philadelphus, 285-247 B.C.). The latter further commended himself to the Jews by taking an interest in their Scriptures, the first part of which, the Law of Moses, is said to have been translated into Greek under his patronage. The earliest extant account of this translation is found in the famous pseudograph called The Letter of Aristeas, the text of which is published in an Appendix to Swete's Introduction to the Old Testament in Creek. For Jose- phus's version of the story, see Ant., xii, 2; for an estimate of its historical value, Buhl, Kanon u. Text des A. T., 11 1 ^. Ptolemy III (Euergetes, 247-222 B.C.) at first seems to have followed the example of his predecessors, J but he finally adopted or permitted a different policy. At any rate, in his reign the taxes paid by the Jews, which had not hitherto been burdensome, were greatly increased and the collection of them put into the hands of an unscrupulous adventurer, Joseph, son of Tobias, who enjoyed the profits of the office for twenty-two years. Cf. Josephus, Ant., xii, 4, I /• The account of Joseph given by Josephus is chronologically contradictory. The reigning king of Egypt is first identified with the one (Ptolemy V) to whom Antiochus III gave his daughter Cleopatra, and a little later called Ptolemy Euergetes (III). It is the latter, as Wellhausen (IJG.) has shown, who was ruling at the time. In the reign of Ptolemy V Palestine was an- nexed to the Syrian empire, and, of course, paid tribute to Antiochus III. * .4nt., xii, 2, I. t Anl., xii, 2, 3. J Josephus, Cont. Apion, ii, 5. 2S6 ZECHARIAH Meanwhile a fourth Ptolemy (Philopator, 222-205 b.c.) had come to the throne of Egypt. Polybius says of this king that "he would attend to no business," being "absorbed in unworthy intrigues and senseless and continual drunkenness." The Jews also give him a bad character. The third book of Maccabees is entirely devoted to an account of him and his relations with his Jewish subjects. It says that after the battle of Raphia (217 B.C.) he went to Jerusalem, entered the temple and attempted to invade the Holy of Holies. Being providentially prevented, on his re- turn to Egypt he imdertook "to inflict a disgrace upon the Jewish nation." He therefore ordered "that those who did not sacrifice [according to his directions] should not enter their temples; that all the Jews should be degraded to the lowest rank and to the con- dition of slaves,"* etc.; and, when most of the Jews refused to obey his mandate, he made proclamation that they should "be conveyed, with insults and harsh treatment, secured in every way by iron bands, to undergo an inevitable and ignominious death." f The details of this marvellous story are evidently in large measure fictitious, but its origin and currency among the Jews cannot be explained except on the supposition "that Philopator earned the hostility of that people and that they looked back upon his reign as one of oppression and injustice." J The above sketch does scant justice even to Jewish interests in the Greek period. It is sufficient, however, for the present pur- pose. It shows that the Jews, fostered and encouraged, first by Alexander, and then by the Ptolemies, finally, under Philadelphus, began to feel their importance and demand larger concessions. This is precisely the situation to give rise to dreams of a new Exodus and a revival of the glory of the Jewish race like those of -V^-ii^. It also explains the "liberality" of Philadelphus, who never attempted by force anything that he could accomplish by diplomacy. His successors, as has been shown, adopted a diflferent policy, thus creating a situation which would naturally give rise to such utterances as are found in ii^'*' and 13'"°. There is one possible objection to the second of the above iden- * 3 Mac. 2" »•. t 3 Mac. 3» t Mahaffy, Egypt under ihe Ptolemies, 270; History oj Egypt, iv, 145. THE AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV 257 tifications. It is found in the oft-cited statement concerning the three shepherds in 1 1^. Not that this can refer to any trio of kings or pretendants in the history of the kingdom of Israel. If it is by the same hand as the context, it is still without doubt later than Zechariah. If, however, as seems the case, it is a gloss, it may have been suggested by Dn. 11-", the three kings being Antiochus the Great, Seleucus IV and the usurper Heliodorus. For details, see the comments. The question would then be, whether the glossa- tor was correct, in other words, to which of two situations 11^'" and 13^"® more nearly correspond, the one above outlined or the somewhat later one (220 B.C.) created by the interference of Anti- ochus the Great and his success in finally securing possession of Palestine. The prominence of "the traders," apparently tax- collectors, favours the former alternative. The defenders of the pre-exilic origin of chs. 9-14, as has been explained, have usually felt themselves compelled to accept the theory of plural author- ship. On the other hand, those who refer them to the postexilic period, be- ing relieved from any such necessity, incline with Stade to attribute the whole, or at least all but g'l", to a single author. So We., Marti, Eckardt, GASm., Cor. and others. There is room, however, from their stand-point for a differ- ent opinion. It is true, as Stade has observed (ZAW., 1881, 86), that there is a correspondence between chs. 9-1 1, with 13^-', and chs- 12-14, without 13'-', but it is a correspondence with a difference, and the difference is suffi- cient to warrant the conclusion that the latter division was wTitten by an author different from either of those who produced the former. There is not so much difference in language, because all three belong to the same school and draw largely on the same resources, especially Ezekiel. For a list of common words and expressions, see Eckardt, ZAW., 1893, 100/. There are, however, some peculiarities: n'MH mantle, 13^; in 11^, glory, for which 12^ has PNiiin; p:, protect, with -^i'i, 128 but with Sj? 915; 3^% dwell, of Jerusalem, 12^ i4"'- "; aSc'n^ 0)3B'', inluibiianl(s) of Jerusalem, 12'- 7. 8. 10 1^1; 123^ as, K)^ \c?- 1- *, not in chs. 12-14; P^s, Sion, 9'- ", not in chs. 12-14; nc. gather, 12^ 142- ", but V^p, lo^- i". More significant is the difference in literary form, — the halting, uncertain measure, when there is any attempt at rhythm, compared with the regularity in 9"-ii^, — which makes the hypothesis that the same person may have written both divisions at different stages in his life ridiculous. These are merely formal distinctions. There is also a difference of content. In the first place, it is noticeable that in chs. 12-14 258 ZECHARIAH (without 13'"') the writer, as in the genuine prophecies of Zecha- riah, confines his attention to Judah, the northern tribes, never overlooked in chs. 9-1 1, being entirely ignored. Indeed, as if he were afraid of being misunderstood, he gives (14^") the dimensions of the Holy Land of the future with Jerusalem as its centre. The repeated references to David or the house of David, too, are worthy of notice. Compare the silence of the author of 9"-!!^, after hav- ing reproduced 9^° ^-j with reference to the royal family. At the same time pains is here taken to remind the reader of the claims of the house of Levi. Nor is this the only indication of the sym- pathy of the writer with the priests and their interests. His last thought is of the temple crowded with worshippers of all nations. It is not impossible that sacerdotal jealousy prompted 13'"^ Be that as it may, this interesting passage can hardly be by the same author as ii'*^-, which is anything but hostile to the prophetic order. Finally, the last division of chs. 9-14 is distinguished, not only from 1-8, but from 9-1 1 and 13^'® by an apocalyptic tone and teaching the characteristics of which have already been discussed. See pp. 239/ It is clear that, if the relation between the main di\isions of chs. 9-14 has been correctly defined, 12-14 (exc 13^'^) must be later than 9"-!!^ and 13^"^. How much later it is there seems to be no means of learning. The general impression one gets from read- ing it, and especially the similarity of the situation implied in 14^ ^- to that in 13^ ^^ indicates that the interval was not a long one. Indeed, it is possible that these prophecies should be ex- plained as the diflfering views of unlike persons on the same situ- ation, namely, that in the interval between the battle of Raphia (217 B.C.) and the death of Ptolemy IV (204 b.c), when Anti- ochus the Great was waiting for an opportimity to renew his attempt on Palestine. The following, then, is the result of the discussion of the date and authorship of chs. 9-14. The introductory verses (9*"*") are a distinct prophecy written soon after the battle of Issus (t,^^ e.g.). This was made the text for a more extended utterance (9"-ii^) which dates from the reign of Ptolemy III (247-222 b.c). A third writer, soon after the battle of Raphia (217 B.C.), supplemented this THE AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTERS IX-XIV 259 combined work by a pessimistic picture (11^"'^ with 13'"') of the situation as he saw it. About the same time a fourth with apoca- lyptic tendencies undertook to present the whole subject in a more optimistic light, the result being 12^-13® and 14. It is possible that 9^"^" was originally an appendix to chs. 1-8, and that the rest were added in their order. Since, however, there is no clear ref- erence in any of them to chs. 1-8, it seems safer to suppose that no part of the last six chapters was added to the book of Zechariah until they had all been written. COMMENTARY ON CHAPTERS 9-14 OF THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH. The last six chapters of the book called after Zechariah natu- rally fall into two divisions, separated by the title at the beginning of ch. 12, or more exactly, as has already been explained, consist- ing of chs. 9-1 1, with the addition of 13''® and chs. 12-14 without the verses specified. The general subject of the first division is I. The revival of the Hebrew nation (9^-11^' i3^"^)- This division contains three sections, the contents of which come from as many authors, writing at different dates and representing more or less divergent lines of thought and expectation. The first deals with a. THE NEW KINGDOM (9*""). This section must be viewed from two stand-points. Origi- nally, as has been explained, it was probably a separate prophecy, written soon after the battle of Issus by some one who saw in Alex- ander the divinely appointed and directed instrument for the de- liverance of his people and the restoration of the Hebrew state. The author who gave it its present setting meant that it should be taken differently, viewed as a picture, not of the time of Alexander, but of a period still future when the highest hopes of his people would be realised. Two thoughts may be distinguished, the first being (i) The recovery of the Promised Land (9^'*). — When the Hebrews invaded Palestine they were not able to obtain possession of the whole country. Nor did their kings, the greatest of them, succeed in bringing it entirely under their dominion. They believed, how- ever, that the conquest would one day be completed. This proph- 260 »-« 26l 9 ecy is a picture of the final occupation of those parts of the country that the Hebrews had not been able to subjugate. The general movement is from north to south, that is, from "the River" Eu- phrates toward "the ends of the earth" (v. ") ; but the writer does not follow the precise order in which the points mentioned would naturally be reached by an invader traversing the country in that direction. Thus, Damascus precedes Hamath, and the cities of Philistia follow one another apparently without reference to their relative location. Compare Isaiah's spirited sketch of the advance of the Assyrians in lo" ^■. The paragraph closes with a promise not in the original prophecy, that Yahweh will protect his people in the enjoyment of their increased possessions. 1. The prophecy begins with a word, KITO, literally meaning something uplifted, and hence, not only burden (Ex. 23^), but, since the Hebrews "uplifted" their voices in speaking, utterance, oracle. Cf. 2 K. 9^.* Jeremiah, in 23^, taking advantage of this ambi- guity, produced one of the best examples of paronomasia in the Old Testament. t Here it must be rendered oracle and, since it is not used absolutely, connected with the following phrase, thus produc- ing at the same time a title. An oracle of the word of Yahweh, and the first line of the first tristich. This title being required for the completion of the tristich, must always have been connected with the following context, but it originally covered only vv. ^'^''. The editor or compiler who inserted the corresponding title in 12* seems to have intended that this one should cover the intervening chap- ters. Cf. Mai. i^ If the title constitutes a line, the words in the land of Hadrak must be another, or the remains of one. The lat- ter is the more defensible alternative, since, although the author evidently intended that this clause and the one following should correspond, they are now but imperfectly parallel. The need of another word is apparent, but it is not so clear what should be sup- * Wrongly rendered in the English version, "the Lord laid this burden upon him," the correct translation being, "Yahweh uttered this oracle against him." t The figure is greatly obscured by a curious error in M, the words in one place having been wrongly divided by a careless copyist. For Nt'O nc PK, "What burden?" read nU'DH DPN and translate the whole verse, " When this people, or a prophet, or a priest asketh, saying^ What is the ma'ssa' {oracle) of Yahweh ? thou shalt say to them, Ye are the ma's'sa' {burden) and I will cast you oS." 262 ZECHARIAH plied. The answer to this question depends on the interpretation given to the next clause, whether it is Yahweh or his word whose resting-place is to be in Damascus. Stade and others adopt the former view and, in accordance with it, supply Yahweh, but this can hardly have been the thought of the prophet. To say that Yahweh was about to seek a place of rest in Syria would denote peculiar favour, whereas, as the next verses abundantly show, the message of the prophet as a whole menaces violence and destruc- tion for the time being to the surrounding peoples. It must there- fore be the word of Yahweh that is the subject in both of these clauses, his decree, or, still more precisely, the evil decreed. The missing word was perhaps the one used in a precisely similar case by Isaiah in 9'"^, the whole clause reading, ifi the land of Hadrak shall it fall. The land of Hadrak is not elsewhere mentioned in the Old Testament, but there can be no doubt about its rela- tive location, for from the next verse it appears that it bordered upon Hamath. This being the case, Schrader is probably correct in identifying it with Hattarik(k)a, a city and country several times mentioned in the cuneiform inscriptions, which Delitzsch, on the basis of these references, locates "a. little north of Lebanon."* The country so called must have been one of considerable extent and importance; otherwise the Assyrians would not have had to make three expeditions against it between 772 and 755 B.C. to subdue it and hold it in subjection. f Hence it is not strange to find it here representing the northern part of the Promised Land. In this land of Hadrak the word of Yahweh will begin its destruc- tive work, but Damascus also shall be its resting-place, one of the places on which the divine displeasure will fall. This interpreta- tion harmonises not only with the context, but with the constant attitude of the Hebrews toward the kingdom of Syria, which was always one of hostility. Cf. Am. i^ Is. 17^ ^^ etc. No Jew of the time of the author would have entertained the idea that Yahweh would find a resting-place at Damascus. ♦ Cf. KAT.\ 482 ff.: Dl.Par., "s f ; also KA T.', map. We. identifies it with the repon of .\ntioch the capital of the Syrian empire. Pognon fmds the city of Hadrak mentioned under the .\ram. name Hazrak in a proclamation by one Zakir, a king of Hamath. RB., 1907, sssff. t C/. KA T.\ 48j fj. 9"' 263 It seems strange that any of the later Jews should have adopted this opin- ion; yet it is found in ® and some later authorities. A quotation from one of these shows how they contrived to defend it. A rabbi says: "I take heaven and earth to witness that I am from Damascus, and that there is there a place called Hadrak. But how do I Justify the words, and Damascus shall be his resting- place? Jerusalem will one day extend to Damascus; for it says, and Damascus shall be his resting-place, and his resting-place, according to the Scripture, this is my rest forever, is none other than Jerusalem." R. Jose in Yalkiit Shimeoni, i, fol. 258. The line just quoted closes the first tristich. The next clause, in its original form, carries the same idea forward to a second and connected one; for this clause should read, not, as in the Masso- retic text, toward Yahweh is the eye of man, which is meaningless in this connection, but, as Klostermann has acutely conjectured, to Yahweh are the cities of Aram, that is, Syria. These cities are his in the sense that they lie within the Kmits of the territory that he has promised to his people. Cf. v. •'*' Gn. 15^^, etc. The claim of Yahweh to Damascus and the rest of the cities of Syria was expressly set forth because it had been, and still was, contested. There was no such reason for asserting his right to the territory actually occupied by the Hebrews, but some one, mistaking the original author's purpose, for the sake of completeness and in defi- ance of metrical considerations, has added and, or, more freely ren- dered, as well as, all the tribes of Israel. 2. The continuation, therefore, of the original thought is found in the introduction of Hamath. The Hebrews did not always lay claim to this region. They were never able to extend their con- quests beyond Dan. See 2 S. 24^^- and the expression "from Dan to Beersheba" (Ju. 20^ i S. 3^'*, etc.). Ezekiel does not promise them anything beyond these limits, for, in his outline of the boun- daries of the new state (47^^^), as in Nu. 13^* (P), "the entrance to Hamath " seems to be the southern end of the great valley of Lebanon. There is, however, a series of Deuteronomic passages in which the writer (or writers) carries the northern boundary of his country to the Euphrates.* This is evidently the thought of the words now imder consideration, whose author reckoned Ha- * These passages are Gn. 151* Ex. 23" Dt. i' ii^* Jos. i'' 13^ Ju. 3'. In the last two "the entrance to Hamath" is clearly located at the northern end of the valley of Lebanon. Cf, Moore, Judges, 80. 264 ZECHARIAH math also a part of the Promised Land. The earliest mention of Hamath in the Old Testament is that in Am. 6^, where it is repre- sented as a thriving kingdom; but it appears in an Assyrian in- scription as an ally of Israel and Damascus in 854 B.C.* From that time onward, with intervals of revolt, it paid tribute to the king of Assyria until, in 720 B.C., Sargon finally crushed and repeopled it.f The city of the same name, however, being very advantageously situated on the Orontes, could not be lastingly destroyed. In the Syrian period it had become of sufficient importance to induce Antiochus IV to rename it, after himself, Epiphania. It still sur- vives, under the name Hama, in spite of its unhealthy location, an important commercial centre with 50,000 inhabitants. There were other cities in northern Syria, but the three whose names are given were deemed sufficient to represent that region. Phcenicia is represented by two. In the Massoretic text they both appear in this verse, and, indeed, in the same line. The name of Tyre, however, is superfluous, and, as will appear from grammatical and metrical considerations, an interpolation. Its appearance here is explained by the fact that in Ez. 28^ ^- it is Tyre, and not Sidon, that is famed for its wisdom. The author of the gloss, re- membering this, doubtless thought that the former name should be substituted for the latter, or the two cities should divide the contested honour. The original reading was and Sidon, although it is very wise. The wisdom here attributed to the mother of Phoenician cities was proverbial. The author might have quoted the words addressed to the younger city by Ezekiel: "Thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that is hid from thee. By thy wisdom and thy understanding thou hast won thyself wealth, and brought gold and silver into thy coffers." It is the practical shrewdness of the successful trader, which the Phoenicians also applied in diplomacy. By its aid they were generally able to bribe their enemies, or use them one against another, and thus escape dangerous complications. Sometimes, however, their wisdom failed them. Thus, for example, when, in 351 B.C., after having worn the Persian yoke for a hundred and fifty years, the Sidonians, * Rogers, History of Babylonia and Assyria, ii, 75 fl.\ KAT.'^, 1Q3 iJ.\ KB., i, 172 jf. t Rogers, HBA., ii, 154 fj.; KB., ii, 56 /}. 9'-" 265 seeing that the days of the empire were numbered, headed a move- ment for independence, they found that they had underrated the resources of Artaxerxes III and overestimated the courage and loyalty of their own ruler, and they saw their city destroyed with thousands of its inhabitants.* The writer may have had this un- happy event in mind. His message to the Sidonians is that with all their boasted shrewdness they cannot prevent its repetition. 3. Tyre, like Sidon, originally stood on the mainland, where the skill and courage of its people were constantly taxed to defend it; but in process of time it took possession of a little group of islands half a mile from the shoref and there buili itself a stronghold.% The new site, according to Menander, was greatly enlarged and beautified by Hiram the friend of David and Solomon. It was so easily defensible that for centuries the city defied the most pow- erful adversaries. The Assyrians for five years, and the Baby- lonians under Nebuchadrezzar for thirteen, besieged it in vain. "Hiram raised the bank in the large place and dedicated the golden pillar which is in the temple of Zeus. He also went and cut down timber on the mountain called Libanus for the roofs of temples; and when he had pulled down the ancient temples, he built both the temple of Hercules and that of Astarte." Quoted by Josephus, viii, 5, 3. All that is known of the siege by the Assyrians is derived from Menander, who says: "The king of Assyria returned and attacked them (the Tyrians) again, the Phoenicians furnishing him with three-score ships and eight hundred men to row them. But, when the Tyrians sailed against them in twelve ships, and dispersed the enemies' ships, and took five hundred prisoners, the reputa- tion of all the citizens of Tyre was thereby increased. Then the king of As- syria returned and placed guards at their river and aqueducts, to hinder the Tyrians from drawing water. This continued for five years, and still the Tyr- ians held out, and drank of the water they got from wells which they dug." The king of Assyria at that time, according to Josephus, from whose Antiqui- ties (ix, 14, 2) the above quotation is taken, was Shalmaneser; but since, according to Menander, the king of Tyre was Elulaeus, and this was the name of the one that was reigning when Sennacherib invaded the country {KB., ii, 90/.), it is possible that, as has been suggested, the Jewish historian "made a mistake and ascribed to Shalmaneser a siege of Tyre which was really made by Sennacherib." Cf. Rogers, HBA., ii, 146. Josephus cites (Ant., x, 11, i) Philostratus as his authority for the length of this siege. That it resulted in failure, although Ezekiel at first (26' ff) * Diod. Sic, x\i, 40 jf. t Thereafter the original city was called Old Tyre. C/. Josephus, Anl., ix, 14, 2; Diod. Sic, xvii, 40. X The original has a play on the name of the city. ^1 266 ZECHARIAH expected it to succeed, is clear from Ez. 29" "•, where the prophet acknowl- edges that Nebuchadrezzar "had no wages, nor his army, for Tyre, for the service that he had served against it," but promises him the land of Egypt "as a recompense." In fact Tyre was never taken until Alexander connected it by a causeway with the mainland and brought his engines to bear upon its walls. Meanwhile its merchants traversed all seas, exchanging their manufactures for the products of other countries, to the ends of the earth. Thus, in the words with which Ezekiel closes his description of its activities {2f^) this great emporium was "re- plenished and made very glorious in the heart of the seas." The present writer uses language quite as picturesque and forcible, if not so elegant, as Ezekiel's. He says that, when he wrote, the city had heaped up silver like the dust, and gold like the mud of the streets. — 4. Tyre was very prosperous when this passage was writ- ten, but the author of it did not expect its prosperity to continue. Indeed he predicts the reverse. Lo, he says, Yahweh will despoil it. The next clause is capable of more than one interpretation, the crucial word, rendered power in EV., having several meanings; but the fact that the emphasis, thus far, has been on the wealth of the city seems to require that the text should say. Yea, he will smite into the sea, not its might,^ or its bulwark,'^ but its wealth, in the sense not only of gold and silver, but all the luxuries that these precious metals represent. J This is in harmony, too, with the pre- diction of Ezekiel (37"), that the riches of the city shall "fall into the heart of the sea." Nor is this all. The city itself, the temples of its gods, the factories and storehouses of its commerce and the dwellings, great and small, of its inhabitants shall be devoured by fire. Thus the miserable remnant of its population will be left on "a bare rock," "a place to spread nets in the midst of the sea." Cf Ez. 26* *• 5. Philistia has four representatives, and only four, Gath being omitted here as it is in Am. i"^-. Nor is this the only point of resemblance between the two passages. There are two or three expressions in this one that betray acquaintance with, but not sla- ♦ So Jer., Theod. Mops., New., Rosenm., Burger, Koh., Ke., Brd., Or., Reu., Sta., rt al. t SoMau.,Hi.,We.,Now.,Marti,OASm., elal. X So Ew., Hd., tl al. 9'-' 267 vish imitation of, the other. They differ entirely with respect to the order in which the cities are introduced. Amos takes them in the order of their importance. This author follows the arrange- ment of Je. 2^^. His first, therefore, is Ashkelon. He predicts that this ancient city, situated on the coast, about thirty miles south of Jaffa, shall see and fear, that is, when it sees the devasta- tion wrought in Phoenicia, will be smitten with fear in anticipa- tion of a like fate. Gazc^whose position on the edge of the desert made it the most important place in southern Palestine long before the Philistines appeared in the country, and explains its survival, with a population of 35,000, — Gaza, he says, will be similarly and even more powerfully affected ; it shall be in great anguish. Ekron also, on the northern boundary of Philistia, will share the prevail^ ing consternation, because its hope, that is, as the use of the same word in Is. 20" ^- would indicate, the place to which it has been looking for support, hath been put to shame. This is clearly a ref- erence to Tyre, which implies that the city was in alliance with Ekron and probably with the other cities of Philistia when it was written. The fears of these communities will be realised. There shall cease to be a king in Gaza; it will lose its independence and be incorporated into a larger political whole. A still worse fate is in store ior Ashkelon, for it shall not remain,* or better, shall not be, that is, shall cease to be, inhabited.'^ These two lines betray the influence of Amos (i^) ; but the order of thought is reversed, while Gaza has taken the place of Ashkelon, and Ashkelon that of Ash- dod. — 6. Thus far no mention has been made of Ashdod, next to Gaza the most important city of Philistia, and famous for having in the seventh century B.C. sustained the longest (27 years) siege on record. I The prediction with reference to it belongs at the end of the preceding verse, or rather, it and the last two clauses of the pre- ceding verse should have been grouped together in a verse by them- selves. This city is not to be deserted like Ashkelon, but its native inhabitants, or the better class of them, are to be replaced by mon- grels, lit., a bastard. Cf. Dt. 23'/^ Here, apparently, is an allu- * So Hi., Ew., Burger, Brd.. el al. t Is. 132° Je. i7« 5o'3 39 Ez. 29". X Cf. Herodotus, ii, 157. Petrie suggests that this siege took place during the Scythian in- vasion and represents the long struggle in which Psammetichus I finally defeated the barba- rians. HE.y ii. 331 /. 268 ZECHARIAH sion to the deterioration of the population of Palestine during and after the Captivity, as pictured in Ne. 13^^ ^■, or the mixed char- acter of the people with whom the country had been colonised by its conquerors.* There follows a stanza, only the first line of which appears in this verse, describing the discipline by which Yahweh purposes to prepare the remnant of the Philistines and their successors for incorporation among his people. The transi- tion is marked by a change from the third to the first person. Thus will I, says Yahweh, destroy the pride 0/ the Philistines; not any object of which they boast (Am. 8^), but a disposition prompt- ing them to follow the "devices and desires" of their own hearts without reference to the will of Yahweh. Cf. 10" Is. 16^ Je. 13^ ^■, etc. — 7. The new inhabitants, the despised mongrels, will not be of this spirit, but will submit to have Yahweh remove their blood from their mouths, that is, forbid them to eat blood, which the He- brews were commanded (Dt. 12^®- ^^ ^■) to "pour upon the ground like water," but which it was the custom of the Philistines and other Gentiles to eat with the flesh of their sacrifices. Cf. Ez. ;^f^. He will also remove their abominations from between their teeth; these abominations being animals forbidden by the Mosaic law (Dt. 14^^- Lv. 11^^-)) such as dogs, swine and mice, which the Phil- istines sometimes sacrificed to their false gods and ate at their festi- vals. Cf. Is. 65* 66^- ^^. The abandonment of such meats, with all that it implies, by the Philistines is the condition of their con- tinuance in the Holy Land. Having accepted this condition, how- ever, they will be enrolled among the Chosen People. Cf. 2" 8'^. Yea, says the prophet, returning to the third person, and applying to these aliens a term full of the tenderest significance, they shall become a remnant to our God. "Just as in the case of Israel, after they had by the penalty of deportation been winnowed, cleansed and reSned, there remained a remnant that now serves Jehovah faithfully, so also the Philistine people, when Jehovah's punitive visitation has passed over them, will not be wholly annihilated, but survive in a remnant of its former being, and indeed a remnant for Israel's God; thus the Philistines also will then have become a willingly submissive and active servant of Jehovah." Kiihler. * When .Mcxander took Gaza, the men of the city ha\-ing been killed, "he sold the women into slavery and repcopled the city from the neighbouring settlers." C/. Arrianus, ii, 27. 9*"* 269 Then there will be presented another instance of a process many times repeated in the early history of the Hebrews; for the Phil- istines shall be like a family in Judah, even Ekron like the Jebusites, the Jebusites being the early inhabitants of Jerusalem, who were not destroyed, but gradually absorbed by their Hebrew con- querors.* The prophet does not say what will become of the surviving Syrians and Phoenicians, but he would probably have admitted them to the same privileges, on the same conditions, as the Philistines. 8. The plain of Philistia lay on the route between Egypt and the regions north and east of Palestine. When, therefore, there was war between Asia and Africa the armies of the contending ix)wers passed to and fro over it, sometimes made it the scene of conflict. At such times the Hebrews suffered only less than the Philistines. It would evidently have been for their advantage if they had been strong enough to occupy the approaches to the plain and hold them against all comers. The Jews believed that Alexander had been restrained from attacking them by Yahweh, and that he could always protect them. This verse was added for the purpose of giving expression to a prevailing faith as well as bringing the proph- ecy to which it is attached into closer harmony with history. Then will I, Yahweh is made to say, encamp over against my house, an outpost, that none may pass to or fro. The words betray their sec- ondary origin, not only by their prosaic form, but by their con- tent; for the kingdom described in v. " would hardly need even figurative fortifications. The most significant thing about them, however, is the phrase my house. Now, the house of Yahweh is generally the temple at Jerusalem. Cf. i^^ 3^, etc. In Ho. 8* 9^^ and Je. 12'^-, however, it is the Holy Land, and since the author of the gloss clearly has in mind the protection of the people rather than the sanctuary of Yahweh, this seems to be what is here meant by it. On this supposition the next clause, so shall there not pass over them again an oppressor, becomes more intelligible. The pro- noun them refers to the people of the land and the whole clause is an assurance that the hardships which the Jews have endured * In I K. 9-° there is a different, but less probable, representation of their condition. Cf. HPS., 158. 270 ZECHARIAH from their rival masters are ended. Cf. Jo. 4/3". It is these hardships to which Yahweh refers when he adds, /or now have I seen with my eyes. On the relation of this verse to the subject of the date of vv. ^"'', see p. 253. 1. NU'c] 05, XwMi; H, o«M5; & om. On the varieties of construction, see 2 K. 9" Is. 15' Pr. 31' Is. 13'. — Tnri] (&'^^, SeSpdx; (6^'-', ^edpaK- but some curss. have 'Adpdx, also Aq. 2 0; QT, Nom, the South. Stade's pro- posal to repeat the name nini has been discussed in the comments and, for what seem good reasons, rejected. The emendation suggested by Is. 9'/* requires the insertion of ^D:^ before or hs-^ after T\in y-\h2. — irnp] ') are less attrac- tive.— The metrical scheme on which the rest of the prophecy is con- structed requires that this verse and the next together have only six lines. It is therefore necessary to omit one, and since, as has been shown in the comments, the last of this verse is superfluous, it is the one to be omitted. — 2. ncn] (g^^, iv 'E/jAO. (6^Q, however, omit the prep., and rightly, since this name, like (original) '">>' of the preceding verse, is the subject of the sentence, and not the object of a 3 to be supplied. — '^3Jn] The rel. is to be supplied. Cf. Ges. ^' '"■ s c^hi ). Houb. would rd. nr'^3J3, in its border. — ix] The argument against this name runs as follows: The line is overfilled. The vb., being singular, requires but one subject, and since this one lacks a connective and, moreover, is entirely unnecessary, it must be the gloss. — On '3 in the sense of though, cf. Mi. 7"; BDB., art. 9'"" 271 'D, 2, b (b). — nc3n] (S, ip6i'rj^ which, since the word here found does not occur elsewhere in these chapters, may well be the original reading. — nixin] In the expression here used the word seems to have been definite vnthout the art. At any rate the art. is always (5 t.) omitted. Cf. lo^. — oo] The position of this word, im- mediately after the vb., indicates that it was intended to mark, not the place where, but the one whither, the wealth will be smitten. 5. nit] Sometimes pointed N"i,n, with the accent, which seems to have been thrown forward, in this case as in Gn. 4153 and Mi. y'", to distribute the emphasis, still on the ultima] The form is jussive, but the use of the simple impf . of the co-ordinate vb., Sinn suggests that the significance of this fact might easily be exaggerated. Perhaps this form was chosen in anticipation of the co-ordinate vSiip, in other words, furnishes another ex- ample of paronomasia. On the form and accent, see Ges. 5 's- s. rr. 3 (*> "-■^ >^ on the meaning, Ges. ^i"- 2 <*'; Bo. ^'s"- '; Dr.5 68._c;>3,n] For c^an, from ria. Cf. Ges. 5 '». Hiph. in the sense of Qal. For other ex- amples, see ID*- " 11^ 12'" 145. — n£33c] On the vocalisation ^^ for __, see Ges. 5^' 9- 3; ". 3 «) R. 2 (a)_ We. ids. nnoan; also Now., GASm., but Marti Justly objects, that, in view of Is. 20^ '-, where the same form is found, there is no warrant for emendation. — 12 ni] Note that with the be- ginning of the latter half of the double tristich the author returns to the regular usage with reference to the succession of vbs. — 3rp] Here pas- sive. Cf. Is. 132° Je. ly^- ^^, etc. It is a late usage, frequent in the Mish- na. Cf. Holzinger, ZAW., 1889, 115; Ko. ^ ^s. Cp. v. « 28/4 126 1410. — 6. The first clause of this verse, as explained in the comments, be- longs with the last two of v. ^. The mention of Ashdod is postponed by the second references to Gaza and Ashkelon, that it may at the same time close the enumeration and the double tristich devoted to the cities of Philistia. — iicc] A collective, from irn, be bad; hence something vile, contemptible; &, ^f^ Che. ids. "^-^^ij^, hss.mindidu, tax-gatherer ; EB., art. Scribe, § 4. — 7. imoni] Here begins a new stanza, the third, on the Philistines as a whole. — vm] If, as the use of ^'•^pt' in the next line would indicate, the blood here meant is that of animals, this is the only place in which the pi. of ai is used in that sense. Yet there is no ap- parent reason why it should not be so used, especially if the writer wished to convey the impression that there was a large quantity from a great number of victims. Perhaps, however, the original reading was t:i as in Kenn. 30. See also d, which in eight of the eleven cases in which the pi. occurs in the Minor Prophets follows the Heb. idiom, but in this one has the sg. The sf. is collective. Hence the word should be rendered 272 ZECHARIAH their, not his, blood. Render also their mouths, their abominations and their teeth. Cp. EV., where the translators have obscured the sense by following the Heb. idiom. Cf. Ges. ^i**- ' <■■) '^. — vxpc] Here only in the sense of y^v, forbidden food, which does not occur in the pi. — n'?'*^] The noun, pointed as it is here, generally means chief, but, when thus pronounced in the sg., it always elsewhere has i. Moreover, the mean- ing chief is not the one required in this connection. Hence Ort. and others rd. lb?<3 in the sense oi family. Cf. Ju. 6'^ i S. lo"- ". So Sta., We., Now., Marti, Kit. — The last line, like the third of the first stanza, has only two words, but the second has two beats. Cf. v. '. — van H., because he thinks that the sfs. in this verse refer to itcc, rear- ranges the lines in vv. ^ '• as follows: vv. '• *» '"-"^ ^^, but the prophet would hardly close with a threat of destruction. — This verse furnishes an instance of the way in which the text sometimes lends itself to the most fantastic treatment. Houb. renders ^Sn an ox, and by a slight change in 'DO' (idi3n) provides him with /m5 j/aWe. — 8. njxc] Qr. N3xc; also some mss., U, and many exegetes. The prep, supposed to be rep- resented by D is sometimes rendered on account of (Dru., Hd.), but more frequently against, or the like. So Ra., Ki., Marck, Grot., Rosenm., Mau., Hi., Burger, Ke., Pres., Kui., Rub., We., et al. It seems best, however, to retain the present text, pointing it, not with (5 &, ^s^c, but, as in I S. 1412, ^^^d. So Bo., Ort, Koh., Brd., Sta., Now., Marti, GASm., et al. — On ac'si nays, see 7". (2) Tlie future ruler (9" ^•). — The coming king is announced, and his character and mission described; also the extent of his kingdom. 9. In the preceding prophecy, as originally written, there was no reference to the territory occupied at any time by the Hebrews. It was taken for granted that it would be restored to them as a united people. This implies the resumption by Jerusalem of its ancient pre-eminence as the national capital. It is natural, there- fore, that here the scene should be laid in the Holy City, or, to adopt the author's figure, that she should welcome the promised king. The prophet bids her exult, yes, shout, giving unrestrained expres- sion to her joy. He calls her, first, literally, daughter Sion, the word daughter being little more than a sign of personification as a female; which, however, for the sake of greater definiteness may be rendered fair or comely. The reason for exultation is found in the announcement, Lo, thy king shall come to thee, which completes the sense and closes the first tristich. The rest of the verse con- 9' '■ m stitutes another the theme of which is the character of the king. He is just. This term has various shades of meaning. Thus, it denotes the impartiality that should characterise the ideal judge; and at first sight, it seems as if here, as in Is. ii^ and Je. 23'', this were the quahty attributed to him.* The king of this passage, however, differs greatly from the one predicted by the other two prophets. The writer was evidently acquainted with the Servant of Yahweh as pictured by the Second Isaiah. Indeed, he seems here to have imdertaken to combine this conception with that of a royal conqueror. It was the difficulty of combining the two that finally led the Jews to accept the doctrine that there would be two Messiahs, a son of David who would live and reign forever, and a son of Joseph who must precede the other and "by his death provide atonement and expiation for the sins of Israel, opening to the regal Messiah and his people the way to the creation of the glorious king- dom" for which they waited. Cf. Weber, Altsynagogale paliistinische Tlie- ologie, 346/. It is probable, therefore, that, in calling his king just, he had in mind the vindication promised the suffering Servant. Cf. Is. 50* 53^^ ^'- This sort of justness is closely related to salvation, deliverance. In Is. 45* 62^ and elsewhere they are treated as sub- stantially synonymous. This being the case, it is not surprising to find that the second term here used, which is rendered victo- rious, as it should be also, for example, in Dt. t,^^^, is really a pas- sive participle which, in another connection, might properly be translated saved or delivered. In other words, the person here described, though still a king, is not the proud and confident figure of the earlier prophecies. See Is. 9^/^ Mi. 5^/^ etc. He is vic- torious, not in himself or anything that he personally commands, but by the grace, and in the might, of the God of Israel. Cf. Ps, 20'/® 33^®. His triumph, therefore, is the triumph of the faith of the Servant of Yahweh. Cf. Is. 49* 50^^-. A triumph of this kind, while it forbids pride, ought not to produce an effect in any sense or degree unhappy. Therefore, although the third epithet is generally best rendered by afflicted or one of its synonyms, it is better in this case, as in Ps. 18^*/^^, for example, following the * So Mau., Ke., Or., Reu., el al. 274 ZECHARIAH y Targum and the Greek and Syriac versions, to translate it humble.* This rendering harmonises with the following context, where the king is described as manifesting his humility by making his entry into his capital mounted, not on a prancing horse suggesting war and conquest, but on an ass.] With the picture here presented compare Je. 22^ with its "kings riding in chariots and on horses." The difference between the two shows how great a change took place in the ideals and expectations of the Jews during and after the Exile. — 10. A king of the character described could not be expected to take any pleasure in arms. The writer is consistent, therefore, in giving him no part in the subjugation of the hitherto un conquered portions of his kingdom; also in predicting that on his accession he will destroy the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem. It is a mistake to infer from these words that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were in existence when they were written ; and equally erroneous to suppose that chariots were then used only in the northern, and horses only in the southern, part of the country. The words are arranged as they are to satisfy the Hebrew fondness for parallelism. What they mean is that the king will banish both chariots and horses for military purposes from his entire dominion. If the name Ephraim has any special significance, it must have been intended to remind the reader that in the good time coming all the tribes would be reunited. Cf. Je. 3^^ 23", etc. In that day not only chariots and horses, the more imposing paraphernalia of militarism, but the war bow, the bow so far as it is used in war, shall be destroyed. In Mi. 5®/*" ^- horses and chariots are devoted to destruction because they, like witches, idols, etc., are offensive to Yahweh. Here, however, as in Ho. i' and 2^"/'*, both of which are postexilic, it is because they are no longer needed, Yahweh, who has wrought the restoration of his people, being their suflScient protection. Cf. 2'/^. Nor will the reign of peace be confined to the Promised Land. The king to be, the Prince of Peace of Is. 9^/^, will also speak peace to the nations. This statement, in the light of Is. 42^, where the Servant ♦ Mt. 21', of course, follows the Greek. Jn. 12'^ does not reproduce this part of the prophecy. t Note that the prophet does not, as Mt. 21' would lead one to suppose, predict the use of two asses, but, as Jn. 12'- puts it, a single young animal. 9' '• 275 of Yahweh is represented as bringing forth justice for the nations, seems to mean that he will act as arbiter among the peoples, and by the justice of his decisions make appeals to arms unnecessary. "One nation shall" then "not uplift the sword against another, neither shall they learn war any more." CJ. Mi. 4^ (Is. 2*) Is. 42^- *. The final clause further defines the nature and extent of the king's authority. He shall rule, it says, from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth. The terms used are not without ambiguity. For example, it is not clear whether from sea to sea has, as some assert, the same force as "from the rising of the sun to its setting" (Ps. 50^)* or refers to definite bodies of water. The latter view has in its favour the following considera- tions: (i) The operations preparatory to the advent of the king, as described in the preceding prophecy, are confined to a limited area. (2) The Hebrews are elsewhere taught to expect final pos- session of a country with definite, if not always the same, hmits. Cf. Ex. 23^ Nu. 34' «• Ez. 47''ff-. (3) The northern boundary here given, clearly the Euphrates, being the same as in various other passages, it is reasonable to suppose that the seas correspond to those by which, according to the same passages, the territory described was to a great extent enclosed, namely, the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean. True, on the fourth, or south, side there is no definite limit, but this is not strange in view of the nature of the country, there being no great obstacle to expansion in that direc- tion. The teaching of the passage, therefore, seems to be that, while the coming king, like Solomon (i K. 10^ ^•) and the Servant of Yahweh (Is. 49^), will exert an influence upon, and receive hom- age from, the nations of the earth, his proper kingdom wUl be west- ern Palestine in its ideal dimensions. For a later and more ex- travagant form of this prophecy, see Ps. 72®'^^. There can hardly be a question about the relation of this to the preceding prophecy. They have the same poetical form, and were therefore doubtless intended to supplement each other. As a whole they admirably illustrate the persistence of the Messianic hope among the Hebrews. The author, apparently, as soon as Alexander appeared on his horizon, saw in the young Greek, not only the conqueror of Asia, but the forerunner of a ruler who would * So Jer., Theodoret, Rosenm., Burger, Koh., Ke., Hd., Brd., et al. 276 ZECHARIAH restore the kingdom of David and make it the admiration of the world. The first part of the prophecy was fulfilled in a measure when Alexander took possession, one after another, of the cities named and many others. The second part was not fulfilled, but it furnished an ideal, faith in which was only less comforting and edifying than its realisation. 9. 'Su] With the accent on the ultima. CJ. 13'; Ges. ^"- '• '^^ '.— nS] For T'Sn; not common. Cf. 2 S. 12^ Am. 6', etc.; BDB., art. '^, I. g (*). This word closes the first tristich, and therefore should have received athnach. — p'-ix] Not an accusative after nis'', but, like piru a predicate of the pronoun Nin. — ^ju^i] New., following ')- The confusion between the two arose from the development in the signification of the former. Cf. DB., art. Poor; Rahlfs, >jjj und uy in den Psalmen, 89. There are eight pas- sages in which the Mas. corrected the text, five (Ps. 9IV12 lo'^ Pr. t,'^ 14" 16") in which they point Di'jy with the vowels of dmj?, and three (Am. 8< Is. 32' Ps. 9"/'7) in which they have made the reverse change. — S;'i] The 1 is explicative. Cf. Gn. 4*, etc.; Ges. 5'"- "o'e w); Ko. ^ '"^o. — hupn] A pi. of species best translated by the sg. Cf. Gn. 38" i S. 17' Is. 50*, etc.; Ges. ^i2<- >• R- «; Ko. %264a, — The evangelists in citing this passage treated it with unusual freedom, as can be seen by a comparison between Mt. 21' and Jn. 12"* on the one hand and the Heb. or Greek of Zechariah on the other: Hebrew. Greek. Matthew. John. ^ND ^Su I Xa?jpe 6 ^acriXfvs txov ' l5o{> 6 ^affiXtijt cov i5oi> 6 ^asiXiiJS aov ■^ Nn' (pXf^o-i- (fOL HpXeral 1J1 pnx 4 SlKaioi Kal adil^iov, Nin o(Jt6s 3311 •'iV 5 irpavs Kal iin&e- irpavs ivi^(^7}Kui% Kad-fip>£vo% men Sj; inl viro^^iov ^tI 6voi> I'j.' Syi 6 Kal TTuXof Kal iwl irC)\ov iirl irwKov nuHN p v4ov vlbv vtro^vylov &VOV. 9""' 277 It will be observed that neither of the evangelists quotes the first (met- rical) line, but that Matthew borrows an altogether different clause from Is. 62", while John seems to have had in mind Is. 54'', where, although the name does not occur, the daughter of Sion is addressed as clearly as in 52' ff-. Both omit lines 2 and 4, and John condenses 5 and 6 into a single clause, the result being that Matthew has a stanza of four and John one of three lines in the original measure. Note also that Matthew quotes the original as far as he goes, while John follows neither it nor (5. — 10. ^mDni] The change of subject disturbs the flow of thought. In (§ ^ it remains the same. Rd., therefore, n>iani, and he, etc. So Houb., New., Sta., We., Now., Marti, Kit., van H. — 23i] Observe that the art. with n is not found in vv. >-'<' and that it oc- curs only 4 t. without this consonant. The entire omission of it with this and the two following nouns may be due to the poetical character of the passage, Ges. ^'^e. 2 (/,) R.j Ko. 5292a; or this may be another case like the iSd of v. *, a chariot being equivalent to every chariot. Cf. Ho. 3^. — nmaji] (S^r^ i^oXedpe^fferai = nnom; so &; but (6^*^Q B &" SI have the passive. — aiSty nam] (S, Kal irXijSos Kal elpi^vrj = oiSci 311. — injci] One of five instances in which "inj, when it means the Euphrates, wants the art. The others are Is. 720, where, according to Che., ^laya inj should be nnjn -\2y:3, Je. 2I8, where Kenn. i has "injn, Mi. 7>2, and Ps. 728, the last, according to Baethgen, copied from this passage. The prophecies of vv. ^■^** were written for the Jews of the latter part of the fourth century B.C., but in their present form they serve a new purpose, namely, to introduce a series of oracles of a con- siderably later date, the first of which deals with b. A promise 0/ freedom and prosperity (9"'*^. Yahweh promises to restore the exiled Jews inspire them with courage to meet their oppressors, assist them in the conflict and thenceforward bestow upon them his favour and protection. 11. The prophet, having, by means of the borrowed passage (vv. *"*"), given the reader a glimpse of Yahweh's ultimate purpose, returns to the present and addresses Sion in her actual condition. O thou, he begins,/ar the blood of thy covenant I will also release thy prisoners from the pit. The prisoners in question are the Jews still in exile. The Persian as well as the Babylonian empire has been overthrown, yet many of the children of Sion remain scattered in other countries. Yahweh declares that he has released them, or 278 ZECHARIAH is on the point of releasing them, and gives his reason for so doing. It is found in the blood of a covenant which is described as Sion's; but, since a covenant requires two parties, and in this case the second is the speaker himself, thy covenant is clearly equivalent to my covenant with thee. The blood of this covenant is naturally the blood of the sacrifices with which it was sealed. When did the ceremony occur ? There are those who find here an allusion to the covenant at Sinai. Cf. Ex. 24^^^-.* Others deny that there is a reference to any historical event, claiming that the sacrifice is the daily offering of the temple.f It seems still better, since the rela- tion of the Jews to their country is concerned, to suppose, with Pemble, that the writer had in mind the original covenant between Yahweh and Abraham described in Gn. if'^"- " ^^ on which they based their title to Canaan and of which the one at Sinai was only a repetition and the daily sacrifice a reminder. It was their neg- lect of this covenant that moved Yahweh to drive them from the country, and it is his faithfulness to it that explains the prom- ise of a restoration. Cf. Je. 34"^-, where there is an unmis- takable allusion to the ceremony at Hebron. On the circum- stantial phrase, with no water in it, which is clearly a gloss, see the critical notes. — 12. The writer gives the exiles, or some of them, the credit of having an interest in their o\\ti country and a readiness to return to it under favourable conditions. He be- lieves that the time is ripe for such a movement, and therefore, according to the original reading, represents Yahweh, not as inviting these exiles to return, but as promising that the, not merely hopeful, but expectant, prisoners shall return. The Masso- retic text, as generally rendered, directs them to return to the fort- ress. There are, however, metrical reasons, which will be ex- plained in the critical notes, for susjjecting the correctness of this reading. Moreover, it is unintelligible. Sion is here personified. It is therefore inconsistent, in a speech addressed to her, to repre- sent her exiles as returning to a fortress. These difficulties can best be avoided by rejecting the troublesome phrase, since, whether * So AE., Ra.. Rosenm., Mau., Hi., Ew., Burger, Hd.. Koh., Ke., Brd., Wri., Or., Kui., el al. t So Du., Th€ol.; Now., Marti. 9"-" 279 rightly or wrongly translated, it evidently has no place in this con- nection. At the same time it is necessary to omit certain other words with which the measure has been overloaded. The coup- let of which the verse originally consisted will then read, Tlie expectant prisoners shall return; Twofold will I restore to thee. The recompense here promised includes not merely a great increase in population, like that predicted in Is. 54^^-, but an abundance of everything that produces genuine prosperity and happiness; all this, according to the gloss wrongly rendered to the fortress, will be given in exchange /or trouble, the suffering of the past. On this gloss and the parenthetical clause, this day also I declare, see Is. 61^. — 13. This will be the result. There will be opposition to its achievement, but Yahweh will triumph, using as his instrument the people he has chosen. Note, now, the tone and temper of the dis- course as compared with w. ^ ^■. / will bend me Jtidah, use them as a bow, he says, and this how will I set, lit., Jill, as with an arrow, with Ephraim. The long-sundered tribes \vill be united in a single weapon. Cf. Is. ii^^^-. In the latter half of the verse, which should form a second couplet, the same idea is repeated with varia- tions. In the first place, the speaker, Yahweh, resumes the form of direct address, the one addressed being Sion. In the Masso- retic text Greece (Yawan), also, is in the vocative, but this is certainly an error. Indeed, the whole clause to which the name belongs must for metrical reasons be pronounced an interpola- tion. Thus emended the second couplet reads, I will arouse thy sons, Sion, And I will make thee like the sword of a mighty man. The mention of Greece in this connection, even in a gloss, is not without significance, for it doubtless embodies the authorised Jewish interpretation of an early date. Jerome says that in his time the Jews interpreted it as a reference "to the times of the Maccabees, who conquered the Macedonians, and, after a space of three years and six months, cleansed the temple defiled by idol- atry"; and Rashi in his paraphrase makes Yahweh say, "After 28o ZECHARIAH Antiochus takes the kingdom from the hand of the king of Persia, and they ill-treat you, I will bend Judah, that they may be to me like a war bow, and they shall make war against Antiochus in the days of the Hasmoneans." It must, however, be remembered, that this gloss is earlier than the Greek Version, and that when it was inserted Egypt as well as Syria was a Greek kingdom. 14. In the midst of the conflict Yahweh will appear in person. Here, as in other places in the Old Testament, he is represented as coming in a storm. Cf. especially Na. i^ Ps. i8*/^ ^- 2(f^-. This being the case, it is more probable that the writer intended to say that Yahweh would appear above them than on their account, for their defence. From his cloud chariot his arrow shall go forth as lightning. IJCJ. Hb. 3" Ps. 18^^" 77IV" j^^e^ ^^^ Meanwhile, as earthly'warriors blow the trumpet (Ju. 7^* ^■) he will send forth dreadful blasts of thunder to terrify his and his people's enemies /(Ps. 18"/" 29^*^) as he comes in the tempests of the South. The original abode of Yahweh was in the South; hence the poets repre- sent him as coming from that direction. Cf. Ju. 5* Dt. 33" Hb. 3^; also Ex. 3'^ I K. 19*, etc. — ^15. Yahweh of Hosts, the God of battles, will be present, not only to frighten and destroy the enemy, but to protect, as with a shield,* his people, so that missiles hurled at them will fall harmless at their feet, and they shall trample on sling-stones, like leviathan turn them into "stubble." Cf. Jb. ^ j2o/28. ^jgQ jg ^^i7_ Thus protected, they will riot in slaughter, or, in the figurative language of the (corrected) text, drink blood like wine, and be filled, drenched, with it Hke the corners of an allar. The latter figure is an aIlu.sion to the custom of sprinkling more or less of the blood of sacrifices upon the altar. Cf. Ex. 24* Lv. i^ etc. This was done, according to tradition, by dashing the blood from the bowl in which it had been caught against two opposite corners in such a way that it would spatter the adjacent .sides. The thought seems to be that, just as the altar dripped with the blood of the sacrifices, so the.se warriors, with the help of Yahweh, will drench themselves in the blood of their enemies. Cf. Is. i** Ez. 9^ etc. Some one who took the ierm fill too literally has added a second simile, like a bowl, that is, one of the large vessels in which * CI. Gn. 15I Ps. i8V!. si/30, etc. 9"-" 28i the blood of slaughtered animals was caught. Cf. Am. 6®; DB.^ a.rt^,Basofi. is^Q. This wild and bloody picture, which seems to have been suggested by ,Ez^ ^9^^ *^-, warrants one in expecting a conclu- sion equally thrilling and terrible. Cf. Am. 2^ ^■. This expecta- tion is not reahsed. Suddenly the stlh of peace bursts forth, the traces of the recent struggle are effaced and the scene becomes wholly idyllic. The beauty of the picture, as the writer conceived it, is marred by the changes that have been made in the text, and the occidental reader is further prevented from appreciating it by his unfamiliarity with oriental scenery. The first two lines, with the necessary emendations, the omission of the phrase in that day and the restoration of the verb feed, read. Thus will Yahweh their God save them. Like a flock ivill he feed his people. The remaining lines of the verse are usually rendered and inter- preted as a second and independent simile. Thus AV. has the stones of a crown lifted up as an ensign above his land, which was so inconsistent and unintelligible that the Revisers substituted the simpler rendering, the stones of a crown lifted on high over his land, at the same time placing in the margin, as an alternate for lifted on high, the reading shimmering upon. Recent critics, failing to find, even in the latter, anything to connect this comparison with the preceding, and ignoring metrical considerations, incline, with Wellhausen, to reject the whole clause, with the exception of the words on his soil. If they had ever seen one of the little plains of Palestine in the spring, dotted with sheep, white and brown, gra- zing under a brilliant oriental sun, they could understand why the writer, after comparing his people to a flock, added, as he seems to have done, Like stones for a crown shall they be. Glittering on his soil. — 17. The prophecy as originally written closed with v. ^°. One feels, as one reads it, that it should end there. This verse, there- fore, at once strikes the critical reader as superfluous. On exam- 282 ZECHARIAH ining it he finds that both in form and content it is inconsistent with those that precede. In the first place, it contains only three lines, while all the other verses have four. Then, too, the author of it is of a different mind from his predecessor. To him the ideal life is not that of the shepherd, but that of the tiller of the soil, and the ideal condition that when grain causeth youths, and must causeth maidens, to flourish. Not that the grain is for the young men and the must, when fermented, for the young women, but that both in abundance are required by an increasing population. On the fruitfulness of the Palestine of the coming age, see Is. 4" 30"^ ^- Ez. 34=^° Am. 9" Ps. 72^^ etc. The structure of vv. "•'' is not so regular as that of w. '■"', but there is no difSculty in perceiving that the tristich has given place to the tetra- stich, and that there are five such divisions more or less distorted by er- rors and glosses in this prophecy, the first and the last having suffered most severely. In iB the section to which these verses belong begins with V. ' and closes with lo^; but vv. ' '• are in a different measure and 10'-" are needed to prepare the way for what follows. — 11. dj] The person here addressed is the same as in v. '. The particle, therefore, applies not so much to the subject as to the thought of the entire sen- tence. Hence, it is properly rendered also in connection with the vb. Cf. Ges. ^ '". If the prophecy that begins at this point is later than w. '-'"j the particle is doubly appropriate. — hn] Rib. accuses the Jews of hav- ing tampered with the te.xt of this verse, dropping a n from the pro- noun and changing the sf . of inna and -fT'DN from the masc. to the fern, gender; but, since it is clear from the context that, as has just been ob- served, the writer had Sion in mind, and not its future king, the charge must be dismissed. The pronoun is an independent subject anticipat- ing the just-mentioned sf. Cf. Gn. 9'; Ges. ^ i" cm (a)._a-,3] The prep, has a causal significance, as in Gn. iS^s Dt. 24'8. Cf. BDB., art. a, iii, 5.— inna] (K^Q om. the sf., (S>^^ H & 01 follow iK. The sf. is an obj. gen., since only on this interpretation can there be found in the covenant in question a motive for divine action. Cf. Ges. ^'^s- ' <". — ''nnSr] <& V ^, misled by pn, have the 2 sg. masc, but JH is sup- ported by the context. Cy. 3>U'N, V. '2. On the tense, the pf. denoting the imminence of the given act, see Ges. ^ '*•• ' <"'. — 13 o^n pn] Clearly a gloss, (i) It disturbs the measure. (2) It adds a thought unnatural in this con- nection. (3) It is easily explained as a reminiscence of Gn. 37^^ or Je. 38', probably, since the Jews interpreted in as meaning Egypt, the former. It is merely an example of misapplied rabbinical learning. — 12. i3ir] Four Kenn. mss. have wr, from ar', doubtless the reading from which 9"-'' 283 C5 got KaB-rjcreade and & Q.SZ. This reading, however, does not suit the context, which requires a form of aic'; not, indeed, the imv. of the text, although it is supported by B QI, but ms''', or better, — for this requires merely the transposition of the first two letters of the present text, — lach. So Marti. — jnxa'?] Here only. Whether the first word of this verse be an imv. or a pf. with 1, it requires, to complete it, the third and the fourth, and these three make a line corresponding to the two in the pre- ceding verse. In other words, jnxaS is superfluous, at least in this con- nection. This being the case, there are two ways of disposing of it, either to transfer it to the next line or to remove it entirely. But the first method is impracticable, because the next line is already much too long. There seems, therefore, nothing to do but pronounce it a gloss; unless it be to find an explanation for it. The following is suggested: In Ps. 9 and ID there occurs the word ni^a in the sense of trouble. It is certainly possible that jns3 is a mistake for this word, or an Aramaic form of it, that jnxaS was first a marginal gloss to 'ji njrs, and that it was inserted where it now stands by a careless copyist. — iijo orn dj] These words also must be of a secondary character, (i) They disturb the metrical scheme of the original author. (2) They are parenthetical and explan- atory. (3) They seem to have been intended to recall Is. 61''. The subject of i^JO, the pron. of the first person, is to be supplied. Cf. Ges.^i>«- 5 (o R.3; B6.^'3"-4-E; Ko. ^'324n,_i3. pc-p] xhe Vrss. con- nect this word with the first line. So also Theod. Mops., Lu., Hi., Ew., Burger, Koh., Ke., Klie., Or., We., Now., et al. The measure and the accentuation, however, require that it be attached to what follows. So Jer., Ra., Marck, Dru., New., Rosenm., Mau., Ort., Hd., Brd., Pu., Lowe, Marti, el al. The objection by Now., that if it were the object of ^rsSis it would have the art., ignores the fact that the art. is repeatedly omitted in this prophecy where the prose idiom would require it. Cf. iod, v. "; inj, V. "; jiSp, V. '5; n^TD, v. ''. The recognition of the Massoretic punc- tuation carries with it the rejection of various interpretations for the words that follow, for it is clear that, if it belongs to the second line, it must be the object of ^ns'i'n while DnsN can only be an ace. of that with which the object is filled. Cf. Ges.^"'- <• R- ■• «), — ••nmip] This vb., in Po., most frequently has the meaning arouse, but it is also used in the sense of brandish, and Wright so renders it in this instance. Now. objects, but his points are not well taken. In the first place, the word, when used in the latter sense, is not always followed by n^jn. See Is. 10", where the object is tait:', a scourge. It is therefore not necessary to supply n'jn in this instance and thus "put into the mouth of the prophet two mutually exclusive figures "; but, just as in the immediately preceding couplet the weapon which is the object of comparison in the first must be supplied from the second line, so here as a sword may be borrowed, to complete the thought, from the parallel clause. While, therefore, it may be best, as a concession to occidental taste, to render the vb. in question arouse, it 284 ZECHARTAH is more than probable that the author really thought of Yahweh as brandishing his people against their enemies. Cf. Ez. 32'", where it is possible that -£3DV3 should be emended to nniya. — ]v y:3 Sj;] As has already been intimated, the words from in-ni;;i onward evidently con- tain a parallelism. When, however, an attempt is made to arrange them symmetrically they refuse to be so assorted. Indeed, when they are di- vided according to the sense, even if, with (6 Aq. S, y:2- be changed to >j3, the first line has nearly twice the length of the second. Marti at- tempts to correct this discrepancy by omitting both jvx and yi^-. So Kit. This is only partially satisfactory, since, by the removal of p's, the sf. of TJ3' loses its antecedent and becomes less easily intelligible. If, however, this name is retained, it completes the first line, and the only way to restore the symmetry of the couplet is to drop ]v ^'J^ Sy, or, as Marti and others read it, ]v "ija V>\ So van H. — i\ncB'i] One would expect O'lPOt'i. If the present reading is retained, it must be explained as a case of attraction. 14 . The metrical form is here very regular, but there is one word too many in the third line. Omit, therefore, either ^nsi or the ^^^i^ follow- ing, preferably, with Marti, the former. Cf. v. ". — 15. The text of this verse is not in so good condition. In the first place, Pixax, which occurs only once (lo^) elsewhere in chs. 9-1 1, and there as an interpolation, should be cancelled. — iSdni] If the line now beginning with this word were coupled with the next one, the thought of eating would be in place, and it would be worth while to attempt to emend the words that follow to bring them into harmony with it. Thus, e. g., for vS"" ''J3N K031 one might suggest on^a^'X nrao. Since, however, the line forms a couplet with the one that precedes, and makes complete sense without iSdni, there can be little doubt that, just as in Is. 21^ some one has supplied the vbs. for eating and drinking after a description of the preparation of a table, so here a scribe with more zeal for reality than taste for poetry has supplied 1S3X1 to correspond to the inri of the next line. The alterna- tive to this method of disposing of the word is, with Klostermann, to change it to iS^m. So Kui., We., Now., Marti, GASm., Kit. — 'nN j?S|i] These words are perfectly intelligible after vjooi, without i^3S\ It is therefore unnecessary to resort to further emendation in this line. Fliigge's suggestion, i'':'p ^ja = ]v ^ja Sy of v. " is ungenuine. — inni] This is the reading preferred by Baer and supported by 20 Kenn. and 16 de R. mss., but the great majority of the mss. omit the connective, and so, apparently, did those from which 05 and & were made. It is more than probable, however, that both are incorrect, and that the key to the original reading is found in the rd alfui avrdv of <8^"^- •• <^- i* AQri-_ Not that nm was indubitably the original reading, as Houb. and the later critics maintain. All these seem to have overlooked the fact that the sf. of DC1, if it were substituted for icn or icni, would have no ante- 9"-^' 285 cedent, unless, like that of on^Sy, it referred to the Jews, which is hardly possible. If, therefore, the text, or texts, on which the Greek mss. cited were based had om, they should have pronounced it D!?i = didi, and rendered it simply afju-a, or, after the Heb. idiom, which they sometimes followed, atfiara, without airQv. This is a bold and cruel figure, but the next line warrants one in believing that it expresses the thought of the author. — The last line also is overloaded. The testimony of (5 is to the effect that n^ta is the word that should be omitted, but, since the translators evidently misunderstood the passage, their evidence is not convincing. Moreover, the fact that, although either could be con- strued with nam .rr'ita presents a more natural and impressive picture, indicates that it is original and that therefore pirna is an interpolation. So Marti, Kit. 16. oy^rini] The sf. is superfluous in the present condition of the text, and is actually omitted by Kenn. 30; but see below. — DninS^J Here again it is necessary to choose between two Greek readings, for although '^^ have this word, in ^Qr jt is wanting. The former probably represents the original text. It certainly completes the line more satisfactorily than Ninn 0V3. If, however, the former is retained, the latter must be sac- rificed to the requirements of the measure. So Marti, Kit. — The first line having been restored, it is necessary to find a mate for it. This is fortunately not a very diflScult task. First, if DjJ^rim is correct, there must have been another vb. to correspond to it. Moreover, it must have been one of which Yahweh was the subject and with which the simile like a flock could appropriately be employed. These requirements are met by nyi, and We. is no doubt correct in inserting the impf. of this word, thus producing a second line, icy n;?i> jnxo, corresponding to the one already discovered. He is not so happy in his rejection of the latter half of this verse, for, since v. " is in a different measure, there must be found here two lines to complete the closing stanza. This can be done by reading, with We., •'jasofor iJ3S ^3 and inserting after nu the pron. ncn, the same being necessary to complete the sense and give the first line the required length. On the appropriateness of the simile thus pro- duced, see the comments. Cf. the radical and unrhythmical revision, — "3] A mistaken gloss, un- naturally restricting the original thought. The author wished to teach his people where to look for rain, not when it was most needed. It seems to have been suggested by Dt. 11", which (6 copies verbatim. The measure permits no addition. — a''Titn] Van H. ingeniously sug- gests OMMH, the beasts. — nam] Not necessary, nu'j alone satisfying the requirements both of the sense and the measure. Marti, there- fore, omits it. See, however, Jb. 37% where both words are used in the reverse order, also a similar expression in Is. 3'2. — an'^] Marti, fol- lowing &, rds. DoS, overlooking the fact that the second line is not a promise, but the statement of a truth, and the third a continuation of the same thought, the construction being changed by substituting the impf . for the prtc. on account of the distance of the second vb. from mn^, its subject. Cf. Ges. ^ "•• ^- ^- '.—2. ^3] Adversative. Cf. Mi. 6', etc.; Ges.^'"- '• R-. — Diannn] Here, if nowhere else, a numerical plural. Cf. Ges. ^'*<- ' c^'. — vn] Accented on the penult to prevent the con- junction of two accented syllables. — pcnj'- — nicSm] Two reasons for suspecting the genuineness of these two lines have been given in the comments. Another is that they have no place in the metrical scheme of the author, a system of tetrastichs. — mnSm] There is difference of opinion with reference to the relation of this word to those that fol- low. Many make it the subj., and xirn the obj., of n3i\ So H S, Dru., Rosenm., Hi., Ew., Pres., Sta., Kui., Now., GASm-., et al. It is better, however, for several reasons, to make it the object of the vb. and Niu*n the gen. dependent on it: (i) This is the more natural con- struction. (2) It is favoured by the fact that mu-nhas the art., while nia^ni has none. (3) The vbs. n3i> and icnr naturally take a per- sonal subj. The majority of the authorities, therefore, have adopted this construction. So <& ft, New., Mau., Burger, Koh., Klie., Ke., lo-ii' 299 Hd., Pu., Or., Reu., Rub., We., Marti, et a/.— isnr] Kenn. 4 yony, according to We. "perhaps correctly." The vb. Bvsj, however, occurs only in Je. 23'', and there as a denominative apparently coined for the occasion. Besides, We. himself thinks that the present reading also suits the connection. — p Sy] Marti, recognising the division into tetrastichs and accepting innj"! — ninSm as genuine, is obliged to omit the rest of the verse as an accretion; mistakenly, for there are as good reasons for retaining these two lines as for omitting those he omits, (i) They are metrically correct. (2) The tenses used corre- spond to those of the first two lines of the verse. (3) They complete the thought with which the writer began and furnish him with a basis for the rest of his discourse. Note especially J3 V;' and the catch' word nj?-\. Although these last lines, as a whole, are genuine, there are two words about which there is room for doubt as to their cor- rectness. The first is i>D^ It excites suspicion because, while it closely resembles words generally used in such connections, it is itself not perfectly appropriate. It denotes a deliberate departure from one place for another as on a march or journey. C/. Nu. 33'^-. The word required is one that implies danger or violence. We. suggests U'j or r;y, from >i], wander. So also Now. This is an improve- ment, but n;"Dj, from "i>D, scatter (7"), not only suits the connection, but furnishes a key to the origin of the present reading. — ij>''] We. would om. the word, but the measure favours its retention. Marti rds. ijy.i, citing (&, but koI iKaK(i6r}a-av — iji;''i. GASm. rds. UTL This last, or, without the connective, U'f , would suit the connection. The same is true, however, of M, which, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned, is supported by the Vrss. It is interesting also to note that in Is. 54" the vbs. n>"D and riy; are associated. — 3. n-^n] The pf. with the force of a present tense. Cf. Ges. ^' '»«■ ^ (").— ipijx] This vb., with Sy, denotes hostility, without it, friendliness. See the next clause; also Je. 23'. — ipa ^o] Perhaps an error for tps' '3. — At this point van H., ignoring the indications from form and content that have been noted in the Introduction, inserts ii>-i' and 13''. — riiNas] Om. with Kenn. 17, although its equivalent appears in all the Vrss. So Marti, Kit. — nnin> no nx] An intrepretative gloss, as prosaic as it is unnecessary. C/. i' Is. 7" S''. So We., Now., Marti., Kit.— nsnSsa] Perhaps, as Marti conjectures, a loan from v. ^. — 4. The reasons for rejecting this verse have been given in the comments. Marti makes a tetrastich of it, but only by disregarding the length of the lines. — i:dc] The antecedent is Judah. & has the pi. of the pron. here as in the last clause of v. '. — nn'] After a sg., which, however, has a col- lective signification. Cp. Marti, who would transfer this word to v.6 in place of rn\— vm] &l oms.'', but not S^u, Marti's idea is that the insertion of this word was rendered necessary by a mistake in 300 ZECHARIAH punctuation which made nn'' a part of v. <; but (i) nn> would not take the place of vm, which, moreover (2), is precisely in the style of the original author. Cf. vv. « '■. — O'-ijjs] For 'o We. rds. '1, render- ing the whole clause, and they shall tread on heroes. Similarly, Now., Marti, GASm., Kit. (The last has by mistake 'J3 for 'J3'). This, however, is inadmissible. If the author had intended to say what is attributed to him, he would either have placed D"'Dia before a^-iaja or cnaj before the proper form of ^••n. Moreover, he would probably have made the noun a direct obj., this being the construction else- where used after 013. Cf. Is. 63* Ps. 64'^ etc. In Ez. i6«- " the 3 is locative. Cf. BDB. M makes sense if, with 6 Kenn. mss. and the critics just cited, for o^'aa one reads O'aD and translates it as it were mire. — a'on] For 0''D3, like a^'Cip, 2 K. 16', and oi'^, Is. 25'. Cf. Ges.'!"- »• ^- «.— iK'om]. Cf. gK 6. OTinB'ini] It is a Jewish conceit that this is a composite form representing both 3W and au'' in Hiph., as used in Je. 32", and mean- ing both return to, and reinstate in, Palestine. So AE., Abar., Ki., Dru., Rosenm., Pu., et al. The truth probably is that there were two readings and that the Massoretic text resulted from the inability of the scribes to decide which was the correct one. The great majority of the mss. collated by Kenn. have this mongrel form, but 6 have a^narm, which is ambiguous, and 25 a\narini, Hiph. from au'\ This latter is the one preferred by ($, Ra., Bla., Mau., Klie., Ke., Hd., Ols., Pres., Pu., el al.; but, as Koh. observes, if the writer had intended to use the Hiph. of 2V\ he would naturally have added a phrase telling how or where they were to dwell. Cf. Je. 32" Ez. 28^'. The omission of any such phrase makes it probable that here, as in v. '<•, it was the Hiph. of air that he intended to use. So 19 & S, New., Ew., Hi., Koh., Brd., Or., Wri., Sta., We., Kui., Now., Marti., GASm., Kit., et al. If the original was a'.^jc'ni, as it is in five of the other eight instances in which the Hiph. of aiu- is used, this form would naturally be understood dif- ferently by different readers, and the zeal of the parties thus arising would soon find expression in the text. — a^nnji] Thepf. in the sense of a plupf. in a supposition contrary to fact. Cf. Ges. ^ 'os. 4; Dr. 5 is. — 'i^ ':n •<2] These remaining words constitute an entirely indepen- dent sentence, like the similar clause in v. » a superfluous afterthought by a pious reader, metrically discordant with the preceding lines. Cf. also I2<- «. — 7. vni] The pi. with a collective subj. Cf. Ges. 'Jks. s <">.— 10J3] Rd., with (6 IB » Ui, a'->nJ3.— p> ica] The Heb. regu- larly uses 3 where the English idiom requires as with a prep. Cf. 12'; BDB., art. 2, fin.; Ges. '» "«• • <■'). — Sr] This word is pointed as a juss. and interpreted as implying subjective interest. Cf. T>x.^^° <">. It is better, since d H i^ have a connective, to rd. hi\ — 8. DsapNi] The impf. with the simple 1 after another impf . is comparatively rare, be- lo-ii 301 ing, as a rule, used only "when it is desired to lay some particular stress on the vb." or " in order to combine synonyms." Dr. ^ "^ Here the intention seems to be to emphasise the personality of the subj. — DTinc 12] An interpolation. Cf. v. «. — i^n] Kuiper rds. nans. 9. oyntNi] This word, as pointed, contradicts the promise of the preceding verse. What the author wishes to say is evidently, Though I have scattered them. When, however, the impf. is used of past ac- tion, a preceding 1 usually takes the form of 1 consec. Here, therefore, if the vb. is correct, the reading should be opiiNj. So Bla., Marti, Kit. Butthecorrectnessof the vb. is questioned. It is not elsewhere used in the sense of scatter of human beings. The word n-ir is the one regularly used in that signification. See esp. Ez. 20^3 22'* 29'* 3023, where it occurs in the phrase "scatter in the lands," and Ps. 44i3/'2, where the dispersion is described as "among the nations." Perhaps, therefore, the original reading, as We. suggests, was aiJNi^ So Now., GASm. — •'jnor* Dipmcai] Marti oms. these words. It is not they, however, but the remaining four, that have been added. On the 1 of a^imcai, see Ges. ^'s^- "o'e <*). — vni] Rd., with (I B, vm. So Seek., New., Sta., We., Now., Marti, Kit. — jua'^i] One reason, the metrical, for considering this word a gloss has been given in the com- ments. There are others: (2) The region of Lebanon, if it had been in the mind of the author, being a part of western Palestine, did not need to be mentioned. (3) The presence of the word in the text can be explained as a reminiscence of Dt. 3" or Je. 22 ^ — t'i] Rd., with ^ E, na^Ji, the subj. being the returning exiles. So We., Now., Marti, Kit. — ms an] (§, iv 6a\d3>'(Ki.), or an appositive to c (Ke.), or a gen. with D' (RV.), or an ace. denoting limit of motion (de D.), or an adverbial ace. (AV.); a vb. with the sense of cleave (Hd.). Others have attempted to emend the text. Thus Bla. rds. niV, to Tyre; also Klo., Sta. This reading, however, is probably older than Bla., for it seems to have suggested the gloss that follows. These attempts to construe or emend the passage having proven unsatisfactory, modern critics have returned to Seeker's conjecture, that here, as in Is. 11" the text should read anxs an. So We., Kui., Now., Marti, GASm., Kit. — D'''^J an njni] The secondary character of this clause is evi- dent, (i) It requires an awkward change of subj. (2) It sepa- rates two lines that belong together. (3) It adds a fifth line to an already complete stanza. (4) It is easily explained as a loan from 9^ suggested by nix, in which the scribe who inserted it found the 302 ZECHARIAH name of Tyre. — ironi] We., taking for granted the genuineness of the preceding clause, rds., with Kenn. 96, (6^, rori; but if that line be omitted there will be no need of changing this or either of the following vbs. This one is explained as a Hiph. used in the sense of Qal. Cf. BDB. — -»n'] Generally the Nile, but in the pi. sometimes streams other than the branches of that river. Cf. 33^' Jb. 28'". Moreover, in Dn. 12^ "• it is used of the Tigris. The context, with its regular alternations between Egypt and Syria, makes it probable that it here means the Euphrates, or is an error for injn, the usual designation for that river. Cf. Gn. 31", etc. The mistake would be a natural one after the allusion in the first line to the passage of the Red Sea. — 12. This whole verse is evidently an accretion, (i) It breaks with the metrical scheme of the rest of the chapter. (2) It disturbs the connection between v. >' and 11'. (3) It is clumsy and confusing in its style compared with the preceding verses. The last point holds even if, for D\'n3Ji, one read, with We., et al., onnaji, and their might. — r\^7^>■2\ <& E add their God. — idShp''] Rd., with Kenn. 150 and <& &, i'^Snn\ So Bla., New., We., Now., Marti, Kit. — 11'. TT-\N3] The prep, denotes that the action of the vb. will be unrestricted; the fire will devour at will among the cedars. Cf. Ges. ^ "'• 3 (A) (o. — 2. The first half of the verse, as shown in the com- ments, betrays its ungenuineness by its content. It is also metrically inadmissible, (i) It separates two couplets that are more closely related to each other than either of them is to it. (2) It makes the stanza in which it is found just so much longer than the others. The phraseology betrays dependence on v. '. — ik'n] Causal. Cf. Ho. 14^. Ges. ^ '". — n?a] Usually with the art., which is here omitted, although the noun is a vocative. — 11x2^] Qr,, with many mss., T'Xjn. The art. is sometimes found with an attributive adj. when the noun has none. Cf. 4' i4'o, etc.; Ges.^"«- «• R- («); Dr. ^^o^.— 3. Sip] With the force of hark. Cf. Ges. ^'<*- '• ^- '. — nSS»] On the composite shewa, see Ges. ^'o- -• '^^ ^ <">. — onrnx] Rd. on''j(nn, as in Je. 25^8. — Iii'i] Always with the art. in prose, and only twice (Ps. 42'/* Jb. 40") without it in poetry. d. The two shepherds (11*-'' i^''-^. The section naturally divides itself into two paragraphs, the first of which deals with (i) The careless shepherd (ii^'"). — The prophet represents him- self as directed by Yahweh to take charge of a flock of sheep that are being reared for the market. He does so, but finally tires of his duties and asks to be dismissed ; breaking one of the symbolic II' S03 staves with which he has provided himself when he leaves the sheep, and the other when he receives his wages and deposits them in the temple treasury. The story is more complete in its details than that of 6^^-, but the absence of definite persons and places and the neglect of the author to keep his narrative throughout dis- tinct from the ideas symbolised indicate that, whatever one may think of the other case, one has here to do with a parable. Cf. Ez. 4'^- 5'^- i2»'ff-. 4. The interpretation of the story as a parable does not deprive the introductory statement, Thus saith Yahweh, of significance. The author would doubtless have claimed that, although Yahweh did not actually command him to perform the acts described, the teaching of the parable had the divine sanction. The addition io me indicates that this was his conviction. Cf. Is. 8" i8*, etc. Yahweh instructs the prophet to feed, act in the capacity of a shep- herd to, the flock for slaughter. Cf. Je. 12^. Too much stress can- not be laid upon the fact that the sheep are destined for the sham- bles. This seems to have been ignored by those who find here a representation of a good shepherd, whether Yahweh (Stade) or a humane high priest (Wellhausen) . It is clear from v. ®, where the term shepherd is a synonym for king, that the command here given requires the prophet to personate a king and illustrate the char- acter of his government. Who the king is, the author is careful not to explain, but, as shown in the Introduction (256), the indi- cations point to Ptolemy III, king of Egypt from 247 to 222 B.C. It is clear from w. ^^ ^- that he is the first of two rulers portrayed by the same hand. He must therefore have ceased to rule before this and the next ten verses were written. In other words, this pas- sage, like Dn. 11^-12*, is not so much prophecy as history. 5. This king is not himself accused of destroying his own sheep. It is they that buy them who slay them. The terms here used are best explained as applying to the method of collecting the taxes in Palestine from the time of Ptolemy III onward. The Jews had previously had little reason to complain in this matter. When, however, Joseph, a disreputable nephew of the high priest Onias II, by cunning and bribery secured the franchise, it became an in- strument of cruelty as well as a source of enormous profit to its 304 ZECHARIAH possessor and his subordinates, who literally bought and sold the people without mercy. They could slay uncondemned, that is, without incurring guilt or feeling remorse for their cruelty. Cf. Je. 50" '•. It must be the same — who, moreover, are Jews; other- wise they would not use the language attributed to them — that sell them, saying in their conceit and hypocrisy, Blessed be Yahweh tfmi I am rich ! CJ. Ho. 12^ ^\ Meanwhile, their shepherd (not, as the word is usually rendered, shepherds), the king whom the prophet represents, hath no compassion on them, affords them no protec- tion. This is precisely what one would expect from that "re- markable king" Ptolemy III, who, as Mahaffy puts it,* changed "from a successful warrior into a good-natured, but lazy, patron of politicians, of priests, and of pedants." — 6. This verse is treated as a gloss by some of the later critics, but that is because they have misunderstood the context. If the interpretation above given to vv. ■* ^- be adopted, it will not be necessary to resort to excision. The prophet has been directed to play the part of a shepherd who, though careless and unworthy of his office, has his place in the divine plan. The present purpose of Yahweh is here revealed. / will no longer spare the inhabitants of the earth, he says, but lo, I will deliver men, each into the hand of his shepherd (not his neigh- bour), and into the hand of his king. The scenes enacted in Pales- tine are to be repeated under other rulers in other parts of the earth, until they, these kings, shall crush the earth, allow ruin to overtake their lands. All this Yahweh will, for the present, per- mit. / will not, he declares, rescue from their, these kings', hands. In the East as well as in the West the people had long been the sport and the prey of their rulers. 7. These were the prophet's instructions. He proceeded, ac- cording to his narrative, to execute them. So I fed, he says, the flock, the flock destined /or slaughter. The Massoretic text of the rest of this clause is unintelligible, but it is clear from the Greek Version that the original reading was, /or the traders in sheep, these traders being the heartless buyers and sellers who, as above de- scribed, make a business of killing the sheep. The prophet had the usual implements of a shepherd, among which was a staff such * HE., iv, 124. as David carried. Cj. i S. 17*°, Indeed, he had two staves. To these he gave symboHc names, calling the one Delight, and the other Bonds. The symbolic use of these staves seems to have been sug- gested by Ezekiel's parable of the two sticks. Cf. 37^^^->7 In this case, in spite of later explanations, the meaning is not easily discoverable. In seeking it one must keep constantly in mind that the prophet, as a shepherd, represents, not Yahweh, but an earthly king. This being admitted, the two staves will naturally symbol- ise the duties or relations of a shepherd to his flock, and, in the higher sphere, of a ruler to his people, or the conditions that result from the observance of such relations. Now the ideal attitude of a king toward his subjects, as of a shepherd toward his sheep, is one of benevolent solicitude for their welfare, and every king, when he accepts his cro^vn, explicitly or implicitly obligates himself, so long as his subjects remain loyal to him, to devote himself to their best interests. The first staff, therefore, is called Delight, a name which, in the light of Ps. 90" and Pr. 24^, may be interpreted as denoting the pleasure that accompanies well-being. The breaking of this staff, according to v. ^**, is therefore fitly represented as equivalent to the repudiation of a covenant guaranteeing the be- stowment of the blessings by which the pleasure was induced. Secondly, it is the duty of a ruler not only to maintain toward those under his authority a disposition and attitude that will promote their happiness, but also to provide that their relations with one another shall be such as contribute to the same result. He must bind them into a harmonious whole; otherwise his own efforts to benefit them may arouse discontent and jealousy issuing in the most serious internal disturbances. This seems to have been the thought of the prophet in naming his second staff Bonds, that is. Unity. At any rate, this is in harmony with what he says, in v. ", that he meant by finally breaking it. Note, however, that the staves symbolise simply ideals or obligations. Moreover, the act of taking them has a restricted significance. It cannot mean that the prophet, as a shepherd, fulfilled the requirements of his office. The sequel shows that, although he recognised his obligations, he neglected them; and this thought must be supplied when he repeats that he fed, took charge of, the flock. 3o6 ZECHARIAH 8. There should now at once follow an account of the prophet's experience as a careless shepherd. It is postponed to make room for a statement that immediately challenges attention and exami- nation, / destroyed the three shepherds in one month. The use of the article often implies knowledge on the part of the reader which will enable him to identify the persons or objects mentioned without further description. Hence Wellhausen argues that these shep- herds must have been introduced in a passage connecting this verse with the one preceding which has been lost. Moreover, since there seems to be as little connection between the statement quoted cind what follows, he supposes that there is another lacuna at this point. This hypothesis is illogical and unnecessary. The natural infer- ence from the fact that the statement in question has no connec- tion with either the preceding or the following context is that it is an interpolation, and this inference is confirmed by other consid- erations. For example, the object of the parable, as already ex- plained, was to picture conditions as they were not long before it was written. From v. ® it appears that these conditions were in accord with the divine purpose for the time being. The author can- not, therefore, have represented Yahweh, who must be the "I" of the sentence, as destroying three other shepherds presumably for the same offence that he himself was instructed to commit.* It is much more probable that the statement is a gloss by some one who thought he saw mirrored in the parable a time when three rulers one after another in rapid succession were removed. The ojMnions with reference to these rulers are many and various. The latest exegetes incline to identify them with certain high priests of the period just preceding the Maccabean uprising; for example, Jason, Lysimachus, and Menelaus. Cf. 2 Mac. 4^^- ^^- -"''^• So Rub., Marti. This is only one of many different conjectures on the sub- ject. Rub. enumerates twenty-five. There are at least forty, together cov- ering the whole field of Hebrew history from the Exodus to the conquest of Palestine by the Romans, and including most of the men and institutions therein of any importance. Indeed, some have sought these three shepherds outside of the Holy Land. The following specimens will indicate how wide is the divergence on the subject. The three are identified with Moses, Aaron, * This objection is valid, whether the clause be left where it is or, as Marti suggests, placed after V. '». II' 307 and Miriam; Jer., etal.: with Zechariah, Shallum and another, perhaps Men- ahem; Mau., Hi., Ew., et al.: with Judas Maccabeus and his brothers Jona- than and Simon; Abar., el al.: with the kings, priests, and prophets of the Hebrews; Theodoret, el al.: with the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes; Lightfoot, etal.: with Assyria, Babylonia, and Persia; Klie., el al. Of course, most of these conjectures would not have been proposed if their authors had not first persuaded themselves that a month might mean any length of time from a few days to 210 years. Since, however, the interpolator must have seen that throughout the parable the shepherd represents a king, he would naturally use the term in the same sense. The three shepherds are therefore doubtless three kings, and since this gloss is later than the orig- inal parable, presumably kings of Syria. If so, it is probable that they are the three who, according to Dn. 7^, were "plucked up" / — according to v. -'' of the same chapter they were "put down " — by Antiochus Epiphanes, and who are plausibly identified with Seleucus IV, Hehodorus, a usurper, and Demetrius Soter, son of Seleucus and rightful heir to the throne, whom Antiochus Epiph- anes superseded. Perhaps, however, since Demetrius not only was not destroyed, but finally succeeded to the throne, the three are Antiochus III, Seleucus IV, and Heliodorus. If it be obj'ected that these three were not removed within a month, one may reply that although Seleucus ruled nine years, in Dn. 11^*' his reign is reck- oned at "a few days," and, if the author of the gloss took the words literally, he could easily persuade himself that they all died within the given time. — The removal of this gloss clears the way for a natural and satisfactory interpretation of the rest of the verse. It is a confession by the shepherd that, although he had taken upon himself to nourish and protect the sheep committed to his charge, he became impatient with them, felt and showed a repug- nance toward them not in harmony with his calling. Here, again, is unmistakable evidence that it is not Yahweh, or any other person or persons properly called good, whom the prophet is impersonat- ing, but some one of a very different character, namely, a fallible and recreant human ruler. — The repugnance of the shepherd for his sheep naturally begot in them a corresponding feeling; their souls, he says, also loathed me. 9. The indifference of the shepherd shows itself in neglect of his 3o8 ZECHARIAH sheep. Indeed, he goes so far as to repudiate his duties toward them. The one that is dying of hunger or disease, he heartlessly declares, shall die, for aught he cares, and the one that is being de- stroyed by wild beasts or other foes shall be destroyed. These two clauses are a development of the last of v. ' in the manner of Eze- kiel's arraignment of the shepherds (kings) of Israel in 34^^'. Cf. also Je. 15' '■. The last is a less apparent parallel to 34'^"^'; but in it the author forgets his role and uses language that rather recalls Is. 9*^/^°. He is in reality describing the bitter struggle which, growing out of the rise of the Tobiads, rent the nobility in twain and brought untold evil upon the Jewish people. They that are left, he says, as if the struggle were still future, sliall devour, each the fiesh of its fellow. — 10. The shepherd now brings forward the first of his staves, the one named Delight, symbol of the happy con- dition of a people under an ideal ruler. Since he has repudiated his obligations as a shepherd, it is fitting that he should cut it asunder, for nothing could better represent the abnormal relation between him and his charges and its unhappy consequences than such a severed and useless instrument. No formal explanation would seem to be necessary, yet he gives one, and, in so doing, adds a detail that deserves attention. It is found in the clause in which he describes the covenant now broken. My covenant, he calls it, again deserting his figure, which I had made with all tJie peoples. The words are usually understood as meaning a covenant by which the Jews were protected from other nations;* but this is not the interpretation that best harmonises with the main thought of the parable. The covenant, if represented by the stafif, can only be a covenant with peoples rej>resented by the sheep, and surely the Jews were among them. If, therefore, the shepherd represents Ptolemy III, one must infer that not only the Jews, but the peoples about them who were tributary to Egypt had just cause of com- plaint against him as a ruler. If so, it is not strange that a little later, when Antiochus the Great undertook the conquest of Egypt, he met with almost no opposition until he reached Gaza, the Phoe- nicians and the Philistines being as ready as the Jews for a change of masters. — 11. The words and it was broken in that day should * So Theod. Mops., Rosenm., Mau., Hi., Ew., Koh., Ke., Hd., Burger, Brd., Pu., Or.. Wc, Now.. Marti, el al. be attached to v. '", of which it is properly the conclusion. The rest of the verse is very realistic. The prophet, resuming his role, reports that, when the traders in sheep who were watching, or, as van Hoonacker ingeniously suggests, had hired, him saw him cut the staff asunder, they knew that it was the word of Yahweh; that the action performed correctly, and to their shame, represented ex- isting conditions. This is so simple and natural a declaration that it suggests the question whether the prophet did not go through a pantomimic presentation of his message before he put it into writ- ing.— 12. The shepherd, although he has failed to meet the re- quirements of his office, presents a claim for wages. The usual interpretation makes him address himself to the flock. It would seem permissible if the Massoretic text of v. " were correct. If, however, as has been shown, it is not the sheep, but the traders in them, who are watching the prophet, the natural inference is that it is the latter to whom the next speech is addressed. This inference is confirmed by the fact that it is these traders, according to v. ', whom the prophet has been serving. They, then, are the persons whom he now approaches, rather hesitatingly, with the request, 7/ i/ be good in your eyes, give me my h ire. Then he practically confesses his un worthiness of any remuneration by adding, hut, if not, refrain. The traders respond by paying him, not, apparently, according to a previous agreement, but according to their estimate of his value as a shepherd. They weighed me, he says, my hire, thirty pieces, that is, shekels, of silver; about ;^4 2s sterling, or $20 in American money, according to Ex. 21^^ the price of a Hebrew slave. The meaning of these words does not at first appear. It is necessary to recall whom the shepherd represents, and whom the traders, to appreciate their significance. But, when this is done, and one realises that it is the king of Egypt who is appraised and the tax- gatherers of Syria who appraise him,* the passage becomes one of the best examples of sarcasm in the Old Testament. 13. There foUows an episode which, on any interpretation of the parable as a whole, it is difficult to understand. In the first place, according to the present reading, it is not Yahweh, but the shepherd, who has been appraised; and, secondly, there is no dis- * Kliefoth and others connect the amount of money paid with v. *, but, if v. 8a is a gloss, the dependence, if there is any, must be on its side. 3IO ZECHARIAH coverable reason why the money should be thrown to the potter in the temple or elsewhere. It is therefore pretty generally agreed that the text needs emendation, and, indeed, that the command addressed to the shepherd should read, put it into the treasxiry, the noble price at which thou hast been valued by them. The term noble, of course, is to be understood as ironical. The reference to the treasury or storehouse is not explicit enough to make it clear to the modem reader where the money is to be deposited. In the statement that follows, however, the omission is made good; for here the shepherd says that he put the silver at the house of Yahweh into the treasury, or, to put it more idiomatically, brought it to the house of Yahweh and put it into the treasury. There are several references to the treasury of the temple or its contents. Cf. Jos. 6-^ I K. 14^" 2 K. 24'^ etc. It appears from 2 Mac. 3* ^- that it was a depository for private as well as public funds. When, therefore, the shepherd is commanded to put his wages into the treasury, it by no means follows that they are to be devoted to Yahweh. It is more probable — and the irony of the command is increased by this interpretation — that they are to be placed there for security. 14. In the final verse, which is but loosely connected with those that j)recede, the shepherd tells how he disposed of his second staff. Bonds. It, also, he cut asunder, thus, as he explains, sunder- ing the brotherhood between Judah and Israel. The names Judah and Israel are most frequently used of the two kingdoms into which after the time of Solomon the Hebrews were divided; but the later prophets sometimes employ them together as a comprehensive des- ignation for the entire people. Thus, in Je. 23^ they are equiv- alent to "the seed of the house of Israel" of v. ^. Cf. also Je. 31" '^^ Ez. 37'"ff-, etc. The brotherhood of Judah and Israel in this sense would be the unity of purpose and effort among the Hebrews after the Exile, especially those that constituted the re- stored community in Palestine. Now, the most serious rupture of this unity occurred, as has already been observed, on the rise of the Tobiads, when there Ijegan a partisan struggle for the con- trol of affairs that finally assumed the dimensions of a civil war. If, therefore, Ptolemy III is the shepherd of this parable, this rup- ture, for which he was indirectly responsible, must be the one sym- bolised by cutting asunder the second staff. Thus the whole be- comes a picture of conditions, especially in Palestine, just before that country ceased to belong to Egypt and became a part of the Syrian empire. In Mt. 27^ ^- the Evangelist, referring to the purchase of the Potter's Field, says, "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying. And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was appraised, whom some of the sons of Israel appraised, and gave them for the Potter's Field as the Lord appointed me." The discussion of this quota- tion properly belongs in a commentary on the Gospel from which it is taken, but two or three points may here be noticed. In the first place, there should be no doubt that the Evangelist meant to refer to v. ^^ of the parable above discussed, the divergence from the original being explained by the liberty he allowed himself in his quotations. Cf. Mt. 2'^ 21^. The appearance of the name of Jeremiah for that of Zechariah has received various explanations. Among them are the following: (i) That the name is an addition to the original text of the Gospel. (2) That the name of Jeremiah, or an abbreviation of it, has been substituted for that of Zecha- riah by a careless copyist. (3) That the name of Jeremiah, whose book once stood first among the prophets, is here a title for the whole collection. (4) That the words of Zechariah are based on Je. 18, and are therefore virtually the words of Jeremiah. These however, are only so many excuses for refusing to make the harm- less admission that the Evangelist attributes to the greater and better known of two prophets words that belong to the other. See Mk. i^, where a passage from Malachi is attributed to Isaiah. Finally, the incident narrated in the Gospel is the fulfilment of the words of the prophet, not in the strict sense of being the event he had in mind as he wrote, but only in the loose sense of being an event by which the words of the prophet are recalled. C/. Mt. 2'^- =^^ etc. 4. in'^x] (5, wavTWKpiTwp = mN3x; &^u ^dd v^^. Rd., with Kenn. 246 (now) ••'^N as in v. '^ — njinn] A gen., the equivalent of an inf. of pur- pose. Cf. Is. 536 Ps. 4423, etc.; Ges.^ '"• * o /,«.; Ko.^«<". & has 312 ZECHARIAH l^Xt^uo; acc. to Sebok an error for |£>iV^^j)uO. — 5. p^jp] With a fem. pi. sf. because ins is conceived as a collection of ewes. CJ. Je. 50". — pnn>] For pji^% the reading of 25 Kenn. mss. The j is the sf. of the 3 pi. fem. — ictyN" .'^'cn^] With daghesh orlhophonicum to call attention to the silent shewa under the preceding guttural. See also '^onx v. ». Cf. Ges.^ "• « (*>.— iCN'] Rd., with « U g> 01, ni:N\ So We., Now., Marti, Kit. The loss of the pi. ending is explained by the fact that in the clause quoted each of the subjs. speaks for himself. — run-] r;'>si. C/. 'J^Nv, Ges. ^^ " **>. The Kt., however, with the pointing ->u';;ni is de- fensible. C/". Ho. 12'/* Jb. 15"'. The 1 has a circumstantial force. Cf. Gn. 1818 Ju. 16", etc.; Ges. % >«• ' '*' J^- '. The Vrss. have the equivalent of either 1U7J1 ("». So Bla., We., Now., Kit. It is not probable that the au- thor, having taken pains to use the fem. sf. in inijp, would so soon for- get himself. See also jn^':';*. A copyist, however, might carelessly write the one for the other. The noun might be either sg. or pi., but, since the vb. of which it is the subj. is sg., it must be of the same number. Cf. Na. 3'; Ges. ^^'i- '■ K- • (*); "• 3- ^- ». — 6. "djn] The separate pron. instead of a sf. So V. " 12"; with a sf., 13^ — iny] Rd., as required by the par- allel term, his king, against the Vrss., in>'i. So Mich., Sta., We., Now., Marti, GASm., Kit. — taSD] Van H., contrary to the context, rds. i-\Db. — 7. "jy pS] Many and various attempts have been made to find in these words a meaning in harmony with the context, but both of them have been tortured in vain. The fact that p reappears in v. •' should have put any one acquainted with Heb. on the right track. Those who consulted the Vrss. had only to turn to (S to find in its reading ets rr]v Xava- avXriv or eis ttjv 7^v Xavdav (L), a waymark to the original, viz., \'.Jj;..7!^. So Flugge, Bla., Burger, Rub., Klo., Sta., We., Kui., Now., Marti, GASm., Gins., Kit. — inNS] Not a cstr., but a sharpened form of the abs. used nominally. Cf. 2 S. 17" Is. 27", etc.; Da. ^^s. k. 2 — a^'^ah] There seems to be no object in insisting on the Massoretic vocalisation against the testimony of the Vrss. ; (&, ffxolvi3n, is also naturally milra' . Cf. Ru. 3'^ On the other hand nan is regularly mil' el. So at the beginning of a verse in Gn. n'Ex. I'^jand when the preceding word is mil'el (Gn. ii^); also when it is the first word in a speech, even if the preceding word is milra' (Gn. ii< I S. i4^')' The only case in which it has a disjunctive is Gn. ii', and the only one in which it is itself milra' is Gn. 29-', where, since the conditions are otherwise the same as in Gn. 11^ and i S. 14^^ the position of its ac- cent is probably due to the following n. Cf. Ges. ^ «'• 2. R. 2. For the rules governing the accentuation in such cases, see Nrd. ^s" '•. — nS dni] Elliptical condition. Cf. Ges. ^ i59y?«. R. 2. — iSin] In pause for iSin. — «1D3] Strictly an appositive of a^Spu' understood. Cf. Ges. ^^'^i- 2 (n; 134. 4_ — 13, inoiStrn] This word does not, as the ordinary rendering for it might suggest, imply contempt or any related emotion. See Gn. 21^, where it should be translated bestow. The closest parallel to the present instance is found in 2 Ch. 2410, where the author says that, in response to a proclamation of King Josiah, "all the princes and all the people gladly brought in" the required sum "and put it (o^S^'m) into the chest." Cf. Ju. 8^5 2 K. 4^1, etc. — ■(svn] This word, as was observed in the comments, is unintelligible in this connection. Yet it is the reading that underlies ^ 2 (t6 xw/'euT^ptoj'), Aq. {t^v ir\6.(TTt}v), and B {statuarium); also the citation in Mt. 2']^'^, where the Evangelist reports that the money returned by Judas was given eis t6v ayphv toD Kepa/xiws. &, however, has l^.^, Lm^^ = ixi!xrn might be interpreted as meaning potter. If the 'rich wage' was not worthy of the shepherd, it certainly was too small for Yahweh and the sacred treasury." He also calls attention to traces of a dual interpretation of this passage in Mt. 27^ « , where the chief priests decide not to put the money returned by Judas into "the treasury," but expend it for "the potter's field." For another example of confusion of N with % see J^n for jni in i S. 22"8- '^. — ii-jin -nx] For ifivi iiNn the gen. of a noun being used instead of the corresponding adj. Cf. 2 S. 12"', etc.; Ges. ^^ '^s- 2 <'). — \t>P''] Since the subj. can hardly be the prophet (GASm.), rd. r;-\p\ So We., Now., Marti, Kit., van H.— a^r'^r] A numeral, whether before or after a definite noun with which it is in ap- position, wants the art. Cf. Ges. ^i*". 3. R. 2. — 'ji nini pij idn tiSb'ni] Constructio pregnans for 'ji ^>S!:'K1 nin> n>3 inN N13NI. Cf. Ges. ^ 'i'- *. The noun n'3, therefore, is in the ace. of the limit of motion with n'jn understood. & simplifies the sentence by transposing the phrases no T\^7\'' and nsiNn Sn and inserting the prep. 2 before the former. — tjjh''] Rd. nonS as in v. '". — ninxn] 05°, ttiv Kardcrxeffiv = nmN.i; clearly an error. Most Greek mss. have Trjv diadT^Krjv. — ^xnu'^] (S'-, 'lepovaaX-fj^j.] An interesting reading which some recent critics are inclined to adopt. So We., Now., Marti, Kit. It can hardly be regarded as the original reading unless this passage can be shown to be by the same author as chs. 12 and 14. (2) A foolish shepherd (ii*^''^ 13'"^)- — The prophet is here di- rected to assume the part of a foolish shepherd, whose treatment of his flock is briefly described. Then Yahweh breaks into a denun- ciation of the shepherd, followed by intimations concerning the process of purification by which his people must be prepared for final deliverance. 15. The words with which the prophet represents Yahweh as addressing him, Take thee again the implements 0/ a foolish shep- herd, might be interpreted as meaning that the shepherd now to be personated is the same as the one in the preceding paragraph ; but this can hardly be the case. The change in tone that reveals it- self in the succeeding verses is evidence to the contrary. The writer's idea would be more clearly expressed by a paraphrase ; for example, Take thee again the implements of a shepherd, this time to play the part of a foolish one. Among these implements were II15-17 j3^-» 315 a staff (i S. 17^"), a pouch {ibid.) and a pipe (Ju. 5^^).* The epi- thet foolish in the Old Testament generally implies moral ob- liquity. Thus, in Pr. i^ the persons so described are said to "despise wisdom and instruction." What it means when applied to rulers is clear from Is. 19" ^^ where, singularly enough, it is the princes of Egypt who are so characterised. The foolish ruler is one who is blind to the purposes of Yahweh, and helpless in the face of their fulfilment. The one here meant is probably Ptol- emy IV (Philopator), who succeeded his father Euergetes in 222 B.C. His reputation is unmatched by that of any other member of the Ptolemaic dynasty. The Greek historian Polybius de- scribes him as a drunken debauchee who was not only worthless as a ruler, but a constant menace to the prosperity and security of his country.f The Jews accused him of the worst excesses; J also of trying to force his way into the temple at Jerusalem, § and, when he was frustrated, planning a wholesale massacre of their countrymen at Alexandria.** These charges, as Mahaffy believes, may be exaggerated, but even he admits that the king must have given the Jews cause to hate him,f f and that fact is sufficient to ac- count for the tone of this passage. — 16. Yahweh himself explains what is meant by the instructions given. Lo, I will raise up a shep- herd in the land. The clause is predictive only in form. The verses that follow show that the writer is dealing with actual con- ditions. He does not repeat the adjective foolish, but substi- tutes for it a description of the administration of the reigning king. It is marked by negligence alternating with cruelty. The language used, which is consistently pastoral, is largely borrowed from Ez. 34' ^•. Here, however, only four cases are enumerated. First comes that of the one that is being destroyed, for example, by wild beasts. It the shepherd should, but will not, visit bringing as- sistance. The second is the one that is wandering; yet he will not seek it. The third is the one that is maimed, lit., broken, having met with an accident, perhaps, while scrambling over a rocky pasture. * It is a ridiculous fancy of some of the commentators, ancient and modem, that the imple- ments of this shepherd differed from those of the one in the other parable. So Cyr., Lowth, Moore, et al. t Hisl., V, 34. t 3 Mac. 2». § 3 Mac. i'" » . ** 3 Mac. 3' »•. tt HE., iv, 145. 3l6 ZECHARIAH It he will not take the trouble to heal. The condition of the fourth is doubtful. The text reads one thai standeth, perhaps surviveth. One would expect either the one that starveth or the one that is hungry, since the prophet completes the sentence by adding, he •will not nourish, provide with food. The last clause, also, in its present form is only partially intelligible. The Syriac Version seems to have preserved the original reading, the flesh of the fattest will he eat, atul their legs will he gnaw ; a picture which excellently portrays the greedy policy Ptolemy IV appears to have followed toward the Jews. Cf Ez. 34^. 17. From this point onward the discourse is really predictive. The form, also, is changed, the remaining verses constituting a poem in four stanzas, each of which has three double lines. The prophet begins by pronouncing a woe upon the shepherd already described, who is now, however, called my foolish shepherd. On the pronoun, see 13'. His offence is that he leaveth the flock. The instrumentality through which he, or rather the king he represents, is to be punished is the sword, that is, war. The verse is modelled after Je. 50^ ^•, where another writer invokes the sword against the Chaldeans.* The writer seems also to have had in mind an oracle by Ezekiel against the ruler of Egypt in his time. "Son of man," that prophet represents Yahweh as saying to him, "I have broken the arm of Pharaoh, king of Egypt." Cy. Ez. 3o'\ Here the reign- ing king (Ptolemy IV) is threatened with a blow upon his arm. The interpretation of the figure is found in Ez. 30^^. The arm of the king is smitten to "cause the sword to fall out of his hand," that is, to render him and his country defenceless against their enemies. Nor is this the extent of the penalty. Yahweh will smite with the same sword his right eye, this being another means of disabling men for service in war, since the loss of the right eye made a shield of little value. The result will be complete: his arm shall wither away, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened. — 13^. The rea- sons for connecting this and the next two verses with the eleventh chapter have been discussed in the Introduction, ^ee pp. 253/. The same subject is continued. Yahweh summons the sword, * In Je. 50" IH has an'n, a drought, but, as & has the sword, and d originally bad the same reading, there can be little doubt that the Hebrew author wrote 3", mnjjn, the sg. as in the co-ordinated cases. So We., Kui., Now., Marti, Kit. — ■^yj] The word is certainly corrupt, but it is not so clear how it should be emended. Oort suggests nmjn, the word used in a similar connection in Ez. 34<, and (6 (rd ia-Kopirlafitvov) and 13 {dispersum) favour this read- ing. So We., Now., Marti. An objection to it is that it does not suffi- ciently resemble nyj to account for the substitution of the one for the other. The same objection cannot be made to nyjn, which suits the con- nection as well as the other and has the support of & ( — t^)o ) and vH. (iSa'^a'Ni). So van H. Less attractive is miyjn, one of the alternatives ♦ CI. Is. i» 4810 Mai. 3' '•. t CI. Is. s89 6s2< Je. 29", etc. t CI. Ho. 2^«3, but especially Ez. i6« 3723- ". § So Jcr., Cyr., Thcodorct, Lu., Sanctius, k Lap., Dru., Marck, Dathc, Lowth, Burger, Kc. Klie., Hd., Wri., el al. *♦ Mt. 2(? Mk. 14". suggested by Kit. The original, then, was probably ^'j:^, or, better, on the authority of 33 mss. ($ S», n>'jm. — xdt'] ^ adds ]jb]^ \i -ouiirsjo, which, ace. to Sebok, is a duplicate rendering for the preceding clause. — n^mn] Now. suggests nSnjn, but the context requires naj?in, or an equivalent, with a connective. — pns"' in^Diiji] Rd., with g>, p''y-\3i pi;". — 17. ''>i] The word is usually explained as a cstr. with i com- paginis. This explanation takes for granted that the next word is orig- inal in the text. There is room for doubt on this point. The expression used in v. '= is 'Sis njji or, better, S'lix n>n. So Houb., Bla. Now, while it would be natural for the writer to vary his language to some ex- tent, he would hardly abandon a thought that was the key-note of the prophecy. Nor did he, if the testimony of S* (5 is of any value, for they seem to have had a text with Siisn. If, however, they had this reading, they must have had nyifor v, as have several mss., or, if they had the latter and ignored its form, the ending was neither i compaginis, nor, as some mss. and edd. point it, the termination of the cstr. pi., but the sf. of the first sg. as in 13^ So We., Now., Marti, Kit., van H. It is possi- ble that the original reading was n;-\, and that it was changed to •'>n through the influence of 13 ^ — 'Jt;'] The ending is not the termination of the cstr. pi., as (S> understood it, and as it is pointed in some mss. and edd., but i compaginis. Cf. Ges. § so . 3 (« )_ ^ renders the word ^ " ^ *- • and oms. 3nn, thus getting to whose arm I have left the flock. — 3in] Not 2in, drought, as Dru., Bla., Ort., Pres., Sta., Rub., Kui., et al., point it; but, as in M., 31.n, sword, (i) It is so rendered in (I U ul. (2) In 13', where this prophecy is continued, the sword is evidently intended. (3) In Je. 50'', on which this passage is based, ain, as has already been noted, must be an error for ain. After this word ^s^ seems to have been lost. — 13'. mjj] With the accent on the ultima. Cf. 9^; Ges. § 72. 7. R. 3, — ^j;-,] Add to the reasons for retaining M given in the com- ments that 9 Kenn. mss. have •'>'n. — tiicj?] Always elsewhere (11 t. in Lv.) concrete, and in Lv. 19I' clearly masc. Here, therefore, doubtless an appositive of i^j, the genus with the species. Cf. i K. 7", etc.; Ges. § 131. J c«); Ko. ^290d. — 's ', Dxj] An addition that disturbs the measure and, on the restoration of this and the following verses to their original place after 11", becomes superfluous. So Marti. Kit. removes the clause to the end of the verse, — where there is still less room for it. — in] The word, is generally treated as an imv. It is so rendered in Vrss. If, however, it is an imv., it must be co-ordinate with my and should have the fem. end- ing. Since it has not the ending, and is followed by the pf. with 1, some have claimed that the original must have been n^s". Cf. Mt. 26". So, among the older exegetes, New., Bla., Hd., and among the later, We., Kui., Now., Marti, Kit. This is not entirely satisfactory. Perhaps for ^^? ^\7^ one should read mon, the inf. cstr. for the abs., as a substitute for the finite vb., as in 2 K. 3='. Cf. Ges.« "• «■ ^ ■ '== "3- * <'^'. Note 320 ZECHARIAH that HN is omitted before n\ — j^'XIdpi] For no(>)xn)Bni. On the form, see Ges. ^"- '■ '^^ ^f'"-; on the construction, i*'- '. — D>nij:xn] The word, with the Massoretic vocalisation, is djr., and apparently indefensible. Rd., with 05 B, a'-i;;xn. ^aqi- have toi>s iroin^vas /it/cpoi>j, but iroifi^vas is merely interpretive. So also the Vl\Ss, shepherds, of &, and the n^j^j.^, un- derlings, of S. — 8. ynsn ^22] (S'^Q^, ^v t^ 17/u^pi? eKelvr]; a mistake, since, with this reading na would have no antecedent. CS'- has both. — Zi-yc' -d] In Dt. 21" 2 K. 2' a double portion, here two-thirds; construed as a collec- tive.— i>'U'] Rd., with (6 B ft, U'ui. Kit. omits. — .^•'U-''^u-ni] With the art. because the third that is left is a definite portion. — "^.-v] The accent is thrown back before the following monosyllable. The original, how- ever, was probably, as appears from v. '", ^'\^r^\ Cf. Ges. ^'"- ' <'^). — 9. iD^n nx] Note the use of pn, showing that the obj. of the inf., when a noun, is an ace. — xi^] The sg. for the pi.; perhaps a reminiscence of Ho. 2"/23, where the antecedent is 0>. — \-ncN] Rd., with Ho. 2"/:3 (g ^ \-nrNi. So Marti, GASm., Gins., Kit. — nirr] Wanting in some mss., but required by the construction. On the other hand, in Ho. 2=5/23, where ^"iSn is a voc, it is properly omitted. 2. The future of Judah and Jerusalem (i2*-i3* 14). This division of the book of Zechariah has a title of its own. In the Massoretic text it reads, A n oracle of the word of Yahweh concerning Israel. The subject, however, is not Israel, nor is the name so much as mentioned from this point to the end of the book. For this reason it is necessary to substitute for Israel the more suitable name Jerusalem, or better, for concerning, to read to, as in Mai. i*, thus making the title introduce a message to the Jewish world. There are two well-marked sections. The first deals with a. THE JEWS IN THEIR INTERNAL RELATIONS (l2*-I3^). This in turn may be subdivided into three paragraphs, the topic of the first being (i) A power in Palestine (12*"*). — The Jews in the strength of Yahweh triumph over their enemies, and dwell safely under his protection. 1. The paragraph opens with the briefest possible annoimce- ment of a divine oracle, Saith Yahweh. This is followed by a 12 321 couplet in the same style, and with substantially the same content, as Is. 42^ 117/0 spread out. heaven, etc. Cf. Am. 4^^ 5* ^•. The objecf^ such descriptions of the divine power is to impress the hearer or reader with the abiUty of Yahweh to do the thing prom- ised or threatened. On the text, see the critical notes. — 2. In this case it is a promise that has to be reinforced. / will make Jeru- salem a bowl to cause reeling, says Yahweh, to all the peoples round. The figure by which wine is made to represent the wrath of Yah- weh is a familiar one;* but in most cases nothing is made of the instrument by which Yahweh administers the draught. In Je. 51^, however, Babylon is called "a golden cup in the hand of Yah- weh." In this case it is Jerusalem through which he purposes to make drink of his wrath all the peoples round. The peoples the writer has in mind are so designated, not because they are gathered with hostile intent about the Jewish capital, but because they in- habit the regions adjacent to that which the Jews occupy. The picture here presented, therefore, is very like that of Is. 11", where it is promised that Judah and Ephraim united "shall pounce upon the shoulders of the Philistines," "despoil the children of the East," "lay hands upon Edom and Moab," and bring it to pass that "the sons of Ammon shall obey them." If, however, this was the thought of the author, it does not seem probable that he would im- mediately entertain the prospect of an extended siege of Jerusalem, or, if he did, would use the remaining words of the verse as ordina- rily translated. Take, for example, the rendering of RV., and upon (marg. against) Judah, also, shall it be in the siege against Jerusalein^ which, so far as it is at all intelligible, contradicts the context. Nor have the attempts to emend resulted in anything more satis- factory. A defensible rendering is suggested by 9", where Yahweh is represented as appearing over his people in battle. If the writer intended to express the same thought here, the clause should read, over Judah will he (Yahweh) be in the siege against Jerusalem. This translation, however, is satisfactory only, as will be explained, on the supposition that the whole clause is a gloss inserted by some * Cf. Je. 2515 s- Ez. ;3" *f. Hb. 2>5 '-, etc. The last passage has generally been misunder- stood and employed as an argument against social drinking. We. translates it, "Woe to the one that giveth the others to drink from the cup of his wrath," etc. 322 ZECHARIAH one who thought, as many* have since done, that the situation is the same here as in ch. 14.! 3. The expression, and it shall come to pass, occurs no fewer than eleven times in this and the following chapters; four times J alone and seven times § with the addition of in that day. The latter is used alone ten times; seven times** at the beginning and three times ft elsewhere in the sentence. The two together may there- fore fairly be regarded as characteristic of these chapters. Here they introduce a second figure. Says Yahweh, / will make Jerusa- lem a heavy stone to all the peoples ; the peoples being presumably the same as in the preceding verse. The application of the figure im- mediately follows: All that lift on it shall tear themselves grievously ; which means that, just as one, handling a heavy stone, tears one's hands on its rugged surface, so shall they suffer who attempt vio- lence on Jerusalem and its inhabitants. The verb here used occurs elsewhere only in Leviticus, and there only of the practice, for- bidden by the Hebrew law, of mutilating the body in token of mourning. CJ. Lv. 19-^ 21^. This circumstance has led Nowack and others to question the genuineness of the clause ; but unjustly, for (i) an injury resulting from a voluntary action can surely be said to be self-inflicted, and (2) the same word in Assyrian %% is actually used to denote exposure to wounds in battle. There are, however, good reasons for suspecting the originality of the latter half of the verse, chief among which are: (i) that it is of the nature of a parenthesis; (2) that this is not the place for the statement made; and (3) that, Hke v." ^, it produces a discord by anticipating the leading thought of ch. 14, a discord that is only increased by interpreting there shall be gathered against it all the nations of the earth as meaning that the stone in question is a weight, and that the figure is derived from the lifting contests which, when this passage was written, had recently been introduced at Jerusalem. So We., Marti, et al. According to 2 Mac. 4'=, the high priest Jason, by permission of Antiochus Epiphanes, built a gymnasium and introduced Greek ♦ So Sta., Now., Marti, et al. t For other glosses of like origin, see vv. '■ <• *. X 13' 14'- '•• ". § 1-'' ' i3--* 14'- '• ■'- ♦♦ 124. «. 8. II ,31 ,45. 20. ^ .ft I2« 14'- ='• %X Cf. Del., Ass. HatidwdrUrbuch, art. ^aliru. 12'-' 323 exercises at Jerusalem. Cf. Josephus, Anl., xii, 5, i. Jerome, commenting on this verse, says that in his day there was preserved "an old custom accord- ing to which, in the villages and towns and fortresses, round stones of great weight are provided on which the youths are accustomed to practice, raising the weight according to their strength, some to their knees, others to the navel, others to the shoulders and the head, but some, to display the greatness of their strength, with raised and joined hands over the head." In Athens, too, he says, he saw in the citadel near the statue of Athene a brass globe of great weight which he himself was not able to move. 4. The omission of the last clause of v. ^ relieves an exegetical difficulty, but it leaves the relations between the Jews and their neighbours unchanged. The latter are still hostile, but the former, with Yahweh to help them, are confident of deliverance in any emergency. He is more than a match for any force that can be brought against them. This is what is meant by representing him as defying the cavalry of the surrounding peoples. The thought is the same as that in 10^, but the terms here used are borrowed from Dt. 28^^. He says, / will smite every horse with terror, and its rider with madness. The rest of the verse consists of two clauses, the first being in antithetic, while the second is in synonymous, parallelism with the one just quoted. The omission of one of them, so far from weakening, would decidedly strengthen the passage. Marti thinks it is the latter that has been added; but, if this were the case, would it not have been inserted next to the one it was intended to complete? This seems a reasonable view of the matter. Hence it is better to omit the parenthetical clause, htt upon the house of Judah will I open my eyes, as an accretion, and thus bring the clauses before and after it into their natural relation. 5. The effect of this display of Yahweh's favouring power will be to inspire his people with renewed confidence in him. Ac- cording to the Massoretic text it is the chiefs or leaders who give expression to this feeling; but, since in v. " the word so rendered should apparently be trsLns\a.ted families, it is probable that the proper rendering for the first clause of this verse is, Then shall the families of Judah say in their hearts. These rural Jews, if there is strife and bitterness between them and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, as some have inferred from v. ^, ought to say something reflecting 324 ZECHARIAH unfavourably upon the latter. There is nothing of the kind. The speech they make, so far from indicating hostility, or even disre- spect, seems the natural expression for admiration or sympathy. This is explained by the preceding verses. It is as if the author had said. When the Jews of the country see Jerusalem spreading confusion and misfortune among the surrounding peoples, they will recognise the hand of Yahweh in these results, and put the thought into words similar to those quoted. There is strength for the inhab- itants of Jerusalem in Yahweh of Hosts their God. On the text, see the critical notes. — 6. This reflection will react upon those who make it, and stimulate them to rivalry with their urban brethren. It will then be possible for Yahweh to use them, and that effectu- ally, against their nearest adversaries. This thought is presented in a double figure, / will make the families of Jiidali, he says, like a pan of fire among wood, and like a torch among bundled graiti. The second of these similes is one that appealed strongly to the Hebrews, for they knew what it meant when a fire was started dur- ing the dry season.* So destructive and troublesome will Jerusa- lem be to all the peoples round.'\ There follows a reminder of Is. 9'®/^", they shall devour to the right and to the left. Meanwhile, Jerusalem, — and this clause seems to have been added to prevent the reader from suspecting the existence of any hostility between the city and the country, — untouched by the fierce .struggle raging about it, shall still abide in its place, the inviolate and inviolable centre and stronghold of the Chosen People.J If. At this point there is a noticeable change in the form of discourse, which is carried through the next verse. Throughout these two verses the writer speaks, not for, but about Yahweh. This fact is taken by Marti as an indication of difference of author- ship. But the same thing occurs four or five times in chs. 9 and io,§ and Marti himself says in his comments on 10^ that "the change from the first to the third person should not excite surprise in the case of our prophet, who, without hesitation, .sometimes in- troduces Yahweh as speaking and sometimes speaks in his own * See Ex. 22*/« Ju. 15* "• 2 S. i4*> Is. 10'' '•. t For other figures of like import, sec Mi. s'^ Is. 41" '•. t Cf. 14" Jo. 4/33). J d. 9- '* io»- ». 12^-^ 325 person." Nor does the content of these verses, as compared with that of the preceding context, warrant one in treating them as an addition to the original writing. True, some prominence is given to Judah in distinction from Jerusalem in v. ''; but that is evi- dently due to an error in the Massoretic te.xt, and it is neutralised in the next verse by special mention of the house of David and the inhabitants of the capital. It is not necessary, therefore, to adopt Marti's view of the authorship of the passage, or, if the last clause of V. ® is an accretion, to suppose with him that v. ^ originally pre- ceded V. ^. — 7. The omission of the last clause of v. " brings this verse into close connection with the preceding predictions on the same subject. The writer puts what he still has to say into a gen- eral prophecy, saying that Yahweh will help the tents of Jiidah, the surrounding country in distinction from the capital, rvoi first, as the Massoretic text reads, but, as the great versions have it, as at the fi,rst. This is evidently a reference to the period in the history of Judah when Hebron and Bethlehem were as important as Jerusa- lem, and the men of Judah, under the leadership of David and his lieutenants, were the controlling power in Palestine. It is the will of Yahweh that this golden age be restored, and he grants the needed help that tlie glory of the house of David, or the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, may not exceed that of the rest of Judah; or, to put it positively, that the glory of rural Judah may equal that of the court and the capital. This verse, therefore, so far from betraying any jealousy or partisanship, seems to have been in- spired by the most commendable impartiality. — 8. Having thus established a standard, the prophet returns to the city, that he may impress upon the reader how much he means by it. He begins with In that day, the oft-repeated phrase by which, in this and the following chapters, a new subject is usually introduced. The inhabitants of Jerusalem are made the starting-point for the fur- ther development of his theme. Yahweh, he says, will protect the inhabitants, not inhabitant, of Jerusalem. Cf. Is. 31^ '. This thought is not inconsistent with that of the preceding context, for, as at once appears, the protection afforded will be of the kind that stimulates energy rather than encourages supineness. Under the a?gis of the Almighty there will be so remarkable a rejuvenation, 326 ZECHARIAH that the weakest among them in that day shall he as David, and the house of David like God.* Wellhausen and others interpret the house of David as a designation for the government at Jerusalem. There certainly is no warrant for such an interpretation in Ps. 12 2^^, where the poet is recalling the past glory, not describing the present condition, of Jerusalem. On the other hand, this reference to tlie house of David does not mean that a member of the family still ruled in Judah when this passage was written. It does, how- ever, like V. ^^, indicate that he had descendants in Palestine, and that they still cherished hopes of the restoration of the dynasty. — At first sight the added phrase, like the angel of Yahweh before them, looks like a gloss by some one "very jealous for Yahweh," who, like the Greek translators of Ps. 8, was offended that men should be compared to the Deity; but perhaps it is merely an al- lusion to the Exodus intended more clearly to define the relation of the house of David to the rest of Judah. Cf. 14''"'. 1. S;'] This prep, in such a connection as the present is usually ren- dered against or concerning. Cf. 10^ Ju. 9', etc. In this case neither is suitable. The former must be rejected because the oracle that follows is plainly intended, not to disturb, but to encourage. The latter is even more objectionable because, as explained in the comments, Israel is clearly not the subject of the oracle. The incongruity would disappear if Sx-ir^ were replaced by aSrn^, the real subject of this and the follow- ing chapters, except 13'-'; but, as there seems to be no other warrant for this change, it is necessary, with 10 Kenn mss., to substitute for '?>' the Sn of Mai. I' and translate the phrase to Israel. An additional reason for adopting this reading is that the title here found was probably sup- plied by the author of the one in Malachi or copied from the latter. — Marti c^uestions the genuineness of v.'' as well as the title, but he gives no reason for his doubts, except that similar ascriptions have been in- serted into the book of Amos. Here, however, if he is correct in his analysis, there is nothing to which to attach such an assumption. — '•> onj] Sometimes elsewhere, but not often, placed at the beginning of an oracle. Cf. Nu. 24'- " 2 S. 23' Ps. 110'; K6. ^"< '•. — naj] These participles, all three of them, must be construed as referring to past time. Cf. or, v. *; Ges. ^ '••• « c). — ins .O'sr] Without the art. as usual in poetical language. Cf. 18.44" 51", etc.; cp. Gn. i', etc. — 2. no] Second ace. after oi;'. Cf. Ges. ^"'- 5 (<■). The word more commonly means threshold; hence (8, ♦ On the courage and prowess of David, see 2 S. 17' i8' ; on the comparison of the house of David to God, Ps. 8»/' Is. p*/* i S. 14". 12*-' 32? 7rp6evpa; B, superlimmare; », Xi^tZ; but the meaning howl is required by the context.— oSd'i-c—qji] No help in understanding this clause is to be had from the Vrss., which read as follows: <&, koL iv t% 'lovdatq. IffTat irepioxv ^iri 'lepovaaXrip.; B, sed et Juda erit ohsidione contra Jerusalem; ^, >a:^-».»c] >al» U^ol looU 1?obl-V:» ws]. The first does violence to Sj; and both it and the third ignore the prep. 2. The second omits ^';, thus bringing its rendering into harmony with (3 which reads, also of the house of Judah shall the peoples bring by violence in the siege to Jerusalem. Geiger, following B h]} DJi and for •11XC3 H'-n^ rds., with ^^Q, Houb., iiXD n>ni, and there shall be a siege. This is simpler than M, but it is not much more satisfactory, retaining, as it does, the sinister and inconsistent announcement of a siege against Jerusalem. The persistence of this disturbing element makes it neces- sary to regard, not only Vy or min> by DJi, but the whole clause, as a mistaken gloss suggested by 9'^ Cf v. " • e. in this chapter, it must be remembered, the enemies of the Jews do not really succeed in reaching, much less taking, the city.— nisc3] Here, ace. to the accentuation, con- strued with n>n\ as it is with another form of the same verb in Ez. 4'. So Robinson, who om. Sy and explains the other prep, as a 3 essentiae, thus getting the unintelligible statement that Judah will be besieged against Jerusalem. The interpretation here recommended requires that the verb be construed with the first, and -nxD3 with the second, part of the clause. 3. nonys] ^> occurs in this chapter is v. \ q. v. On the other hand, it is the characteristic term in ch. 14, where D^ny occurs only once, and then in a passage (v. 12) in which some mss. have D^u. 4. '■• Onj] (S adds irairrwKpdrojp. So g-", but Kenn. 130 oms. the whole phrase. ^ So Kit.— tmy3] On the use of the art. with abstract nouns, see Ges.^ias- 3 (O; on the vocalisation in this case, Ges.^=^- ^ «' ^^^ "'•— 'J> no S'l] The genuineness of this clause is attested, not only by the parallelism be- tween it and the first of the verse, but by the occurrence of O'cyn. Cf. vv. 2- 3- 6. On the intervening clause, see the comments. 5. •>dSn] Rd. ^fjSx. Cf. I S. 10", where ^Sn occurs as a synonym of 328 ZECHARIAH nnor-:. So We., Now., Marti, Kit. 3] Ace. to Houb. a corruption of oi'^ra, but its omission by ^^<=- ^ ^Q indi- cates that it is a superfluous gloss to n>nnn. So We., Now., Marti, GASm., Kit. — 7. njii'sia] So Jil. Rd., with Kenn. 30, 180, as in Dt. 9's, nju-N-i3, or with Kenn. 17, 228, as in Ju. 20^2^ nju'Ni33. So ® B d, Talm., Jer., Dathe. The idea thus conveyed is in harmony with the con- text, for it is the measure of Judah's glory, and not the date of its achieve- ment, about which Yahweh is concerned. On the construction, see Ges. ^118. « (A), — xS li'o'^] This or nS nu-vS ]j,tS (Nu. 17O is stronger than jo. It points, not to a result which the subject would forestall, but to an event which it is his deliberate purpose and policy by all means to prevent. Cf. Mitchell, Final Constructions, 22 jf. — T'n] In 35 Kenn. mss. without'. — 3U='] Rd., with 9 mss., (6 H & 01, or\ So Bla., New., We., Now.— mini Si'] Rd., with (6'-' g- 01, mi,-i> n^J Sy; a rare construction, p rather than Sj" being commonly used to express comparison. Cf, Gn. 49''*, etc.; Ges.^'w-';Ko.^'»8''.— 8. ^y^] In9'5S];.— ait'^] Rd., with 9 mss., (61 & 01, >3C", as required by 013. So New., We., Now., Marti, Kit. — ^u"3jn] van H. suggests Su'cn! — winn ova] Not necessary, but, since it adds cer- tain emphasis and improves, rather than disturbs, the rhythm. Kit. is hardly warranted in omitting it. — imid] In 20 Kenn. mss. the ' is want- ing. ^•'^Qi" rd. Cos olKOi Aavcl8, the first and third omitting 6 5^ ohos AaveiS = Tn r-ai, through the fault of a (Greek) copyist. It is not 12"-'" 329 safe, however, to infer that the text on which these mss. are based read in the first case imt p'^^, since they all have ws oIkos 6eov, although the original cannot have had D^nSx r^^22. ijl modifies o^nSxr to ^31313, like princes. (2) A great lamentation (12'*"). — The people of Jerusalem, protected by Yahweh and transformed by his Spirit, will be smitten with remorse for their misdeeds, and especially for their cruelty toward a nameless sufferer for whom they will observe a period of poignant and universal mourning. 9. This verse at first sight seems to belong to the preceding paragraph, but the connection between the two is not so close as might be supposed. In those verses the prophet has been dealing with the relations of the Jews to their neighbours, the Edomites, Moabites, etc. He now, as some one imdertook to do for him in V. ^, gives the reader a glimpse of a larger world. It is no longer "the peoples round," but, as in ch. 14, all the nations, whose fate he describes. His object is to strengthen the assurance already given his people that Yahweh will protect them. He has said that their God will give them the mastery over their neighbours; he now puts into the mouth of Yahweh the declaration, / will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem, that is, pun- ish with destruction any nation, near or far, small or great, that at- tempts an attack upon the Holy City. This is one side of the mat- ter. There is another, and it is this latter to which the prophet gives most prominence. The key to his meaning is found in the thought that "the goodness of God leadeth to repentance," which is a favourite with Ezekiel. Thus, in 39^^ he makes Yahweh say, "They shall bear their shame," realise their faithlessness, "when they dwell safely in their land, with none to terrify."* 10. The bestowTnent of peace and security is not the only means that Yahweh purposes to employ to change the hearts of his people. The operation of his Spirit is another. Cf. Ez. 36-'^ ^•. Now, the fruits of the Spirit are various. Here, where it is poured upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, it is called the Spirit of kindness and entreaty. Cf. Is. 1 1^. The word ren- * Kraetzschmar makes the subject in this passage the heathen, but from 16'° ^- 20^'- 36^'- it is clear that it is Israel. So Ew., Or., Toy, el al. 330 ZECHARIAH dered kindness is usually translated grace, and, since the grace of the Bible is oftenest the grace of God, some have inferred that it must be so in this instance. There is, however, a grace of men (Gn. 30-^), and, since the word is here associated with entreaty, which is properly predicated only of human subjects, it seems fair to infer that the grace or kindness in question is that of the peoi)le of Jerusalem.* The thought, therefore, is that the Spirit will pro- duce in the persons named a kindness of disposition and a mildness of attitude by which they have not thus far been characterised. Toward whom ? The answer to this question is found in the next clause, which describes the first act growing out of this changed character. It says, they shall consider him whom they pierced. To pierce is generally to put to death. Cf. 13^ Ju. g''*. It is natural, therefore, to infer that the one pierced is here a victim of popular displeasure on whose fate the Jews high and low will one day be moved to reflect, and that because the dislike and harshness that once ruled have given place to their opposites. The identity of the martyr it is difficult to determine. The older exegetes gen- erally see in him the Messiah. Those who adopt this view, how- ever, overlook a point of great importance, namely, that while the effusion of the spirit and the effect produced by it are evidently future, the act of piercing the nameless victim belongs to the past. This means that the one pierced is not the Messiah, whose advent, all will agree, was still future when these words were written, but some one who had at the time already suffered martyrdom. It is easier to establish this point than to go further in the same direc- tion, for, when the attempt is made to find an individual, the vic- tim of popular passion, whose death the prophet would expect to see universally lamented, the inquirer learns that he has raised a question for which extant history has no answer. Zechariah, tlie son of Jehoida, put to death by order of King Joash,t Uriah, the son of Shemaiah, the prophet who suffered under JehoIakim,J and Gedaliah, the governor treacherously murdered by Ishmael of the seed royal after the overthrow of the Davidic dynasty§ are all too * In Je. 3i» the entreaty is not by Yahweh, but by the people he is leading. Cp. Bu., who for 0'j)jnn reads D'Cinjr, consolation. t Cj. 1 CM. 2420 B.. X Cj. Je. 2(P »: § Cj. Je. 41' »■. 12'-" 331 remote ; Jeremiah also, of the manner of whose death there is no reliable information. The second objection holds in the case of Zerubbabel, in spite of Sellin's attempt to identify him with the Servant of Yahweh.* Under the circumstances any plausible suggestion is welcome. One of the most attractive is that the ob- ject of consideration in the clause quoted is not a single imfortunate individual, but a considerable number of godly persons who have perished by violence. This interpretation is favoured by the strik- ing likeness between the situation here outlined and that portrayed in Is. 52^^-53'", where the loyal remnant of Israel is represented by the Servant of Yahweh. Perhaps the one here pierced represents those who toward the end of the Persian period bore the reproaches of the reproachers of Yahweh and finally shed their blood in his cause. Perhaps, however, the author of this difficult passage took the Servant of Yahweh in Second Isaiah for a historical figure, otherwise nameless, who had died a martyr's death. This is pre- cisely what was done by later Jews, who call him "Messiah the son of Joseph" and represent him as the forerunner of the greater son of David. t Finally, — and this is even more to the point, — they say that he is at the same time the sufferer in the passage now under consideration.^ The prophet predicts that those who were responsible for the crime committed, or their descendants, will bitterly repent and lament it, using two very strong similes to illustrate the poignancy of their sorrow. They shall lament for him, he says, as one lamentethfor an only son, and they shall grieve for him as one grieveth for the first-born. It is only necessary to recall the eagerness of the Hebrews for offspring, especially sons, to realise the forcefulness of these figures. Cf. Gn. 15^^^' 2 K. 4"^-, etc. 11. There is a third comparison. In tliat day, it runs, great shall he the lamentation in Jerusalem; like the lamentation of Hadadrim- mon in the Plain of Megiddo. The Plain of Megiddo, according to 2 K. 28-'' ^^ was the scene of the battle between the Jews and the Egyptians in which King Josiah lost his life. The Chronicler enlarges upon the story, saying that "all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah," that, indeed, "Jeremiah lamented for * Zerubbabel, 174 /. t Weber, APT., 346 /. + Cj. .\E., Ra., Ki., el al. 332 ZECHARTAH Josiah," and "all the male and female singers spake of" him "in their lamentations to" his "day." The custom may have con- tinued until this passage was written. If not, there was the tradi- tion preserved by the Chronicler to suggest the allusion and to be suggested by the mention of Megiddo. At any rate it has always been the prevailing opinion that in the words quoted the writer was referring to the intense and universal grief occasioned by the death of the good king. This is the express teaching of the Targum* and the Syriac Version, the latter substituting "the son of Amon" for the name Hadadrimmon. Jerome adopts the same interpretation, explaining that Hadadrimmon was a place, not far from ancient Jezreel, which in his day was called Maximianopolis; and many others have followed his example. It was identified by van de Veldef with "a small village called Rumani about three-quarters of an hour south of Megiddo," doubtless the Rummaneh of later maps, which is located about four miles south-east of Lejjun, that is, Megiddo. According to ConderJ it is seven and a fourth miles from Zerin, the site of ancient Jezreel. Some modern scholars find in Hadadrimmon, not a topographical detail, but another name for the Babylonian god Tammuz, the Greek Adonis, the anni- versary of whose death was observed as a day of lamentation. C/. Ez. 8". Thus Hitzig, Jeremias§ and others, while Cheyne main- tains that the name is merely a corruption of Tammuzadon.** The former of these conjectures has been refuted by Baudissin,tt the latter is too arbitrary to require refutation. It is probable that neither of them would have been suggested had its author duly considered the fact that the mourning for Tammuz was not real, but fictitious, and that therefore there would be little force in a comparison in which it was recalled. There is no serious objection to the earlier view in the form in which it is put by Bau- dissin, who interprets the expression the lamentation of Hadadrim- mon as meaning the demonstration by which the Jews expressed their grief, not at Hadadrimmon, wherever it may have been, but * It reads, "Like the mourning of Ahab, son of Omri, whom Hadadrimmon, son of Tab- rimmon slew, and like the mourning of Josiah, son of Amon, whom Pharaoh slew in the Plain of Megiddo." t Syria and Palestine, i, 353. X Tent Life, i, 129. § AT., 113. •* Cf. EB., art. Hadadrimmon. tt Studien, i, 305 fj. 12"-" 333 over the irreparable loss they there suffered.* — 12. The lamenta- tion will not only be bitter, but universal. This thought is ex- pressed by the method of enumeration, which, however, is not car- ried beyond a certain limit. First comes the general statement that the land shall mourn each family by themselves. The family is the largest division named because the author confines himself to the territory of Judah. He brings the families forward one after another, not, as Wellhausen imagines, from a fondness for processions and ceremonies, but for the purpose of reinforcing the thought that he wishes to convey. They will all join in the lamentation because each of them will have peculiar reason for mourning. Indeed, in the house of David, the first in rank and im- portance, and in all the others as well, their women will lament by themselves. The second family to receive mention is the house of Nathan. There is no means of identifying with certainty the head of this family, but since, in the next verse, the name Levi is fol- lowed by another from the genealogy of the priestly tribe, it is not improbable that the Nathan of this passage is the son of David of that name. Cf. 2 S. 5".! — ^13. The priests must have united with the princes against the martyr, whoever he was, as they finally did in the case of Jeremiah. Cf. 37*'^ 38'*. At any rate, the family of the house of Levi will be among the mourners, and that in all its branches; for this seems to be what the author means by adding the family of the Shimites, this family being, according to Nu. 3"', among the descendants of Gershom, the eldest son of Levi. At- tention has already been called to the significance of the relation between the tribes of David and Levi as here presented. Cf. p. 258. It indicates that the passage belongs to a comparatively late date. See Je. t,2,^^^- as compared with 23^^-. — 14. The names enumerated represent the ruling classes, who were doubt- less largely responsible, as in the case of the persecution of Jere- miah, for the outrage now lamented. The rest, however, cannot have been guiltless. They might have been introduced according to their families, but, if the list had been greatly lengthened, it would have defeated the author's purpose. He therefore cuts it * Studien, i, 310 /• t Others identify hitn with Nathan the prophet. So Jer., Ra., Pres., Brd., et al. 334 ZECHARIAH short at this point, only adding by way of summation, all the fam- ilies that arc left, each family by themselves, and their women by themselves. 9. In this chapter the enemies of the Jews have been their gentile neighbours, and have been called O'cyn; except in v. ', where the last clause was pronounced a gloss, because it deviated in both respects from the context. The recurrence of D'un naturally makes one suspect an- other addition to the text, and this may be the case; but it is also possible that, just as D''3j,'n is once used in ch. 14 for oiijn (v. '=), so, by a slip of the pen of either the author or a copyist, O'un has here taken the place of O'Djjn. For another alternative, see the comments. — a^Non] De R. 319 marg. has a^saxn; but the Mas. expressly says that the latter word is found onlyinNu. 3i"Is. 29' '■. C/". Baer, notes, 84. — 10. iMt] In2 5 Kenn mss. ' is wanting. — 3r^] Rd., with 26 mss., ^ B & 21, •'2V\ — nn] With two gen- itives, a rare construction of which, however, there are three cases in Is. ii2. Cf. Ges. ^'"- K — D"ijijnpi] The pi. as an abstract noun. C/. Ges. km. 1 (*)>«.. — iSx] The prep, with the sf. of the ist sg.; no doubt the reading of the great majority of the mss. and edd. It is also the one rep- resented by (S 1C H & © Aq. S 0, and adopted by Norzi, Dathe, de R. Baer, Gins., et at. There are, however, serious objections to its genuine- ness. In the first place, it does not harmonise with the following context, where the one to whom it is predicted that the Jews will look is ap- parently referred to in the third person. One method of meeting this ob- jection is to make the sf. of r*^;' refer to the act of piercing (Grot., et al.); but this interpretation is arbitrary and unnatural, and it is disproved by the comparisons by which the author illustrates the grievousness of the mourning predicted. Others, following (& 01, treat tj'n pn as if the text had TiTN Sp. This device is naturally a favourite with Jewish schol- ars, who see in the relative a reference to Messiah, the son of Joseph (AE.), or some other martyr or martyrs. So Ra. It must be rejected because the language used cannot properly be so interpreted. A second objection to ffl is that, when taken in its most obvious meaning, it passes the limits of permissible anthropomorphism. Those who defend it seek to meet this difficulty by saying, with Koh., that Yahweh here identifies himself with the sufferer, so that he "regards a thrust through the Re- deemer as a thrust that he himself has suffered." So Pres., Wri., et al. It is very doubtful if the author of the passage would go so far as this, but, if he did, why did he not write 'Sj? instead of rSj", thus carrying the thought far enough to make it unmistakable ? Thus far mention has been made of but one reading. There is another, v'^n. It is found in 45 of the mss. collated by Kenn. and de R. It is the oriental, as distin- guished from the occidental reading. Cf. Baer, notes, 89. It appears in Talm. {Suk., v, 52) and in early editions of the commentaries of AE, i2«-" 335 Ra., Ki. Another witness for the same reading is the NT., for in Jn. 19'% where this passage is quoted, it is rendered 6\l/ovTai ei's Sv i^eKivr-qixav. See also Rev. i'. This reading is the more remarkable because it varies, not only from the Heb., but also from (§, where, although the words 6fovTai els Sv i^eKiin-t)'?i] "] Kenn.4, 112, 150 add ODU'3 from Ho. 2''. — a''N3jn] Qi, roiis (pevSoirpocp-firas. SoB&(3. * So Theod. Mops., Ki., Dru., Koh., Klie., Pres., et at. t So Jer., Theodoret, Cal., Hi., Brd., et al. 340 ZECHARIAH — 3. ^r] If and as often as, a frequent usage in legal language. Cf. Ex. 21", etc. — viS^ 1SN1 v3Ni] Twice questioned by Kit., but without reason given. Cf. Dt. 13'"^'. — miiTni] <$, lynS which it renders dvO' wv i^evaavro. — iraS^] Twenty Kenn. mss. add ii>*. So ul. — 5. ■'3JN] Kenn. 112 adds, from Am. 7'-', •'3JN noj p n'^\ — ^3JN — ^'n] An explanatory marginal gloss, omitted by ^'^Q^"", which should have been inserted, if at all, at the end of the verse. Then ■•3 would have retained its original adversative meaning. Cf. Am. 7". — ^jjpn din] The text is unintelligible. The vb. njp means get in a broad sense, including the acquisition of the products of one's own efforts and the possessions of others. It may therefore be rendered create and rescue of God, and acquire and purchase of men. The derivative n:|iD means possession, or, since the wealth of the early Hebrews consisted principally of animals, cattle. The Hiph., the form here used, naturally has the sense of a causative, and has generally been so rendered. Some of the renderings are: (&, i'^^wtjaev; Dru., taught me (husbandry); AE., made me a landowner; Ra., made me a cattleowner; Ges., sold me as a slave; Houb., bought me as a slave. The last is the most widely accepted; but the thought that it expresses is hardly one to be expected in this con- nection. A far better reading is secured by the emendation suggested by Wellhausen, viz., ^j^jp nms, the soil hath been my possession, which is so simple and plausible that it has been generally adopted. If, how- ever, this is the original form of the final clause, here is another reason for regarding the one preceding as a gloss. — 6. iSvSi] The subj. is per- sonal, but indefinite. Cf. Ges. ^"^- ' <">. — in^] If the text is correct, the word 1% hand, is here, as elsewhere, used in the sense of ynr, arm, and between the hands has the meaning that "between the arms" has in 2 K. g-*, namely, between the shoulders or on the back. Perhaps, however, in^ is an error for 7nx, thy sides, this being the word required by the context and the one favoured by (6^-, which has cS^os here as well as in Is. 60' 66'^, where M has li'. So also Aq. S 0. Sta. retains the reading of the text, but adds yy; Sj."\ — -iu'n] For jna — nrx. Cf. 12*. — r>2] For n>33. Cf. Gn. 38" etc.; Ges. ^ »"• « (*>. Burger rds, onsp P'.a, at home by my friends. 14''' 341 b. THE JEWS AND THE NATIONS (CH. I4). The thought of the chapter is one, but it takes four phases in the course of its development. The first has to do with (i) The recovery of the Holy City (14^'^). — The city is destined to be taken and plundered, but Yahweh will appear and by a stu- pendous miracle throw the nations into confusion and rescue the remaining inhabitants. 1. The general announcement with which the chapter opens is addressed to Jerusalem. Lo, it says, there cometh a day for Yah- weh, a day appointed by him for the fulfilment of his purpose, when thy spoil shall be divided within thee. Note the difiference in tone and content between this statement and the opening verses of ch. 12. In the latter passage the writer does not admit that Jeru- salem is in danger. He represents it as rather a menace to the sur- rounding peoples. Here he is obliged to face the prospect, if not the reality, of a successful invasion of the country. This, however, is only one side of his vision. There is a brighter one to be revealed. — 2. The above interpretation takes for granted that the fuller de- scription of the fate of the city which follows is by the same author. This is denied by Marti and others, chiefly because here for a space Yahweh speaks and Jerusalem is in the third person. But this, as has been shown, is not a sufficient reason for denying the genuineness of a passage, since such changes occur in cases in which the hand of the original author is generally recognised. See the comments on 12^ ^•. Note also that throughout the rest of this chapter Jerusalem is in the third person. Finally, its retention is required by "the nations" of v. ^ The first clause, / will gather all the nations to Jerusalem for battle, recalls Ezekiel's great proph- ecy (38/.) concerning Gog, from which some of the more striking features of the chapter were evidently borrowed.* Here, how- ever, there is no attempt to create interest or sympathy by dwelling on the size and character of the invading army. The author is more concerned with the modifications of Ezekiel's predictions which time and events have made necessary. The prophet of the * Cj. Ez. 3819 ff. 3gio. also Is. 13- "•• 342 ZECHARIAH Exile does not allow Gog and his hordes actually to attack Jerusa- lem. They no sooner appear on " the mountains of Israel" than the jealousy of Yahweh is excited and he empties the vials of his wrath u[)on them. The author of this passage does not insist on the inviolability of the city, but goes so far as to teach that it will again be overcome and treated as captured cities in his day were usually treated. The city shall be taken, he says, and the houses plundered, and the women ravished. Cf. Am. 7" Is. 13'- ''' ^•. He even foresees another deportation, in which half of the city shall go forth into captivity. Then, as explained in the next verse, Yah- weh will interfere, so that the rest of the people shall not he cut off. If this passage were by the same author as 13^ ^•, the remnant would now be only a sixth of the original population. 3. The rest of the paragraph has a decidedly apocalyptic char- acter. Thus there is here no hint that the Jews will do anything in their own defence when their capital is attacked. Nor will Yah- weh attempt to avert the catastrophe, but, after the city has been taken, he will come forth and fight with those nations, the nations that he himself, according to v. ^, has brought thither to display his power upon them. C/". Ez. 39-^-. In 9" Yahweh comes " in the tempests of the South"; here he seems to descend from heaven. Cf. Mi. i^. At any rate, the next clause, as when hefighleth in the day of conflict, is an apparent allusion to Jb. 38" ^-j whose "stores of hail , . . reserved . . . against the day of conflict" must be located in the sky. Cf. Jos. 10". The author cannot, like Joel (4/3'°), have thought of him as issuing from Sion, since the city is supposed to be in the hands of the enemy. The day of conflict is interpreted by some as a general expression,* by others as an allu- sion to a particular event, hke the Exodus;t but it were better, per- haps, to combine the two views, for, even if the writer intended a general reference, he must have had an event like the Exodus in mind. — 4. When Yahweh descends to meet his people's enemies, his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives. There follows a de- scription of the situation of this eminence, which Marti pronounces an interpolation. He thinks it was not necessary to tell the people ♦ So Bla., Hi., Koh., Prcs., Rcu., et al. t So Jer., Grot., d Lap., Roscnm., M.-iu., F,\v., Burger, H<1., el al. 14*"' 343 of the city that the mountain was over against Jerusalem eastward. This, however, is not the only reason that can be given for his opin- ion. The clause is not important. The omission of it, therefore, causes no embarrassment, for there can be no doubt that tJie Mount of Olives, as it is here called for the first time in the Old Testament, is "the mountain that is on the east of the city," over which, ac- cording to Ez. 1 1^, the glory of Yahweh hovered when he took his departure from the temple. This mountain, the modem name for which is Jebel et-Tur, is not a single peak, but a ridge, with three or four more or less prominent summits, the highest rising 2,723 feet above the level of the sea. The part of it over against the city is everywhere higher than any part of the city itself. It therefore completely obstructs the view in that direction, but furnishes an excellent pedestal for such structures as the Russian Belvedere. When Yahweh makes his descent upon it, it shall be cleft through its middle, eastward and westward, by a very great, that is, a very wide, as well as a very deep, transverse gorge; for, under his feet, half of the mountain, rent from its foundation, shall recede nortli- ward, and the other half of it, in like manner, southward. Cf Ez. 38'' ^- Mi. i^ Na. i' Ju. 5' Hb. 3" Ps. 18'/^ I K. 19" ^■. 5. The object of the author in v. * seems to have been to present an impressive picture of the power of Yahweh. He now completes it by the addition of another realistic touch ; as a result of the vio- lent change in the contour of the Mount of Olives, Gihon, the inter- mittent spring in the Valley of Kidron, now called "The Spring of St. Mary" or "The Spring of the Steps," shall be stopped, as it had been by other means more than once in the history of Jerusalem. Cf 2 Ch. 32*- ^*'. In explanation of this result he says, secondly, that the gorge of the mountains, the great cleft already described, shall reach to the side of it (Gihon), that is, across the Valley of Kidron to the hill on which the City of David was situated. These are simple and natural details perfectly intelligible to one who is acquainted with the Mount of Olives, but, by a curious error, they have been so distorted in the Massoretic text that the stoppage of the spring has become a flight by the gorge through the mountain like the escape of the fathers from the Egyptians by the miraculous passage through the Red Sea. Later some one added a compari- 344 ZECHARIAH son with the flight before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Jiidah. This is no doubt the earthquake mentioned in Am. i\ which, according to Josephus, occurred while Uzziah was trying to force his way into the temple, against the protests of the priests, to offer incense on the golden altar.* This scene, with which, as a historical event, every one was familiar, the glossator says, will be repeated when Yahweh cleaves the Mount of Olives asunder. f There is little comfort in such a prospect. Compare that presented by the latter half of the verse, where the original author, continu- ing his description, says. Then shall Yahweh thy God come, and all his holy ones with him; the holy ones being the angels who serve as his attendants and messengers.^ Here the description of the deliv- erance of Jerusalem is for the time being discontinued. For the fate of the nations, see w. ^^^ 1. N3 or] The sg. indefinite, here only. Cf. Je. 50"- 3i Mai. 3'9/4'. — pSm] Wfien, etc. GesJ'"- 1 (-"K The rhythmical character of this verse favours the idea expressed in the comments, that it is the theme of which the more prosaic part that follows is the development. — 2. 'nDDxi] Marti, as remarked in the comments, rejects this verse, for one reason because Yahweh speaks here in his own person. He is then obliged to omit onn dmjj in v. '. A simpler way of meeting this difficulty would be to rd. here hdni, and he will gather. — nnnSca] This noun, when it is governed by 3 or S, almost always (103 : 6) has the art. — lorji] V, vasta- buntur = mrji. — njSjB'n] Qr., njaoc'n, a less objectionable word which in 15 Kenn. mss. has taken the place of the original reading. On the change in the tense, see Ges. ^i'^- i-i^- 2. — 3. onn dmjj] These words presuppose v. 2 and are therefore omitted by Marti. Cf. v. K — DV3] Rd., with B, 1D3. — 4. Ninn ova] Om., with oriental mss. and &. — onpn — irNJ On the genuineness of this clause, see the comments.— ^ainnn -\n] The reasons for omitting this phrase are: (i) It is unnecessarily explicit. The original author would have used ■\nn^ as he does below. (2) It is easily explained by the insertion of Dipc — irs and the consequent sepa- ration of the subj. of yp2j from its antecedent. — n^j] The abs. without the art., like the cstr., has _, except in Is. 40* (nv.)* ^]^. i" i S. 17" being an error for pj. See also S'';;3, Is. i5<, and Si"??, Is. 16^. On the con- struction, the ace. of condition see Ges.^'"*- * ^'^K It is here fem. — ♦ C/. AnI., ix, 10. 4; 2 Ch. 26'8 b._ t This, of course, is wiiat is meant by as ye fled, for the most careless scrilje would hardly, as Marti imagines, represent those of his own time as the contemporaries of Uzziah. For a prccisi-ly similar case, see 8". XCj. Dt. ss'Ps. So^n. J I,. 15I6. 14'"' 345 na^T — vsnc] (S^, t6 i^/xKrv avroO irpbs d^aroXAs /ca2 ^dXacro-ai', (gALQr^ ,-^ ■Sjfjuffv aiiTov irpds dvaroXas Kal to ^/xktv avroO irpbs 6d\aajdc] (S, iv rals T)/j.^pais, except L. — ^hSn] Rd. T'h'^n, the final T having been lost by hap- log. So Marti, Kit.— "^o] Rd., with 83 mss., (35 B & 01, ^:\ So We., Now., Marti, Kit.— a>un,->] So C5 H. Rd., with & d, vuhp. So New., Reu., We.— lav] Rd., with 45 mss., (S U & ® S*", isy. So Dathe, Houb., New., Bla., Hd., Reu., We., Now., Marti, GASm., Kit., van H., et al. (2) The transformation ofJudah (14"*"). — The author interrupts himself at this point to describe another miracle by which the country about Jerusalem will become a Paradise. 6. With the coming of Yahweh will begin a new era for Jeru- salem and Judah, the most peaceful, blissful and glorious in their history. The description of it should begin with this verse. It is clear, therefore, that the text, which now says that there shall then be no light, is corrupt, and that the original reading must have been. There shall no longer he cold and frost, such as sometimes add to the discomforts of a Syrian winter.* In other words, the climate of the country will be so modified that it will never be too cold for the comfort of the fortunate inhabitants. — 7. The abolition of cold and frost will be accompanied by a still more miraculous transfor- mation in existing conditions; for thenceforward there shall be con- tinuous, lit., one, day. At this point the description of the coming day is interrupted by a pathetic outburst from a pious scribe who seems to have thought the day here promised to be **the day of Yahweh." It is knoivn to Yahweh, he says, meaning thereby not so much the event as the date of its arrival. — There follows an explanation of the rather ambiguous expression with which the verse began. The day in question is first defined negatively as not alternating day and night. Then, to make his meaning unmis- • The temperature in the hills of Palestine seldom falls below the freezing-point, but the winds that sweep over the country in the winter often cause the poorly fed and scantily clothed inlk-i))itants extreme suffering. 14"" 347 takable, tlie writer adds, yea, it shall come to pass that at eventide there shall be light.^ 8. The picUire is not yet complete. An oriental Paradise must have what Jerusalem and Judah always lacked, plenty of water. Thus, " a river went out of Eden to water the garden " of Gn. 2, and in Ezekiel's description of the Palestine of the future a stream issues from under the threshold of the sanctuary and flows eastward with growing volume, carrying health and fertihty to that entire region. Cf. 47* ^•. The picture here presented, like Jo. 4/3^^, is an adap- tation of that of Ezekiel. The modifications are interesting. Thus, tliere shall go forth, not from the sanctuary, hxxi from Jerusalem, living water, fresh water from an imfailing source, flowing, half of it toward the eastern sea, and half of it toward the western sea, the same being the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean. Finally, an inference from Ez. 47'" is here put into the form of a statement to the effect that these streams, unlike most of those with which the Jews were familiar, would be perennial; in summer and in winter shall it, the water, be, continue to flow. Rain, therefore, would be as unnecessary as in Egypt. Cf. v. ^^. 9. Thus far the writer's vision has been restricted to Palestine, and, indeed, apparently to that part of it known by the name of Judea. The scope of this verse is universal. It asserts that Yah- weh shall be king over, not merely the whole of Palestine, but all the earth; and this is followed by the declaration that in that day Yah- weh shall be one, and his name one; in other words, that Yahewh shall then be worshipped by all men, and that under the one name, Yahweh, revealed to the Chosen People. Now, one can hardly claim that all this is foreign to the thought of the author of the chapter. In vv. ^^ ^- he expresses himself in a similar fashion. In view, however, of the lack of relation with the following as well as the preceding context, it is safe to conclude that he did not so express himself in this connection. — 10. This verse, on the other h-and, is precisely in line with the thought of v. ^. It continues the description of Jerusalem and its future surroundings, for the con- figuration of the country, it seems, is to be changed as well as the meteorological and other conditions. The city will be the centre, * Cl. Is. 25 30=6 Rev. 2l25 22^ Is. 6o'3 f •. 348 ZECHARIAH and the whole land, hitherto in places considerably higher, and in others considerably lower, shall stretch round it like a plain. The limits of the plain in two directions are given. It will extend /row Geba to Rimmon. The former of these places is the modern Jeha on Wadi Suweinit, opposite Mikhmas (Michmash), al)out six miles north of Jerusalem. Cf. i S. 14^ In the reign of Asa it was forti- fied l)y this king (i K. 15"^), and from that time onward was re- garded as the northern limit of the kingdom of Judah. Hence the expression in 2 K. 23^ "from Geba to Beersheba." The place of the latter is here supplied by Rimmon. This is without doubt the " En-rimmon" of Ne. 11'", for which Jos. 15^" has "Ain and Rim- mon," and Jos. 19^ and i Ch. 4^" have "Ain, Rimmon." It has been identified with Umm er-Rammamin, a site about ten miles north-east of Beersheba with a fine spring and the ruins of a con- siderable town. It was among the places reoccupied by the Jews on their return from exile. Cf. Ne. 11^ ^•. Beersheba was an- other; but perhaps when this passage was written it had been lost or abandoned. The significance of these geographical details has been discussed in the Introduction, where it was shown that a writer whose vision was bounded by the places here named can- not have been the author of chs. 9-1 1. In the midst of the plain just described, which, as appears from v. *, will be bounded on the east by the Dead Sea, and on the west by the Mediterranean, Jerusalem shall sit aloft in its place, on account of the depression of the surrounding country more prominent than ever. Cf. Mi. 4* Is. 2^. There follows what looks like an outline of the limits of the city corresponding to the description already given of the ex- tent of the country belonging to it. At first sight it is a little con- fusing, but, if the Gate of Benjamin be identified with the Sheep Gate of Ne. 12^", and located north of the temple in the wall con- necting the Tower of Hananel with the north-east corner of the sacred enclosure in its original dimensions,* and the phrase, to the site of the First Gate, omitted as a gloss, the meaning of the author will become apparent. He gives first the width of the city from east to west: it shall extend /row the Gale of Benjamin, which al- though it was not so far north, was farther east than the Tower of * C/. Je. 37" 38^ Guthe, ZDPV., v. 282. 14 349 Hananel, fo the Corner Gate. This gate, as its name indicates, was at the north-west comer of the city,* and therefore in the so-called "Second Wall." The length from north to south is marked by two objects familiar to those for whom the passage was written, the Tower of Hananel at the north-west corner of the present Haram,f and the king's wine-press, which must have been in or near the Valley of Hinnom. Jerusalem as thus described would be about as large as that part of the city now within the walls, but it would not occupy the same ground, the southern limit being now some distance outside the walls. The language here used implies that it was not so large when the passage was written. — 11. The city having been restored in these generous proportions, they, the people whose right it is by the favour of Yahweh, shall dwell in it undisturbed; for there shall not again be a curse, bringing de- struction, hut Jerusalem shall be a safe habitation. Cf. Je. 33*' Ez. 34" '■. 6. H'lni] (gAor ^ Q^^ IjuI; gjnce the expression Ninn or 2 is frequent in chs. 12-14, both with and without nini, and S" regularly omits the vb., it seems impossible to determine the original reading. See the comments on 12'. — 'ji niN] The text is evidently corrupt, because, as explained in the comments, it does not say what the author must have intended. Most of the attempts to emend must be rejected on the same ground. The rest are objectionable for some other reason. E\v. renders, there shall not be light and (alternating with it) cold and ice. This is unsatis- factory', because the terms of the hypothetical comparison are not oppo- sites. The attempt of We. to remedy this defect is exposed to criticism from another point of view. He substitutes oin for ii>s, thus getting there shall not be heat and cold and frost. So Oort, Now., Marti, Kit. The objection to this proposal is that Din, if it had ever had a place in the text, would hardly have been mistaken for a word so different and so much less suitable in this connection. Neither of these objections can be brought against the simpler expedient of replacing nix by ni?, and reading, as proposed in the comments, there shall no longer be cold and frost. The iin of M, is easily explained by its appearance in v. ^. The next two words, as now pointed, are usually rendered jewels (stars) shall dwindle, but there can be no doubt that, with ^ B & ® S, one should rd. vns?.\ nni"? i.e., as above, cold and frost. — 7. nm^ — vSin] The incongruousness of these words is proof that they are an inter- polation. Marti would read ;?n; but with this prtc. the pronoun would * Cj. 2 K. 1413 Je. 3i38; JBL., xxii, 136 f}. t Q. Je. si^s Ne. 3I i2». 350 ZECHARIAH probably have taken the second place. Cf. Gcs. ^ m- <; Nrd. 5^ '"■ '^ "'. QI connects this clause with the words that follow, thus, it is known before Yahweh, not as light by day. nor the opposite by night. 8, nini] Wanting in <& &. Cf. v. ". — cc] In Hebrew water is pi.; but this is not the English idiom. In the EV'., therefore, the sg. should be substi- tuted for the pi., not only of the noun, but of the pronouns of which it is the antecedent. — n>.T'] & om. We. retains the word, but puts it into the pi. with U. So Now., Marti, Kit. The change, however, is unwarranted. The thought of the author is correctly reproduced in (6 by fffrai oiJtws. If he had meant to make the subj. of this vb. O'c, he would have repeated NX', as ul does in ^•. — 9 . On the gen- uineness of this verse, see the comments. — 10. aiD^] The absence of the connective can hardly be intentional. Read, therefore, with B &, 3Di. So Houb., New. On the gender, see Ges. ^'"- ' c). The word never elsewhere means change, a fact that should have made Ko., et al., think twice before rendering it so in this connection. — nanys] The absence of the art. seems to have been intended to prevent the reader from suppos- ing, as do Ko., et al., that the author had the valley of the Jordan in mind. Cf. Ges. ^35. 2 (*) (./) (2), Ace. to Kit. this word is omitted by some au- thorities; but, if 3D means lie about, it is necessary to the complete ex- pression of the author's idea. — 3Jj] With the force of S ajjc. Cf. Jos. 157; Ges.5"8- * c*). — riDNn] Not, asone would gather from Ges. 5"- ?• R- «, the prtc, but the pf. 3d sg. fem., to agree with ri2iff\ TheN is therefore here a vowel letter, and the correct vocalisation that of Ben Naphtali, ncN"!. Similar forms occur elsewhere in the prtc. as well as in the pf. Cf. Ho. io» Ju. 4-', etc. Van H. rds. onn, with oSu'n^ for its subj. On the (adverbial) relation of this vb. to the next, see Ges. ^'20.2 («)_ — liE'Nin — nyi] This phrase is not only superfluous but unintelligible. The attempt by Ko., et al., to save it by repesenting the author as taking his stand at the middle of the northern boundary and pointing out the limits east and west bf that position ignores all precedents. It- is doubtless a gloss to o-'jiD '\';x} ny, or, as it should read, njD '\yv "ly (2 K. 14"), by some one who identified the Corner Gate with the so-called ny^''7\ nyii* of Ne. 3« 12". On the omission of the art., see Ges. ^'^e. 6. R. 1 («>, Marti would om. much more of the verse, viz., as far as St (5) and (e), — nfa] The sf. is distributive. It is therefore properly rendered in B by caro uniuscu- jiisque, and in g* by ^ooij-BXS, their flesh. Cf. Ges. ^ '". s. R, — 'j, j^^ni] A circumstantial clause, while he, etc. Cf. Ges. ^ 'ss- 1. — anifja] Rd. in harmony with the analogous cases, mioa. Cf. Mai. 2« '-. So Bla., We., Now., Marti, Kit. — 13. This verse and the one following are rejected as secondary by the later critics, but, if the interpretation given to them in the comments is correct, it is clear that they have a place in the au- thor's picture. Note DMjn (v. i^), one of the characteristic words of this chapter. — n>m] Om. B g>.— ninn] (g oms., exc. a few curss.— 1>] The ace. construction is very rare, except in the cases of sfs. Rd., therefore, with 53 mss., no, or, with &, iny-\3.— nnSyi] This makes tolerable sense, but it is difficult to understand how (S got from it Kal avfiirXaK-fjcreTai., E, et implicabitur, If, et conseretur, S>, >JlC»Zo, and 21, B'Snnt; for all of which np3ii would seem to be a more probable original. — 14, min-'] The word is here used of the country, and is therefore fem. Cf. Ges. §122-3 <«>. — o'rB'nia] The preposition Sj; is used with the place against which war is urged 16 t., and a almost as often. Cf. Jos. 10" Ju. is q45. 62 nu I S. 23' 2 S. I22S. 27. 29 I K. 201 Is. 20' Ne. 42 2 Ch. 3520. Cp. Robinson, 62/. — qONi] Rd., with (B (Kal a-wrd^ei), ^ {colliget), and ^ (waXco). riDDNi. — 2-20] Om. as inconsistent with the meaning of DMjn in this chapter. It was borrowed from 122- «. — 15. Dion] The sg. with the art. is here used of the class. Hence it may properly be translated by the pi., as it is by (S. Cf. Ges. § '26- 3 (^^K — -iicnni] Ordinarily each noun after the first has 1. Cf. Gn. i2'6 243s. Sometimes, however, as in English, the connective is used only with the last. Here it marks the end of the series, and the one with the next word introduces a collective including the four classes enumerated. Cf. Ges. ^'"-"o'e (<»)and (*>_ — n^ni] In 28 mss. n\nr, the more frequent construction; but the masc. of the vb. after a fem. subj. is also allowable. Cf. Gn. 5^ Ex. 12I6; Ges. § '«• •• R- 2. The presence of So has no influence. Cf. 91' ii'. — hojcd] In 15 Kenn. mss. DDJca ; but fH is preferable. So (5 Iff g> QI. Marti sacrifices the whole phrase to metrical considerations. (4) A universal sanctuary (14^®"^*). — The nations, thus chastened, will be disposed to recognise Yahweh as the true God, but, if any refuse so to do by presenting themselves at the feast of tabernacles 354 ZECHARIAH in Jerusalem, they will receive further punishment. To accommo- date them the sanctity of the temple and its furniture will be ex- tended, not only to the city, but the whole of Judah. 16. The natural effect of the inflictions above described will be to exalt Yahweh in the eyes of the nations. Ezekiel, at the end of the parallel passage, makes him say, " I will make myself known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am Yahweh." The author of this paragraph puts it even more strongly. He says that, after these plagues, the gentiles will not only recognise Yah- weh, but that all that are left of all the nations that came against Jerusalem shall come upfront year to year to worship the King, Yah- weh of Hosts, at the very shrme that they would have destroyed. They will not be required, as are the Jews by the Law, to appear before Yahweh thrice every year, but they will be expected to keep the feast of tabernacles, the last and most important of the annual festivals, and the Qnly one originally celebrated at the central sanctuary.* A universal pilgrimage to the Holy City every year would, of course, be impossible, yet the terms used are such that the prophet seems to have believed that it could be reaUsed. — 17. A failure to observe this requirement will be severely punished. Moreover, the punishment will fit the offence. The feast of taber- nacles, or, as it was sometimes called, the feast of ingathering, was a festival of thanksgiving for the harv^est just completed. Cf. Ps. ^^10/9 ff._ ^ refusal to celebrate it would argue an ingratitude which could not be more appropriately punished than by with- holding rain, which began to fall soon after the feast of tabernacles, and thus preventing a normal harvest in the following year. Hence it is decreed that, if any of the families of the earth come not up to Jerusalem to worship the King, Yahweh of Hosts, on them, these ingrates, or, strictly, their soil, shall there he no rain, and, conse- quently, no crops. 18. The case of Egypt receives special treatment. The reason is evident. That country is, and always has been, watered, not from the clouds, but by the river Nile. Cf. Dt. ii^°. This being ♦ C/. Ju. 2 1" I K. 8^ 1 2*, etc. In Is. 66" the extravagant prediction is made that " from one month to another, and from one week to another, all flesh shall come to worship" before Yah- weh, but in this case "all flesh" includes only the Jews within reach of the temple. Cj. Jo. 3'. 14"-'^^ 355 the case, a threat to withhold ram would have been ridiculous. The prophet says, therefore, that, if the family of Egypt come not up and present themselves, then on them shall he the plague with which Yahweh shall smite all the nations, namely, the plague described in V. ^^. In the Massoretic text the nations are defined as those that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles; but, although this clause is properly used in v. ^^, in this one, if translated according to the punctuation, it makes the writer say that the Egyptians will be punished in the same way as the other nations; which, as appears from V. '^, is precisely what he did not intend to say. If, on the other hand, the punctuation be so changed that the latter half of the verse will read, then on them shall not he the plague, etc., he is prevented from saying how the Egyptians will be punished. These considerations show that Marti is correct in not only changing the punctuation and omitting the third negative, but in pronoimcing the relative clause with which the verse now closes a gloss borrowed from V. ^^. — 19. The correctness of the above reconstruction of v. ^^ is showm by the harmony between the verse as emended and the statement which now follows. This, says the prophet, re- ferring to w. ^^ ^- as a M'hole, shall he the special punishment of Egypt, and the common punishment of all the rest of the nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. It is clear that Egypt would not here have received special mention unless in the preceding verses there had been described two distinct methods of treating those who neglected the annual pilgrimage. 20. The prophet in thought follows the pilgrims to Jerusalem. He seems to have pictured them to himself as journeying thither on horses. Now, the Hebrews did not at first look with favour upon the horse. The prophets, in this, as in many other matters, preserved the attitude of the fathers. They regarded the animal as a symbol of foreign pomp and power. Cf. Is. 2^ Dt. 17*^ Ez. 38^ etc. Therefore in portraying the peaceful future to which they taught their people to look forward, they naturally represented it without horses. See 9*" and Mi. 5"/^ but especially Zc. 9^ where the future king is represented as making his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, not on a horse, but on an ass. In the present in- stance the prophet does not banish the horse from the Holy Land,— 356 ZECHARIAH it would have been cruel to the pilgrims from remote regions, — but gives the animal a new meaning. In the good time coming shall the hells, or tinkling ornaments, of the horses, and, of course, the horses themselves, be holy to Yahweh. The horse is holy because he brings, not a warrior, to kill and waste, but a y)ilgrim to worship at the temple of Yahweh. The writer saw that the participation of the gentiles in the celebration of the feast of tabernacles would tax the resources of the temple, and made provision for it. He be- gins by saying that the pots in the house of Yahweh shall be as the bowls before tJie altar. These words are capable of more than one interpretation. One is that the vessels u.sed for inferior purposes will become as holy as the bowls from which the blood of sacri- fices is sprinkled.* To this, however, there is the serious objec- tion that there is no apparent ground for supposing one of these classes of vessels to have been regarded as hoHer than the other. Wellhausen and others, therefore, prefer to think that it is their size with reference to which the vessels are compared; but if, as the name given to them warrants one in inferring, the pots are the ves- sels used in cooking the flesh of the sacrifices (v. "' Ex. i6^), they must already have been larger than the bowls for the blood of the victims. These objections can be avoided by supposing the writer to have meant that the supply of bowls in the temple would be .so scanty that the pots would have to be used for the same purpose. The increase in the number of worshippers will create in the house of Yahweh a deficiency in cook-pots, which will be the greater because some or all of the vessels of this class already provided have been taken to meet the need of bowls. This de- ficiency will be supplied from year to year, by the resident Jews, for ei'ery pot in Jerusalem and Jiidah, like those in the temple, shall then he holy because at length the land and the people have been sanctified.f The supply will be so generous that all that sacrifice shall come and take of them and cook therein, according to custom, the flesh allotted them for the sacrificial meal. J Most of the sacrificers will have to obtain animals for sacrifice at Jerusalem, but they will not be able to buy them within the sacred precincts, ♦ So Marck, Mau., Hi., Kiili., Klie., Brd., Hd., Pu., Or., Rub., Wri., et al. t Cj. Is. ii9 62'2 Ez. 20<», etc. % Cj. 1 S. 2'3 Dt. la" '• 2 Ch. 35", etc. 14 357 as they seem to have done when this passage was written and as they continued to do until the time of Jesus (Mt. 21*" '), for there shall no longer be a trader"^ in the house of Yahweh of Hosts in that day. C/. Jo. 4/3''. 16. inijn So] The sg. prtc. with Sd and the art. has the force of a pi. Hence ^^y^ in the next clause. Cf. Ges. ^^ '" e') ^- ^- i" c^) ^- 2. Kenn. 72 has iVj,'\ — nju-a nju-] The later idiom for njB* tmv. Cf. Ges. ^ i" <"'> J^- 1. — ninnrnS] On the form, see Ges. ^ ". e. R. u, — 17, -,;;;><] Kenn 154, perhaps correctly, irN Vj. See Dn>'?y. — .ind] Rd., with 05 &,S3 pnd. — n'^i] On the 1, see iSjJi, v. '*; on the position of the negative, before the emphatic word, Ges. U52. 2. R. 3_ — Yox v. ^ most mss. of (S have Kal ovrot iKeivoLS irfoffTedriffovTaL = D'f JJ vni DniS>J nSxi (Koh.); but^^ follows IH. So also Aq. S 9. — hnj nSi] Corrupt. Rd. either x^n n"^!, or nxai without the negative. C/. Ex. 28"Lv. ig'^, etc.; Gss. ^'^^-s. — an^':';? n'^i] Rd., with Kenn. 624, (^ §, on^Syi, the nS having been imported from v. i^. So Houb., Ew., Burger, Sta., We., Kui., Now., Marti, GASm., Kit., van H., et al. The punctuation must also be changed so that this word will become a part of V. •>. — OMjn tn] Rd., with 83 mss., (& "B, a'un Vd pn. The oriental reading is a>n;'n Sd dk, as in v. '2, to which the threat here made has refer- ence. So also II mss. — On the rel. clause with which the verse closes, see the comments. — 19. In 11 Kenn. mss. this verse is wanting; but the Vrss. have it, and, when properly interpreted, it has a place in the discourse. — 20. Sy] Rd., with 5 Kenn. mss. and Talm.^J, S:i; which is also rec]uired by V. 21. — niSsc] This is the reading preferred by Jerome's Jewish teachers, but the text of his day had niVxD here as well as in i* and 10". Hence the ^vd6v of Aq. 9. Van H. suggests for this and the following word 11D1 r\'h-iTi, which he renders poeles et marmite. — n^m] The sg. for the pi, Cf. Ges. ^'<^- ' ("'. — 21. Kit. rejects the last two words Ninn zv2, and Marti, without sufficient warrant, questions the genuineness of the whole clause from nSi onward. * Literally, Canaanite, but such cannot be the meaning in this connection, since the nations as such will be free to visit the temple. INDEXES. I. SPECIAL SUBJECTS. Adversary, the, only in Zechariah, 103; his character, 150/. Alexander in Palestine, 253, 269. Altar at Jerusalem, restoration, 9/. Angel; see Messenger of Yahweh. Angels in Zechariah, 103. Apocalyptic, characteristics, 239/. Artaxerxes III (Ochus), in Palestine, 253 n.; at Sidon, 264/. Assyria, name, 246, 293 /. Behistun Inscription, 17/., 22. Cambyses, conquest of Egypt, 14/.; treatment of Egyptians, 15 /.; re- lations with Jews, 16; manner of death, 17. Chariots among the Hebrews, 177. Convulsions of nature, 61. Cypress, 296. Cyrus, conquests, 3, 13; deliverer of Jews, 4/., 6/.; treatment of Baby- lon, 5; date of death, 13. "Darius, son of Ahasuerus," 41. Darius I (Hystaspgs), overthrow of Gomates, 7 /. ; suppression of satraps, 18, 21; date of accession, 19/.; action on the temple, 20 ff.; expedition to Egypt, 23; pacifi- cation of Judea, 23 /.; confusion with others, 41 /. "Darius the Mede," 41. "Darius the Persian," 41. Elephantine, temple, 12 ti. En-rogel, location, 345. Ephah, size, 172. Ethics, of Zc. 1-8, 105; of 9-14, 241/. False prophets, 247. Fliigge on Zc. 9-14, 245. GiHON, location, 343; corruption of name, 345. Gilead, extent, 294. Gomates, the Magian, as Bardes, 17; overthrow, 18; length of reign, 19 n. Grotius on Zc. 9-14, 250. Griitzmacher on Zc. 9-14, 248. Hadrak, location, 262. Haggai the prophet, name, 25, 42; vocation, 26; age, 27. Haggai's book, genuineness, 27; unity, 28_^.; text, 31 _^.; criticism, 36/.; style, 37/. High - priesthood, origin, 44; first mention, 44; growth of impor- tance, 188. Hinnom, Valley of, location, 345 /. Horses among the Hebrews, 274, 355/ Idolatry after the Exile, 247. Interpreter, the, in Zechariah's visi- ons, 103. 559 360 INDEX Introduction, historiral, to Haggai and Zechariah, 3 ff. "Israel" in Zc. 1-8, 135, 214. Jachin and Boaz, 178. Jealousy of Yahweh, 125/. Jerusalem, date of destruction, 196. Jews in Egypt, 292 /. Jordan, valley of the, 297 /. "Joseph" as a collective, 290. Joseph, son of Tobias, 303/., 310/. Joshua, the high priest, name, 44; genealogy, 44; a symbolic figure, 152/.; his great office, i56jf. KuENEN on Zc. 9-14, 251. Marriages with foreigners, 247. Measuring lines, 136/. Mede on Zc. 9-14, 244. Messenger, the, of Yahweh, a proph- et, 55; manifestation of Yahweh, 61; champion of Israel, 124; 148 /.; relation to Michael, 150 w. Messiah, son of David, identified with Zerubbabel, 77/., 158, 185/.; in Zc. 9-14, 241 /., 249; absence from Zc. 7/., 250, 273. Messiah, son of Joseph, origin of conception, 273; found in Zc. 12', 331- Michael, the archangel, 152. Months, names, 116. Myrtle, 118. Neumann's style, 174. Newcome on Zc. 9-14, 244. Prophets, the former, in Zc. 1-8, lOl/., 105, III. Ptolemy I (Soter), 255. Ptolemy II (Philadelphus), 255. Ptolemy III (Euergetes), 255, 303^. Ptolemy IV (Philopator), 256, 315. Rainfall in Palestine, 49/ Restoration, the, the Chronicler's account, b ff.\ a. probable theory, 8/.; bearing of Hg. i'^, 54. Robinson on Zc. 9-14, 242 ff. Samaritans, attitude toward Jews, 12 n. Satan; see Adversary. Sellin on "The stone with seven eyes," 158. Sheshbazzar, governor of Judea, 6; confusion with Zerubbabel, 8; re- storer of the great altar, 22. "Shoot" as a Messianic term, 186. Sion, proper application, 126; im- proper, 177 «. Stade on Zc. 9-14, 250, 252. Stonard's style, 160. Storks in Palestine, 174. Suffi.xes, singular, with collective meaning, 271 /. Temple, the second, date of foun- dation, 10 ff., 20, 71; interruption of the work, 20 ff.; instrumental- ity of Haggai, 20, 22 /.; of Zech- ariah, 145; date of completion, 23. Teraphim, nature, 287; an actual plural, 298. Tyre, sieges of, 265. Visions of Zechariah, nature, 116/.; interpretation, 122/., i8r/. Wine-presses in Palestine, 70. Winter in Judea, 346 n. Zechariah the prophet, name, 107 /.; a priest, 81; genealogy, 81 /.; age, 82/.; influence, 145. Zechariah's book, structure, 84; text, 84 /.; style, 98 /.; dates, 98; visions, 98/., 102/., 116/., 122, INDEX 361 233; favourite forms of expres- sion, 100/., 236; indebtedness to predecessors, loi/.; teaching, 102 /.; angels, 103; sobriety, 103 /., 127/., 135. Zechariah 9-14, structure, 2 18 j^. ; text, 220 ff.; authorship, 232 ff.; comparison with 1-8, 233 ff.; in- debtedness to earlier prophets, 237/.; apocalyptic element, 239/.; Robinson's defence, 242 ff.; ear- lier criticism, 244 /.; the pre- exilian theory, 245^.; postexilian theories, 2^0 ff.; a constructive argument, 2^1 ff. Zerubbabel, name, 43, 187 «.; gene- alogy, 43; confusion with Shesh- bazzar, 78; identification with the Messiah, 77 /., 156, 185 /.; dis- appearance, 24. II. PASSAGES INCIDENTALLY DISCUSSED. Genesis 9=, 204; 15'", 204; 29^, 82; 42", 204. Exodus 142°, 139. 1 Samuel ly^^, 344; i9'5*-, 287 n. 2 Samuel 2i-'> = i Chronicles 20*, 166. 1 Kings 8^5 f.^ 166; 92", 269 n. 2 Kings 9", 261. Isaiah 11", 208; 42', 55; 44-<-2^ 4/.; 45'", 4; 52"-S3", 33^; 55", "3; 63''S 61; 6623, 354. Jeremiah 23'^, 261; 29", 63 /. ; 31', 330 71.; 47', 246; 49^6, 178; s°'\ 316. Ezekiel i^'-, 98, 108; 8=, 118; 29"ff-, 266; 31', 296; 32'", 284; 38% 142. Amos !'»■, 234; 4'=-", 70; 512, 73. Habbakuk 2^'='-, 321 «.; 2-", 144. Haggai i^, 38; i'", 38; i", 38; 26', 38/.; 2'^ 38; 2IS, 38; 220-23, 30. Zechariah i^'-, 99; I'^t-is^ loo; i", 99; 212/8, gg; 214/10-17/13, lOO; 4^'", 97; 6'2''-i3, 100; 8-^-, 99. Alalachi 2', 55. Psalms 104^, 178; 109^, 149 n.; I47'S 113- Daniel i"-, 125; 78- 2<, 307; ii^o, 257, 307- Ezra i'-", 6; 21^-, 7/.; 31-^, 9/.; 3^, 47; 38-'3, 10/., 7i;4''-"', 13; 5'-6'^ 21/.; 6'2, 22; 7', 82. Nehemiah 2^0, 12; -j^^-, 8; 1210-22, 41; I3'^ 41- 1 Chronicles 31', 43; 3'^ 8 n., 18, 42; 21', 149 71. 2 Chronicles iio, 63; 3412, im.; 36=2, 6. I Esdras 21-7, 6 n.; 5'^-, 8. Matthew i'2, 43; 21=, 274 «., 276; 2335, 83; 263 = Mark 142', 318; 27'ff-, 314; 2710, 311, 313. Mark 12, 311. Luke 178, 156 «.; 32', 43; ii^', 84. John i2'2, 274 71.; 1215, 274 w., 276. Acts io36, 65. Revelation ii3 8-, 165. III. HEBREW WORDS AND FORMS REQUIRING SPECIAL ATTENTION. N as a vowel letter, 350. Sn, in a pregnant construction, h>w, foolish, 315. 47; confusion with t.3, 50, 64, -ins, after (post), 146. 72. vriN r^s, 07ie a7iother, 204/. "^F??, '^?, ^^ ^''" ^^''^"'> 335- 362 INDEX "iDN, for BvVj, in interpolations, 52, 65, 114. T'DN, as a prisoner, 43. 3. partitive, 55; essentia, 76; of in- timate address, 129; of hostility, 353- 113 and Sn, 50, 64, 72. '?Nn''3, for SN-n''3, 197. 'B'K'3, an interpolation, 57. n, the article, with a predicate, 203. n, the interrogative: its omission, 209. n3n, >3T, 13^; their accentuation, n'^un, the exiles, 183/. Nin connective, 190. c'^3in, from ri3, 271. D^ni3rin, conflate form, 300. non, anticipatory subj., 129. n:n, before preps., 52. jn demonstrative, 72 /. ■^T* highlands, 47 m. JJ'P'!! iv?, of Judea, 207. 1 in a series, 353. S.33'}t; etymology, 43. >jn; derivation, 42. •iDn, kindness; of men, 329/. ■\x'' as an appellative, 302. -\p\ for ixis, 313/. SN^r^ in Zechariah, 132, 135. "<■>?'??? = "^W^, 56. 1^33, glory ;oi a theophany, 141. rsnri |ni), for Snjn jnsn, in Chron- icles and Ezra, 44 n. Npr, rule, power, 77 «. 1?, palm and 50/e, 50. |nS and -i>:i extremes, 75/. Ul?*^ after a negative, 328. nc; its position, 53. oi^*? n? for O''?';'^^, 160. D-lOp, 74. ^^i;pj ^}P. D^":--!?, 7°/-, 73/, 75/- n^jxc, EV. wzVre, 152 Nw'D, burden and oracle, 261. DNj, 299. CNj, see ncN. DHDj; derivation, 345. DHD, 5i!o/), 345. "icy, 153- •ijj; at the beginning of a conversa- tion, 129/. ijj; and VJJ* 276. nnis, wine-pi^ess, 74/. ips with and without "';■;., 299. nrip, engrave, 157. niN3x; frequency with nin-, 130. ncx, 5/joo/, 160. Ills: /(wrse or pebble P 46/. "f";. ^«^. 340. "inr, chestnut, 119, 129. ^BC', tear onc'5 self, 322. OiSr, prosperity, 63/. Ssin'^r for '^N'T^xr, 56. Nin for x^n, 271. A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF MALACHI BY JOHN MERLIN POWIS SMITH, Ph.D. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO INTRODUCTION TO MALACHL § I. THE BOOK OF MALACHI. I. Its Contents. The theme of the prophecy is stated clearly in the opening section of the book (i'-"^), viz. that Yahweh still loves Israel, notwithstanding the fact that appearances seem to tell against a belief in such love. The second and main section (1^-3^^) points out in detail some of the obstacles that stand in the way of the full and free exercise of Yahweh's love toward his people. These obstacles are found in the failure of the people in general and the priests in particular to manifest that respect and rever- ence toward Yahweh that are due from a people to its God (1^-2^) ; in the fact that native Jewish wives have been divorced in order that the way might be cleared for new marriages with foreign women — a proceeding exhibiting both inhumanity and apostacy {2^^-'^^); in the general materialism and faithlessness of the times, which call in question the value of faith and right- eousness and will make necessary the coming of a day of judg- ment {2^"^-^^) ; and in the failure to render to Yahweh generously and willingly the tithes and offerings that are his due (3^"^-). The last section {^^^-d^) takes up again the note with which the prophecy opens, and it assures the pious that their labours have not been in vain; for in the day of Yahweh which is near at hand Israel's saints will experience the protection of Yahweh's fatherly love, whereas the wicked will perish. The book is evi- dently well planned, being knit together into a well-developed and harmonious whole. 2. Its Unity. The essential unity of the Book of Malachi has never been called in question. Editorial additions are few and slight. The 3 4 MALACHI only passages that have been attacked as not belonging to the original prophecy are 2'- "■ ^- and 4"-^ In the case of 2'- "■ '^^ the attack can hardly be deemed successful (v. com. in loc). But the editorial origin of 4''"^ must be granted {v. com. in loc). The recent attempt of Riessler to demonstrate the presence of three strata in Malachi, viz. (i) fundamental prophecies, (2) parallels to the foregoing, and (3) notes, all three of which go back in the last analysis, nearly in tolo, to the original writer himself, can be regarded only as a curiosum. The critical pro- cedure upon which this assignment rests is subjective and arbi- trary in the highest degree. It is probable that Malachi once circulated as one of a small collection of prophecies which also included Zechariah, chs. g-i i and 12-14, and perhaps chs. 1-8. The three superscriptions, Zc. 9^ 12* Mai. i\ are apparently either from the same hand, or Zc. 12^ and Mai, i^ were modelled after Zc. 9^ In either case, they testify to the close relationship of this group of prophecies at some point in the history of their transmission prior to their in- clusion within the Book of the Twelve, where Malachi now stands as an independent book. 3. Us Style. The style of Malachi is clear and simple. It is at the same time direct and forceful. It makes but little demand upon the im- agination of the reader. The element of beauty is almost wholly lacking, there being but slight attempt at ornamentation of any kind. The figurative element is very limited; but such figures as are employed are fresh and suggestive. A marked character- istic is the frequent use of the catechetical method, in accordance with which general statements are met by questions calling for nearer definition or for citations of fact. This gives a certain appearance of vivacity to the discourse which tends to maintain interest. This method was carried to extremes in the later rab- binical dialectics. In distinction from most of the prophetic books, Malachi must be classified as prose. Neither in spirit, thought, nor THE TIMES OF MALACHI 5 form, has it the characteristics of poetry. Certainly, there is an occasional flash of poetic insight and imagination, or a few lines which move to a poetic rhythm. But only by the loosest use of terms could we call the prophecy as a whole poetry. All attempts to treat it as poetry have involved much pruning of the text in order to bring the lines within the necessary limits of a poetic measure.* If Malachi is to be regarded as poetical, either in form or content, distinctions between poetry and prose must be abandoned. § 2. THE TIMES. The Book of Malachi furnishes no statement regarding the time of its origin. Nor does external testimony aid much in de- termining its date. The citation from 4*^ which occurs in BS. 48^° does, indeed, put practically out of the question the Macca- baean date proposed by some.f The mere fact of the presence of Malachi in the prophetic canon would seem to preclude the possibility of a Maccabaean date; for BS. 49^° shows that the Book of the Twelve was already organised in the days of Ben Sirach. It is not at all likely that as late as the Maccabaean period a new book could have been incorporated among the Twelve, involving as it would either the omission of a book pre- viously admitted, or the consolidation into one book of some two of the books already in the Book of the Twelve. J For further information regarding the time in which Malachi was written, we must depend upon the more or less indirect testimony of the contents of the book itself. The reference to Edom in i^-^ raises our hopes. Edom has evidently received quite recently some telling blow which has left her prostrate. Israel's hatred of Edom is thereby gratified. This attitude to- ward Edom is one which characterised Israel continuously from * Witness the arrangements of Marti, Siev., Now.^, and Riessler. t Viz. Wkl. and Spoer. The reply made by Spoer to the objection here urged is that Malachi may have quoted from BS.. But this is unconvincing, because the whole context in BS. is made up of allusions to and quotations from the OT., the very next line to the one in ques- tion being a citation of Is. 49^; whereas Mai. 46 bears the stamp of originality. t Cf. F. Brown, in Essays in Modern Theology and Related Subjects — A Testimonial to Chas. A. Briggs (1911), pp. 68, 77; G. B. Gray, Isaiah (ICC, 1912), xliii^.. 6 MALACHI the time of the fall of Jerusalem, when Edom had taken advan- tage of Judah's helplessness to seize a part of Judah for herself (Ez. 35^"-'^ 36^'^; cf. Is. 63 and Ob.). Any great disaster to Edom after this time would meet the requirements of this oracle.* Unfortunately, the history of Edom from the time of the exile to the outbreak of the Maccabaean revolt is almost wholly unknown. We do know that Southern Judah was called Idumaea as early as 312 B.c.t and that about that time the Nabataeans had already pressed in from the South and dis- lodged the Edomites from their ancient fastnesses. But the exact period at which the expulsion of the Edomites by the Nabataeans took place is as yet unknown.^ It is not at all improbable that this overrunning of Edom by the Naba- taeans was the disaster to which our prophet refers. If so, the origin of Malachi must fall somewhere between 586 B.C. and 312 B.C.. A nearer approximation to the period of Malachi has been sought by some through the use of the word "governor" (nnS) in i^. The only "governors" of Judah who could be identified were Zerubbabel and Nehemiah. Bu.t upon the basis of the Ele- phantine papyri, we can now add Bagoas. These three, however, represent the entire period from 536 B.C. to 407 B.C.. Moreover, it is clear from Ne. 5*'* that Zerubbabel was not the only "gov- ernor" prior to Nehemiah. Furthermore, the use of the word "governor" was so general {cf. Je. ^i"^- ^^ Ez. 23^ Est. 3*^) that there is no reason to suppose that it ceased even with the pass- ing of the Persian Empire. The Persians took over the title from the Babylonians and doubtless passed it on to the Seleucid dynasty. In later times, indeed, it was actually applied to the chief priests in Judaea. § Hence, this term conveys no specific information regarding the date of the Book of Malachi. One definite date is furnished us by the contents of the proph- ecy. It is quite evident that the temple was already rebuilt * Cf. the kindly feeling toward Edom attested by Dt. 23' '•. t Diodorus, XIX, 94-100, where the contemporary record of Hicronymus of Kardia is cited as authority for this statement. \ Ez. 25' ■ '" may reflect the invading movements of the Nabataeans. § V. Bikkurim, cited by Schiirer, Geschichte, 4th ed., vol. II., p. 32J. THE TIMES OF MALACHI 7 (jio ^i. io)_ Not only so, but the enthusiasm engendered by Haggai and Zechariah, which had carried the temple to comple- tion, had passed away. The community had had sufficient time since that event to realise that the high hopes entertained by those prophets had not materialised. The conditions of life after the building of the temple were as hard and barren as they had been before and there was no visible sign of relief. This fixes the terminus a quo at about 510 B.C.. The terminus ad quern seems to be set by the reforms of Ne- hemiah, for the abuses attacked by Malachi are exactly those against which the reform was directed. The temple-services and offerings had fallen into disrepute (i^- "). The priests them- selves had grown careless, contemptuous and skeptical in the discharge of their official dudes (i«-»- ''■ " 2'- »). Tithes and offer- ings had been allowed to lapse, through the feeling that godli- ness was not profitable for all things and that the service of Yah- weh was a one-sided contract, in accordance with which Israel gave everything and received nothing (2I' 3^-10" ; cf. Ne. lo'^-ss j^io-13) In addition to these evils, the Jews had especially sig- nalised their descent from spiritual heights by having divorced their Jewish wives and having entered into new marriages with non- Jewish women belonging to the influential, but mongrel families of the vicinity (2'°-''; cf. Ezr., chs. 9-10; Ne. lo^s-^o 1323-31). Even the few words devoted by Malachi to the social wrongs of the rimes (3^) find their justificarion in the condirions recorded in Nehemiah's memoirs (Ne. 51-"). The Book of Mal- achi fits the situation amid which Nehemiah worked as snugly as a bone fits its socket. Yet the precise point at which the writer of Malachi appeared still eludes us. The condirions found by Nehemiah did not, of course, develop suddenly, but were the outcome of a long social process. There may, indeed, have been no appreciable change in the situarion for a quarter of a century or more before the arrival of Nehemiah. Malachi would be intelligible as coming from any porrion of such a period. Some would place it before the coming of Ezra;* others, contemporary with Ezra and Ne- • So e. g. We.(?), GASm.(?), Now., Cor., Bu.»«»«''-, Sta.Th=oi., Marti, van H., Du.P'"-. 8 MALACHI hemiah;* still others, during Nehemiah's absence at the Persian court; t while a few would place it during or after Nehemiah's second visit to Jerusalem. J It is difficult to regard Malachi as coming from any time when Nehemiah was actually in Jerusa- lem; because i^ implies the presence of a governor who was ac- customed to receive gifts from the citizens, while Nehemiah distinctly says that he did not avail himself of this privilege (Ne. 5^^- ^*). On the whole, it is best to interpret the author of Malachi as one who prepared the way for the reforms of Nehe- miah. He betrays no knowledge of any contemporary or recent reform movement; whereas if he had participated in the reform, he would almost certainly have reinforced his words by refer- ring to the solemn covenant to which his hearers had recently subscribed, w'hile they were now violating it daily at every point. The choice of the period immediately preceding the reform is supported by the hints given in the prophecy as to the code of laws in force at the time it was written. No distinction is made, for example, between the priests and the Levites; in 2*-^, the terms "priest" and "Levi" are apparently coterminous; and in 3', the "sons of Levi" as a class are represented as qualified to offer sacrifice, whereas in the legislation introduced in connec- tion with the reform the right of sacrifice was confined to the " sons of Aaron." The Priestly Code provides that the sacrificial animal may be either male or female, but Mai. i" mentions only the male. The regulations regarding the tithes (3*") are nearer to the law of the Priestly Code, indeed, than to that of Deuteronomy, in that they contemplate the payment of all the tithes at Jerusalem, whereas Deuteronomy requires a triennial tithe to be paid over to the Levites and the poor in their city gates, where they are to eat it. This departure from Deuteron- omy in Malachi is explicable on two grounds. In the first place, it is quite probable that in the time of IMalachi all the Levites were living in Jerusalem itself or in its immediate vicinity; in the second place, the Priestly Code was not created wholly ex nihilo. There were preparatory stages of development; for • So e. g. Hd., Pres., Schegg. tSoe. g. Koh.; Stci.; Ko.Ki"' ; Or.; Vo\ck, in PRE.^; Dr>«-,3S7. } So e. £. Rosemn., Ew.,'.Ke., Hengslenberg, Reinke, Kue.. THE TIMES OF MALACHI 9 example, the Holiness Code and Ez., chs. 40-48. Consequently, with customs and rites continually undergoing modification, it is more than probable that the Priestly Code, in the matter of tithes as in many other respects, did but recognise oflScially what custom had already approved. Malachi thus represents a stage in the history of tithing midway between that of Deuteron- omy on the one hand and the Priestly Code on the other. The tithing called for by Malachi seems less elaborate and complicated than that arranged for in Ne. lo^^- ^*. Likewise, Malachi joins the heave-offering (Mi2'"iri) with the tithe as in Deuteronomy, while the Priestly Code separates the two, assigning the former to the priests, as distinguished from the Levites in general. Even 4'', the later addition, uses Deuteronomic terminology, viz. in locating the law-giving at Horeb, rather than Sinai, and in employing the phrase "statutes and judgments." It seems safe and just, therefore, to give to Malachi some credit for aid in pre- paring the way for the reform. The book voices the thought of one who remained true to the old ideals and customs, at a time when those around him were rapidly losing faith and becoming desperate. The attempt of Spoer to interpret the utterances of Malachi as a protest against the reform, at least in so far as it deals with priests and Levites and with divorce, can hardly be considered as other than fantastic. § 3. THE PROPHET. The Book of Malachi is an anonymous writing. The name "Malachi" is apparently one attached to the book by an editor. It owes its origin to 3^ As the name stands, it can only mean " my messenger." This is a very unlikely appellation for a parent to bestow upon a child. It might, however, be an abbre- viated form of Malachiah (n^3«^I2; cf. "-^S, of 2 K. iS'^ with "■"ZS, of 2 Ch. 29I); in which case, the translation best sup- ported by the analogy of similar formations would be Yahweh is a messenger." This is clearly an improbable meaning. Thus the meaning " the messenger of Yahweh" is necessitated for the supposititious longer form. This, too, is hardly a probable name TO MALACm for a child, but suggests an allusion to 3* {cf. 2'). For further considerations opposed to the treatment of " Malachi" as a ver- itable name, v. pp. 18 /.. The book being anonymous, nothing can be known of the author beyond what the book itself may reveal as to his char- acter and temperament. Jerome testifies that the Jews of his day identified "Malachi" with Ezra,* as does the Targum. The book has been assigned by tradition to various other authors; for example, Zerubbabel and Nehemiah. Pseudo- Epiphanius declares Malachi to have been a man of Sopha in Zebulun and to have been characterised by an angelic form and appearance.! Not content with this, tradition has made him a Levite and a member of the " Great Synagogue" and has de- clared him to have died while still young. But these and similar traditions are all of late origin, fanciful and contradictory in character, and without any historical value as witnesses to the life of our prophet. His prophecy shows him to have been a patriotic Jew, loving his country and his people passionately and hating the enemies of Israel fervently. He can think of no more convincing proof of Yahweh's love for Israel than the fact that Edom has recently been stricken down in accordance with Yahweh's will. Jeru- salem is the city and Israel the people that Yahweh loves and intends to make the one envied by all the beholding nations. He is also evidently a man of vigorous personality and strong con- victions. While others tremble and doubt, he stands brave and firm. His faith is equal to the removal of any mountain. He never entertains the possibility of Yahweh failing his people at any point; the failure is all on Israel's side. The trials and dis- couragements that overturn the faith of others do but cause him to strike root deeper into the love and power of God. He re- mains loyal to the old ways and the ancestral religion when others give up in despair and would exchange old faiths for new. He pleads earnestly for diligent and dignified observance of the outer forms of religion, deprecating severely the neglect and indiflfer- * V. Praefatio in duodecim Propltelas. t Vilae prophetarum, cited in Nestle V, Marginalien, 28/.. Cf. similar statements by Doro- theus, Ephraem Syrus, Hesychius, and Isidorus Hisp.. THE PROPHET II ence with which they are being conducted. Yet he is no mere formalist or ritualist, but a man ethically and spiritually minded in a high degree. He does not regard ritual as an end in itself or as an opus operatum, but as the outer and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, the expression of faith in and devo- tion toward Yahweh. Its neglect indicates a lack of true re- ligion. The very vigour of our prophet's faith shows that his religion does not lie upon the surface of his soul and that it can- not be satisfied with externalities, but is of the very essence of his life and can be content with nothing less than the presence of God. In this respect he is a true successor of the great prophets. §4. THE MESSAGE OF MALACHI. The task of this unknown prophet was to rekindle the fires of faith in the hearts of a discouraged people. Ezekiel and the author of Is. chs. 40-55 had kept alive the faith of the exiles by assurances of the speedy approach of deliverance and by promises of the establishment of the coming kingdom of God. Ezekiel had been so sure of this as to prepare a set of regulations for the guidance of the citizens of the coming kingdom. Deliverance came in some measure; but the dawn of the Messianic age was delayed. Fading hopes were revived by the preaching of Haggai and Zechariah. Under the spur of their enthusiasm, the temple was rebuilt and faith was quickened. All obstacles to the coming of the kingdom being now removed, the prophets and the people looked confidently for the appearance of the longed-for Golden Age. They went so far, indeed, as to identify Zerubbabel with the expected Messiah and to crown him in recognition of his right (Zc. 6^-*^). But the Messianic age still delayed its coming. The hopes centred in Zerubbabel were dissipated and shattered. The glowing pictures of Haggai and Zechariah were not realised. The first zeal for the new temple rapidly cooled. Israel was ap- parently as far from exaltation to influence and power now as she had ever been. What ground was there for encouragement or hope? Why continue denying oneself in order that the temple- 12 MALACHI services might be properly maintained? Yahweh apparently had no interest in his people or in the vindication of justice and righteousness. Was the service of Yahweh worth while? Did it yield tangible and satisfactory returns to its adherents? ^ In the midst of such conditions and amid such sentiments, the writer of Malachi prepared his apologia in behalf of Yahweh. He must accomplish two things at least, viz. furnish a satisfac- tory explanation of the delay in the fulfilment of Israel's expec- tations and re-establish confidence in Yahweh and in the speedy coming of his Messiah. The first of these he seeks to achieve by the genuinely prophetic method of transferring the responsi- bility for the delay from the shoulders of Yahweh to those of Israel herself. The sins of Israel render it inconceivable that the blessing of Yahweh should rest upon her as she now is. Just as Haggai and Zechariah had insisted upon the rebuilding of the temple as the only way to the favour of Yahweh, so our prophet demands certain definite and tangible action as a prerequisite to the coming of the desired good./ The corrupt and careless priesthood must mend its ways and return to the ideal condition that prevailed in ancient times when true teaching was in the priest's mouth, unrighteousness was not found upon his lips, and by his blameless life he turned many away from iniquity. His conduct now is an insult to his God. The sacrifices and offer- ings must be kept up to proper form and quality. The neglect of these is an unpardonable offence. No gifts will be forthcom- ing from Yahweh so long as the tithes and offerings due him are withheld. If Israel will but discharge its obligations to the full, Yahweh may be counted upon to fulfil all his promises made through the projihets. Notwithstanding the emphasis and insistence of the prophet upon these external phases of the religious life, he is not on that account to be accused of a shallow conception of religion. He deplores the neglect and contempt of these things, not on the score that they themselves are essential to the well-being of God, or of themselves have any value whatever in his eyes; but on the ground that the neglect is a symptom of a state of mind and heart that is anything but pleasing to God. It reveals a lack THE MESSAGE OF MALACHI 13 of reverence, faith and love that is a prime defect in Israel's religious life. The people and the priests care so little for Yahweh that they do not observe his requirements regarding ritual. The truly pious must do the whole will of God with his whole heart. The genuinely inward element in the religion of Malachi is also shown in the further demands for reform which it urges. The old prophetic protest against social injustice sounds forth again in 3'^, showing that the ethical interests so characteristic of earHer prophecy lay near to the heart of this prophet also. A special phase of this protest is the denunciation of the common practice in accordance with which Jewish husbands divorce their Jewish wives and take wives from the surrounding non- Jewish families in their place. The cruelty toward the divorced wife that is involved is clearly realised and keenly resented by the prophet. He does not hesitate to characterise the procedure as treachery on the part of the offender toward his own people. But, more than this, it is treachery to Yahweh. It brings into the heart of the Jewish family those who have no interest in or care for the things of Yahweh. It involves the birth of half- breed children, who will be under the dominating influence of mothers who serve not Yahweh. It means the contamination of Jewish religious life at its source, by the introduction of heathen rites and beliefs. If the worship of Yahweh is to con- tinue in Israel, or the favour of Yahweh to be poured out upon Israel, the intermarriage of Jews and non- Jews must cease. Is- rael, as the people of the holy God, must keep herself holy. No contact with unholy people or things can be endured. But the adherents of other gods are at the farthest possible remove from being holy to Yahweh. Hence, Israel must break off completely all such idolatrous connections. The prophet's demands involve a complete change of heaff and attitude on Israel's part. This is the indispensable condition for the coming of the Messianic age. The lack of this requisite attitude of obedience and trust is the all-sufl5cient explanation for the withholding of Yahweh 's favour and for the delay in the com- ing of the Messianic kingdom. But the further task remained 14 MALACm for the prophet, viz. that of rekindling such faith and hope as would furnish the motive-power for the institution and execu- tion of the desired reforms and so render possible the granting by Yahweh of the longings of the pious. Our prophet makes no effort to demonstrate the validity of his hope for the future or to point out signs of the coming of the kingdom. Faith comes not by reason. He contents himself with the ardent affir- mation and reiteration of his own firm conviction. He would warm their hearts by the contagious enthusiasm of his own spirit. Whether or not his hopes were kindled by the course of contem- porary history, we do not know. The author of Is., chs. 40-55, was aroused by the tidings of the triumphant career of Cyrus. The appearance of Haggai and Zechariah was coincident with the revolts throughout the Persian Empire upon the death of Cambyses and the accession of Darius. The defeat of Persia by Greece at Marathon (490 B.C.), Thermopylae and Salamis (480 B.C.), and Plataea (479 b.c), with the revolt of Egypt aided by the Greeks (460 B.C.), may have awakened expectations in the soul of our prophet. But such external stimuli and supports were not indispensable to the prophets. They continually made the sheer venture of faith. Our author shows himself capable of such venture in his prediction of the forerunner who is to pre- pare the way for the coming of Yahweh. That his thought moves in the realm of spiritual agencies rather than in that of political forces is also seen in his conception of the coming of Yahweh as sudden and as overwhelming in its destructive and purificatory effect. In keeping with the trend of post-exilic thought, he sets his whole mind upon the coming of the Messiah and his king- dom. This kingdom, which is to be above all the kingdoms of the world, needs not the assistance of any earthly power to es- tablish itself in its rightful place. Yahweh himself will bring it into its own. The problem that confronted the author of Malachi and his contemporaries was not new in Israel. It was the ever-recurring question as to why the fortunes of Israel were not commensurate with her position as the people of God. How could the justice of God be demonstrated and vindicated in view of the disasters THE MESSAGE OF MALACHI 15 that continually befell his people? Why should other nations constantly triumph at the expense of the people of God? The prophets all agree with the people that Yahweh's nation ought to prosper to an extent far surpassing all other nations. The prophets part company with the people in accounting for the discrepancy between Israel's lot and Israel's due as caused by the enormity of Israel's sins. Let these be removed and the desired harmony between external fortune and spiritual birth- right will be at once established. The author of Malachi agrees in this with all his predecessors. Like them, he conceives of piety as entitled to its material rewards. He is sure that, if those rewards are not bestowed in the existing dispensation, they will be forthcoming in full measure in the Messianic age. The thought that piety is its own reward, that God is his own best gift, finds no expression from him. But, at a time when faith was wavering, he met his contemporaries on their own ground, and thrilled their hearts with the assurance that the dawn of the Golden Age was at hand. Not only so, but he also made this mighty eschatological hope operative in the betterment of the moral and religious conditions of his own day. § 5. LITERATURE ON THE BOOK OF MALACHI. I . Commentaries. The more important modern commentaries are those of Reinke (1856), Kohler (1865), Ewald (1868), Hitzig-Steiner (1881), Orelli (1888; 3d ed. 1908), Wellhausen (1892; 3d ed. 1S98), Nowack (1897; 2d ed. 1903), G. A. Smith (1898), Marti (1903), Driver (1906), van Hoonacker (1908), and Isopescul (1908). To be classified with these are: Hale\y's translation and notes in Revue semitique for 1909; Marti's translation and notes in Kautzsch's Heilige Schrift, ed. 3 (1910); Duhm's translation in Die Zwolf Propheten in den Versmassen der Urschrift iiber- setzt (1910), with the accompanying notes in Zeitschrijt fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. XXXI (191 1); Kent's trans- l6 MALACHI lation, with notes, in Sermons, Epistles and Apocalypses of Israel's Prophets (1910); and P. Riessler, Die Kleinen Propheten oder das Zwoljprophetenbuch nach dem Urtext iibersetzt und erkldrt (1911)- 2. Introductions. The general "Introductions" to the Old Testament all treat the Book of Malachi. The more important are those of Driver (new ed. 1910), Cornill (6th ed. 1908; English ed. 1907), Konig (1893), Strack (6th ed. 1906), Kuenen (1889), Wildeboer (3d ed. 1903), Gautier (1906), R. Comely (Historicae et criticae in- troductionis in libros sacros compendium [1909]), and K. Budde {Geschichte der alt-hebrdischen Litter atur [1906]). Special introductions and treatments of special topics are: W. R. Smith and C. C. Torrey, art. "Malachi," Encyclopcedia Bib- Uca (1902); A. C. Welch, art. "JMalachi," Hastings's Diction- ary of the Bible (1901); Volck, art. "Maleachi," Protestantische Real-encyklopadie, 3d ed. (1905); W. H. Bennett, The Religion of the Post-exilic Prophets (1907), pp. 88-102; Bohme, "Zu Maleachi und Haggai," Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wis- senschaft, vol. VII (18S7), pp. 210-217; H. Spoer, "Some New Considerations towards the Dating of the Book of Malachi," Jewish Quarterly Review, vol. XX (1908), pp. 167-186; von Bulmerincq, Der Auspruch iiber Edom im Buche Maleachi (1906) ; P. KJeinert, Die Profeten Israels in sozialer Beziehung (1905), pp. 129^.; C. C. Torrey, "The Prophecy of Malachi," Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. XVII (1898), pp. 1-15; H. Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, vol. II (1899), pp. 531-539; B. Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. II (1888), pp. 128-138; Idem, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments, vol. I (1905), pp. 332-335- 3. Miscellaneous. Ed. Sievers, "Alttestamentliche Miscellen, No. 4," in Berichte iiber die V erhandlungen der Koni^lich Sdchsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften [Philologisch-historische Klasse], vol. LVII (1905). D. H. Miiller, "Discours de Malachie." Revue biblique LITERATURE ON MALACHI 1 7 for 1S96, pp. 535-539 { = Strophenbau wtd Responsion [1898], pp. 40-45). Joh. Bachmann, Dodekapropheton aethiopium ; Heft 2 — Der Prophet Maleachi (1892). A. Schulte, ''Die Koptische Uebersetzung der Kleinen Propheten untersucht," Theologische Quartalschrift, vol. LXXVII (1895), pp. 219-229. K. Budde, "Zum Texte der drei letzten Propheten," Zeitschrift fur die alt- tcstamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. XXVI (1906). F. Buhl, Ge- schichte der Edomiter (1893). T. Noldeke, art. "Edom," Ency- clopcBdla Biblica (1901). W. von Baudissin, art. "Edom," Prot- estantische Real-encyklopadie, 3d ed. (1898). Ed. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judenthums (1896), pp. 105-119. C. C. Torrey, "The Edomites in Southern Judah," Journal of Biblical Liter- ature, vol. XVII (1898), pp. 16-20. Graetz, "Die Anfange der Nabataerherrschaft," Monatsschrift fiir Wissenschaft und Ge- schichte des Judenthums, for 1875, pp. 60-66. A COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF MALACHL § I. THE SUPERSCRIPTION (i^. The superscription states the ultimate source of the prophecy, the people to whom it is addressed, and the agent of its trans- mission. The superscription of no prophetic book offers less of genuine information; those of Obadiah and Habakkuk are its only rivals in this respect. The editorial origin of this superscription is now quite generally con- ceded. This opinion is supported by the close resemblance in form between this superscription and those in Zc. 9' 12', which are likewise of editorial origin. It is probable that all three were written by the same hand; or, at least, that two of them were modelled after the third one. The structure is too unusual to make it likely that they were of independent origin {v. i.). 1. Oracle of the word of Yahweh to Israel] For the use of the word "oracle," v. note on Na. i^ in ICC. This and Zc, 9^ 12^ are the only passages in which "oracle" is followed by "word," though "oracle of Yahweh" and "word of Yahweh" are com- mon phrases. "Israel" here represents the Jewish community as the people of God for whom all the ancient promises and expectations are to be realised. — Through Malachi] The source of this statement is evidently 3^, where "Malachi" is not a proper name, but the equivalent of "my messenger" or "my angel." (^ renders here "through his messenger." © likewise treats it as a common noun, rather than as a proper name. — For the personality and character of the prophet, v. Introduc- tion, § 3; and for the time of his activity, v. Introduction, § 2. 1. Sn] ^ iirl = S>:, asinZc. 12"; so&S. — 'ON^::] (g ^77^01; ouroO = isnSd; so Bu.. (3 renders my angel whose name is called Ezra, the scribe. Against the treatment of 'c as a bona-ftde name may be urged (i) the fact that the name is not found elsewhere, though In*^^ is a common 18 I^ 19 word; (2) the lack of any definite information concerning such a man; (3) the improbability that any parent would bestow such a name upon an infant; (4) the absence of any early tradition treating it as a proper name {cf. <&W). If it were a proper name, the affix •> might be either an abbreviation of ni, or an adjectival ending. Cf. ms and nnix; >a« and n;avs; •'oSs; and Sn'dVd, etc.; v. No., art. "Names," § 52, EB.. The anonymous author has been variously identified; e. g. as Ezra (uf, Jer., Calvin); as Mordecai (Rabbi Nachman); as Haggai (various rabbis; perhaps also the view of the editor who added a citation from Hg. in 05) ; as Joshua, son of Jozedek (Clement of Alexandria) ; and as an angel (Origen, Tcrtullian, Chrysostom). The earliest witnesses to the inter- pretation of 'd as a proper name are §, 6, S, TJ and the title of the book in (6. d adds here: 0i(rde drj ivl tcls KapSlas i/xuv. ft" has it under obelus. Jer. says, "Hoc in Hebraico non habetur, sed puto de Aggaeo additum in quo legimus: et nunc ponite super corda vestra, etc.". This sup- position is probably correct, for (&^ '■ ''■ ^Q^ have the same rendering in Hg. 2'= as ' n: i-:^!:' here. Bach, finds in this gloss from (5 the otherwise unknown name of the prophet, by supposing (S> to represent 3^3 ■'in'''^'i, the original of which was 2^,2 idct. But 3S3 iD"'!:' is not good Hebrew, which would require either aS hy 'v, or Sy a"? iDia- as in Hg. 2'6. Cf. Matthes, ZAW. XXIII (1903), 126/.. For a similar marginal citation from another book, V. the quotation from Mi. i^ in i K. 22-^. §2. A PROOF OF YAHWEH'S LOVE (i^-^). In this opening section the prophet meets the lament of his people that Yahweh has ceased to love Judah, by reminding them of the recent overthrow of Edom, their hated foe, as an evidence of the love that they are calling in question. This ref- erence to the fate of Edom would seem to fix the date of this prophecy; but unfortunately the information here is too vague and our knowledge of the later history of Edom too incomplete to render any degree of certainty as to this question possible; V. Introduction, § 2. These verses really state the theme of the whole book; for the writer's task is that of showing Israel, on the one hand, that Yahweh loves her and, on the other, that her own sinful conduct prevents her from enjoying the full fruitage of that love. 20 MALACHI 2. / have loved you, says Yahwch] The tense of the verb in- dicates a love that has not only operated in the past, but is also in effect at the present. This is the proposition that the prophet seeks to establish. It was not a new idea in any sense, but had been the accepted teaching regarding Yahweh's attitude to- ward his own people for centuries; cf. Ho. 1 1^ Dt. f lo'^ Ez. i6. The trouble was that at this time the people had lost faith in Yahweh's love. They had become skeptical. — But you say, Wherein hast thou loved us?] Under the form of question and answer, a characteristic feature of the style of this prophecy, the prophet carries on an argument with his readers. Cf. i^- "^ 2i7 ^7. 8. 13. lY^Q same usage appears in germ in Je. 13'''^' 15^ ' , while Zc, chs. 1-8, makes much use of the question and answer as a means to secure \dvidness. The question here on Israel's part calls for a bill of particulars from the prophet. What evi- dence has he that Yahweh still loves his people? Do not the facts indicate that he has ceased to care for their interests? This state of mind in Judah was due largely to their long- continued sufferings and to their repeated disappointments. The people had returned from exile wuth the full expectation of the immediate coming of the Messianic kingdom. They had been spurred on to the rebuilding of the temple by similar promises from Haggai and Zechariah. But the kingdom had not come; the power of Persia was still unbroken. The lot of Judah was one of hardship and oppression. Since the responsibility for this condition must be borne by Yahweh, the only conclusion to which the discouraged people could come was that Yahweh no longer loved them. The prophet's reply to their demand for evidence to the contrary was immediate and direct. — Is not Esau a brother of Jacob 2 It is the oracle of Yahweh] Esau here represents Edom, as is shown clearly by v. *. For other cases of the same usage, cf. Gn. 36'- ^- '^ Je. 49*- ^^ Ob. ^, Similarly Jacob represents the people of Judah, as also in 2^^ Is. 41^ 42^* Je. 3o^*'' ^^ Ps. 2o\ and often elsewhere. Of the various members of the Hebraic family, Edom is the only one that is ever recognised in the Old Testament as sustaining the close relationship of brother to Israel; cf. Am. i" Dt. 23^. The very closeness of r2-3 21 the tie seems to have made the hostility that developed all the more bitter; cf. Ob. '°- ^2. As brothers, Edom and Judah were on the same footing before Yahweh. Yet he had chosen Judah rather than Edom as the object of his love. Earlier commen- tators saw here evidence of the doctrine of predestination.* But it is clear that the writer had no such thought in mind. He was merely concerned to indicate clearly that the choice of Judah was an act of free grace on the part of Yahweh; he had been under no constraint to choose as he had done. On the conclud- ing phrase, with which the divine authority of the statement is asserted, v. H.^^, p. 59. — But I have loved Jacob (3) and hated Esau] The love for Jacob is demonstrated by the hatred to- ward Esau, convincing evidence of which is forthcoming. This reflection of the feelings of Judah toward Edom is a clear indi- cation of the post-exilic origin of the prophecy. The bitterness of Judah toward Edom grew increasingly intense in the post- exihc period. The insults and injuries inflicted by Edom at the time of the Babylonian captivity rankled in the memory of Judah and constituted a source whence increased significance was drawn and attached to every fresh injury, fancied or real. The constant encroachment of Edom upon Jewish territory, made necessary by the unceasing advance of the Nabataeans, kept the hostility continually alive. A love for Judah that did not involve corresponding hatred for Edom was unthinkable. The humiliation and downfall of Edom was an indispensable accompaniment of the coming of the Messianic age; cf. Ob. ^^'^'■ Is. 34^- ^ 63^'^ Je. 49^^- ''^- ^^, The older interpreters,! hesitating to make the prophet ascribe such feelings to Yahweh, sought to make "hate" mean "love less." But it is a question, not of degrees of love, but of love or no love. Hebrew prophets had no scruples about ascribing their own deepest convictions and feelings to Yahweh. — And I have made his mountains a desolation and his inheritance pastures in the wilderness] The last phrase occurs also in Je. 9^° 23^° Jo. i^^- ^ 2^^ Ps. 65^2. M, has here in its place "to jackals of the wilderness"; but this does not form a satisfactory completion of "I have made his inheritance." iM requires either the insertion of a second verb, e. g."' and I have * E. g. Calvin. t E. g. J. H. Michaelis, Dathe, Rosenm.. 22 MALACHI given his inheritance to," etc.; or the use of the verb "made" in two different senses, viz. "I have made his mountains a deso- lation and I have put (or placed) his inheritance for the jackals," etc.. But the oldest witnesses to the original rendering of CS, including ^, support the reading here adopted. The prophet here in all probability refers to some calamity that has recently befallen Edom and cites it as indisputable evidence of Yahweh's love for Judah. As to the historical event he may have had in mind, v. Introduction, § 2. — 4. If Edom says, We are beaietv down, bill we will rebuild the ruins] The prophet now meets the objec- tion that the overthrow of Edom is not final, but only for the moment. "She has fallen before," says Judah, "but only to rise again." — Thus says Yakweh of hosts] The word of Yahweh is set over against the word of Edom, in paralysing contrast. This title is the most frequent designation of Yahweh in this prophecy, occurring no less than twenty-one times. On its usage and significance, cf. H.'^^, pp. 83/.. — They may build, but I shall tear down] The futility of their efforts as opposed to Yahweh's will is thus clearly brought into view. The destruction already accomplished is fatal. There can be no permanent recovery from it. — And men will call them, ^^ wicked country'''] The smitten state of Edom will be convincing proof to all that she was pre- eminently wicked. This is the view of the old theology, shared by all the prophets, viz. that disaster and suffering are always caused by sin and that the greater the affliction, the greater must have been the sin that caused it. The term "wicked" here probably includes much of the bitterness and contempt associated with its use in the mind of the members of the later Jewish community. Among these, it came to be a technical epithet opposed to the term "pious" (T'Dn) which was applied to those loyal to Yahweh and faithful in their adherence to all the tenets of the law. The "wicked," however, were those who apostatised from Yahwism or persecuted the followers of Yah- weh. Such were the Edomites in very fact. — And "the people against whom Yahweh is angry perpetually^^] This is another epi- thet which men will apply to Edom. Its ruins will be a standing witness to the abiding wrath of God. Some scholars, striving to make this material conform to metrical standards, would omit I^-^ 23 the last phrase "for ever" or "perpetually." But this is the essential element in the sentence. The prophet's purpose is to convince Judah that Edom's overthrow is final, not a mere tem- porary disaster due to a passing fit of anger on the part of Yah- weh. — 5. And your eyes will see and you yourselves will say] The proof of Yahweh's love and power is not to be indefinitely post- poned, but will come with crushing force within the lifetime of the prophet's contemporaries. As each successive attempt of the Edomites to re-establish themselves is thwarted by Yahweh, they will come to realise the range and scope of Yahweh's pur- pose and the effectual working of his love. What they them- selves shall see will lead them to say — ^^ Yahweh is great above the territory of Israel'^] Judah will be at length convinced that Yahweh has not forsaken his people. The rendering of this sen- tence which is now generally adopted is " Yahweh is great be- yond the border of Israel";* that is, Yahweh's power is recog- nised as extending to nations other than Israel. But at the time when this prophecy was written, there was little question in Judah as to the extent of Yahweh's power. The question rather was as to his love for and interest in Israel. Hence, what is needed here is a statement expressing the thought that Yahweh has convincingly demonstrated his love for Israel. Further, the prepositional phrase rendered "beyond" nowhere else has that sense. It occurs in Gn. i'' i S. if^ Ez. 1^ Jon. 4^ Ne. i23i- ^'^- ^' 2 Ch. 13^ 24-" 26^^, and it always means "over," "above," or "upon." The prophet pictures Yahweh as enthroned over Is- rael in majesty and power and attracting the wonder and rever- ence of the world at large. The Messianic age for which Israel has so long looked in vain is thus to come within the lifetime of the prophet's audience. 2. vnanx] Present pf.; Ges. ^^"«e. — a-T:Ni] Pf. with waw conjunc- tive, co-ordinate with the preceding present pf.. — ''' dnj] The only oc- currence of this phrase in Mai.. Mart^ adds mN3i mtr. cs.; so Now."^, Kent. But '' idn in ^^ lacks 's, and metrical considerations have no force in prose. Boh. drops '' 'i as a gloss; so Siev., Bu.. But in a writing which cites divine authority as frequently as Mai. does, the * So e. g. Rosenm., Mau., Hi., Ew., Umbreit, Reinka, Schegg, We., Now., GASm., Marti, Dr., Or., van H.. Hal., Du.'"'' . Cf. Hd., "Let Y. be magnified from the border of Israel." * Above" is preferred by Ke., Koh., Pu., Bulmerincq. 24 MALACHI closeness of '^ 'i to the foregoing '> isn is no reason for suspecting the text; cj. 1 8- =• '"• ". — apy> nx ansi] (Sf< adds X^Tei K<), '^"'i'^'^ (Ezr. 9^), and iaj;3 (Dt. passim).— Siaj] a pi.. 25 § 3- YAHWEH HONOURS THEM THAT HONOUR HIM (l6-29). Having shown in § 2 that there was no warrant for continuing to doubt the love of Yahweh toward his people, the prophet now proceeds to indicate the causes that make it impossible for Yah- weh to let this love have full sway. Starting with the general principle that a people must show honour toward its God, he charges Israel with heaping dishonour upon Yahweh by indiffer- ence, carelessness, and deception in the bringing of its sacrificial gifts (i®'*). No sacrifice at all were better than this (i^"). In the heathen world, due reverence is shown to Yahweh; but in his own city and temple he is treated with contempt. For blem- ished animals are substituted for sound and healthy ones which alone are suitable for sacrifice. Hence curses rather than bless- ings must be the lot of such worshippers (i"-"). It is especially incumbent upon the priests, the ministers of Yahweh, to see to it that he is fitly honoured in the proper conduct of the ritual. Failure to secure this will bring upon them a terrible curse for their unfaithfulness to the covenant between them and Yahweh. In days gone by, the priesthood lived up to the full measure of its responsibility; but now, they are leaders in wickedness rather than in righteousness. Consequently, the low esteem in which they are now generally held is the due reward of their conduct as perverters of the law (2^-'). 6. A son honours his father] Reverence for parents was an outstanding Semitic virtue; cf. Dt. s^'^ ai^^-^i and the Code of Hammurabi, §§ 186, 192, 193, 195. The term "fatherhood," according to Semitic usage, connotes authority rather than love, though the latter is by no means excluded.* — And a servant fears his master] The word "fears" is supplied upon the basis of (6. The verbs "honour" and "fear" express their customary mean- ings. These are the relations that usually obtain and should obtain between fathers and sons, masters and servants. The word " servant " may denote either a free servant or a slave. The • Cf. GASm.. 26 MALACHI latter certainly had good reason to fear his master; cf. Ex. 21^ ^■ 2^ '• and the Code of Hammurabi, §§ 197-199, 205, 210, 214, 217, etc.. — But if I be a father, where is my honour ? A nd if I be a master, where is my reverence?] The honour and reverence due to Yahweh from his people have not been rendered to him. The idea of the worshipper as the "slave" or "servant" of Yahweh was one of long standing in Israel; cf. 3" Zp. 3^ i S. 3^ i K. 8^^ Ex. 3^2^! Ezr. 5". The conception of Yahweh as the " father" of his peo- ple was also not new with this prophet; v. Ho. 11^ Ex. 4-- '■ Je. 3* Is. 43«. Cf. Is. 9« 63!'"' 64** Ps. 68'' 89^6 10313. On the deity as an object of fear, cf. Gn. ^v'^. — Says Yahweh of hosts to you, 0 priests, who despise my name] This is the favourite title of God in this prophecy; v. on v.*; hence there is no sufficient reason for. dropping "of hosts" here as some do for the sake of a suppositi- tious metre. The priests, who of all men should have held Yah- weh in honour, are charged with holding his name in contempt. The "name" and the personality were so closely associated in Hebrew thought as to be almost Identical.* To despise the "name," therefore, was to despise Yahweh himself. — But you say. How have we despised thy name ?] This question opens the way for a bill of particulars ; cf.v.~. Concrete facts are now called for. — 7. In bringing upon my altar polluted food] In Ez. 44^, the fat and the blood are called the food of Yahweh; cf. Lv. 3"- 16 2i6-8- n. 21. 22 22" Nu. 28^. The same idea holds here as is clear from v. ^. That the show-bread is not meant is clear from the fact that the "food" is presented upon the "altar," whereas the show-bread was laid upon a special table. The na- ture of the pollution or defilement also is indicated in v. ^. The solicitude of this writer in behalf of the proper observance of the sacrificial ritual is in striking contrast with the attitude of the prophets of the eighth century B.C.; e. g. Am. 4'' s^'-" Ho. 6*^ Is. jii-i6_ Yet, it must be borne in mind that this prophet's indigna- tion was aroused, not because of the neglect of sacrifice per se, but because of the indifference toward Yahweh that it reflected. The religion of the day was a hollow form; there was no deep conviction or uplifting de\otion in it. — But you say. How have * Cf. F.Giesebtecht, Die allleslamentlicheSchdfzungdtsCottesnamens (igoi), 17/., 67/., 88/.. I«.8 ' 27 we polluted it?] M. reads "thee" for "it"; but this is virtually to repeat the question of v. ^ and it presupposes the charge of having polluted Yahweh himself, which is hardly thinkable. Hence, it is better to read "it" with (^ ®. This is better than to omit the phrase,* or to drop merely "and you say" and trans- pose the question to the end of v. ^.f — In that you say, The table of Yahweh is contemptible] This is rather a sentiment which the prophet ascribes to them than a statement which they have ac- tually made. Interpreting their attitude by their actions, this is the state of mind in which he finds them. For other instances of "say" in the sense "say to oneself" i. e. "think," v. Ex. 2^* 2 S. 2ii*' 2 K. 5". The priests had evidently come to regard it as of little consequence whether the sacrifices were properly conducted or not. The term " table of Yahweh " occurs only here and in v. ^-. It may apply to the table of show-bread (Ex, 25^'' I K. 7^* Nu. 4'), but it is more probably a general term here, in- cluding that table and the altar (Ez. 41^2 44I''). The use of such a term is a survival from the time when the sacrifice was thought of as a meal of which the Deity partook along with his wor- shippers.— 8. And when you bring the blind to sacrifice, is there no harm? And when you bring the lame and the sick, is there no harm?] Law and custom required that every sacrificial victim should be free from spot or blemish, sound in every particular; V. Dt. 1521 171 Lv. 22is'^- 22ff- Ex. 12^ 29I Nu. 6'* 19^ Ez. 45^3. Even the ministering official himself must possess the same per- fection; V. Lv. 21^^ f-. Requirements of this kind, it is probable, originated in the earlier days when disease and deformity were looked upon as due to the malevolent activity of demons, and persons and animals so afflicted were naturally regarded as tabu or unclean in the sight of Yahweh. But here, as the following questions show, the sacrifice is thought of as a gift to Yahweh^ and the blemishes as imperfections in the gift which reflect slight regard on the part of the donor for the one to whom the gift is offered. The exact force of the last phrase is uncertain. It is most easily understood as a rhetorical question, J the answer to which is patent to all. But it may also be regarded as the state- • Contra We., Now.. f Contra Bu.. { So 01 B; ® is as ambiguous as SH. 28 MALACHI ment of a sentiment attributed to the accused priests,* the words "you say" or "you think" being understood. — Ofer it now to thy governor, mil he accept it?] How much less can Yahweh be ex- pected to be pleased with it! M reads "accept thee"; but the text of (5 H seems preferable and is supported by i'"". The same confusion of suffixes has occurred in i^ The word rendered "governor" furnishes a slight indication as to the date of the prophecy. It occurs only in exilic and post-exilic writings (viz. Je., Ez., K., Hg., Ezr., Ne., Est., and the Elephantine papyri), is probably borrowed from Assyrian, and is used only of governors appointed by foreign rulers, except in i K. lo^^ a very late addi- tion,! where it is applied to the subordinates of Solomon. Cf. Introduction, § 2. — Or will he receive you graciously?] Lit. "lift up your face " i. e. make you to look up in gladness and confi- dence because of his kindness. The same idiom is used in 2', and often elsewhere, to express the idea of showing partiality. Here, however, the meaning "show favour" contains no impHca- tion of injustice. — Says Yahweh of hosts] There is no sufficient reason for the omission of this phrase as a gloss; | cf. vv. ^- ^- ^°- n. i3_ — 9. ^^^(/ now, seek the favour of God that he may he gracious to us] Cf. Zc. 7^ Dn. 9^^. This is an ironical suggestion, § as the sequel shows. The prophet includes himself as one in need of the divine favour even as those whom he addresses. The innocent are involved with the guilty in the sufferings occasioned by the sins of the latter and are consequently in equal need of the mercy of God. — From your ha^id has this been] This is a gloss,** occa- sioned by the pronoun at the close of the preceding sentence. Some reader, fearful lest the prophet by including himself among those in need of mercy might seem to be acknowledging that he himself was one of those responsible for the miseries of Judah, inserted this disclaimer in order that the responsibility might be placed squarely upon the shoulders of those to whom it be- longed. The interruption between the implied protasis in the • So «. g. Rosenm.. t So Gie. (ZAW. I, 233), Benzinger, Kittel, Sta. and Schwally, Kamphaiisen. el al., adloc. \ Contra Marti, Now.", Siev., el al.. § It is taken as a genuine call to repentance by Hi., We., Now., el al.. •* So Marti, Now.", Siev.. l9-10 29 previous sentence and the apodosis in the succeeding question makes its glossarial origin c\ea.r.— Will he be gracious toward you?] Lit. "will he lift up faces from you?", a form of the phrase no- where else found. This rhetorical question calls for a negative answer. The conduct of the priests effectually hinders Yahweh from showing them any favour. — Says Yahweh of hosts] This is omitted by some as a gloss,* but without due cause; v. on v. ^. With V. ^'', the prophet takes a new start and represents Yah- weh as entreating the priests to discontinue their sacrificial, rites which are so distasteful to him. — 10. O, that there were some one among you to close the doors, so that you might not kindle mine altar in vain] The double doors of the temple court are the ones meant; cf.Ez.^i^^-^*. The closing of these would cut off access to the altar. The sacrifices which bulk so large in the ritual are worse than useless in Yahweh 's sight as they are now performed. These words have been differently interpreted by reason of the fact that the last word has a twofold meaning, viz. "in vain" and "gratis." Hence some have seen here evidence that the priests had become too lazy and indifferent even to close the temple doors at the proper time.f Others interpret to the effect that the meanest attendant of the temple now demands a reward for the simplest action, even the closing of the doors. J — / have no pleasure in you, says Yahweh of hosts] Yet the very purpose of the sacrifices was to make sure of the favour of Yahweh by affording him pleasure.— A^or will I accept an offering from your hand] This language recalls the sentiments of previous proph- ecy; e. g. Am. 521 f- Ho. 6'' 8'^ Is. i" ''•. Though the particular thing to which this prophet takes exception is different from that objected to by the former prophets, yet the central interest of all is the same. They insist upon a right conception of Yahweh and a proper attitude of mind and heart toward him. Amos and his immediate successors opposed the cultus because of the superstitious and overzealous devotion of their contemporaries who failed to understand that the chief interests of Yahweh centred in other things; this prophet resents an indifference on the part of the priests which is an insult to Yahweh. — 11. For • So Marti, Now.", Siev.. t So e. g. Hesselberg, Hd.. I So Jer., Grotius, Pu.. 30 MALACHI from the rising of the sun even to its setting, my nmne is great among the nations] The connection between this verse and the pre- ceding is not obvious. But probably the thought is that Yahweh is not dependent upon the worshippers in Jerusalem for a right recognition of his place and power. He can refuse to receive them for he has other worshippers scattered throughout the world. The honour denied him in his own city is freely accorded him in foreign cities. The exact significance of the phrase "great among the nations" is open to question. It may mean that Yahweh is now acknowledged as God by the nations at large, who have be- come convinced of his superiority to other gods; or that here and there among the nations may be found groups of people who turn their backs upon idolatry and give themselves to the worship of the true God; or that, even if the Jews at home insult Yahweh, the Jews of the Dispersion are doing him honour among the nations of the earth where they have been so widely scattered. The first of these alternatives is improbable, because it is so far from accordance with the facts of history. At no time in the life of Israel could it be said with any shadow of verisimilitude that Yahweh was universally acknowledged as God. Nor is there any evidence that Judaism ever had any appreciable suc- cess among the nations at large in the propagation of its faith, even if any serious attempt at the conversion of the nations could be proven. Aside from a few idealists, like the author of Jonah, the followers of Judaism seem to have lacked any aggressive missionary spirit. What religious approach was made to the nations was apologetic rather than missionary. It was merely the response of Judaism to the necessity of justifying its own right and fitness to live alongside of the religions of the con- querors. Consequently, it is not likely that the number of prose- lytes was ever large enough or widely enough distributed to serve as a basis for the statement of the text. But at the time of this prophecy, the Dispersion extended from Babylonia and Persia in the East to Southern Egypt in the West. It is not at all unlikely that the standard of Yahwism was on the whole higher among the exiles than it was in Jerusalem. This was certainly true of the Babylonian exiles at least; cf. Je. 24' "• I" 31 Ez. 6* *•. The impetus to reform and progress in Jerusalem came from without, not from within, according to all Jewish tra- dition. These facts make the allusion to the widely scattered Jewish community to be the most probable interpretation of the prophet's words. The view that this statement reflects the author's conviction that the gods of the heathen were only so many different names for the one great God and that the nations were therefore in reality worshipping Yahweh finds many sup- porters.* But against this is the following statement that incense is offered to Yahweh's name. Moreover, the emphasis in Malachi upon ritualism and its attitude toward mixed marriages militate strongly against the hypothesis that its author could have taken so charitable and sympathetic a view of paganism. Still another view commonly heldf is that the author refers to the Messianic future when the nations will all have been brought to acknowl- edge Yahweh as Lord. But the contrast between the Jews and the nations is more natural when applied to the pagan world that now is than as between Judaism in the present and paganism in the future. There is no differentiation in form between v. " and V. 12 such as we should expect did they refer to different dis- pensations. The presumption of the grammar is that they both refer to the same age and, in v. ^2, it is unmistakably the present. — And in every place, smoke is made to arise to my name, and a pure offering] Throughout the heathen world, the sacrifices are being brought to Yahweh in accordance with all the requirements of the ritual. The usual interpretation of this has been to the effect that the prophet refers to the worship of Yahweh by the heathen peoples, whose sacrifices were "pure" because not sub- ject to the same rigid requirements as those in Jerusalem; or that he uses the word "offering" in a figurative sense, meaning thereby the prayer and praise offered to Yahweh by the non- Jewish world. Others, holding similar views as to the meaning, have made the statement apply to the coming Messianic age,t not to actually existing conditions. Sacrifices, on the part of * So e. g. Hi., We., Torrey, Now., Marti. t So e. g. Justin, Irenseus. Theodoret, Augustine, Reinke, AV., Schegg, Pu., van H., Isop.. t Note especially the v-iew of Isop. that the prophet had in mind the Holy Eucharist of the Catholic Church. 32 MALACHI Jews at least, anywhere except at the temple in Jerusalem have been until recently regarded as placed under the ban by the Deu- teronomic law and therefore not to be designated as a "pure offer- ing." But the discovery of the Elephantine pap3ai has changed all this. The colonists in Egypt evidently were conscious of no irregularity in the erection of a shrine to Yahweh on Egyptian soil and in the offering of sacrifices to Yahweh therein.* Nor is it altogether certain that the Jerusalem hierarchy condemned their action; the failure of the priests to respond to the request of the colonists for aid may well have been due to other reasons than disapproval of the enterprise upon ritualistic grounds. In- ability to render aid, or fear of arousing the hostility of the Per- sian officials may have caused the disappointment to their dis- tant fellow-countrymen. In any case, it is quite evident that the writer of this prophecy may have shared the views of the colonists as to the legitimacy of sacrificial worship upon foreign soil and may have had such shrines as that at Elephantine in mind when he wrote. f It is by no means clear that the Deu- teronomic legislators intended to condemn sanctuaries on for- eign soil. Their purpose was to eliminate impurity from the worship of Judah by centralising it in Jerusalem under rigid supervision. They were not legislating for exiles, if indeed they so much as contemplated the possibility of a general Diaspora. The Babylonian exile introduced a new set of conditions into the political and the religious world of Judaism. As a matter of fact, the further development of the ritual was along narrow and exclusive lines; but it was not carried through without a fierce struggle. Many devout Jews aligned themselves with the more liberal tendencies of the times, as evidenced by the books of Jonah and Ruth. Probably Malachi is to be placed in the same class in so far, at least, as the localisation of the ritual is con- • There is no necessity for supposing that the action of these colonists in erecting a temple on foreign soil was unique. It is altogether probable that similar shrines were erected in other Jewish centres. The later temple at Hcliopolis is a case in point. The same longings and needs that caused the building of the temple at Elephantine existed in many other regions and may easily have resulted in similar action. So also Torrey, £zra 6'/i«/«w, 315^.. I'or a contrary view, ti. W. R. Arnold, JBL., XXXI (loi,^), 31^^.. t So also O. C. Whitehouse, in Transadions of Third International Congress for the History of Religions,! (1Q0&), 284; J. W.Rolhste'm, J iiden uiul Santarilaner (1908), 77/.; Du.ZAW. XXXI (1911), 179/.. I"-" 33 cerned. — For great is my name among the nations, says Yahweh oj hosts] There is some justification, aside from the question of metre, for holding this to be a gloss,* since it but repeats what has already been said. Yet this is not a necessary conclusion; for coming, as it does, immediately before v. ^-, it furnishes an antecedent near at hand for the pronoun "it" in the latter, be- sides bringing the magnification of Yahweh among the nations into immediate contrast with the contrary conduct of Israel. — 12. But you are profaning it] i. e. treating the name of Yahweh, which is practically identical with Yahweh himself, as though it were not holy. — When you 5ot] i. e. think in your hearts, or say by your actions. — The table of the Lord is defiled and its food despicable] Cf. v. ^ where the same language is employed in part.f The basis for the prophet's interpretation of their attitude to- ward Yahweh's sacrifices is furnished by vv. ^- ^^ 2^-^. It seems wholly unjustifiable to interpret this as a lament on the part of the priests to the effect that their work is hea\y and their pay light,! the "food" being the portion of the sacrifice which fell to the priest. Had this been the thought, the priests would hardly have been represented as careless and indifferent regarding the quality of the sacrificial animals. It would have been a matter of personal interest to them that these should be sound and perfect. — 13. And when you say, Behold, what a weariness!] The care of the ritual and the bringing of the offerings have be- come a burden to them. They no longer do it out of gratitude and devotion, but as a matter of hard necessity from which they would escape if they could. They have allowed it to become dull routine upon their hands, — a danger to which the ministers of highly ritualistic cults are always peculiarly liable. — Afui you esteem me lightly] Lit., "You snort (or sniff) at me." HI reads "at it"; but this is a scribal correction made for the purpose of removing an expression thought to reflect dishonour upon Yah- weh {v. i.). — Says Yahweh of hosts] This is the ninth aflirma- tion of the authority of Yahweh in support of the prophet's utterance; but the frequency of the phrase is not a suflficient * Cf. A, Marti, Siev., Now.^. t Hence Marti eliminates «'' as a gloss. But this needs stronger support than the need of the "poetic" structure. X So e. g. Rosemn., Reinke. 34 MALACHI ground for rejecting it.* — And you bring the salvage and the lame and the sick] Repeated from v. *, with a change in the first word. Some would correct this word to agree with v. «; but this is un- necessary. The "salvage" is literally, "that snatched away," scil. from the jaws of wild beasts ;t hence mangled and unfit for sacrifice, or even for use as food; cf. Ex. 22^1 Lv. ly'''. — Yea, you bring it as an ojfering] The verb is resumed after an exceptionally long object has intervened; it is, therefore, an error to omit it. J — Can I accept it at your hand? says Yahweh of hosts] M omits "of hosts"; but it is the customary title in Malachi and it is read here by (& #.§ The question carries its answer with it; they are acting unreasonably. — 14. But cursed be the cheat, in whose flock there is a male, yet he vows, and then sacrifices a damaged thing to the Lord] This is a specific example of the conduct of those who despise the altar of Yahweh.** The nature of the offender's deceit is indicated by the act ascribed to him. Though having in his possession an animal that fully meets all the requirements for sacrifice, he nevertheless pays his sacrificial vows with a blem- ished and therefore less valuable animal, thus exhibiting stingi- ness and deceit toward Yahweh in one and the same act. Some interpreters would omit the phrase "yet he vows";tt but this leaves the charge weaker. There might be some excuse for such conduct on the part of the offender if his sacrifice were obligatory ; but this is a case where he has himself voluntarily promised Yahweh a sacrifice and then grudges the fulfilment of his prom- ise. Such an attitude is inexcusable. |t — For a great king am /, says Yahweh of hosts] If such conduct toward an earthly king be reprehensible and certain to arouse his anger, how much more so in the case of the king of kings! For the same line of reason- ing, cf. V. ^. For the conception of Yahweh as a king, which is exceedingly frequent in post-exilic writings in general and in the Psalms in particular, cf. i S. 121- Je. S^^ lo^*^ Is. ^^'^'^ 43^^ 44^ * Contra Marti, Siev., el al.. t So BDB., van H., et al.. t Contra Now., Marti, el al.. 5 So also Marti, Siev., Bu., Isop.. •* The connection with v. " is somewhat loose; hence Du. makes v. " a gloss. ft So Siev., Now.^. tt For a Babylonian judgment upon similar conduct, cf. the following citation from the Shurpu series of texts containing exorcisms: "Has he promised with heart and mouth but not kept it, by a (retained) gift despised the name of his god, consecrated something but held it back, presented something . . . but eaten it?" V. Jeremias, The OT. in the Light of the Ancient East, I, 226. 114-22 35 Zp. 3^^ Ps. lo'^ 24^-*'' 84' 95^. — And my name is held in awe among the nations] This is a reiteration of the thought of v."; but it forms a fitting close to the paragraph. With 2^ the thought changes again, being addressed specifi- cally to the priests. — 2\ And now, unto you is this command, O priests] The special command here referred to is not at once discoverable. There is no express " command " in the immediate context. On the other hand, the arraignment in the preceding verses charges that the accused have failed to honour Yahweh fittingly, which is their just and lawful service. Likewise, in the following verses stress is laid upon the necessity of glorifying Yahweh. Hence, the "command" is most easily explained as the behest to honour Yahweh, which lies behind the whole con- text. On account of the absence of any explicit "command" in the immediate context, other renderings have been offered, such as "admonition," "decision," "message," and "warning." But neither of these affords any appreciable advantage, since the context does not contain any one of them explicitly. — 2. // you do not hearken, and if you do not lay it to heart] Cf. Is. 57^ Dn. I*. This repetition of the idea in different terms is after the manner of poetic parallelism and serves to emphasise the importance of the utterance. — To give honour to my name, says Yahweh of hosts] This is the main function of a priest; to fail here is to fail lamentably. The preceding verses have made it clear that the kind of honour meant is a due regard for the proper forms and other requirements "regarding sacrifices and offerings.* — Then I will send the curse among you] Cf. 3^ 4^. This is a kind * For the Babylonian feeling concerning the necessity of honouring the gods, cf. the following citation from the Shurpu series of incantations, as translated by Jeremias, in The OT. in the Light oj the Ancient East, I, 228: — As though no hbation had I brought to my god, Or at mealtime my goddess had not been called upon, My face not downcast, my footfall had not become visible; (Like one) in whose mouth stayed prayer and supplication, (With whom) the day of god ceased, the festival fell out; Who was careless, who attended not to (the god's) decrees(?). Fear and reverence (for god) taught not his people; Who called not upon his god, ate of his food. Forsook his goddess, a writing (?) brought her not; He then, who was honoured, his lord forgot. The name of his mighty god pronounced disparagingly — Thus did I appear. 36 MALACHI of thought that is very common in the Old Testament. Failure to conform to the requirements of Yahweh brings down his "wrath upon the offender. Misfortune and suffering are in them- selves evidences of that wrath. For representations of disaster as due to the curse of God, cf. Gn. 3"- " 5" 8^1 Dt. 2820 30^— A fid I will turn your blessing into a curse] Lit. "I will curse your blessing," /. c. send a curse upon and blast that which you count your blessing. In Ethiopic, "blessings" often means "goods" as in 310 Is. 65^ Jo. 2" Gn. 49" f- Ps. 21^ 84« Pr. 28^0; cf. Lk. 12^. This is better than to interpret the threat as apply- ing to the priestly benedictions,* or specifically to the priestly revenues,! or in general to the priestly privileges.f For the re- verse of this action on Yahweh's part, v. Dt. 23^ Ne. 13-. — Yea, indeed, I have cursed it, because you are not laying it to heart] Cf. V. 2«. The verb might also be rendered as a prophetic perfert, "I will curse it." But whether so taken, or taken as referring to the past, the whole sentence seems superfluous. As referring to the past it interrupts the connection between the preceding sentence and v. ^, both of which look to the future. Furthermore, it blunts the edge of the threat, since it reveals the fact that in- stead of some new and awful calamity, which the preceding verses seem to announce, there will be nothing but a continua- tion of the present distress, which they have learned to endure. Not only so, but it also seems to take for granted the failure of the priests to respond to Yahweh's demands, notwithstanding his threats. In connection with this interpretation, it is possible to give the latter part of the sentence the rendering "though you are not laying it to heart." That is, the curse has already fallen, but you have failed to realise the significance of the afflictions that have befallen you. As referring to the future, it unneces- sarily repeats the substance of the preceding protasis and apodo- sis. It is, therefore, probably due to marginal annotation. § — 3. Behold, I am going to hew of the arm for you] Cf. i S. 2^^. IH reads, "rebuke the seed for you." But this would be primarily a punishment upon the farmers, and only through them would * So Ew., Ke., Schegg, Knabenbauer, Or.. t Hi.. } Now., van H.. § So Marti, Now.", Siev., Kent. ,3-4 37 the priests suffer.* The reference to "faces" immediately fol- lowing makes the reading "arm" more probable. Besides this, it has the support of the versions. The figure is a bold one and is used to express forcefully the idea that the priestly arm here- tofore stretched out in blessing upon the people will lose its power and fail to bring the desired results. t — And I will strew dung upon your faces] Thus rendering the priests unclean and wholly unfit for the discharge of the priestly function ; cf. Ez. 4^^"'*. —The dung of your feasts] This is probably an interpreter's gloss.J The festal sacrifices in honour of Yahweh will be made by him the means of discrediting and disgracing the faithless priesthood. — And I will carry you away from beside me] M. reads, "And he will carry you away unto it."§ But the change of person is too abrupt and the "it" is too indefinite. Hence the reading of ^, with the first person, must be considered as the original. As corrected, the text threatens the priests with removal from the presence of Yahweh, i. e. exile from the holy city and the tem- ple with which their whole life is bound up. — 4. And you will know that I sent forth this law unto you] Their knowledge will come through their realisation that the fact of their exile means that Yahweh's anger has been aroused against them on account of their laxness and indifference regarding the cultus for which they are held responsible. The "law" referred to is evidently the same as in v. ^ — Seeing that my co,venant was with Levi, says Yahweh of hosts] This indicates the reason for Yahweh's having laid this responsibility upon the priesthood. The language used also permits a translation of the clause as expressive of purpose, viz. "in order that my covenant might be with Levi."** But it is difficult to discover any meaning for such a purpose-clause in this context. The common method of explanation on this basis is to say that the prophet refers to the decree of punish- ment which has gone forth from Yahweh and is to take the place * Yet Or. interprets "seed" of posterity; the priests are thus threatened with childlessness. t So Ew., Reinke, et al.. Others interpret "arm" of the shoulder of the sacrificial victim, which portion belonged to the priest; so Reuss, Isop., Nestle {ZAW. XXIX, 1S4/-)- t So We., Now., Wkl., Marti, Siev.. § Cf. Am. 4', from which Marti would derive this as a gloss (so Siev.. Now.''. Kenti- Now. et al. abandon the attempt to interpret this phrase. •* So e. g. ©, ,Ter., Hi., Mau., van H.. 38 MALACHI of the old covenant.* But a decree is not a covenant, nor is there any reason to suppose, in the nature of the language used, that V. * refers to a different time from that alluded to in v. *, which is evidently not in the future, but in the past. The char- acter of the covenant with Levi to which reference is made is indicated in v. ^ "Levi" is here best accounted for as represent- ative of the priestly class, rather than as the name of the son of Jacob. Thus it appears that the writer thinks of the priests as "sons of Levi" (cf. 3^) in accordance with the standard of Deuteronomy, rather than as "sons of Zadok" (Ez. 44*^), or as "sons of Aaron," the designation of P (Lv. 8, 21O. This points to the origin of Malachi as lying in the period before the adop- tion of the Priestly Code. — 5 . My covenant was with him] A re- affirmation for the sake of emphasis. As usually rendered, these words are connected directly with the two following in some way; e. g. "my covenant was with him (regarding) life and peace," or "my covenant was with him (a covenant of) life and peace." But the syntax of such renderings is very difficult and the accen- tuation of M is against them. — Life and welfare — / gave them to him] Yahweh fulfilled his side of the covenant. The word "welfare" represents a complex of ideas, viz. peace, quiet, pro- tection, and health. Yahweh's gift included life and all that makes life worth living. The thought and phraseology of this verse thus far at once recall Nu. 2512- 13 (=P), where the cove- nant of Yahweh is said to have been established with Phinehaz, the son of Aaron. But that is a more specialised and advanced form of the tradition than this which extends the blessings of the covenant in question to the whole family of Levi. — Fear, and he feared me] "Fear" is co-ordinate with "life and welfare," all three being in reality objects of "gave." "Fear" here is evi- dently not terror, but rather reverence and awe such as kept the priesthood in faithful obedience to the will of God as expressed in the ritual and the Torah. — And before my name he was over- whelmed with awe] The phrase "my name" is practically equiva- lent to "me"; cf. i^- "• " 2^. The contrast between the priest- hood that was and that which now is is being brought out sharply • So e. «. Luther, Cal., Umbreit, Ke., Koh., Pres.. ,5-7 39 by the prophet. It is doubtful whether he is referring to any especial period of the past. It is probably but another case of indiscriminate glorification of the past as compared with the pres- ent. The prophet recalls with melancholy regret " the good old times." — 6. True instruction was in his mouth and perversity was not found upon his lips] i. e. he was proof against bribery and corruption ; cf. Dt. 33* ". He gave the oracle of Yahweh as he received it, giving justice to the oppressed and meting out pen- alties to the oppressor. But now the judgments of the priestly courts are bought and sold; cf. Mi. 3". The rendering "law of truth" fails to represent aright the Hebrew idiom {v. i.). The word "instruction" here refers neither to the Mosaic law nor to any such abstract and indefinite thing as the principle of truth. It is rather the specific decision of the priest, given in cases that were appealed through him to Yahweh, the final ar- biter; cf. Dt. 17^ "• 19^^ — In peace and uprightness, he walked with me] To "walk with God" is to worship God. It implies living in full accord with the divine will and denotes a more inti- mate fellowship with God than that expressed by the more common phrase "walk after"; cf. Dt. 8" 13^ Je. 7^ 2 K. 23^ Ho. ii^o. It is used of Enoch (Gn. 52^- 2") and Noah (Gn. 6^), and of no others. The term "peace" indicates the tranquillity and harmony existing between God and his obedient and loyal priesthood. The " uprightness " meant is the reverse of the " per- versity" just mentioned; it. is an unswerving moral integrity. — And many did he turn from iniquity] Cf. Dn. 12^, where great reward is promised those who "turn many to righteousness." In this statement, the priesthood is conceived of as much more than a body of men set for the exact performance of the ritual, or as men through whom the will of God is made known as mes- sages are transmitted through a telephone. It is rather an agency endowed with great possibilities as a positive force for instruction and reproof in righteousness. — 7. For the lips of a priest shoidd treasure knowledge] Having stated the nature of the priestly service once rendered by the former priesthood, the writer before taking up directly the contrast afforded by the priesthood of his own times stops for a moment to say that what 40 MALACHI had once been done was but the proper function of a priest. There was nothing abnormal or extraordinary in the performance; the priesthood had but done its duty. "Knowledge " is nowhere else mentioned in Malachi. Evidently it connotes something more than mere learning, or the possession of a mass of facts, however great. It is here practically identical with that wisdom the beginning of which is the "fear of the Lord." It is used in a similar sense in Ho. 41- ^ 6^ On the basis of the occurrence of this word, G. A. Smith entitles the whole section "the priest- hood of knowledge," and writes forceful words concerning the necessity of an intellectual type of ministers. True as all this is, it is hardly the thought of this prophet. Intellectualism and search for truth in the abstract were outside the pale of his interest. His concern was wholly within the field of practical religion and morality. — And instruction should they seek at his mouth] The word "instruction" includes the oracle of Yahweh as in V. ^, and also the teaching as to the correct discharge of ritualistic obligations. — For the messenger of Yahweh of hosts is he] As the spokesman of Yahweh, people have a right to expect truth and justice from the priest. Unfaithfulness to such a re- sponsibility is a most heinous offence. This is the only case in which this title is applied to the priest. In earlier writings it designates the angel sent by Yahweh to communicate his will to men; e. g. Gn. 16^ "• Nu. 22^2 «• Ju. 5^' 13" *•. Apparently, the claim is that Yahweh who once spoke to his people through a specially appointed angel now has chosen the priesthood to perform that function. This is a conception of the importance and dignity of the priesthood that is unsurpassed, if it be even equalled, elsewhere in the Old Testament. It renders the work of the prophet superfluous. The priestly Torah leaves no room or need even for angelic teachers. Cf. Hg. i", where the title "angel of Yahweh" is applied to a prophet, viz. Haggai himself. The writer now proceeds to show how far the priesthood has fallen from this high ideal. — 8. But you have turned aside from the way] i. e. the way of Yahweh; cf. Ex. 32* Dt. 9'^ 's ii^s 3129 Ju. 2*' I S. I22'"-. — You have caused many to stumble on account of the instruction] The priests have perverted the oracle of Yahweh ,8-9 41 and so caused offence to those who have been thus wronged. The priestly Torah which should guide men in the way of Yahweh has been so used as to turn them away from Yahweh. If the priest of God be unfaithful, it is inevitable that the common people lose faith not only in the priest, but also in his God. — You have violated the covenant of Levi, says Yahweh of hosts] Cf. w. *■ *. The priests have failed to fulfil their part of the covenant ; they have broken their promise; they have been false to their vows. — 9. And so I have made you despised and low before all the people] This is Yahweh's punishment of the priesthood for its faithlessness. The versions read "peoples"; but this involves making the prophet address the nation and refer to the fallen fortunes of Judah. The entire context requires that the address be to the priesthood and the reference to the loss of prestige with the people which it has already suffered. — Inasmuch as you are not keeping my ways, hut are showing partiality through the oracle] Yahweh is a righteous God, dispensing justice without fear or favour; cf. 2 Ch. ig^ The priests, in that they allow their decisions to be influenced by considerations of place and power, or even by gifts and bribes, are not walking in Yahweh's ways; cf. Ho. 14^ Ps. 145^^. Besides this, the connivance of the priests with the kind of deceit exposed in i^- " is doubtless included in the charge here. The integrity of i«-2' has been seriously called in question at only one point. Boh., followed by Marti, Siev. and Now.*^, would omit 2' as an interpolation. The grounds alleged in support of this contention are (i) that V. ' dulls the sharp contrast between v. ' and v. * by separating them; (2) that it is superfluous after v. s; (3) that Yahweh is here spoken of, whereas in vv. «•* he is himself the speaker; and (4) that the conception of the '"> InSd is different here from that represented else- where in the book, e. g. 3*. But v. ' is in close connection with the thought of V. « and the contrast between v. ' and v. * suffers relatively little by comparison with that between v. ^ and v. '. Moreover, there is a direct connection between v. ' and v. ', the latter pointing out that the priests do just the opposite of that which has been stated as their duty in the former. It is no uncommon thing for a prophet to inter- mingle statements in the third person with those in the first person, when he is speaking in the name of Yahweh; v. i'- " 3'- *■ **. It is quite true that the representation of the priesthood as itself the '"> InSd is 42 MALACHI not found elsewhere in Mai.; but neither is it found anywhere else in the OT.. It is a conception of the priesthood which is, to say the least, as easily explicable upon the lips of the author of Mai. as it would be coming from any other source. His high regard for the priesthood as an invaluable institution is sufficiently well attested by the indignation that stirs him as he contemplates the indifference and disloyalty of the priesthood of his own day. Hence, the case against 2' seems too weak to carry conviction. 1\ laD^] Impf. expressing customary action; not a jussive =" should honour" {contra Ko., ei al.). — 3n] Rd. v3n, with 0 A (il^°- Eth.; so Bu., Hal., Now.'^.— -i3>'i] Add x-\'\ with (&^ '■ • HP. 22, 36, 51, 62, 68, 86 mg., QI, Eth., Arm.; so Jer., Oort, Smend, We., Now., Marti, Siev., Bu., Dr., Or., van H., Hal., Du.^'°-. — rnN] Cf. foil. a'J^s; pi. of majesty; cf. Ges. ^^'"i; cf. also Gn. 39' 42" Dt, 10'^ 2 S. n« Is. 19* Ho. 12" Ps. 136'. — •'Jn] Pausal form; Ges. ^^ '='<'. — 22^] (S v/ieis, in apposition with foil, "priests." — amDNi] Does not continue '•ci:' "rn, in the sense "you who despise my name and say"; but introduces the priests' question, "yet ye say," etc.. — 7. D^it^jc] Cf. Ges. ^^"^% on omission of subject. Equivalent to an explanatory clause with "^'i^i* = "in that ye," etc.. — Snjc] Snj = Sj,u in the later writings, e. g. Is. 59' Ezr. 2". — onncNi] (gn mg. xaj etvare, originally under obelus. — iuVnj] Rd. imj'7!« 2'-"), Nehemiah (Ne. 5"'" 12-^), and Bagoas (Sachau's Elephantine Papyri, I, i; cf. I, 29). That Nehemiah had had several predecessors is made certain by Ne. 5'* ' . He himself seems to have held a somewhat exceptional position, being designated as "governor in Judah" and having been appointed for a definite period (Ne. 2'). It would seem that at his time Judah was normally under the jurisdiction of the gov- ernor of Samaria, which so far as Judah was concerned was set aside in favour of Nehemiah while the latter was in Jerusalem. In the time of Bagoas (411-407 B.C.), Judah and Samaria were small districts, each under its own 'd, who was probably under the jurisdiction of the ruler of the great trans-Euphrates province {cf. Ezr. 5' 8«Ne. 2'- ' 3'). — l^n^n] Rd. insn^n, with (6^ "■ » AO, HP. 86, 233, A, (£.^°-, and H; so We., Now., Marti, Dr., Bu., Siev., van H., Isop., Du7'°: (S^ om. sf..— 9. "^n] (g ToO OeoO v/iQv. — ujhm] (^'^ /cot deT^dijTe avToG\ to which (^'^'^•^^ adds tva eXe^trrj vfids (so also HP. 22, 36, 51, .— sSi] H om. n^.— n-.xr] U incendat. (&^'^^, HP. 62, 86, 147, ava^perai; but (S"^'''- g>" A QI^°-, Arm., HP. 22, 26, 36, 40, 42, 49, 51, 68, 95, 106, 130, 185, 228, 233, 238, 310, 311, dydi/'aTe.— nisax] 1C om.; so Now."^, Siev.. — 11. '^nj] (g 5€56^a(rTai.— Dips] GASm. in- terprets as = "sanctuary"; cf. Zp. 2" and Ar. makdm. But the con- text here seems to militate somewhat against so restricted a sense. — Tjpc] H sacrificaiur . (& dv/xiafia. Lagrange (iiB. '06, p. 80), -10,7?; so Siev.(?), van H., Hal., Bu.(?). Now. "lop?. Du^'°- reads this and the foil, word as u'jp n-ibp. It is better taken as a prtc. Hophal = "smoke is made to arise," than as a dw. noun; cf. Ges. ^^ '=' »>. — rjc] Om. as a gloss on the rare form -\opc; so We., Now., Marti. (S irpocraytTai. (&^ irpoa-aydyeTf. ^ U, with ir mss. of Kenn., C'j::i; so DHM., Isop.. — min-j nmci] Eth. adds "to my holy name." A om.; so DHM.. We. om. 1 with &, 13 mss. of Kenn. and 2 of de R.; so Now., Isop.. — niN3x] C om., but adds et sacrijlcium acceptiim non habebo ex ntajiibus vestris. — 12. •'J-i.n] Marti, r\)7\\ — Snjc] Torrey questions the right of 'c to a place in this verse and suspects considerable confusion between vv. ' and •=. Du.^'°- vnj?. — Nin] Siev. om.. — nraj n'ji] Rd. nnj>, omitting ^2>i as dittog., with & and apparently ul; so WRS. (o^"-"^' ""), We., GASm., Now., Marti, Oort, Siev., Isop., Kent. (& Kal to. e-iriTidineva i^ovbivuvTCLi if^^"-'- = evuiTai). B et quod super ponitur conlemptibile est. Hal. ntaj idjv Bu. nraj nnaici. Du.''™- ^laj 3^:1. 3'j occurs only here and in Is. 57", where Kt. reads 2^: and the text is by no means certain. The meaning required there is " fruit" {scil. of the Hps) and that is in keeping with the meaning of the vb. au, "to grow." But any such meaning is inappropriate here, since the gifts laid upon the table of '' can hardly be spoken of as the fruit or product of that table. Hence the probability of the origin of the word here through error. — i'^;n] H cutn igne qui illud devoral, a free rendering of the form pointed as a prtc, viz. iSas. Van H. om. as a gloss on u^j. — 13. omaNi] Pf. with 44 MALACHI waw consecutive continuing the inf. cstr. D3^cn3. — ■iN'^ns] = 'n-nr; cf. '-\2rV, I Ch. IS"; njc, Ex. 4*; D^Sc, Is. 3"; '1=';', 2 Ch. 30'; jjn^; and onn, Ez. 8*. C/. Ges. ^^ '" "=• " ". (8 ^f KUKoiradlas i(TTLv= nN?nr; so & 13 (F. We. objects to '"^nn on the ground that njn (Q» & = njn) cannot pre- cede n^, which must hold first place in the sentence; but cf. 3iJ no ."lin, Ps. 133'. Hal. Hvs'i'ri Nin; cf. Ez. 24*- "• ». — inis onnoni] Rd. ''H'^K 'm, with & QI^°- A, Arm., Eth.; so also Jer., Ra., Rosenm., Gr., Ginsburg, Now., Marti, Siev., Isop.. It is onpiD jipn. <& kclI i^ecpiff-qffa ai/rd = oniN 'nnoni. ^^ i^e(pvcn^(TaT€. Bu. 'n 03.73n:. The Hiph. of ns: oc- curs only here and in Jb. 31". In the Qal, it means "to blow into" (or "upon"). Here it evidently denotes some act expressive of con- tempt and scorn, and in Jb. 31" something equivalent to "oppress" or "crush," with li'DJ as object. It is hardly possible to interpret the Hiph. here and the Qal in Hg. i' in precisely the same way. Nor is any- thing gained by Now.'s proposal to connect it with ■/ ni2, in which case the form would be somewhat irregular. — '^lu] Rd. with van H. and Isop., 'jn tn. These three additional letters are called for by the fact that the two co-ordinate words have them. Their disap- pearance was caused by their close similarity to the last letters of the preceding word. We., on the basis of v. *, corrects to iij-'n -pn; so also Now., Marti, Siev., Hal., Bu., Kent. Chajes, in Ciornale d. Socida Asiatica Ital., XIX, 178, suggests Sru = " the young of birds" (Dt. 32")- Gr. and Du.'''^"-, Snjs. The usual word for a thing torn by beasts is HDTip (Ex. 22'" Lv. i7'0- '•> hS'S therefore been interpreted by some (e. g. Rosenm.) of things stolen from their rightful owner. But the two words co-ordinate with it militate against any such sense here, as does also the corresponding series in v. ^. Van H. cites in support of the meaning here adopted the analogy of the Ar. ga::ila = "was injured" and 'agzal = iujiired (one), used in speaking of an animal. But these terms are applied specifically to a camel whose withers have been galled by the saddle; hence they furnish little support for the meaning "torn by wild beasts" or "snatched away from wild beasts." The context is the strongest argument in its behalf. — nnj::n ps DPNani] Rd. n.iN 'm ■nnn, with We.; so DHM., Bu., Isop., van H., Hal.. Siev. and Kent om. the whole phrase. Now. om. n n.s Dn^ani, as due to dittog.; while Marti explains it as a misplaced marginal correction of the first Drxani, intended to show that n pn should be inserted after it. — 14. '?3ij] tin] Omitted as later addition by Marti, Now.i^, Siev..— s-iu] CS iTrtcpavh. B horrihile.—2\ ^ci'^ 11:13 nnS] Siev. tr. to follow a'':n3n in v. >; but it is hardly suitable as a definition of nixcn, and fits much better where it is in il.— 33\ni3-i3] Rd. 33.7513, with " puts this addition before 'ui OJ1 and obelises Kai ovk Icttoi ev v/mv. (^^ obelises the entire addition and notes in the margin its absence from the Heb.. It seems to be a clear case of verbose expansion in (g.— 3. n>'j] Rd. pj, with We.; so Now., Oort, Marti, Dr., Bu., Siev., van H., Du.^"-, Kent. Cf. n); so Isop.. np is usually followed by ?; but lacks it here and in Ps. 9= 68" ii9=>. The meaning it yields is not satisfactory in this context; v. s.. Nor is any material advantage gained by changing to ;ij.— dd"'] Dat. incommodL—y-^ir^] Rd. p.^n, with (S rbv (S/xo", "B brachiiim, and Aq.; so Houb., Mich., Eichhorn, New., Ew., Schegg, Reinke, Koh., Ke., We., Now., Oort, Marti, Dr., Bu., Siev., van H., Isop., Du.?"-, Kent, et al.. Cf. i S. 2", for the same figure. Hi. nin. Wkl. i;7iyn.— a-io] H om.. « ^Pvffrpov = "stomach." Aq., S 9 Koirpov. Wkl. J.nD = "long hair"; cf. Lv. 10'= 21"'. B*:^? occurs also in Ex. 29" Lv. 4" 8" 16" Nu. 19^ In these passages^ it is always listed as a part of the sacrificial animal which must be burned outside of the camp, along with the "skin and flesh," or "skin, flesh and blood," or "skin, flesh, thigh-bones, and inwards." It seems to have been the faecal matter in the intestines, or possibly the intestines themselves. Isop., adopting the latter meaning, inter- prets the passage as a threat to withdraw the shoulder, which has hitherto been the priest's due, and to give in exchange that portion of the animal which, being unclean, might not be eaten and was, therefore, of no value. Cf. Nestle {ZAW. XXIX, 154 /•), who calls attention to the fact that nji^, "stomach," in Dt. 18^ is rendered by (5 & with exactly the same words as are used for li'iD here, and so inter- prets this as a threat to deprive the priests of the sacrificial shoulder and stomach which were assigned to them by the Deuteronomic law (183). But the language employed does not convey any suggestion of an exchange, nor is the idea of withdrawal very clear in the expression "spread upon your faces." Then, too, if the shoulder and stomach 46 MALACHI were withdrawn, why should the "two cheeks" (Dt. i8') not have gone with them? — 'd dt:2 *?>] (6^ om.; v. s.. — ao^jn] & prefixes ^•;_. Bu. a^yT a^'nat. — r^s bdpm nu-ji] Rd. I'^i;? DD\nNt':i; cf. & / u-/// /ajfee yozt away with it. (6 xal Xrin^pofiai vnds ds t6 oLvrb. B el assumet vos secum. The error of M is due to wrong distribution of letters, dittog., haplography, and confusion between n and y which is common. For the usage of Sy^ here involved, cj. Je. 2532*" Ho. 9'. Bu. '•fiND dd^pnb'ji, coming through 'Ssr. Now. vSn 03'rNi:'ji(?); so Oort. Du.^™- DS'^Ny'^i. Hal. proposes nSs, "curse" for v'^n. — 4. inn*?;;'] (^^ "«'<*• add Kvpios, in apposition with the subject. — nvn''] Bu. m^np; and Du.^™- 'n Sy; but such changes seem superfluous, since S = "in view of the fact that" occurs in Ex. 12" Nu. 11" i S. 12' 14". Siev. m^nS; so Now."^ {cf. Hb. 3-). — 5. ipn] S om. sf.. — aiVc'ni o"nn] <& t^s fw^s ical Tijs iipi^vrji; so B JT. The two nouns are most easily handled as prefixed objects, which are taken up again in the foil. sf. o__. — aj~Ni] (SB om. sf.; so also mss. 129 (Kenn.) and 226 (de R.). Hence, Ew. and Reinke, ■"'Jnf'i. — ^<^1c] The third object of 'hni. It might possibly be construed as taking the place of an inf. absolute, with intensive force. (8 iv JS-i^Mj so Now.i^, Du.p^"-; but the context requires that this verb state a fact of history, rather than a purpose or a hope. Furthermore, Bu.'s change here involves a change also in the following verb. — nnj] 05 ffreW^crdai, with .vin as ob- ject. £ proficisci. B pavebal; so & ®. Bu. and Now.'^ nn;'., or nnv.. 'i is a form in Niph. pf. from nnn and must not be confused with the root nnj. — 6. pcn] A genitive after a cstr., with the force of an adjective; Ges. ^^'2' p. — nSij?] Usually treated as fcm.; but here and in Ez. 28'^, if text be correct, taken as masc. Albrecht (ZAW. XVT, 117) proposes to obviate the difficulty by reading ]''];^], since <6 uses aSiKia for both nSiy and ]iy here. But there are too many cases of similar irregularity for suspicion of the text to be justifiable here; cf. Ko. Il2^i3« "" '. — 8. anns"] Now."^ suggests 'r\ or that some word has been omitted from before 'a*. But this is a gratuitous suggestion, since the asyndetic structure is established by the foregoing an'^rjn. — 9. 'I'sS ayn] ^ B Ul pi.; so 12 mss. of Kenn. and 14 of de R.. S here denotes the agent, after the pass, ava:, a construction to which the adjective 'a-' adjusts itself easily. — a'jc] Torrey 'Jb; so Marti, Dr.(?), Siev., Now.*^, Kent. This yields the sense, "nor respecting me" (scil. Yahwch). But a'jD '3 is always used of the act or attitude of one in authority toward an inferior or suppliant. It is never = "bestow honour upon" (a superior) as this reading would require. 47 § 4- YAHWEH'S PROTEST AGAINST DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE WITH IDOLATROUS WOMEN {2'°-''). This has been rightly called the most difficult section of the Book of Malachi. Its difficulties do not, however, obscure the general course of the thought. The prophet brings to light another obstacle in the way of the full manifestation of Yahweh's love for Judah. He reminds the people of their common origin, and charges them with disloyalty to one another and to Yahweh in the fact that they have divorced their faithful Jewish wives and contracted new marriages with foreign women. In view of this sin, they need not wonder that Yahweh refuses to hear their prayers. He desires the propagation of a pure and godly race. Therefore his people must be loyal to their marriage relation- ships; for divorce is a deadly e\al. 10. Have we not all one father ?] The address now is to the people, rather than the priests. They are reminded of their common fellowship, as members of the same spiritual family. "Father" here refers to Yahweh (cf. 1^), and the question is parallel to the following one in meaning as well as in form. Some interpreters have seen here an allusion to the human progenitors of the Hebrews, viz. Abraham,* or Jacob,t or even Adam. J But human parentage would scarcely be assigned the place of honour, coming first in the sentence, with Yahweh taking second place. — Has not one God created us ?] This, of course, is a propo- sition that would apply equally well to all mankind in the mind of this writer and the more thoughtful of his contemporaries. But in this and the preceding question, he is evidently thinking of the spiritual unity that should prevail in his nation, because of the especially close relationship between them and the great God of the world. He is laying a basis for his protest against the introduction of schismatic elements into the community's life. — Why do we deceive each his brother] Certain conduct is characterised here as treachery among brethren and wholly in- * So e. g. Jer., Sanctius, Theiner, Knabenbauer, Hal.. t So e. g. AE., Ki., Grotius, Pococke. % So Abar., el al.. 48 MALACHI consistent with the fact of their common family unity. — In pro- faning the covenant of our fathers?] It is not likely that any spe- cific covenant is intended. It is rather figuratively used, denot- ing the general obligation of loyalty one to another that has been inherited from the past. For a similar use of the word "cove- nant," V. Am. i'.* A covenant was regularly confirmed by an oath and thus given religious sanction; hence its violation is properly characterised as profanation; cf. Ps. 55^1 Sg^''^- ^^ There is no reason for segregating this verse from vv. "• ^^ on the ground that it is an introduction to a discussion of the evils of divorce, while the following verses are concerned with mixed marriages. f The practice of mixed marriage was fraught with such serious consequences for the religious and social unity of the community that those of the stricter sort felt perfectly justified in branding those who contracted such unions as disloyal to their brethren. This accounts too for the use of the term "brother"; whereas, if V. ^" had only divorce in view, we should have expected some word designating the wronged women. — 11. Judah has played traitor and abomination has been wrought in Jerusalem] M, reads "in Israel and in Jerusalem." But this is due to expansion by a later editorj: Israel, as distinguished from Judah, is not else- where in Malachi the occasion of protest or promise and lies outside of the circle of interest; while, if it be identical with Judah here, it has been rendered unnecessary by the immediately preceding mention of Judah. The conduct of individuals, or of a group, within Judah has involved the whole community in re- proach. As the ensuing sentence shows, the prophet here turns to the aspect of the people's sin which directly concerns Yahweh himself. The term "abomination" is prevailingly used of things or acts that are abhorrent to Yahweh, c. g. idolatry, unclean- ness, irregularities of ritual, and violations of ethical law. — For Judah has profaned the sanctuary of Yahweh which he loved] The prophet's attitude toward the temple is of a piece with his de- nunciation of the criminal carelessness of the priests in i " "•. The • For the wide range ol meaning acquired by n>i2, (f- art. "Covenant," by N. Schmidt, in EB.. t Contra GASm., et at.. t So Pres., We., Now., Marti, Bu., Dr., Isop., Du.'""' . 2" 49 temple and all the rites connected therewith were dear to him. This is the only place where Yahweh is explicitly said to love the temple; but it is implied in his love for Mt. Zion (Ps. 78^* 87^) and in the whole attitude of Judaism toward the ritual and the temple. The exact nature of the act of profanation here con- demned is indicated in the succeeding sentence. The view that the sin of the people brings profanation upon the sanctuary is one that is characteristic of Ezekiel and of the Holiness Code (Lv. 17-26), The presence of sinful people within the sacred precincts contaminates the whole place. Some would interpret the "holiness of Yahweh" here as indicative not of the sanctuary, but of Israel itself.* But then we should have expected "holy to Yahweh," as always elsewhere {e. g. Lv. 21^) when applied to Israel. Furthermore, "profaned" is always applied to things that were "holy" prior to the profanation, and Israel was hardly so classified by our prophet. The holiness of Israel is always something for which she is destined, not something she has ever actually attained or possessed. — He has married the daughter of a strange god] The use of the singular number seems to render it difficult to understand this as referring primarily to literal mar- riages between the men of Judah and idolatrous women, though such marriages undoubtedly took place; cf. Ezr. (f^- iqi^ f- Ne. 10^1 152^ ^■. It is more natural to interpret the statement as meaning that an alliance has practically been made between Judah and some people that does not worship Yahweh through the common celebration of such marriages. The alliance of Yah- weh's nation with foreign nations was always opposed by the prophets, on the ground that it involved disloyalty to and lack of trust in Yahweh, as well as because of its tendency to intro- duce idolatry into Judah; cj. Ho. 7" 8« ^- Is. iS^ ^- 20. The con- test of Yahwism with idolatry was by no means brought to an end by the exile. It was a constant menace to Yahwism even up to the time of the Maccabaean revolt. This is shown by the repeated attacks made upon it by exilic and post-exilic prophets (Is. 653 "■ " Je. 441^ ^- Zc. 132 ff ) and by the fact that the Jew- ish colony in Southern Egypt shared its offerings, as late as 420 * So e. g. Dr., Dr., et al.. 5© MALACHI B.C. or thereabouts, among three deities, viz. Yahu, Ism-Bethel, and Anath-Bethel.* The admission of idolatrous women into the community and the recognition of foreign gods, which was involved in these mLxed marriages, are the facts that constitute the basis of the charge that Judah has defiled the temple of Yah- weh. — 12. May Yahweh cut off for the man who does this awaker and answerer from the tents of Jacob] The individualistic form of this malediction shows that the sin of Judah referred to in v. " was one arising out of the acts of various individuals and that the only way to bring it to an end is by dealing with the indi- viduals involved. Unfortunately the text and meaning of the words rendered "awaker and answerer" are obscure. In gen- eral, it seems as though they must include or characterise the whole of the transgressor's family. The destruction of the sinner and all his kin is apparently asked for. The use of the word "tents" suggests the possibility that the terms "awaker and answerer" may have had some connection with camp-life. Or they may refer to the arousing of the family in the morning. An interesting parallel from the Arabic is afforded by the phrase, "there is not in the city a caller, nor is there a responder," mean- ing that none have been left alive.f This general meaning has been marvellously handled by some interpreters; e. g. man is here indicated as distinguished from animals, which wake in- deed, but do not answer; | or, with the following clause included, the prophet refers to the child so young that it only awakens, the child slightly older who awakes and answers, and the adults who worship, i. e. the whole of the man's family.§ But the in- fant of the first few weeks would hardly be called an "awaker." The correct element in this latter interpretation is the feeling that the language must be limited in its scope to the family of the offender. Other meanings proposed, without change of text, have been "teacher and scholar";** "son and grandson ";tt "master and servant"; It "stranger and kinsman." §§ Efforts at • V. Papyrus i8, col. VII, lines 4-6, published in Sachau's Aramdische Papyrus und Oslraka t Cited by Ges. (Thesaurus, p. 1004); and also Woolf. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen- landischen Geselhchaft, for 1900, p. 11. CJ. also Torrey, JBL. XXIV (1905), 176-178. X Umbreit. ^^ Koh.. " B. Jer., Hi.. tt & OJ, Ew.. XX Gal.. {§ Yahuda, in Zeitschri/l fiir Assyriologie, XVI, 264. ) 12.13 51 emendation have been made, to wit, "root and branch";* "lad and lass";t "witness and respondent," J to which Marti rightly objects that in such case we should have expected, not "tents of Jacob," but "gates of his city," or some tribunal of justice. Moreover, not every one was engaged in lawsuits; hence the expression is not sufficiently comprehensive. Still others abandon the two words as unintelligible. § — And one bringing an ojjcring to Yahweh of hosts] This is a comprehensive summary, since any individual of adult age, man or woman, could bring an offering to Yahweh and was under obligation so to do. This means, therefore, practically the extermination of the entire family of the guilty man. — 13. And this again ye do — ye cover the altar of Yahweh with tears] A strong figure ex- pressive of the intensity of zeal with which they seek Yahweh's favour. Cf. i K. iS^^-^*. "Again" is logical rather than chrono- logical, though some would make it mean "the second time" (viz. Ne. 132^"), the first time being that related in Ezr. 9 and 10.** — With weeping and groaning] Probably an expansion of the original by some reader. ff It adds nothing essential and is awkwardly placed in the sentence. — Because there is no more any turning unto the offering or any receiving of favour at your hands] This is the cause for the weeping of the people. Yahweh refuses to recognise their gifts and prayers because of their sins; and so they redouble their efforts to propitiate him, but do not for- sake their sins. This interpretation seems more natural than that which refers the weeping to the divorced wives who come to Yahweh's altar mth their grief and constitute an effectual obstacle to the bestowal of Yahweh's favour.JI As a matter of fact, women were not allowed to approach the altar; yet the covering of the altar with tears is figurative in any case and the legitimacy of the figure does not depend upon the proximity of the women to the altar (cf. Hb. 2^''). The real cause of Yahweh's displeasure, however, is not the weeping of the women, but the materialism, sensuousness and cruelty of their husbands who * Torrey (but abandoned by him in JBL. XXIV), Marti. fBachmann. t We., el al.. § Wkl., et at.. •* So e. g. Hesselberg, Mau., Hd.. tt So Marti, Siev., Now.^. XX Contra Rosenm., Hi., Mau., Hd., Schegg, Reinke, Koh., Ke., Hal., et al.. 52 MALACm make them weep. The view that the prophet is denouncing the women's custom of weeping for Tammuz or Adonis* is a curi- osity of interpretation. — 14. And you say, Wherefore ?] A re- currence to the question and answer method of i^- ^- ''. The question calls for an explanation of Yahweh's refusal to look upon the questioners with favour. — Because Yahweh witnesses be- tween thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast acted treacherously] The only natural interpretation of this is that the men of Judah in large numbers have in mature life divorced (r/. 2^^) the wives whom they had married in the heyday of their youth. The occasion of these divorces, as appears from 2", was the desire to marry foreign women. It is true that the possession of a wife was no obstacle in the way of the contraction of a sec- ond marriage. Polygamy was the law of the land even down to the end of the Jewish state. The Talmud distinctly recognises it, in its prohibition of a larger number of wives than four to the ordinary Jewish citizen and eighteen for the king himself.f But in the post-exilic age it is quite clear that monogamy was looked upon as the ideal state of marriage (Gn. 2^^°- Pr. ^^^°- 3110 «• BS. 9^ 26^-^) and was the actual condition in most families. Fur- thermore, the dismissal of the first wife may well have been a prerequisite to the new marriage laid down by the relatives of the coveted bride, since the marriage is most easily accounted for as a means of securing influence with and favour from power- ful foreigners. In a polygamous family, the first wives would naturally hold the place of honour and power. Torrey would make the term "wife of thy youth" designate the Yahweh re- ligion, which was being abandoned by the Jews in favour of the worship of other gods.J But this would be the only case of such a figurative use of the word "wife" and it is without any true analogy. Hosea's designation of the relation between Yahweh and Israel as that of husband and wife was but the special appli- cation to a particular case of a terminology that was common in Semitic religion, where the conception of a deity as husband constantly recurs. In any case, the designation of a god as the nation's husband and that of a religion as the nation's wife are • So Wkl.. t Tract Sanhcdrin, ch. II, § 21. J So also VVkl.. 2^' 53 two totally different things; and the latter figure is certainly a somewhat unnatural one. The ordinary view has been objected to on the ground that "daughter of a strange god" would mean a goddess* and not an idolatrous woman. But the point is not well taken. By the same reasoning, "sons of Yahweh" (Dt, 14^ Ho. i*° Is. i^) would be gods, though the term is indisputably applied to the Israelites. In accordance with an idiomatic usage of "son" and "daughter," illustrated by the phrases "son of strength," i. e. a strong man, and "daughter of Belial," i. e. a wicked woman, the phrase " daughter of a strange god " is equiva- lent to "an idolatrous woman." In view of such passages as Nu. 21^9 Dt. 3219 and Je. 2", there can be no reasonable doubt but that this is the sense. The first marriage of a Hebrew was ordinarily contracted at a very early age. The Talmud declares the boy accursed who is not married by the time he is twenty years of age.f In Palestine, Russia and Poland at the present time, the boys frequently marry at the age of thirteen or four- teen and the girls even younger; cj. Is. 54^ Every contract of whatever sort was concluded "before God" as a witness; i. e. God was called upon to wreak vengeance upon either of the par- ties that should break the contract; cf. Gn. 31*''-. Hence, the wrath of God must inevitably rest upon these men faithless to their marital contracts. — Though she is thy comrade and the wife of thy covenant] The word rendered "comrade" is, literally, "one bound to thee." No English noun exactly reproduces its significance. In the masculine form, it is applied to Yahweh in Je. 3'*, as "the comrade of my youth"; cf. Pr. 2^\ The "wife of thy covenant" is equivalent to "the wife to whom thou hast pledged loyalty and support." For "covenant" in the sense of "pact" or "agreement," cf. 2 K. 11^ Ho. 10^ Jb. 31^ It seems unnecessary to read into "covenant" so much as is required to make it mean "thy true Israelite compatriot." | The word is not always confined to strictly religious contracts; § and, as a matter of fact, it is applied once, at least, to a figurative marriage (Ez, 16*). The proposal to drop this clause as a gloss** has no • Wkl.. t Tract Qiddusin. I, 5 29. t Contra Kraet^schmar (Bundeswrstellung im A. T. 240/.). Now., Isop., Du.^"-. § Cf. Valeton in ZAW., XIII, 262. •• Marti, Siev., Now.". 54 MALACm real force, considerations based upon poetical form having no warrant in this context. The clause clinches the accusation most effectively. 15. The beginning of this verse as found in M is hopelessly obscure. As rendered in RV. it runs, And did he not make one, although he had the residue of the Spirit ? Atid wherefore one ? He sought a godly seed.] This is a possible translation of M, though there is no indication that the first clause is interrogative and the "wherefore" of the second clause is regularly represented by a different Hebrew word. But as so translated, what does the passage mean? To whom does the pronoun "he" refer? Does "he" indicate the same person in all three cases? If so, and if God be the person in mind, what is meant by his having the "residue" or "remnant of the Spirit"? In any case, "rem- nant of the Spirit" is scarcely a Hebrew point of view, and it lacks all analogy. If the Spirit of Yahweh be thought of as a personal manifestation, as this translation seems to suggest, how can it at the same time be presented as an abstract quality or be spoken of quantitatively? Could the Hebrews think of the Spirit as limited in amount? Furthermore, the bearing of this passage, as thus conceived, upon the argument of the writer regarding divorce is hard to discover. RVm. offers, "And not one hath done so who had a residue of the spirit. Or what? Is there one that seeketh a godly seed?" This is better, in that it carries on the preceding thought without any hiatus. But "so" is missing from iJJ, the "spirit" referred to is wholly undefined, the phrase "residue of the spirit" is without analogy or parallel, and the transition to the latter half of the passage is too abrupt. The passage has been subjected to many widely differing inter- pretations, of which only a few may be cited. Some make God the subject and treat "one" as equivalent to "one flesh" (Gn. 2), interpreting thus, "God made Adam and Eve one flesh; he might have given Adam many wives, for he had plenty of spirit- ual essence wherewith to furnish them souls; but he sought a godly race." * Others make "one" the subject and identify it with Abraham, interpreting thus, "Did not Abraham put away • Ra., Hd.. 215.16 55 Hagar and yet retain the divine spirit? So the people inquire. The prophet replies, Yes; but he did it from an entirely different motive from that which actuates you. He sought godly seed; you, the gratification of your own lust or ambition." * Another interpretation is "Abraham did not do so {i. e. send away Sarah, though she was old and childless), and yet an heir (IStl') was his desire. And what was he seeking? A godly seed." t Still others have made it more general in scope, viz. "No one has done it (i. e. divorced his wife) who had a remnant of the spirit. Why should any one do it, who sought seed of God?" I Owing to the obscurity of M, many attempts have been made to emend the text {v. i.). The reading proposed by Wellhausen has met with more approval than any other, viz. "Has not the same God given us breath and sustained us? And what does he desire? Seed of God!" But this translation is hard to obtain from the Hebrew original suggested for it (v. i.). One of the most recent conjectures yields, "Not one who had a remnant of moral sense has done it. How is it with that one? He it is who seeks a godly seed."§ The change of text involved in this is slight, but the pronounced and sudden shift of standpoint in the word "one" is most remarkable and unnatural. No satisfactory solution of the problem of this verse has yet been found. For further sug- gestions, V. i.. — Then take heed to your spirit and let no one act treacherously toward the wife of his youth] Cf. v. ". "Spirit" is here apparently equivalent to "character," "purpose" or "will," as e. g. in Je. 51^ Hg. i" i K. 21* Ps. 51^^ This is an admonition growing out of v. ^^ *, whatever that passage may mean. — 16. For one who hates and sends away, covers his clothing with violence, says Yahweh of hosts] M inserts after "sends away" the phrase "says Yahweh, God of Israel." This is probably a gloss;** for it separates the protasis from the apodosis, constitutes the only occurrence of this title of Yahweh in Malachi, and is superfluous alongside of the immediately following aflarmation of divine authority. The figure "cover the clothing with violence" oc- curs nowhere else in the Old Testament. The basis of the figure • De Wette, Koh., Ke.. t Hal. t L. de Dieu, Rosenm.. § Du.P" . •* So We., Now., Bu., Siev.. 56 MALACHI seems to lie in an ancient custom whereby the casting of one's garment over a woman was tantamount to claiming her as a wife (c/. Ez. i6* Dt. 223» Ru. 3^)* The first two words of this verse as found in M are unintelligible in this context. M can only be rendered, "He hates putting away." But "he "must refer to Yahweh who is himself the speaker. RV.'s rendering, "I hate," involves a change of text, which is on the whole less likely than that followed here. Other references to wives as hated by their husbands are Gn. 29^' Dt. 21^^-^'' . — So take heed to your spirit and act not treacherously] This is a repetition of V. *^ " and may be but a variant.f The section would end im- pressively without it. Vv. ^°-i^ present the strongest and most outspoken condemna- tion of the divorce evil that the Old Testament offers. They furnish an illustration of the fact that the laws of a land are never up to the moral standards of its best citizens. In early Israel, divorce seems to have been the exclusive privilege of the man and to have been permissible on the slightest grounds. The Deuteronomic law took a forward step in requiring the hus- band to give the divorced wife a bill of divorcement (Dt. 24^ ") and in prohibiting the remarriage of the two in case the woman should marry another husband and be again made a widow, either by the death of her second husband or by divorce. These restrictions were both for the purpose of compelling some con- sideration on the part of the man before he divorces his wife, by making his action more formal and public on the one hand and, on the other, irrevocable. Furthermore, the right of divorce was denied to the man in two cases, viz. when he had been forced to marry a virgin whom he had seduced (Dt. 22-^) and when he had slandered his newly married wife (22^^). These laws and the protest of our prophet show that the marital rights of women were slowly emerging in Israel as elsewhere. Mohammed sought to check the frequency of divorce by exactly the opposite method, viz. by prohibiting the husband from taking back his divorced wife until after she had first lived with another man as wife. This law of the Koran gave rise to gross abuse of the marriage * V. WRS. Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, ist ed., p. 87. t So Sicv.. ,510-16 57 rite. Neither the Jewish nor the Mohammedan law brought much real relief. Divorce continued to be the right of the man alone in Israel, was checked by but few legal obstacles, and was indulged in liberally. The general interpretation of w. '"-'^ presented above has been at- tacked in recent times from three different directions. GASm., followed by Marti, Siev. and Kent, would set aside vv. "• '= as an intrusion into the original prophecy. The grounds urged in support of this are (i) that they break the connection between v. '" and v. " ; (2) that their interest is not in ethics as in v. '", but in cultus; (3) that they deal with the subject of mixed marriages, whereas vv. '"• '^-'^ are concerned with divorce; and (4) that their attitude toward foreigners is contrary to that of Malachi (c/. i"). In reply to these considerations, it may be said (i) that i" probably has no reference to foreigners (v. the note on that passage) ; (2) that it is difficult to see why the same writer may not have both ethical and religious interests and may not present both of them in treating different aspects of one and the same subject; the two are certainl}' not mutually exclusive in vv. '"-'5; (3) the ques- tions of divorce and mixed marriages were so inextricably intermingled in actual practice that in discussing either the other was involved. They are not two separate and distinct subjects, but two phases of one subject, viz. the obligation of the Jew to be loyal to his people and his God. Read from this point of view, there is no lack of continuity in the progress of the thought. Wkl. sees in this passage an evidence that the prophecy of Mai. originated in the days of i\ntiochus Epiphanes. The community is split into two parties, the pious who keep in the old paths and the apos- tates who are forsaking Yahwism and going over to Greek ways and thoughts. This passage denounces this movement, and records the erection of an altar to MeSammem-el and the observance of the Adonis cult. But in order to obtain such surprising results, Wkl. has to posit a wholesale corruption of the text, so great, indeed, that he is unable to suggest the necessary corrections, though he is quite sure as to the gen- eral sense of the passage. Methods of this kind can hardly be deemed scientific. The third attempt to displace the traditional interpretation is that of Torrey (1898). He was the first after (S to suggest that the prophet's attack was not upon mixed marriages or divorce, but upon apostacy to a foreign cult. On this basis, "daughter of a foreign god" becomes "cult of a foreign god," and "wife of thy youth" becomes the religion of Yahweh to which Israel had formerly been true. But, as has been pointed out above, the language will not bear this figurative interpre- tation. Furthermore, the only satisfactory interpretation of v. '- makes 58 MALACm it threaten the destruction of the guilty individual with his family and strongly supports the literal treatment of the whole passage. 10. The first two clauses of this v. are transposed by (6'^^'^' "''''*• S A, Eth.,HP. 22, 23, 26, 36, 51, 62, 68, 86, 95, 106, 114, 147, 185, 198, 233, 238, Ignatius, Origen, Chrysostom, Athanasius, and Theodore of IMop- suestia. This is probably due to a desire to give God the first place, the word "father" being interpreted of Abraham, or some other man. (gxc. b ^H agree with the order of M. (Sl^°- om. v. 'o*. "a does not add a new fact, but merely defines the content of the preced- ing phrase more explicitly. — loj Ss na h';2^] (& Kal iireTi^devcrev ets ^€oi>s dWoTplovSj paraphrasing freely, perhaps to avoid the mention of mar- riages with aliens. 05^ ■=• ^ om. els; cf. 21 et ajffeclavit deos alienos. & and worshipped strange gods. Wkl. "i3J '?N~n''3 Sj:£3i, "and has built an idolatrous baityl," i. e. a shrine. Che. 'j Sx-rria hzH^^, "and has eaten in the house of a foreign god." H. Isaacs {JQR. XI, 526), n^'a-Sw n3i 'j Sn. — 12. v^H^] (& B treat S as introducing the object of the verb, a common usage in Aram, and Syr.. — nji)ji •\^] i^ {3 = and his son and his son's son. B viagistrum el discipidum. SI et humilis, apparently omitting "i>; so also Eth.. (& i^s Kal raireivwdy = nj>'i ij;; hence We. njijji nj; {cf. 3^ Jb. 13" BS. 42^; so GASm., Now., BDB., Oort, Bu., van H.. Kenn. 99 also has ij.'. But it would be a strange social order in which every man was provided with a "Klager und Vertei- diger" and would look upon the loss of these as a terrible calamity. Torrey ']y>^\ r"?.-' {cf. 3", where J3 renders exactly as it does here); so Marti, Kent. But this is too wide a variation from M, and Torrey himself has since abandoned it {v. s.). Bachmann ^"^P.] V^. Gr. -lyp j^Ni; cf. Gn. 38=. •\';„ occurs again in Ct. 5- and is the regular form for the prtc. of the stative verb; cf. no. Whatever its precise meaning {v. s.), the phrase is an example of the idiom in which everything is subsumed under two opposite categories, e. g. J-"5J 310; 3B'i nay, Zc. 9'; airj?i -\1xj7, Dt. 32'". The scope of the phrase is here clearly confined to the family or friends of the offender. — 13. r^iv] (g d inlcovv = ,10-lS 59 'PKife'; so Wkl., Che., Bu.. Marti om. it as a gloss intended to re- store the connection between v. i° and v. " after it had been broken by the insertion of vv. "• "; so Now.'^, Kent. — niD3] Rd. iD^n, foil. (6 ^KoXi^TTTeTe; so Aq., 6 19. Some prefer Bn>Dr; e. g. Bachmann, vanH., Isop.; but the impf. is better as an explanation of the preceding impf. itfjjn. Marti, 10371, which yields a poor consecution of tenses. — px^] ^ iK kSwwv = jiND. Wkl. pNi. Bu. ]ND. Many interpreters make this a result clause, viz. "so that there is no," etc., giving 'c the same force as in Zp. 2K But the line of thought is clearer and stronger if '0 be given causal significance; v. s.. — ddtt] (^ ^ Q = from your hands; but this does not call for a different text, for the Heb. often uses the sg. where we should use a pi.; contra Isop.. — dhicnij (6 SI = and if thou sayest. — o *?>] ($^'^^ and HP. 40, 49, 106 apparently om.; but this is probably due to an inner-Greek error of 6 for 8ti. — Ti^n] Bu. ii".. 15. This is unquestionably the most difficult v. in Mai.; v. s.. — nSi] B nonne = xSn; so & and We., Oort, Now., van H., Isop.. Siev. Sni.— ins n'-i] (gB HP. 48, 233, Kal ov KaUv; (gx c b HP. 86, Kal ov Ka\6s. ^AQFHeid. HP. 22, 26, 36, 42, 49, 51, 62, QI, 95, 97, I30, I47, 185, 228, 233, 240, ovKaWos, probably to be read as ovk fiXXos, with ^H 52 ^Bo. ^ Etij^ Arm., (g'" HP. 23, 40, 106, ovk &\\ws or oi /cdXXus. The proper disposition of this indefinite "one" is the most difficult problem in the interpretation of v. '*; v. s.. It is in an vmusual posi- tion for the subject of a verbal sentence, imless it is intended to be emphatic; and it is just as abnormal a position for the object. — n-j-;] & was there not one man? either omitting 'y or else reading it as ""n. Van H. Dt-j?. Du.P'"- inu-;-, taking 1 from the foil. word. — -iN-fi] \'an H. iNUV We. "ixb'm; so Oort, Now., Isop.. But the resulting idiom, in the sense given to it by We., is without any parallel in Heb.. in'^'m nn could only mean, "and left (or kept) spirit (or breath) over"; it could never mean "and maintained breath (or spirit)." Further, the idiom nn nof]} is harsh; we should expect l."iJ, nsj, or the like. It is possible that ixa' should be irs; cf. the opposite transposition in Mi. 33. If, in addition, we accept B's treatment of n»'j; and read rnv in its place, also dropping inx as a dittog. from the succeeding nnxn, we get fairly good sense, viz. "there is not a man who has moral sense (= spirit)." This suits the preceding context well, and disposes of the difficult "remnant of spirit." But the connection with what follows is not sufficiently close. &, however, furnishes a way of escape here also, in that it omits n::i. Thus the whole sentence becomes, "there is not one who lias moral sense, viz. one seeking a godly seed." nci is easily accounted for as a marginal query by some puzzled reader, and n of inxn may well be due to dittog. from nsi. Cf. my presentation of this reconstruction in American Journal of Semitic Languages and Litera- tures, April, 1912. — m-\] Van H. nni, Bu. rfjn; cf. 2 S. i6». — iS] We. 6o MALACHI ii^; so Oort, Now., Siev., Isop.. — inxn nsi] ^ om. nm. ($ Kal etvare tI dXXo ij K. T. X. H d quid nnus . . . nisi. Bu. nh noi. — y-\r cpan D'hSn] (S ffiripixa. ^■t]T€t 6 de6$. & owe sought seed from God. B quaerit nisi semen Dei. Riessler, on the basis of (&, restores the preceding five words thus, d\iSn rpao jjitd nnnN no omcNi. But <6's Kal etirare is almost certainly due to interpretation, and not to the presence of a Heb. equivalent for it; and the same thing will account for the position of a-ir^pfia in (&. The sense secured is not sufficiently strong to carry these textual changes. — ajnna annDtt'ji] Bu. inna nnu'ji; so Now.'^C?). — nnyj ntt'N3i] Rd., with 8>, r^U'J ncN3 tt"iNi; so Gr., Now., Marti, Isop.(?), Du.^'^"-. — iJ3^] (6 01 35, 9 codd. of Kenn. and 6 of de R. = iJ2n; so We., Oort, Now., Dr., Or., Sicv., van H.. — 16. n'^c' N,:u— >:] (& dXX4 iav jjiiffi^ffas i^airoa-TeiXris. & om.. H cutn odio habueris dimille; so 21, changing what is otherwise a denunciation of divorce into an ex- plicit authorisation thereof. We. '»> NJi^N. Van H. treats ait' as equiv- alent to NJJ? (but everywhere else the form of the prtc. is Njr) and makes it the subject of 'w-, read as nSr. It seems better to follow Du.^'°- in keeping nju* as a pf . and reading nSr, in asyndetic construction with it. This involves no further change in the sentence, as does the reading of We.. — noDi] (6 Kal Ka\}j\p€i. B operiet autem. & = nD3'> n*^; so 21. Oort, mD?v We. nopi; so Now., Marti, Siev., Isop.. — v^'nS] 01 = ItrnS. 2.5 65 all the requirements of the ritual; cf. Ps. 51". The Levites, who have been criminally careless in the conduct of the sacrifices, will henceforth be a body of men devoted heart and soul to the proper performance of the sacrificial ceremonial. Cf. i^- "• " 2*. Most Roman Catholic scholars regard this as a prediction of the offering of the Eucharist. — 4. And the offering of Judah and Je- rusalem will be pleasing to Yahweh as in the days of old and as in former years] The particular period to which reference is made cannot be known. It may be, indeed, that the writer is simply reflecting a common view that "the good old times" were all that could be desired, whereas the present age leaves everything to be desired. Certain it is, however, that not since tHe days of the Conquest had Israel been pleasing to Yahweh, according to the estimate of the pre-exilic prophets; cf. Ho. ii* Am. 3^ '• Mi. 3^1- Is. i^" "• Je. 721-26, 'pj^g emphasis placed upon sacrifice and ritual here is in striking contrast to the depreciation of ritual at the hands of the earlier prophets. — 5. And I will draw near unto you for judgment] The prophet, speaking in Yahweh's person, addresses the people in general. The day of Yahweh holds little comfort for them. — And I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers] Sorcery and other low forms of religion were al- ways opposed by the prophets as hated by Yahweh; cf. Ex. 7" 22^^ Dt. 18^° Lv. 2o2^ I S. 152^ Dn. 22 "-. Yet such practices con- tinued in vogue among the people down to the end; cf. Acts 8' 13^ and Josephus, Ant. XX, 6 and Wars, II, 12, 23. — And the adulterers] This epithet may describe those who are unfaithful to Yahweh in that they give themselves to the worship of other gods {cf. Ho. 2-'- Ez. i6^^'-)> but more probably it applies to those who were living with foreign wives, after having divorced their native Hebrew wives; cf. 2^*. It is scarcely probable that unmitigated adultery was so prevalent as to justify its being listed as one of the chief crimes in a charge like this. — And against those swearing to falsehood] Perjury is frequently con- demned in the Old Testament; cf. Lv. 1912 Je. 292^ Ex. 20^8 Dt. igi^ *• 231 Pr. 19^ {, Those who have hitherto escaped detec- tion will now be pitilessly exposed and punished. — And against those oppressing the hireling, the widow and the fatherless] These 66 MALACHI classes are especial objects of solicitude in the Deuteronomic Code; cf. also Ex. 22^^ '^. Prophecy always stood upon the side of the poor and the weak, and represented Yahweh as their cham- pion; cf. Am. 26 «• 8« Mi. 2^ "• 3I "• Is. 5*. By this threat, the writer puts himself in line with his great prophetic predecessors and shows his concern for ethical righteousness as an essential element in religion, over and above ceremonial purity and per- fection. The fulfilment of one's obligations to God does not re- lease one from certain obligations to his fellow-men, but involves the full discharge of the latter as well as the former. — A nd against those turning aside the stranger] i. e. from justice; cf. Je. 7^ 22' Ez. 22^ Zc. 7*". The stranger, sojourner, or proselyte was es- pecially subject to wrong because, as an alien in the community, he had few friends to guard his interests or avenge his injuries. Therefore, he was especially protected by legislation; cf. Dt. 14^' 2417 26'- f- 2719 Ex. 20!" 2312 Lv. iQio- 33 {• 2T,'^.—And they do not fear me, says Yahweh of hosts] These are the sins which Yahweh has denounced through his prophets for centuries. Yet the Is- raelites have acted apparently without any realisation whatso- ever of the danger of incurring Yahweh's wrath on account of their failure to heed the word of Yahweh. — 6. But I, Yahweh, have not changed; therefore, you, O sons of Jacob, will be consumed] If any of the guilty have thought that Yahweh has lost all his interest in righteousness and goodness (v. 2'^), they are now to be completely disabused of that error. The moral character of Yahweh remains unchanged; hence, sinners must undergo the punishment they so richly deserve. This, it is clear, is not an abstract proposition that Yahweh cannot change in any respect (cf. Heb. 13^ James i^')) but simply a positive afl&rmation that he has not changed in this specific particular. The nearest approxi- mation in the Old Testament to a comprehensive, theological statement of unchangeableness is Ps. 102-® °- ; cf. Ps. 90' '• Dt. 7,7,^'' Is. 57l^ M has the negative before the last verb here, viz. "not consumed." But this hardly satisfies the demands of the context, the sense being so difficult to attain on that basis that several interpreters abandon the effort.* Among the many in- • So «; g. We., Now., Marti, Isop.. 3« 67 terpretations of M that have been offered, attention may be called to three. The first finds here the thought that Israel owes its continued existence, notwithstanding its sins, to the fact that the unchanging purpose of Yahweh to be merciful must be ful- filled.* But this is scarcely the kind of thought to be expected at the close of such an arraignment of Israel's sins. If Yahweh's unchangeable purpose to be merciful has protected them from his righteous wrath thus far, why should it not continue to do so indefinitely? The second view yields the sense, "You, O sons of Jacob, cease not to depart from evil." f But this calls for too much from the imagination of the reader, besides using (173 in an unusual sense. The third interpretation is, "You, O sons of Jacob, have not come to an end," i. e. "You are still sons of Jacob, the deceiver and trickster." J This, however, involves making the writer say in very obscure terms what he might easily and safely have said with the greatest plainness. Nothing less than a clear threat of punishment will satisfy this context. 2". D.'ij'Jin] d ol irapo^^vovres. B literally, laborare fecislis. Siev. om. niT« and reads, uinjjjin. — '1 'JU'^l Marti and Siev. om. as gloss. — I'on Nin Dnai] B freely, et tales ei placent. Marti and Siev. om. as gloss. The only considerations in support of the omission of this and the fore- going phrases are (i) the obstacle they present to a poetic structure; (2) the fact that they employ the 3d pers. with reference to Yahweh. But no poetic measure can be legitimately recovered here and inter- changes of person in prophetic address are very common. — 3'. on'^c] The name given to our prophet in i ' was probably borrowed from this verse by an editor who identified the messenger here spoken of with this prophet; v. n. on i>. — •'JsSj Eth. T}.^!/, so Matt. 11'°. — V'Mi^ iSd^h] Bu. jnn iSth. This is an attempt to do away with the apparent confusion of "the Lord" with "the messenger of the covenant"; but it fails be- cause the supposititious "judge" could be none other than Yahweh himself; and so the confusion remains. — tn""2i] Sta.'^^*°'- 1, 133 /., l!?i;\ — ni-ijn] Hi. n^l^n, rendering "angel of purification"; but nnb never has the abstract meaning "purification," but always the concrete "soap" or "lye," which is ludicrously inept as appHed to an "angel." — 2. SjSd;:] B potent cogitare. — ^xin 13] (^ adds elcriropeveTai; hence Bu. adds N13; and Riessler n3. — I'^sn] Riessler, nixn = "a furnace"; cf. (6 XtavevTTiplov; but the parallel "fullers" is in favour of a personal epithet here. — "^-^^si] (& iroia; cf. "B kerba. These renderings point to the • So K.e., Dr., e< a/.. t Pres., «/ a/.. t Or., Kent., el al„ 68 MALACHI origin of 'a from certain alkaline plants, the ashes of which are used as soap in the Orient even at the present day. '2 occurs again only in Je. 2"; it is formed from 113; cf. Assy, bardrii = "shine." — 3. au^i] & = arM. The refiner of silver naturally sits at his work, since the perfection of the process is marked by the colour of the molten metal, which he must therefore watch at close range; cf. ncy in Mi. 5'. — HDd] Om. as dittog. from below; so We., GASm., Now., Marti, Siev., Isop., Kent. Bu. emends to nd? or Ncra, depending upon 3C'\ d wj rh dpyvpiov Kal us t6 xp^o'^o"; hence Riessler, anni iDr?, But this is only free expansion. — fipj] aiir, in Pi'el. Pathah instead of sere between the two identical harsh radicals. (& x*"- B colabit. & he will select. — rtyn^h] Bu. •'':; so Now.*^. Marti, Siev., Kent, om. as gloss. — 4. mri''?] Bu. ^'?; so Now.'^; Siev. om. as gloss. — 5. o^'oa'Dc] Hal. cajas; so Riessler. — a^osja] Wkl. d^'cjc = another class of sorcerers; but no such class is known to have existed. — D^;?3rj] (I and 8 codd. of de R. with 16 of Kenn. add ''cu'a. — iptt''?] Wkl. om. as gloss. — t?c] Om. as dittog., with We., Oort, Now., Marti, Bu., Siev., Isop., van H., Du., Kent, 'tf cannot well be the object of p"";*, for this verb everywhere else has a personal object. Mi. 2^ is no true exception to this usage, for the real objects of ps^v there are "i3j and s^'n, no and inSnj being of secondary importance and attached to 'y by zeugma. Riessler tr. and reads Tstf Tjt', which is a good reading, but burdens I'sb' with a limitation such as is not found with the parallel objects of 'j?, viz. hjoSk and air\ Wkl. treats 'c as dittog. of a corrupt word, the original of which was T^^r, which preceded "'OD, corrupted from na?. — nja'^x] (& Kal roiis KaraSv- vaffrevovras x'^P"-"', hence Riessler, '.v 'J^o. & = hjt'^ni dip'I "\ji, thus adding another class. — aiP'i] (B ical tovs KovSvXL^ovras 6p ^onni. But such renderings in ($ are free translations, and call for no change of text. — nj] (S Kpiaiv irpoa-ijX^rov; hence Bu., Kent, and Riessler, -ij a?^'?. But "iJ itself may well be the object of 'Bc; cf. Am. 5'= Is. 10= 29-'. — 6. o] Now., Siev. om. as a connecting gloss. — 111'] '$ adds a^'i^'N; so also Riessler. That '' is not the pred- icate of ':n, but in apposition with it as the subj. of '•^'•K', is shown by the structure of the parallel clause in which art* and 2py ''J3 must be taken as appositives. — an^^D n'^] Om. n*? as dittog. from the preceding or the following n'^. The same result would be secured if we could regard n^ as an emphatic la = "you will surely be destroyed"; cf. Haupt, in Orientalistische Lilteraliir-Zeitimg, for 1907, col. 305 Jff., on this use of n''. (gB». b ov/c dTr4xf(r6e, and joins the first two words of v.' with it, rendering them "from the iniquities of your fathers." (6^ a.triffxi<^6e. (S^' airhS; /. e. "but you — sons of Jacob are 3'ou all (to me)." In addition to the improbability of confusion between 3 and n, this reading fails to provide a sufficiently strong finish for the sentence. § 6. THE PAYMENT OF TITHES WINS THE BLESSING OF GOD (3^12). The prophet takes up still another obstacle in the way of the free outpouring of Yahweh's grace toward Israel. Israel has been unwilling to pay the price of his favour. Let the tithes and offerings be brought in to the full and showers of blessings will fall upon the land. The crops will be abundant and the land of Israel will become the en\y of all the peoples. 7. Even from the days of your fathers you have revolted from my statutes and have not kept them] The period covered by this in- dictment includes at least the lifetime of the prophet's hearers up to the time of this address. It probably reaches back also into the previous generation and, possibly, even further. For a similar attitude toward the past on the part of other prophets, V. Ho. io9 Je. 7"^- 253-^ Ez. 2^ 20^-26 Is. 432^. The "statutes" include, in general, everything that has come to be regarded as an expression of the will of Yahweh. In particular, the reference is probably to the provisions of the Deuteronomic Code, under which Israel was living in this prophet's day. One outstanding illustration of the kind of conduct here resented is furnished by the following verse. Return unto me, that I may return unto you, says Yahweh of hosts] So also Zc. i^ Repentance and conversion will forestall the destructive punishment threatened in v. *. Yah- weh waits to be gracious unto his people ; but the exercise of his grace is conditioned upon a proper attitude of mind and heart on the part of the would-be recipients. — A nd you say, How shall we return?] As before, the people are represented as challenging the 70 MALACHI prophet to substantiate his charge by citing particulars. The question is not bond fide, but a virtual declaration of innocence. It calls for facts. — 8. Will man rob God ?] To ask the question, in the prophet's mind, is to answer it. A reply in the negative seems to him the only possible one. ($ B* reflect a text which had the verb " cheat " instead of " rob " in all three occurrences within this verse; the difference between the two in Hebrew is very slight. But the statement that follows is much more easy as in M, since one may in a certain sense "rob" God, as it is there stated Israel has done; but it is not possible to "deceive" or "cheat" him, and our prophet would hardly represent it as pos- sihle.— Yet you are robbing me] That which one can scarcely conceive as possible of contemplation by men, Israel is actually doing. The foregoing question was set in general terms, viz. "man" and "God"; the accusation is direct and personal in the highest degree, viz. "you" and "me." — But you say, Wherein have we robbed thee?] This question demands and receives a specific answer. The prophet does not content himself with hazy and indefinite generalisations. — In the lithe and the ojfcr- ing] In the midst of hard times such as those through which the Jewish community was passing, it requires much faith and loyalty to keep up the payment of the regular religious dues. The common experience is that when receipts decrease, or ex- penses increase with no accompanying increase of income, the first thing to suffer is the cause of religion. Its needs seem more remote and less pressing than the necessities of food, raiment, housing, education, and the like, which arc ever with us. This cause, together with a general decline of religious fervour that was directly due to the fact that the community as a whole was unable to see wherein zeal for Yahweh was yielding any returns in terms of prosperity and influence, had brought about a serious diminution in tithes and offerings, which the prophet does not hesitate to brand as robbery. The Deuteronomic law regarding tithes (14-'^-' 26'' ■'■'^) provided for an annual tithe "of thy grain, thy new wine and of thine oil," which was to be brought to Jeru- salem along with the firstlings of the herd and the flock and to be eaten at the temple by the givers and the Levites. It also 38.» 71 arranged for a triennial tithe, which was to be stored "within thy gates," in order that the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless and the widow might draw subsistence therefrom. Neither of these requirements accords fully with the prophet's charge and demand, since the former contemplates no such storage of the tithe as is implied in v, i"; and the latter calls for the storage of the tithe in the various cities, while v. i" again evidently conceives of it as stored in Jerusalem only. The prophet's presuppositions are best met by the tithing law of the Priestly Code, viz. Lv. 27^*"- Nu. 18^1-^1, which requires the whole tithe to be given to the priesthood (viz. the Levites and the priests proper) i. e. to Yah- weh, and apparently implies that it should all be brought to the temple. This concord between Malachi and P does not neces- sarily involve dating Malachi after the adoption of the P code in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra. For it is an established fact that the code in question contains many laws and customs which were in force long before the code itself was formulated. Thus, Malachi's demands regarding the tithe may well have been based upon a usage that had grown up in Israel, but had not yet found its place in a formal code of laws. In the days of Nehemiah, the people pledged themselves to pay the tithes exactly as Mala- chi here presupposes they should (Ne. lo^^"-); but the pledge was quickly forgotten and the tithe allowed to go by default as here (Ne. 13^° °-)- — 9- With a curse you are accursed] i. c. be- cause of Israel's sins, the land and people lie under the curse of Yahweh which frustrates all their eflforts and brings to nought all their hopes; cf. 2^. For other examples of the operation of the curse of Yahweh, cf. Hg. i^^ «• Zc. 51-" Lv. 26"-'''' Dt. 22>^^-^\ — For me you are robbing] The emphasis is on me, the intent being to impress strongly upon those addressed the fact that it is God whom they are robbing and thus arousing to wrath. It is bad to rob men; how much worse to rob God! — This whole na- tion] A phrase pointing out those included in the address. The sins denounced are confined to no one class, but are characteristic of the community as a whole. — 10. Bring tlie whole tithe into the storehouse] The form of the behest suggests, not that the tithe had been allowed to go wholly by default, but that it had not 72 MALACHI l)een paid in full. This may have been due to the fact that the people as a whole had each kept back part of his tithe, deeming that he needed it worse than the priests did, or to the fact that large numbers of them had ceased tithing altogether, while the faithful pious were denying themselves in order that they might meet their religious obligations in full. For the storehouse in question, v. No. lo''* '■ 12''^ 13^- ^^ 2 Ch. 31" "•. — That there may be food in my house] I. e. food for the priesthood. The more common meaning of the word rendered "food" is "prey" {cj. Am. 3^ Gn. 49' Nu. 23^'); but the rendering "food" is supported by Jb. 24^ Pr. 311* Ps. 11 1^ — A^id test me, I pray, herein, says Yahweh of hosts] The thought that Yahweh may be subjected to specific tests in order that the truth of his promises may be verified prevailed in Israel from the earliest times till the latest ; of. Ju. 63«-« Ex. 41-9 1 K. i822 rn.r:c'D, as ob- ject of 'z', omitting the foil, 's '•> idn] as a gloss, and treating the whole verse as a later addition. — 8. Marti and Now.*^ tr. the first clause to the beginning of v. ' mtr. cs.; but no other consideration favours the change and metre cannot be demonstrated here. — >'3|"i\n] (5 /i^Tt nrepvie? = 3|ij;\n; so also We., Now., Marti, Siev., Isop., Du.^''°-, Riessler. ^ ren- ders the two foil, forms of this verb in the same way, and is followed by the same group of scholars. Aq. S 6, dTroerTepijo-et, which is a suitable rendering of either text. H si affiget supports M, being based upon a Syr. root >'2p. & wrong or defraud = (S. iop occurs again only in Pr. 22^3, where either "rob" or "defraud" suits the context. The meaning "rob" rests upon Jewish tradition. Nothing more spe- cific is known about the root; but the mere fact that the precise meaning of a word is unknown is in itself insufficient reason for chang- ing the text in a literature so limited as the Hebrew. The only known cognates are Assy. ^eJjJ, "speak"; Syr. y^P, "fasten," or "fix"; Ar. qaba'a, "cover," "draw in the head," etc. These yield no aid. Not much stress may be laid on the fact that 3py would furnish a pun on apy ''J3 of V. ^; for close connection between the two verses is broken by v. ' and, furthermore, Mai. is not characterised by any effort after par- onomasia.— n:;nnni ni:'>'c."i] Best treated as depending upon 3 carried over from the previous question, or as an ace. of specification; cf. Pr. 22". But Marti treats it as an e.xclamation, viz. "tithe and offer- ing— how about them?"; and Or. takes it as a nominative, viz. "the tithe and offering (scil. are your offences against God)." (6 = because the tithes and offerings are "with you; hence Bu. prefixes 030? ^3 (so also Now.^ and Marti*^"*"), and Riessler 033. — nsnn] Associated with the tithe also in Dt. 12" Ne. 10" 12". According to Ez. 44'", every '.1 belonged to the priests. A typical 'n is prescribed in Ez. 45"-'^ The word denotes, literally, "that which is raised up" {soil, from a larger portion). It is then set apart for Yahweh and his priests. Its earliest 3^-^^ 75 use was of the products of the soil as offered to Yahweh. Later, it came to cover almost any kind of materials offered specifically to Yahweh for the use of his priesthood. In Nu. iS-^ it designates the tithe itself and in iS'^'^--^, that portion of the tithe which was given to the priests proper. The tithe and 'n together constituted a large element in the maintenance of the temple staff of priests and Levites. — 9. anxj onx mxca] ® diro- ^X^wovres vfieTs dTro^X^Trere, deriving it from nxn. 51 et dissimitlantes vos dissimulastis. II et in penuria vos maledicti estis. The Niph. prtc. QiiNj sharpens the first consonant rather than the second; v. Ges. ^^ " ". — iSo ^ijn] (g t6 %tos <7vveTe\i:ijn3i] (5bx»q iTntTKifacrde. (gsc.bYHeid. jjP. 95, 185, eTTtcTTp^i/'aTe, probably an error for iirirp^- fare. Aq. 6 = M. — 'x '■> -\cn] Marti, Siev., Now.'^ om. as gloss. — nS on] This may be construed as introducing either an indirect ques- tion depending upon •'juna; or a condition with an implied apodosis, making it the strongest form of afiirmation; r/. Ges. ^^ "'^ Owing to the interruption wrought by 's '' noN, the latter construction is, on the whole, the easier. — noij] Riessler, ^73"\3. — n '':'3 t;] (6 ?ws toO iKavw- 0TJvai. B nsqiie ad abnndantiam. S> S until you say, It is enough. M literally = "until there is no sufficiency." But "sufficiency" and "need" are closely related ideas, and in such passages as Ob. ^ Pr. 25'^ Na. 2" Lv. 252*, the latter idea seems the nearer to the sense of •'-^. Thus the rendering "until there is no need" is probable here, and it makes no such demands upon the imagination as does any rendering based upon the meaning "sufficiency." — 11. t^/J] (B Siaa-TeXd = v-'jnj, or Tijnj. — 33*^] Dat. commodi and in the two foil, cases, dat. incommodi. Marti om. the 2d and 3d as glosses. It is not unlikely that one of them may be due to dittog. or to a glossator. — n''nr'] (6 = ninu's*. — ^yi'?] '-y in the Pi'el commonly means "make childless"; it is applied to the products of the soil only here and in 2 K. 2". — 12. c^n] Added for emphasis. — Marti om. v. '^ as a later addition because of its attitude toward the heathen world. But Mai. contains nothing elsewhere which renders it unlikely that this prophet regarded his own people as favoured above the nations at large in the eyes of Yahweh; cj. n. on i". 76 MALACHI § 7. THE FINAL TRIUMPH OF THE RIGHTEOUS (313-46). The prophet first sets forth the doubts that have troubled the pious regarding the value of their piety in Yahweh's eyes. The facts of experience seem to tell against the profitableness of godliness (3'^'^''). He then assures the pious that Yahweh has not forgotten them, but intends to treat them with a father's love in the great day of judgment that is coming. They will then realise fully the distinction that Yahweh makes between the godly and the ungodly (3"^"^^). For, in that day, the wicked will be wholly consumed, like stubble in the flames, whereas the pious will rejoice exceedingly and will triumph gloriously over their enemies (4^"^). The book closes with a note of warning regarding the Law and an explanatory gloss concerning the day of Yahweh (4^-«). 13. Your words have been stout against me, says Yahweh] The address is to Yahweh- worshippers who have begun to lose faith and are in danger of apostacy from Yahweh, as is evident from vv."f-. The verb "be stout" is used, in the intensive form, in the sense "make stubborn" or "obstinate," in Ex. 4^1 Je. 5^ — But you say, Wherein have we talked against thee?] A question not in good faith, but implying denial of the prophet's charge and challenging him to furnish proof; cf. i^- ^ 2" 3^- ^. The form of the verb indicates "talking together"; i. e. Yahweh's ways have been the object of criticism in conversational circles. The same usage occurs in v. ^"^ Ez. t,^^^ Ps. 119^^. — 14. You say, It is useless to serve God, and what profit is it that we have kept his charge and that we have walked in mourning before Yahweh of hosts ?] This same attitude of mind has received direct consideration from our prophet twice before, viz. i^"- 2^^. It was evidently a note characteristic of the thinking of the times. It is the sign of a commercial type of piety. If Yahweh receives the gifts, obe- dience and worship of his people, it is incumbent upon him to make liberal returns in the form of material prosperity, political influence and supremacy, and the like. If such things are not 3^-16 77 forthcoming, why worship him? It is noteworthy that this prophet apparently accepts this standard of value for religion. He makes no attempt to substitute any other; but satisfies himself either with pointing out that Israel has not fulfilled the necessary con- ditions, having been careless of her obligations toward Yahweh, or with asserting confidently that the time of reward has not yet come, but is due in the immediate future. " His charge " is prac- tically equivalent to "his commands" or "statutes"; it refers to religious duties in general and is not to be identified with any specifically rituaHstic obligations; cf. Gn. 26^ Zc. 3^ Israel claims to have done her best to render Yahweh full obedience and, if at any point there has been a lack, atonement has been made for it by a life of sorrow and penance. "In mourning" probably refers primarily to the outer garb and manner {cf. 2 S. 192^ Ps. 3513 ^- 2)^^ Jb. 3o2»), but does not exclude a genuine inner grief. In the period to which our prophet belonged, as Wellhausen well says, piety and sorrow were constant compan- ions.— 15. And now — we are deeming the arrogant fortunate] The contrast with what ought to have been is striking; cf. v.^-. The people who have scorned the requirements of Yahweh are pros- pered; while those who have feared him look upon them with envious eyes. Cf. Ps. 73^ ^^ The arrogant are not the heathen,* but the godless within Israel herself,! as in Ps. 11921.51.69.73. 85. i22_ jhe heathen would scarcely be spoken of as "testing" God; cf. v. ". — Yea, the doers of wickedness are built up; yea, they test God and escape] For the figure of building as represent- ative of the prosperity of persons, cf. Je. i2ifi"- 31* Jb. 22"^ The "test" here is probably an allusion to the "test" proposed in 31°. According to all accepted standards, the wicked have tried the goodness of God beyond endurance. Yet they do not receive the punishment they so well merit. The pious are suffer- ing oppression and want; the wicked escape all trouble and they prosper on every hand. Is this not "test" enough? 16. Thus have those who feared Yahweh talked together, each with his fellow] The prophet now lapses into the third person, • Contra Jer., Calvin, Hi., Reinke, Ke., Isop., et al.. t So e. £. Mau., Koh., Or., Now., Marti, Dr.. yS MALACHI speaking about the pious, rather than to them. Yet in reality his thought is meant for the encouragement of the doubters to whom he has just been speaking. This rendering, based upon (S # (J, shows unmistakably that the words of vv. i^- ^^ are spoken by those who worship Yahweh. M, however, reads, " Then spake together those who feared Yahweh, etc. " Aside from a gram- matical difficulty, this involves assigning the foregoing doubts to the godless in Israel, interpreting "the arrogant" as character- ising the heathen, and leaving the words of the pious unrecorded. Furthermore, no definite point of attachment in time can be found for "then." — And Yahweh has given heed and hearkened] Nothing has escaped the attention of Yahweh. He is ever mind- ful of his own. — Attd a book of remembrance has been written before him] A permanent memorandum is thus ever before Yahweh's eyes, so that he can by no possibility forget to take up the case of the pious Jews at the appropriate time. This conception of the deity as provided with books or tablets to aid his memory in preserving the records of human deeds is not uncommon. It is found, for example, in Dn. y^o Ps. 56* 69-* 139^* Ez. 13^ Is. 4' 65^ Ex. 32^2 Ne. 13" Rev. 20I'.* The idea w^as probably based upon the corresponding custom of oriental monarchs; cf. Est. 6'- 2; Herodotus' Hist. Ill, 140, V, 11, VIII, 85. An equivalent Greek phrase was "written upon the tablets of Zeus" {iypdcpj] eVAto? oeXroL^;)^ — Regarding those who fear Yahweh and take refuge in his name] These are they whose names and records appear in Yahweh's book. M describes them somewhat differently, by making the latter half of the clause read, " and think of his name." But this creates a difficult and isolated Hebrew idiom and yields a rather weak sense. The emended text describes the jhous as solicitous to obey Yahweh perfectly and as placing their whole confidence in him under even the most trying circumstances. To "take refuge in Yahweh's name" is to take refuge in Yah- weh himself, for in the Hebrew mind the name and the person- ality were inextricably intermingled and practically identified.f — 17. And they will be mine, says Yahweh of hosts, on the day • V. also Book of Jubilees 36'° 3q«; PIrqe Aboth 2'; Enoch 81* 89" 90"- » 98' ' . For the same idea in Babylonian literature, v. KA T.', 402. t Q. Giesebrecht, Die ullleilamenllulie Sclidlzung des Goltesttamens (1901), passim. 316-18 7^ which I am about to make] The phrase "be mine" connotes a most intimate relationship, with all the favour and blessing in- volved in such a relationship. The remainder of the verse, with V. 1*, sets forth a part of the significance of the phrase. The day of Yahweh is, of course, before the prophet's mind. HI contains an additional word, probably a gloss, which makes it necessary to translate, "And they will be my special treasure, says Yah- weh of hosts, on the day, etc. " But this is difficult Hebrew {v. i.). — Atid I will spare them even as a man spares his son who serves him] i. e. in the terrible judgment of Yahweh's day, Israel will be pitied and shielded by Yahweh, just as a father shields his own sons and requires hired workmen or slaves to undertake the more difficult, dangerous, or unpleasant tasks. The prophet here sounds again the note upon which he began his prophecy, viz. Yahweh's love for Israel; cf. Ps. 103^^. This is indeed the under- lying thought throughout his whole book. — 18. And you shall again distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves God atid him who serves him not] i. e. just as in the "good old times" prosperity attended Israel and attested her standing as the people of God, so on the day of Yahweh the nor- mal moral order will be reinstated. The pious. God-fearing Is- raelites, who are here addressed, will receive their just reward; whereas the godless, who are now triumphant, will then be pros- trated in humiliation and branded as wicked in the sight of all. There will no longer be any excuse for the pious to harbour any such thoughts about God as are expressed in 2'^ For similar distinctions between the fate of the pious and that of the ungodly, cj. Is. 65'^'- Ps. ii*^- 73 ii«"Dn. 12^ Matt. 25^2^-. Some prefer to render, "You will return (/. e. from your present state of mind) and see, etc." * But the adverbial usage "again" is very common and its adoption here avoids the necessity of leav- ing so much to the imagination. 4\ With this verse, (!► H and many Hebrew mss. begin a new chapter or, at least, leave an extended space between 3^* and 3^^ But the best Hebrew tradition supports the continuation of ch. 3 to the end of the book. Our English translation follows (S H in * So e. g. We., Now., Dr., van H.. 8o MALACHI this respect. — For, behold, that day will come, burning like an oven] The representation of Yahweh's judgment upon the wicked as a consuming fire is a common one; e. g. Is. lo^*^^- 30^^ Zp. i^* 3^ Am. i'"- Je. 21" Ez. 21'-''. Whatever may have been the origin of this circle of ideas,* it had become completely at home in pro- phetic thought by the time of Malachi. — And all the arrogant and every one that does wickedness will be stubble] Cf. Is. 5^^ 471'' Na. i^" Ob. '* Zc. 12^. — And the day that is coming, says Yahweh of hosts, will burn them so that it will not leave to them root or branch] Cf. Jb. iS"'. The total destruction of the wicked is a favourite theme with the prophets; e. g. Am. 91° Is. iqI-" Je. f^^* lo^^ Ez. 138-16. — 2. But, for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness will arise with healing in his wings] This exact figure is nowhere else employed in the Old Testament; but cf. Ps. 84" 139'. It means apparently that the era of prosperity and peace that is due the righteous will be inaugurated on Yahweh's day, and that all the wrongs of the past will be made right for Israel. Like the morning sun dispelling the darkness of night, so will a sudden manifestation of Yahweh's righteousness illumine the gloom of Israel's afflictions. Righteousness is here practically equivalent to vindication and victory, as is so often the case in Is., chs. 40- 66; e. g. 41^ 45* 46'' 51^- ^- ^ 56^ 62^ Cf. Je. 23^ 33'^ In con- nection with " sun of righteousness," it is of interest to note that the Babylonian Shamash, the sun-god, was conceived of as the god of justice. The absolute impartiality of the sun's rays may easily have given rise to the association of justice with the sun. The phrase "sun of righteousness" does not indicate any per- sonal agent, but is rather a figurative representation of right- eousness itself {v. i.). The phrase "in its wings" at once sug- gests the winged solar disk of Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, and Persia. This representation was doubtless known in Judah at this time, either through borrowing from without or as having been inherited from a remote antiquity in Israel itself as in the rest of the oriental world. Isolated allusions like this suggest how little we really know of the social and aesthetic background of Hebrew literature. — And you shall go forth and skip like fatted • Cf. ICC. on Zp., p. 179; Gressmann, Euhatoloiie, 4g f.. 4^-" 8i calves] A figure representative of an exuberance of vitality and joy; cf. Je. 50". — 3. Atid you shall tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes mider the soles of your feet] The triumph of the pious over the wicked is one of the standing features of Hebrew eschatology, though it assumes varying forms; cf. e. g. Ps. 149^- ^ Mi. 413 f Zp. 2» 38 Ob. ""• Am. 912 Is. 11" «• 66^\— In the day which I am about to make, says Yahweh of hosts] Cf. v.^^. 4. Remember the law of Moses, my servant] This verse makes connection with neither the foregoing nor the following context. It is an isolated marginal note from some later legalist, who missed any express mention of the Mosaic law in this connection and proceeded to supply the deficiency. He seeks to call atten- tion to the fact that the triumph described in the preceding verses can be realised only through Israel's strict and loyal ad- herence to the law of Moses. At the time when this note was added, the tradition of the Mosaic origin of the law was evidently well established, though the development of that law and that tradition may not have been complete. The only other refer- ences to Moses by name in the prophets are Is. 63"- ^^ Je. 151 Mi. 6* Dn. 9"- ^^, the latter verses containing the only oth^r mention of "the law of Moses." — Which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel] The mount of the giving of the law is here named in accord with the tradition of E and D {cf. Ex. 3^ 17^ 2>Z^ Dt. i2 410 iSi'^ etc.), rather than Sinai as in J (Ex. 1920) and P (Ex. 191-2 Nu. lO- Perhaps, this verse was added before the P tradition and point of view had reached its full development in the Hexateuch. The terminology of the verse is Deuteronomic, e. g. "Horeb," "statutes and judgments"; hence some would deny to the author of Malachi any knowledge of the code of P.* But this addition to Malachi is certainly later than the earlier stages of P. The Deuteronomic standpoint and phraseology were not suddenly eliminated upon the appearance of P.f — Statutes and ordinances] These make up the body of the law. The exact difference between "statutes" and "ordinances" is not clear, though the latter seem to have been laws that arose as the result of judicial decisions. • So e. g. We., Now., van H.. t CJ. Marti. 82 MALACHI 5. Behold, I will soid unto you Elijah, the prophet, before the coming of the great and terrible day of Yahwch] Cf. Jo. 2^'. Vv. ^ and ^ seem to be a gloss upon vv. i"'. They reopen a subject that was closed with v. '. Moreover, they apparently take a different view of the day from that presented in vv. ^-^. There, no work of preparation seems to have been contemplated. The condi- tions on earth are well defined. Society falls into two classes the godly and the ungodly. All that is needed is the overthrow of the latter and the exaltation of the former. Here, all classes geem to be regarded as deserving of destruction. There are no hard and fast, sharply defined moral and spiritual lines between classes. A preliminary work of purification is needed in order to avert a total destruction on Yahweh's day. These verses prob- ably reflect the conditions of a later age when Hellenising in- fluences had wrought profound changes throughout all Israel. Why Elijah was chosen as the forerunner of the day of Yahweh does not appear. It may well be that the tradition that Elijah escaped death by being carried bodily to the heavens contributed much to the choice. This is the first known reference to him in that capacity; but he remained a permanent figure in later es- chatology; cf Enoch 90=^1 (cf.^Sg'-'^), Matt. 11" 16^" if°'- Mark 6>5 8^ 9^^ Luke i" 9^8^- John i^^* Earlier hints of the expectation of some such forerunner are offered by Dt. iS*'"''- and Is. 40^ Interpreters here have differed as to whether Elijah was expected to return in person, or another was to come in the spirit and power of Elijah, or the prophetic order in general was to be restored, or the coming of John the Baptist was specifically foretold. Those who see here a prediction of the coming of another than Elijah himself remind us that the expected Messiah is in like manner named David, although there is no thought of the return of the original David; e. g. Ho. 3^ Je. 30' Ez. 34^^'- 37^^'-. The cir- cumstances of the two cases, however, are not alike. David did not ascend to heaven and escape death on the one hand; and, on the other, there is no strong tradition of the perpetuation of Elijah's house as is the case with David, whose descendant the Messiah is to be. There is no warrant here for going beyond •For Jcwiih tradition regarding the coming of Elijah, cf. Schiirer, Jew. Hist., § 29, III, 2. I 6.6 83 what is written and refusing to accept the language at its face value. — 6. And he will turn the hearts of fathers toward their sons and the hearts of sons toward their fathers] This state of estrange- ment within families is the mark of a period of rapid transition in thought and customs. Apparently, the younger generation has taken up with some new philosophy or cult or political course and irreconcilable conflict has arisen between them and their elders. This condition best accords with the situation in Israel after the incoming of Greek thought and influence. A similar state of society is reflected in Nu. 7^"^. It is possible to render the preposition "toward" here by "with" and to inter- pret to the effect that fathers and sons together will be urged by Elijah to repent.* But this yields an intolerable tautology within the sentence and adds no element of strength to the thought. — Lest I come and smite the land with a ban] The ban involved the total destruction of those upon whom it fell; cf. I S. 15^ '^^ Jos. (iP 7^ The land referred to is probably Judah and not the earth as a whole. For the opposite of this threat, cf. Zc. 14". At the end of Mai., the Massora says that in the case of the books of Is., Twelve Prophets, La. and Ec, the next to the last verse of each is to be repeated after the last verse when these books are read in the synagogue, because the last verse sounds too harsh. (gABQr ^ gggj^ j-q accomplish the same end in Mai. by transposing v. - (4*) to foil. v. -^. But (S^'*^- ^^ &" foil, the order of iK. For the part played in the arrangement of OT. by this unwillingness to end a book or a passage with a harsh say- ing, cf. Grimm, Liturgical Appendixes, etc.. 3". ^pm] (g i^apdvoLTe, with Dsnai as obj.; hence Riessler, Dnitrn, Siev. and Now.*^ om. mtr. cs.. — nini] (gY adds iravTOKparup-^ so E. — 14. "'bj?] d5 B = laj?. g> have we feared. — JJS.?] Ordinarily = "gain made by plunder or extortion," and so "unjust gain." But here rather "gain to ourselves," as in Gn. 37"'* Jb. 22' Ps. i'^^". — imci;'?:] Riessler, rnnnr??. — nijmp] H-k.. (^'iK^rai. "Btristes. mp = "be black, dark"; cf. Ar. qadira = "be dirty." On formation, cf. r\^iipi<., and Qes.^§ioog. — 'x ', ,jan] Marti, vjcrs, omitting 'x '^; so Now. "^(P), Riessler. Eth. om. 's; so Siev.. — 15. anr o^^vai^ unjx] (S iifieTs iiaKapL^ofiev &\- XoTplovs, having oii; as in Kenn. 180, 92(?). Siev., Now.'^(?) om. 'n and point a^-^c'ND. Hal. 'i D''-)B'.sp uidn. — ij3j] Hal. ubj. — '■z'y] 05 = "'ti'V Ss. so Riessler. — una] (g &vTi(rT7i(rav. — 16. tn] Rd. nj, with (& ravra and * So c. g. Ki., Rosenm.. 84 MALACHI ft 01; so Wc, GASm., Oort, Now., van H.. The same confusion occurs in Gn. 4=*, where ill has ts, while (6 B represent nr. Bu. ni or nstr; so Now.*^, Marti*^*"-. Riessler, nsr. Hal. h^n. These, however, are too unUke M to win general approval. On the force of the pf. with IN as in M, V. Ges. ^ >""=. — '•< 'i' naij] Bu. 2D"!?7? omitting, '' 'n\ — anon] (g €ypa\f/€v = 3n3M; so 0 and Now.. — lijo] Now. id??. — '^ vxi^S] ft = vntS; so Siev., Now.'^. — las' >3irnSi] Rd. icra ^oriSi, as sug- gested by Nestle (ZAW. XXVI, 290) on the basis of C5's koI £i>Xai3oi/- n4vois; so also Margolis (ZAW. XXVII, 233, 266) and ]Marti'^='"-. (5 uses €v\ap€i(rdai. to render non also in Pr. 242' Na. i' Zp. 3"; f/. Margolis, /. c. ft //w5c praising = '•naii^Si. We.(?) ■'anN. Bu. '•aa'nSi; so Now.'^(?). Hal. ^7.•f n. M is difficult, since acn does not ordinarily mean "hold dear" or "esteem," but "think" or "plan." In the only places where it approximates the meaning desired here, viz. Is. 13" S3' 53', it is used without a preposition, whereas here it is foil, by 3. — ■ 17. DvS] Nestle {ZAW. XXII, 305), d>;^. For S, of time when, cf. Gn. 8" 17=1 18''' 21' Is. ID'. — n'j'jj >jvS ns-x] ik'n may be taken as a rel- ative particle representing the object of ncj:, viz. "the day which I am about to make." For this use of 'y in the sense "fix" or "appoint" (scil. a day for a special purpose), cf. Ps. 1 18". Or TifN may be treated as introducing a temporal clause, viz. " when I am about to act." For 'y thus used, viz. in an absolute sense, cf. v. =' Is. 44" 48" Je. 14' Ps. 22^=37* Ez. 20'- "■ ". — hSjd] (^ els irepLirolrjaiv. Aq. irepioi!Knov. Hi in possessione. T^ in peculinm. ft an assembly, 'o = "a special treasure," and it is ap- plied to Israel six times {e. g. Ex. 19^) and to gold and silver twice (viz. Ec. 2* I Ch. 293). It is best treated here as a gloss on iS vn; so Siev., Now.'^. Its distance from '''7 vn, with which it must be taken, is abnormal; cf. Nestle, ZAW. XXII, 305. Furthermore, we should ex- pect nSjp';'. Some would connect it with niyjr, rendering "day which I will make my own special treasure"; so e. g. Ra., Rosenxn.. But 'd ns*]?, as Isop. notes, would naturally mean "acquire property"; cf. Gn. 126 31' Dt. 8"'- Is. 19".— ^3^•^] Hal. ansn.— 18. jo Dn\sni] Cf.y-^" 1^3, in 2 S. 19''. The original substantive character of ^a shines through such usage. Cf. "B quid sit inter ; C quantum sit inter. Siev. and Now.'^(?) om. 'i'? 's V2 mtr. cs.. — 19. iijns] (& adds Kal \i^ei. aiiToh, which is lacking in HP. 62, 86 and HI, and is under obelus in ft", ft adds my wrath. — an?] (g dXXo7e»'ers = anr. — ncj:] (g, with several codd. of Kcnn. = •'w'j.'; so Isop.. But n-rj? ^-^ is a collective ex- pression and may well be continued by a pi., as in dpn*. — vv] (& i>iro- \€i(f)$T] = 21]}^- so We., Now., Marti, Bu., Siev., van H., Du.^™-, Ries- sler. But the 3d pers. sg. active is often used as equivalent to a pass., like the French "on dit," etc.. — n^yi v^Z'] 01 freely ia "^ai 13 : cf. its similar treatment of ^J>?i "»> in 2'-. — 20. \i'fi'] Usually masc, but 316-24 8^ fem. here and in Gn. 15'" Je. 15' Na. 3'^ Is. 45^ as in Ar.. The choice of the fem. here may be due to the influence of the genitive 's. — np-i-i] Epexegetical genitive; c/. Ges. ^^'-^p. — n^Dj^i] # iipo7i his tongue. H in pennis ejus. Riessler, a;3j33, which he renders "in parentheses" and regards as a note indicating that Nona is a gloss. — orirpi] (5 Kal (TKipr-f)- a-ere. Gratz, D{iC'Dai. Hal. an-fC'i. The "i" of 's is probably due to attenuation from the usual a; for other cases, cf. Ges. ^^"d. — pane] (g iK SecxfiQiv dveifiiva. U de armenio. ^ of the ox = ipac. 'd is always associated with Sjj.*, viz. Am. 6^ i S. 28=^ Je. 46=*. It denotes the stall in which cattle were tied for feeding purposes, paia 'y thus = "well fed, or fattened cattle." — 21. oniDyi] dw.; cf. D''py. - "wine newly trodden out." ']} = "to trample upon," as also in Ar.. — nisj] (B om.; so Bu. as dittog. of nnn. Vv. ="-2^ (Eng. 4<-«) are a later appendage to this section; so Boh., ZAW. VII, 210^.; Schwally, Lehen nach dem Tode, 117; Torrey, 7J5L. XVII, 7; Marti; Siev.; Bu-^^^^-^h. 175. sta.Theoi. i. 335. Du.^™-; Ko. Gesch. d. alttestamentlichen Religion (19 12), 414/.. Now. would retain only v. " as genuine. The linguistic usage of these verses is not conclusive in itself, but it adds weight to the general considerations urged above in support of their late origin. Mal.'s term is not '•> or, nor Niuni Snjn or, but Nnn orn or 'j? 'n liJ-x orn. Mai. speaks of minn, but not of ns'D niip. Mai. constantly cites '"' "icn; these verses never, ^djn stands here as against ''Jn elsewhere in Mai.. — noi] Mas- sora writes here i majuscula, not to emphasise the importance of the maxim, but to note the fact that this is the only place in the Book of the Twelve where this pointing of these consonants is found (Ho. 12^ 148 =: 113?); while outside of the Book of the Twelve, with the ex- ception of Jb. 18'' (= npO, i"^?; is the only pointing of this group that occurs. Von Gall, ZAW. XXXI (1911), 75, suggests that the large i here marks the beginning of an addition, as the beginnings of books are so marked in certain cases, viz. Gn. i' Pr. i' Ct. i' Ec. i* i Ch. i>; cf. Is. 401. ^ iJ.vf] dvdpdirov irphs rbv TrXrjalov avrov, a free rendering. But Riessler would restore after <$, jrin-S]? D^avi nuSi. INDEXES TO MALACHI. nnb, 67/. Sin, 44. ^nnsn, 44. •'12, with optative force, 43. '3nSi:, 18/. nope, 43. nntt'c, 45. hnSpc, 44. ^Ti, 44. 3^J. 43- I. INDEX OF HEBREW WORDS nSjD, 84. njipi ijr, 58. nnc, 42. CIO, 45. y^p, 74- jyiy-i, 24. nn -\Ntt', 59. nun, 24. nnnn, 74/. n. INDEX OF SUBJECTS. Babylonian religion, 35. Book of Remembrance, 78. Canon, 5. Catechetical method, 4, 20, 52, 61, 69/. Commercial piety, 76. Covenant, 48, 53, 63/. Date of book, 5 ff. Day of Yahweh, 62, 64, 79/., 82. Deuteronomy and Malachi, 8/., 32, 69/., 81. Dispersion, 30. Divorce, 51, 52, 56/. Edom, 5/., 20/. Elephantine papyri, 32, 42, 49/. Elijah, 82. Ethics, 73. Eucharist, 65. Faith, 14. Fatherhood, 25. Fatherhood of God, 26, 47. Governor of Judah, 6, 28, 42. Greek influence, 83. Heathen, 30/. Idolatry, 49 /. Law of Moses, 81. • Lye, 67 /. Malachi, a proper name, 9/., 18/. Malachi, character of, 10/. Malachi, traditions concerning, 10. 87 88 INDEX Messenger, 40, 62/. Messianic hope, 20, 21, 23, 31. Nabataeans, 6. Name of God, 26, 78. Poetic elements, 4/. Polygamy, 52. Priestly Code, 8/., 71. Priests, 37/., 41/. Sacrifice, 26, 27, 29, 65. Sorcery, 65. Spirit, 54 /. Style, 4. Sun of righteousness, 80. Superscription, 4, 18/. Teaching of Malachi, 11 /. Tithes, 70/. Unity of book, 3 /., 41. Wicked, 22. A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON JONAH BY JULIUS A. BEWER, Ph.D. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL PHILOLOGY, UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK INTRODUCTION TO JONAH. § I. THE CHARACTER OF THE STORY OF JONAH. The story of the wilful prophet is one of the best known and most misunderstood in the Old Testament: an occasion for jest to the mocker, a cause of bewilderment to the literalist believer but a reason for joy to the critic. The Old Testament reaches here one of its highest points, for the doctrine of God receives in it one of its clearest and most beautiful expressions and the spirit of pro- phetic religion is revealed at its truest and best. It is sad that men have so often missed the spirit by fastening their attention on the form of the story. The form is indeed fantastic enough and, unless rightly understood, it is likely to create difficulties. At almost every step the reader who takes the story as a record of actual happenings must ask questions. How was it possible that a true prophet should disobey a direct divine command ? Is it likely that God should send a storm simply in order to pursue a single person and thus cause many others to sufifer too? Do such things happen in a world like ours? Is it not curious that the lot should fall upon Jonah at once, and evidently without manipulation on the part of the sailors, and that the sea should become calm directly after he had been thrown overboard ? That the great fish was at once ready to swallow Jonah may be passed, but that Jonah should have remained in the fish for three days and three nights and should have prayed a beautiful psalm of thanks- giving inside, exceeds the limits of credibility, not to mention the point that the fish did not simply eject him but threw him up on the shore. What an exaggerated idea of the greatness of Nineveh the author had ! What language did Jonah speak in Nineveh ? How could the people understand him ? And what a wonderful result followed his preaching! The greatest prophets in Israel had not been able to accomplish anything like it. It is so un- 3 4 JONAH precedented that Jesus regarded it as the most astounding wonder of the story (Lk. ii"^). Is it not strange that absolutely no trace has been left of the universal, whole-hearted repentance of the Ninevites and that the later prophets who prophesied against Assyria knew nothing of it? And what shall we say of the ex- traordinarily speedy growth of the plant ? It is all passing strange. We are in wonderland! Surely this is not the record of actual historical events nor was it ever intended as such. It is a sin against the author to treat as literal prose what he intended as poetry. This story is poetry not prose. It is a prose poem not history. That is the reason why it is so vague at many points where it should have been precise, if it had been intended as a historical record. The author is not interested in things which a historian would not have omitted. So he says nothing about the place where Jonah was ejected or about his journey to Nineveh. He gives no name of the king, but he calls him simply "King of Nineveh," a designation which was never used as long as the Assyrian empire stood. He does not speak of the time of his reign or of the later fate of Nineveh nor does he specify the sins which were responsible for Jonah's mission. He is so little interested in the personal history of Jonah that he does not tell us what became of him after he had received his well- merited rebuke. As soon as he has finished his story and driven home the truth he intended to teach he stops, for he is interested only in that. His story is thus a story with a moral, a parable, a prose poem like the story of the Good Samaritan, or Lessing's Ring story in Nathan the Wise, or Oscar Wilde's poem in prose, The Teacher of Truth. The very style of it with its repetition and stereotyped forms of speech shows its character, for these stylistic characteristics are not due to the author's limited store of phrases but to his intention of giving a uniform character to the story. All its strangeness disappears as soon as we put the story into the category in which it belongs. Then we can give ourselves to the enjoyment of its beauty and submit to its teaching of a truth which is as vital and as much needed to-day as it was when it was first told. CHARACTER OF THE STORY 5 It is useless to collect similar instances to prove the possibility of the swallowing of Jonah by the huge fish. Nobody denies that a shark or a sperm-whale can swallow a man whole and alive. But none of the stories usually adduced prove that a man can live three days and three nights in the stomach of a large fish, even if the stories could be relied on as truthful. An illustration of what happens when the facts of such a story are really investigated is given by Luke A. Williams in the Expos. T., XVIII, Feb., 1907, p. 239, where he proves by documentary evidence that Konig's story of the whale-hunter James Hartley who had been swallowed by a whale and taken out of its stomach alive on the follow- ing day (Konig, DB., II, p. 750 b.. Expos. T., XVII, Aug., 1906, pp. 521/.) is nothing but a sea yarn. A similar story adduced by v. OrelU would, I doubt not, have the same fate, if it were investigated. Another more interesting and at first sight more promising attempt to make the historicity of the miracle probable was made by Trumbull. He contended that it was most reasonable that Jonah should have been swallowed and later ejected by a fish in order that the Ninevites might regard him as an incarnation of their god Dagan, called Cannes by Berosus, who is represented on the monuments as a fish-man, and that they might believe his word more readily and repent. (Ferd. Chr. Baur, in 1837, had already connected Jonah with Cannes, but in a different manner.) Trumbull has to assume that there were witnesses who saw how Jonah came out of the fish, "say on the coast of Phoenicia, where the fish-god was a favourite object of worship," and that "a multitude would be ready to follow the seemingly new avatar of the fish-god, proclaiming the story of his uprising from the sea, as he went on his mission to the city where the fish-god had its very centre of worship." But these assumptions have not only no basis in the narrative, but are opposed to its spirit. Nothing is farther removed from the mind of the author than to say that Jonah, the prophet of Yahweh, who had proclaimed to the sailors that Yahweh was the God of heaven who had made the sea and the dry land, and who had been sent by Yahweh to proclaim Yahweh's message, should have made upon the Ninevites the impression of being an incarnation of their fish-god, and that Yahweh should have desired "to impress upon all the people of Nineveh the authenticity of a message from himself" in this manner. Doubtless the Ninevites would have thought that the message Jonah was giving was from Dagan and not from Yahweh. It is most improbable that a Jew- ish author should have thought that Yahweh would accommodate him- self so much to the capacity of these heathen as to minister to their superstitions and to strengthen their faith in another god (cf. Konig, DB., II, 752). JONAH § 2. ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF THE STORY. We saw that as soon as we put the story into the category in which it belongs all strangeness disappears. This holds good especially in regard to the fish episode. It has been regarded by most as a singular, unparalleled adventure, and the mythical stories which were told by the Greeks concerning Hercules and Hesione, Perseus and Andromeda, Arion or Jason have usually not been considered by most critics as sufficiently parallel to be con- nected with Jonah. But the situation is different now. This part of the story, far from being unique and unparalleled, turns out to be a common story the world over. Frobenius especially, and after him H. Schmidt, have shown that a narrative according to which a man was swallowed by a monster, remained a long time inside of it and came out later safe and sound, was told among many peoples. Maritime peoples naturally spoke of a large fish or another sea-monster, inland peoples of a wolf or bear or dragon or some other animal. The mode of deliverance varied, though sometimes it was the same as in the story of Jonah. The essential point, however, is the same with all. Our story of Jonah is therefore but one of a large number, which Frobenius calls "Jonah-stories." * Such tales of miraculous deliverances must have been told along the coast of Palestine. It is not without significance that the story of Perseus and Andromeda is localised at Joppa, the port at which Jonah embarked. And our author took this rather com- mon feature of the swallowing of a man by a fish and his subse- quent deliverance, and used it in his own manner. But his story is altogether different from those others. They are mostly myth- ical stories about the sun, his is a prophetic story, pervaded by the truest spirit of Israel's religion. To our author the mythical element has entirely disappeared. He uses the fish episode merely in order to bring Jonah back to the land. If he had not known any of those stories, he might perhaps have thought of a different * Such stories, not the special Jonah-story of the OT., were caricatured by Lucian of Samo- sata in his Vera Hi^loria (Engl, transl. by H. W. Fowler and F. G. Fowler, The Works oj Lucian oj Samosala, II, pp. 136-173). ORIGIN AND PURPOSE 7 means of delivering Jonah. But this feature lay ready at hand and was most impressive, and there was no reason why he should not use it. The ancient Jews, just as other oriental peoples, loved romance. And a story effectively told would carry home its own lesson where a simple straightforward address would have been useless. Our author knew this well. Other prophets had told parables and had gained a hearing when other\vise it would have been impos- sible. The great teachers of postexilic Judaism made frequent use of stories as a means of teaching, compare only the stirring tales in Daniel, to mention no others. Our author had a great lesson to teach, a lesson which must not fall on deaf ears. And the situation that confronted him was this. The great prophets had taught that Yahweh is not only Israel's God but the God of the whole world, for He is the only God that exists. From this followed that He is interested not only in Israel but in all the nations of the world, and that His love goes out to them all. He punishes sin wherever He finds it, among the nations as well as in Israel. But He does not desire the death of the sinner but that he repent and live. And so He warns them all of the inevitable punishment that must come, if they continue in sin, and He hopes that they will turn in true repentance and be saved. See Je. i8^"'. This truth is a universal truth, it is for the nations as well as for Israel. It was a wonderful prophetic conception and a glorious doctrine! But it did not control the thoughts and the lives of the Jews. They had become narrow and embittered. The great world powers had dealt cruelly with them, and they had come to feel that the nations deserved nothing but swift and terrible pun- ishment. But the punishment was delayed, and the passion in those hot Jewish hearts grew stronger and the hatred of the heathen fiercer. They hoped for Yahweh's interference on their behalf. Surely Yahweh, the God of righteousness, would vindicate Him- self. But they hoped in vain. — Meanwhile the spirit of the great prophets was working gently in some hearts, softening and illu- minating them; and the wonderful passion of Deutero-Isaiah with his glorious idea of Yahweh as the one and only God and his ardent hope of the triumph of His religion all over the wide world 8 JONAH and of the salvation of all, was living on in a few great souls. And with it the ideal of Israel's mediatory service for mankind in bring- ing the knowledge of the true religion to the ends of the earth. An ideal like this, once given, could not die. It lived on in the heart of our author, who felt keenly how far removed Israel was from this ideal. To summon them to it would be worthy the task of a prophet. And so, seeing the great vision of the oneness of God and of His character, and conceiving the universal implica- tions of those truths, he went to his people and told them this story, in the light of which the problem of the delay of the punish- ment of the nations was solved and by which the heart of Israel was summoned to its high task. He used folk-loristic elements for his story, as we saw above, but why he should have taken Jonah as the hero of his story is difficult to tell. There had been a prophet Jonah of Gath-Hepher in Zebulon, identified most probably with Meshed in Galilee, three miles north-east from Nazareth. He had predicted victory to Jero- boam II in the ninth century B.C. according to 2 K. 14"'. Noth- ing else is known of him. Neither the Book of Kings nor the Chronicles tell anything else about him. It seems that his name attracted our author as especially appropriate for his purpose, for Jonah = Dove had become a symbolic name for Israel.* Our author needed a representative name and " Jonah " suited his pur- pose. The Cook of Kings does not mention his father's name, and it seems to me most plausible that our author added it himself to express that Jonah (Israel) was the son of Amittai (or probably of Emeth) the son of truth, having the truth of God, the true re- ligion,— which indeed Israel did have, but which it did not wish to share with others. — Since this Jonah lived at the time of the Assyrian empire our author chose Nineveh as the representative of the nations, although in his own time Nineveh was no longer in existence. That he antedated Israel's connection with Nine- veh is a minor point, since he wrote no historical treatise. It has sometimes been assumed even by scholars who do not * Ephraim is compared to a dove by Ho. 7" 11", and is railed a turtle-dove in Ps. 74". "In later times Jonah or 'Dove' became a standing title for Israel." Che., KH., II, 2567, n. 4, with references. ORIGIN AND PURPOSE 9 take the story as a record of literal facts that traditions concern- ing Jonah had been handed down, e. g., of a trip abroad attended by great dangers, or even of a mission to Nineveh and of his won- derful success there. In the light of the silence of the Books of Kings and of Chronicles, this is most unlikely and, besides, it is altogether imnecessary, because the story is the work of poetic im- agination, pure and simple. Bu. has made a most interesting suggestion in this connection. He regards the Book of Jonah (except the psalm) as a part of the Midrash of the Book of Kings to which the Chronicler refers as his source (II, 24^"). A Midrash is "an imaginative development of a thought or theme sug- gested by Scripture, especially a didactive or homiletic exposition, or an edifying religious story" (Driver, Inir., p. 529). Bu. believes that the Book of Jonah is a Midrash on 2 K. 14" and that its place in the mid- rashic work was after 2 K. 14'^, the words of the canonical Book of Kings being, of course, included in it. Yahweh's grace to Israel taught there, is extended here also to the nations. The beginning, and it came to pass, and the abrupt ending of the story point according to him to its having once been part of a larger whole. That the book has the character of a Midrash Bu. has rightly seen, but that it was part of the Midrash of the Book of Kings has been con- tested in view of the character of the Midrashim given by the Chronicler and in view of the poor connection between 2 K. 142' and Jon. i'. Winckler suggested therefore that it was taken from the Book of the Seers (quoted in 2 Ch. ^^^^ CS) which was a Midrash on an old pro- phetic code and which contained originally also the Books of Isaiah to Malachi. The original place of the Book of Jonah was not after 2 K. 14", for the mention of Nineveh would be premature there. And really the Jonah of 2 K. 14-^, Wkl. argues, is not the same as the Jonah of Jon. I', their identification is due to a glossator. The Book of Jonah belongs, not under Jeroboam II but under Manasse with the Book of Nahum, which Wkl. dates from this time. "There the downfall of Nineveh had been predicted, but directly after it had to be told that Manasse had been obliged to go to Babylon to the King of Assyria to justify himself, or at least that he had remained Assyrian vassal. This harmonised but iU with the predictions of Nahum — and thus a com- mentator felt the need of explaining the matter — and the Book of Jonah was there" (pp. 262/.). It cannot be claimed that Wkl.'s theory is preferable to Bu.'s. It does not do justice to the spirit of the story and its argument against the originality of the identification of our Jonah with the one of 2 K. 14-' is untenable (see on i')- And even if the mention of Nineveh under Jeroboam II were premature (but see Gn. lo JONAH io'2 J) we should have to credit the author with this historical error. According to Bu. {JE., VII, p. 226), "Winckler retracted his opinion in 'AUgemeine Evangelisch-Lutheriscke Kirchenzeitung,' 1903, p. 1224." The Allegorical or Symbolical Interpretation: — Some scholars, among them Bloch, Kleinert, Cheyne, G. A. Smith, regard the stor}' as an alle- gory not as a parable. To them it is an allegory of Israel's history. Israel (= Jonah), as God's servant and prophet, was to bring His truth to the nations. But it evaded its duty and was in consequence "swal- lowed up" by the world power Babylon (= the great fish). In the Babylonian exile it turned and prayed to Yahweh and was disgorged or liberated. After the restoration it was dissatisfied with Yahweh's long- suffering with the nations and waited for their punishment. The combination of the Babylonian empire with the great fish seems to be fortified by Je. $i^*- ■". But there it is a comparison which is made in the te.xt, while in Jonah nothing calls for an allegorical interpretation of the fish. The untenableness of the theory is at once manifest when it is carried through consistently, as, e. g., by Wright, who thinks that the wonderful plant symbolises Zerubbabel. But even the moderate interpretation of G. A. Smith does not sound natural. The heathen powers are represented by the sea, by the fish, and by Nineveh. Cheyne confines himself to the salient points and thus gives the theory its most plausible and attractive character. The elements of truth contained in it have been recognised and done justice to above, but (he symbolic interpretation of the fish is uncalled for. Sometimes, though not usually, the allegorical interpretation is com- bined with the typical which sees in Jonah the type of Christ. This is due to the explanation by the evangelist (Mt. 12'")* oi the sign of Jonah of which Jesus spoke in Mt. 12" i6^ The evangelist interpreted the sign of Jonah as meaning the three days and three nights which Jonah spent in the fish and the same period which Jesus was "in the heart of the earth." That Jesus Himself meant by the sign of Jonah something else is plain from Lk. 11'", For even as Jonah became a sign unto the Ninevites [by his preaching of repentance], so shall also the Son of man be [with His gospel] lo this generation. ^"-The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it : for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here. Often this reference of Jesus to the sign of Jonah has been used as an argument for the historicity of the story of Jonah. Jesus believed in it, so it is reasoned, consequently His followers must do so also. But Jesus had no intention of afl!irming or denying its historicity. He was using an illustration, and an illustration may be drawn from fiction as well as from actual history. Paul refers to the legend of the rock that followed * .\lniost all NT. critics regard Mt. n*" as a gloss or interpretation by the evangelist. CANON AND DATE II the Israelites on their exodus from Egypt, i Cor. io<, and Jude refers to the Jewish legend concerning the contention of the archangel Michael with Satan for the body of Moses. Does that stamp these legends as historical facts? We constantly use references to literature as illustra- tions without thinking for a moment that this implies a belief in the historicity of the stories or persons referred to. Nothing can therefore be inferred in regard to its historicity from the use which Jesus makes of the story. Even v. Orelli who believes in the genuineness of Mt. 12*" and in the historicity of the Book of Jonah agrees that the historicity of the resurrection does not prove the historicity of the Jonah miracle.* § 3. INSERTION OF THE BOOK IN THE PROPHETIC CANON. When the parabolic character of the Book of Jonah is clearly understood, the surprise that it should have been included among the prophetic books, from which it differs so much in form, dis- appears, for it is then recognised as belonging there by virtue of its teaching and of its spirit which are those of the greatest proph- ets. It was therefore a true instinct that led the collectors to place the book in the canon of the prophetic books. Budde thinks it was included among the Twelve to round out the number twelve. But that seems a most inadequate reason. Konig suggests that its special place in the canon after Obadiah may be accounted for by the theory that the words a messenger was sent among the nations in Ob. i "found a clear illustration in the story of Jonah" and "that the question why the threats pro- nounced against Edom had remained unfulfilled was intended to be answered in the Book of Jonah" {BD., II, 748b). § 4. THE DATE OF THE BOOK. If Jonah himself were the author the date would at once be settled, for Jonah the son of Amittai, of Gath-Hepher in Zebulon, lived under Jeroboam II, to whom he prophesied victory over the Aramaeans, 2 K. 14^. But the book nowhere claims to have been written by Jonah. It is a story about him not by him. And * On the use of the fish s>-mbol in the early Christian church, see esp. H. Schmidt, Jona, pp. 144 S- 12 JONAH every argument is against so early a date. The language of the book is such that it cannot belong to the ninth century B.C. A number of late words are used which occur elsewhere only in late literature. Thus nj:: 2' 4"- ' "j a favourite word of our author for the ear- lier riix, is found elsewhere only in i Ch. g'^ Pg. 61 « Dn. i^- lo- is and frequently in Aramaic, Ezr. 7" Dn. 2^*- ", etc. ''3"< 4" is used in late literature, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, Daniel, for the earlier n^a-*. In Ho. 8'' i3-> was already suspected by the Masorites who read '?■> instead of it. pr^'i' occurs elsewhere only Ps. 107'" Pr. 26'", and S 2Z'r\ (= n^Wo)) I* and nN''-i|i 32 are not found in the earher literature. Again, there are some decisive Aramaisms in the book. na'j/Pn i^ for the Heb. arn, c/. Dn. 6', Elephantine Papyri and the Targums. ay:: 3" in the sense of command, edict occurs elsewhere only in Aram., cf. Ezr. 6'^ Dn. 3'", etc., in Heb. the root means to taste, cf. 3"". The use of U' for icn (in "•v^-C'S i^j'Sao i>2, pa* 4'") became common in later Heb. under Aram, influ- ence. Vu' had been used in early northern Israelitish writings (cf. Ju. 5) but elsewhere only in late passages (Psalms, Ecclesiastes) . Since the other linguistic evidence points to a late date, the use of w' for iu-n becomes also an indication of the period when it was so freely employed. n*^:; is, which is not found before Ezekiel (27'- " ") and n^nD which occurs only here in the OT., have both been regarded as Aramaisms. But nj'DD means here evidently the lower deck, and is derived from the good Heb. root JSD, and nSn may not have been used accidentally, since the OT. has so few sea-stories. In accord with the linguistic evidence is the familiarity with OT. writings which our author displays. He knew the story of Eli- jah's flight to Horeb (i K. 19), for he modelled ch. 4 on it, cf. 4^^- ^^ with I K. 19^*^. He knew the teaching of Je. i8^'^^, of the condi- tional character of Yahweh's predictions to the nations, and his story is a beautiful illustration of the principle expressed in Je. 1 8^- ^, At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation and con- cerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it, if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do them. Cp. also Jon. 3*'^ with Je. 18" 26^. He also knew Deutero-Isaiah's teaching of monotheism in its universal applications and is intent on incul- cating it by his story. This brings us down to exilic or postexilic times and it is inter- esting to note that Yahweh is called God of heaven, a title which UNITY OF THE BOOK I3 was prevalent in postexilic but so rare in pre-exilic times, that He is called thus only in one early story, Gn. 24'- ''.* With this late date agrees the manner in which Nineveh is spoken of as a city of the past (f) and in which it is described as so fabulously great. Moreover the title "King of Nineveh" (3^) could not have been given to him as long as the Assyrian empire still existed (Sayce, Monuments, p. 487). Everything points thus to the postexilic period, and the book is quite generally dated thus by scholars. To fix the date more def- initely is difficult because the indications are too slight. Still the lower limit can be determined. The book cannot be later than the third century B.C., because Jonah is included among the twelve by Jesus Sirach (49^") and referred to by 3 Mac. 6^ and Tob. 14*. The fact that our author quotes the ancient characterisation of Yahweh's nature (Ex. 34*^) in the form which Joel (2"^) uses, adding and relenting of the evil, may indicate that this form was prevalent at the time when Joel and the author of Jonah wrote, or that the author of Jonah knew Joel's book. The use of another phrase of Joel (2"^) in 3®* would favour the latter. In that case the book was written between 400 and 200 B.C., and this is as much as we can say. § 5. THE UNITY OF THE BOOK. Though the story makes the impression of literary unity, it is not without certain unevennesses and apparent incongruities which tend to give a semblance of truth to the hypothesis of composite authorship which has been repeatedly put forward. J. G. A. Miiller, in 1794, seems to have been the first to deny the unity of the book. He believed that the psalm in ch. 2 was composed by Jonah himself, but the story by an exilic author. In 1799 Nachtigal, in his desire to account for the miraculous story of chs. i, 2, assumed three sources, which are, as he thought, distinguished by differences in language, spirit and manner of presentation, (i) The prayer, composed by the prophet himself * The phrase a''^^** nin< 4' is not to be explained by dependence on Gn. 2 but by confla- tion of texts. See below. 14 JONAH after his deliverance from mortal danger, 2^"^"; (2) the poetical apology of a Jewish sage of the exile directed against particular- istic fanatics of his people, chs. 3, 4; (3) a prosaic introduction, ji-16 2I. 2. 11 ^1^ written by a scribe of the time of Ezra and Nehemiah to serve as a connection between the first two originally indepen- dent pieces. The mention of Tarshish in 4^ suggested a trip to Tarshish and the phrase from the bowels 0/ Slieol, 2' (Engl. 2^), Jonah's stay in the fish. The untenableness of this theory is at once apparent. But it is noteworthy that the belief that Jonah composed the psalm himself and that the story was a later inven- tion on the basis of the psalm was entertained also by others, e. g., by Bunsen {Gott in der Geschichte, I, pp. 349^., see Kue.). These early attempts had no influence on later criticism. And the next one by K. Kohler {Der Prophetismus der Hebrder) seems to have remained unnoticed by everybody except Dean Farrar, who mentions his theory in The Minor Prophets, p. 236, accord- ing to which Kohler regarded i* 2*"® (Heb. '"*") 3® 4*'* as interpo- lations. Kohler's article is unfortunately inaccessible to me, but he seems to have discerned the difficulties in chs. 3, 4, which later critics also pointed out, and he apparently tried to remove the chronological difficulty of 3''^- 4^-^ by omitting 4'"^ as secondary. It is interesting to notice that this drastic excision of 4*'* was ac- cepted later by Kaufmann Kohler and Riessler. The next suggestion was made by Kleinert in 1868. He ac- counted for the incongruities in chs. 3, 4 by assuming that there were "obviously in chapters iii and iv two accounts, which state essentially the same thing, the one in laconic touches, the other in more minute detail . . . and which agree verbally and intimately with one another. First account, ch. iii. 1-5, lo; iv. 1-5. Second account, iii. 1-4, 6-10; iv. 1-3, 6-1 1." This seems to Kleinert so obvious that he gives no argument in support of his theory. But the assumption of the interweaving of two accounts is jus- tified only if there are evidences of real differences. Here where the accounts agree so closely that it is impossible to separate them, the difficulties must be solved in some other way. In 1879 the Jewish scholar, K. Kohler, subjected the book to the most searching literary criticism it had as yet received and con- UNITY OF THE BOOK 15 eluded that a number of interpolations, glosses and redactional transpositions were responsible for the book as we now have it. Kohler regards as postexilic interpolations in the pre-exilic book: i5b. 6. 8a^b (from what is thy country on) 9b^. 10. m 22-10 (Engl. >-») ^^■^'^ '"» (he reads narrative tenses in '»^'') ^- 4'-<- "•=• ^^ {to be for a shade over his head; Kohler reads with (5 to give him shade, and omits /row his displeasure) '">. — He inserts in i-, Yet three ((8) days more and Nineveh will be overthrown ! from 3*. He substitutes this also in 3"' ior the mes- sage which I will speak to thee. He inserts in 3* and so he did on the second day and so he did on the third day. — He emends 4'- ', "But at the dawn of the morning Yahweh ordered a hot wind, and it smote the castor-oil plant and it withered. And as the sun arose, the sun struck Jonah's head and he became faint, etc.* — Kohler transposes i" after i^, and I" after i'. "The interpolation of vers. 5c and 6 accounts for the removal [from its right place] of the former, and v. 10 presents itself as a late substitute of a very problematic nature in place of v. 16." The elements of truth in the theory will appear as we proceed. W. Bohme followed Kohler in 1887, but evidently knew nothing of his predecessors. He distinguished four sources and glosses besides. A, the principal, Yahwistic narrator, i'-'» (with omissions in '• <») 7. 8aa. 9. loaa. u. isao. 13. 15 2i- n 3i-3»- '•i'- 6 (a lacuna due to R exists after 3^ in which the sparing of Nineveh was told) 4i- S" (contents) ^ (except to deliver him from his displeasure) '»<»''• ^^- '• •"» (mostly), "". B, the Elohistic author, worked over a part of the same material, 3'i'- ••»• "'• (except some additions) 45''- io» (and thou didst not cause it to grow) '"> (except and miich cattle) and probably some material in the preceding verses also. R, the Elohistic Redactor, worked A and B together into a whole. C, the Yahwistic supplementer, I't- «• loa^t. is^^. m. is 2--^'> 4'- '. To these four Bohme adds the author or authors of minor glosses, I' (the first Tarshish, and the second from the presence of Yahweh) u^. 5b. 6. 8a^. b^ {what is thy country, etc.) 2<» {into the midst of the sea) «■ '■ 8 {into Thy holy temple) ' ^t^^^ {the cattle and the sheep, and shall not feed) ' {man and beast) 4*- "» {to deliver him from his displeasure) sa. lob. lib {and much cattle). Bohme's theory is so complicated and artificial that it appears at once as most improbable. He magnifies little unevennesses, and requires a logical exactness which is out of the question in a * ni?7in due to a copyist's change of niSya, ace. to Kohler. 1 6 JONAH story like that of Jonah. The linguistic differences with which he seeks to strengthen his thesis are imaginary; the difference es- pecially in the use of Ya/iweh and Klohim cannot be explained on his hypothesis. — Yet Bohme's perception of the uneven places was so keen, that Kuenen gave it serious consideration. He pointed out, in addition to the above points, that it was highly improbable that a story with such a tendency could have been so popular in postexilic times as Bohme's theory of four writers, besides glos- sators, assumes. If Bohme had not insisted on parallel narrators in chs. 3, 4 (A and B) and if he had not apportioned the additions to various distinct writers, his criticism would not have looked like "a mere curiosity" (Cornill). For in spite of the untenableness of his theory, his article contained many acute suggestions which later criticism has found valuable, e. g., on i' 2* 3* 4®; and strange as it may seem it has strongly influenced the recent criticism of H. Schmidt and Riessler. Winckler (1899) tried to solve the literary problem of the book in a much simpler manner. He transposed i" after 1* {cf. Kohler) ; 1*° after i''; and 4'' after 3*. In 4® he omitted that shade should be over liis head, and in 4* he supplied after east wind: and it tore doivn the hut. The transposition of i^^ is plausible, and adopted by Bu., but i^' fits even better in its present context, where it is quite sig- nificant. See com. The transposition of i^° is not so plausible, but that of 4^ seems at first irresistible, and is accepted, e. g., by Marti. There is a real difficulty at this point, but it is not to be solved by a transposition. See below. On 4" and 4^ see com. The next attempt was made by H. Schmidt, who believed that Bohme had pointed out in the main correctly where literary criti- cism must begin, but had barred himself from a true solution by his hypothesis of two parallel narratives in chs. 3, 4. Schmidt tries to account for various insertions by a religious motive. Thus he thinks that the prayer of thanksgiving in ch. 2^"'" (Engl. ^'^) was inserted because the change from wrath to mercy in the actions of Yahweh appeared to a later reader too abrupt. In ch. 3 it seemed to this reader that God was far too easily reconciled, so he added 3®"®. Similarly in ch. i it seemed strange that heathen sailors should be permitted to throw a prophet of Yahweh into the sea UNITY OF THE BOOK 1 7 without being punished for it, so he inserted i^^- ". In each case there is a trait in the narrative which is expanded by the interpo- lator: in 2" and Jonah prayed is made definite by 2^"^°; the fasting of the nobles in 3^ is expanded by 3^"^; to the question of the sailors in i^^ there were added i^^- " to bring out that they had done their utmost to evade the necessity of killing a prophet of Yahweh. In addition to these interpolations Schmidt, heedless of his own crit- icism of Bohme, regards i'*'^"- ''^'^ '^- ^- ^-^°^'^ as an independent nar- rative which was woven together with the other. A lacuna before V. ^ he fills out by something like, and Jonah cried to his God and the sea became calm, and then reconstructs the following outline: "The sailors have treated their passenger in a hostile manner; perhaps they are leading him away against his will, or have robbed him of his possessions. Yahweh hurls a storm upon the sea as a punishment. In vain the robbers cry to their gods; in the greatest need the captain requests also his prisoner, who, certain of the mighty protection of his God, had lain down to sleep un- concerned about the storm, to participate in their prayer. He complies with the request and the storm abates immediately. By the effect of his words the sailors recognise with terror how mighty a man they have treated with hostility, and so they are very much afraid" (p. 297). This story spoke of a trip not of a flight to Tarshish. But the reasons for regarding 3^"^ i^^- " as interpola- tions and I*"""- ^''"'^- "• ^"^"''" as a part of a dififerent narrative are not strong enough for these assertions. It may appear worth while to examine Schmidt's arguments somewhat in detail. In 3' it seems strange to Schmidt that the King should pro- claim the fast again when the subjects are already keeping it (3*). Besides, he adds, in 3' the terms □''p^ tt'jS and Nip are used, but in 3^- * C^-'C r\D2 and in 3^ p>'T. — But is the scene presented in y ^- not quite con- sistent? Did the author himself not feel any interest in describing the penitence of everybody, high and low? And does it not often happen that a decree is issued after the people have already taken measures? And must our author always use the same phrases ? In 3^ he could not use the Hiph'il of t<"\p, so he used a synonym. The reason that Yah- weh's grace came too'quickly after the sincere repentance of the people seems singularly at fault in view of the teaching of the OT. In regard to i'^ " Schmidt thinks it strange that the .sailors should l8 JONAH try to gain the shore in direct contradiction to the will of God as revealed by Jonah; that they should ask Yahweh's pardon when they surrender Jonah and that they should speak of him as innocent. Since v. '« tells of their conversion, the prayer to Yahweh in v. '< which would be the beginning of their adoration of Yahweh, does not fit. — But nothing whatever is said of their conversion to Yahweh! And the other difficul- ties are not real either. The reasons for removing i*""- ^'"^^- »■ s-'oaa and regarding them as a fragment of another narrative are not convincing either. They are as fol- lows. The deep sleep of Jonah is difficult to ex])Iain, and strangely enough it is not said what Jonah did after the captain had told him to pray. Moreover, the strange questions of the sailors instead of the simple What hast thou done? and the still stranger answer of Jonah with the contradiction of his own flight from Yahweh seem to Schmidt to show that they are extraneous elements in the story. So he removes vv, 6i>. 6. s-ioia^ V. '"'» also belongs with them because v. ' presupposes the unavailing prayer of the sailors; and one of the doublets in v. * goes with them too: v. *»* because Yahweh is the author of the storm accord- ing to V. °. So vv. ^"^ ^•■"^ are taken with the other insertions. Again Schmidt tries to fortify these arguments by linguistic differences, thus vv, 3a. 6ap yse H'jx but V. "> n^DD; v.^^P uses i>d but v. ■""» nn. — In regard to nyo note that the verb is used in v. " by the other narrative! Besides, nn is the wind, while ">J'D is used here of the raging of the waves caused by the wind. r\yso is not the same as n^jx, but means tJie lower deck and is used most appropriately. So the linguistic argu- ment is futile. It is true, however, that Jonah did probably not pray at the captain's request. But why this should bring an element of incon- gruity into the narrative is difficult to see, and surely Schmidt's recon- struction of the other narrative at this point is fanciful. Again it is true that the questions of the sailors are not the questions we should have asked, but they are not so incongruous to the narrative that they cannot be part of it. Jonah's answer is probably not preserved in its original form, but it forms so integral a part of the story that we miss something in the story as constructed by Schmidt. He omits (with others) for he had told them in v. '". But then how could the sailors know that he was fleeing from Yahweh? The lot could not tell them that it was Yahweh who was pursuing Jonah, and he himself had not told them anything at all. Does Schmidt think that the sailors were Hebrews? or that they had recognised Jonah as a Hebrew? And even then, might he not have offended another deity ? Budde refers to Schmidt's essay rather favourably, and appears to approve the excision of passages which he regards, with Schmidt, as additions due to the desire to emphasise the edifying element of UNITY OF THE BOOK I9 the story. He says, "You will find that the story runs more smoothly and fluently; whether all stumbling blocks are removed by it also in ch. 4 remains an open question." Unfortunately, Bu. gives no details. In his earlier article in JE. he suggested in regard to ch. 4 to omit vv. *• ^ and in v. ^^ and Yahweh ordered a scorch- ing east wind. He also transposed there i*^ (with Wkl.) after i*, omitted i^^^- ^^^ and read in i***'" (with Kohler) "and from the presence of Yahweh. . . . I am feeing " or he would insert after V.® and I am fleeing from His presence. He was inclined to omit 3* also. On the transposition of i^^ see above. Bu.'s omission of 4^^*^ seems to be due to his understanding of the wind as the agent of withering the plant. But this is not the author's intention. See com. The omission of 4* is plausible, but not absolutely neces- sary; that of the whole of 4^ as well as of 3^ is, however, uncalled for. See com. i*'^^ had already generally been recognised as secondary, and the emendation in i^^" as well as the omission of i^ob which is involved in it are most probable. Whether Bu. would omit now more than in JE. is not certain, though his gen- eral statements in his Geschichte der althebrdischen Litteratur and in his PropJietisches Schriftium lead one to suspect it. Two interesting, though unconvincing attempts to disentangle the knots by means of metrical criticism were made by Sievers and Erbt. Sievers (1905) regards the story as a unity (except the psalm in ch. 2), and removes only a few glosses which were added, as he thinks, to emphasise the religious element of the story: in 1^^ the God of heaven, who has made the sea and the dry land; 2)^^ and let them turn each one, etc.; in ^'^ for I know, etc.; in 3^ in God (after believed) ; 4^ and he prayed to Yahweh, similarly 2^, an editorial transition verse for the interpolated psalm. He omits also 4'''' but for other and more satisfactory reasons. Why the author himself should not be responsible for this re- ligious element is diflficult to see. For surely it is not out of line with the rest of the book! Schmidt omits entirely different pas- sages from the same motive. The metrical argument can hardly suffice in a story like Jonah, which was certainly not intentionally written in strict metrical form. Neither Miiller (1794) and Eich- horn (18 19) who printed the book as poetry, nor Siev. and Erbt 20 JONAH appear to me to have proved that we have anything else but beau- tiful prose in the book (the psalm of course excepted). And though there may be certain measured cadences in its sentences, they are unintentional, and deviations from the metric regularity are to be expected in rhythmic prose. It is not without signifi- cance that Siev. and Erbt differ in their metric arrangement. Siev. believes that the book is composed of smooth lines of seven beats each throughout. Erbt thinks it was written partly in lines of seven beats each, partly in lines of alternately three and six beats each. Erbt (1907) accepts Wkl.'s rearrangement of the order of the text and his insertion in 4^, but he distinguishes two diflferent sources (exclusive of the psalm in ch. 2). (i). ii -laa. 6aa. b. 6 [Jonah's unavailing prayer or refusal to pray has been omitted] ' '"»• 8«<»b. 9. Ha . . . [Jonah is then thrown overboard and the storm abates] '^ 2'»- ^ ^^^ ^!><^a ^e-io ^\-3^. e (except to be a shade over his head) ' [add: but Jonah was very angry] ' [add at beginning: and Yahweh said] '0 ". (2). I^ajSb. 13. 6a^ . . . II. 12. 15 2"> . . . 33b. 4 45a3b 35 . . . 48. «aa . . . Besides, there are glosses in i' {son of Amittai) ■■"> {away from Yahweh) * great (before wind) ^ {the god) ' {the God of heaven) '"^ {for thou, O Yahweh, etc.) '^ {to Yahweh) 31- ' {and beast, cattle and sheep) * {man and beast) ' {that we perish not) 42 {long-suffering and of great goodness) ' {Yahweh) ^^ {for it is better, etc.) ^ {that shade might be over his head) "» {that great city) ■"> {and much cattle). Erbt believes that both sources were written in metre: the first source, as was said before, in lines of seven beats each, the second in lines of alternately three and six beats each. He regards the two sources as parts of a so-called Zweipro pJietenbiich and a Drei- prophetenbiich which contained the stories of Elijah and Jonah; and Elijah, Elisha and Jonah respectively. He adduces no argu- ments except the metre. His method is arbitrary and his division untenable. Siev. arrives at an entirely different conclusion by the use of the metre as a literary criterion. The most recent contribution is by the Roman Catholic scholar Riessler (191 1), who is greatly influenced by his predecessors, es- pecially by Bohme, whose curiosities, however, he does not repro- THE PSALM IN CHAPTER 2 21 duce. He believes that the book was worked over several times, one of the revisers added explanatory material, another glosses. These additions are i^ iJJie son of Amittai) *^^- ^^^- ^ (from and whence doest thou come on) '^^ (in ^'^ he reads with (§ / am a ser- vant of Yahweh) '''■ "^- '^- "• ''; 2' (except and he said) *■ '■ '-^•'; ^sb. 7b (^fj.Qjj^ ifj^y ^^^^ ^^i y-ggj Qj^) 8. 9 ^1-4. 5b. 6a (^^Q deliver him from his displeasure) ® {on account of the ricinus) "^. Ries. gives, as a rule, no reasons for his omissions, perhaps be- cause most of them had been proposed by others. His most note- worthy points are perhaps his view of ch. 2, on which see below, and his omission of i^'' with its graphic, interesting detail. But both are exceedingly improbable. These manifold different attempts, not a single one of which is convincing, show that there are certain difficulties in the text of our book which must be accounted for. But they must not be magnified. There are real difficulties, e. g., in i^- ^ 3^ 4^, but the remedies needed are slight, and all theories that work with several sources, or with many transpositions, are too artificial to be true. The result of our survey of these proposals and of our detailed exegesis in the commentary is that the book is a unity, with the exception of the psalm (2^"^" Engl. ^"^), and that there are several glosses, in i^'^ (Tarshish), ^^ {on whose account has this come to us), "^ (due to a mistaken reading in i^ which is to be emended), 3* {and beasts) 4^^ (due to a mistaken reading in 3* which is to be corrected according X.o%). § 6. THE PSALM IN CHAPTER 2. It is a psalm of thanksgiving for help received in great danger, not a prayer for help in the midst of danger. The danger is past, the psalmist is safe. So this cannot be the prayer which Jonah prayed, or which the author of the story would have put into Jo- nah's mouth, while he was inside the fish, for it does not fit into the situation. Even though the fish was from the very first Yah- weh's instrument of deliverance to the narrator, so that from his point of view Jonah was safe as soon as he had been swallowed, he nowhere indicates that his hero thought so too, and this is cer- 22 JONAH tainly not self-evident. To be swallowed l)y a fish is usually not the same as to be saved! Our author is too good a narrator to omit a point like this. The p.salm would fit better if it followed 2". There a prayer of thanksgiving and praise is in place. In view of the many trans- positions, accidental or otherwise, which have occurred in the OT. text, it is not improbable that the psalm has been displaced. And indeed v. ^ and v. " go well together, and the psalm follows natu- rally, And Jonah prayed to Yahweh his God out of the belly of the fish. And Yahweh spoke to the fish and it threw up Jonah on the dry land. Then Jonah [Jonah must be supplied] said, Out of my anguish I called to Yahweh, etc. Such a transposition is not difficult, and the displacement may be simply accidental. But even then it cannot be maintained that the psalm was composed by the author of the story. If it had been composed by him, he would have fitted it more closely into the situation. As it is, it does not fit very well. It does not men- tion the fish, nor speak of Jonah's penitence, but quite generally of the experiences of a drowning man, who seemed doomed to death and was yet wonderfully saved by Yahweh upon whom he had called for help. One might try to explain the non-mention of the fish by the singer's ignoring of the instrument in his thanks to the author of his deliverance. And one might say that the fish did not seem so important to the writer as it does to us. But why does he describe so minutely the sinking down to the roots of the moun- tains and the wrapping of sea-weeds around the singer's head, and say nothing at all of the miraculous deliverance by the fish ? Did the latter experience impress him so little? Was it not most ex- traordinary? One might also, especially if the psalm is placed after v. " (Engl. v. '"), try to explain the lack of reference to Jonah's repentance by assuming that his penitence was voiced in the prayer which he made according to v. ^ and as a result of which Yahweh saved him, and that his promise to obey Yahweh's command, if saved, was expressed in v. *°. But after all is said that can be said for the fitness of the psalm, it still does not seem to be the kind of psalm which our author would have composed for this particular situation. THE PSALM IN CHAPTER 2 23 Two possibilities present themselves at this point. Either the author selected this psalm, which seemed to him the most appro- priate he could find, and inserted it after v. " {sic!) or a reader inserted it. If the latter view is adopted, we may either assume that the interpolator missed the prayer referred to in v. ^ and put it purposely after v. ^. To him the fish was the agent of deliver- ance from the very beginning, and he believed that Jonah could pray this psalm of thanksgiving even in the belly of the fish.* Or we may assume that a reader missed an expression of gratitude on the part of Jonah after he had been so miraculously delivered and thrown up on the shore (v. "), and so he inserted this psalm in the margin. Thence it was put after v. ^ instead of after v. ", as he had intended. This latter view appears to me on the whole the more probable. In any case there can be no doubt that he who placed the psalm here interpreted the phrases connected with drowning literally. But in view of the frequent use in poetry, cf., e. g., Ps. 69^- ^- ^^ of figures of drowning for mortal danger and illness it is not certain that the original poet intended them to be taken literally. He may have used them figuratively. The literary connection with various postexilic psalms argues for a postexilic date of the psalm. But how early or how late in the postexilic period it belongs we cannot tell. The Heb. is pure and no Aram, influence is apparent. It has long been noticed that the psalm contains a number of parallels to other psalms. Ps. 18' 120' use the same phraseology as v. '"; Ps. 42*'> reads exacdy like v. "'' [all thy breakers and thy billows have passed over me), but in Ps. 42 this is figurative. Ps. 31-2 is almost the same (except one synonym) as v. ^ (I said, I am driven out of the sight of Thy eyes). The connection of Ps. 18* 69= with v. S" is slight. Ps. 30^ {Yah- weh, Thou hast brought up my soul from Sheol) is quite similar to v. ". With V. ' cp. Ps. 142* 143^ {when my spirit [Jonah: soul] fainted within me); 18' {may He hear my voice from His holy temple and may my prayer come before Him to His ears); 5' {into Thy holy temple); Ps. 88' {may my prayer come before Thee). Ps. 31' has the same phrase {they * The similar example of the prayer of Azariah and of the three men in the furnace (Dn. 3-'') as well as of the inserted prayer of Hannah (i S. 2'-'°) or of the song of Hezckiah (Is. sS^-^o) may be cited in support of "this. 24 JONAH who care for idols) as v. '». V. '" = Ps. 42' {imlh loud singing and thanksgiving). These literary connections, with the exception of v. ^i" = Ps. 42">, are not striking enough to prove more than that the author was steeped in the religious language of the postexilic community. That he should have worked these "quotations" together into a psalm, taking them from these various other psalms, does not seem likely, for the psalm has unity and a certain amount of originality (cf. vv. *■ '). The phrases it has in common with other psalms were the common property of the religious language of the author's day. Interpretation 0/ the Psalm. — The main lines that have been followed in the course of the history of interpretation are these: According to the literal interpretation Jonah is regarded as actually praying this psalm while inside of the fish. Others who do not believe that the story was intended as actual history, believe that the author of the story (not Jonah himself) composed the psalm and meant it to be taken literally as the expression of gratitude on the part of his hero for his deliverance from drowning. Still others believe that it was inserted (not composed) by the author of the story who interpreted it literally in accordance with the story, or by a later reader, who missed the prayer referred to in v. ^ and supplied it from some collection as the one most suitable for Jonah's condition. According to the figurative interpretation the expressions for drown- ing are all metaphors for deliverance from disaster or mortal illness. According to the allegorical interpretation the psalm refers to the Babylonian exile. Jonah is the symbol of Israel, the fish of the Bab- ylonian world power. Israel is singing in exile this psalm of thanks- giving, which is really "a national liturgy." Hpt. varies the allegorical interpretation somewhat by taking the psalm as a "song of thanks by Israel for deliverance from the Syrian persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes." In regard to the composition of the psalm, Bohme, who considers the entire psalm as a later addition, takes vv. «• "■ ' and the phrases in the heart of the sea (v. <) and into Thy holy temple (v. *) as interpolations. Ries. regards vv. "• ' as the original prayer of Jonah, the rest as later additions. He singles out the most striking and original lines of the psalm. But even then they do not fit the situation and cannot be by the author of the story, even if v. "'' is translated with ^ as a prayer, O mayest Thou bring up, etc. Ries. has perceived this and tries to ac- count for it by the theory that the description of v. « was suggested by another form of the Jonah story which was similar to that of Paul's shi{)wreck and to the Buddhist story of Mittavindaka (see com. on i'). But this is pure assumption. TEXT AND LITERATURE 2$ § 7. THE TEXT OF THE BOOK. The text is remarkably well preserved, only a few emendations are needed. The few glosses or doublets are easily recognised. On the use of the metre for the textual and literary criticism of the book, see § 5. § 8. MODERN LITERATURE. (i) Commentaries on all the Minor Prophets. — Eichhorn, 1819; Ewald, '1868 (Engl, 1875); Hitzig, ^1863; Hitzig-Steiner, "1881; Henderson, 1845, ^1860; Pusey, 1861; Schegg, ^1862; Keil, ^1873 (Engl., i88o)r''i888; von Orelli, 1888 (Engl, 1893), ^1908; Farrar, 1890; WcUhausen, 1892, ^1898; G. A. Smith, 1897-98; Nowack, 1898, ^1903; Marti, 1903; van Hoonacker, 1908; Riessler, 19 11. (2) Special Commentaries on Jonah. — F. Kaulen, Librum Jonae Frophefae exposuit, 1862; Hugh Martin, The Prophet Jonah, 1866, ^1889; P. Kleinert, in L&nge' s Bibelwerk, 1868 (Engl., 1875), ^1893; M. M. Kalisch, Bible Studies, II, The Book of Jonah, 1878; T. T. Perowne, in Cambridge Bible, 1879; ^- Kahana, in his Bib- Ha Hebraica, 1906; J. Halevy, Recherches Bibliques, IV, 1907, pp. 190-238; E. Kautzsch, Die Heilige Schrijt des Allen Testa- ments, II, ^1910; C. F. Kent, Student's Old Testament, III, 1910. (3) Monographs and special articles. — J. G. A. Miiller, Jona, eine moralische Erzdhlimg, in Paulus' Memorabilien, VI, 1794, pp. 142 _/. J. C. K. Nachtigal, Uber das Btich des Alien Testaments mit der Aufschrift Jonas, in Eichhorn 's Allgemeine Bibliothek der bihlischen Litteratur, IX, 1799, pp. 221 ff. P. Friedrichsen, Krit- ische Ubersicht der verschiedenen Ansichten von dem Biiche Jonas, nebst einem neuen Versuche uber dasselbe, 1817, ^1841. F. Hitzig, Des Propheten Jonas Orakel iiber Moab kritisch vindicirt, 1831. F. C. Baur, Der Prophet Jonas, ein assyrisch-babylonisches Sym- bol, in Illgen's Zeitschrift fiir die historische Theologie, Neue Folge, I, 1837, pp. 88-114. C. Kohler, Der Prophetismus der Hebrder (quoted by Farrar, The Minor Prophets, p. 236.). T. K. Cheyne, Jonah: A Study in Jewish Folklore and Religion, Theol. Review, 26 JONAH LVII, 1877, pp. 2 1 1-2 19; article Jonah, in EB., II, 1901; Critica Biblica, II, 1903, pp. 150-152. K. Kohler, The Original Form of the Book of Jonah, Theol. Review, 1879, PP- ^39 Jf- C. H. H. W'right, Biblical Essays, 1886, pp. 34-98. W. Bohme, Die Kom- position des Biiches Jona, ZAW., VII, 1887, pp. 224-284. H. C. Trumbull, Jonah in Nineveh, JBL., XI, 1892, pp. 53-60. K. Budde, Vermutungen zum Midrasch des Biiches der Kdnige, ZA W., XII, 1892, pp. 37^. John Kennedy, On the Book of Jonah, 1895. Briggs, Works of the Jmagination in the OT., North Amcr. Rev., 1897, pp. 3S6 ff. B. Wolf, Die Geschichte des Propheten Jona. Nach einer karschunischen Handschrifl, 1897, '1899. H. Winckler, Zum buche J ona, AOF., II, 1899, pp. 260-265. Ed. Ko- nig, article Jonah, in DB., II, 1899. H. Schmfdt, Die Komposition des Buches Jona, ZAW., XXV, 1905, pp. 285-310; Absicht tmd Entstehungszeit des Buches Jona, TSK., LXXIX, 1906, pp. 180- 199. P. Haupt, Der assyrische Name des Potwals, AJSL., XXIII, 1907, pp. 253-263; Jonah's Whale, Proceedings of the Am. Philo- sophical Society, XLVI, 1907, pp. 151-164. Duhm, Anmerktingen zu den Zw'olf Propheten, XIV, Biich Jona, ZAW., XXXI, 191 1, pp. 200-204. The Introductions to the Old Testament by Eich- horn, ^1824, Reuss, 1890, Kuenen, 1892, Konig, 1893, Cornill, 1896, ^1905 (Engl.), Driver, 1891, ^1909, Baudissin, 1901, Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture, 1899, Budde, Geschichte der alt hebr disc hen Litteratur, 1906; Das prophetische Schrifttum, 1906. On the Psalm in ch. 2. — Gunkel, Ausgewdhlte Psalmen, ^1911, pp. 288-295, 340 ff. W. Stark, Die Lyrik des Allen Testaments, in Die Schriften des Alien Testaments, 1911, pp. 98-100. On Nineveh. — F. Jones, Topography of Nineveh, JRAS., XV, 1855, pp. 297-397. ^- Billerbeck and A. Jeremias, Der Unter- gang Nineveh's und die Weissagungschrift des Nahum von El- kosch, BA., Ill, 1898, pp. Sjff. The articles by Sayce, in DB., Ill, 1900, and by Johns, in EB., Ill, 1902. L. W. King, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, . . . in the British Museum, Part XXVI, 1909. (4) Parallel Stories. — Especially Leo Frobenius, Die Weltan- schauung der Naturvdlker, 1898 (E^ngl. transl., Childhood of Man, LITERATURE 2^ 1908); id., Aus den Flegeljahren der Menschheit, 1901; id., Das Zeitalter des Sonnengoltes, 1904. Radermacher, Walfischmythen, ARW., 1906, pp. 251^. H. Schmidt, Jona. Eine Untersuchung zur vergleichenden Religionsgeschichte, 1907. (5) Text and Metre. — W. Wright, The Book of Jonah in . . . Chaldee, Syriac, Aethiopic and Arabic, 1857. Vollers, Das Do- dekapropheton der Alexandriner, ZAW., IV, 1884, pp. 18^. Se- bok, Die Syrische Ubersctzung der zwolf kleinen Propheten, 1887. Graetz, Emendationes in plerosque sacrae Scripturae Veteris Tes- tamenti libros, II, 1893. P^hrlich, Mikrd ki-Pheshuto, III, 1901. Sievers, Metrische Studien, I, 1901, pp. 482-485; id., Alttesta- mentliche Miscellen, 2, in Berichte iiber d. Verhandl. d. kgl. sdchs. Ges. d. Wiss., 57, Band, 1905, pp. 35-45. Rahmer, Hieronymus' Commentar zu den zwolf kleinen Propheten, 1902. Oesterley, The Old Latin Texts of the Minor Prophets, III, ITS., V, 1904, pp. 378-381; id.. Codex Taurinensis (Y), JTS., VII, 1906, pp. 520- 526. Nowack, in Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, 1906. Erbt, Elia, Elisa, Jona, 1907. Duhm, Die zwolf Propheten in den Versmassen der Urschrift fiber setzt, 19 10. COMMENTARY ON JONAH. JONAH'S DISOBEDIENCE AND FLIGHT (i^-^). Jonah is commanded by Yahweh to go on a prophetic mission to Nineveh but refuses, and tries to escape from this obligation by flee- ing on a ship to Tarshish. 1. The tale begins with And the word of Yahweh came to Jonah, the son of Amittai, as if it were a continuation, or as if it had been originally one of a cycle of stories. But the phrase and it came to pass had in course of time become so much used in narratives that it could stand at the beginning of a story without requiring an antecedent. Thus i Samuel, Ruth, Judges, Esther, Nehe- miah, Ezekiel begin with it. On Jonah, the son of Amittai, from Gath-Hepher in Zebulon see 2 K. 14^ and pp. 8/. How the divine revelation came to Jonah is not specified. Whether it was accom- panied by a vision or an audition, or whether it was the voice in his soul that Jonah recognised as Yahweh's command, the author does not say. If the story were history, we would wish to know how such a striking revelation could have come to Jonah, what the historical situation was, and what his own moral and prophetic preparation for this kind of a message consisted in. To try to account for it psychologically is however gratuitous, since the story is a parable and not a historical account. — 2. Nineveh, Assy. Nind and Ninud, was situated on the eastern bank of the Tigris opposite the modern Mosul, north of the greater Zab. It was a very ancient city founded most probably by the Babylonians, Gn. 10*^ ^•. Sennacherib strongly fortified it and made it the capi- tal of Assyria. But its time of splendour lasted only a century, for in 606 B.C. it was destroyed by the Medes. It was never rebuilt. Our narrator calls Nineveh that great city also in 3^ 4". It was important for his purpose to emphasise that it was such a great city, full of human beings, cf. 4". But it was no longer in exist- 28 I^- ' 29 ence in his day,, for he speaks of it in 3^ as a city of the past. The reason why he chose Nineveh as the place to which Jonah was to go, becomes clear as the story proceeds. Nineveh was the capital of the Assyrians, the bitterest enemies of Israel in pre-exilic times, and as such the best illustration for the author's teaching. Even these cruel Assyrians were objects of Yahweh's care. Even to them He gives an opportunity to repent, and thus to avert the pun- ishment due to them. What Jonah was to proclaim or preach is not specified here, but cj. 3*, for the clause because their wickedness is come up to me gives the cause of Yahweh's message not its con- tent. Yahweh dwells in heaven and so the writer in naive but graphic fashion says, the complaint {cf. (^'s interpretation) over Nineveh's awful wickedness had come up and appealed to Him, accusing and demanding justice, cf. Gn. 4^" 18"^ i S. 5^^ La. i^^. In what the wickedness consisted is not specified, but we know Assyria's cruelties from her own inscriptions as well as from Na. 2"- ^^ 3^- ^^. Yahweh is no longer a local or national deity, but the God of the whole earth, who punishes wickedness wherever He finds it. Cf. Am. i /. The emphasis on Yahweh's sense of justice is necessary for the further development of the story. — 3. Jonah refused to obey the command. He did rise, but — to flee from the presence of God and to escape from his duty. That he should at once have made up his mind to flee to Tarshish is un- likely. But when he arrived at Joppa and found the ship about to sail for Tarshish he quickly decided to take passage. The first mention of Tarshish in our text is therefore either due to prolepsis or, more likely, it is a later insertion. Tarshish {cf. Gn. 10^) is most probably to be identified with the Greek Tartessos in the SW. of Spain, near the mouth of the Guadalquivir River (Herod- otus, I, 163, IV, 152). It was most probably an ancient Semitic colony {cf. Is. 23*- *• ^^), whose mineral trade with Tyre is men- tioned in Ez. 27*^ {cf. also Je. 10®).* It appears to have been the farthest point W. to which the Phoenician merchants went on their * Other identifications of Tarshish, e. g., with Tarsus in Cilicia (Josephus) or Tunis (.\E.) or Carthage ((8 in Ez. 27 and Is. 23) are now generally given up. Cj. EB., IV, 4897 if., DB., IV, 683 ff. The identification with the land of the TjTseni, Etruscans (Knobel, Frz. Del., W. M. Miiller) does not commend itself either. And still less does Chc.'s suggestion, involv- ing an emendation, that it was the north Arabian .^sshur. 30 JONAH large, sea-going vessels, sometimes called Tarshish-ships, not be- cause they all went to Tarshish, but because they belonged to the class that could make such extended tours. Cf. East India-men. In going to Tarshish the author represents Jonah as going not only exactly in the opposite direction of Nineveh but also as try- ing to flee as far as possible away from Yahweh's presence. The phrase away from the face, or presence, of Yahweli is equivalent to away from Yaliweli's land. Cf. Gn. 4** i S. 26*® ^- 2 K. 5^^ 13-- ly-"- ^ Je. 2f°. Jonah was trying to flee from Palestine in order to escape a second command of Yahweh. Just as a modern be- liever sometimes thinks of special places where God is more likely to reveal himself than at others, because he has experienced there communion with Him, so Jonah contrariwise in spite of his more advanced conception of God (cf v. ®) thinks he can escape from the presence of God by fleeing as far as possible away from the place where the command of Yahweh had reached him and where He would most likely reveal Himself again to him. Even in still later days Palestine was regarded as the place of Yahweh's special manifestation and presence, though the belief in His omnipresence had long been taught by prophets and psalmists. The reason of Jonah's disobedience and flight is not given here, but it is explicitly stated by him in 4^. It required no special prophetic endowment to divine that Yahweh had a redemptive purpose in this mission. Else He might have instructed Jonah to give the prediction of Nineveh's downfall in Palestine. Jonah would gladly have done this. But to go to Nineveh and give the message there could im- ply only one thing, that he should warn the Ninevites and try to bring about their repentance.* Yapho, the nearest seaport of Jerusalem, is the modern JaflFa, ar. Ydfa, the Greek ^Iottttt], Acts 9^". It has retained its location and name all through the centuries. In Egyptian inscriptions it * The rabbis tried to find a high motive in this wholly unparalleled behaviour of a Heb. prophet and so declared that Jonah fled because he knew that the Ninevites would readily avail themselves of the means of averting the coining disaster, and repent, and thus make Israel's disobedience to Yahweh's warning by His prophets and her perseverance in sin appear all ihe more heinous and worthy of punishment, and her ruin inevitable. Rather than do this, he disol)cycd and fled. He was willing to perish (c/. v. '*) and like Moses (Ex. 32^) give his life for his people rather ^han bring about the destruction of Israel by his obedience. See Rah- mcr, pp. 14 /., where the Jcvvirh sources arc quoted. is called Yepu, in the Amarna letters Yapu, in Assyrian inscrip- tions Yapu, Yappn. See EB., II, 2573/., DB., II, 755/. Already in eariy days a seaport, it was not Israelitish till captured by Jona- than in 148 B.C. (i Mac. 10^^), though cargo destined for Jerusalem was shipped to Joppa and unloaded there in early postexilic times (r/. Ezr. 3^), and indeed as early as the time of Solomon, if we may trust the Chronicler, 2 Ch. 2^", cf. i K. 5" (Heb. 5^). In Joppa Jonah found a ship which was about to sail for Tar- shish. With quick determination he paid his fare and went aboard to sail with them, i. e., with the sailors of the ship, to Tarshish to get as far as possible from the awful presence of Yahweh. There is a fine touch of irony in the repetition of this little phrase. Such details as where Jonah got the money for his fare do not trouble the narrator, who differs here from his Jewish commentators to whom the use of the fem. suffix (her fare) seemed to indicate that Jonah paid the price of the whole ship. Yalkut naively remarks, "Jonah was rich." 1. The name Jonah means dove, cf. p. 8. ^nm CS B Atnathi & ^nn. TiDN is a derivation of ni2N, cf. 'an ,^lSn. To safeguard the pro- nunciation a number of mss. read >n'D>*. There was a Heb. tradition that the widow of Sarepta who was regarded as Jonah's mother called her son TisN p = son of truth because Elijah had spoken the truth to her, cf. I K. 172', the word of Yahweh in thy mouth is truth, ncx. Siev. re- garded \i2« p as an insertion from 2 K. 14", Wkl., on the other hand, followed by Ries., as interpolated in 2 K. 142^ from Jon. i'. But Siev. and Wkl. have withdrawn their assertion. Wkl.'s argument from Heb. usage is untenable. He thinks that invariably either the father's name or the birthplace are mentioned but never both. See however i K. 19'', Elisha, the son of Shephat of Abelmeholah. — 2. Nip © explains correctly ^ajriN. n^Sjj = h^Sn 3=. That Sy is a local prep. = upon, in Nineveh, is most improbable. ^>' and ':'!< are frequently confused and later on meant almost the same, esp. to the copyists. 05 adds Kpavyi) = npyi before on3,n, cf. Gn. 1820. We., van H. translate '3 by that, as if it gave the contents of the message. — 3. The first riV^v-\r\ is omitted by Bohme and Siev., not only mtr. cs. but also for the reasons stated above. Je- rome had already noted its strangeness but did, of course, not omit the first Tarshish. He used it in justification of the general meaning of Tarshish = n^\, sea, which QI gives. r\\n> ubSd 21 paraphrases both times '"T vNtra i3j.-ixt Dip \n. nsa prtc. of imminent fut., Ges. ^ "s^. The verb X13 is only rarely used of going away from the speaker, but whea 32 JONAH so used the limit of the motion is given, Is. 22'5 Ez. 3* " Gn. 45'' i S. 22* Is. 475 Nu. 328, cf. BDB. Siev. inserts njv after |n''i. onry u*///! //lem, i. e., the sailors, who belong io the ship. At the end ^ repeats nnaS before nin> ^joSs. mjiy (5 transl. rd I'aOXoi' avroO, as if it were ii3B'. a correct interpretation. 3. -nM is the Ileb. idiom, went dcrw-n into the ship, we say we)U on board, German, bcstieg es. THE STORM ON THE SEA (i^-«). Ya/iTvch pursues Jonah in a terrible storm. The sailors try to save the ship first by prayer then by lightening it as much as pos- sible. Jonah, who had fallen asleep in a corner of the lower deck, is also ordered by the captain to pray to I lis God. 4. Jonah cannot escape God. Yahweh hurls suddenly a ter- rible storm upon the Mediterranean Sea, evidently not long after the ship had left Joppa. With a few strokes the author pictures the terrible danger. The ship threatened to break in pieces, whether by the force of the waves or by being driven upon the reefs which make the Palestinian coast so dangerous, the author does not say. It is a vivid word he uses, for it represents the ship as an animate being, agitated, full of fear, lit., it thought it would be broken in pieces. Whether the writer was conscious of this force when he wrote the word we cannot tell. Cf. Mk. 4". — 5. The storm was so fierce that the seamen became frightened. They were no He- brews, but probably Phoenicians, either natives or colonists; some may have been of other nationalities. They invoked the help of their various deities, each one crying to his own god, "ignorant of the truth, but not ignorant of the rule of providence" (Jerome). After the instinctive yielding to the impulse to pray they at once set to work to do all they could to save the ship. They threw over- board the tackle and utensils, whether also the cargo is not alto- gether certain (though the Heb. term may include it), in order to get relief from the burden of anxiety which lay upon them. We speak of lightening the ship, so that it may more easily respond to the rudders and the oars. The Heb. thinks of the weight as rest- ing as a burden on the mind. For a similar use of the phrase, cf. Ex. 18". Meanwhile Jonah was unconscious of it all. He had gone down to the lower deck, and there he had laid himself down I" " 33 in a corner and had fallen into a deep sleep. WTiether his sleep was due to his extreme exhaustion produced by his hasty flight or to some other cause the writer does not say. His commentators have thought it worth while to disagree about it. For the narra- tive itself this sleep is important because it explains what Jonah was doing in this hour of danger. It satisfies the reader's or lis- tener's curiosity and prepares for the graphic and interesting in- terview of the captain with Jonah. — 6. The captain in going all over the ship came upon the sleeping Jonah in his corner on the lower deck. In his astonishment he shouts, what do you mean by sleeping! how can you sleep in such a storm! get up and pray to thy God! Astonishment is certainly in his tone, but whether also harshness and threat we cannot tell. He does not recognise him as a Hebrew nor does he mention the name of Jonah's God. Still less does he recognise him as a prophet whose prayer would be especially efficacious. He wants him to do something and not lie around and sleep. Perhaps the God (here not equivalent to God, the one absolute ruler of the world, but rather=///y God) will give a thought to us and help us so. that we do not perish. The at- tention of the deity is called to the suppliant by his prayer. He may have forgotten or overlooked him. There is no hint that the captain thought that Jonah had intentionally refrained from pray- ing and that he feared that Jonah's defiance of God was ominous. In such fearful danger every one must do his share, no one must be idle. Since the sailors were doing all they could to save the ship, the only thing that Jonah could do was to pray. What a scene! The heathen sailor admonishes the Heb. prophet to pray! The narrator does not tell whether Jonah obeyed the command and we may therefore think that this was self-evident and for that reason omitted, or preferably that he simply rose and followed the captain to the upper deck. That he should have stayed where he was, and proceeded to sleep again after the captain had left him, is excluded by the following. Thoughts such as, e. g., how could he pray to Yahweh in his disobedience, did not trouble the nairrator. The story moves quickly and passes over these details. It is inter- esting to note the assumption that the stranger's God is perhaps willing to help them all, if only his attention is directed to their need. 34 JONAH 4. Note the emphatic position of nin^i, biU Yahweh on his part.— S^an is one of the author's favourite words, cf. i'- '2- '\ (g om. nVn.1, so also GASm., Now.^ (but not Now.*^). dvtSn = o^n-^j:. GASin. om. D'3. laii'^i'' '^?V'"> ^ periclilabalur conleri. JH N"i3nNS N^;"2, sought to break in pieces. The French penser is used in the same way. — 5. QI adds after and they cried each one to his God: ^nx pna n'5 'iff irni, and when they saw that it was of no use. D^Sjn cf. (TKeitf, Acts 27". njvi is a circumstantial clause, and as such to be translated by the plupf ., else we get the unjustifiable meaning that he went down at the time of the storm when the others were doing all they could to save the ship. This is most improbable, nj^con ^noT, the innermost parts of the lower deck, Ul i<'\v i'T'ip.N'j'. The unusual word hjidd which occurs only here in the OT. is frequent in Aram., but this does not necessarily mean that it is an Aram, loan-word. On the contrary from the root jdd we get the idea that it means properly the covered ship, the vessel with a deck, and there- fore here, where the lower deck is referred to, nrcD is more properly used than H'jN. It so happens that this is the only occurrence of the word in the OT., but also the only passage where the lower deck is referred to. Du. transl. correctly, in deft dussersten Winkel des Verdecks. ai"i;2 pausal form with pathah, Ges. '5'"'. The vb. is used of deep, heavy sleep. — 6. Since San is a denominative from San, rope, it means rope- puller, sailor, Ez. 278- ''• "• 29. Cf. Q-i?, vineyard-keeper from 07:, vine- yard. For the use of the coll. sg. in this connection cf D'^D 31, chief eunuch, 2 K. 18". Tlve prtc. mnj is not vocative (O sleeper, AV., RV.), in which case it should have the art., but it is used here as anaj's in I S. 2^* or as the inf. in Ps. 50'* with "iS ns, cf Ges. 's'-'i'-, = what are you doing asleep ? what do you mean by sleeping ? nrjT^ is used else- where only in Dn. 6' m^rj), and is clearly an Aramaism. It means to think, B recogitet. uS for us, for our benefit. Cf. *? y-i'n, Ps. 40". Che. emends to 3rnn> (or aK'n"), EB., II, 2566 n. 2. iil ain->n>, GASm. similarly: will be gracious, (S Siacrdxry = jr'ti'ii, wj7/ save, so also ft. But fH is correct. THE DISCOVERY OF JONAH AS THE GUILTY ONE (i"-'»). Believing that the storm was sent by a deity in pursuit of a guilty offender on board their own vessel, the sailors throw lots to discover him. The lot falls on Jonah. The men ask him for par- ticulars about himself and lie confesses to their horror that lie is a Hebrew who is fleeing from Yahweh, the God of heaven, the creator of the dry land and 0/ the sea. i'-" 35 7. After V. ^ there is a brief pause in the narrative. Some think that something has been lost, but that is hardly necessary. The storm shows no sign of abating, and the sailors now fear that an offended god has sent the storm on account of some one on the ship whom he wants to punish. This is an old belief, cj. Jos. 7^" ^- I S. 14'*^ *^-, shared by many peoples of antiquity. Of course, not every storm was interpreted as a sign of wrath on the part of the deity. It was not until the sailors had exhausted every other means that they thought of this last possibility. But how could the guilty one be discovered ? Where man's wisdom is not suffi- cient, the divine decision is sought. The narrator uses here a device that is common all through antiquity, the casting of lots, cj. Pr. 16^ Acts i^^. Even the Urim and Tummim were sacred lots through which Yahweh announced His will. The decision of the lot was authoritative and final, because it was regarded as God's own decision. And they said one to another, come let us cast lots, that we may know for whose sake this disaster has come upon us. Evil is here physical evil, misfortune, disaster. The lots w^re either stones or other articles. When the lot fell upon Jonah there was no doubt in the minds of the men that he was the cause of the deity's anger, and they would, of course, not ask him after the decision to tell them /or whose sake this disaster had come upon them, as M. intimates in a gloss on v. ^. — There is an exact parallel to this episode in the Buddhist story of Mittavindaka from Benares, who had gone to sea in disobedience to the command of his mother. The ship suddenly came to a stop on the sea and could not be made to proceed. The sailors cast lots in order to discover on .whose account this calamity had happened. Three times the lot marked Mittavindaka as the guilty one. Whereupon the sailors set him adrift on a float with virtually the same words that the sailors use as they throw Jonah overboard, "many must not perish on account of this one." The boat then continued its trip. (E. Hardy, Jona c. i und Jdt. 439, in ZDMG., 1896, p. 153). — 8. The strange passenger may have excited the suspicion of the sailors before, they knew nothing of him, he was none of their number. So they naturally want to find out what kind of man he is and ask him. What is thy business ? sc. here on this ship, 36 JONAH why are you taking this trip? This is the meaning of the ques- tion, rather than what is thy occupation, as if that were the reason for God's anger. Tell us, where dost thou come from? What is thy (native) country? And what is thy nationality? — 9. Jonah's answer is brief and remarkable. He only replies to the ques- tion of his nationality, / am a Hebrew. This is the name which Israelites use with foreigners, cf. Gn. 40^'' Ex. 2^ 3^*, etc. Na- tionality and religion go together: And I worship Yahweh, the God of heaven who made the sea and the dry land. He does not insist on his special piety, but simply on his religious connec- tion. He is a Yahweh worshipper. And quite in prophetic style he proceeds to describe Yahweh as the God of heaven. This was a common title of Yahweh in postexilic times, as not only the docu- ments in the book of Ezra but also the Jewish Aramaic papyri of Elephantine show. Yahweh 's omnipotence and transcendence are expressed in this appellation. It is interesting to note that Jonah adds at once to this confession before the Phoenician sailors, some of whom worshipped as their chief god Baal Shdmen=lhe Lord of heaven, that Yahweh had mcuie the sea and the dry land. By proclaiming himself a servant of Yahweh, the God of heaven, who had made and who controlled the sea and the dry land, he made clear that Yahweh had sent this storm upon the sea. And since the lot had pointed him out as the culprit, that Yahweh was pursuing him. The narrator does not represent Jonah as becom- ing conscious of the incongruity of his flight and of his belief, though Jonah realises that he cannot escape Yahweh anywhere on land or sea. Such contradictions in religious belief and practice are frequent enough in life. Note the incongruity of believing in monotheism and at the same time denying God's relation of grace and love to the nations, which our author combats. Now it cannot be denied that the simple and beautiful dignity of Jo- nah's answer is most surprising and altogether unexpected at this point. It is sometimes claimed that Jonah in giving this answer had become Yahweh's missionary to the heathen in spite of him- self. But that was surely not in the author's mind. And it seems much more likely and much more in keeping with the entire nar- rative to assume that originally the text read here slightly differ- I'"- " 37 ently, / am fleeing from Yahweh, the God of heaven, etc. This was changed later, accidentally or purposely, to / worship Yah- weh, the God of heaven. — 10. Jonah's confession produced great fear among the sailors. They did not know the reason of his flight, for he had not said anything about it to them. They thought him a criminal, perhaps a murderer fleeing from justice, whom the angry god (who was in control of the sea as well as of the dry land) was pursuing in the storm on the sea. And full of horror they exclaimed, What hast thou done! They do not ask for information about the nature of his crime, but are horrified at his bold attempt to flee from the Almighty God. The author of the alteration in V. * added in v. ^^, as an explanation of the exclamation of the sailors, for the men knew that he was fleeing from the presence of Yahweh. And a reader of the altered text of v. ^, wondering how the sailors could know why he had fled, and interpreting their knowledge in line with vv. ^'^, wrote in the margin, for he had told them. This was introduced into the text later on. But its second- ariness is apparent from the awkward construction in which the two causal sentences follow each other without connection. 7. ''d'^B'3, consists of 3 + a- + S + ■>d. Therel. part, f = t-'n, is used occasionally in early N. Israelitish, frequently in later writings, prevail- ingly in NH. S was joined to z\ cf. Aram. S^i, always before pron. sfs., •'Sr, etc., cf. V. '-. So here ■'^Si:'. By the addition of '? the whole becomes interrogative, on account of whom ? \\t. on account of that which concerns whom? See v. «. Cf. BDB., Ges. ^"^o^ ^ na s,-,3.— 8. ^cS tj-no is the Heb. equivalent of ^cSa'a, but is so singular and clumsy that it can only be regarded as an explanation of "'cStt'3, and since the whole sen- tence uS PNtn r^y\r^ ^dS la'Na is merely a repetition of v. '"^^, we may be sure that we have to do with a marg. n. which found its way into the text. The question is, moreover, meaningless here, since the men had discovered by lot who the guilty one was. It is not found in several Heb. mss. or in S^'* and is omitted by many scholars. Orelli, who de- fends its genuineness, thinks that the men wanted to find out whether Jonah was veiling to acknowledge his guilt and thus confirm the cor- rectness of the lot. iPDs'^o na what is thy business ? Ehr. correctly, was ist der Zweck deiner Reise ? Pu. "this particular business in which he was engaged, and for which he was come on board." Siev. takes it as meaning, what hast thou done ? — 9. ''">3", (5 SoCXos Kvplov = nin^ ^3". <8 took the > for an abbreviated r^y^^. M, is preferable. ® nN-iin\ Siev. 38 JONAH om. the Cod of heaven and regards also the rel. d. who has made the sea and the dry land as a gloss intended to heighten the religicjus clement of the text. He explains v. "* / am afraid of Yahweh that is why I hid myself, and fmds that with this confession the proud assertion of belief in Vahweh as the Lord of heaven and earth and the sea is not com- patible. His main argument is however metrical, the words do not fit into the hexameter scheme in which, ace. to Siev., the Book of Jonah is composed. In our exposition we have assumed as the orig. text •'JN 'nin> •'js'^n n-\z (with Kohler, Bu.). — 10. r\-\2, prtc. denotes present continuance of the action. We., Now., Marti, Siev. omit dhS T-jn ^3 as a gloss. The rest of v. ""> must also be omitted as secondary (with Bohme, Bu., Wkl.). Wkl. transposes v.'" after v.', regards v. '<"' and in v. *» the phrases, and they said to him and on whose account has this evil come to us? as secondary. But this is not necessary. n'S';' .^Kr n:; is not a question for information, but an exclamation of horror. Cf. Gn. 3". THE STILLING OF THE STORM BY THROWING JONAH INTO THE SEA (i"-'«). Anxiously the sailors ask Jonah what tJiey should do with him in order that the storm may cease. Atui he tells them to cast him into the sea, for he was sure that the storm had come on his ac- count and that it would cease, if he were thrown overboard to placate the angry deity. The men follow his advice, hut not before vainly trying once more to reach the shore and addressing a passionate prayer to Yahweh not to hold them guilty of murder, since He Him- self hcui so plainly indicated His will. As soon as Jonah is cast into the sea, the storm ceases and the sea grows calm. Overawed by Yahweh's might, atidfull of gratitude for His deliverance, the sailors offer sacrifices and make vows to Yahweh. 11. Meanwhile the sea was becoming more and more angry. It seemed that Yahweh demanded the surrender of Jonah. But since the sailors did not know Him, they could not be sure. They were afraid to offend Him. Cf. 2 K. 17"". So they ask Jonah, What shall we do to thee that the sea grow calm and cease from (raging) against us? Perhaps he knew how to allay the anger of God. The clause at the end, for the sea was raging more and more, may be a part of the narrative or a part of the words of I-- 39 the sailors. In v. ^' it is a part of the narrative and so probably here also. — 12. Jonah tells them to throw him overboard, for I realise, he says, that it is for my sake that this great tempest is upon you. He had not gained this knowledge by the decision of the lot, but by the voice of his conscience. And he knew that the storm would be calmed by his sacrifice, for then the reason for the storm would be removed. It was an ancient sailor's custom to quiet the stormy sea by turning the guilty person adrift or throwing him overboard when it had become evident that the god of the sea demanded it. Cf. the story of Mittavindaka given above at V. ^ — 13. But the sailors hesitated to follow Jonah's advice. They were in doubt whether Yahweh would be pleased with it. They did not know what Jonah had done, and could not be sure that all that Yahweh wanted might not simply be his re- turn to the land. So they tried their utmost to reach the shore. The narrator had said nothing of any previous attempt on their part to reach the shore and this is quite in line with what we know about the custom of sailors during storms along the Palestinian coast. Usually they prefer to seek the open sea rather than risk being wrecked upon the reefs of the dangerous coast line. But now they rowed with all their might to get back to the shore. In vain! When they saw that it was impossible and that the sea instead of becoming calmer began to rage still more, they per- ceived that Yahweh's will was in accord with Jonah's suggestion. — 14. So they decided to throw Jonah overboard, but before do- ing so, they cried to Yahweh and implored Him not to look upon this act as if it were the shedding of innocent blood, and not to hold them guilty of the death of this man. Yahweh might side after all with his worshipper and avenge his death upon them. So they told Yahweh in their prayer that they were doing nothing but His will, for He had sent the storm, had indicated by the deci- sion of the lot that Jonah was the guilty cause of it, and He had not aided them in their attempt to get back to the coast in order to put Jonah off the ship. They did not regard Jonah as innocent, their words and do not lay upon us innocent blood expound the words do not let us perish for the life of this man. They merely express that the sailors did not commit the crime of wilful murder. 40 JONAH Yahweh himself had pointed him out as guilty and Jonah him- self had acknowledged that he was the cause of the storm and Yahweh as well as Jonah had demanded that they throw him into the sea. Thou Thyself, O Yahweh, hast caused this accord- ing to Thy will. — 15. Directly after they had cast Jonah overboard, the sea grew calm and ceased from its fury. The term used here makes the sea animate, it had been angry, full of wrath, now it was calm, appeased. — 16. The sailors, profoundly impressed by the sudden calm and overawed by this manifestation of Yahweh 's T^ow ex, feared Yahweh with a great fear. At once they offered sac- rifices and vowed to pay their homage to Him after reaching their destination. What they vowed the narrator does not say. He did not feel the difficulty of the older exegetes whence the sailors took the sacrificial animals. He does not say that they were converted and became henceforth true Yahweh-worshippers, but rather describes a scene which harmonises with ancient religion and its recognition of the existence of many gods. 11. prr'i, in order that it be calm, for waw conj. with impf. in a final clause after an interrogative sentence cf. Ges. '' '"^. ij'Spo pregnant constr., cease from {raging) against us. I'^n in combination with an- other vb. denotes progressive action, Ges. ^ "3". i;'bi Tii;;in, was rag- ing more and more. — 12. ■''^u'a = '•JjJn'^, see note on v. ''. Siev. om. ar^'^j.T mtr. cs. — 13. irn means lit. dig, here dig (oars) into the water = row, Ul rtp^'j'i, B remigabant. (& Trape^id^ovTo made efforts (with the oars). Gr. thinks that <8's Heb. text was perhaps iprnPM, Vol. nnriM, but more likely it was the same as M. a^cnV, to bring back, sc. the ship. Siev. rearranges the order by reading nB'3\TSN aTn*? ^Sa^ nSi on account of the rhythm. — 14. n:N from hn + nj, "a strong part, of entreaty, ah, now/ I (or we) beseech titee I" BDB. 31 beautifully S^ap Nj'^ii'D, accept our petition! IB quasumus. tt'oja, cf. 2 S. 14", S 'i'P). naina; for N'pj DT 01 ■>;! DT nam. N'pj is written here with n as in Jo. 4". Siev. om. nin^ after d.in mtr. cs. iJ transl. Thou art Yahweh and, but this is wrong. — 15. p icv like the German abstehen von, cease, cf. Gn. 29" 30'. n>'r is used only here of the raging of the sea, else it is used of strong emotions. — 16. Siev. (Metrik) regarded both nin> ns and ni,T>S as glosses, but Marti insisted rightly that the characteristic element would then be taken away. Siev. now {M iscellen) regards only one, prefer- ably nin> PN, as secondar)'. <6^ om. mri'^. QI nai Nna-i"? ntNi, and they promised to offer sacrifices (after they had reached the shore). " (ENGL. I^' 2'- '') 41 JONAH'S DELIVERANCE, 2*- '• " (Engl, i^^ 2*- '"). By Yahweh^s command Jonah was at once swallowed alive by a huge fish and remained in its stomach three days and three nights. Then he prayed to Yahweh, who commanded the fish to throw him up on the shore. 2^ (Engl. i"). Then Yahweh ordered a great fish to swallow Jo- nah. The translation prepared (AV., RV.) is misleading, for the fish was not created at that instant but ordered by Yahweh to do His bidding which it instantly did. Cf. also v. ". The later Jews believed that God created this fish on the day of creation and held it in readiness for Jonah. The Heb. speaks simply of a great fish, not of a whale. Commentators have thought of a large shark (squalns carcharias), Quandt and more recently P. Haupt of a cachalot or sperm-whale. But the author did not specify the kind of fish; whether he was not interested in this or did not know enough about it, we cannot tell. He had probably heard stories of huge sea-monsters which had swallowed men whole and alive. The fish has no other purpose in the story than to swallow Jonah and thus to save him from drowning and eventually to bring him back to the shore. Haupt believes that it was brought into the story "in order to transport the disobedient prophet as speedily as possible from Joppa, the seaport of Jerusalem, to Alexandretta, the terminus of the shortest route from the Mediterranean to Nin- eveh." But our author does not say where Jonah was ejected, cf. v. ", and others have therefore guessed that he was brought back to the coast of Joppa. The three days and three nights which Jo- nah was in the fish must not be cut down to but little more than twenty-four hours in order to minimise the miraculous element. For this is of little avail, even if it were possible to interpret three days and three nights thus, since it does not do away with the ex- traordinary miracle. Nor is it necessary, since the story is not a historical account. Of course, the phrase three days and three nights need not be pressed to mean exactly seventy-two hours. To collect stories, as has often been done, in order to corroborate the miracle is beside the mark, eveij^ they were well authenticated, 42 JONAH and even if it could be proved that a man can live three days and three nights in the stomach of a huge fish without being sutlocated. For the story belongs in the same class with the many stories of men swallowed and saved by large fishes which are told the world over. They all are folk tales. Our author lets Jonah stay in the fish three days and three nights in order to make a stronger im- pression on the reader as well as on the prophet who is to be taught obedience by it. — 2 (Engl. v. '). And Jonah prayed to Yaliwch his God. This refers now, as the text stands, to the psalm in vv. •''■"' (Engl. vv. "■"). But this psalm is interpolated, see pp. 22 /., and our author meant here not the psalm but a prayer for deliver- ance, the words of which are not given. V. " speaks of a prayer which was prayed in tlie stomach of the fish, not after the deliver- ance from the fish, while the psalm is not a prayer for deliverance but a thanksgiving after deliverance. V. " is sometimes regarded as the introductory part of the interpolation. Marti, c. g., thinks that our author would not have repeated the subject, Jonah, or the place, from the belly of the fish, from v. ^ But it is easier to account for the insertion of the psalm if v. " was already in the narrative. Besides, the repetition in the light of ch. i becomes even significant. For we are not told (though it is usually assumed) that Jonah prayed to Yahweh his God after the captain had told him to do so. It is more likely that he did not. But now Jonah, who had fled out of the sight of his God, prayed out of the stomach of the great fish in the deep sea to Yahweh his God! The terrible experience had made him pliable. Then followed in the original story v. ". — 11 (Engl. V. *"). And Yahweh heard his prayer and spake unto the fish. The words of the command are not given but implied in the following as so often in Heb. speech: it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land. Where, we are not told. Somewhere on the Pales- tinian coast, we may suppose. To attempt to determine the place is futile, see on v. *. 1. IBM, <6 irpoffira^ev, IJ pr(Ecepit is a favourite word of our author, cf. 4'- '■ '. It means to number, assign, appoi>tt, order, in the latter meaning only in late books {cf. BDB.). -';o here = stomach. IJ omits three days and. — 2. njin the fern, is used only here of a single fish, else- where it is used collectively. Since the masc. Jin occurs three times in 2'- * (ENGL. 2'- ^) 43 this ch. (vv. •■''• ") we are juslified in regarding njin as a scribal error for jn~ (so also Kue.). Others think the use of the fem. is a sign of late date. The grotesque explanations of the rabbis may be found in the article Jonah in JE. The quotation in Mt. i2<<' is taken literally from (&. 11 (Engl. V. •»). For ncsM (& reads vpofferdyr], as if it had read a form of njD, cf. ^'s transl. Trpoffira^ev for |DM in 2' 4^- '. It omitted nini. perhaps its orig. had an abbreviation which (5 overlooked. & also reads ""pDi, apparently a free transl. M is superior to (S &. A PRAYER OF THANKSGIVING, 2^"' (Engl. 2='-»). ' / ' [2] Out of my anguish I called to Yahweh and He answered me, Out of the midst of Sheol I cried, Thou heardest my voice. * ['] Thou didst cast me into the heart of the seas, and the floods surrounded me, All Thy breakers and billows passed over me. » [■<] And I, I thought, I am cast out from Thy sight : 7 How shall I ever again look "^'^ <^'L^ toward Thy holy temple? « p] The waters encompassed me to suffocation, the deep surrounded me, Sea-weeds were wrapped about my head ' ['] at the bottom of the mountains. I had gone down to the land whose bars are everlasting bolts, But Thou broughtest my life up from the pit, 0 Yahweh, mj' God. • ['J When my soul fainted within me, 1 remembered Yahweh, And my prayer came unto Thee into Thy holy temple. ' [5] Those who pay regard to vain idols forsake their (true) refuge. >» [3] But I with loud thanksgiving will sacrifice to Thee, What I have vowed I will perform, for help belongs to Yahweh. The psalm is composed of pentameters, so-called kinah-Wnes. Usu- ally two together are regarded as forming strophes of four half-lines each. The only exception to this is v. ' where we have a single kinah- line. Reuss and INIarti think that the other line has been accidentally 44 JONAH omitted. The latter suggests that it was something like But I trust in Thee, O Yahweh my Saviour I cf. Ps. 31'. Bohme and Du. regard v. ' as interpolated. Dr. Briggs regards the psalm as consisting of "two complete strophes [vv. '-^ and vv. ^■^] concluding each with a refrain and . . . half a strophe [vv. » '"] without a refrain." If the phrase unto Thy holy temple in vv. ' ' is indeed a refrain, Dr. Briggs' arrange- ment is undoubtedly correct. But we cannot be quite sure that the author intended it as a refrain, though occurring, as it does, twice at the end of six lines it is very likely that he did. We would be surer, if it occurred again. Dr. Briggs assumes that it did originally, for he con- tinues, "This shows that the prayer is only part of a longer piece which must have been complete and symmetrical as we see from the parts given to us." The metre demands that the first two words of v. ' {to the ends of the mountains) be taken with v. ' as the second part of the kinah-Wnc. This necessitates a slight change in the preposition. Kau. and Siev. retain the masoretic division of v. ^ and believe that the second part of the second kinah-Wnc in v. « is missing. But this spoils the kinah rhythm in v. ' also. — On the authenticity of the psalm, see pp. 2ijf. 3 (Engl. V. ^). In the first two lines the theme of the psalm is stated. In mortal anguish the author had called on Yahweh and He had heard his cry. He had been so near death when he cried to Yahweh that he seemed to be (as he says hyperbolically) in the midst of Sheol. But now the danger is past, as the tenses clearly show, cf. v. ^. The mortal peril is not specified, but there can be no doubt that the one who inserted the psalm inter- preted the distress in accordance with the story. The original author may have used these expressions figuratively of mortal ill- ness, as, e. g., the author of Ps. 69 had done. But here in Jonah the description of drowning is consistent all through, not as in Ps. 69, where the phrases are figurative and soon abandoned for other terms descriptive of the distress of the singer. Sheol, the nether world, is personified here as a monster with a belly, in Is. 5" its large mouth is spoken of. The phrase out of the belly of Sheol I called seemed to the inserter to refer to the belly of the fish, but it has in reality nothing to do with it. V. ' is similar to Ps. 18^ 30' i2oV For the same hyperbolic expression of threatened death cf. Ps. 18" 30*.— 4 (Engl. v.'). The third line begins the de- scription of the psalmist's distress. It is grammatically closely connected with the preceding, and Thou didst cast me. We should 2^-^ (eNGL. 2*-") 45 expect {for) Thou didst cast me, and we may translate thus, for it explains how the psalmist got into the belly of Sheol. As so often, Yahweh is regarded as the author of the calamity, and secondary causes are not mentioned. The metre which is quite regular in this psalm demands the omission of one word in the first line, and most probably the deep (cf. Mi. 7^^ Ps. 68^) should be omitted, for it is synonymous with the heart of the seas. Cf. Ez. 27^- ^. The streams (for pi. v. i.) which surround him are the floods and cur- rents of the sea, cf. Ps. 24-, where the floods are parallel to the seas. All Thy breakers and Thy billows passed over me seems to have been taken from Ps. 42*. There the terms are used figuratively. — 5 (Engl. V. *). In despair I thought (lit. / said), I am driven out of the sight of Thine eyes, i. e., out of the land of the living, where Yahweh rules and sees everything. Cf. Is. 38", I said, I shall not see Yahweh in the land of the living, nor shall I see men any more with the inhabitants of the world. Ace. to the old idea Yahweh had nothing to do with the nether world, He was a God of the living and not of the dead. This conception persisted even after others had been introduced. The inserter of the psalm may well have seen here a point of connection with i'. There Jonah fled away from the presence of Yahweh, here he realises that he has been banished from Him, out of His sight. In the continua- tion M introduces an element of hope. Surely I shall yet again look upon Thy holy temple, but this is so manifestly premature and so out of keeping with the context that the reading of ©, which in- volves the change of a single vowel, must be followed, How shall I ever again look upon Thy holy temple? A question of despair, it is impossible! Cf. Gn. 39® Ps. 137*. To the Hebrew the temple at Jerusalem was the seat where Yahweh dwelt. Surprising as the reference to it here may seem to us who would have thought rather of the light of heaven in such a connection and therefore of the heavenly temple in which Yahweh dwelt, to the devout Jew this was natural. For he thought of Yahweh as living among His people, toward the temple he looked when he prayed and into the temple the prayer would come to Yahweh who heard it, cf. v. ^. Thither he would go to worship, sacrifice, render thanks and enter into communion with his God, cf. v. ^°. The psalm- 46 JONAH ist feels that this will henceforth be impossible for him, for he is doomed to death. V. ^^ is almost exactly like Ps. 3 1^. — 6 (Engl. V. *). The Heb. idiom, The waters closed in upon me, cf. Ps. i8^ unto the soul, means either until I could not breathe, to suffocation, or unto (my) life, German: gingen mir ans Leben, cf. Ps. 69" (figu- ratively), threatened my life. He had sunk deep down to the ends or roots of the mountains, down to the foundations of the earth ; in Ecclus. 16^" both the roots of the mountains and the foundations of the earth are mentioned together. The Hebrews believed that the earth was founded upon the subterranean ocean, Ps. 24^, and that the ends of the mountains, the pillars of the earth, went deep down to its foundations, cf Ps. 18^®. Down there sea-weeds were wound around the psalmist's head, a gruesome turban, with which he was about to enter the land from which no wanderer re- turns.— 7 (Engl. V. ^). The first two words of v. '' go with v.* (v. s.). The singer had sunk down lower and lower and had ar- rived at the gates of the land whose gate-bars are eternal bolts, which are never opened again after the wanderer has once been admitted. It is the gate of the land of the dead through which the dead soul enters: Sheol, which lay, as the ancient Hebrews believed, below the subterranean ocean. Here the drowning man had arrived, at the gates of death, when Yahweh suddenly saved him. The Baby- lonian ideas of the nether world were so similar that it is possible to fill out the fragmentary notices of the OT. by Babylonian paral- lels, cf. Zimmern, KAT?, pp. 637, 642, Friedr. Delitzsch, Das Land ohne Heimkehr (191 1). Sheol is protected by walls and gates, which are also mentioned in Is. 38'" Ps. 9" Jb. 38*^ Ps. Sol. 16- Wisd. 16" Mt. 16**; its gate-bars are mentioned in Jb. 17", but the text there is not certain. Usually the thought seems to be of a fortified city, here it is of a land, cf. Ex. 15'", also in Baby- Ionian it is irsitum, land, cf Dl., /. c, p. 37. The text adopted above differs from M only in the omission of one consonant. M reads the land whose bars [were closed] behitid me forever. The words in brackets are not in the original. The pit from which Yahweh brought up the psalmist is Sheol. With v. ''^ cf. Ps. 30*, also I S. 2® and the prayer of Asurbanipal (K. 2487), where Ninib is praised as the one who brings back the body of the one that had 2'-'" (ENGL. 2^-') 47 been brought into the nether world (DL, /. c, p. 40). We should have expected a reference to the fish at this point, if the psalm had been written by the author of the story of Jonah for this particular place. — 8 (Engl. v. ^). When my soul was fainting within me, I remembered Yahweh, cf. Ps. 142'' 143* where the same phrase is used (except my spirit for my soul, some mss. have this also here) . And my prayer came to Thee into Thy holy temple, cj. Ps. 5* 18^ 88^. The inserter of the psalm interpreted this, of course, as the prayer for help which Jonah uttered in the belly of the fish, ac- cording to V. ^ (Engl. V. ^). Yahweh's holy temple is here also the temple at Jerusalem. This is an interesting verse for the belief in the necessity and efficacy of prayer. The author evidently be- lieves that Yahweh would not have interposed, if Jonah had not prayed, cf. also i^. And his conviction of the readiness and ability of Yahweh to help those who pray to Him leads him to utter the following remark about idolators, which seems at first so out of keeping with the whole tenor of the psalm, that one might be inclined to regard it as an interpolation, as Bohme and Duhm do. — 9 (Engl. v. ^). It is folly to ally oneself with idols, for they are vain and cannot help, and by doing so one forsakes the only true source of help, Yahweh, who will not help then. For He hears only those who pray to Him. If original, the writer used the phrase they forsake their loving-kindness in the same way in which Ps. 144^ speaks of Yahweh as My loving-kittdness, i. e., they forsake their only true love, their grace, their gracious God, who alone can save them. But it is probable that the original read, they forsake their refuge (Marti). Cf. Ps. 31^ for the phrase they who pay re- gard to vain idols. This strophe is shorter than the others and is regarded as incomplete by Reuss and Briggs, and is filled out by Marti. It is a question whether our poet wrote strophes of four half-lines throughout or (with Dr. Briggs) strophes of six lines each concluding with a refrain. Nothing is missing in the thought, either between v. ^ and v. * or between v. ® and v. ^^. — 10 (Engl. V. ^). In contrast to these idolators our singer to whom Yahweh is his Love or Refuge declares fervently, that he will cling to Yah- weh. With loud songs of thanksgiving will he sacrifice to Him. He means evidently material sacrifices (cf. Heb. word slaughter = 48 JONAH sacrifice), for he mentions also his willingness to pay the vows which he had made in the hour of his desperate need and which, accord- ing to ancient belief, were efiicacious in eliciting God's aid, cf. i"\ There were many different kind of vows, vows of a material and of a spiritual nature. Which were prominent in this psalmist's case we do not know. One might ask whether the inserter of the psalm interpreted this as referring to a vow of strict and unquali- fied obedience which Jonah made in the fish. But we cannot tell, since he says nothing about it. The whole psalm culminates in the shout of joy and gratitude that help belongs to Yahwch and to no one else, cj. Ps. 3° (Engl. 3^). He alone can give it, as the psalmist himself had experienced to his great joy. CJ. v. *° with Ps. 42' 50"- ■'. 3. (S 5j add rbv 6e6v (lov after r^v\'', this is probably due to v. '. — \7"vj' (§ Kpavy^s fiov = V7>^i.w', M is correct. Du. omits '^ip in his transl. ■'S n-\sc cf. Ps. 18^ 120'. Du. omits '''7. — 4. Evidently something new begins here, but the gram, constr. of ^:3'''?'i'.ii connects it with the preceding. We should expect pf. without waw consec. So We., fol- lowed by Now., thinks that something has dropped out. Since the metre demands the omission of one word in v. '", Schmidt om. 'J3'''?s'ni, but this cannot be missed, Marti, Now."^, Kau., Hpt. omit nSixa which should, if orig., be nSissa, while Siev., Now.^, Gunk, omit D^S' aaSa as an explanatory gloss. The second is the most probable. Du. re- tains both synonyms but regards v. ^i" as a quotation and gloss. For the phrase 3^2^ aa':'^ cf. Ez. 27^- ". Hpt., Du. read annj (pi.) with (6 ?C, and this is most probably right, cf. Ps. 24^; the vb. ■'jaao'' must then, of course, also be pointed as pi. — 5. ^nrnjj, in the parall. Ps. 31'' 'Prnjj, / am ct4 off. Gr., Bohme read this here also. But others change Ps. 31" to ^HB'njj, e. g., Du., Briggs. For in read with 0 "|n = -^^n, Stei., Wc., Now., Marti. Note the mistake in (6'* \aov for vaov. 6. Hpt. om. V. 5=" as a gloss and transposes v. ^'' after v. ^•. cdj ij? Ul NHin i>'. (5 & ?I read n'"' for ItD. JU and Aq. thought of the Red Sea: 21 '\10'\ nc, .\q. ipvdpa. Du.'s correction 'J??3D, pf. for impf., is unnecessary', cf. Ges. 5 1"? i and also the same use of ^jaao'' in v. *. 7. D''-in 'sap'^ to the extremities of tite mountains. JH xprj ^li'^sS Gr., Bohme, Now., Marti (?) read '2f"2'i'. since asp is not elsewhere used in the sense of extremity in the OT. But the occurrence of the phrase onn 'asp in Ecclus. 16", where it is parall. to San niDM, proves its correctness here also, cf. BDB. It obviates Now.i^'s suggestion to read V-isn for s-'-^n, or that of Ehr., Hpt. o-n or that of Du. onnj nxpS. — 2'-3' 49 Van H.'s conjecture of 3'tn Hades is highly improbable, n^nna inxn oSiyS nya does not seem quite in order. The ancient and modern Vrss., except <8 5j, supply a vb., the earth with its bars closed upon me for- ever. But even then the difficulty is not altogether removed, because the statement is not true to the facts. The bars had not closed upon the psalmist forever. Of course, we might explain that this is hyper- bolic and that he only thought so. But this does not seem right. Van H. seems to me to have suggested the right solution at this point by follow- ing (& ets ^riv 7\s ol fxox^oi avTTJs Kdroxoi aiiI>i'ioi, |C cuius vectes sunt continentes ceternce. He reads 'i? for ''i>3 and translates, the land whose {gate) bars are everlasting bolts. For the cstr. st. before a prep. cf Ges. ^ ""». This fits in with the context, for inxn is the nether world, cf. Ex. 15'*, Ecclus. 51', Bab. irsitum, and is preferable to Marti's ingen- ious reconstruction s'-^^y nx."*^?* m>nnn Y"}.^^ ^f?"?"!^, I h'ld gone down into the lowest part of the earth, to the dead people of antiquity, and also to the emendations of Now., Siev., Hpt., Du. or Ries. Hpt. omits v. '''. The metr. division differs from M,, D'nn 'axpS goes with the preceding str., \-n-|i with the foil. 'nsn. 21 0^ S> H connect nnr, pit, with nnr, destruc- tion, corruption. 8. Some mss. read "inn for 'U'flj. 05 HI! point siarn with waw conj. — 9. Instead of the prtc. Pi. onsi:*n which is found only here many read with the parall. Ps. 31^ anacn. In Dt. 3221 avff >San is parall. to Sx-{ similarly Ehr., wenn jemand zu nichtigen Gotzen sich ver- sieht, halten diese mil ihrer Gnade zuriick. But the constr. does not favour this. & evades the difficulty by reading lion. — 10 (Engl. v. s). Now."^ suggests Srif^a for ^^P'^. Gr., Che. read n-\:;rN for nnarx. But this meaning can be gotten without emendation, cf. We.'s translation, but I will sacrifice to Thee songs of praise. For nnin (& 51 have a double transl. which does not presuppose a different orig. On the poetic ending in nrinri. see Ges. ^^osr and cf. Ps. 3^ So''. There is dif- ference of opinion in regard to the last line. M. does not connect oSu'n with niH'':', the Vrss. as a rule do. But M is in line with v. * ' and pref- erable, cf. also Ps. 39. Yahweh alone is the true helper in time of need, for He alone has the power to help. The psalmist has experi- enced this and ends therefore his prayer with this jubilant expression of assured conviction. 50 JONAH YAHWEH'S RENEWED COMMAND AND JONAH'S PREACHING IN NINEVEH (3'-^). Jonah promptly obeyed the renewed command, went to Nineveh and delivered Yahweh's message that Nineveh would be destroyed in three days. 1. Cf. i^ There is no reproach of the prophet's former dis- obedience but simply the quiet reiteration of the command which brings out most beautifully Yahweh's gracious kindness. It had sometimes been thought that Jonah went first to Jerusalem after his deliverance to perform his vows in the temple, but our author says nothing about this and we cannot assume that "it goes with- out saying" (Halevy); on the contrary, the impression his story makes is that the command came to Jonah immediately after his deliverance and that it was promptly obeyed. — 2. The content of the command is the same as before, cf. i^. But again it is not specified, proclaim unto her the message which I am about to speak to thee. That it would be the same message as before goes without saying. And that Jonah knew what it was is clear from v. ^. — 3. This time Jonah obeys without delay. His refractory spirit had been subdued by his terrible experience. The author says noth- ing about Jonah's thoughts and feelings with which he set out to do his duty. And we need not speculate on them either. He knew that the duty could not be evaded. N'ow Nineveh, the writer ex- plains, was an enormously large city, lit. a city great {even) for God, who has a different measure of greatness. It required a three days' journey to travel through it. At first it seems as if the cir- cumference of the city were meant, so that it would take three days to travel around it. This would agree with the statement of Dio- dorus (2^) based on Ktesias that Nineveh's circumference was 480 stadia, which would be equivalent to a three days' journey, for Herodotus (5^) estimates 150 stadia for a day's march and the present-day estimate of about 20 to 25 miles for it agrees with this. But that our author meant the diameter of the city is clear from V. * which implies that one day's march was only the beginning of Jonah's journey. When he wrote the city belonged to the dis- 3'- ' 51 tant past, as the Heb. verb shows, and it appeared much larger to him than it actually had been. Such exaggerations are character- istic of stories like this. Diodorus (2^) writes about Nineveh "it was well-walled, of unequal lengths. Each of the longer sides was 150 stadia; each of the shorter 90. The whole circuit then being 480 stadia the hope of the founder was not disappointed. For no one afterward built a city of such com- pass, and with walls so magnificent." F. Jones who surveyed the ruins of Nineveh gives the following measurements: "In more general language the enceinte of Nineveh may be said to form an irregular triangle, having its apex abruptly cut off to the south. The sides of this figure have a length respectively in the order described as follows: The East Wall 16,000 The North Wall 7,000 The West Wall, including space occupied by the great mounds of Koiyunjik and Nebbi Yunus .... 13,600 The South Wall 3,°°° Alaking a total circuit of 39,600 or 13,200 yards, equal to seven miles four furlongs of English statute measure; Just one-eighth of the dimensions assigned to the city by Dio- dorus Siculus." — Topography of Nineveh, JRAS., XV (1855), p. 324. These measurements of Jones tally with the authentic records of Sen- nacherib, who fortified Nineveh and made it his capital. In an inscrip- tion, recently acquired by the British Museum, No. 103,000, and pub- lished by L. W. King in Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, . . . in the British Museum, Part XXVI, 1909, Sennacherib describes Nine- veh's improvements made by him, its system of fortification and its fif- teen gates whose names are given; and in the course of the description he supplies valuable information concerning the measurements of the walls. Col. VII: s^Nineveh, the area of whose circuit in former days ^'had been nine thousand three hundred cubits, ^''and for which the princes who went before me had not built ^'an inner and an outer wall, — ^^t^giye thousand five hundred and fifteen cubits, from the unoccupied land of the city's enclosure, "I added to the former measurement, "and twenty- one thousand eight hundred and fifteen great suklum I made its ex- tent (?)* Col. VIII: '^I enlarged the area of Nineveh, my lordly city, '^its open spaces I broadened, and I made it bright like the day, '^I con- structed an outer wall and made it high like a mountain." Nothing could more effectively demolish the various theories which * " The word clearly refers to the circumference of the walls." 52 JONAH attempt to prove the author's exactness in his estimate of Nineveh's size. The most interesting one of them suggests that the author meant Greater Nineveh, i. e., the whole complex of cities between the Tigris and the Zab including Kalah and Khorsabad (Schrader, KA T.-, pp. 99/.). But that this complex of cities was ever one large whole is contradicted by the inscriptions and the survey of the ruins {cf. also Wkl., KA T.\ p. 75, n. 4, Johns, EB., Ill, col. 3420). The glossator of Gn. 10", however, explained the great city as consisting of the tetrapolis, Nineveh, Reho- both-Ir, Kalah and Resen. And Ktesias and Diodorus seem to have had some similar notion, for the entire circuit of the four seats of the Nineveh district is 6x4 miles (Jones, /. c, p. 303). If our author shared this view of the greater Nineveh, it would merely show that he lived long after the fall of Nineveh, at a time when its greatness was greatly exag- gerated. It does not prove his historical accuracy. The text indeed shows that he exaggerated even more than Ktesias. 4. And Jonah began his journey into the city and after he had made a day^s journey he began to preach. The narrator places him in the heart of the city before he begins his proclamation. The explanation that Jonah began to preach at once and that he preached all the way that first day is not in accordance with the words of the text. The Heb. would have expressed this differ- ently. The substance of the message was, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown/ The same word is used of the over- throw of Sodom, cf. Gn. 19-'- -' Dt. 29-'* Am. 4" Je. 20'' La. 4', it expresses the completeness of the destruction not its manner. No reason for the destruction is given, though it is suggested in i", nor are any particulars furnished about the agents of the destruc- tion. Nothing but the bare statement of the coming disaster, with- out any call to repentance! And yet the author knew that his hearers would understand that Yahweh was giving this warning to the Ninevites in the hope that they might repent and thus avert the certain doom. For this was always implied and understood, by Jonah himself also, as ch. 4" shows, (g has only three days in- stead of forty, and this is in all likelihood the original reading, for the story moves rapidly and three days are much more in accord with it. After Jonah had traversed the city from west to east he could expect the judgment. So he sat down and waited, but not forty days! See further on 4''. What language Jonah spoke, the narrator does not say. How the people could understand him, 3'"' 53 unless he spoke Assyrian, has sometimes troubled the commenta- tors. It has been suggested that the author probably meant that Jonah spoke Aramaic, which was the diplomatic language in the Persian period. But is it likely that the people of Nineveh under- stood Aramaic? To our author the language made as httle diffi- culty as the similar question in what language Yahweh spoke to Adam made to the Yahwist. It simply did not occur to him. This is another sign of the folk-tale character of the story. 2. nsn,'' sermon, message, prophecy, only here in the OT. (S /card rb K-^pvyfj.a rb efiirpoffOev $ iyu iXdXrjcra, iG secundum prcBdicationem priorem quam ego palam locutus sum ad te, i. e., ''21H i-'n nji:;'Nnn nxnpj ^mai. Bu. is alone in thinking that this is "probably correct" "since only absolute obedience to the first command would agree with tlie con- text." But M does not imply that the command would be different from the first. "\ai prtc. of imminent fut. Siev. om. n^':'^ mtr. cs., and reads ^at for 'djn. — 3. On Nineveh cf. also Hpt., JBL., XXVI (1907), pp. 4 ff. d^hSn'? n'?nj, great (even) for God, i. e., extraordinarily great. Kau., unmenschlich gross, cf. Gn. 10' where ■'jflS is used for S, with the same meaning. The pf. nn^n shows that Nineveh is a thing of the past to the narrator. Siev. inserts num after i'^m mtr. cs. Hpt., I. c, p. 16, regards a^D' nc'''S' iSnn as a gloss (without giving his reason for it). Ries. regards v. "> as a gloss. He thinks that the glossator deduced the great- ness of the city from the three days of grace and from the fact that Jonah made one day's journey on the first day. — 4. a'';;3is, 05 Tpers, 21 triduum. The latter is rightly accepted by Kohler, Du., Ries. (v. s.). M changed three to forty, because forty would go better with the period of fasting (cf. Kohler, Ries.). najjnj prtc. of imminent fut. Siev. om. i^j?3 mtr. cs. THE RESULT OF JONAH'S PREACHING (3^-1°). The Ninevites repent, Yahweh relents and spares Nmeveh. 5. The Ninevites believed that God would carry out His threat. So they all repented immediately, proclaimed a fast and clothed themselves in sackcloth, all of them without exception, earnestly hoping that God would see their self-abasement and penitence, take pity on them, pardon their sins and avert the disaster. Cf. Jo. i'^ ^- 2'^*-, Fasting and putting on of sackcloth are the out- ward signs of the sincere and whole-hearted penitence of the Nine- vites, cf. v. ^'*. It is interesting to note that the author uses the 54 JONAH term God here and not Yaliweli. It was the divine message that they believed. Yahvveh they did not know. So the author uses "God" and not the proper name Yahweh also in the following verses. The quick effect of Jonah's preaching is most wonderful, even if we take into account the emotional nature of the orientals. It stands in striking contrast to the unbelief and indiflference with which Israel treated the prophetic announcements. And it is this point that is of most value to our author who wants to throw the repentance of Nineveh into sharp relief. So he works it out in some detail, evidently desirous of bringing out the universal char- acter as well as the sincerity of Nineveh's repentance. — 6. The report of the strange prophet and of his awe-inspiring message comes even into the royal palace before the king himself, who in true folk-lore fashion is pictured as sitting on his throne, clad in his splendid robes. The author gives no name, he calls him sim- ply llie King of Nineveh, as is customary in such stories, for it adds nothing to the tale. The king also believes at once, lie rose from Iiis throne and put off his (royal) mantle and covered himself with sackcloth and sat in ashes, a sign of humiliation and grief, cf. Jb. 2*. Even the king himself! Mark the profound impression! — 7, 8. Not satisfied with setting a personal example, the king sends out an edict and has it proclaimed all over Nineveh. Cf. Dn. 3'*, where the herald is mentioned who proclaims the decree. Official edicts appear too frequendy after the people have already done or begun to do what is ordered in them, to permit us to overemphasise this point and regard these verses as secondary on that account. The introduction of the edict. By decree of the king and of his nobles, is either a mere official formula or (though the author in his char- acteristic brevity says nothing about it) it presupposes a hasty con- ference of the royal council. The decree commands that every- body in Nineveh, including the domestic animals, shall observe a strict fast, put on sackcloth, earnestly pray to God with all might and abandon his sins. The edict impresses some commentators as somewhat humorous. To the narrator it was intensely serious, cf. Judith 4*'^\ Even if he were humorous in other places, here he would defeat his own end by a humorous touch. The humour is due to a copyist. The domestic animals are to join in the gen- 3'-4' 55 eral abasement and so are to be deprived of food and drink. Though the parallel in Judith 4*° shows that the custom which Herodotus (9"'') reports of the Persians when the animals partici- pated in the ceremonies of mourning for Masistius, was also Jew- ish, it is apparent that a copyist repeated somewhat carelessly and animals from v. ' after men in v. ^, so that the text now says that the animals were not only to be clothed in sackcloth but should also cry to Yahweh and repent of their evil ways. This was evi- dently not intended by the original author. The outward signs of penitence are to be matched by true repentance and reformation. The prayer is not to be perfunctory but intense, the conversion sincere, the abandonment of sin genuine. A high spiritual and moral conception underlies this edict. Cf. Is. 58^'^. The sins of the Ninevites are moral and social ; of idolatry the author does not speak. Their evil way is general. The violence that is in their hands refers to the social oppression practised by them, cf. Am. 3*", rather than to Nineveh's cruelty to other nations. — 9. The hope, not the certainty, that God may perhaps pardon them is expressed in the humble words, who knows, God may once more have pity (or may turn and repent) and turn away from His hot anger, that we do not perish. Cf. Jo. 2**. With v. ^^ cf. Ex. 32^-^. It is recognised that their penitence does not put. God under any obligation to spare them. — 10. Their hope was not disappointed. And God saw what they were doing, lit. their deeds. With Him deeds count, not words. That they had turned from their evil way and had therefore genuinely repented. The narrator emphasises this. So God relented of the evil which He said He would do to them and decided not to do it (lit. did it not). Cf. Am. f- ^ Ex. 32". The divine mercy was quickly aroused and the pardon of such sincerely penitent sinners speedily determined upon. The verse does not create the impression that Yahweh waited until the time of grace was ended to make up His mind not to punish them, but rather that He decided to spare them as soon as He saw their whole- hearted penitence. 5. Siev. regards OTiSNa as a theological gloss. 3 Y'!:i'iiT\ believe in, in the sense of believing that the word spoken was true, not in the sense of believing henceforth in Yahweh as the only God. ul correctly x'^,^'!?? 56 JONAH ';•:. For a:ap i;i oSnjD cf. Ges. ^ '"«. Hpt., JBL., XXVI (1907), p. 16, following a suggestion made but not adopted by GASm., proposes to insert 3^ after 3^ but oix iNnpM in v. ^ after the royal edict is opposed to this. — 6. Siev. inserts l^cn after apM mtr. cs. & thinks of the royal crown instead of the robe. Kleinert thinks that vv. ^ ^ are only a fuller recital of the brief statement of v. ' and renders therefore the vbs. in vv. « "• by plupfs. — 7. ir;.SM pin'> (611 ^ take it as indirect constr. D>*0 an Aramaism, only here in the Heb. OT. in sense of decision, decree, but often in the Aram, sections of Ezra and Daniel. Cf. Assy.-Bab. temu, command. Siev. would omit either -\sx''i and icnS or jNsni ipan. eyas to icxS belongs to the edict, whose intro. formula it is. Du. regards nirj3 also as part of the edict, Gegeben zu Ninive. Gr. puts 1S>'B^ '^k nmxs after rnxn. But this is not necessary. It is true, aya is used only with human beings, never with animals; nj;i is used with animals. For that reason v;^^ *?« is added. A certain awkwardness both in v. ' and V. 8 must be recognised, but this may be removed by omitting Tizr\2'\ in V. 8. Bohme omits i>'">'' ''!<. Ries. omits i.-iB" Vn D'SI i>n> Sn. <& reads a>'D (irapd.) for ayar. — 8. ncnani oixn is omitted by Bohme, We., Kau., Now., van H. But the difficulty is not solved thus, for these words would hold over as subject from the preceding. Omit only nnnani. Siev. omits v. ^^ as an addition intended to heighten the relig- ious impression. His main reason however is metr. <6 C wrongly read the impfs. with waw consec. — 9. Bu. omits with (6 ffi ^ 31-". — 10. Siev. omits riy^n D3"nD i3r ^3, cf. v. ">, mtr. cs., and because he thinks their penitence is purely external. Ws transl. is due to dogmatic scruples. — From V. ' on B''nSN is used for nin', again in 4'- «• ». & has a free transl. for 'n3T irs, corresponding to v. '. JONAH'S DISPLEASURE (4*-^). Jonah, much vexed at the sparing of Nineveh, remonstrates with Yahweh. Had he not anticipated just this, when he was still at home? And had he not fled when the divine summons came to him the first time, simply in order to prevent just this ? Did he not know that Nineveh was to be spared after all ? Ah, if he were only dead/ Quietly Yahweh asks Jtim whetJier he thinks that his anger is justified, but he makes no reply. He leaves the city and sits down in sullen silence to the east of it. 1. Jonah recognises that Yahweh has forgiven Nineveh and that He will not destroy it. He needed no special divine revelation for this, for it was in accord with Yahweh's character and prophetic 4'"' 57 doctrine. Nor did he need to wait till the time of grace was over to know Yahweh's change of attitude. He knew it as soon as he saw the repentance of the people. But instead of rejoicing over Yahweh's kindness, he was displeased exceedingly and very angry. — 2. That was exactly what he had feared when he was still at home. It was for this reason, he tells Yahweh, in an indignant prayer, that he had fled when the divine command came to him the first time. He knew Yahweh's wonderful grace, His patience and readiness to relent, too well, not to foresee that He would for- give the Ninevites if they repented. And he had no desire to be the messenger who was to warn them of the doom to come and thus be the means of saving them. He hoped and wished that Nineveh go down to its doom unwarned. His remonstrance is put by the author in the form of a prayer in order to mitigate its bitter- ness.— "It is noteworthy," says Wellhausen, "that the unfulfilled prophecy does not awaken in Jonah any doubt whatever, whether he was really sent by God." But this is not surprising, for he knew that in uttering the prediction he was warning the Ninevites, and he says himself that he knew it would not be fulfilled, if they repented. For Yahweh was a God gracious and compassionate, full of patience and of great kindness, and relenting of the evil which He had threatened, — ^if men would but turn from their sins in true penitence. That this condition is implied is plain from the entire prophetic teaching of the OT. Jonah was not angry because his own personal prestige would be lost by the non-occurrence of the doom which he had announced, but because Nineveh had been spared and because he himself had brought this about by his warning. That is the tantalising part of it, which drives him to despair. — 3. And so he wishes he were dead and prays Yahweh to take his life from him. Of what use is life for him now, it were far better if he were dead. One is reminded of the similar scene in i K. 19* where Elijah, thwarted in his desire, also begs to die. The reason is not ofifended prophetic vanity in Elijah either. — 4. Jonah's anger is most unreasonable, but of course he does not see it. The author wants to lay stress on this, so Yahweh says to the prophet, Dost thou think thou art justified in being so angry? This involves a reproof. But Yahweh is dealing gently with him. 58 JONAH He is in no haste to insist on swift repentance, but wants to develop in Jonah the thought of the impropriety of his anger. Strangely enough no answer to Yahweh's question is recorded. If it has not been omitted accidentally, we must understand that Jonah did not answer. Did he return a sullen silence to Yahweh's ques- tion? But V. ^ is perhaps not original here (Bu., Marti) or we must perhaps supply the answer from v. ®, / am rightly angry unto death (Du.). — 5. The recognition that Nineveh would be spared had come to Jonah while in the city, as he witnessed the effect of his preaching in the sincere repentance of the people. He had traversed it from west to east. Three days it had taken. And now he leaves it and sits down on the cast of it in angry disappoint- ment and dismay. It is a situation true to life. Jonah had gone all through the city, he had finished his commission, he knows its result and now he sits down to rest in his dejected mood. An an- cient reader wondered why he should stay there, and so put in the explanatory statement until he might see what would happen to the city. But Jonah knew this already, and the author of the story could hardly put this in, for he gives no hint that Jonah had any hope whatever that Yahweh would destroy the city after all, and thus there would be no reason for him to make such a statement. We saw in connection with 3'* that the original text read, in yet three days Nineveh will be destroyed! The three days had been changed to forty. The glossator read forty in his text and he con- cluded that if Jonah had to stay so long he would need a hut as a protection from the hot sun. So he inserted, and he made Jiimself a hut and set down under it in the shade. This was a natural re- flection and yet unwittingly he spoiled by it the point of the follow- ing, for if Jonah could sit in the shade of the hut, the shade of the plant was not so necessary as v. " assumes. According to v. ^ Jo- nah had no other shelter from the rays of the sun than the plant. This difficulty cannot be evaded by pointing to the refreshing shade of the green leaves of the tree and to the unsatisfactory shelter of the hut. If the true character of v. ^'' as an explanatory gloss is recognised, the difficulties connected with this verse disappear. According to the original story Jonah needed neither to wait until he would see what would happen to the city, for he knew it already, 4«-'» 59 nor to make a hut, for the time allowed was not long enough. The author lets Jonah stay there not because Jonah was uncertain about the result of the repentance of Nineveh but in order to teach him the great lesson he so much needed to learn. 1. n'^nj nyi njr-'^x y-iM adverbial ace, see Ges. ^""i, same constr. ■with J?"'^ in Ne. 2'". — 2. Siev. omits nin» Sn SSDn-ii as a gloss intended to soften the effect of Jonah's ill-temper. njN cj. i'^ nai nt-NSn idi- omatic for our did I not say so? or did I not know it? ^nvn n;j = mya ^nvn. ^~iD"»N Sy upon my own ground, in my own country, at home. — For maS '-\D h '7''snS as a doublet of r^i'xi Sy '^s nvn'?, Wkl. prefers to omit the latter because he believes the hut gave Jonah shade, and that he needed diversion. Now.- marks in his transl. both clauses as secondary, but Now.'^ only "?^xnS. As an alternative Now."^ suggests "h Sv^';' vsithout in;"nr;. But then the doublet character appears at once and one of the two clauses must be omitted. If we are right in omitting v. s'' as sec- ondary, both clauses are orig. and there is no need of deleting either. — 7. Siev. reads d^h'^n ni-f, so also &, but cf. pp. 64/. nn-j'n ^^'^••z (g freely ewdiv^ as in Am. 7'. — 8. Siev. reads here again d^hSn nin' mtr. cs. § also. The exact meaning of ."^:;"->n is disputed. CS ffi # translate 62 JONAH it burning, scorching; S ^'|'^^'?u' quiet = sultry, sweltering. Hi. thought that it was derived from unn, to plough, and defined it as an autumnal east wind. SS. took it from cnn, to cut = a cutting east wind. Kohler connected it with D-^n, sun, and compared it with U'-^n, dried clay, while We. does not attempt an explanation. Not satisfied with these trans- lations and derivations, Stei. emends, reading P''D''-in, as if from D->n, sun {cf. Kohler) = hot, glowing. Gr. proposed n^rnn, c/". Dt. 28"; Bohme, Hal. nnnn from "yyn, to glow. Che. proposes ina'a in the morning, but this had been expressed at the beginning of the verse. Perhaps I may venture to suggest n3"^n:;, scorching, c was omitted by haplog. and 3 was mistaken for u', which in the older form of writing was quite easy. <& may still have read rp^n":. Vol. thinks (S read 37'n or a^inr, ^^1 cf. Is. 49'" Ps. 12 1«. pyr:^ irsj-ns ^^••'^t, lit. and he begged his soid that it might die, i. e., wished for himself that he might die. Marti thinks it was an old phrase originally meaning to curse oneself, cf. Jb. 31'" '"i^x? Snu"7 Vii'pi. (& transl. freely a.ire\iyiTo ttiv \pvxyiv avTov. Vol. compares for this Plutarch, Moral., p. 1060 D: ctTroX. rhv ^lov. § inserts, and it dried up the gourd, at the end. Wkl. also feels that the purpose of the wind should be expressed and so suggests that there stood originally, and it tore down the hul. But nothing is said in the foil, about the collapse of the hut and Jonah's anger over it, only the ricinus is mentioned. It would also have weakened Yahweh's argument, for Jonah had la- boured for the hut. Now.*^ suggests the transposition of v. ' before v. ', but not only is nothing gained by this but the situation is better in the traditional order. V. ' presupposes v. ' immediately before. ^ in- troduces instead of "hd ^niD avj the words of Elijah from i K. iq', of which one is indeed involuntarily reminded in this connection, Thou canst take my life from me, O Lord, for I am not better than my fathers. APPLICATION OF THE OBJECT LESSON (4'"- "). YaJiweh draws the unanswerable lesson for Jonah. If Jonah has taken siicli a deep interest in a wild, ephemeral plant, which had cost him no labour or thought, and thinks liimself justified in it, how much more is Yahweh justified in taking a deep and com- passionate interest in the great city of Nineveli with its thousands of inhabitants and tens of tJiousatids of innocent children and animals! 10. Jonah's violence forms a beautiful background to Yahweh's wonderful interpretation and application of the object lesson, by which He shows to Jonah the inconsistency of his position. The petty narrowness and blind prejudice of Jonah set off God's pa- 4"- " 63 tience and mercy and love for all mankind most effectively. Yah- weh compares Jonah's attitude toward the ricinus with His own attitude toward Nineveh. Thou wast full of pity on account of the ricinus because it perished so soon. And yet it was only a wild plant, it did not belong to thee. Thou couldst not possibly have for it the interest and the attachment of one who had planted and tended it, for thou hadst done nothing at all for it. Besides, it was but ephemeral, it grew up in a night and perished in a night (Heb. son of a night), it was therefore not of much value nor could thy attachment to it be so very deep because it lived such a short time. And yet thou didst pity it when it died! — 11. And I should not have pity on Nineveh, that great city? Will Jonah deny this same natural affection to Yahweh? Nineveh is of far more importance and value than a wild ephemeral plant ! Yahweh had laboured for it, for He, the only God, was the creator of all the inhabitants as well as of the animals, and He had made the city grow to such wonderful greatness. All this is implied in the con- trast to V. ^''. In His righteousness Yahweh had intended to pun- ish it for its wickedness, the complaint over which had come up to His heavenly throne, for He ever punishes sin where He finds it, in Israel or elsewhere, as His prophets had proclaimed long ago, cf. Am. 1,2. And so He had sent a prophet to them to warn them of the wrath to come, and they had sincerely repented. And long ago He had said through Jeremiah (i8^^-). At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it; if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them! What can He do but forgive? There were besides the penitent sinners in that vast city 120,000 little innocent children who were not old enough to know how to dis- tinguish between right and left, and who could therefore not be punished for their sins, and also a great number of morally irre- sponsible animals for which Yahweh in His mercy also cares {cf. Dt. 25*). Should I not have pity on Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 human beings who do not know the difference between right and left, and (so) much cattle? The argument is absolutely irresistible. There was but one answer 64 JONAH possible. But the author wisely refrains from adding anything about Jonah. He wants to let the question sink deep into the minds of his hearers and readers. He wants to teach the narrow, blind, prejudiced, fanatic Jews of which Jonah is but the type that "the love of God is wider than the measures of man's mind, And the heart of the Eternal is most wonderfully kind: But we make His love too narrow by false limits of our own." It em- braces all men, not only Israel, even Israel's enemies! For all men are God's creatures. He is the God of all and just as full of love and care for heathen as for the Jews and just as ready to pardon them, if they abandon their sins and resort to Him. Should we not share His love and His purposes? 10. J3:^= = }3 ns'N, cf. I'. The phrase n'?'''7-j3 son of a nighl is idiomatic, it had grown in one night and in another night it perished, cf. Ges. ^ "«''. Similarly son of a year = one year old. On the form ja cf. Ges. ^ 5*. Following Bohme, Ries. omits 'rh-h p;:*. He thinks it was inserted by a reader who misunderstood v. «, which should be trans- lated by plupf., Yahweh had ordered the ricinus. Jonah found it when he went out there and sat down in its shade. Ries. gets thus rid of the miracle. Similarly already Michaelis. — 11. Dins nS pM. — Now in V. 7 (&^* reads uv (= nin>), 31 dominus; CgAQ. js. 39. 49. 62. los. 147.233 KOpios 6 ee6s, (&^ Luc, Hes. 6 ^e6j. In v. » (g^Q. 26. iss Kvpios, H dotninus. In v. ' (gsQ. 48. 95. iss 5 ^e6s, 05 '5'- "' Kvptos, ?C B dominus, ^"^ Luc. Hes. §>" /ci/pios 6 deos. § reads all through vv. s-' 3\n'^>x nin\ These variants are significant. They show in regard to the reading a^nVx niH'' in 4^ that it is a conflation pure and simple. Note, e. g., the similar process in 4' where some Gk. mss. have KOpios, others 6 0(6$, still others Kvpios 6 6e6s. The process was the same in Heb. mss. In view of this, it is remarkable that the view that our author is dependent on Gn. 2 for the combination aM':'x nini should still be entertained. Our author did not write that combination, he wrote simply nin>. A copyist, or reader, under the influence of ch. 3 wrote avi'r'N probably all through ch. 4, but in some instances the orig. read- ings reasserted themselves. There can be no doubt that the author wrote nini all through ch. 4, for here there was no reason for a^nSs, as in chs. I, 3. ;/ Date Due '«. 3^